RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals
Benedict's work bears the mark of an earlier and preparatory effort of the Pseudo-Isidorian circle, incited by the same conditions and en- 4. Motive, vironment (see § 5, below). It is not Tendency, possible to identify the author more and definitely, and it has long been recog- Authorship. nized that " Benedict the Levite " is a pseudonym. Unlike " Isidore Mercator," it appears to have no reference to any actual personage; hence it is inadmissible to speak of the " Pseudo-Benedict." The additions (especially iv.) have been thought to be by another hand (see § 5, below) ; but there seems to be no convincing argument to establish a change of authorship.
Like the Pseudo-Isidore, Benedict sets all sorts of restrictions in the way of charges against clerics, especially bishops, and makes a verdict against a bishop on actual trial almost impossible; he grants the exceptio spolii, but somewhat less developed. Provincial synods and metropolitans are subordinated to the pope. The activity of the chorepiscopi is restricted and their complete suppression is demanded, although here again Benedict does not go so far as the Pseudo-Isidore. Predatory secularization is attacked with vehemence, and the reformer seeks to augment ecclesiastical revenues by arbitrarily increasing the taxes. In the realm of marriage law he violently opposed consanguineous unions. Secular jurisdiction over the clergy is annulled, but bishops are allowed to interfere in suits between laymen; worldly laws contrary to spiritual are invalid, and the king who infringes the canons or tolerates their infringement is subject to anathema; the emperor may undertake nothing contrary to the mandata divina. Here Benedict was confronted by a dilemma; the aim of his falsifications was to establish certain rights of the clergy on the authority of secular laws, and he had made them inapplicable. He accordingly set up the theory that laws of the State concerning the Church become valid only when they receive ecclesiastical approval; and by direct statement and inference he tried to convey the impression that the capitularies of his collection had been given papal or synodal confirmation.
Benedict's collection is first cited in the capitulary of Quiercy of Feb. 14, 857 (MGH., Cap., ii., 1890, 290). Thenceforth it appears in synodal acts (Quiercy, 858, etc.), in laws (capitularies of 860, 862, 864, etc.), in literature (Hincmar and others), and in collections of canons (from Herard, archbishop of Tours, 858, to Gratian) on a
5. History par with Ansegis. Its influence was
and Relation greater in West than in East Fran-
to other conia or in Italy, and can not be com-
Forgeries. pared with that of the Pseudo-Isidoriana. Pierre Pithou, in his edition of 1588, first declared that many of Benedict's capitularies are false, and while his opinion did not find general acceptance, nearly all modern scholars believe Benedict's collection to be a conscious attempt to deceive. The Augustodunensis was one of Benedict's sources (cf., e.g., i. 401, iii. 109, 391). For his relation to Angilram, see III., above. His relation to the Pseudo-Isidoriana can not be dismissed with so few words. That at least the three books and additions (i., ii., iii.) preceded the Pseudo-Isidoriana seems indicated by the development evident in the latter (see § 4, above). The Pseudo- Isidoriana, therefore, can not have been one of Benedict's sources, though the capitularies of the latter may have been used by the Pseudo-Isidore, and the internal evidence of both works accords with the assumption here implied, even though some scholars assume common sources for the two col-
lections. Addition iv. is peculiar in that it cites certain false decretals which are not found in the Pseudo-Isidoriana or which, if found there, are attributed to different popes; apparently the final revision of the forgeries had not been made in 848. The relation of addition iv. to the Pseudo-Isidoriana (and to Angilram) needs further investigation.
V. Certain General Considerations : The close relations between all the forgeries have led many to believe that " Isidore Mercator " and " Benedict Levita " were one and thi same, or (the latter being thought to be an actual personage; see IV., § 4, above) that " Isidore " was Benedict. Against this hypothesis are (1) the differences between Benedict and Isidore in certain tendencies (see IV., § 4, above) and in skill of workmanship (the latter showing much greater aptitude in fitting his forgeries into their genuine framework), and (2) the doubt whether one man could have done the enormous amount of work involved in so short a time. Because of this doubt many later investigators have assumed a group of collaborators, all working in common on the four forgeries under the guidance of a leading spirit who furnished the ideas, or less compactly organized, the Pseudo-Isidore and Benedict, for example, working in comparative independence on the parts assigned to them under instructions which secured the harmonious execution of the general plan and meeting for consultation from time to time as the work proceeded. However this may have been, it is no longer possible to explain the resemblance merely by assuming the use of common sources and similarity in point of view and feelings on the part of the authors, or that one copied from another's work without personal communication.
Certain Roman Catholic scholars plead for a mild judgment of the Pseudo-Isidoriana on the ground that their aim and accomplishment was not innovation in canon law, but merely to give to the law as it was the authority of antiquity. Objections may be alleged against this point of view, but at the same time the effect of the forgeries on the development of the law must not be overestimated. Only when the Pseudo-Isidorian idf.as accorded with the spirit of the time and had external support did they prove of practical moment. If they augmented the papal power, they were not the only or the chief factor which produced that result. The attempts to exalt the bishops, to free the Church from lay domination, and to make all synods dependent on the pope proved abortive; the primacy constructed by the Pseudo-Isidore had no influence on the Church constitution. The right of appeal to the pope, however, was established (see Appeals to the Pope); the metropolitanate received a blow from which it never recovered; the chorepiscopi were suppressed in West Franconia; and the exceptio spolii became a part of canon and civil law.
(E. Seckel.)
Bibliography: The early ed. is in J. Merlin, Tomus primus quatuor conciliorum generalium, 2 vols., Paris, 1524 and Cologne, 1530, reprinted with prolegomena in MPL, cxxx.; a later ed. is P. Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo-I sidioranice et capitida Angilramni, Leipsic, 1863 (critical, from the oldest and best MSS.). Consult: F. Knust, De fontibus e
Psychical Research Psychotherapy