Gregory of San Grisogono, Polycarpus

Gregory, cardinal priest of San Grisogono at Rome, compiled a collection, perhaps as early as 1104. He called it Polycarpus because of the diversity of its contents. It survives in twelve manuscripts, more than any other Roman collection. There are two versions. The manuscript copies of the original version belong either to an Italian or to a French transmission. Those belonging to the Italian transmission are the Mss Madrid, BN 7127; Florence, BN Conventi soppressi B.IV.559 and Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 258. There is also an Italian-German subgroup represented by the Mss Florence, BML Strozzi 27 and Cologne, Erzbischöfliche Diözesan- und Dombibliothek 230 126. The manuscripts belonging to the French transmission are the Mss Carpentras, Bibliothèque Inguimbertine 169; Salamanca, Biblioteca Universitaria 2348; Vat. Reg. lat. 1026 and Vat. lat. 1354. There is also a French subgroup represented by the Mss Paris, BnF, lat. 3881 and Vat. Reg. lat. 987. There is only one copy of a second, augmented version of the Polycarpus: in the Ms Paris, BnF, lat. 3882. That version was used for the dossier in the Ms Leipzig, UB 276, see below p. 236.

The title in four manuscripts identifies the author as a cardinal priest of San Grisogonus: Incipit prologus Gregorii cardinalis presbiteri tituli sancti Grisogoni. It is assumed that this is the archdeacon Gregory mentioned at Lucca in 1109 who became cardinal priest of the title church San Grisogono in 1111. A necrology at Lucca records his death in 1113. Gregory dedicated his collection to Diego Gelmírez, bishop of Compostella: Dilecto domino D (idaco) sancti Iacobi ecclesie pontificali infula digne decorato Gregorius presbiterorum humillimus salutem. Paul Fournier considered this infula to be the pallium which Diego Gelmírez received in 1104. Uwe Horst, on the other hand, doubts that infula means pallium, but he sees no other certain point of reference. The collection is divided into eight books and each book is divided into titles. The canons do not have rubrics of their own.

The earliest and one of the best manuscripts, Madrid, BN 7127, was probably copied at Rome. This manuscript is the basis for the edition in preparation at the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Carl Erdmann began the edition, using the manuscripts he knew. Horst Fuhrmann and Uwe Horst collated that edition with the Salamanca manuscript and brought it to near completion. The type-script of this edition was made available to me. The edition can now be found on the MGH-Website https://www.mgh.de/de/mgh-digital/digitale-angebote-zu-mgh-abteilungen?highlight=polycarp. I used the Ms Madrid as the basis for the present analysis (PX), but where folios were missing (between the present 405/406 = canons 6. 8. 5– 6. 9. 6) I resorted to texts common to the other manuscripts. Three manuscripts of the French transmission have a supplement at the end of the collection with Roman synodal texts from the papacy of Urban II to that of Calixtus II. The texts of these supplements are not in the data bank.

The texts added to the second version of the Polycarpus in the Ms Paris, BnF, lat. 3882 are in the data bank and have as their key PY. This augmented version contains numerous forgeries dealing with monastic 231 rights and the distribution of ecclesiastical income among the clergy, many of them much older forgeries. Peter Landau has brought attention to a number of newer forgeries dealing with consanguinity and grades of affinity.

Gregory used the pseudoisidorian decretals, the Dionysio-Hadriana, the Liber decretorum of Burchard and the Cassino version of the 74T. He took letters of pope Gregory I from other collections, but turned to the Register directly to give more complete versions of the inscriptions. He used the collection of Anselm of Lucca without a doubt, but it is difficult to identify the version. The two possibilities suggested recently are both closely associated with Lucca. Uwe Horst noted similarities between the Polycarpus and the version of the collection in the Ms Vat. Barb. lat. 535. Ludwig Schmugge noted similarities in the rendering of the decretal Relatum est auribus nostris (JL 4269) to the version in the Ms Florence, BML Ashburnham 53 (a form of the collection between the A and A’ versions). Gregory also used the Collection of S. Maria Novella, which probably originated at Lucca, and he made use of the collection in the Mss Vat. lat. 3832/Assisi, BCom 227, the Liber de vita christiana of Bonizo of Sutri and the Digest of Justinian. Uta-Renate Blumenthal notes that Gregory used the official form of the decrees of the council of Clermont, that is, the form amended in the Register.

The Polycarpus was used for the Collectio III librorum and its derivative, the Collectio IX librorum. There are a number of texts found only in the Polycarpus and the Collectio VII librorum in the Ms Vat. lat. 1346. The two collections were compiled at about the same time. The Polycarpus was also used for the Caesaraugustana and the Pragensis I. Finally, it was an important source for Gratian.

Literature

The prologue was edited by the Ballerini brothers (Migne PL 56. 347–348), who used the Ms Vat. lat. 1354. For an edition using the Ms Paris, BN 3881 see Hermann Joseph Hüffer, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Quellen des Kirchenrechts und des römischen Rechts (Münster 1862), pp. 75 f. Excerpts are edited by Angelo Mai, Nova bibliotheca Patrum 7. 3, Rome 1854, pp. 1–76. The prologue is translated into English by Somerville and Brasington, Prefaces, pp. 129–130. – For the most detailed description of the collection with emphasis on the identification of the sources see Horst, Die Kanonessammlung Polycarpus des Gregor von S. Grisogono, pp. 9–10 and 103–226. He provides tables identifying the material sources of the texts. Also Giuseppe Motta, Nuove identificazioni nella collezione 232 canonica detta „Polycarpus“, Aevum 57 (1983), pp. 232–244. – For the forgeries assigned to pope Celestine, see the description of the collection of Bonizo above. For the use of the letters of Gregory I see Jasper, The Beginning of the Decretal Tradition, pp. 79 f. For the use of letters of pope Leo IV, see p. 108 n. 88. – For the use of the canons of the Council of Melfi see Somerville, Pope Urban II, pp. 187 f. – In the second version of the Polycarpus, at the ends of books 1 and 4, canons are added after the last of the canons announced in the capitulatio. The capitulatio to book 1 ends with the rubrics Qualiter pape iudicium retractari possit; to book 2 with Quod in initio idem fuerint presbiter et episcopus et de presbiterorum dignitate; to book 3 with Qualiter dispendia ab altera ad alteram porrigantur ecclesiam; to book 4 with De inobedientibus et canonum violatoribus; to book 5 with De vilium personarum legatione repudio; to book 6 with Ne christiani temere offerant se periculis; to book 7 with Ut quod necessitas imperavit cesset necessitate cessante; to book 8 with De immortalitate intellectu alium naturarum et de libero arbitrio demonum ante ruinam. On the character of these additions see Landau, Gefälsches Recht, pp. 42–46; reprinted in his: Kanones und Dekretalen, pp. 34*–38* and 472*. – On the decretal Relatum est auribus nostris, see Ludwig Schmugge, Die Dekretale Papst Leos IX, „Relatum est auribus nostris (JL 4269) in der kanonistischen Tradition (1052–1234), ZRG Kan. 73 (1987), pp. 41– 69. – Kéry, Canonical Collections, pp. 266–269. For the relationship between Polycarpus, 3L and 7L see Fowler-Magerl, Relationship p. 247–248.

Categories

• lacking categories
• non-standard page title