Published by the INSTITUTE of MEDIEVAL CANON

BULLETIN

OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW

NEW SERIES VOLUME 11

Published by

THE INSTITUTE OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW BERRELEY, CALIFORNIA

1981 ý.,

Reflections on the principles of editing texts: The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals as an example

It is the goal of most editions to present the text in such a manner as to reflect not only a tangible original version but also its revisions. One assumes that In the beginning of the textual tradition there existed a copy which came directly from the author himself and that It might even be possible to recognize revisions of this copy. One assumes, moreover, that the original presented a unified text and came from a single source. ' Of course, there are texts which have changed, and whose most commonly used forms seem to have been different from the forms in which they were originally written (one might think, for example of the Collectio Dacheriana or, indeed, of the Deeretum Gratiani). In these works one can find a sequence of texts, a more or less straightforward accretion. These collections further all included texts which had already been in circulation. The compilers of such canonical collections perhaps revised some. of these previously existing texts: this, however, does not change the fact that they used sources dating from an earlier period. It can, however, happen that there are several different 'original' versions all of which have equal status, all of which are dependent on each other, and from all of which the entire subsequent tradition of the text must be traced. I should now like to illustrate these rather abstract remarks with direct reference to works which should be edited, the limits and variations of whose text, however, have never been conclusively determined. I am referring to the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, or more accurately: the Pseudo- Isidorian Forgeries. Over twenty-five years ago, Schafer Williams presented to the Mediaeval Academy of America a lecture full of optimism: 2 'The Pseudo-Isidorian problem today'. He developed a four-stage schema which was to culminate In the edition of several works. After various Vorarbeiten (he uses the German word), lie planned to publish a new critical edition of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, since the edition by Paul Hinschius, dating from 1863, ' is now generally

I That the tradition of a text necessarily occurs in this manner is the supposition of the classical method of edition named after Karl Lachmann, see S. Timpanaro, La genest del melodo del Laclunann (Biblioteehina del sagglatore 18; Firenze 1963), amplified German translation by D. Irmer, Die Entstehung der Lachmannschen Methode (Hamburg 1971). The most exact description of the presuppositions of Lachmann's method is given by K. Stack- mann, 'Mittelalterliche Texte als Aufgabe', Festschrift J. Trier (KolnjGraz 1964) 240-67. It would be too far-reaching at this point to mention the enormous mass of literature on technique and methods of edition, which has accumulated during the last decades. S S. Williams, 'The Pseudo-Isidorian problem today', Speculum 29 (1954) 702-07. Decrelales Pseudo-Isidorianae ei Capilula Angtlramnt, ed. P. Iiinsehlus (Leipzig 1863). 1) BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAN

be recognized - to the credit of Schafer Williams - to obsolete. But research in this field has advanced in the last twenty-five years to such an extent that one is almost forced to say that, with the growth of our understanding, a satis- fying edition has become an even more elusive goal. It's the same old story: 'Diabolus in particulis'. Let me explain some of the difficulties which arise when one attempts to prepare a critical edition of the Pseudo-Isidorian or False Decretals.

1. The body of forgeries that are associated with the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals has never been extensively investigated. Other forgeries have emerged which, although they are very likely related to Pseudo-Isidore, nevertheless lie outside the corpus which we normally consider as Pseudo-Isidorian Forgeries (Hispana Gallica Augustodunensis, Capitula Angilramni, Benedictus Levita, Pseudo-Isl- dorian Decretals). 4 `Whoever tries to edit a Pseudo-Isidorian text - and that applies especially to the Decretals of Isidorus Mercator - will, therefore, have to become thoroughly acquainted not only with the text he intends to edit, but also with those forms of it which preceeded or were derived from it outside the actual Pseudo-Isidoriana.

2. Hinschius's classification of manuscripts (Al, A2, B, A/B, C), which was previously considered authoritative, is totally inaccurate. The reason for this lies first of all in the large number of manuscripts which were discovered after 1863 (their number has roughly doubled since then), 5 so that new groups of manuscripts emerge. Another reason is that Hinschius often dated his manuscripts falsely; this fact weakens his arguments and in some places even nega- tes them.

{ On the corpus of forgeries that Is associated with Pseudo-Isidore and on the traces of Pseudo-Isidorian Influence outside the actual forgeries see H. Fuhrmann, Einfluss und Ver- breitung der pstudoisidorischen Fälschungen: Von ihrem Auftauchen bis In die neuere Zeit, I (Schriften der MGI! 21.1; Stuttgart 1972) 137-50. 5 In his severe review of Hinschius's edition, F. X. Kraus (Theologische Quarlalschrift 48 118661 439-511) already pointed out that several manuscripts have been overlooked, in particular Codex 52 (saec. xn) of the St. Nicholas Hospital, Cues, a manuscript once owned by Nicholas of Cues, who has left many notes in his own hand in this codex. Other manuscripts unknown to Hinschius were pointed out by E. Seckel, ' Pseudoisidor', Realen- cyelopddie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 16 (3rd ed. 1905) 268.16-28; S. Williams, 'Pseudo-Isidore from the Manuscripts', The Catholic historical review 53 (1967) 58-66; id., Codices Pseudo-Isidoriani: A palaeographico-historical study (MJC, ser. C: Subsidia 3; 1971); H. Fuhrmann, Einfluss und Verbreitung I 168-70 n. 61; J. H. Erickson, 'New Pseudo-Isidore manuscripts', BMCL 5 (1975) 115-17; K. -G. Schon, 'Exzerpte aus den Akten von Chalkedon bet Pseudoisidor und In der 74-Titel-Sammlung', DA 32 (1976) 548-49 n. 18; Id., ' Eine Redaktion der pscudofsidorischen Dekretalen aus der Zelt der FSlschung', DA 34 (1978) 500-511; H. Mordek, 'Codices Pseudo-Isidorianl', AKKR 147 (1978) 471-78. 3 ON TIIE PRINCIPLES OF EDITING TEXTS

His most serious failure, however, is his erroneous classification of text. The following examples go to illustrate the extent of his mistakes. Hinschius considered a long version, which he designated At, to be the oldest text, and he used this as the basis for his edition. In his opinion, the oldest Al manuscript is Modena, Biblioteca Capitolare Ord. I no. 4, which he thought to have been written shortly before 8818 Apart from its curious orthography, this manuscript letter contains only the decretals and even these only partially (up to the first by Euticianus, Hinschius p. 210). Hinschius did not determine the designation Al for the Modena Codex on the basis of the contents and wording of the manuscript, but rather due to his assumption that the short form (A2) of the Decretals was later and that all of the extant codices of Class A2 could be dated no earlier than the eleventh century. Since the Modena Codex dates from the ninth, this fragment, which forms the basis of his edition between pages 17 and 94, must belong, he assumed, to Class Ai? That is a fallacy. A comparison of the manuscripts reveals a complete correspondence, even in nonsensical copying errors, between the Modena Codex and Livorno, Biblioteca Comunale Fondo Labro- nica 10, the latter being - according to Hinschius's classification - an A2 manuscript 8 Therefore the purported Al manuscript Modena I. 1 should also be classified as A2, and Hinschius has made a serious basic error.

6 Hinschlus, Introduction to his edition, pp. xix-xx; see H. Lbwe, in Wattenbach-Levison, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen int 3lillelalter IV (Weimar 1963) 163-64 nn. 125 and 127; 1-1. Fuhrmann, 'Der angebliche Brief des Erzbischofs I latto von Mainz an Papst Johannes IX. ' MIOG 78 (1970) 53-60. 7 lihnschius, Introduction ccxxxvi-ccxxxviii. B See A. Gaudenzi, 'Un nuovo manoscritto delle collezioni irlandese c pseudoisidoriana'. QF 10 (1901) 370-79, who thinks that the text of the Livorno manuscript is related to Bam- berg, Staatsbibliothek Can. 4, whereas Williams, Codices Pseudo-Isidoriani 28-29, prefers to state an equally close resemblance to Vercelli, Biblioteca Capitolare Eusebiana LXXX and Modena St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 670. No attention has been paid to a connection with the Codex. A collation of the text of Anacletus ep. 111, Stephanus cpp. I and II (ilinschlus 81-87; 180-89) in ca. 80 manuscripts shows that there are many common faults in the Modena and Livorno manuscripts, which cannot be found in any other: Ilinschius (page and line) All other 11SS Jludcna 1.4, Livorno 10 81.10 spiritu ipsum viz. id Ipsum 82.6 quod proposuit in co (faulty repeU- (absent) Lion of 82.3) 82.25 duo non sunt duo Bunt 83.1 c legibus et leges 83.27 quodammodo quodam tomo 83.28 apostolice epistolac 84.21 atquirere attrahcre 86.15 nequitia est vitia non ferro abscin- necesse est ca vitia ferro abscin- dere dere 86.18 detrahntque aut detrahat 4 BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW

3. Following Hinschius, scholars have generally believed that the Classes of the Pseudo-Isidorian manuscripts simply followed one another. One was and still is under the impression that the entire tradition of a text must be derived from the Lachmann archetype. Nearly all scholars adhere to this opinion, be they (as Leonard Boyle would say) 'optimists' or 'rccensionists' s For the Pseudo-Isidorian Forgeries this means: the short version A2 as well as the long versions B, A/B and C all are supposed to follow the long version Al. In out- lining this stemma, Hinschius probably formed a false picture of the situation. There are at least three different long versions whose extant manuscripts, on purely palaeographical grounds, date from the time of the falsification. More important than the palaeographical evidence, however, is the fact that they show equally important variants, so that the differences between them give us no clues as to their relative importance or priority. Examples of these three long versions, which were. closely related at the time of the falsification, are to be found in the manuscripts: Vaticanus Ottobonianus lat. 93, in, which one can sometimes recognize the wording of the falsified source; Vaticanus latinus 630, which Hinschius dated two hundred years too late and which he attributed to a less valuable Class A/B; and the manuscript New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke Library 442, which belongs to the so-called 'Cluny-version'. 10 All three manuscripts were written between 850 and 875, shortly after the texts had been forged. They clearly represent different stages and forms in the process of Pseudo-Isidorian falsification. To all this one should add the result of a recent study on the appearance, genesis and circulation of the Hispana GaIlicaAuguslo- dunensis: the forgers obviously worked on this special form of the Hispana for a long period of time. In fact, the False Decretals did not simply follow upon the Hispana Gallica Auguslodunensis, rather the Augustodunensis was in- fluenced by earlier falsified decretals 11

181.22 In Intimis inmitis 184.20 caritatis verbis caritative bis 181.25 advena allenigena 186.3 confcssio nisi confessioni 186.18 eonversatio libertas i linschius 174.19 contains an insertion: 'Item do eadem re Cornelius In secunda ita ait'. While this phrase appears as a rubric in Livorno 10, fol. 113r, it is totally incorporated into the text in Modena 1.4, fol. 121v. It Is therefore probable that these two manuscripts stem from a common source, with the Modena Codex apparently adding its own faulty variations. 9 L. E. Boyle, 'Optimist and recensionist: "Common errors" or "common variations", ' I Latin script and letters A. D. 400-900: FestLhri ft presented to Ludwig Dicier (Leiden 1976) 9 le- 264-74. 10 The proof for a so-called 'Cluny version', based on the Yale Codex and a list of manu- cripts belonging to this group, is given by K. -G. Schon, 'Eine Redaktion', 500-11. 11 See J. Richter, 'Stufen pseudolsidorischer Verfdlschung: Untersuchungen zum Konzils- tell der pseudoisldorischen Dekretalen', ZRG Iran. Abt 6.1 (1978) 1-72. Richter was able to enlarge considerably the number of known Augustodunensis manuscripts and has pointed ON THE PRINCIPLES OF EDITING TEXTS 5

4. The existence of original versions having equal value is already bad enough, but some versions could perhaps be neglected in an edition, if they apparently had had no further Influence. One should stress, however, that each of these differing original versions of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals had a definite influence in the high Middle Ages and the subsequent tradition of canonical sources. To mention only two examples: the 'Cluny version' was used by bishop Burchard of Worms (t 1025) in compiling his Decrelum, 12 and from a manuscript of a different version, Vaticanus Ottobonianus lat. 93, probably derived the Collectio Lanfranci, the Pseudo-Isidorian collection belonging to Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury (t 1089).

5. The position presented here - that there are at least three original versions dating from the beginning of the manuscript tradition - is applicable only to the long forms of the False Decretals. It is important to emphasize this limita- tion, because the short version of the Decretals - which Hinschius labels as A2 it is - might also be traceable to the atelier of the forgers. At any rate, probable that the short form already existed during the lifespan of the forgers, and it was a short form which was sent to Pope Nicholas I (858-867), presumably in the year 864. Possibly the short version is also a direct product of the authors of the Pseudo-Isidorian Forgeries. It need only be mentioned that signs of familiarity with the False Decretals, dating from between 850 and 875, were recently discovered in two manuscripts, one in Munich and one in Leiden. 13 At least one of them shows characteristics that differ from those of the previously known versions. In the textual tradition of the False Decretals other versions, about which we know nothing, could therefore have played an important role.

6. How should one approach the task of editing the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals? Several - and to a large extent similar - versions of equal value and of the same origin stand side by side. They all have the status of an 'original'. It is a different situation from that of the first ecumenical councils, for example, of which there were also several versions and translations. The versions, however, were derived from the wording of a single original text: from the approved canons or from the minutes. Here it is at least possible to reconstruct a tangible original text.

7. In the 1950's, in his studies on Dionysius Exiguus, `Wilhelm Peitz (t 1954) developed the theory of Ursprungskontamination - that is, of the contamina-

out that there were at least two groups of the Auguslodunensis type (Vaticanus latinus 1341 and Eton, College Library MS 97). 1a See M. Kerner and others, 'Tcxtidentifikation und Provenienzanalyse im Decreturn Burchardl', SG 20 (= Melanges G. Fransen II; Roma 1976) 36-39. 13 See Appendix, infra. 0 14 G BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAW

tion of a text already occurring at the moment of its composition. In his opinion, the different versions of this text are derived directly from the original manuscript of the monic Dionysius Exiguus. which was constantly revised. 14 I do not want to repeat or criticize this unfortunate idea of Peitz, but we need an edition of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals which clearly shows the mutual influences of the various texts and which lets us perceive the different original versions and their later circulation. The extent to which the versions can differ was recently shown by Stephan Kuttner in the Festschrift for Jean Gaudemet (1980/81). 15 He used the example of a Pseudo-Isidorian letter allegedly written by Pelagius II UK f 1051), and I can only close with his heartfelt remark: `All this goes to show what an enormous task lies ahead in a new edition of Pseudo- Isidore'.

Monumenla Germaniac Hislorica, HORST Fuiin,. tkNN Munich.

APPENDIX

Two Pseudo-Isidorian fragments

Some strips of a destroyed Pseudo-Isidorian manuscript are glued into the binding of Munich, Staatsbibliothek MS lat. 29.10, a codex coming from Alto- mOnster (Bavaria). Attention was drawn to these fragments by B. Bischoff, Die sildosldeulschen Schreibschulen and Bibliotheken in der Karolingerzeit, II: Die vorwiegend österreichischen Diözesen (Wiesbaden 1980) 230, who characterizes the script as follows: 'Ausgeschriebene schräge Schrift, wahrscheinlich aus Oberitalien, wohl noch aus dem dritten Viertel des ix. Jhs. ' These strips- come from an A2 manuscript. It this manuscript arrived in Bavaria soon after Its it origin, could be related to that action of spreading Pseudo-Isidorian material which was initiated by the bishops of the Middle Kingdom, among others by Tado Milan, during of the quarrel of bishop Rothad of Soissons with IIincmar of Reims; see H. Fuhrmann, Einfluss and Verbreitung II (Schriften der MGH 24.2; 255-56 Stuttgart 1973) n. 47. The manuscript could also be connected with an A2 manuscript being transferred from Northern Italy; such a transfer is a prerequi- site, e.g. for the collection of Pseudo-Remedius, cf. 1-1.John, review of Williams, Codices Pseudo-Isidoriani, DA 23 (1972) 586, and Colleclio canonum Remedio Curiensi episcopo perperam ascripta, ed. H. John (MIC ser. B: Corpus Collectio- num 2; 1976) 82-85 and 116-17. Voss. lat. Q. Leiden 103, fols. 68r-Slr, contains a Pseudo-Isidorian excerpt Damasus's which begins with decretal against the chorepiscopi (JK t 244) and

11 On the often absurd ideas of \\'. Peitz see H. Fuhrmann, 'Überlegungen eines Editors', Probleme der Edition mittel- und neulateinischer Texte, edd. L. HUI and D. Nuttke (Boppard 1978) 12-13 n. 25. 15 S. Kuttncr, 'Universal Pope or Servant of God's Servants: The canonists, papal titles, and Innocent III', RDC 31 (1981) 136. 7 ON THE PRINCIPLES OF EDITING TEXTS

from long goes on until letter JK t 1042 by John 111; hence it must be taken a in Folio (Leiden form, cf. K. A. de 111eyier, Codices V.ossiani lalini, I. 1: Codices 1973) 241-42. The author of the catalogue gives the middle of the ninth century 'fortasse as the time, and the monastery of Fulda as the place of origin: collecta Fulda, a Rhabano Mauro'. This would be a sensation, for in the monastery of Ebo, whose abbot Hrabanus was from 822 to 842, there lived fora short time after having been chased from Reims; and Ebo was in some way connected with the Pseudo-Isidorian Forgeries. He died in 851 as bishop of Hildesheim; that is, he had become a suffragan of Mainz, whose archbishop was at that time Hrabanus (847-856). The extracts show some characteristics which are not found in other ancient manuscripts of the long form: Vaticanus Ottobonianus 93; Vaticanus latinus 630; Yale University, Beinecke Library 442: I-linschius Voss. Q. 108 510.5 recordeinur scimus 510.10 audivimus audistis 510.11 responders respondcre nobis

It must be said, however, that the text of the excerpts is full of lacunae and faulty readings. Further unknown traditions of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals the forgery - some of them dating from a time very close to process of - will be presented elsewhere. For similar reflections see H. Fuhrmann, 'Fiilscher unter sich: zum Streit zwischen 1-Iinkmar von Reims and Hinkmar von Laon', Charles the Bald: Court and kingdom (British archaeological reports, Interna- tional Series 101; Oxford 1981) 237-5.1.