One calls Fausses décrétales or Pseudo-Isidoriana a collection of Décrétale S pseudépigraphes, wrongfully allotted to a certain Isidore Mercator, itself a long time confused with Isidore of Seville. Written in the Thirties and Forties of the 9th century, the Fausses décrétales constitute one of the most important sources of canonical Droit medieval.

Composition

The anonymous compiler covers name of a fictitious bishop “Isidorus Mercator”, tradionnellement called “pseudo-Isidore”. It gathers best preceding collections ( Hispana or Dionysio-Hadriana and Quesnelliana ) but also a forged hundred décrétales of all parts. The collection belongs to a whole group making surface about the middle of the 9th century in the ecclesiastical province of Rheims. Very recently, Klaus Zechiel-Eckes identified the monastery of Corbie (close to Amiens) like the seat of the workshop of the forgers, by showing that the forgers employed a number of manuscripts of the library of this abbey. By these discoveries the old assumptions which wanted to see with Tours, Rheims, Mainz or with Rome the fatherland of pseudo-isidoriens forgeries thus do not have any more a scientific value.

Regarded as authentic until the 17th century, the collection knows a very great diffusion as of the pontificate of Nicolas I {{er}} (858-867). It is supplanted only at the 12th century, by the '' Décret '' of Gratien. We know today a good hundred manuscripts going back to 9th until the 18th century from the collection.

The collection belongs to a whole whole of forgeries, all resulting from the same workshop. Let us note the Hispana Gallica Augustodunensis , a falsified form of the Collectio Hispana , the Capitulaires of Benoit the Levite and the Capitula Angilramni . Recently, two other texts were identified like products of the same workshop, namely an anthology of the acts of the Concile of Chalcédoine transmitted in certain numbers of manuscripts of False Décrétales and the Collectio Danieliana , a mixed corn of texts on the criminal procedures in ecclesiastical right, transmitted in only one manuscript of Burgerbibliothek of Bern.

The collection consist in its most complete shape of an about sixty décretales, all forged, the first three century old popes of the Christian era, then councils Greek, African, Gallic and visigothic, such as they are contained in the Collectio Hispana , (but with certain falsifications), finally of a collection of décrétales of the popes Sylvestre I {{er}} with Gregoire II. In this last part one finds parts (sometimes falsified and interpolated) resulting from the Collections Hispana, Dionysio-Hadriana and Quesnelliana as well as good about thirty papal Letters falsified by the pseudo-Isidoriens workshop.

Context

It seems that the animated history of the frank Empire in the Thirties of the 9th century forms the background of the pseudo-Isidorien complex. In 833 the emperor Louis Débonnaire was private of his imperial rights by his own sons, supported by part of the episcopate anxious to guarantee his rights and his autonomy. A few months later, fortune changed: Louis regained the throne. These upheaval policies had very unpleasant consequences for the bishops of Francia who had taken part in the deposition of Louis: Inter alia Agobard of Lyon, Ebon of Rheims and Jesse of Amiens lost their episcopal sees, were imprisoned (like Ebon) or forced in exile like Agobard or Jesse which died in the consequence of its exile. The synod of Thionville deposited Ebon of rather summary Rheims of manner. It is in this circle to which also the abbot Wala de Corbie that belonged should be sought the forgers. Mr. Zechiel-Eckes gathered a number of indices which imply Paschasius Radbertus, itself monk with Corbie and one of the successors of Wala, like one of the protagonists of the workshop.

One of the principal goals of the forgers is the protection of the bishop in criminal procedure. The charges against the évèques ones are purely prohibited in certain texts. Any indicter of a bishop is threatened of eternal sorrows in Enfer. If a charge takes place all the same, the plaintiff must be irreproachable at all points of sights. The marked bishop must initially be restored in all his rights, it has the right to almost at will prolong the time of opening of the lawsuit. If the lawsuit is opened, it has the right to ask to change place, to choose the judges himself, 72 witnesses, all ecclesiastics of well-sure episcopal level, are necessary to convince it of culpability, etc… If he considers it convenient, he can call some with other judges or the the Holy See at any moment of the procedure. It is understood easily that the judgment of a bishop is practically excluded under these conditions, since the defendant is judge and part.

Other concerns of the forgers are the orthodoxe faith, especially with regard to the Trinité and the relations between the Father and the Son, the inviolability of the ecclesiastical goods, certain aspects of the Liturgie and the Sacrement S, (Eucharistie and Baptême).

Posterity of the text

A relatively large number of manuscripts of the 9th century is proof of the fast propagation of the forgeries especially in France and Italy but also in the valley of the Rhine. On the other hand, the canonical collections of 9th and 10th centuries, except the Collectio Anselmo dedicata (septentrional Italy) and of Réginon de Prum (Germany Western), noted False Décrétales little. This changes at the 11th century with the Réforme known as Gregorian. The close relationships between the évèques ones and the pope as described in the décrétales are an argument of choice for the reformers in their fight against the simony. The canonical collections of right redécouvrent False Décrétales and some of them are even extracts of Décrétales with only some texts coming from other sources. This development continues until the Decree of Gratien (about 1140). The Decree gains soon a autoritative reputation as regards canonical right and replaces all the former collections. Only at the time of the Great Schism of Occident and of the reforming councils, therefore with 14th and 15th centuries, False Décrétales regain the interest of the cononists and are recopied and read again.

During the the Middle Ages, the canonists took False Décrétales like perfectly authentic texts. Only, at the 9th century, archévèque the Hincmar of Rheims, seems to have had its suspicions - or perhaps it knew some more than it did not judge political to admit. This attitude changes during the 15th century. Nicholas de Cues, which had copied a specimen of False Décrétales itself (manuscript 52 of the Cusanus Foundation) noticed some Anachronisme S: was it really credible that the pope Martyr Clément Ier would have based the preeminence of certain episcopal sees on the fact that the pagan ones, them, had their archpriests in these same cities?

During the Reform of the 16th century, the attacks became more systematic: The Centuriatores Magdeburgenses assembled arguments against the authenticity of Décrétales. But it was necessary to wait until 1628 when David Blondel, preacher reformed with Geneva, provides the final proof: so-called the first three century old popes quoted the Writing according to the version Vulgate, which was born only a long time after their death. Catholic share there were still certain operations of rear-guard, but at the latest at the beginning of the 19th century no serious theologist more expressed doubts on falsification.

Editions of the text

The history of the editions of False Décrétales is far D `to be the history of a success of the scholars. The first edition appeared in 1525 by the care of Jacques Merlin who simply reproduced a manuscript probably of the 13th century of a late form of False Décrétales. In 1863, Paul Hinschius made appear after only two years and half of preparation his edition Decretales Pseudoisidorianæ and Capitula Angilramni . An extraordinary completion for the time, the edition however suffers from three serious disadvantages. Initially Hinschius méjugé the date of its manuscripts and did not thus take as bases of its édtion the best manuscripts. Then it ignored the fact that the parts containing authentic texts in False Décrètales themselves are contaminated of drafting and falsifications and thus reprinted for these texts the editiones vulgares . Finally, one can trust everywhere neither with his text nor with his critical notes: the speed of work left its traces. A new edition is in the train in the series of the Monumenta Germaniæ Historica by the care of Karl-Georg Schon and Klaus Zechiel-Eckes.

The handwritten tradition groups into six or even seven different versions: Most complete called by Hinschius “A1” contains the three parts mentioned above (handwritten most important Vat. Ottob lat. 9th century, Eastern France); a second version quite as important is the class called “A/B” with the ms. Vat. lat. 630 at the head (9th century, Scriptorium de Corbie); the version known as of Cluny (only décrétales), whose original manuscript survived: New Haven Beinecke Library 442 (France, after 858); the version known as “short” (Hinschius “A2”) with the manuscript Rome Biblioteca Vallicelliana D.38 at the head (9th century, ecclesiastical province of Rheims); the class called “B” by Hinschius, probably dating from the 12th century and the North of France (handwritten EP Boulogne-sur-Mer bibl. mun. 115); the class called “C” by Hinschius, dating it-also from 12th or perhaps from the 11th century; finally the mixed shape of elements of short version and the version known as of Cluny perhaps dating from the 11th century. It seems well that a1 versions, A/B, A2 and the version known as of Cluny are all the four exits of the workshop of the forgers themselves.

See too