CANONICAL COLLECTIONS. – Compilations elaborated over the centuries, which contain part of the laws of the Church and constitute, in the language of canonists, some of the *fontes cognoscendi* of canon law.
A) WESTERN CANONICAL COLLECTIONS.
OUTLINE:
I. Premises
II. General canonical collections
III. Special canonical collections
IV. Systematic canonical collections
V. The sources of canon law from Pseudo-Isidore to Gratian
VI. The great canonical collections of the 12th–14th centuries.I. PREMISES
These sources are of various kinds: sources of divine law or ecclesiastical law; genuine or spurious or apocryphal, chronological or systematic, authentic or public.If one wishes to trace the logical genesis of canonical collections, the first testimonies of canon law are found in the New Testament, especially regarding the constitutional law of the Church; then in the Apostolic Fathers; for the pre-Constantinian period, in the other Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries and in the pseudo-apostolic writings.
The Constantinian peace opens a new era in the history of canon law: bishops, sometimes aided and spurred on by the emperor, can more easily and frequently hold assemblies and make common decisions on various points of ecclesiastical discipline. Thus written law is born, which replaces custom, which in the preceding period had been the principal factor in ecclesiastical discipline.
Councils, from this time onward, are of various kinds and are held in different places: there are four General Councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon), but only two of these have great importance for ecclesiastical discipline; there are then about twenty particular councils: Eastern, African, Gallican, Spanish, and Roman. Later, the other two Ecumenical Councils of Constantinople, the second and third, will have a certain influence on Latin collections.
From the last part of the 4th century onward, the epistolary activity of the Roman pontiffs intensifies; with the decretals the popes establish the principles of ecclesiastical organization; some imperial constitutions fix the temporal status of clerics and of goods consecrated to worship.
The letters of the pontiffs will enter into canonical collections from the 5th century onward, and from then on they will increasingly form a notable part of them.
In some Fathers the discipline finds its legislators, and doctrine reaches its highest perfection, especially in St. Augustine.
Other supplementary and receptive sources of canon law are Roman civil legislation in ecclesiastical matters and the law of the various barbarian states.
These elements, which work together, allow for an ecclesiastical discipline with fairly uniform frameworks and clearly differentiated states.
Ecclesiastical archives deserve credit for preserving the canons and decretals, which were communicated to the various Churches through systems analogous to those of imperial bureaucracy; the law that a Church knows and observes is first and foremost the law contained in its archives. When, later, compilers feel the need to gather these elements into compilations, they can easily find them in the archives of their own Churches.
Here a rapid synthesis of Western canonical collections is given. For the Eastern ones, see below: C.C. ORIENTALI. But it must be noted at once that the first Western canonical collections arose under the influence and by imitation of Eastern collections. A *syntagma canonum*, whose complex history is variously expounded by scholars, was already circulating in the East after the celebration of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and included the canons of Ancyra (314), Neocaesarea (314–25), Nicaea (325), Gangra (341–42), Antioch, Laodicea (348–380), Constantinople (380), Chalcedon (451). Latin canonical collections have uninterrupted life beginning in the second half of the 5th century; the oldest known ones arise in Africa, but it is in Rome that canonical activity begins, unofficial to be sure, but precious for the later development of canon law.
The epochs of canonical collections are commonly divided into four periods.
First period, studied mainly and fundamentally by Maassen: it runs from the time of Dionysius Exiguus to the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals. It is the period of the elaboration of Western canon law, which is most fully integrated with regional elements, is updated according to the emergence of various situations and needs of ecclesiastical discipline, and is not yet contaminated by the imposing literary forgery that will characterize the following period.
Second period, of the Pseudo-Isidorian
c. c. that preceded, implemented, and followed the reform of Gregory VII.
Third period: the classic and fundamental c. c. that gave rise to the Corpus Iuris Canonici.
Fourth period: beginning with the Council of Trent, it documents the activity of the Roman Congregations and is characterized by new types of collections: the Acts of the Pontiffs, of the Councils, and various collections of Acts or Decisions of the Holy See.
According to the system of exposition by Maassen, the c. c. are divided into general, special, and systematic; we do not follow the geographical criterion, which is often uncertain.
General c. c. are those that have a common foundation, consisting of the ecumenical Councils and the topical Councils of the East; to these Councils are sometimes added, in chronological order, the canons of the Councils of Africa, Spain, and Gaul, as well as papal decretals. It is these differences that will give each c. c. its individuality.
Sometimes, and always after the rise of chronological c. c., the aforementioned material is arranged systematically, or only particular elements of law are gathered from it, or only canons from some of the many Councils celebrated here and there in Christendom in these and earlier centuries. Thus arise systematic c. c. in the first case, and special c. c. in the second.
The GENERAL C. C. — Besides the Dionysian collections (v. DIONIGI il PICCOLO), the following are noted:
1. Collectio ms. Frisingensis: common foundation; Isidorian version of the Greek canons, a good number of decretals from the Dionysiana from Damasus (366) to Gelasius (496), acts of the Acacian schism; probably Italian, from the end of the 5th and beginning of the 6th century.
Alongside this c. c., the Coll. Wein-gartenis is also noted.
2. Collectio Quesnelliana, similar to the Frisingensis but with the addition of the canons of Chalcedon and a large number of documents relating to the Donatist conflicts of the 4th and 5th centuries. The place of origin is debated: QUERELA (v.), Gaul according to the Ballerini and Maassen; Duchesne and P. Fournier favor Rome, or at least Italy.
3. Four Italian c. c. of the 6th century: Coll. ms. s. Blasii, Coll. ms. Vaticani, Coll. ms. Theatini, Coll. ms. Iustelli; common foundation, prisca version, debate of the first session of the Council of Carthage of 419; Italian, 6th century.
4. Coll. ms. Colbert, of uncertain date, originating from Gaul, partly akin to the Quesnelliana and partly to the s. Blasii.
5. Three c. c. of Greek and African Councils: Coll. ms. Parisienis, Collectio Theodosii diaconi, Coll. ms. Wirceburgensis.
6. General c. c. with Gallican Councils. From the 6th century onward, almost every diocese had a general c. c., a Liber canonum; these collections were made so that dioceses would have at hand the norms of law to apply; several are preserved, composed in Gaul; they are: Coll. ms. Corbeiensis, Coloniensis, Laureshamensis (Lorsch), Albigensis, Pithouensis, Bigotiana, s. Mauri, Diesensis, Burgundiae, Remensis.
7. Finally, the general c. c. of Spain. Chronologically, the Epitome Hispanica comes first, after 598, which summarizes the same material as the following c. c.
Collectio Hispanica chronologica or Isidoriana: contains in chronological order, mostly according to the Dionysian version, the Greek, African, Gallic, and Spanish Councils, as well as decretals of the Roman Pontiffs.
The Hispanic collection underwent various changes over time; thus, the various manuscripts present two different redactions of the same c. c.
The Hispanic collection has always been attributed to Spain, but there is passionate debate among scholars as to whether it originated in the Church of Arles, as Tarrè and Duchesne propose, suggesting it be called Collectio Arleatensis-vitogitica. Some consider St. Isidore of Seville (v.) to be its author; according to a good hypothesis, it was composed around the time of the Fourth Council of Toledo in 633.
8. The Coll. ms. Novariensis is the last general c. c.
The SPECIAL C. C. — First of all, a series of c. c. of acts of the Greek Councils:
Collections concerning the ecumenical Council of Ephesus: Coll. ms. Turonensis, Coll. ms. Veronensis, Coll. ms. Saliburgenensis, Synodicon Casinense;
Collections concerning the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon: Coll. ms. Vaticani 1322, Coll. ms. Nostrae Dominae, Collectio Rustici (by Rusticus, Roman deacon, nephew of Pope Vigilius); Codex encyclicus;
Collections of the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II; the c. c. was composed before 590;
Collections of the acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III; Coll. temporis Sergii I, Coll. ms. Claromontani.
Fragmentum Veronense, which mainly concerns the heresies of the 4th and 5th centuries.
Collections relating to the Acacian affair: Coll. ms. Veronensis, Coll. ms. Virodunensis.
Collections concerning the Donatist controversy.
Collections of the Churches of Thessalonica and Arles: Collectio
The affair concerning the metropolitan of Thessaly, STEPHANUS of Larissa, was dealt with in the Church of Thessalonica; it was conducted in 531 before the Collectio Ecclesiae Avelatensis of the late 6th century.
C. c. of the African Councils: Coll. Concilii Carthaginiensis 419; Coll. Concilii Carthaginiensis 526; Collectio Conc. africani, concorruunt in Hispana: it is a special c. c. of African canons; written in the Hispana; of uncertain origin and unknown author.
C. c. of Gallican and German Councils: Coll. ms. Lugdunensis, Coll. Concilii a. 813 with the canons of the five reforming Councils of Arles, Reims, Mainz, Tours, Chalon-sur-Saône. Coll. ms. Bellovacensis, c. c. of intermediate time because it seems to belong in part to this period; compliance with other documents. Coll. ms. s. Anandi, containing the canons of the Spanish Councils joined with other Gallican Councils.
C. c. of the Councils of Ireland and Great Britain: Coll. ms. Fécamp, which contains Irish, Breton, Anglo-Saxon penitential canons, extracts from the Holy Books and the Fathers; other topics were perhaps added in Gaul. Coll. ms. Sangermanensis has many contacts with the previous one.
Collectio Avelana (v. FONTE AVELLANA).
Collectio Conc. Romani of 649, by MARTIN I against Monophysitism and many letters of this pope.
Constitutiones Sirmondianae, contains eighteen imperial constitutions on ecclesiastical matters, from 321 to 425, later than 581; it is of Gallican origin.
Collectio ms. Mutinensis, later than 601 and probably composed in Italy; it contains canons and decretals.
IV. SYSTEMATIC C. c. — The oldest systematic c. c. is of African origin: Breviatio canonum FULGENTII FERRANDI (v. FLORENZIO).
Capitula Martini, a work by MARTIN of Braga, which, in order to correct what was obscure in the collection of Greek canons, classifies everything relating to the clergy and concerning the laity; it enjoyed wide diffusion.
Concordia canonum of Cresconius, by a Cresconius, perhaps a bishop and poet. It brings together the whole of canonical prescriptions into a concordia, with the aim of making them more intelligible by means of rubrics. It draws on the Dionysian c. c. It is later than Ferrandus’ Breviatio and was widely used.
Collectio Hispana systematica. It uses almost exclusively the Hispana chronologica. It is of Spanish origin, later than the Concordia of Cresconius.
Among the systematic c. c. one must recall a series of Gallican c. c., namely:
Coll. ms. Andegavensis, Coll. Herovalliana, I Coll. Bonaventuris, Coll. ms. Sangermanensis, II Coll. Bonaventuris, Coll. in 400 capitula, Cresconius Gallicus, Coll. Dacheriana, Coll. in quatuor libros, Coll. Halitgarii Cameracensis, Coll. ms. Bibl. Vallicellianae, Poenitentialia Rhabani Mauri.
Of these, the Dacheriana and the two Penitentials deserve special mention.
The Dacheriana gives canons from all the Councils up to that of Constantinople, according to the Dionysio-Hadriana, and decretals of all the Popes, with the exception of Felix III and Hormisdas.
The Poenitentialia Rhabani Mauri are two c. c. connected through their sources with some of the previous c. c. and documented as described. Of these penitentials, the oldest was composed around 841; the other is from 853 (v. PENITENZIAIRO, LIBRI).
Other small special c. c. are noted in the work of Maassen.
Collectio Hibernica. The Irish c. c. is among the most notable systematic c. c. of this period; it is of some importance especially with regard to the patristic material it uses, but it is especially interesting for Irish law.
Coll. IX librorum, from the beginning of the 9th century, has points of contact with the Irish c. c.
One should associate with the systematic c. c. the well-known collections of Roman law for use by the clergy, such Lex Romana canonice compta (v.), Excerpta Bobiensia (v.) and an excerpt from a manuscript by Haenel.
The last c. c. of this period were composed during a severe crisis that the Merovingian Church went through between 680 and 740: contempt for ancient law, deplorable situation of episcopal sees, clergy members recruited without observance of canonical rules, and the consequent relaxation of morals among leaders and members. The Carolingian reform would attempt to remedy this state of affairs, reorganizing the hierarchy, restoring discipline in the clergy and protecting ecclesiastical goods for their sacred purposes.
The high point of this reform activity is the presentation of the Dionysio-Hadriana to Charlemagne in 774; the Dionysio-Hadriana spread rapidly; councils and capitularies appealed to it when they wished to restore ancient law. The Hispana, enriched with the Councils of Spain and somewhat modified by various Frankish revisions, would support the reform and merge with the Dionysio-Hadriana in 810.
The Dacheriana crowns the Carolingian reform’s effort at healing, coordinating and classifying texts; it is the principal source of c. c. of the first half of the 9th century and its influence would extend to the Gregorian reform.
of good Roman spirit, it shows the influence of the Pseudo-Isidore, the Dionysio-Hadriana, the letters of St Gregory the Great, the Novariensis and the Lex Romana canonice compta.
Reginonis Prumiensis libri duo de synodalibus causis et disciplinis ecclesiasticis report the rules to be observed in instituting canonical trials during the visitation of dioceses; composed in 905 (v. REGINONE DI PRÜM).
Collectio Abbonis abbatis Floriacensis, composed in defence of monastic exemption by the abbot of Fleury between 958 and 976; notable for the distinction and discussion of the sources of law.
Collectio quinque librorum Codicis Vaticani, written at the beginning of the 11th century, in support of the reform of Benedict VIII.
After this c. c., P. Fournier and G. Le Bras note other minor c. c. which they call Cisalpine and Transalpine. Of particular note are:
Decretum Burchardi Wormalensis (v. BURCARDO di WORMS), composed around 1012 by Burchard, of the diocese of Mainz, who later became bishop of Worms; it supports Church reform.
P. Fournier and G. Le Bras note various other minor c. c. from the end of the 9th to the beginning of the 11th century, which they classify as: Germanic, Western, Italian.
2. Gregorian c. c. — The support given to reform by these c. c. follows two lines: to collect only the documents of the Roman Pontiffs and to reject corrupt customs.
Collectio septuaginta quatuor titulorum or Diversorum sententiae patrum, composed in Rome in 1050 by an unknown author in defence of the primacy, of monastic exemption, and to safeguard the rules on the appointment of bishops.
Capitulare cardinalis Attonis, bishop of Milan, written at the end of the pontificate of Alexander II or at the beginning of that of Gregory VII.
Collectio Anselmi Lucensis, contains varied material, both original and interpolated; it was used by polemicists in defence of the reform of Gregory VII; composed around 1083 by Anselm, bishop of Lucca (v.).
Collectio cardinalis Deusdedit, sets out the discipline of the Roman clergy; composed between 1083 and 1087.
They show Gregorian influence:
Liber de vita christiana, by Bonizo, bishop of Sutri, later promoted to Piacenza; composed between 1089 and 1095.
Collectio Britannica, so called because it is preserved in a codex of the British Museum, of special importance for papal letters; composed in Italy at the beginning of the 12th century.
Polycarpus, composed by Cardinal Gregory, under Paschal II (1110-118); it favours the Gregorian reform, but is also influenced by Burchard.
Various other minor c. c. are noted especially by P. Fournier and G. Le Bras; the same authors note other small c. c. which did not undergo Gregorian influence.
3. Post-Gregorian c. c. — Gallican c. c. of the end of the 11th century: the three c. c. Chartres (v.).
C. c. influenced by Ivo: Collectio Caesaraugustana, from a codex of Saragossa, composed in Burgundy or Aquitaine in the first decade of the 12th century (dependent on Ivo, favours the Gregorian reform); and other minor ones noted by P. Fournier and G. Le Bras.
Collectio Algeri Leodiensis or Liber de misericordia et iustitia by Alger of Liège (v.); other minor c. c., always noted by P. Fournier and G. Le Bras.
VI. THE GREAT COLLECTIONS OF THE 12TH–14TH CENTURIES
The period that follows is that of Gratian’DECRETO (v.), ARS ANTIQUA (v.) and of the other collections that Corpus Iuris Canonici (v.), and it falls within that period of literary revival in ecclesiastical matters which saw the flourishing and birth of the science of canon law, which now developed a life of its own and became an organic system. It is the age of the great c. c., and many of them deserve and have in this encyclopaedia a separate exposition.Among so many works, a series of small c. c. find a place, which we mention here, prior to the Compilatio I: an Appendix Concilii Lateranensis, which contains together with the canons of the Lateran (1179) decretals and canons including those of the Council of Tours of 1163.
This c. c. was imitated by others less well known such as the c. c. Bamberensis, Lipsiensis, Casselana. These c. c., the subject of study by eminent modern scholars, are usually distinguished into: non-systematic c. c. prior to Compilatio I; systematic c. c. prior to Compilatio I; systematic c. c. after Compilatio I.
Their authors and places of origin are unknown; their time of composition is deduced from internal evidence; they are designated by the name of the library in which their manuscripts are preserved; their importance lies in the preservation of decretal texts which otherwise would be little or not at all known; they have all been masterfully surveyed by Kuttner.
With the Corpus Iuris Canonici the age of the c. c. comes to a close. With the celebration of the Council of Trent and with the reorganisation of the Roman Curia by Sixtus V, universal law issued by the Pope or, by his order, by the Roman dicasteries, would be collected in compilations that no longer took the form of the old c. c.: there would now be the Bullaria, the Acts of the Roman Pontiffs, the Acts of the various Congregations, offices and tribunals, until the unification and formal simplification of law was achieved with the CIC.
Giuseppe D’Ercole
B) EASTERN C. C.
SUMMARY: I. Collections of the Byzantine Rite
II. Collections of the Alexandrian Rite
III. Collections of the Antiochene Rite
IV. Collections of the Armenian Rite
V. Collections of the Chaldean Rite.
### I. COLLECTIONS OF THE BYZANTINE RITE
#### I. Greek (Byzantine) Collections
##### a) The Primitive Collection
At the beginning of its existence, the Church did not possess a complete system of norms and rules. Apart from a certain number of fundamental principles and particular precepts contained in the books of the New Testament or in oral tradition, it had to create its own law. In this process, the particular Churches in the early centuries enjoyed a very wide autonomy, although the influence of the mother Churches and of the most important cities was already felt at that time.
Custom and tradition held sway rather than legislation. The desire to fix these customary or traditional norms and to give them superior authority led to the composition of pseudepigraphal writings and ordinances, of which a considerable number are found in the early centuries of Christianity.
With the rise of heresies and the growth in the number of the faithful, the need for greater precision and uniformity became ever more pressing. In the second half of the 2nd century, synods of bishops began to be convened. In the 3rd century, these synods regulated not only matters of faith and doctrine but also disciplinary questions. Especially in the latter part of this century, a penitential discipline thus arose, traces of which are still found in later canons. The 4th century marked a further step, as the authorization of these principles, which had developed in different regions, led to further progress in the history of the Church.
The authority of the canons of the Ecumenical Councils was no longer dependent on free acceptance but obligatorily bound all bishops and the faithful.
The canons of the councils do not treat a subject systematically. They respond to current issues, resolving difficulties of the moment proposed by the bishops to the synod. They therefore appear incomplete, and soon the tendency to gather the various groups of canons is noted. In the East, few traces of such attempts remain. Perhaps because one collection of canons soon prevailed and supplanted all others. Already the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon (451) had in hand a collection that included first the canons of Nicaea (325), followed by those of the Synods of Ancyra (314), Neocaesarea (314–320), Antioch (328–32, but falsely attributed since antiquity to the Council of Encaenia in 341), Gangra (342), and Laodicea (347–378), all with continuous numbering. The canons of the Council of Constantinople (381) formed a kind of appendix. Together with the canons of Chalcedon (451), which date from the end of the 5th century, they were also incorporated into the collection, at the beginning of which were placed the 85 so-called Apostolic Canons (composed ca. 360–380).
The origins of this collection are still obscure. According to the most common opinion, a first nucleus was formed at the beginning of the 4th century, consisting of 24 canons of the Council of Ancyra (the last 10 actually belong to a Council of Caesarea, as has been clearly demonstrated by Lebon, *Le Muséon* 51 [1938], pp. 89–132) and 14 canons of the Council of Neocaesarea. Soon added were the 20 canons of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, which were given first place on account of their authority, as is expressly stated in an added note. To this first nucleus were then added the canons of the three Councils of Antioch, Gangra, and Laodicea.
More recently, however, Ed. Schwartz has proposed a new explanation. According to him, the *Corpus Canonum* is the work of the “Homoean” Arians, who in fact directed the Church during the years 360–378. With the same intent with which they produced a vast pseudepigraphal literature (the Apostolic Constitutions, the Canons of the Apostles, the false Ignatian writings, etc.), they would have composed the collection of canons, that is, to give greater authority to the Church of Antioch. Guided by this criterion, they selected the
(Enc. Cat. letter).
Constantinople, where, still a layman and an advocate (*scholastikós*), composed around 550 a collection in 50 titles, dividing under these titles (rubrics) the canons or even excerpts from them according to subject matter. The *Synagogé* contains the 85 Canons of the Apostles, those of the ten synods, and also the canons of the second and third canonical letters of St. Basil. Collections of canons and sayings of the Holy Fathers were already circulating, but John the Scholastic was the first to introduce them into collections of canons, thus paving the way for them to acquire an authority they did not possess in themselves.
The *Synagogé* is often accompanied by the *Collectio LXXXVII Capitulorum*, sometimes augmented by the *Collectio XXV Capitulorum*, that is, by the *Collectio XXI Capitulorum*, enriched by four chapters containing Novels. Benešević believes that the author of the collection and its addition to the *Synagogé* was the same John the Scholastic. Later, the *Synagogé* was transformed into a *Nomocanon*; under the individual titles were placed texts drawn both from the *Collectio LXXXVII Capitulorum* and from other sources of civil law. But this probably occurred after the death of the patriarch.
c) The *Syntagma of XIV Titles*. The method employed by John Scholasticus was perfected by the author of another collection, written shortly afterwards (c. 580). The work is divided into two parts: the first comprises 14 titles, subdivided into 329 chapters, in which the actual text of the canons is not given, but only a reference to them. The second part contains the "chronological" collection of the canons. In this way it became possible not only to specify the subject matter much more precisely, but also to cite the canons as often as desired without encumbering the text. Moreover, new sources were included in the collection, in particular the canons of the Council of Constantinople (394) and that of Carthage (419), and those of twelve Holy Fathers, including St Basil with all three of his canonical letters. At the end the author added a collection of civil laws concerning ecclesiastical matters, the so-called *Collectio constitutionum ecclesiasticarum* (also called the *Collectio tripartita* or *Paratitia*). Nothing precise is known about the author.
In the year 629 or 630 the work underwent an important transformation (see II. IX, ch. 1). A jurist, apparently living in Constantinople and identified in the title N, ch. 10 with the so-called *Enantiofhanes*, a figure known in Byzantine law, transformed the *Syntagma* into a *Monacone*, inserting brief extracts or epitomised texts of civil laws (drawn, however, not from the Tripartite Collection but from other compilations) under the respective chapters of the first part of the collection. He also added to the *Monacone* four Novels of Heraclius and the canons of St Gregory Nazianzen and St Athanasius.
Subsequently, both the *Syntagma* and the *Monacone of XIV Titles* were often transcribed, either in full or in their separate parts, and were variously augmented, transformed, etc. The Fathers of the Council in Trullo (691–92), in establishing their second canon, had in their possession a collection corresponding to the already augmented "chronological" part of the *Syntagma*. In 883, under the patriarchate of Photius, a second recension of the *Monacone* was made, which, however, merely added the councils held in the meantime. The question whether the patriarch himself took part in this work is debated. In any case, the *Monacone* soon began to circulate under his name. A third edition, which, however, did not achieve wide diffusion, was produced by Theodore Bestes in 1090 at the order of the logothete Michael, with the aim of indicating throughout the place in the Basilica that corresponded to the Justinianic citations of the sources. The Council of Union of 920 accorded official authority to the *Monacone*. Even more important was the fact that the great Byzantine commentators wrote their commentaries on the *Monacone*: Zonaras on its "chronological" part, Balsamon on both parts. Today the *Monacone of XIV Titles* is the most authoritative collection of Byzantine ecclesiastical law and is so regarded by all the dissident Churches of the Byzantine rite.
d) The *Synopsis of Sacred Canons*. Alongside the great collections of canons there arose in the 6th century a collection containing the abridged text of the canons, which included not only the Apostolic Canons but also those of the ten synods, the canons of the Council of Carthage, and the three canonical letters of St Basil. In the manuscripts it is attributed to various authors: Stephen of Ephesus (6th century), Simeon the Logothete (10th century), and Alexis Aristenus, of whom the first was probably the original author, while the others produced new recensions. Aristenus wrote a much-esteemed commentary on the *Synopsis* for its clarity and conciseness. It enjoyed wide diffusion even beyond the boundaries of the Byzantine Empire.
e) The *Syntagma kata stoicheion* (*Syntagma alphabeticum*). The *Monacone of XIV Titles*, with the commentaries of Zonaras and Balsamon, was addressed to persons of a certain ecclesiastical learning. In the final period of the empire, when alongside political power the level of education had declined, there was a desire for a clear, brief, and easily consultable manual of canon law for clerics. Such a book was written in 1335 by the hieromonk Matthew Blastares, who apparently resided in Thessalonica. The work is divided, according to the number of letters in the Greek alphabet, into 24 parts, subdivided into 303 chapters; the subjects are arranged alphabetically.
In addition to the canons of the councils and the Holy Fathers, and some citations from Zonaras and Balsamon, it also contains provisions of secular law on civil matters that might most interest a cleric, an addition that gave it particular value. All this is presented in an abridged form and, as a rule, without detailed indication of the source. The great favour with which the book was received is shown by the fact that it was translated into many languages: modern Greek, Slavonic, Serbian, Russian, etc.
f) The *Monacone of Manuel Malaxos*. This work already belongs to the period of Turkish domination. Malaxos, a notary of the metropolitan of Thebes, wrote his book at Nauplia in 1561. To the first edition in literary language, of which three copies survive today, he added a version in modern Greek (1562–63), of which more than 300 manuscripts are known today, with many more likely to be added. The first edition seems to have contained 580 canons; the number in the second edition varies between 203 and 694, a variation doubtless due to the copyists of the work. It is not the intrinsic value of the collection—beside canons it also contains information on geography, meteorology, and philosophy—but its accessibility to all that explains its great diffusion.
g) The *Synopsis canonum*. To meet the needs of their time, the two Athonite monks Nicodemus and Agapios compiled at the end of the 18th century a manual of canons, accompanied by a commentary, a "concordance" of the canons, and notes. The book was printed in 1800 in Leipzig. It enjoyed official authority in the patriarchate of Constantinople and in Greece. It was reprinted several times and in 1844 also in Romanian at the Neamț Monastery.
h) Other collections. A *Synopsis canonum*, a work of no great merit, was unfortunately printed twice; its author, a monk of Mount Athos named Arsenius, has been unreasonably identified with the patriarch of the same name (1254–61, 1261–64). More complete, though brief and simple, is the *Epitome* *ton kanonon* of Constantine Harmenopoulos, a judge of Thessalonica and well-known author of the *Hexabiblos* or *Epitome ton nomon* (1345). It treats in six books successively of bishops, priests, deacons and subdeacons, minor clerics, monks and monasteries, laity, and women.
Under Turkish rule, in 1645, the collection entitled *He Baktrisis ton archieron* (*The Staff of the Bishops*) was composed by the archimandrite James of Yanina at the behest of Patriarch Parthenius. Following the arrangement of Blastares, the author greatly surpassed him in the scope of the work: it contains 1,274 chapters. It was used in the Balkans and especially among the Romanians after a Romanian version had been made in 1754. It was never printed.
There are other collections still to be mentioned, both printed, such as the *Kanonikon* of the monk Christopher (Constantinople 1800), and those remaining in archives; but they have not exercised a lasting influence.
2. Melkite collections
The juridical history of the three "Oriental" patriarchates of Alexandria,Jerusalem is little explored. There is no doubt that the canons of the ecumenical and local councils were known and applied there, but there is no reliable data on the reception or otherwise of certain collections.
Only later, according to recent research, does a collection proper to the Melkites appear, which in manuscripts from the 12th to the 18th century shows characteristics that distinguish it overall from the others; the canons of the Council of Nicaea are placed after those of Ancyra and Neocaesarea, the Arabic pseudo-Nicene canons, the spiritual canons, the canons of Epiphanius, the apocryphal canons of Basil, the second series of canons of the Second Council of Nicaea (i.e., in fact, the Collectio LXXXVII capitulorum), the Prócheiros Nómos, etc., are added. There are connections with Chaldean and Coptic collections, but they have not been sufficiently explored to allow a definitive judgment.
3. Bulgarian and Serbian collections
During the early period after the conversion of the country, the Bulgarian Church displayed lively activity in the field of translating ecclesiastical books from Greek into Church Slavonic, following the impulse given by the disciples of SS. Cyril and Methodius. Many of these translations found their way into Russia, where they facilitated the task of founding a Slavonic-rite Church. However, nothing is known of Bulgarian versions of the more important works of canon law. Later, according to circumstances and times, the Bulgarians made use of Greek works or translations and editions made by their neighbours.The Serbs likewise initially referred to Byzantine writings. But at the beginning of the 13th century, Sava, who was later to become the founder of the autocephalous Serbian Church and its first archbishop, during his stay in the Hilandar monastery on Mount Athos, compiled a new collection in Slavonic, the so-called Kormčaja Kniga, which included not the full text of the canons but the epitomised text of the Synagma, apud canonum, together with, for the most part, the commentary of Aristinos, and also many documents of later Byzantine legislation, synodal decrees of the patriarchs of Constantinople, the Novels of Alexios I Komnenos, responses of bishops or other canonists, etc. Manuscripts of this work, with various recensions, are still preserved today.
No less important for practice became the Slavonic version of the Alphabetical Synagma of Matthew Blastares, made before the end of the 14th century. In recent times the Serbian Church has also made use of Russian and Greek editions of the canons.
4. Russian collections
Already in the 11th and 12th centuries the principal collections translated into Church Slavonic were circulating in Russia, in particular the Synagogé of 50 titles (in the version probably made by St Methodius himself) and the Synagma of 14 titles. In time, especially the latter, it was augmented by many other documents, ecclesiastical orders, treatises, responses of metropolitans, statutes of princes, etc., of Russian origin. On the other hand, Metropolitan Cyril II obtained in 1270 (1262?) from the Bulgarian despot Jacob Svetoslav the Serbian Kormčaja Kniga, which was read and recommended at the Synod of Vladimir (1274).Thus two families of manuscripts of the Kormčaja Kniga were formed: one with the full text of the canons and additions of Russian origin, the other with the epitomised text with Byzantine sources. When, on account of the innumerable divergences and serious corruptions that had gradually disfigured the text, a reform became necessary around the middle of the 17th century, the dominant tendency in Russia and the Russian Church, which sought a rapprochement with the customs of the Greek Church, decided in favour of printing the Serbian Kormčaja. It was printed, with only minor changes, in 1650 by Patriarch Joseph. But as soon as the work was finished Joseph died, and his successor Nikon, a pious but authoritarian man, withdrew the copies already distributed, under the pretext of wishing to correct inaccuracies, and in 1653 published another edition in which there are few changes, concerning especially the treatises placed at the beginning and end of the work. The 70 chapters contained almost exclusively documents of Byzantine provenance. Alongside the canons of the councils in the text of the Synopsis, of the 14 titles, of responses of bishops, etc., there are also the Donatio Constantini — as proof of the superiority of the Church over the State — Byzantine codes such as the Ecloga of the Isaurian emperors, the Prócheiros Nómos of Basil I, novels, polemical treatises against the Latins, in chapter 50 an instruction on marriage, which includes an extract from the Romanum Rituale of Paul V.
The Kormčaja Kniga remained the official law book even in the following centuries (the “Old Believers” instead adhered to Joseph’s Kormčaja, of which they secretly made new editions). However, with the progress of ecclesiastical culture in Russia, its deficiencies became apparent, and so in 1830 the Most Holy Synod procured the edition in Slavonic of the complete text of the canons, the Kniga pravil. From that time the practical authority of the Kormčaja Kniga greatly diminished.
5. Romanian collections
After the formation of the two Danubian principalities, the Romanian Church remained for a long time under the influence of both the Byzantines and the Serbs. The Slavonic version of the Alphabetical Synagma of Blastares was particularly used and esteemed. From the second half of the 16th century the Romanians, first in Transylvania (through the work of the deacon Coresius), then also in the principalities, began to publish some minor penitential works. In 1652, with the approval of Prince Matthew Basarab in Târgoviște, the Indreptarea legii (= Nomocanon), also called Pravila cea Mare, an ecclesiastical rather than civil code, was published; it remained officially the code of the Romanian Church up to our own day. The first part contains 417 canons, of which 314 are taken from the Nomocanon of Malaxos, 103 from the code of Prince Basil Lupu of Moldavia (1646). The second part gives the Synopsis canonum with the commentary of Aristinos. The text of both parts, however, often has the character of a paraphrase rather than a literal translation.For some time the Bakteria, translated into Romanian in the 18th century, and the Pedalion, published in 1844 in a Romanian version at the Neamț monastery, also enjoyed great favour.
6. Georgian collections
Despite the frequent cultural and literary relations that Georgia had from the time of its conversion with Armenia and Palestine, a version of the canons in the Georgian language is known only from the period of greatest Byzantine influence. It was still St Euthymius (d. 1028), the indefatigable translator of the Iviron (= Georgian) monastery on Mount Athos, who besides the penitential Nomocanon of John the Faster gave his fellow-countrymen in Georgian also the canons of the Council in Trullo. Controversial is the date of the version of the “Great Georgian Nomocanon”, i.e. the Nomocanon of 14 titles. Kekelidze estimates that it was translated by Arsenius Iqlathoeli towards the end of the 11th century, while others, notably Beneševič, maintain that a version already existed in the 10th century and that Arsenius made only an improved version. Later collections were also made of the canons of national councils and of the katholikoi.They were later included in the great collection of the Georgian laws compiled by King Vakhtang VI at the end of the 17th century.
1983 CANONICAL COLLECTIONS — COLLIER ARTHUR 1984
These sources, as well as the pseudo-apostolic collections, e.g., the Syriac Octateuchos, were later used by Barheaeus, the greatest writer of the Syriac (Monophysite) Church, to compile his “Book of Directions,” divided into 40 chapters, of which the first eight deal with ecclesiastical law, the others with civil, criminal, and procedural law. This Nomocanon has remained the code of the Jacobite Syrians to this day.
The same applies to the Jacobite Malankaresi, that is, that part of the Christians of St. Thomas in southern India which in the 17th century placed itself under the jurisdiction of the Jacobite patriarch of Antioch.
7. The Maronite collections
The Maronites also received their canonical collection in the Middle Ages. A metropolitan named David, whom many wished to regard as the author, seems rather to have been the translator of this “Book of Direction” (1058-59). The sources are those found in similar collections: the canons of the ecumenical and local councils up to that of Chalcedon (only one canon from Ephesus), the 23 canons attributed to the Council of Constantinople, the 130 “canons of the emperors Constantine, Theodosius, and Leo,” i.e., the “Syro-Roman Book,” etc. The Maronites also made much use of the Nomocanon of as-Safi.IV. COLLECTIONS OF THE ARMENIAN RITE: V. ARMENIA.
V. COLLECTIONS OF THE CHALDEAN RITE
The Church of the Persian Empire seems to have received the canons of Nicaea (and perhaps also those of the local councils and of Constantinople) from Mārūtā, bishop of Maiperqat, when, as a Byzantine ambassador, he came to Persia for the second time and reformed the Chaldean Church (409-10). The national synods themselves issued decrees and canons. Thus was formed the material, which was collected, it seems, by the patriarch Timothy I (780-823) in the book of the Synodikon.Later collections, compiled by private individuals, drew heavily on the Synodikon, adding to it the decrees of recent synods and of the Katholikoi and the decisions and responses of other ecclesiastical authorities of great standing. An Arabic version of the Synodikon, with many omissions, was made by Eliya, metropolitan of Damascus (after 1893; — Eliya al-Gawhari?). The same sources, but according to different criteria, were used in the collection of ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ṭayyib, philosopher, physician, and priest of the 11th century (d. 1043). But all his predecessors were surpassed by the metropolitan ʿAbdīshōʿ (Ebedjesu) of Nisibis (d. 1318). In his “Epitome of Synodal Canons” (also called a Nomocanon) and in his “Order of Ecclesiastical Judgments,” he provides a systematic exposition of the canons, introduced and accompanied by personal observations. At the synod of 1318 his work was officially approved by the Nestorian Church. Even today it remains the most authoritative collection.
Among the Catholic Malabars, i.e., the Christians of St. Thomas united with the Catholic Church since the 16th century, the collections mentioned are unknown and perhaps never came into use.