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 col- lections 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 prob- lem 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 manu- scripts 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 manu- scripts 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 manu- script, 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 manu- scripts 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.