RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals
and method of the fabricator (see 3, below), and by the fact that Pseudo-Isidorian letters were unknown before 852.
The fabrications of the Pseudo-Isidore are not expressed in his own language, but consist of sentences, phrases, and words taken from older writings, genuine and apocryphal, set to- 3. Sources gether into a mosaic of about 10,000 and pieces. The excerpts are freely altered Method, and are sometimes given a sense directly opposite to the original, but by his method the Pseudo-Isidore sought to give to his ninth-century product the stamp of antiquity. The labor involved was enormous; and the search for the sources of the Pseudo-Isidore's excerpts (begun by David Blondel, 1628; continued by Hermann Knust, 1832, and Paul Hinschius, 1863; an additional source disclosed by the publication of the Irish collection of canons in 1874) has shown a reading on his part which is astonishing in its breadth and extent. He may have used abridgments and collections — such as florilegia or anthologies from the Bible, the Fathers, etc. — but, even so, he must be reckoned among the most learned men of the ninth century. The following are some of the sources drawn upon: (1) the Bible, extensively (Vulgate text, but with noteworthy variations); (2) the acts of forty-five or fifty synods and councils; (3) the decretals of twenty popes, mostly of the fifth and sixth centuries, none of the ninth; (4) Roman law (the extracts are sometimes attributed to the Council of NicaBa or the Apostles); (5) the Germanic Lex Wisigothorum;
(6) the capitularies of Frankish kings, sparingly;
(7) the Pcenitentiale Theodori and the Martenianum; (8) more than thirty Church Fathers and other writers, and letters of bishops and private individuals; (9) the " Donation of Constantine," the Liber pontificalis, the rules of Benedict and Chrodegang, etc.
Thus far the results of investigation have been definite and are generally accepted. The field of controversy is now entered with the questions of the date and place of origin of the collection. The recension A2 (perhaps Al) was used 4. Time by Hincmar of Reims in his Capitula and Place presbyteris of Nov. 1, 852, unless the of Origin, passage is a later interpolation, as is maintained (without good reason) by some scholars. It is certainly cited in the Admonitio (by Hincmar) of the capitulary of Quiercy, Feb. 14, 857 One of these dates, then— Nov. 1, 852, or Feb. 14, 857 — is the terminus ante quern of the publication of the collection, and its completion may be set a few months earlier. It is more difficult to fix the terminus post quern; but Benedict's capitularies were completed after Apr. 21, 847 (see IV., § 3, below); and when his fourth addition (admitted to be the latest part of his work) was written, the false decretals were not yet completed (see IV., §§ 3, 5, below). The autumn of 847 is perhaps the earliest date, and, all things considered, about 850 or 851 is the most probable date for the completion of the collection. How long a time was spent in its preparation can only be conjectured; but a cautious judgment will hardly set the birth-year of
the Pseudo-Isidorian idea earlier than 846 (see 5 and 6, below).
Concerning the place, it may be asserted with confidence that the Pseudo-Isidoriana originated in the Frankish realm. Earlier investigators believed in Mainz, but this hypothesis is now rejected, and later scholars, almost without exception, turn to the west; West-Frankish conditions about 847 are the necessary background of the Pseudo-Isidorian picture (see 5 and 6, below). In 1886 Bernhard Eduard Simson came forward as a vigorous supporter of Le Mans as the more specific place of origin, basing his hypothesis upon a comparison with two writings which are known to have originated in Le Mans (the Gesta domni Aldrici Cenomannicce urbis episcopi, ed. R. Charles and L. Froger, Mamers, 1889; and the Actus pontificum Cenomannis in urbe degentium, ed. G. Busson and A. Ledru in the Archives historiques du Maine, ii., Le Mans, 1901), and maintaining that they resembled all the Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries, in language and style, showed the same bias and tendency, and used the same sources. Later investigations have not been favorable to the hypothesis of Le Mans, and it is now discarded. Julius Weizsacker first suggested Reims, and Hinschius followed with acute and convincing arguments. The province of Reims (the archdiocese, not the diocese) is now regarded as having most in its favor and least to militate against it (see 6, below).
The Pseudo-Isidore himself declares (in the first sentence of his preface) that his aim was to " collect the canons, unite them in one volume, and make one of many " — a laudable endeavor, but not a justification of forgeries and falsifications. He added some genuine matter to his basis (see 2,
above) and so far may deserve the
5. Motives, praise of an honest compiler, even
Animus, though the genuine additions may
Tendency, have been intended to hide the false.
At all events, it is clear that it was not his purpose to produce a complete exposition of church discipline; many topics — the conferring of benefices, tithes, simony, monastic matters, some parts of the marriage law, etc. — he did not even touch upon. His main object was to emancipate the episcopacy, not only from the secular power, but also from the excessive influence of the metropolitans and the provincial synods; incidentally, as a means to this end, the chorepiscopi were to be suppressed, and the papal power was to be exalted. The Pseudo-Isidore's attitude and activity find their explanation only in the general conditions of the West-Frankish Church at the middle of the ninth century; and when these are understood, he appears in his true light, not one aiming to serve the ambition of any individual or to advance himself, but as the representative and spokesman of a party. The harmonious cooperation between Church and State under Charlemagne had given way under his successors to an antagonism between the secular and spiritual authorities. Disturbed conditions resulted from the civil wars under Louis the Pious and his sons. The bishops suffered in consequence and found themselves compelled to seek protection from the civil power, where they were exposed to
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals