¹ On the origin of the designation False Decretals and Pseudo-Isidore, see Williams, S., ‘Pseudo-Isidore from the Mss,’ Catholic Historical Review 53 (1967) 59 n. 4.Google Scholar

² De Smedt, C., ‘Les fausses. décrétales, l'épiscopat franc et la cour de Rome du ix^e au xi^e siècle,’ Études réligieuses, historiques et littéraires par des pères de la Compagnie de Jésus ⁶ 4 (1870) 77–101; Fournier, P., ‘Études sur les “Fausses Décrétales”,’ Revue d'histoire écclesiastique 8 (1907) 56; Voosen, E., Papauté et pouvoir civil à l'époque de Grégoire VII (Gembloux 1927) 32 n. 107; Mikoletzky, H., ‘Bermerkungen zu einer Vorgeschichte des Investiturstreites,’ Studi Gregoriani 3 (1948) 265; Ryan, J. J., Saint Peter Damiani and his Canonical Sources (Toronto 1956) 12; and Stickler, A. M., Historia iuris canonici latini I (Torino 1950) 139. For further references and a summary of the literature, see Fuhrmann, H., ‘Pseudoisidor in Rom von Ende der Karolingerzeit bis zum Reformpapsttum,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 78 (1967) 17–20.Google Scholar

³ Williams, Schafer, Codices Pseudo-Isidoriani (New York 1970). As he has pointed out, in his ‘The Pseudo-Isidorian Problem Today,’ Speculum 29 (1954) 702–7, Hinschius, P., not being a paleographer, misdated some of the manuscripts listed in his Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae (Leipzig 1863; henceforth cited as Hinschius). Williams' articles in Catholic Historical Review 53 (1967) 58–66 and Traditio 20 (1964) 448–61 suggest that several Isidore Mercator codices were to be found in the tenth century in northern and central Italy (according to his review of Ryan's, J. J. Saint Peter Damiani in Speculum 34 [1959] 513, ten specifically, to which we must add the probability of two additional, now lost, codices that Professor Williams kindly called to my attention in a letter). On Pseudo-Isidorian manuscripts of Italian origin, see also Fuhrmann, H., ‘Konstantinische Schenkung und abendländisches Kaisertum,’ Deutsches Archiv 22 (1966) 87 n. 62.Google Scholar

⁴ Fuhrmann, H., ‘Pseudoisidor in Rom …’ passim; and also his article in New Catholic Encyclopedia 5 (1967) 823a.Google Scholar

⁵ On Atto's life and writings, see Banner, S., Atto von Vercelli und sein Polipticum (Unpubl. diss. Frankfurt 1925); Ordano, R., Un vescovo italiano del secolo di ferro, Attone di Vercelli (Vercelli 1948); Pasteris, E., Attone di Vercelli (Milan 1925); Schultz, J., Atto von Vercelli (Göttingen 1885); Wemple, S., Atto of Vercelli (Unpubl. diss. Columbia Univ. 1967). The assumption voiced in some of these works that Atto studied in France is based on a passage in the commentary on Hebrews (PL 134.832D) which goes under Atto's name but was copied from Claudius of Turin; cf. Bellet, P., ‘Oracio de Claudi de Tori …’ Colligere fragmenta: Festschrift Alban Dold (Beuron 1952) 140–3.Google Scholar

⁶ Fournier, P., ‘Études sur les “Fausses Décrétales”,’ 56, and Fuhrmann, H., ‘Pseudoisidor in Rom …’ 30 n. 36, have pointed out that Atto used the False Decretals .Google Scholar

⁷ PL 134.27–52; reprinted from d'Achery, L., Spicilegium ed. 2 (Paris 1723) 1.400ff.Google Scholar

⁸ PL 134.95–124; reprinted from Spicilegium 1.434 ff.Google Scholar

⁹ PL 134.51–96; reprinted from Spicilegium 1.414 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Pirri, P., ‘Attone di Vercelli,’ La Civiltà Cattolica 88 (1927) 40.Google Scholar

¹¹ For a description of this manuscript, which contains all of Atto's works with the exception of his Commentaries, see Pasteris, , Attone di Vercelli, 201. From this manuscript, a copy of Atto's Capitulare was included by Holstenius, Lucas (1596–1661) in a collection of capitularies (Toledo Chapter Archives MS 8–19, cart. saec. XVII, fol. 29^r–48^v); cf. Wemple, S., Manuscripta 12 (1969) 90–5.Google Scholar

¹² Spicilegium (1st ed.) 8 (Paris 1668) 1–43.Google Scholar

¹³ Spicilegium (1723) 1.400ff.Google Scholar

¹⁴ On the top of fol. 198^r, in red uncials it is written: ‘Incipiunt capitula canonum excerptorum de diversis conciliis, decretalibus, statutis atque epistolis congruentium ad forense iudicium tempore domni Attonis episcopi.’ The Capitulare forms a removable quinternio, and its last chapter is missing. For a description of this manuscript, see Pastè, R., ‘Vercelli, Archivio Capitolare,’ in Mazzatinti, , Inventari dei manoscritti delle biblioteche d'Italia 31 (Forlì 1925) 89. (The same library is also called Biblioteca Capitolare Eusebiana or Biblioteca ed Archivio Capitolare. For simplicity's sake I shall use throughout this paper the designation Chapter Library.) Google Scholar

¹⁵ These marginal notes were published as footnotes to the Capitulare by del Signore, Buronzo, in his Attonis opera 2 (Vercelli 1768) 263–95. Frequently they designate other canons where similar rules are stated. For example, cap. 8, which is from Silvester, Excerpt. ex syn. 9 (Mansi 2.1082), is identified as ‘Clemens, Silvester, Melchiades, Conc. Laod. 58.’ Clemens, Although, Ep. 3.70 (Hinschius 450–1), contains a similar rule, I could not find anything similar in Melchiades, Ep. 1–2 (Hinschius 242). On the other hand, Conc. Laod. 58 (Hinschius 276), does resemble this canon. Thus the Vercelli identifications are not wholly inaccurate, but they must be used with caution. When d'Achery did not give the source, they helped me to identify some canons.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Capitula ad presbyteros parochiae suae (PL 105.191–203). For other editions and a list of manuscripts in which it is contained, see Werminghoff, A., ‘Capitula episcoporum saec. VIII et IX,’ Neues Archiv 26 (1900) 666–7.Google Scholar

¹⁷ For a description of this collection, see Maassen, F., Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande I (Graz 1870, reprinted Graz 1956) 454 ff. Despite Wurm's, H. argument (in his Studien und Texte zur Dekretalensammlung des Dionysius Exiguus [Bonn 1939] 35ff.) in favor of the Ballerini's designation of this collection as Collectio additionum Dionysii (in De ant. coll. can. 3.1; PL 56.211–8), scholars continue to call it the Hadriana aucta; cf. Stickler, , Historia I 109, and Ryan, , Saint Peter Damiani 160.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ep. 8, PL 134.115D. Atto called the latter ‘Statuta antiqua orientalium.’ In Vercelli MS LXXVI, fol. 178^v, it is designated as ‘Statuta antiqua Orientis.’ On the Epistola canonica, see Maassen, , Geschichte 394; and on the Statuta ecclesiae antiqua, see Maassen, 382ff; Munier, C., Les ‘Statuta ecclesiae antiqua’ (Paris 1960).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Pastè (see n. 14 supra) 96 dated it in the ninth century. It was copied probably in the late-ninth century because the list of popes it includes (fol. 16^v) ends with John VIII (872–82). Pasteris' remark (Attone di Vercelli 206) that it was written in the same hand as Vercelli MS XXXIX (40), and therefore was copied in the tenth century, is incorrect. Only the headings at the top of each folio, Atto's Sermo de vita et actibus beatissimi Eusebii, fol. 2^V (PL 134. 853ff), and his De pressuris ecclesiasticis, Pars I, fol. 292^v–294^r, are written in a tenth-century hand, similar to the one in Vercelli XXXIX.Google Scholar

²⁰ Somewhat higher on the same folio (294^r), the monogram is repeated with ‘Domnus Atto venerabilis episcopus fieri precepit / Atto gratia Dei episcopus a me facto subscripsi’ written above it and ‘man(u)s(c)ripte’ written in front of it. ‘mansripte’ is, moreover, a cryptogram concealing several other letters which may possibly stand for ‘Domnus Atto episcopus.’ Atto's monogram appears also on the folios of Vercelli MS XXXIX (40) and Vat. lat. 4322. For a reproduction of Atto's monogram and the above inscription, see del Signore, Buronzo, Attonis opera 2.330.Google Scholar

²¹ Dobschütz, E., Das Dekretum Gelasianum (TU 38.4; Leipzig 1921) 189ff. The Ballerini, in their De ant. coll. can. 3.3 n. 2 (PL 56.212A), and Turner, C., in his Ecclesiae Occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima I.2.1 (Oxford 1913) ix, have also pointed out that Atto used this manuscript.Google Scholar

²² For a description of this manuscript, see Pastè 80. At the end of the codex, fol. 267^r–270^v, duplicate parts of the third book are included. Written in the same hand as the rest of the manuscript, these folios represent a scribal error (canons 69–94 are misnumbered here as 73–99 and canons 144–55 as 137–49). The manuscript includes also additions in hands different from the rest of the codex: Fol. 1^v has a list of manuscripts in the Vercelli Cathedral, ‘Histi s. libri thesauri Sc. Eusebii,’ and the text of a donation by Charles III to the Vercelli Chapter, ‘Haec tibi rex Karolus …’ (the latter is edited in Historiae patriae monumenta I.65–6). Accoring to Werminghoff, , ‘Capitula episcoporum …’ Neues Archiv 27 (1902) 603, these additions date from the twelfth century; fol. 91^v–92^v, 'Synodum actum [sic] Ravenna [sic] tempore domni Johanni, [sic] XII pape et Lamberti imperatoris' (on this, see Patetta, F., ‘Nuove osservazioni …’ Rivista italiana per le scienze giuridiche 11 [1891] 380ff.; and for an edition, see MGH Capitularia , ed. Boretius, and Krause, , II. 123ff.); — fol. 107^v, ‘Epistola formata’ (PL 134.12–50); — fol. 108, ‘Ordo de celebrando concilio’ (on this see Maassen, , Geschichte 404, and Munier, C., ‘L'Ordo de celebrando concilio wisigothique …’ Revue des sciences religieuses 37 [1963] 250–71). Patetta, F., in his ‘Nota sull'età del codice Vercellese della collezione di canoni Anselmo dedicata,’ Antologia giuridica di Catania 4.3 (1890), dated these additions within 956–64.Google Scholar

²³ This short form of the Collectio Isidori Mercatoris includes only the decretals from the first and third parts. This form was designated by Hinschius, xli–lvii, as A-2 Class of the Pseudo-Isidorian codices. Fournier, P. and Le Bras, G., in their Histoire des collections canoniques en Occident I (Paris 1931) 172 ff. followed this designation. On the other hand, Williams, S., in his ‘The Oldest Text of the “Constitutum Constantini”,’ Traditio 20 (1964) 450, has abandoned Hinschius' system of manuscript classification, arguing that it has no validity because there are only two families, the long and short forms, of Pseudo-Isidorian manuscripts. Williams, has pointed out, moreover (Speculum 34 [1959] 513), the importance of two MSS containing the short form of the False Decretals, Brescia, Bibl. Queriniana MS B. II.13, and Monza, Duomo Vecchio MS H.3.151, as possible sources of the Collectio Anselmo dedicata. Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. Stickler, , Historia I 150. Besse, J. C., in his Histoire des textes du droit de l'église au moyen âge de Denys à Gratien: Collectio Anselmo dedicata (Paris 1960), published the incipit and explicit of each article; and in his ‘Collectionis Anselmo dedicata [sic] liber primus,’ Revue de droit canonique 9 (1959) 207–46, he published the first book of the Anselmo dedicata. The remaining eleven books are unpublished. On the date of the Anselmo dedicata's composition and on its manuscript tradition, see Fournier, P., ‘Un groupe de recueils canoniques inédits des x^e et xi^e siècles,’ Annales de l'Université de Grenoble 2 (1899) 345–402, and his ‘L'origine de la collection “Anselmo dedicata”,’ Mélanges P. F. Girard I (Paris 1912) 475–98; Patetta, F., ‘Nota …’ (see n. 22 supra), and also his article in Rivista italiana per le scienze giuridiche 11 (1891) 374–83.Google Scholar

²⁵ Fol. 265^v, published by del Signore, Buronzo, in his Attonis opera 1.iv, and reprinted in PL 134.11 n. 7. del Signore, Buronzo (1.iv) confused this codex with Vercelli MS LXXVI. For a criticism of his error, see Pasteris, , Attone di Vercelli 210.Google Scholar

²⁶ Atto's handwriting appears in Vercelli MS LXXVI, fol. 294^r; see n. 20 supra. Google Scholar

²⁷ See Appendix infra. Google Scholar

²⁸ Frequently, on the basis of the reading I was able to assign a canon to one or the other collection. At other times the sequence of the canons enabled me to determine which collection Atto had used. For example, Atto's cap. 85 (Conc. Laod. 50) is included with the same reading in both collections. But, since Atto took both the preceding and succeeding canons from book 11 of the Collectio Anselmo dedicata, I could assume that the Anselmo dedicata served as Atto's source also for this article.Google Scholar

²⁹ For a description of its contents, see Maassen, , Geschichte 828ff, 969ff.; Stickler, , Historia I 103.Google Scholar

³⁰ Here, this collection is entitled Liber canonum graecorum el latinorum. At the end of the codex the following pieces are added in a different hand: fol. 86^v, ‘Canones Nicaeni concilii XII ex Capitulare domni Hlotarii quod constitutum est Bolonna’; fol. 87^r-87^v, ‘Atticus episcopus (Ecclesiae) Constantinopolitanae dixit …’; cf. Pastè, ‘Vercelli …’ 120.Google Scholar

³¹ For a description of the contents of this collection, see Maassen, , Geschichte 403–4, 471ff; Stickler, , Historia I 50; and for a description of the manuscript, see Pastè, , ‘Vercelli …’ 104. The codex includes the following later additions: fol. 103^v-105^r, ‘Symbolum fidei concilii Constantinopolitani’; fol. 105^r, a sermon by Ingo of Vercelli to the clergy of his diocese. Wurm, in his Studien 32 n. 8, dated this codex in the tenth century.Google Scholar

³² In the codex the title is given as: ‘Canones Conciliorum Nicaeni, Ephesini, Antiocheni, Constantinopolitani et aliorum’; cf. Pastè, , ‘Vercelli …’ 117. For a description of the contents of this collection, see Maassen, , Geschichte 441ff, 799, 807; Stickler, , Historia I 107ff; Wurm, , Studien 39 n. 4. The codex includes the following additional texts: fol. 121^r–122^r, fragments of Theodulf of Orléans' Capitula; fol. 204^r, ‘Epistola Mansueti Mediolanensis ad Const. episc.’; fol. 210^r, Isidore of Seville's letter to Massona, Bishop, ‘Veniente ad nos’; fol. 216^r, ‘Epistola sancti Augustini ad Auxilium episcopum pro causa iniuste excommunicationis.’ At the beginning of the codex (fol. l^r–4^r), there are pen drawings. Mons. Giuseppe Ferraris, Librarian of the Vercelli Chapter Library, kindly suggested in a letter to me that Theodulf's text was added either in a late-ninth- or tenth-century hand.Google Scholar

³³ See Appendix infra. Google Scholar

³⁴ Ep. 5, PL 134.108A, from Calixtus, , Ep. 2.16 (Hinschius 140; JK 86). Ep. 9, PL 134. 118B, from Clemens, , Ep. 2.46 (Hinschius 48; JK 11).Google Scholar

³⁵ De pressuris 1, PL 134.66C, from Julius, , In ep. contra orient. pro Athanasio 12 (Hinschius 480; JK 195); 67B, Melchiades, Ep. 2,11 (Hinschius 248; JK 172); 68B, Anacletus, , Ep. 2.21 (Hinschius 78; JK 3).Google Scholar

³⁶ For Clemens, , Ep. 2.46, the reading in the Anselmo dedicata 4.43 (Vercelli MS XV, fol. 113^r), is similar to that of Hinschius 48: ‘Ad dominica …’ But Atto has (PL 134.118B) ‘Ministri altaris …,’ which is a reading that resembles that of MSS St. Gallen, , Stiftsbibl. 670; Bamberg, Staatl. Bibl. Can. 4 (formerly P. I. 8 and Dombibl. C 47, cited by Hinschius as Bamb. C 47); Köln, , Dombibl. 114 (formerly Grossherzogl. Hessische Hofbibl. 114 [2113], cited by Hinschius as Darm. 114). On the wording of this canon, see Hinschius 48, and Ryan, , Saint Peter Damiani 96. On the latter three MSS, see Williams, S., 'The Oldest Text 449, and Fuhrmann, H., ‘Konstantinische Schenkung …’ 87.Google Scholar

³⁷ The manuscript is described by Pastè, , ‘Vercelli …’ 97; and by Patetta, F., ‘Sopra due manoscritti della collezione Pseudo-Isidoriana,’ Rivista italiana per le scienze giuridiche 10 (1890) 67–70. Williams, Dr. was kind enough to advise me that this codex is included as No. 78 in his Codices Pseudo-Isidoriani. Google Scholar

³⁸ Patetta, F., ‘Sopra due manoscritti …’ 68; Williams, S., ‘Pseudo-Isidore from the Mss,’ (see n. 1 supra). Patetta already has pointed out that the manuscript includes on fol. 1^r a copy of article 33 of Atto's Capitulare .Google Scholar

³⁹ Vercelli MS LXXX, fol. 58^r (Calixtus, , Ep. 2.16): ‘Nec eos viros vel accusationes quas leges saeculi reiciunt suscipere debemus … Ipsam quoque infamiam qua sunt aspersi delere non possumus sed animas eorum per poenitentiam publicam et ecclesiae satisfactionem sanare cupimus.’ Hinschius 140 has the same reading with the exception of ‘ecclesiae satisfactionem,’ where he has ‘ecclesiis satisfactionem’. The Vercelli variant appears, however, in MSS St. Gallen 670, Bamberg Can. 4, and Köln 114. Atto has the same reading as MS LXXX, although he omits two words and changes slightly the word order (PL 134.108A): ‘Nec eos viros, quos leges saeculi rejiciunt, suscipere debemus. Ipsam quoque infamiam, qua aspersi sunt, delere …’ as in MS LXXX. Vercelli MS LXXX, fol. 122^r (Julius, , In ep. contra orient. pro Athanas. 12): ‘Incerta nemo unquam pontificum iudicare presumat quia quamvis vera sint non tamen credenda sunt nisi que manifestis iudiciis comprobantur, nisi que manifesto iudicio convincuntur, nisi que iudicario (sic) ordine publicantur.’ Hinschius, 469 n. 16, has noted that ‘sunt’ after ‘credenda’ is added only in MSS St. Gallen 670, Bamberg Can. 4, and Köln, 114. Also, the usual reading is ‘manifestis indiciis,’ except for Bamberg Can. 4, which has the variant ‘manifestis iuditiis.’ Atto has (Vat. lat. 4322, fol. 90^v): ‘Incerta unquam nullus pontificum iudicare praesumat, quia quamvis vera sint, non tamen credenda sunt, nisi quae manifestis iuditiis (PL 134.66C, indiciis) comprobantur, nisi quae manifesto iuditio convincuntur, nisi quae iudicario (sic, corr. in PL 134.66C, iudiciario) ordine publicantur.’ Vercelli MS LXXX, fol. 12^r (Clemens, , Ep. 2.46): ‘Ministri altaris presbiteri sive diaconi ad dominicum tales eligantur officia, qui ante ordinationem coniuges suas reliquerunt.’ This reading agrees with that of MSS St. Gallen 670, Bamberg Can. 4, and Köln, 114, but not with that of some other manuscripts containing this passage (cf. Hinschius 48 and my comments n. 36 supra). Atto has (PL 134.118B): ‘Ministri altaris ad Dominica tales eligantur officia, qui ante ordinationem conjuges suas reliquerunt.’ We can conclude, therefore, that Vercelli MS LXXX is closely related to Bamberg Can. 4, as well as to the codex which from Atto excerpted the above passages. The fact that Bamberg Can. 4 was copied at Milan in the tenth or eleventh century makes its relationship to Vercelli LXXX and Atto's text even more plausible. For a description of the Bamberg MS, see Fuhrmann, H., ‘Konstantinische Schenkung …’ 143 n. 216; Leitschuh, F. and Fischer, H., Katalog der Handschriften der kgl. Bibliothek zu Bamberg 1.1.5 (Bamberg 1906) 858–60; and Williams, S., ‘Pseudo-Isidore from the Mss,’ (see n. 1 supra) 63.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ An examination of the Appendix infra will show that Atto tended to excerpt articles in groups from the Anselmo dedicata. Google Scholar

⁴¹ There is considerable disagreement among modern scholars whether Pseudo-Isidore was a supporter of papal monarchy. The view that he was has been registered by Föste, C. H., Die Reception Pseudo-Isidors unter Nikolaus I. und Hadrian II. (Leipzig 1881); Funk, P., ‘Pseudo-Isidor gegen Heinrichs III Kirchenhoheit,’ Historisches Jahrbuch 56 (1936) 305ff; Hartmann, G., Der Primat des römischen Bischofs bei Pseudo-Isidor (Stuttgart 1930); Ullmann, W., The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (2nd ed. London 1962). A more modified interpretation of Pseudo-Isidore's aim was advanced in Fournier-Le Bras, Histoire I 133ff, where it was proposed that Pseudo-Isidore upheld the authority of the pope as the supreme judge in the Church only to strengthen episcopal authority against secular authority, so that bishops would be able to appeal to Rome against the decisions of councils presided over by princes. In a similar vein, Imbart de la Tour, P., in his Les élections épiscopates dans l'église de France du ix^e au XII^e siècle (Paris 1891) 160, has argued that the False Decretals attributed to the pope the right to confirm decisions of provincial synods only to deny this right to the emperor. The most recent challenge to the view that Pseudo-Isidore championed the cause of Rome came from Morrison, K. F. who, in his The Two Kingdoms (Princeton 1964) 77 n. 29, has summed up the underlying principle of the False Decretals as dualism of church and state and integrity of the clergy under papal monarchy modified by conciliarism. The chief difficulty in interpreting Pseudo-Isidore's position stems from his ambivalence on the legislative authority of popes. He affixed the formula ‘… a nobis et reliquis episcopis … statutum est…’ to those forged decretals which allegedly gave a summary of synodal decisions (cf. Morrison 75 n. 2). On the other hand, he considered papal letters even if they were not based on synodal decisions to have the same authority as conciliar decrees (Praef. c. 4, Hinschius, 18). Pseudo-Isidore was more consistent on the legislative authority of bishops, which he limited by requiring that the decisions of local synods be ratified by Rome. It is therefore evident that Pseudo-Isidore regarded conciliarism as being fully under papal control, although he did not attribute any rights to popes in the actual government of local churches. For a summary of the Pseudo-Isidorian problem and for a bibliography of relevant works written prior to 1905, see Seckel, E., ‘Pseudo-Isidor,’ Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 16 (Leipzig 1905) 265–307.Google Scholar

⁴² In Atto's Capitulare papal authority is referred to only in one article. Here, notwithstanding the assertion of papal principate, Rome's role is defined as that of the universal pastor who sets the example for observation of church rules; cap. 98, PL 134.48D, from Gelasius, , Ep. 9 (JK 636; Hadriana aucta, Vercelli MS LXXVI, fol. 154): ‘… satis indignum est quemquam vel pontificum, vel ordinum subsequentium hanc observationem refutare, quam beati Petri sedem et sequi videat, et docere, satisque conveniens sit, ut totum corpus Ecclesiae in hanc sibimet observationem concordet, quam illic vigere conspiciat, ubi Dominus Ecclesiae totius posuit principatum.’ In keeping with this interpretation of papal authority was the remark Atto made in one of his letters about the pope sharing with episcopal councils his authority to legislate; Ep. 11, PL 134.121B-C: ‘… ego quod a Sanctis Patribus statutum est, inviolabiliter assero observandum … Alioquin nil ultra novum adjicere censeo, nisi maxima utilitate vel necessitate cogente, summi pontificis sententia, vel prudentium fuerit episcoporum deliberatum consilio.’ As to the judicial authority of popes, Atto followed Pseudo-Isidore in specifying that definitive sentences against clerics could not be pronounced without the authority of Rome; De pressuris, PL 134.55A: ‘Damnari etiam eos absque sanctae Romanae Sedis auctoritate interdixerunt omnino.’ A similar statement on the judicial authority of Rome may be found, for example, in Felix II, Ep. 19 (Hinschius, 488).Google Scholar

⁴³ Fuhrmann, , New Catholic Encyclopedia 5 (1967) 823a.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Bras, Fournier-Le, Histoire I 242. This view is generally accepted by modern historians of canon law; see for example Stickler, , Historia I 150. The argument in Fournier-Le Bras is based on the number of extant manuscripts of Italian origin. Admittedly, these are few. Besides the Vercelli codex, the entire text of the Anselmo dedicata is known to exist only in Modena, Arch. Cap. MS II.2, which seems to be a copy of the Vercelli codex (cf. articles by Patetta, , supra notes 22, 24). In addition, excerpts from Books 1–4 are contained in Bibl. Ambrosiana MS A 46 inf. (cf. Fournier, , ‘Études sur les “Fausses Décrétales”,’ [see n. 2 supra] 54). On the other hand, five manuscripts copied north of the Alps preserve the text (on these, see Bras, Fournier-Le, Histoire I 236 n. b). We do not know what manuscript was the source of these, however. None is older than the Vercelli codex. Were they all copied, therefore, from a codex which was the source also of the Vercelli manuscript or did some other Italian codex serve as their source? Also, what was the source of the excerpts in Ambrosiana MS A 46 inf.? We know that the Anselmo dedicata was compiled in the late-ninth century. The text must have existed therefore in a now lost ninth-century manuscript. Whether or not the Anselmo dedicata was widely used in Italy in the ninth- and tenth centuries must await therefore the answer from the results of future research on its manuscript tradition.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Mor, C. G., ‘La reazione al “Decretum Burchardi” in Italia avanti la Riforma Gregoriana,’ Studi Gregoriani 1 (1947) 200ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ryan, , Saint Peter Damiani 160–2, 166.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid. 167–8, 175, and passim. Google Scholar