Steffen Patzold, Gefälschtes Recht Aus Dem Frühmittelalter

FranciaRecensio 2016/4 Mittelalter – Moyen Âge (500–1500)

Steffen Patzold, Gefälschtes Recht aus dem Frühmittelalter. Untersuchungen zur Herstellung und Überlieferung der pseudoisidorischen Dekretalen, Heidelberg (Universitätsverlag Winter) 2015, 76 S. (Schriften der philosophisch historischen Klasse der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, 55), ISBN 9783825365110, EUR 24,00. rezensiert von/compte rendu rédigé par Eric Knibbs, Williamstown, MA

When Paul Hinschius produced the first modern edition of the »Decretales PseudoIsidorianae« in 1863, he defined the forms in which PseudoIsidore’s forgeries circulated in the Middle Ages. Thus opened a long and difficult discussion about the relative merits of the A1, A2, A/B, B and C recensions of the notorious »False Decretals«. Hinschius preferred A1, but in later years scholars weighed the merits of the short form known as A2, rediscovered the antiquity of A/B, and explored a peculiar subtype of A1 known as the Cluny Version. For Hinschius, the B and C recensions were later derivatives of A/B, undertaken in the 12th century. Some, however, have come to wonder whether the C recension, by far the longest and most complex arrangement of the PseudoIsidorian forgeries, might substantially antedate its highmedieval manuscript tradition. Stephen Patzold’s new study is the first sustained argument in favor of the antiquity of C. Beneath some later medieval accretions, Patzold argues, the core of C dates from the era of the forgeries and may be ascribed to the Pseudo Isidorian atelier at Corbie.

After a short introduction (p. 9–14), Patzold studies the evidence suggesting an 11th or 12thcentury date for C (p. 14–27). The extant manuscripts do not antedate the 12th century; C carries an appendix of 12thcentury canonical material; the complex and characteristic dossier of Leo the Great’s letters in C might be thought to have an 11thcentury antecedent; a dossier of Boniface’s correspondence in C has also been traced to the 11th century and associated with Otloh of SaintEmmeram. As evidence all of this is weak tea, and none of it survives Patzold’s scrutiny. The canonical appendix is a later accretion that cannot date C in its fundaments, and nothing about the correspondence of Leo and Boniface compels an 11thcentury terminus post quem. At the same time, many characteristics of C reflect early medieval canonical sources, such that a high medieval date for the recension as a whole seems unlikely.

Patzold argues further that the »core of the C recension« can be dated to the 9th century and ascribed to the PseudoIsidorian atelier at Corbie. Here the greater part of his argument depends upon items that have been added to the collection of Leo’s letters in C. Patzold analyzes in particular an extensive appendix to the Leonine correspondence that the architects of C have drawn from the »Collectio Sangermanensis«, a rare repository of documents relating to the aftermath of the Council of

Lizenzhinweis: Dieser Beitrag unterliegt der CreativeCommonsLizenz NamensnennungKeine kommerzielle NutzungKeine Bearbeitung (CCBYNCND), darf also unter diesen Bedingungen elektronisch benutzt, übermittelt, ausgedruckt und zum Download bereitgestellt werden. Den Text der Lizenz erreichen Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/byncnd/4.0/ Chalcedon (451) and the Three Chapters Controversy that includes a great part of the »Codex Encyclius« from 457/458 in Latin translation and the »Breviarium« of Liberatus of Carthage. Today, the »Sangermanensis« survives in two 9thcentury manuscripts, namely Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Ms. 397, from Reichenau; and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ms. lat. 12098, from Corbie. A third witness from Beauvais has been lost. Paris 12098 dates from the latter half of the 9th century, and it bears marginalia and notes attesting to the heavy interest its contents inspired among readers at Corbie. In some cases, the marginalia accompany themes beloved of PseudoIsidore, such as accusations, episcopal depositions, and the convening of councils (p. 27–38). C therefore draws heavily on the Sangermanensis, and a copy of the Sangermanensis was closely studied at Corbie. Further indications of the Corbie origins of C include the basic derivation of C from the A/B recension, which was probably also developed at the abbey; the presence among its dossier of Leo letters of an item from the »Collectio Corbeiensis« (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ms. lat. 12097), a canonical collection attested by a single manuscript that was at Corbie from the 8th century; and further material among the correspondence of Pope Leo I in C that suggests, for Patzold, a connection to the northern Italian monastery of Bobbio (p. 38–42). Because Wala of Corbie served as abbot of Bobbio during his exile with Lothar from 834–836, this road too leads Patzold to Corbie (p. 41).

As for the 9thcentury date of C, Patzold again depends upon the cumulative weight of the evidence rather than the strength of any individual proof. A 9thcentury recension of the »Collectio Dacheriana« shares a variant with the C recension and may therefore depend upon it (p. 43). Among the contents of C are several items of special significance for the 9th century. These include four letters of Pope Vitalian I that may have made their way from the papal archives to Frankish Gaul in the course of Rothad of Soisson’s appeal to Rome in 863/865; and a forged epistolary exchange between Pope Gregory I and Bishop Felix of Messina that can probably be ascribed to PseudoIsidore but that is only rarely transmitted beyond the C recension. Textual evidence shows that C does not depend upon either of two 9thcentury sources for Vitalian’s correspondence, but rather descends along with them from a common archetype. Furthermore, though the PseudoGregory exchange occurs in other branches of the PseudoIsidorian tradition, C alone deploys the forgery in a context congruent with PseudoIsidore’s aims (p. 43–44). Finally, Hincmar of Reims on several occasions between the later 850s and 870 cites PseudoIsidorian forgeries alongside other material on hand in the C recension, including items from the »Sangermanensis« and »PseudoGregory«. He also cites a series of Leo’s letters that occur alongside one another only in the C recension (p. 47–50).

This is intriguing evidence, and it warrants more discussion than is possible in a short review. Nevertheless, as Patzold himself admits (p. 63), it is far from a conclusive demonstration of C’s 9th century origins or Corbie associations. In conclusion, Patzold considers the textual evidence (p. 55– 62). The late copies of the C recension are all closely related to one another, and their variants have

Beyond some obviously later accretions, C is for Patzold the product of a single center (Corbie), a distinct moment (the 9th century), and perhaps also a definite group of people (the PseudoIsidorians). While C may owe some of its characteristic contents to Corbie, and some of its components probably date from the earliest days of »PseudoIsidore’s« circulation, it is hard for this reviewer to see the 12th century accretions in our C manuscripts as anything but the latest of several layers of material on hand in this recension.

Antoine Chavasse, for example, whose work Patzold builds upon, sees the Leonine dossier in C as the result of at least five distinct stages of accumulation and redaction1. The origins of C, or even of a loosely defined and notional »core« of C, are probably not to be found in a single era or at a single center. Be that as it may, Patzold’s stimulating and clearly written study is surely right that the greater part of the C recension substantially antedates its late manuscript tradition. Patzold has succeeded in bringing the many problems surrounding C and its origins from the High Middle Ages to the era of »PseudoIsidore«, and scholarship must now reckon with yet another early version of the »False Decretals«.

1 Cf. Les lettres du pape Léon le Grand (440–461) dans l’»Hispana« et la collection dite des Fausses décrétales, in: Revue de droit canonique 25 (1975), p. 28–39.