only in ecclesial courts and only for cases relating to canon law, putting an end to the mixture between civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. It is no coincidence that Dante Alighieri writes that he helped "one and the other forum", that is, he separated the canonical jurisdiction from the civil one. Gratian's work was an attempt, using early scholastic method, to reconcile seemingly contradictory canons from previous centuries. Gratian quoted a great number of authorities, including the Bible, papal and conciliar legislation, church fathers such as Augustine of Hippo, and secular law in his efforts to reconcile the canons. Gratian found a place in Dante's Paradise among the doctors of the Church: He has long been acclaimed as (Latin: "Father of Canon Law"), a title he shares with his successor St. Raymond of Penyafort. Gratian was the father and the first teacher of the which he himself coined: the new canon law or . Many of his disciples have become highly renowned canonists. Textual history The vulgate version of Gratian's collection was completed at some point after the Second Council of the Lateran of 1139, which it quotes. Research by Anders Winroth established that some manuscripts of an early version of Gratian's text, which differs considerably from the mainstream textual tradition, have survived. With later commentaries and supplements, the work was incorporated into the . The quickly became the standard textbook for students of canon law throughout Europe, but it never received any formal, official recognition by the papacy. Only the of 1917 put it out of use. As late as 1997, scholars commonly set the date of completion at 1140, but this accuracy in dating is not possible after Anders Winroth's groundbreaking scholarship. Winroth's research shows that the existed in two published recensions. The first dates to sometime after 1139, while the second dates to 1150 at the latest. There are several major differences between the two recensions: The first recension is a more coherent and analytical work. The second recension places a much greater emphasis on papal primacy and power. The second recension includes Roman law extracts taken directly from the , whereas the first recension does not demonstrate substantial familiarity with Roman jurisprudence. These differences led Winroth to conclude that Roman law was not as far developed by 1140 as scholars had previously thought. He has also argued that the second recension was due not to the original