FALSE
774
FALSE
were pointed out by two Catholic priests, the brothers
Ballerini, in the eighteenth century.
How the Forgery was done. — Isidore was too clever to invent these documents in toto out of his own head. For the most part he plagiarized them in substance, and often in form. For the background he made use of certain data such as the " Liber Pontificalis", a chronicle of the popes from St. Peter onward, which was begun at Rome during the first twenty years of the si.xth century. For instance, in the " Liber" it is recorded that such a pope issued such a decree that had been lost or mislaiii, or perhaps had never existed at all. Isidore seized the opportunity to supply a pontifical letter suitable for the occasion, attributing it to the pope whose name was mentioned in the "Liber". Thus his work had a shadow of historical sanction to back it up. But it was especially in the form of the letters that the forger playetl the plagiar- ist. His work is a regular mosaic of phrases stolen from various works written either by clerics or lay- men. This network of quotations is computed to number more than 10,000 borrowed phrases, and Isi- dore succeeded in stringing them together by that loose, easy style of his, in such a way that the many forgeries perpetrated either by him or his assistants have an imdeniable family resemblance. Without doubt he was one of the most learned men of his day. From Blondel in the seventeenth century to Hin- schius in the nineteenth, even up to quite recently, efforts have been made to discover all the texts made use of in the False Decretals. They make up quite a library. It is clear that the forger could not have had at hand the entire text from which he drew. He must have been content with extracts, selections, florilegia. But thereon we can only fall back on conjecture.
Isidore might have united the liundred documents he had forged in one single homogeneous collection, which would have been exclusively his work, and then secured its circulation, but, clever man that he was, he chose a different plan. To baffle suspicion he in- serted or interpolated all his forgeries in an already existing collection. There was a genuine canonical collection which had been drawn up in Spain about 63.3, and was known as the "Hispana", or Spanish. It contained (cf. Migne, P. L., LXXXIV, 9.3-S4S) first of all the texts of the coimcils from that of Nicsea; sec- ondly the decretals of the popes from Damasus (366- 384). Isidore took the volume and prefixed to it the first sixty of his forged decretals from Clement to Mil- tiades inclusive; these now became the first part of the collection of Isidore. As part II of his collection he retained part I of the Hispana collection, i. e. the genuuie collection of councils since Nicica (325). And as part III of his new volinne added part II of the old Hispana, i. e. the genuine pontifical letters since Pope Damasus, but he inserted here and there among them the letters he had forged imder the names of the various popes between Damasus and Gregory I (590- 604). He was not yet safe, however. So, in order to give a more imposing appearance to the work, he in- serted other documents not forged by him, but bor- rowed bodily from other collections of canon laws. Besides all this he interpolated many additions to au- thentic docviments and added several prefaces to bolster up the fraud. To simplify this description it has been assumed that the forger made use of the un- adulterated text of the Hispana. But as a matter of fact he used a French edition, and a very incorrect one at that, of the Hispana, and which was known on that acODunt as the "Hispana Callica", or French Hispana, which has never been edited, and which is to be foimd in the MS. 411 of the Latin Documents in the Library of Vienna. Furthermore, the forger tampered with the text of this French Hispana, so that his copy be- comes, .so to speak, a third edition or revision of the old Hispana. This is known as the "Hispana Callica Augustodunensis", or "of Autun", so called becau.se
the Latin MS., 1341, of the Vatican, which contains it,
came from Autun. This collection likewLse has re-
mained unedited.
The Isidorian collection was published between 847 and 852. On the one hand it must have been pub- lished before 852, because Hincmar quotes the false decretal of Stephen I (p. 183) among the statutes of a council (Migne, P. L., CXXV, 775), and on the other hand it cannot have been publi-shed before 847, because it makes use of the false capitularies of Benedict Levi- tas, which were not concluded luitil after 21 April, 847. As to the place where the Decretals were foiled, critics are all agreed that it was somewhere in France. The documents used by the forger, and especially those relating more nearly to his own epoch, are nearly all of French origin. And, as we have already pointed out, the frame chosen for the forgeries was the French edition of the Hispana. He also makes use of the "Dionysio-Hadriana" collection, which was the code of the Frankish Church, and of the Quesnel collection, which had a French origin. Moreover, he refers to the Councils of Meaux and of Aachen of 836, and to that of Paris of S29, etc. On legal matters he quotes the "Breviarium" of Alaric. When he refers to civil affairs it is those of France he illustrates by. Lastly, it was in France that his work was first quoted, and there it had its greatest vogue. But while critics are all agreed that the forgery was done in France, they differ very widely when it comes to fixing the locality. Some are in favour of Le Mans and the province of Tours; others incline towards the province of Reims. We shall have occasion to refer to these differences later on ; for the present we may be satisfied that the false decretals were forged in the North of France between 847 and 852.
Now, what was the condition of the Church in France at that time? It was but a few brief years after the Treaty of Verdun (843), which had put a definitive close to the Carlovingian empire by founding three distinct kingdoms. Christendom was a prey to the onslaught of Normans and Saracens ; but on the whole the era of civil strife was over. In ecclesiastical cir- cles Church reform was still spoken of, but hardly hoped for. It was especially after the death of Charlemagne (814) that reform began to be considered, but the abuses to be corrected dated from long before Charlemagne's time, and went back to the very be- ginnings of the Frankish church imder the Merovin- gians. The personal government of the king or emperor had many serious drawbacks on religious grounds. In the mind of the bishops reform and ec- clesiastical liberty were identical, and this lilierty they required for their persons as well as for the Church. Dovilitless Charlemagne's government had been ad- vantageous to the Chiu-ch, but it was none the less an oppressive protection and dearly bought. The Church was frankly subject to the State. Initiatives which ought to have been the proper function of the spiritual power were usurped by Charlemagne. He summoned synods and confirmeil their decisions. He disposed largely of all church benefices. Antl in mat- ters of importance ecclesiastical tribunals were pre- sided over by him. While the great emperor lived these inconveniences had their compensating advan- tages and were tolerated. The Church had a mighty supporter at her back. But as soon as he died the Carlovingian dynasty began to show signs of ever- increasing debility, and the Church, bound up with, and suliordinate to, the political power, was dragged into the ensuing civil strife and disunion. ' Church property excited the cupidity of the various factions, each of them wished to use the bishops as tools, and when defeat came the bishops on the vanquished side were exposed to the vengeance of their adversaries. There were charges brought against them, and sen- tences pa.ssed on them, and not canon law, but political exigencies, ruled in the synods. It was the triumph of
