BULLETIN

OF MEDIEVAL LAW

NEW SERIES VOLUME 12

Published by

THE INSTITUTE OF MEDIEVAL

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 1982 Raymond of Pesiafort as editor: The 'decretaIes' and 'constitutiones' of Gregory IX

In memory of Orio Giacchi

At a time when the making of a new Code of Canon Law is underway and has been for many years the concern of canonists from all corners of the globe, it is always of particular interest to look into the past and see how the generations before us handled the task of recognitio - that twofold task of restating and reforming the law. The writer of the present pages has shared with the friend and colleague to whose memory they are dedicated the fascinating experience of laboring as consultores on the drafts of the new law to come." It seems there- fore quite fitting if in these pages I attempt to trace some details of the labors of another draftsman, one whose work had an immense importance in the history of canon law: St. Raymond of Peiiafort who some seven-hundred-fifty years ago undertook at Gregory IX's request to make a new and definitive Book of out of the collections then in use for the body of papal rulings that had grown during the formative period of almost a century after Gratian.

I

It is common knowledge that Raymond was authorized by his papal master to suppress, shorten, and revise any text found in the Compilationes aniiquae. Scholars have been interested ever since the sixteenth century in identifying those alterations: from Le Conte in 1570 to Friedberg in 1881, editors of the authoritative text of Gregory's Decretales undertook more or less successfully to combine it with a reconstruction of each chapter by inserting, wherever pos- sible, with different type faces the words, sentences and paragraphs omitted by Raymond from his sources (partes decisae) or even from the sources of his sources. Where this was not possible, because Raymond had altogether changed the wording, editors' footnotes were the only remedy. The reader of such hybrid

• This paper was originally written in 1981 fOl a Festschrift prepared in honor of Professor Giacchi by a group of colleagues on the occasion of his retirement from the chair of Canon law at the Universlta Cattolica del S. Cuore in Milan. After long illness, Orio Glacchi died on 16 April 1982. The paper will eventually be included in the memorial volume now in preparation at Milan. I wish to thank Professor Ombretta Fumagalli Carulli, the editor, for her kind permission to publish my study here in advance. At the time this Bulletin goes to press, the new Code has been promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 25 January, 1983. 66 BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW reconstructions must not expect, of course, to have before him a critical or an original text.' Much work remains to be done to discover the reasoning that led St. Raymond in each case to alter the texts as he prepared them for the re- compilation. The obvious principle was spelled out in Gregory IX's of publication, Rex pacijicus: eliminating all that was repetitious, superfluous, contradictory, verbose." But Raymond did more than that: excisions, interpola- tions, or alterations of words and phrases occur on every page. As recent studies have shown, these 'editorial' changes often reflect criticisms of papal decisions by the glossators of the Compilationes antiquae or controversies of interpretation that arose in the schools; at times they reflect Raymond's own teaching in his manual for confessors (Summa de casibus).3 They are an impressive, and still largely unexplored, testimony to that give-and-take between the universities and the papacy which later centuries unfortunately did not know how to main- tain. Beyond the editorial work on the decretals and of Gregory IX's prede- cessors, Raymond's commission included, in the pope's words, the task of adding 'constitutiones nostras et decretales epistolas, per quas nonnulIa que in priori- bus erant dubia declarentur '. If one reads these words attentively against the background of 195 new texts actually added by Raymond,' they mean more than an instruction .to fill some gaps': they indicate a concern with the in- trinsic consistency, the coherence of each represented by a litulus of the book. They express, on a different level and with a different weight of authority, the same concern that had prompted Gratian a century before to produce a Concordia of discordant canons. St. Raymond's work in thus rounding out by new Gregorian rulings the re- written and condensed materials of the antiquae compilaliones has received much less attention from modern historians than it deserves. Friedberg in 1881 could not be expected to go beyond Potthast's Regesta in the search for Raymond's sources+ but even Lucien Auvray's publication of the Registres de

1 Cf. G. Fransen, Les decretales et les collections de decretales (Typologie des sources du Moyen Age occidental. ed. L. Genicot, 2; Tumhout 1972) 43; S. Kuttner, 'Some emendations to Friedberg's edition of the Decretals " Traditio 22 (1966) 481. • Corpus iuris canonici, ed. Ae. Friedberg, II 1-4. 3 See in particular S. Horwitz, 'l\lagistri and magisterium: Saint Raymond of Peiiafort and the Gregoriana', Escrilos del Yedat 7 (1977) 209-38; idem, 'Reshaping a decretal chap- ter: Tua nobis and the canonists " Law, Church, and society: Essays in honor of Stephan Kuttner, ed. K. Pennington and R. Somerville (Philadelphia 1977) 207-21. 4 For the computation of 195 see A. Van Hove, Prolegomena (ed. 2, Malines- 1948) 359. II A. Potthast's Reqesia Poniifieum Romanorum inde ab anno post Christum natum MCXC V III ... were published in Berlin 1874-75. The copy owned by the present writer was copiously annotated in the 1890s by a French, or at least French-writing scholar with RAYMOND OF PENAFORT AS EDITOR 67

Gregoire IX (1896-1910) failed to stimulate the research which is long overdue.s In this paper we can only point out the lines of investigation that ought to be pursued in future critical studies on the consiitutiones nostrae and decretales epistolae as edited by Raymond for his papal master.

(1) Decretal letters of Gregory IX's early years, between 1227 and 1234, do not seem to have circulated to any appreciable extent as far as we can judge from the manuscript tradition of appended to earlier decretal col- lections," But for the most part their full text can be traced in Gregory's register, and in some cases in the archival tradition of a letter's recipients as well. When we take the first book of the Gregorian Compilation as a sample, we find that for only four decretals Friedberg, following Potthast, had been able to identify their original shape from recorded transmission in recipients' archives; both scholars missed identification in two cases where Potthast had calendared the full text elsewhere." In one instance they relied on a mutilated transcription from the register published by Raynaldus in his continuation of Baronius's Annals.t But a rapid search in Auvray's Registres shows that no less than thirty- one decretals from the first book were enregistered, and that for twelve of these entries even Auvray failed to notice their presence in the official eompilaticn.P references to, and corrections from the original Vatican Registers and other, chiefly Austrian and French archives. I cannot trace back the copy beyond the library of Professor Arnulf Kogler in Graz. 8 L. Auvray, Les reqistres de Gregoire IX (3 vols. Paris 1896-1910). The delay of the index, completed posthumously (vol. IV, Tables, 1955), made exploration of the work difficult for a long time. - Recently, X. Ochoa and A. Diez, in their analytical tabulation of the Constitutiones novae which Raymond extracted from the Gregorian Decretals after 1234 (S. Raimundus de Pennaforte, tom. C [Universa bibliotheca iuris, 1; Rome 1978) cols. 1007- 18), identified 21 of these 62 pieces between X 1.6.49 and 5.39.60 with entries in Auvray's Reqistres. 7 What could appear as an appendix of exiratraqantes to the constitutions of the Fourth Lateran Council containing numerous pieces by Gregory IX, according to the description of Leipzig MS 439, Iol, 38v-41v in Helssig's catalogue (IV 1, Die theoloqischen Handschri(ten [Leipzig 1935), p. 705), turns out to be merely excerpted from the official collection (micro- film kindly supplied by the Universitatsbibliothek). The seven letters appended to Camp. V in Cordoba, Cabildo MS 10 and published by G. Fransen and A. Garcia y Garcia, 'Nuevas decretales de Gregorio IX en ... Cordoba', REDC 15 (1960) 148-51. are all of later date (1236) than the collection. 8 The four decretals identified are X 1.6.50 (Potth. 8152), 1.16.3 (Potth. 9056), 1.31.19 (Potth. 8861 = post 9561), 1.33.16 (Potth. 8899). Identification was missed for 1.6.52 (Potth. 9542, but see 8348) and 57 (Potth. 9546, but see 8156). 9 X 1.11.16 (Potth. 8832). See infra, II (1). la In the list here given, an asterisk is placed before an Auvray number where that scholar missed identification with the corresponding decretal. I have not entered any Potthast numbers which are merely calendared from the Decretals, with uncertain date (1227-34), i.e. from Potth. 9526 on. The 31 decretals follow: X 1.3.32-36 (Auvray *213, 397, 434, 591, 626); 1.6.49-57 (Auvray ·122, 184 [cf. Potth, 8152), ·221, 274 [cf. Potth. 8343), 454, .655, 68 BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW

Collating of all this material with Raymond's text is needed for evaluating his activity as a draftsman. Unfortunately Auvray did not always print the full texts;" but from what he published we can already see that in many cases Raymond excised and conflated portions of the original text, without inserting the 'etc. et infra' notation he used in dealing with his pre-Gregorian materlals.P

(2) For decretals not entered in the Chancery registers, further search is needed. Minutes, copies, or originals were obviously available to Raymond. Limiting the inquiry again to the first book, we notice six letters that leave some chance for rediscovery of the full text in archival tradition or chroniclers' ac- counts, since they appear with an address and/or their opening words intact.lS But we also have seven fragments of decretals stripped of all identifying marks: inscribed merely as 'Gregorius IX' or . Idem', and omitting all reference to an incipit, they are barely recognizable as having once been part of a letter;l& thus for instance X 1.29.42:

Uno delegatorum uel arbitrorum, sicut proponis, rebus humanis exempto, eorum offi- cium expirauit, nisi aliud in delegatione aut compromisso fuisset expressum.

(3) It has often been observed that among the new texts announced by the pope himself in the prefatory letter of the Liber Extra, the number of eonstitu- tiones nostrae, as distinct from the decretales epistolae, is quite substantdal.P Such general statements of law that were neither a judgment, mandate, judicial commission, nor a teaching response to some bishop's or prelate's inquiry, had of course existed throughout the centuries. Their time-honored name was de- cretum rather than constitutiav: When Bernard of Pavia chose the rubric de

*741,695, *192); 1.11.16 (Auvray 740 [cf. Potth. 8832)); 1.16.3 (Auvray 988); 1.17.18 (Au- vray *800 [1831 male»; 1.18.8 (Auvray 712); 1.29.38 (Auvray 512); 1.30.8 (Auvray *55); 1.31.19 (Auvray 551), 1.33.13-14, 16-17 (Auvray 346, 668 [cf. 667)), 783 [cf. Potth. 8899), 790); 1.38.10-11 (Auvray *16 [cf. *15, *17), 630); 1.41.8 (Auvray *399); 1.42.2 (Auvray *393); 1.43.12-13 (Auvray *380, 445). 11 X 1.3.32 (Auvray *213), 1.6.49 (Auvray *122), 1.43.12 (Auvray *380). 11 Compare e.g. the texts of Auvray 192 and X 1.6.57; Auvray 434 and X 1.3.34; Auvray 591 and X 1.3.35; Auvray 626 and X 1.3.36; Auvray 740 and X 1.11.16 (discussed below). A case of Raymond's combining passages from several decretal letters concerning the same issue is X 1.38.10: see Auvray *16, *15, *17. 13 X 1.3.37-39, 1.29.40, 1.38.12, 1.40.7. If the beginning of X 1.35.8, •Pactiones facte a uobis', should really be the beginning of the original, we would have a seventh case. 14 X 1.3.40, 1.11.17, 1.29.41-42, 1.35.8 (but see the preceding note), 1.18.15, 1.41.10. 111 See e.g. G. Phillips, Kircbmrecbt IV (Regensburg 1851) 286f.; Schulte, Geschichle der Quellen II 11, and authors cited by Ochoa-Dlez, S. Raimundus (note 6 supra) p. cxxxiil. (Authors often call these texts' decretales', •decretales theoreticae', where they should speak of constitutions.) 18 Cf. Grattan, D.3 pr, and p.c.1: •Ecclesiastica constitutio nomine canonis censetur ... ; porro canonum alii sunt decreta pontificum, alii statuta conciliorum. ' RAYMOND OF PENAFORT AS EDITOR 69

consiitutionibus for the first title in the first book of his Breviarium extravagan- tium, he used it with the meaning it had for Gratian: all written human law;l7 and this was still its meaning in the corresponding title of the Gregorian Decretals. But in Gregory's letter of , constiiutiones is used as a synonym of decreta in the traditional sense - chosen perhaps for stylistic reason, perhaps also with a hint of imitating Justinian's language. Decreta in the traditional sense - we should not press the classical canonists for a definition which would essentially be negative: decretum is what the pope states super aliquo negotio, but not in reply to a prelate consulting him; in other words, a decretum is not a decretal letter. Everyone admitted, however, that the boundary was uncertain.P How should one classify, for instance, Innocent Ill's letter addressed in 1200 to the doctores decretorum at Bologna in which he gave an unsolicited, authentic interpretation of an earlier decretal of his to the archbishop of Drontheim ?111 As for distinguishing between decretum and con- stitutio, we may doubt that curial practice paid much heed to Hostiensis when he claimed that the first is issued with the advice of the cardinals while a con- stitutio is made without such advice. The examples from the Liber Extra he

17 D.l c.3, p.c.5; D.3 pr. In this general sense Raymond himself used the term for the col- lection of 62 Conslituliones novae (cf. note 6 supra) which he appended to the second edition of his Summa de poeniteniia and to which he referred many times by 'require infra inter nouas constitutiones '; see S. Kuttner, 'Zur Entstehungsgeschlchte der Summa de casibus poenitentiae .•. ', ZRG Kan. Abt. 39 (1953) 419-34, at 423, 427-28; H. Boese, "Uber die kleine Sammlung Gregorianischer Dekretalen des Raymundus de Penyafort O.P. " Archivum fratrum Praedicaiorum 42 (1972) 69-80, at 71; Ochoa-Dlez, ed, cit. cxxxiii-ix. The collection actually includes 31 decretals; the assumption of Ochoa and Dfez that originally it contained almost only 'decretales theoreticae' (l.e, constitutions) is without foundation. 18 Hugucclo, Summa deeretorum, D.3 pr.: 'Decretum est quod papa presentibus cardinall- bus et auctoritatem prestantibus super aliquo negotio constltuit et in scriptum redegit. Decretalis epistola est quam dominus apostolicus aIieui super aliqua causa dubitanti et ecclesiam Romanam consulenti rescribit et ei transmittit; hee et consultatio dicitur. In- differenter tamen et canon dicitur decretum uel deeretalis epistola et econtra, prout in- teIIigi possunt' (Ad mont MS 7, fol. 4v). This goes back almost verbatim to the prologue of Stephen of Tournai's Summa, cf. Schulte's edition (Giessen 1891) p. 3. The definition bypas- ses all decretals which are judicial mandates issued on appeal or proooeaiio, The Glossa Palatina (c.1210/15) used more inclusive language: ' ... Canon quandoque dicitur decretalis epistola quam papa facit cum fratribus uel solus ad petitionem alicuius' (Vatican MS Pal. 658, fol. 1va: 0.3 p.e.2). 19 Potth. 1107 Inter alia (3 Compo 5.21.4; X 5.39.31). explaining Potth. 390 (3 Compo 5.21.9; X 5.39.30). Another piece of authentic interpretation. Potth. 3233 A multis multotiens (3 Compo 1.9.6; X 1.14.9) expressly uses statutory language (' ... statuimus '), It was at- tached in the register without any Inscription to the decision of a case from Meaux (27 No- vember 1207: Reg. x.163, 164), but mistakenly supplied in some editions of the Liber Exira with an address as decretal letter to the bishop of Modena; see Richter's and Friedberg's notes to X 1.9.14. 70 BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW cites for either form of papal statute are unconvincing.P The two terms were apparently interchangeable: Gregory's language in designating his own decretum to the Fraternity of the Roman clergy elsewhere as constiiutio quam nuper edidi- mus does not basically differ from the language of Stephen of Tournai when he wrote in the 1160's, •decreta sunt que dominus apostolicus ... constituit'P»

(4) A closer typological scrutiny of papal decrelajconstituliones as transmitted in our decretal collections is needed. How seriously did thirteenth-century take the canonists' teaching with regard to consent or advice of the cardinals? How were these pieces of statutory legislation made publicly known so that they could satisfy the old maxim, 'Leges instituuntur cum promulgantur ' 122 It will be difficult to arrive at safe conclusions on these and other questions, since prior to Gregory IX the available material is limited in number. Legislation by statute outside a papal council was still rare under Innocent III. Decretal letters re- mained his preferred instrument for the extensive development and reshaping of canonical doctrines that distinguishes his long pontificate. In his early years, Innocent had issued some general constitutiones; they had mostly to do with his reorganization of the Chancery and with the acute problems created by a flourish- ing industry of producing forged papal documents.P The advice of the car- dinals (de consilio [rairum nostrorum) is mentioned in some but not all of these statutes; and from the inscription Decretum in constitutione Laieranensis palatii promulgatum, reported for one of them in the collection of Rainier of Pomposa (1202), it has been convincingly argued that they were posted or otherwise made

20 Hostlensis, Summa super tiiulis deerelalium (Summa aurea), prologue: 'Decretum est quod papa de consilio fratrum, nulla consultatione facta, super aliqua re statuit et in scriptis redeglt ' (ed. Lugd. 1537, fol. 3ra, num. 15), citing as example X 3.10.10, which Honorius III, however, had issued upon a complaint by the of Sens who 'nostram audientiam appellarunt' (P. Pressutti, Reguta Honorii papae III [Rome 1888-95) No. 373; Potth, 7796; 5 Compo 3.8.1); then: 'Constitutio est quod papa proprio motu statult et in scriptis redegit sine consilio fratrum et nulla consultatione facta', citing X 1.6.58-60 (con- stitutions by Gregory IX), 'et hec constitutio est generalis', citing X 1.2.13, which Raymond actually had fashioned from a response to a consuliatio, see infra II (2); 'sed et speclalis fit per episcopum ... ' (fol. 3ra/b). 21 Stephanus Tomacensis, ed. Schulte p. 3; Huguccio loco cit.; Gregory IX, Infra II (2). lUI See the texts nn. 18,20 supra (consent and advice); Gratian, D.4 p.c. 3 (promulgation). 113 R. von Heckel, •Studien tiber die Kanzleiordnung Innozenz' 111.', Historlsctus Jahr- buch der GiJrres-Geselischa(t57 (1937) 258fr., at 262-66; K. W. Norr, 'Piipstliche Dekretalen und remlsch-kauoutscher Zivilprozess' Studien zur europiiischen Rechlsqesehichie, ed. W. Wilhelm (Frankfurt 1972) 53-65. Heckel's study remains fundamental for the cluster of decreta issued at the beginning of Innocent's fourth year. Potth, 3867 (n.d.; 3 Compo 2.12.4; X 2.20.31) probably belongs to the same period, see C. R. Cheney, •Decretals of Innocent III in Paris, B.N. MS lat. 3922A', Traditio 11 (1955) 149-62, on Coil. 3 Rotom. cA5 (p. 156). The same may be true for 3 Compo5.10.4 (X 5.19.14) Quia (rustra, to be discussed elsewhere, wrongly calendared as part 01 the letter Dileeie in Christo in Potth. 2521. RAYMOND OF PENAFORT AS EDITOR 71

publicly available in the Lateran.w Two later general statutes that appeared in Innocent's official collection (Compilatio tertia) of 1209/10 may actually have been promulgated there for the first time.25 Honorius III in November 1219 published his famous constitutio on the study of civil law and the closing of the law school of Paris in the form of individual letters addressed to patriarchs, metropolitans, universities, etc.26 In modern parlance, this would be an ; and instances of promulgating general legislation in this form have been traced to the twelfth century by the late Walther Holtzmann, many of them issued during the short pontificate of Gregory VIII.27 In these earlier examples, however, promulgation often took the shape of a mandate to all the recipients: it was they who had to make the new papal ruling known. Once more, we find the boundary between statute and letter rather uncertain.

(5) The ratio of decretal letters to abstract statements of law in Gregory IX's own contribution to the Liber Extra is approximately two to one, which means a major shift toward 'legislation' by statute, even if the compilation as a whole still retained the character of the collections from which most of its contents came. Taking once more the first book as a sample, we count among its sixty- five Gregorian texts twenty-one that present themselves as general statutes." though three of them had first been published by being sent to specific addressees. In two of these cases (to be analyzed below) the decrees were originally destined for the clergy of the pope's own , one even as a declaratory response upon

u Rain. 14.4 Ad [alsariorum (Potth. 1276; 3 Compo5.11.4; X 5.20.7). See Heckel, art. cit. 264f. 25 3 Compo 2.3.5 Quonium frequenter and 1.2.13 Plerumque contingit (X 2.6.5 and 1.3.23) belong to the pieces of uncertain date enregistered on a special quire as appendix to Innocent's eleventh year: Reg. xi.266, 271 (Potth. 3665, 3671). See Norr, art. cit. 63; o. Hageneder, 'Papstregister und Dekretalenrecht ', Recht und Schrift im Miltelalter, ed. P. Classen (Vor- trage und Forschungen 23; Sigmaringen 1977) 319-47 at 336f. and a forthcoming paper by K. Pennington. (Contrary to a conjecture by Baluze, still accepted as a fact by some recent authors, the letter Officii tui of that special quire [Reg. xi.262, Potth. 3660] is not part of another letter, from the twelfth year [Reg. xii.58, Potth. 3756]. Its full text, in four sections, was already used in the collection of Alanus, c.1206.) 26 Super speculum, Pressutti 2267, Potth. 6156 (5 Compo 5.2.1, 3.27.1; 5.12.3; X 5.5.5, 3.50.10, 5.33.28). E. Pitz. Papslreskripl und Kaiserreskripi im Mittelalter (Tiibingen 1971) 171-91, has argued, unconvincingly, that the eonstitutio was actually a issued upon the petition of St. Dominic. 27 W. Holtzmann, 'Die Dekretalen Gregors VIII.', ~lIOG 58 (1950) 113-21. 28 X 1.2.13 (Potth. 9526); 1.3.41-43, 1.4.11 (Potth. 9536-9539); 1.6.58-60 (Potth. 9547- 9549); 1.13.2 (Potth. -); 1.29.39, 43 (Potth. 9554,9558); X 1.30.9-10,1.31.20, 1.32.2 (Potth. 9560-9563); 1.33.15 (Potth. 9566-8743, Auvray 645); 1.37.3 (Potth. 9569); 1.38.13-14 (Potth. 9573, 9574); 1.41.9, 1.43.14 (Potth. 9578, 9583). 72 BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW

consultation, and only the inclusion in the Book of Decretals widened their scope. But in the third case it is difficult to see why a general decree (statuimus) on various ways of abusing papal should have been published in the form of a missive to the bishop of Paris - unless the reason was originally given in a preamble which Raymond tacitly omitted.211 Since this statute was not enregistered, there is no way of knowing. We are reminded again that classifi- cations should not be pressed: Gregory IX also wrote decretal letters - for instance the instruction to the archbishop of Lund on the form of ordaining priests and deacons - where the original text does not tell us why it was issued, though it stands to reason to assume that it was prompted by an inquiry from Sweden.so

(6) A closer look at Gregory's constilutiones in Book I shows that only one text is presented with a full preamble befitting a formally published statute; four more have at least short introductory clauses or sentences indicating the motive of legislating (e.g. 1.4.11: •Cum tanto sint grauiora peccata quanto diu- tlus infelicem animam detinent alligatam ... '),31 but in most cases the papal ruling begins abruptly with the technical point it intends to settle. It is dif- ficult to imagine that a bald statement such as Mandato procuratoris post litem contestatam a domino reuocato, si hoc ignorante iudice uel aduersario factum fuerit, iudicium quod idem quasi procurator postmodum expertus est ratum ease non debebit (S.1.38.13)

was published in any form before it appeared in the Liber Extra; this and several other texts read more like papal glosses on specific points that were controverted among the glossators. We are probably justified in assuming that they were drafted for papal approbation by St. Raymond in order to smooth out certaln points of canonical doctrine that were still debated at the time he was commis- sioned to compile the new collection.3l1 Even where a short introductory clause was prefixed to such doctrinal statements (as in the case of X 1.4.11 on consue- tudo, cited above), the suspicion remains that they were never promulgated before September 1234. If this assumption is correct, the Gregorian Compila- tion indeed marks an important step towards what nowadays we call a Code.

19 X 1.2.13, 1.33.15 to the archpriest of S. Maria Maggiore; X 1.3.43 to the bishop of Paris: 'Quia nonnulli diuersis modis litteris apostolicis abutuntur, statuimus ut ... ', SOX 1.16.3 (Potth. 9056, Auvray 988): 'Presbyter et diaconus cum ordinatur ... ', 31 X 1.3.43, 1.4.11, 1.29.43 (formal preamble), 1.30.10, 1.37.3. (I have excluded 1.2.13, originally a rescript, from this count.) 31 This is common opinion: Phillips and Schulte lococit. (n. 15 supra), and authors cited by Ochoa-Dfez ed. cit. p. cxxxiii, several of whom speak of Raymond having •obtained' or 'requested' the new decrees from the pope. See also P. Michaud-Quantin, 'Remarques sur l'ceuvre l~gislative de Gregoire IX " Etudu d'histoire du droit eanoniquc didUs Ii Gabriel Le Bras (Paris 1965) 273-81. RAYMOND OF PENAFORT AS EDITOR 73

II

In illustration of these general reflections, a brief analysis of two cases will demonstrate the usefulness of further research on Raymond's editorial methods. (1) The decretal letter X 1.11.16to the archbishop of Bari deals with ordina- tion outside the established canonical times, in reply to the archbishop's consulta- tion:

Gregorius IX. archiepiscopo Barensi. Consultationi tue taliter respondemus quod eos qui extra tempora statuta sacros ordines receperunt characterem non est dubium recepisse, quos pro transgressione hulus- modi, primo eis penitentia imposita competenti, sustinere poteris in susceptis ordinibus ministrare. Nothing here indicates that Archbishop Marino Filangieri actually had presented several other questions on liturgical matters that were of importance to the Italo-Greeks of Apulia. And when Raynaldus (Odorico Rinaldi) in his continua- tion of Baronius's Annals (1646) printed Gregory's response of 12 November 1231 from the register, he somewhat disingenuously shortened the text, tran- scribing only the sections on ordination extra tempora, on confirmation adminis- tered by a priest, and on the use of an antimensium for saying Mass.33 The pub- lication of the full letter by Auvray in the Registres de Gregoire I X (1896) re- mained unnoticed for a long time: nearly one-half of it dealt witha problem that apparently was foremost on the archbishop's mind but had disappeared under the smooth surface of the decretal as edited by Raymond. Here is the true opening of the enregistered text:"

.. archlepiscopo Barensi. Consultationi tue breuiter respondemus quod Grecl qui sub hac forma uerborum 'baptizetur talis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus saneti,' baptizati ab aliquo extite- runt, non sunt, cum non Iuerlnt secundum formam euangellcam, baptizati et ideo tarn ilIos quam de cetero baptizandos sub hac forma, 'ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti' precipimus baptizari. Eos autem qui extra tempora constituta sacros ordines ...

33 O. Raynaldus, Annales ecclesiastiei ab anno 1198 ubi desinit card. Baronius (first ed. tomus XIII, Romae 1646) ad an. 1231, § 30, whence Potth. 8832. 54 Auvray 740, still overlooked in the article by J. Bellamy, 'Bapteme dans l'Eglise latine depuis le Ville stecle ', DThC 2.1 (1923) 250-96, at 269. The perceptive discussion of the letter by C. Giannelli, 'Un documento sconosciuto della polemica tra Greci e Latini intorno alla formula baUesimale', Orientalia christiana periodica 10 (1944) 150-67, reprinted in his post- humous Scripta minora (Studi bizantini e neoellenici 10; Rome 1963) 33-46, remains funda- mental. On the omissions in Raynaldus and the Decretals see p. 162 n. 2 (= Scripta 42 n, 2). (The' documento sconosciuto' in the title of the paper is not Gregory's letter but a Greek polemical tract which Giannelli publishes from two Vatican MSS.) 74 BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW

In this unfortunate response, Gregory adopted the position of several con- temporary scholastics who doubted or denied the validity of the Greek form of baptism with its use of the operative word in the passive indicative, baptizatur or (as was erroneously believed in the West) the passive imperative, baptizeturw The pope imposed rebaptism in the Latin form and, in the concluding part of the letter, reordination of all clerics who first had to be baptized again. Evidently this was a grave mistake: already two months later, Gregory IX reversed his decision, writing again to Bari on 20 February 1232; two more letters followed in June. Preference in the future for the Latin form notwithstanding, the Greeks of Apulia were no longer to be disturbed •in sui ritus tolerantia '.36 An echo of the whole incident is found in St. Albert the Great's commentary on the Sentences, completed at Paris in the late 1240's, who mentions Gregory IX's doubts: ' ... quia de illis qui sunt in Dalmatia [sic] primo respondit quod rebaptizarentur, et postea permisit ... '. For St. Thomas, some twenty-five years later, validity of the Greek form was no longer doubttul."

(2) A decree issued to the clergy of Rome and its authentic interpretation both dealt with precedence within their ranks, to be determined by the grade of ordination, and with the allotment in collegiate churches of prebends (portiones) and services. Since Raymond's treatment of the original versions consisted of more than a mere shortening by excision, we must present the texts of the papal register and those of the Decretals side by side, beginning with

(a) Reg. Vat. 15, fol. 92v-93r (an. 5, c.61) of 12 May 1231 = Auvray No. 645, printed in Bullarium Rom. ed. Taurin. III, p. 458 No. 27 (Potth. 8743); lowe a photocopy of the enregistered text to the kindness of Professor James M. Powell (Syracuse University); (b) X de maioritate et obedienlia 1.33.15 (no date, Potth. 9566).

35 The new edition of the letter by A. L. Tautu, Acta Honorii III et Gregorii IX (Pont. Commissio ad redigendum Codicem iuris canonici orientalis, Fontes' 3; Vatican City 1940) p. 225 No. 170, errs in correcting tacitly the original 'baptizetur talis' into 'bapUzatur talis '; Professor J. M. Powell of Syracuse University has kindly reexamined the text for me in Reg. Vat. 15, foI. 134v. For scholastic opinion on the Greek form see Bellamy, art. cit. 295f. 36 Codice diplomatieo Barese I, edd. G. B. Nitto de Rossi and F. Nitti de Vito (Bari 1897) p. 177 No. 95 (also Tautu, Fontes p, 229 No. 173), and Auvray 797, 798 (Tautu p, 234f. Nos. 178, 178a). For discussion see Giannelli, 'Un documento' 158-62 (= Scripta 39-42); cf. P. Herde, 'Das Papsttum und die griechische Kirche in Silditalien ... ', DA 26 (1970) 1-46 at p. 21. 37 Albertus Magnus, In 1 V libros Sent. 4.3.2 q.2 ad gm (for the date see the article by J. Weisheipl in NCE 1.254ff. at 258a); Thomas Aquinas, Summa theol, 3 q.66 a.5 ad 2m. Cf. Giannelli 152, 164f. (= Scripta 35, 43f.), who suggests that the archbishop's inquiry might have been concerned with the Dalmatian diocese of Cattaro, which belonged to the province of Bari. In any event, earlier writers, unaware of the papal letters of 1231/32, were of course at a loss to explain S1. Albert's text. RAYMOND OF PENAFORT AS EDITOR 75

Rectoribus fraternitatis et uniuerso clero Idem archipresbytero sancte Marie maioris Vrbis. de Vrbe. Vt uniuersalis ecclesie pulchritudo mem- bris effigiata distinctis, que non eundem actum habentia inuicem sibi unanimi cari- tate ministrent, non solum seruetur inte- grius, uerum etiam officiosius operetur, in- star curie Regni celestis ordinum uarietate distinguitur et insignitur titulis dignitatum quibus uiri digni decorati decenter secun- dum differentes datas a Domino gratias in ea qua uocantur uocatione digne studeant famulari. Vnde ne membrum in corpore scandalum facere uideatur, expedit ut qui minores sunt ordine nequaquam postponi maioribus dedignentur, cum alias ridicu- lum uideretur si prouecti ad ordines altiores in locis inferioribus remanerent. Vt igitur in ecclesiis Vrbis singula que que locum te- neant sortita decenter, uolentes ut aposto- lice sedi, cuius sunt membra, sicut conuenit conformentur, de fratrum nostrorum consi- lio presenti decreto statuimus ut de cetero Statuimus in qualibet ecclesia presbyteri primum ut presbyteri prlrnum locum. diaconi secun- locum, diaconi secundum, subdiaconi ter- dum, subdiaconi tertium, et sic de reliquis tium, et sic de reliquis obtineant ordinatim, obtineant ordinatim, etiam si posterius or- etiam si posterius admiUantur. dinantur. Et qui maior est ordine, etiam si postea sit receptus, in portione perci- pienda esse uolumus potiorem ac minores facere seruitia consueta. Nulli ergo etcet. nostre constitutionis in- fringere. Si quis autem etcet. Datum Late- rani iiij. idus maii, pont. nostri anno quinto.

The authentic interpretation followed a month later: (a) Reg. Vat. 15, fol. 103v (an. 5, c.B5) of 16 June 1231, printed in Auvray I, p. 427 No. 670 (here reproduced); (b) X de constilutionibus 1.2.13 (no date, Potth. 9526). . . sancte Marie maioris et .. sanctorum Gregorius IX. archipresbytero sancte Marie Cyri et Johannis de Vrbe archipresbyteris. maioris de Vrbe. Quoniam constitutio apostolice sedis omnes adstringit et nihil debet obscurum uel ambi- guum continere, Licet uerba constitutionis quam pro clero Vrbis nuper edidimus satis aptum habeant intellectum, ut tamen ad omnem dubita- tionis scrupulum remouendum consulta- tioni uestre breuiter satisfiat, tenore presen- tium declaramus constitutionem ipsam declaramus constitutionem quam super preferendis in perceptione portionis maio- 76 BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW

ribus et consuetis seruitiis a minoribus ex- hibendis edidimus non ad preterita sed ad futura tantum ex- non ad prete rita sed ad futura tantum ex- tendi, cum 'leges et constitutiones futuris tendi, cum 'leges et constitutiones futuris certum sit dare formam negotiis, non ad certum sit dare formam negotiis, non ad facta preterita reuocari, nisi nominatim preterita facta trahi, nisi nominatim in in eis etiam de preteritis caueatur'. Et qui cis de preteritis caueatur'.38 maior est ordine, etiam si postea sit recep- tus, in portione percipienda esse uolumus potiorem, ac minores facere seruitia con- sueta. Per hanc autem responsionem no- stram aliis questionibus uestris plene credi- mus satisfactum. Datum Reate xvi. kalen- das iulil, pont. nostri anno quinto. The derivation of the short chapter Statuimus from the decree Gregory had promulgated with the cardinals' advice is easily overlooked, not only because of Raymond's suppression of the solemn arenga but also because he added another sentence, 'Et qui maior - consueta', of which there is no hint in the original and which he had lifted from the interpretive declaration (compare the con- clusion of the latter, after' ... de preteritis caueatur '), This declaration ap- parently also suggested to Raymond the inscription, •to the archpriest of St. Mary Major', which he substituted for the original address of the first decree. Did he consider this prelate a more universally visible, less 'local' addressee than the shadowy reciores of the Roman Fraternity and the clergy of the Urbs? At any rate, his general intent to give both texts a more general scope is evident from other details. It made him eliminate the specific motivation of the original decree (' Vt igitur in ecclesiis Vrbis singula queque ... ') and thus, paradoxically, the whole preamble with its encomium of the beauty of the Church Universal. Again, when he cancelled the archpriest of Sts. Cyrus and John as the second recipient of the authentic interpretation, he may have thought this too obscure a church to be recorded in this context. What is more, Raymond carefully excised from this document every trace of its original form as response given to a eonsuliaiio and rewrote it as an ab- stract, spontaneous explication of the earlier statute. He even composed a brief general arenga; he also interpolated a descriptive summary of that concluding part of the original response which he had transferred to the constitutio itself (. quam nuper super preferendis - edidimus '). In this reshaped form, the new decree crisply ended with the maxim Pope Gregory had quoted from Justinian's Code. All the same, extensive comments of the glossators were soon to show

38 Cod. Just. 1.14.7. - For another instance of Raymond's abridging and rewriting an original statute (Auvray 572, Potth. 8682) in X 3.31.23, see references in Kuttner, •Zur Entstehungsgeschichte' (n. 17 supra) 426, note 7 to the text from the Summa, de VOU,. RAYMOND OF PENAFORT AS EDITOR 77

that the authentic interpretation of the earlier statute failed to resolve all doubts about the right manner of distributing prebends and allowances (portio perc i- pienda).

Here the canonist could put down his pen. But to the historian of medieval Rome, its clergy, and its churches, it may be of some interest if we return once more to the original addresses of the two decrees. Being obliterated in the Book of Decretals, they had of course no meaning for its readers. Only in the Apparatus of Innocent IV - who was in a position to know - would thirteenth-century find a hint that Gregory's statutes as such were merely concerned with the services and 'portions' customary in the city churches of Rome (' Lo- quitur secundum consuetudinem Vrbis ').38 The first statute is one of the infrequent pieces of documentary evidence we have for the jratemitas Romana,4() whose beginnings can be traced in epigraphy to the end of the tenth century: on 22 February 984, a group of 'brother priests' jointly promised at the of Sts. Cosmas and Damian to say Masses for one another's soul.4l The college of rectors appears for the first time in the formal record of a judgment which they pronounced in the presence and by the authority of Honorius II (February/March 1127).'2 Their number was variable: thirteen

38 Innocentius IV, Apparatus, X 1.33.15, v. in portione (ed. Veneto 1570, p. 194a); Johannes Andreae, Nooella ad locov. seruitia (ed. Veneto 1581, I fol. 269vb). to Material for the history of the Fraternity has been recorded and discussed by M. Ar- mellini, Le chiese di Roma dal sec. IV al XIX (1st ed. 1887, 2nd ed. 1891), 3rd ed. by C. Cecchelli (2 vols. Rome 1942) I 33-51; by G. Ferri, 'La Romana fraternitas', Archivio della Soc. Romana per la storia patria 26 (1903) 453-66, and by P. F. Kehr, Ilalia pontitteta I (Berlin 1906) 9f., in his unsurpassed, clear and precise manner (older bibliography listed p. 8). See further R. Valentini e G. Zucchetti, Codiee topografieo della cillO. di Roma III (Fonti per la storia d'italia 90; Rome 1946) 205-09; R. Brentano, Rome before Avignon: A social history of thirteenth-century Rome (New York 1974) 214f. and 322 (n. 2); G. G. Meers- seman, Ordo fraternitatis: Confraternite e pleta dei laici nel medio evo, con G. C. Pacini (3 vols. Rome 1977) I 182f. U The inscription in Sts. Cosmas and Damian was published by Baronius, Annales eecle- siastici ad ann. 894 (first ed, tom. X; Antwerp 1603), whom later writers copied. Angelo Mal republished it in 1831 together with three near-identical inscriptions or fragments from other churches recording the promissio. Of these three, only a small fragment survives in Ss. Giovanni e Paolo. The one in S. Adriano al Foro no longer existed in Mai's time, who reproduced it from a copy taken by Francesco Maria Torriglo in the 17th cent.; it was signed by several priests 'tempore dom. Leoni [sic] archipresbyteri'. A. Mai, Scriptorum lJeterum nova collectio V (Rome 1831) 16-18. - Already Baronius loco cit. had called the group a sodalitium plurimorum /Jacerdotum. The first modern author to link the inscription expressly with the Roman Fraternity was Armellini (d. 1896), Le chiese di Roma (see 3rd ed. 136f.), followed by A. Silvagni in the note for plate XVII No.2 of his Monumenta epigraphica /Jaeculo XIII antiquiora quae in finibus Italiae adhuc exstant, I: Roma (Vatican City 1943); but Meersseman, Ordo fraternitatis I 13, 182, remains skeptical. U F. Liverani, Opere IV (Macerata 1859) 258-64, from a 16th-cent. copy in MS Vat. lat. 5560, fol. 4r-7v; cf. Kehr, Italia pontificia I p. 13 No. 22; p. 72 No.3. 78 BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW were named in the act just cited, nine in a judicial commission under Lucius III (c.1181/82); ten signed a grant the fraternity made in 1212.43 The rectorship must have been elective, for the lists of churches to which they belonged are different in each of these instances. A fixed number of twelve rectors, four each for the three districts into which the [ratemitas was divided, appears only in a catalogue of Roman churches from the fourteenth century, although the tripar- tite division may go back to the eleventh." We find the rectors mentioned in sundry matters of ritual and discipline, but the records of their functions as a college are too widely scattered to allow conclusions about a well-defined, con- stant set of prerogatives or rights of ordinary, not merely commissioned jurisdic- tion.4D

43 Kehr, p. 14 No. 25 (Lucius III); G. Ferri, 'Le carte dell'archivio Liberiano', ArchilJio della Soc. Romana cit. 28 (1905) 241. No. 26 (edits the grant by the reetores of 3 July 1212). - The date of Lucius Ill's mandate (Kehr: 1181-85) can be narrowed to some time before the end of 1182, since magister Rainerius s. Adriani diaconus eardinalis, whom the pope commissioned to hear the appeal from the rectors' judgment but who took no action (see the long account of the case in Clement Ill's final sentence of 4 November 1188, PL 204.1393B-C; Kehr, Italia pant. I p. 92, Nos. 7-8; JL 16344), was dead by 17 December 1182; cf. J. M. Brixius, Die Miiqlieder des Kardinalkollegiums von 1130-1181 (Berlin 1912) 66,125. 44 The so-called Catalogue of Turin (Bibl. Naz. MS E.V.17; catal. 381; Pasini 749, tol, 1-16) was written soon after 1313, certainly before 1339; see G. Falco, 'II catalogo di Torino delle chiese ... di Roma nel secolo XIV', Arcliioio della Soc. Romana cit. 32 (1911) 412-43; p. 425: 'Secundum rectores et fratemitatem omnes ecclesie dicte ciuitatis diuiduntur in tres partes, quarum prima dicitur Duodecim Apostolorum, secunda sanctorum Cosme et Damiani, tertia sancti Thome '; other editions in Chr. Huelsen, Le chiese di Roma: Cataloghi e appunti (Florence 1927) 26-43; Valentini-Zucchetti, Codice topografico III (n. 40 supra) 291-318. The mode of election for the twelve rectors was regulated by John XXII on 5 June 1325; textin Armellini (n, 40 supra) 144-46, cf. G. Mollat, Jean XXII (1316-1334) Lettres communes No. 22500: vol. V (Paris 1909) p. 399. A map of the three partes is inserted between cols. 1240 and 1241 of the article' Roma, V: Topogratla ', by E. Josi in Enciclopedia Catioliea 10 (Vatican City 1953); their early existence is shown by the judgment of 1127 (n. 42 supra). cf. Kehr p. 9. 46 Ferri, 'La Romana fratemitas' (n. 40 supra) 454f. and Meersseman, Ordo [mierniialis I 182f., assume that all these rights existed in full by the twelfth century. - Among the early prerogatives there was the distribution of the so-called presbgterium, a traditional pittance to the clergy participating in certain processions; in 1260, Alexander IV settled a controversy about this between the rectors and the chapter of St. Peter's: Potth. 17834. The presbgterium should not be confused with the portiones of Gregory's decree. - Some measure of ordinary jurisdiction seems to be implied in the general wording of the letter of Lucius III which gives the rectors authority to cut short dilatory appeals of persons sued before them, 'qui tracti fuerint coram uobis in causam et ad nostram audientiam appeUaue- rint ' (Call. 1 Berol, 126, ed. J. Juncker, ZRG Kan. Abt. 13 (1924J 406-7). unless we under- stand it with Juncker as belonging to the case delegated in the mandate of 1181/82 (Kehr I p. 14 No. 25, see note 43 supra), or as fragment of an unidentified judicial mandate (so W. Holtzmann, Kanonistisehe Erglinzungen No.1 = QF 37 (1957J 73). RAYMOND OF PENAFORT AS EDITOR 79

The rectores [ratemilaiis to whom Gregory IX issued the decree of May 1231 are unknown, but one is tempted to assume that the archpriests of St. Mary Major and of Sts. Cyrus and John who consulted the pope about its precise meaning were among them, perhaps in some position of seniority. The only archpriest of St. Mary Major addressed by name in the registers of Gregory was a certain Asto (1238), but he can have been no more than presbyter canonicus in 1231: as such he received a mandate in 1233 to proceed with some others against concubinary clerics of the city.46 In any event, we don't know the archpriest of the basilica who obtained the pope's authentic interpretation (although Raymond must have known him). It would be even more interesting to find the person associated with him in this matter, the archpriest of Sts. Cyrus and John. The little church dedicated to Sts. Cyrus 'the abbot' and John 'the soldier' near the Torre delle Milizie in Trajan's Forum, was also known as St. Abbacyrus and, in popular distortion, Santa Pacera (from Sant'abbaciro). It was one of several Roman sanctuaries founded in the early Middle Ages in honor of the two brothers and martyrs of Alexandria after their relics had been transferred from the shrine at Menouthi in Egypt, which is now Aboukir.s? known in modern history from one of Horatio Nelson's most prestigious naval battles. St. Ab- bacyrus at the foot of the QUirinal hill, even though favored with a small in- dulgence by Nicholas IV in 1289, remained a modest church, ranking below a and a cardinal's iiiulus or diaconia.48 There were four clerics left at 'sancta Pacera' when the popes had moved to Avignon:49 before 1492 the church was abandoned, though the building could still be seen in luogo basso by those coming down from Monte Bagnanapoli (Magnanapoli) to Trajan's Forum in the seven- teenth century.oo It was nothing special for a small church such as Sts. Cyrus and John to have an archpriest at the head of its clergy in the thirteenth century: so did other modest establishments in the city.51 The remarkable number of special commissions

46Auvray 1449 (Potth. 9258) to Baro, canon of St. Peter's, Asto, canon of st. Mary Major, and magister Donadeus, archpriest of St. Lucia de Confinio. Auvray 4307 (Potth. -) to Asto, archpriest of St. Mary Major (30 April 1238). 47 Huelsen, Le chiese di Roma(n.44 supra), pp.159-61 s.v, 'So Abbacyri de Militiis'; H. Leclercq, 'Cyr et Jean (saints)', Dictionnaire d'archeol, ehret. et de liturqie 3.2 (1914) 3216-20; F. Caraffa, 'Ciro e Giovanni', Bibliolheea sanctorum 4 (Rome 1964) 2-4. Cf. Armellini, Le ehiese di Roma I, 226-28 and Cecchelli's addendum, II 1226; Valentini-Zucchetti, Codiee topografico III 218 n. 3. 48 The is calendared in E. Langlois, Les reqisires de Nicolas IV I (Paris 1886) p, 238, No. 1141 (Potth, -), with the error arehiepiscopo for archipresbytero in the address. In the Ordo of Cencius, the church was listed as receiving a presbyterium of only xii, den.: Valentini-Zucchetti 234. '" Thus the Turin Catalogue, ed. Falco 425; Huelsen 27; Valentini-ZuccheUi 292. 00 Huelsen, Le chiese 159r. 61 See e.g. the signatories of the document of 1212, cited in note 43 supra. 80 BULLETIN OF MEDlEV AL CANON LAW

Gregory IX and Innocent IV gave to this particular archpriest can only be ex- plained by the qualification and skills of the unknown incumbent (or incum- bents?) between 1231 and 1253. When Gregory IX in October 1232 appointed him as visitator of five religious houses, he praised his prudence, diligence, and solicitude shown before on a similar occasion.51 One of the earliest acts of In- nocent IV, 16 July 1243, less than a month after his election, concerned the enforcement of a sentence pronounced by the archpriest of Sts. Cyrus and John, as sedis apostolicae (appointed no doubt in the previous pontificate); six weeks later Innocent confirmed a commission which pie memorie Gregorius had given to the archpriests of St. Mary Major and Sts. Cyrus and John, together with three other Roman ecclesiastics, as judges •de questionibus inter clericos et laicos de Vrbe ortis '.63 Two more appointments in cases involving some juris- diction, and four mandates to provide for papal favorites are recorded for the archpriest of Sts. Cyrus and John in Innocent IV's registers.54 We find him again with two judicial commissions in the first year of Alexander IV (1255).6& Thus far, however, it seems that the man to whom three popes repeatedly en- trusted administrative and judicial matters of some importance must remain for us a nameless figure.

Berkeley. California. STEPHAN KUTTNER

51 Edited in Auvray 932. Cf.Huelsenloc cit. for referencesto this and nearly all the letters cited in the followingnotes. 63 E. Berger, Les registres d'Lnnoceni IV (4 vols. Paris 1884-1919) No. 20 (16 July 1243; Potth. 11093); No. 96 (2 September 1243; Potth. -). 64 Berger 6582 (4 June 1253: commissionto permit alienation of property to a Roman monastery); 7105 (8 December 1253: appointment as conservator for a privilege granted to S. Maria in Cosmedin); mandates of provision: Berger 3095, 3503, 5353, 5408. None of these are in Potthast. 55 C. Bourel de la Ronclere et al., Les registres d'Alexandre IV (2 vols. Paris 1895-1959) No. 278 (14 March 1255: exclusive authority to hear any complaints against the hospital of S. Spirito in Sassia); No. 701 (13 August 1255:the same with regard to the abbey of S. Gregorio). Not in Potthast.