Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

REVIEWS

THE FALSE DECRETALS.

Étude sur les Fausses Décrétales. Par PAUL FOURNIER (Extrait de la Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique vii nos 1-4; viii no 1.

de la Revue, Louvain, 1907).

Bureaux

IN the studies collected in this monograph, M. Fournier discusses anew the chief historical problems pertaining to the Isidorian Collection-its aim, its date, the place of its origin, and the influence which it exerted on Pope Nicolas I. The two main ideas of the compiler clearly emerge from an examination of the documents which he fabricated. His object was firstly, and chiefly, to defend the rights of bishops persecuted and dispossessed by the powerful of the earth, and secondly to oppose anarchical tendencies by insisting on fixed principles of ecclesiastical organization and discipline. M. Fournier has given an able and logical exposition of these principal tendencies; but his chief service here lies in the developement of the second. Pseudo-Isidore lays stress on the absolute fixity of diocesan circumscriptions which he is at pains to connect with the first centuries of Christianity, and his recurrent attacks on the institution of chorepiscopi come under the same principle. The limits of date, as it always seemed to me, were settled with virtual finality by Hinschius as A. D. 847-852, and the conclusion is sustained by M. Fournier. The prior limit is fixed by the convincing proof of Hinschius that the False Capitularies of Benedictus Levita were a source of Pseudo-Isidore. M. Fournier does not touch on the False Capitularies (on which Seckel is issuing important articles in the Neues Archiv), except so far as to record his view that they originated not in the arch-diocese of Mainz but in West Francia. Nor does he discuss the Capitula Angilramni by means of which Hinschius endeavoured to restrict more precisely the prior limit of the False Decretals. In regard to the posterior limit, he argues successfully (against M. Lot) that A. D. 852 is established by the reference in the Synodal Statutes of Reims and the closely connected Capitula of Hincmar. He points out too that the Actus Pontificum Cenomannis in urbe degentium, for which the latest possible date is A. D. 856, was composed under the influence of the False Decretals.

The place of origin is a more difficult question. The contest lies

between the arch-dioceses of Mainz, Reims, and Tours. The claims of Mainz, of which Wasserschleben was the most weighty advocate, were rejected by Hinschius with forcible arguments which have since been reinforced by Lurz; and it is not too much to say that Mainz is definitely 'out of the running'. Hinschius made out a plausible case for Reims; there are a number of passages in the False Decretals which seem remarkably appropriate to the famous case of the deposition and imprisonment of Archbishop Ebbo. This view is sustained by Lot and Lurz, who consider it probable that Pseudo-Isidore is identical with Vulfadus, one of the Reims clergy, who were opposed to Hincmar. M. Fournier's criticisms of this theory exhibit its weakness. He proves in the first place that four documents bearing on the affair of Ebbo, and circulated in his interest by the party of Vulfadus (namely the Narratio Clericorum Remensium, the false Bull of Gregory IV reinstating Ebbo, the Apologeticum Ebbonis, and a second Apologeticum published by Werminghoff in the Neues Archiv vol. xxiv, 1900), are posterior to A. D. 853; the years to which the False Decretals belong A. D. 847-852 were a period of calm so far as the Ebbo controversy was concerned. This objection is by no means conclusive. Far more important is the consideration that the theory of the composition of the Decretals by Vulfadus in the Ebbo interest fails to explain the character of the Collection; it leaves out of account the concern of the compiler for ecclesiastical organization and its territorial foundations, which M. Fournier, as we saw, has justly emphasized. He also makes the point that, on this theory, Hincmar could not fail to know that the False Decretals were aimed at him, and his attitude must then appear inexplicable. But more convincing than these objections is the successful demonstration—and this is the most important part of M. Fournier's inquiry -that the claim of the arch-diocese of Tours satisfies all the conditions of the problem. The rising of the Breton duke Nomenoe in 845 and his victory over Charles the Bald had been followed by an ecclesiastical revolution in Brittany, of which the object was to render the Celtic peninsula independent spiritually as well as politically, and emancipate the Breton Church from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Tours. There were four bishops who were specially obnoxious to the duke. He caused them to appear before an irregular synod (c. 848), and forced them under the menace of death to confess themselves guilty of simony. The synod then deposed them and they went into exile. Nomenoe replaced them by creatures of his own, created new bishoprics, set up a Breton metropolitan at Dol, and virtually established a national Church under his own supremacy. He took no notice of the protests of Pope Leo IV, and the affair caused a great sensation both at Rome and throughout Gaul. The persecution of the four bishops 'sequestrated

from their flocks', the curtailment of ecclesiastical independence and the disarrangement of ecclesiastical organization by the initiation of a secular prince, are facts corresponding to the motives which must have suggested the composition of the False Decretals. It is also obvious that the conditions of the Breton Church explain most satisfactorily the persistent attacks of Pseudo-Isidore upon chorepiscopi. For it was on this Celtic soil that the institution of chorepiscopi, generally ordained by only one bishop, most conspicuously flourished; and here too there were districts spiritually served not by priests subject to bishops, but by monks subject to abbots. The Tours hypothesis has been defended by Langen, Simson, Duchesne, and others; but M. Fournier has presented it in a more convincing form than any one else. That Pseudo-Isidore belonged to the diocese of Le Mans was rendered probable by Simson, and this view is strengthened by M. Fournier's proof that certain apocryphal documents concerning ecclesiastical troubles in this diocese date from the years 846-856 and offer a remarkable analogy with the False Decretals (viz. the spurious Bull of Gregory IV dated Jan. 8, 833, and the Memoriale inserted in the Gesta Aldrici).

In regard to Nicolas I, M. Fournier holds that, as is generally supposed, the Pope's attention was called to the Isidorian documents in 864 by Rothadus, but is inclined to think that he never had the whole Collection before him, but only the texts of some of the decreta contained in the forged letters. But he argues with considerable force against the view of A. V. Müller that the Decretals exercised an influence on the general canonical ideas of Nicolas, though his acquaintance with them can be detected in some phrases which he used. It is difficult to believe that the passage in Migne P. L. 119 c. 901 (absit enim... eloquiis adornatam) is not intended to suggest that the original copies of the Isidorian Decretals were preserved in the Pontifical archives at Rome, although formally, as M. Fournier points out, it only lays down the principle that the Dionysio-Hadriana is not an exhaustive collection of genuine papal constitutions. But in any case this guarded protection of the forgeries does not prove that they revolutionized or extended this Pope's conception of ecclesiastical law. We are all the more prepared to accept this conclusion, as the Père de Smedt has shewn that in the tenth century the Popes made very little use of the False Decretals; and, so far as we can see, it is not till the Gregorian period that they begin to play an ecumenical rôle.

J. B. BURY.

EARLY LATIN MONASTIC RULES.

1 Untersuchungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der ältesten lateinischen Mönchsregeln, von HERIBERT PLENKERS, D.Ph. (Munich, 1906.) 2. Das Pactum des hl. Fruktuosus von Braga, von ILDEFONS HERWEGEN, O.S.B. (Stuttgart, 1907.)

DR PLENKERS's study forms the third part of the late Prof. Traube's series Quellen u. Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters. It is a work of considerable importance for the study of early Latin Monastic Rules. St Benedict Aniane, who played a conspicuous part in the monastic revival of the days of Charles the Great and Lewis, made a collection of all the Latin Rules known in his day, whether of Latin origin or translated. This collection he called the Codex Regularum, and it formed the basis of the volume of Rules published under the same title by Holsten in 1661 in one volume, and expanded into six volumes by Brockie, 1759. It is practically certain that Holsten's edition was based on an imperfect copy made in 1466, now in Köln; hence three or four of the Rules, including St Benedict's, had to be supplied from other sources, and do not represent Benedict Aniane's text.

Quite recently a superb copy of the Codex Regularum, dating from the middle of the ninth century, and belonging to St Maximin's of Trier, has been acquired by the University of Munich. Plenkers gives an account of this MS, and indicates the portions of Holsten's edition wherein the text is not that of the original Codex of Benedict of Aniane, -i.e. the Rules of Benedict, Augustine, Cassian, and Caesarius ad Virgines.

Having collected the Rules, Benedict reorganized the same materials, so as to arrange them in the form of a commentary on St Benedict's Rule: this work he called Concordia Regularis: it was edited by Menard, 1638, and is reprinted in Migne (Patr. Lat. 103). Several MSS exist, and Plenkers investigates their relations.

It is to be hoped that the Codex Regularum may be edited in the Vienna Corpus.

The second part of Plenkers's study deals with the MSS of St Benedict's Rule, and is in some measure the Prolegomena to the critical text which he has for several years been preparing. On a previous occasion I explained in some detail in these pages the chief facts concerning which an editor of the Benedictine Rule must arrive at a practical judgement (J.T.S. April 1902). Plenkers is an uncompromising adherent of Traube's views, and he here reasserts, with an absoluteness I consider far greater than is justified by the evidence, the view that

the Monte Cassino MS, from which are derived the group of Carolingian MSS, was indeed St Benedict's autograph. Be that, however, as it may, there can be little practical doubt that these MSS contain the best type of the text; and it is good news that their number is now reinforced by the copy of the Rule in the Trier Codex Regularum. Plenkers makes various investigations touching the textual criticism of the Rule; but the time to comment on them will be when reviewing his text of the Rule, which, it may be hoped, will not be delayed for long.

He

Dom Herwegen's study on the Pactum of St Fructuosus is the fortieth number of the series of Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen, edited by Prof. Stutz, of Bonn. The point of departure is a formal Pact, prefixed to the Rule of St Fructuosus of Braga (c. 650), laying down the mutual rights and duties of abbot and community, and the conditions on which the monks surrender themselves to the abbot's sway. prints other examples of such Pacts, found in Spanish sources, and shews that the view that they afford evidence of the existence of mixed monasteries is without foundation. He shews, too, that these formal Pacts are inspired by the same ideas as the Visigothic laws, and that they are probably framed on the same lines as the oaths of fealty taken by the underthanes to their overlords.

A suggestion put forward by Herwegen-that the profession form in the Benedictine Rule is similarly inspired by the Roman military oath -has attracted a good deal of attention and is winning not a little acceptance. I do not think it can be admitted. The military oath ran :—' . . . omnia se strenue facturos quae praeceperit imperator, nunquam deserturos militiam, nec mortem recusaturos pro Romana republica.' St Benedict's profession form is: 'Promittat de stabilitate sua et conversione morum suorum et obedientia.' Obedience is in both. The promise not to desert Herwegen sets against stability—but this involves an interpretation of stability which I should not be prepared to accept wholly this is, however, a difficult subject. To the oath not to avoid death for the republic, Herwegen parallels the vow of 'conversion' interpreted as the struggle till death against temptation and sin. The parallel seems far-fetched and it is put out of court by the fact that in St Benedict's Rule the reading 'conversatione morum' is textually quite certain. 'Conversatio' must mean the same as TOATEía, and the vow is not one of 'conversion', but of leading the monastic life. A few passages couched in the terms of warfare are no sign of any militarism in St Benedict, for the symbolism of warfare for the spiritual life has been a commonplace since St Paul. The view advocated in the late Abbot Maurus Wolter's Praecipua Elementa, that St Benedict's idea was not military, is true.

:

Dom Herwegen's study is a serious contribution to the history of

« AnteriorContinuar »