Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/860

 FALSE

778

FALSE

bishop of Canterbury. Their reception in Italy is of greater importance. It occurred probably dxiring the pontificate of Nicholas I (85S-867). It seems certain that he knew of the decretals, and it is possible that he may have even possessed a copy of them, and showed proof of this on the occasion of the appeal to Rome made Ijy Bishop Rothade of Soissons, who had got into difficulties with his metropolitan, Hincmar of Reims. Rothade reached Rome about the middle of 804. He had already caused his appeal to be pre- sented to the pope, but he now explained his case in detail. It was to his interest to quote the authority of the false decretals, and he did not fail to do so. This is proved by a letter written by Nicholas I on 22 January, 86.5, dealing with Rothade's appeal. Pope Adrian II (867-872) was acquainted with them, and in a letter dated 26 December, 871, he approves of tlie translation of Actard, Bishop of Nantes, to the metropolitan See of Tours, and quotes apro- pos one of the false decretals. Quotations made by Stephen V (885-891) are not conclusive proof that he directly used Isidore's text; and the same may be said of occasional references to it during the tenth century, which occur in the letters of the popes or of the papal legates. However, other au- thors in Italy show less reserve in using the false decretals. Thus, at the end of the ninth and the be- ginning of the tenth century they are quoted by Auxi- lius in the treatises he wrote in defence of the ordina- tions performed by Pope Formosus (891-896). It is true that Auxilius was born among the Franks, as was also Rathier, Bishop of Verona, who likewise quotes Isidore. Attone of Vercelli, however, was an Italian, and he quotes liim. At the end of the ninth century and during the tenth, extracts from the false decretals begin to Ije included in canon law collections — in the collection dedicated to Bishop Anselm of Milan, in the Reginon collection about 906, among the decrees of Burchard, Bishop of Worms. Nevertheless, until the middle of the eleventh century the false decretals did not obtain an official footing in ecclesiastical legisla- tion. They were nothing more than a collection made in Gaul, and it was only under Leo IX (1048-105-1) that they took firm hold at Rome. When the Bishop of Toul became pope and began the reform of the Church by reforming the Roman Curia, he carried with hun to Rome the apocryphal collection. An- selm of Lucca, the friend and adviser of Gregory VII, composed an extensive collection of canons among which those of Isidore figiu-e largely. The same thing happened in the case of Cardinal Deusdedit's collec- tion made about the same time. And finally, when in 1140 Gratian wrote his '' Decree" he borrowed exten- sively from Isidore's collection. In such manner it gained an important place in schools of law and juris- prudence. It is true that the Gratian collection had never the sanction of being the official text of ecclesi- astical law, but it became the textbook of the schools of the twelfth century, and, even with the false decre- tals added to it, it retained a place of honour with the faculty of canon law. It was it that supplied the text of the "everyday" instructor on the things most essential to be known. And the faculty of law styled itself faculty of the Decree; which shows how impor- tant a place in the schools was given to the Isidorian texts inserted in the decretals.

IxFi.i'KMCE. — For a long time the Gallicans and the Protestants dwelt on the innovation contained in these apocrypha and on the rights, altogether novel, which they conferred on the popes and which would never have come to pass had it not been for these for- geries. Nowadays Isidore's aim is understood to have been quite different. His chief concern was to defend the bi.shops; and if the papacy profited by what he did, it can be shown that it was a necessary conse- quence of the pope's being made the champion of the bishop. And even though it must be admitted that

the popes benefited by the forgeries, their good faith is beyond question. Isidore wrote a long way off from Rome; he deceived his own neighbours in France, and among them the learned Hincmar of Reims. What wonder, then, that he deceived the popes also, when his work was carried to Rome by Rothade of Soissons about the summer of 864? It is true that some have hinted that Nicholas I erred against truthfulness; that he pretended that the Isi- dorian texts were contained in the archi\'es of the Roman Church, an assertion not only inexact but un- truthful (Migne, P. L., CXIX, 901). But as a mat- ter of fact his words do not necessarily mean that at all. What he does say refers equally to the authentic decretals not included in the Dionysio-Hadriana col- lection. On the dubious interpretation of an obscure text it is not fair to bring a charge of untruthfulness against a man of character like Nicholas I. And if an imfavourable interpretation be accepted as the real one, the blame falls on the draftsman of the pontifical letters, the famous Anastasius the Librarian. An- other reason for not impugning the honesty of Nicho- las I under the circumstances is that he was imder no necessity; he had no interest in approving of Isidore's letters. Indeed, he is much more reserved in his treatment of them than the Prankish bishops were at that very time. In that very letter of 22 January, 865, he points out to them their inconsistency, how, when it is to their own interest, they quote the letters of the early popes (i. e. Isidore's forgeries), and when the letters are unfavourable to them, they repudiate them. We saw above that according to Isidore's judi- cial system a bi.shop dispossessed of his see by violence and then haled to the courts had the right to plead the fact of dispossession in order to escape appearing be- fore the courts, and that he must first be provisionally restored to his possessions and honours so as to arrange properly for his defence. No doubt Isidore had not invented all this. Roman law and canon law supplied him with precedents and even laws for it. But he made such procedure an essential factor in canon law. And it is an imdoubted fact that from the year 864, in cases such as the one we refer to, Isidore's ideas and expressions exercised a marked influence on the con- duct and decisions of Nicholas I. There is nothing calling for adverse criticism in all this as far as Nicho- las is concerned. As a piece of legislation it was alto- gether in favour of the bishops. From another point of view it is important to consider whether, in the appeals of bishops to Rome, the conduct of Nicholas I was really influenced by Isidore's forgeries.

What we have already said concerning the forger's objects and aims limits the bearing of this question to a great extent. As a piece of general hard and fast legislation, Isidore's method of procedure was quite new. But the practice of the popes and the custom of the ecclesiastical courts supplied precedents which more or less bore out the principles laid down by Isi- dore. Hence we see that if Nicholas I made use of the apocrj'pha to justify his teaching on appeals to Rome, we must necessarily admit that he relied on a forged document ; but even then we should not be obliged to admit that he was influenced by teachuig altogether foreign to ecclesiastical antiquity, but only that by means of Isidore he was put in touch with teaching closely resembling that of St. Leo and of Gelasius I, two popes of the fifth centuiy. And, as a matter of fact, did Nicholas I gain his teaching concerning ap- peals from these apocrypha? We have no proof whatever that he did. His firm and solid conviction of the rights of the Holy See had nothing to learn from the weak inventions of a forger among the Franks; he had learned those rights in the school of Roman tradi- tions dating from the fifth and sixth centuries. We can admit that, while the pope's contention is justi- fied, the arguments with which he supports it are at times open to attack. Thus, in a letter addressed to the