On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Thomas Izbicki wrote:
> John.
>
> A friend who worked on older canon law texts told me back when that the
> text brought from Rome did not displace all local collections.
>
> tom izbicki
>
>
>
Dear Tom,
This is true, but like always things are somewhat complicated.
1) The collection Charlemagne got from Rome (774), the Hadriana, was a
systematic collection of law.
2) This collection was later supplemented by a revised and expanded
Dionysiana.
3) The conflated Dionysio-Hadriana became the text upon which Carolingian
standardizing policies were based.
The above policy was only partially successful.
1) The DH itself manifested great regional variation since it was often
supplemented w/local traditions or updated as time went by.
2) Outside influences, particularly from England and Ireland, also
offered new fontes of canonical sources drawn from both local canonical
traditions and from sources like penitentials.
3) The survival of local collections both systematic. Among the latter,
the most impt was the Herovalliana, a variation of the Collectio vetus
Gallica. It was particularly strong in its emphasis on
archiepiscopal/episcopal pwr and offered a strong alternative to both
papal and imperial monisms.
4) The production of new sources of canon law. Sources like the
Capitularia of Abbot Ansegesius represented strong Imperial statements.
5) The productions of the Pseudo-Isidorian atelier, particularly the PsI
Decretals and the False Decretals of Benedict the Levite.
Michael F. Hynes
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|