PSEUDO-Isidore, Cod. Var. lat. 1341, f. 160r (11th century).
PSEUDO-Isidore, Cod. var. Lat. 1341, f.
This collection enjoyed wide diffusion throughout the Carolingian Empire and contained the canons of the general and particular councils of the various regions of the Church: the East, Africa, Gaul, and Spain; and in the second part, a series of decretals of the popes from Damasus to Gregory the Great. This collection had undergone, in Gaul—probably in not a few manuscripts—a very profound alteration regarding the integrity of the texts. This form of the Hispana is called the Hispana Gallica and owes its origin to an unintentional corruption.
The Pseudo-Isidorian forgers made use of it to create another form of the Hispana, the so-called Hispana Augustodunensis, which represents the first work of the group, consisting in the systematic interpolation of the genuine texts with precise aims pursued by the reformers; and which was to serve as the preparation for the principal of the Pseudo-Isidorian collections, namely the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.
These, generally called the Pseudo-Isidorian, thus present themselves as the Hispana chronologica, augmented and further falsified. A first, truly new part consists of a series of decretals of the Roman pontiffs from Clement I to Melchiades (90–114); the second part corresponds to the first of the Hispana (canons of the councils), and the third part reproduces the second of the Hispana and includes the decretals increased in number (from Sylvester to Gregory II: 314–731).
It was necessary, however, to prove to temporal lords that the same principles contained in ecclesiastical documents had been upheld by the most famous Carolingians. For this reason, the same reformers compiled a collection of royal ordinances, called the Capitularies (especially those of Pepin, Charlemagne, and Louis the Pious), which a certain Benedictus Levita of Mainz claimed to have discovered. These ordinances were arranged in three books, which were to be added to the four books of the (genuine) collection of Ansegisus already in existence. A little later, four Additiones followed.
Meanwhile, another small collection had been made under the name of the Capitula Angilramni (v. ANGILRAMNO), which contained texts concerning the issue of the forum of clerics and the right to accuse them.
These four collections may be called the concrete fruit of Pseudo-Isidorian activity. The falsifications they produced are of varying quality and quantity. In the first place, they consist of purely formal interpolations that render the texts linguistically smoother and more intelligible. In the second place, they affect the substance itself, in that they restrict, extend, or vary the meaning of the provisions contained in the genuine texts, attribute original texts to other material sources (e.g., provisions of ecclesiastical authority to civil authority or vice versa; texts of the Holy Fathers to councils or to the Roman pontiffs; above all, provisions of later popes to popes who lived centuries earlier). Finally, there are also texts fabricated out of whole cloth, though composed of genuine fragments. These are found especially among the decretals of the Roman pontiffs: the entire series (60) of the first part of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and many (over 40) of the series in the third part. In this work of fabricating papal decretals, the forgers proceeded with the utmost circumspection: they did not invent and attribute texts at will, but, drawing on historical sources—especially the Liber Pontificalis—they reconstructed documents of which historical notices had been preserved, adhering to the tenor and terms of such notices.
Through these interpolations and falsifications, the intentions of the forgers may be discerned. While drawing on material that embraces the entire ecclesiastical discipline, they insist in particular on the radical points that were to ensure a lasting reform of the historical conditions mentioned above. They thus sought to free the Church—and in particular the bishops—from every form of interference, combating everything that diminished their authority: any right of laymen to judge or even merely to accuse clerics; the same from the part of inferior clerics with regard to their superiors; any excessive power of the metropolitan, who too often, being a creature of the temporal lord, took the side of the latter against the well-intentioned bishop; the power of chorepiscopi; and even synods insofar as they were often instruments of metropolitans and of persons subservient to the enemies of reform.
The period of elaboration of the collections that may be called the spurious Carolingian reform was relatively brief. From internal and external criteria, especially of usage, it may be concluded that they were composed between the extreme limits of 847–85 and 857–87, but very probably between 847–85 and 857–87, in this order: the Hispana of Autun, the Capitula Angilramni, the Capitularia Benedicti Levitae with the Additiones, and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.
The place of origin is still debated today: the thesis, evidently inspired by sectarian prejudices and resting on a superficial evaluation of the exaltation of the Roman primacy found in the collections, of a Roman origin has been abandoned by all. The thesis of a Mainz origin has also been largely set aside, at least for the final work. Three hypotheses remain, each defended by its adherents, though none is supported by arguments strong enough to prevail over those of the others. Some place the origin in Le Mans in the province of Tours, others in Reims; recently, they have been attributed to the court chapel of Charles the Bald.
Closely connected is the still more enigmatic problem of the identity of P.-I. It is now agreed that this cannot have been a single man, but a group of forgers. Among this group there must have been, whether as leaders or executors, the most intelligent and learned men of the time, the most profound connoisseurs of the Latin language and its style in various historical periods and in different chanceries. The entire work of falsification presupposes supreme expertise. It is certain, too, that the name Benedictus Levita, like that of Isidorus Mercator (Mercatus, Peccator), are pseudonyms, probably chosen with skill to conceal the deception and divert attention—surely the case in the combination of Isidorus (meant to evoke the memory of the great Isidore of Seville) with Mercator, an epithet suggesting another man, Marius Mercator, a writer of the 5th century, to whom the opening words of the introduction allude precisely (cf. Hirschius [V. infra], 17 and PL 48, 753).
The fate of the collections varied according to place and time. The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals spread rapidly, at least the texts that reproduced papal decretals, beyond the Alps. On this side of the Alps they enjoyed considerable and generally peaceful recognition, though not without some opposition, only from the time of the Gregorian reform. From then on, for four centuries they maintained an almost uncontested dominance. Despite occasional doubts raised from time to time about their genuineness, it was not until the 15th century, through the work of the humanists, that their falsification was recognized and proven. The other collections, having enjoyed less widespread success, persisted longer: it was only in the last century that the spurious origin and nature of the other three were definitively recognized as belonging to the same Pseudo-Isidorian workshop.
As regards the influence exerted by this bold forgery on ecclesiastical discipline and the evolution of Church law, it may be observed that the forgers generally did nothing more than “codify” what was in fact the normal persuasion and usage of the time, which could not have caused any surprise to find in the provisions of well-intentioned and exemplary ecclesiastical and civil authorities. The influence of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals on discipline can therefore be described as partly only formal, inasmuch as it gave form, reduced to writing, in spurious positive laws, what materially existed both in the principles of ancient discipline and in the practice of all genuine Christians, which at that time, owing to the circumstances, did not find the legitimate legislative authority respected and operative.
In addition to this purely formal influence, it also exercised a more substantial one. In the first sense, it gave an impetus, according to the more or less weighty individual heads, to a further evolution in a particular direction of certain legal institutions (for example, to the elimination of corporal punishment, to the limitation of metropolitan power, to a renewed practice of clerical privileges, to the use of appeal, to ecclesiastical procedural practice, etc.). In a second sense, it sought to introduce new norms deemed necessary, which the forgers took care to demonstrate as conforming to the principles of ancient discipline (prohibition on laymen to accuse clerics, restitution of the spoils before beginning a trial against the accused, permission from Rome for the celebration of synods, intervention of the Pope for a definitive sentence of deposition against a bishop); now precisely these points, because they were new applications, struggled to gain acceptance and in part were not accepted.
This demonstrates that the apocryphal documents did not constitute, as a whole, a substantial novelty, but were, rather, in line with the ancient universal law represented by the more famous and authoritative compilations revived or occasioned by the genuine Carolingian reform, such as the Dionysio-Hadriana, the Hispana, and the Dacheriana.
In this same line of thought, the Roman Primacy in the Pseudo-Isidorian collections must be judged: not only do these not create it, but they presuppose it, being a clear testimony to its existence in the conviction of contemporaries. The texts that exalt it are not aimed at an end in themselves, but constitute a means to achieve the ends of the reform. The Roman Primacy was therefore considered by the forgers to be the most effective instrument for the success of their enterprise, and they exploited it to the full, making it the pivot of their action. If a provision was found throughout the tradition of the Papal Decretals, it had to be genuinely ecclesiastical and therefore observed. They knew, therefore, that this conviction was so widespread that nothing else was needed to secure obedience. It is true, however, that this insistent appeal to the Roman Primacy greatly favoured its authority and exercise; and in this sense it must be said that the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals contributed significantly to its development, understood as practical affirmation.
This judgment on the Pseudo-Isidorian influence at this particular point and regarding the evolution of the entire law of the Church is, moreover, shared by scholars of all confessions. Not for the history of canon law itself, but for the history of collections, the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals constitute a milestone. Suffice it, for all, the unexceptionable thought of one of the most distinguished and competent in this field, E. Seckel: with the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, he says, a new period indeed begins in the history of the sources, but not a new epoch in the law of the Church.
Editions: the Hispana Augustodunensis is unpublished; it is found in ms. codex Vat. lat. 1341; G. H. Pertz, Capitularia Benedicti Levitae in MGH, Leges, II, part 2, Hanover 1837, p. 17 ff.; also in PL 97, 698 ff.; P. Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo-Isidoriianae et Capitula Angliarami, Leipzig 1863. PL 130, 1 ff. contains the unsatisfactory edition of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals by Merlinus, Coll. Concil., Cologne 1530.
Bibliography: for specialized bibliography and a more detailed treatment V. the following works: E. Seckel, Pseudo-Judor, in Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, XVI, 3rd ed., pp. 265-307; P. Fournier - G. Le Bras, Histoire des collections canoniques en Occident, I, Paris 1931, pp. 127-233; A. van Hove, Prolegomena, 2nd ed., Malines-Rome 1945, pp. 300-311; A. M. Stickler, Historia iuris canonici latini, I, Historia Pontificum, Turin 1950, pp. 117-42. Alfonso M. Stickler