Legal citations can be tricky. How do you understand a source citation in the scholarly literature? How do you make sense of a citation in a manuscript? It all can seem a bit daunting. However, once you understand the method, the world of Romano-canonical law will be your oyster.
Canonical Collections
Early medieval chronological collections, such as Collectio Dioynsiana, are structured chronologically. Church councils, for example, will be copied in order of the council’s date and under each council the canons will be copied. The scholarly literature will cite the council and canon number as it appears in the manuscript. Keep in mind that manuscripts can differ. Scribes, for example, might transpose the order of the canons or the number of canons for a particular council might differ between manuscripts.
Some pre-twelfth century systematic collections—collections structured according into themes—can be organized by book/title/part and canon. Essentially, the citation proceeds in order from the largest unit to the smallest. Examples of this organization are Burchard of Worms Decretum; Anselm of Lucca’s Collectio canonum; Ivo of Chartres’ Decretum; the Panormia; and the Collectio decem partium. Citations in the scholarship may read, for example, BD 10.1 (Burchard’s Decretum, Bk. 10 c.1) or Pan. 8.7 (Panormia, Bk. 8 c.7).
The manuscript tradition might refer to the book/title/part with an Arabic numeral and to the relevant canon by its incipit (the first one or two words). For example, Pan. 8.7 might be referenced as VIII c. Qui subdiaconum.
Other pre-twelfth century systematic collections can be organized book-title/part-canon. Again, the citation proceeds in order from the largest unit to the smallest. Examples of this organization are the Tripartita and the Collectio III librorum. Citations in the scholarship may read, for example, Tripartita 3.8.7 (Bk. 3 pt.8 c.7).
The manuscript tradition might refer to the book with an Arabic numeral, to the relevant title/part by name and the canon by its incipit (the first one or two words). For example, Tripartita 3.8.7 might be referenced as III De primate Romanae ecclesiae c. Ego Hludouicus imperator.
Because Gratian’s Decretum was a teaching text organized around cases and questions, it is cited differently in the scholarly literature than the collections that preceded it. However, citations still proceed in order from the largest unit to the smallest. Citations follow as such:
· Causa-question-dictum that introduces the question and precedes the first canon
o C.23 q.4 d.a.c.1
· Causa-question-canon
o C.23 q.4 c.34
· Causa-question-dictum after canon
o C.23 q.4 d.p.c.16
· Distinction-canon
o D.32 c.4
· Distinction-dictum after canon
o D.93 d.p.c.21
· Distinction-dictum that introduces the question and precedes the first canon
o D.28 d.a.c.1.
· De penitentia
o De pen D.1 c.3
· De consecratione
o De cons. D.2 d.a.c.1
If working with the manuscript tradition of Gratian’s Decretum, you will encounter the incipit of the canon or citation to a particular place in the canon. For example:
Distinctions
· di. xxxij c. multorum = D.32 c.2
· xxiv § Cum itaque = D.24 d.p.c.4
· D. lxxvi § necessario ergo = D.76 d.p.c.8
Causae
· C. iii q. i Nulli dubium = C.3. q.1 c.5
· xxiii q. viii § hinc datur = C.23 q.8 d.p.c.25
De penitentia
· iii de pen. Totam = De pen. D.3 c.24
De consecratione
· ii de cons. In Christo ii. = De cons. D.2 c.87
o ii. = the second time In Christo appeared as the incipit. The first instance is in c.53
Each of the five compilations of Quinque compilationes antiquae is divided into five books (libri). Each book, in turn, was subdivided into titles (tituli), treating individual aspects of the general topic of the book. Each title, in turn, was composed of chapters (capitula), which are arranged in chronological order within the title.
Citations in the scholarly literature proceed in order from the largest unit to the smallest: Compilation-book-title-chapter. It is also common to add in parentheses a reference to the place, if any, where the chapter may be found in the Liber extra; thus:
· 1 Comp. 2.20.34 (X–) [for a chapter not found in the Liber extra]
· 2 Comp. 1.3.1 (X 1.6.11)
· 4 Comp. 5.4.2 (X 5.6.16)
When working with the manuscripts, the Compilationes are normally referred to extra. or extrav. to indicate a citation from one of the decretal collections. Occasionally, but not often, there will be some indication of which Compilatione is being referenced and sometimes the name of the compiler will appear, as for example, extrav. Tancredi in a reference to Compilatio quinta. An abbreviated form of the titulus, followed by the opening words of the capitulum cited, will also be given. Occasionally, too, the number of the book (almost invariably in Roman numerals) will be added. Thus:
· extra. de appellationibus, super eo = I Comp. 2.28.13
· extra. ii. de electione, suffraganeis = II Comp. 1.3.1
· iv. extra v. de iudeis, cum sit nimis = IV Comp. 5.4.2
Citations to the Decretales Gregorii IX / Liber extra (X) proceed in order from the largest unit to the smallest, that is, book-title-chapter. The scholarship cites the Liber extra as:
· X 1.18.7
· X 3.5.8
· X 4.6.1
· X 5.18.2
A few common abbreviations often appear in citations from the Liber extra include:
· c. un. = capitulum unicum
· c. fin. = capitulum finalem
· de serv. non ordi. = de servis non ordinandis = X 1.18
· de iure. = de iureiurando = X 2.24
· de m. et o. = de maioritate et obedientia = X 1.33
· de r. j. = de regulis iuris = X 5.41
· de spo. et ma. = de sponsalibus et matrimoniis = X 4.1
· de v. s. = de verborum significatione = X 5.40
· de vi. et ho. = de vita et honestate clericorum = X 3.1
· de vo. et vo. = de voto et voti redemptione = X 3.34
· qui fi. = qui filii sint legitimi = X 4.17
· de furt. = de furtis = X 5.18
These abbreviations can also be found in the Liber sextus, Constitutiones Clementinae Extravagantes Johannis XXII, and the Extravagantes communes. You can figure out the abbreviations by working through the titles in the respective book of the collection using Friedberg’s Corpus iuris canonici, Vol. 2.
The manuscript tradition will draw on the above abbreviations to denote the book and title and incipit of the capitulum:
· Extra. de serv. non ordi., miramur = X 1.18.8
· extra. de vo. et vo., litteraturam = X 3.34.3
· in X de furt. c. fures = X 5.18.2
Citations to the Liber sextus (VI) proceed in order from the largest unit to the smallest, that is, book-title-chapter. The scholarship cites the Liber sextus as:
· VI 3.4.41
· VI 5.11.7
The manuscript tradition will denote the book and title and incipit of the capitulum:
· VI de prebend. c. mandatum = VI 3.4.41
· li[ber]. vi. de sent. excomm., venerabilibus = VI 5.11.7
Citations to the Constitutiones Clementinae (Clem.) proceed in order from the largest unit to the smallest, that is, book-title-chapter. The scholarship cites the Clementines as:
· Clem. 3.14.2
· Clem. 1.3.5
The manuscript tradition will denote the book and title and incipit of the capitulum:
· Clem. de celebratione missarum, dignum = Clem. 3.14.2
· Clem de elect. et elect. pot., in plerisque = Clem. 1.2.5
Citations to the Extravagantes Johannis XXII (Extrav. Iohan. or Extrav. Jo.) proceed in order from the largest unit to the smallest, that is, title and chapter. The scholarship cites the Extravagantes Johannis XXII as:
· Extrav. Jo. 4.1
· Extrav. Jo. 14.2
The manuscript tradition gives the capitulum and incipit, and then title:
· c. 1 de concess. preb. tit. IV in Extrav. Jo. XXII = Extrav. Jo. XXII 4.1
· c. 2 de verb. sig. tit. XIV in Extra. Jo. XXII = Extrav. Jo. XXII 14.2
Citations to the Extravagantes communes (Extrav. comm.) proceed in order from the largest unit to the smallest, that is, book-title-chapter. The scholarship cites the Extravagantes communes as:
· Extrav. comm. 5.2.1
· Extrav. comm. 5.2.1
The manuscript tradition gives the capitulum and incipit, then reference to the book and title:
· c. 1 de iudaeis (V, 2) in Extrav. Comm = Extrav. comm 5.2.1
· c. un. (5,5) in Extrav. comm = Extrav. comm 5.5.1
Glosses to Canon Law
The standard gloss apparatus is known as the Glossa ordinaria = Gloss. ord. for the Decretum, the Liber extra, Liber sextus, and the Constitutiones Clementinae. The gloss of Zenzelinus is usually printed alongside the text of the Extrav. Iohan. while the Extrav. comm. never received an authoritative gloss. The Gloss. ord. was taught as a usual and customary part of the law curriculum in the universities and cited in the courts as an authority almost equal in weight to the canonical texts themselves.
The Glossa ordinaria to the Decretum was first compiled by Johannes Teutonicus (d. 1245/1246), who drew heavily from the Summa of Huguccio (d. 1210) and the Apparatus of Laurentius Hispanus (d. 1248). Johannes Teutonicus completed the first redaction of the Gloss. ord. before 1217. This version was subsequently reworked and expanded by Bartholomew of Brescia (d. ca. 1258), who completed his revision ca. 1245. Early printed versions of the Gloss. ord. frequently incorporate other material as well, notably the Casus decretorum of Benencasa (d. 1206) and additiones from the gloss apparatus of Guido de Baysio (d. 1313), known as the Rosarium decreti (written between 1296 and 1300).
The Glossa ordinaria on the Decretales Gregorii IX / Liber extra is the work of Bernard of Parma (d. 1263), who apparently continued to work on it up to the time of his death. Bernard wrote many of the glosses in this apparatus himself, but he also made liberal use of the work of commentators on the Quinque compilationes antiquae, notably Alanus Anglicus, Bernardus Compostellanus antiquus, Laurentius Hispanus, Tancred, and Vincentius Hispanus. Printed versions of this Gloss. ord. frequently incorporate additiones, drawn mainly from Johannes Andreae, Panormitanus, and Hostiensis. The printed versions also add to the Gloss. ord. much of the text of Bernard of Parma’s Casus longi on the Liber extra.
The Glossa ordinaria on the Sext / Liber sextus and Constitutiones Clementinae were the work of Johannes Andreae. Johannes finished his Gloss. ord. on the Liber sextus in 1304 and his gloss on the Constitutiones Clementinae in 1326.
Gloss apparatuses often gave credit for individual glosses to their authors, usually by attaching a siglum, or abbreviated form of the master’s name, to his comments. For a list of sigla of jurists, see Rudolf Weigand, “The Glossa ordinaria,” in The History of Medieval Courts and Procedure in Medieval Canon Law, edited by Wilfried Hartmann and Kenneth Pennington, History of Medieval Canon Law, 6 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2016), 95–97.
Citations proceed as author (if applicable)-title of gloss-text being glossed-specific location of gloss.
· Gloss. ord., ad D.82 c. 1 s.v. Episcopus pauperibus
· Gloss. ord., ad X 3.6.4 s.v. Administrationis
· Stephen of Tournai, Summa decretorum, ad C.16 q.3 c.6 s.v. Inter memoratos
· Huguccio, Summa, D.50 c.25 s.v. iubeo
· Hostiensis, Lectura, ad X 4.8.1 s.v. §Quoniam igitur
Roman Law Citations
The Institutes of Justinian represent an adaptation and revision by Tribonian of the most successful legal textbook of the classical period, the Institutes of Gaius. In that constitution the emperor designated the new work as the officially sanctioned introductory text for beginning law students and the approved guide to the basic principles of Roman law. The work consists of four books, which are divided into titles; the titles are subdivided into fragments, each of which consists of an introduction (principium) and numbered paragraphs.
The scholarly literature will reference the number of the book-title-lex in that order.
· Inst. 2.1.4
· Inst. 3.15.2
· Inst. 4.3.pr.
The manuscript tradition usually consists of an abbreviated version of the title followed by the opening words of the fragment.
· Inst, de rer. div., riparum = De rerum divisione (Bk. 2 tit. 1) = Inst. 2.1.4
· de ver. ob., omnis, in Inst. = De verborum obligatione (Bk. 3 tit. 15) = Inst. 3.15.2
· Inst, de 1. aquil., damni = De lege Aquilia (Bk. 4 tit. 3) = Inst. 4.3.pr.
Scholarly citations usually refer to the Digest (also known as the Pandecta) of Justinian either as Dig. or D.; of the two, Dig. is preferable to avoid possible confusion with a citation to Pars I of the Decretum. Scholars reference the number of the book-title-lex-paragraph in that order.
· Dig. 19.2.9.6
· Dig. 1.5.4.pr.
· Dig. 1.2.2.5
· Dig. 26.4.pr.
The common abbreviation in the manuscript tradition for the Digest was ff.; this apparently represents a misreading of the Greek letter pi (π), which stood for The Pandects (πανδεκτα). Sometimes one might come across the citation of Dig. vet. (Digestum vetus, that is, Books 1–24.2), Infort. (Infortiatum, that is, Books 24.3–38), and Dig. nov. (Digestum novum, that is, Books 39–50).
ff. locati conducti, si quis domum, § si alienam = Locati conducti (Bk. 2 tit. 2), si quis domum (the start of lex 9), § si alienam (paragraph 6) = Dig. 19.2.9.6
ff. de sta. ho. l. libertas = De statu hominum (Bk. 1 tit. 5), l. libertas (start of lex 5) = Dig. 1.5.4.pr.
Dig. vet., De orig. iuris, necessarium, § his legibus = De origine iuris et omnium magistratuum et successione prudentium (Bk. 1 tit. 2), necessarium (the start of lex 2), § his legibus (paragraph 5) = Dig. 1.2.2.5
Infort. De leg. tutoris, legitima tutela = De legitimis tutoribus (Bk. 24 tit. 4), legitima tutela (the start of lex 1) = Dig. 26.4. pr.
The scholarly literature tends to cite Justinian’s Codex by the book number-title-lex-paragraph in that order. Some modern citations abbreviate the name of the Codex as Cod., others prefer C.J. (for Codex Justiniani), while still others simply refer to it as C.; of these three options, Cod. or C.J. are preferable, since they are less likely to mislead than C. used alone, which can easily be confused with a citation to Pars II of the Decretum. Scholars reference the number of the book, title, lex, and paragraph in that order.
· Cod. 1.3.32.7
· C.J. 5.4.23.5
The manuscript tradition tends to cite passages in the Codex by the opening words of the titulus and lex.
C. de episcopis, 1. omnes § privilegiis sane = De episcopis et clericis et orphanotrophis et brephotrophis et xenodochis et asceteriis (Bk. 1 tit. 3), l. omnes (lex 32), § privilegiis sane (paragraph 7) = Cod. 1.3.32.7
C. de nup., 1. Imperialis § His illud = De nuptiis (Bk. 5 tit. 4), l. Imperialis (lex 23) § His illud (paragraph 5) = Cod. 5.4.23.5
The Novellae leges (Novels) consist of 168 laws promulgated between 535 and 545 and collected during the reign of Eastern Roman Emperor Tiberius II (578–582). In the West, the Novellae were known as the Authenticum or Liber authenticorum and numbered only 134 laws. From the eleventh century, Western glossators at Bologna were accustomed to use a version of the Authenticum in which 96 of the Novellae were grouped into nine collationes, which were divided into tituli; the titles were subdivided into fragmenta, and these typically consisted of a prefatio (preface), numbered paragraphs (or capitula), and an epilogum (epilogue).
Citations in scholarly literature normally proceeds from the largest to the smallest units, giving in sequence the numbers of the collatio, titulus, and fragmentum.
· Liber authenticorum: Auth. coll. 7.2.3 = Nov. 90
· Corpus authenticorum: Excerptum Nov. 123.38 = Auth. 134 coll. 9.15 post Cod. 1.2.13.
The usual medieval system of citing the Authenticum began with the titulus, followed by the opening words of the fragmentum or other subdivision, and closed with the number of the collatio.
· Liber authenticorum: Authen. de testibus, neque igitur, coll vii. = Nov. 90 cap. 3 = Nov. 90.3
· Corpus authenticorum: C. de sacrosanctis ecclesiis, auth. Si qua mulier = Nov. 123 cap. 138 = Nov. 123.138
Citations of the Authenticum are further complicated by the fact that medieval scribes customarily incorporated summaries of the Novellae from the Authenticum into the relevant sections of manuscripts of the Codex, a practice that early printers also adopted. These summaries were known individually as authenticae and collectively as the Corpus authenticorum. Medieval citations of the Corpus authenticorum usually open with the words of the appropriate titulus of the Codex, followed by the opening words of the particular authenticum that is being referred to. Modern citations of the Corpus authenticorum normally give the number of the corresponding Novel, followed by the number of the specific sub-section in question, the equivalent numbered reference to the Liber authenticorum, and a numbered reference to the section of the Codex in which the authenticum occurs. To complicate still further the problem of locating and verifying medieval citations, the standard modern edition of the Novellae by Schöll and Kroll does not furnish a proper concordance of the Novellae and the Authenticum. In practice, therefore, it is necessary to verify references to the Authenticum either from the Indices corporis iuris civilis iuxta vetustiores editiones cum criticis collatis, prepared by Ugo Nicolini and Franca Sinatti d’Amico, in the Subsidia series of Ius Romanum medii aevi (Milan, 1964–) or the Indices titulorum et legum Corporis iuris ciuilis compiled by Xavier Ochoa and Aloisio Diez (Roma, 1965). Stephan Kuttner, “On the Medieval Tradition of Justinian’s Novellae: An Index Titolorum Authentici in Novem Collationes digesti,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 80 (1994): 87–98 has also proved helpful in understanding the Authenticum.