Liber decretorum Dionysii: Difference between revisions

From Clavis Canonum
(Layout)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Liber decretalium Dionysii''}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Liber decretorum Dionysii''}}


{{Infobox collection
{{Infobox collection
Line 18: Line 18:
}}
}}


Dionysius, after having translated conciliar canons, compiled a collection of decretals, using previous collections (not papal registers). Scholars agree that the resulting Liber decretalium was not completed before the second version of the conciliar collection (= [[Dionysiana II]]), but disagree whether the decretal collection was part and parcel of this second version or rather added later.
Dionysius, after having translated conciliar canons, compiled a collection of decretals, using previous collections (not papal registers). Scholars agree that the resulting ''Liber decretorum'' was not completed before the second version of the conciliar collection (= ''[[Dionysiana II]]''), but disagree whether the decretal collection was part and parcel of this second version or rather added later (perhaps much later).


Importantly, Dionysius distinguished between different kinds of papal letters and selected only "legal" (as opposed to "dogmatic") letters, a distinction that had a profound impact on Western canon law ({{Author|d'Avray}}).
Importantly, Dionysius distinguished between different kinds of papal letters and selected only "legal" (as opposed to "dogmatic") letters, a distinction that had a profound impact on Western canon law ({{Author|d'Avray}}).
Line 25: Line 25:


== Contents ==
== Contents ==
The Liber decretalium does not have an independent manuscript tradition; it has to be reconstructed from later collections. According to {{author|Wurm}}, Studien pp. [https://archive.org/details/dionysiusexiguus0000peit/page/62/mode/1up 62]-81, it originally contained 38 papal letters (his nos. 1-24 and 26-39), one imperial rescript (his no. 25), and a florilegium (no. 28a); other decretals (his nos. 23a, 37a, and 37b) are not part of the "reine Dionysiana".
The ''Liber decretalium'' does not have an independent manuscript tradition; it has to be reconstructed from later collections. According to {{author|Wurm}}, Studien pp. [https://archive.org/details/dionysiusexiguus0000peit/page/62/mode/1up 62]-81, it originally contained 38 papal letters (his nos. 1-24 and 26-39), one imperial rescript (his no. 25), and a florilegium (no. 28a); other decretals (his nos. 23a, 37a, and 37b) are not part of the "reine Dionysiana".


1. Siricius, {{JK|255}}
1. Siricius, {{JK|255}}
Line 101: Line 101:
37. Leo I, {{JK|536}}. According to {{author|Wurm}} p. 79, later versions here also add Leo I, {{JK|410}} (his no. "37a"), and the Dionysiana version in [[Roma, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, 2102]] contains JK 410 followed by more decretals (his no. 37b)  
37. Leo I, {{JK|536}}. According to {{author|Wurm}} p. 79, later versions here also add Leo I, {{JK|410}} (his no. "37a"), and the Dionysiana version in [[Roma, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, 2102]] contains JK 410 followed by more decretals (his no. 37b)  


38. Gelasius I, {{JK|363}}
38. Gelasius I, {{JK|636}}


39. Anastasius, {{JK|744}}
39. Anastasius, {{JK|744}}
Line 109: Line 109:
==Relation of conciliar and decretal collection==  
==Relation of conciliar and decretal collection==  


*While {{Author|Justel}} first had published only the conciliar collection of the Dionysiana (see below for details), the posthumous 1661 edition contained both canons and decretals. For centuries, this edition was used by scholars working on the Dionysiana. For many readers, the starting point of their studies was that Dionysius Exiguus had compiled a collection that was composed of a collection of conciliar decrees and a collection of decretals.
*While {{Author|Justel}} first had published only the conciliar collection of the ''Dionysiana'' (see below for details), the posthumous 1661 edition contained both canons and decretals. For centuries, this edition was used by scholars working on the ''Dionysiana''. For many readers, the starting point of their studies was that Dionysius Exiguus had compiled a collection that was composed of a collection of conciliar decrees and a collection of decretals.
*According to {{Author|Maassen}}, the decretal collection was not the work of Dionysius Exiguus: "Es unterliegt daher nicht dem mindesten Zweifel, dass diese Decretalen nicht von Dionysius selbst in die Sammlung aufgenommen, sondern ein späterer Zusatz sind." (p. {{Maassen|436}}). He also pointed out that Pope Zachary in ''Gaudio magno'' when quoting both councils and decretals from a version of the Dionysiana still distinguished ''liber canonum'' and ''liber decretorum'', indicating an existence as two distinct collections still in the eighth century (p. {{Maassen|438}}).
*According to {{Author|Maassen}}, the decretal collection was not the work of Dionysius Exiguus: "Es unterliegt daher nicht dem mindesten Zweifel, dass diese Decretalen nicht von Dionysius selbst in die Sammlung aufgenommen, sondern ein späterer Zusatz sind." (p. {{Maassen|436}}). He also pointed out that Pope Zachary in ''Gaudio magno'' when quoting both councils and decretals from a version of the Dionysiana still distinguished ''liber canonum'' and ''liber decretorum'', indicating an existence as two distinct collections still in the eighth century (p. {{Maassen|438}}).
*{{Author|Peitz}} assumed that the Liber decretalium was indeed composed by Dionysius, but that it was combinded with the conciliar collection only after his death ({{Author|Peitz}}, Studien p. [https://archive.org/details/dionysiusexiguus0000peit/page/11/mode/1up?view=theater 11]).
*{{Author|Peitz}} assumed that the ''Liber decretorum'' was indeed composed by Dionysius, but that it was combinded with the conciliar collection only after his death ({{Author|Peitz}}, Studien p. [https://archive.org/details/dionysiusexiguus0000peit/page/11/mode/1up?view=theater 11]).
*{{Author|Wurm}}, Studien p. [https://archive.org/details/dionysiusexiguus0000peit/page/44/mode/1up 44] agrees with {{Author|Maassen}} that the two collections were still separate long after the death of Dionysius, but nonetheless treats the decretals as part of the original Dionyiana (passim).  
*{{Author|Wurm}}, Studien p. [https://archive.org/details/dionysiusexiguus0000peit/page/44/mode/1up 44] agrees with {{Author|Maassen}} that the two collections were still separate long after the death of Dionysius, but nonetheless treats the decretals as part of the original Dionyiana (passim).  
*{{Author|Mordek}} in LexMA 3 (1986) col. 1089 describes Dionysiana II as containing [[Canones Apostolorum]] and conciliar canons (no mention of decretals), but also (col. 1089-90) seems to assert that Dionysius himself was responsible for the integration of conciliar and decretal collections into one work, praising him for his "Prinzip der klaren, benutzerfreundlichen Ordnung des Materials: strikte Trennung zwischen Konzilien und Papstbriefen, chronologische Reihung der Dekretalen und - analog zu den Kanones - deren Gliederung in einzelne, für jeden Papst neu durchgezählte Kapitel."
*{{Author|Mordek}} in LexMA 3 (1986) col. 1089 describes ''Dionysiana II'' as containing ''[[Canones Apostolorum]]'' and conciliar canons (no mention of decretals), but also (col. 1089-90) seems to assert that Dionysius himself was responsible for the integration of conciliar and decretal collections into one work, praising him for his "Prinzip der klaren, benutzerfreundlichen Ordnung des Materials: strikte Trennung zwischen Konzilien und Papstbriefen, chronologische Reihung der Dekretalen und - analog zu den Kanones - deren Gliederung in einzelne, für jeden Papst neu durchgezählte Kapitel."
*{{Author|Zechiel-Eckes}}, Erste Dekretale, pp. 50-51 assumes that the decretal collection was an integral part of the second version of the Dionysiana.
*{{Author|Zechiel-Eckes}}, Erste Dekretale, pp. 50-51 assumes that the decretal collection was an integral part of the second version of the Dionysiana.
*{{Author|Firey}}, [https://ccl.rch.uky.edu/dionysiana-article Collection] assumes that the decretal collection was Dionysius' work, but remains neutral regarding the point in time the collections were combined. Above all, she stresses the variation between different copies, and the lasting tension between (largely stable) conciliar legislation on the one hand and the decretals as "a more readily expanded and clearly continuing source of legal opinion".
*{{Author|Firey}}, [https://ccl.rch.uky.edu/dionysiana-article Collection] assumes that the decretal collection was Dionysius' work, but remains neutral regarding the point in time the collections were combined. Above all, she stresses the variation between different copies, and the lasting tension between (largely stable) conciliar legislation on the one hand and the decretals as "a more readily expanded and clearly continuing source of legal opinion".
Line 122: Line 122:
*[[Città del Vaticano, BAV, Vat. lat. 5845]]
*[[Città del Vaticano, BAV, Vat. lat. 5845]]


Scholars disagree about the number of extant manuscripts of the decretal collection, partly because they disagree about its relation to the collection of conciliar canons. Incomplete copies of the Dionysio-Hadriana can sometimes be confused with copies of the Liber decretalium Dionysii. In any case, there are different lists of manuscripts:   
Scholars disagree about the number of extant manuscripts of the decretal collection, partly because they disagree about its relation to the collection of conciliar canons. Incomplete copies of the Dionysio-Hadriana can sometimes be confused with copies of the ''Liber decretorum Dionysii''. In any case, there are different lists of manuscripts:   


*{{Author|Maassen}} pp. {{Maassen|431}}-432 lists [[Paris, BnF, lat. 3837]] and [[Città del Vaticano, BAV, Vat. lat. 5845]] as the only two complete manuscripts (decretal collection including praefatio).
*{{Author|Maassen}} pp. {{Maassen|431}}-432 lists [[Paris, BnF, lat. 3837]] and [[Città del Vaticano, BAV, Vat. lat. 5845]] as the only two complete manuscripts (decretal collection including ''praefatio'').
*{{Author|Wurm}}, Studien pp. [https://archive.org/details/dionysiusexiguus0000peit/page/31/mode/1up 31]-32 likewise lists the Paris and the Vatican manuscripts (his '''Da''' and '''Db''', respectively) as copies of the "(reine) Dionysiana" (his '''D'''), although they contain a few texts which he describes as additions (28a = Zosimus JK 345. Under the same heading he also lists two other manuscripts:
*{{Author|Wurm}}, Studien pp. [https://archive.org/details/dionysiusexiguus0000peit/page/31/mode/1up 31]-32 likewise lists the Paris and the Vatican manuscripts (his '''Da''' and '''Db''', respectively) as copies of the "(reine) Dionysiana" (his '''D'''), although they contain a few texts which he describes as additions (28a = Zosimus JK 345). Under the same heading he also lists two other manuscripts:
**"cod. Sessorianus LXIII" (his '''Ds''') which he describes as a "vermehrte Dionysiana, ähnlich der Hadriana". he also asserts that this copy was collated with the Collectio Sanblasiana (p. 44). See [[Roma, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, 2102]].
**"cod. Sessorianus LXIII" (his '''Ds''') which he describes as a "vermehrte Dionysiana, ähnlich der Hadriana". he also asserts that this copy was collated with the Collectio Sanblasiana (p. 44). See [[Roma, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, 2102]].
**"cod. bibl. capit. Mutinensis, Ord. I nr. 12." (his '''Dm''') which he describes as "die aus der D ausgeschriebene coll. Mutinensis" (p. 32). See [[Modena, Biblioteca Capitolare, O.I.12]].
**"cod. bibl. capit. Mutinensis, Ord. I nr. 12." (his '''Dm''') which he describes as "die aus der D ausgeschriebene coll. Mutinensis" (p. 32). See [[Modena, Archivio Capitolare, O.I.12]].
*{{Author|Green}}, Innocent p. 17 follows Maassen (only two complete mss).
*{{Author|Green}}, Innocent p. 17 follows Maassen (only two complete mss).
*{{Author|Kéry}} lists the Paris and the Vatican copies among the manuscripts of the second recension of the synodal collection (p. {{Kéry|10}}) and follows {{Author|Maassen}} to list them as the only manuscripts of the decretal collection (p. {{Kéry|11}}). Additionally she mentions two more manuscripts containing "small collections of excerpts", namely [[Paris, BnF, lat. 3847]] and [[Paris, BnF, lat. 10399]] (p. {{Kéry|11}}).
*{{Author|Kéry}} lists the Paris and the Vatican copies among the manuscripts of the second recension of the synodal collection (p. {{Kéry|10}}) and follows {{Author|Maassen}} to list them as the only manuscripts of the decretal collection (p. {{Kéry|11}}). Additionally she mentions two more manuscripts containing "small collections of excerpts", namely [[Paris, BnF, lat. 3847]] and [[Paris, BnF, lat. 10399]] (p. {{Kéry|11}}).
*{{Author|Firey}}, [https://ccl.rch.uky.edu/dionysiana-article Collection] likewise lists the Paris and the Vatican copies, but also [[Paris, BnF, lat. 3845]] as containing the second version of the conciliar collection and the decretals: "Only three manuscripts represent the “Collectio Dionysiana” as generally conceived by subsequent editors and scholars: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 3837 (a ninth-century manuscript) contains the Preface to the Decretal Collection, the second (expanded) edition of the conciliar canons, and the collected decretals, as does a tenth-century manuscript, Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 5845. One other ninth-century manuscript [scil. Paris, BnF, lat. 3845, CR] has the second edition of the conciliar canons and the decretals, but no preface."
*{{Author|Firey}}, [https://ccl.rch.uky.edu/dionysiana-article Collection] likewise lists the Paris and the Vatican copies, but also [[Paris, BnF, lat. 3845]] as containing the second version of the conciliar collection and the decretals: "Only three manuscripts represent the “Collectio Dionysiana” as generally conceived by subsequent editors and scholars: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 3837 (a ninth-century manuscript) contains the Preface to the Decretal Collection, the second (expanded) edition of the conciliar canons, and the collected decretals, as does a tenth-century manuscript, Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 5845. One other ninth-century manuscript [scil. Paris, BnF, lat. 3845, CR] has the second edition of the conciliar canons and the decretals, but no preface."
*{{Author|Zechiel-Eckes}}, like Wurm (and using the same sigla), lists [[Paris, BnF, lat. 3837]], [[Città del Vaticano, BAV, Vat. lat. 5845]], but also [[Modena, Biblioteca Capitolare, O.I.12]] as "Codices der Dion. 2" (p. 50) containing JK 255.
*{{Author|Zechiel-Eckes}}, like {{Author|Wurm}} (and using the same sigla), lists [[Paris, BnF, lat. 3837]], [[Città del Vaticano, BAV, Vat. lat. 5845]], but also [[Modena, Archivio Capitolare, O.I.12]] as "Codices der Dion. 2" (p. 50) containing JK 255.
*{{Author|Heith-Stade}}, Dionysius Exiguus p. 330 does not list manuscripts but states that the decretal collection was only known from the Dionysio-Hadriana: "The Liber decretalium is known today from versions found in or retrieved from the Collectio Dionysiana-Hadriana."
*{{Author|Heith-Stade}}, Dionysius Exiguus p. 330 does not list manuscripts but states that the decretal collection was only known from the Dionysio-Hadriana: "The Liber decretalium is known today from versions found in or retrieved from the Collectio Dionysiana-Hadriana."
*{{Author|d'Avray}}, Papal Jurisprudence p. 26, referring to the different lists in Kéry and Zechiel-Eckes, speaks of "two or three manuscripts" of Dionysius' decretal collection.
*{{Author|d'Avray}}, Papal Jurisprudence p. 26, referring to the different lists in {{Author|Kéry}} and {{Author|Zechiel-Eckes}}, speaks of "two or three manuscripts" of Dionysius' decretal collection.
*{{Author|Hoskin}}, Letters pp. 151-152 largely follows {{Author|Kéry}} (only two mss of the collection plus two mss with excerpts). He comments (p. 151 n. 174) that {{Author|Firey}}'s assertion that [[Paris, BnF, lat. 3845]] was a copy of the Liber decretalium Dionysii probably goes back to the description of this manuscript in {{Author|Kéry}} p. {{Kéry|10}} (where both BnF, lat. 3845 und [[BnF, lat. 3837]] are said to contain "also decretals").
*{{Author|Hoskin}}, Letters pp. 151-152 largely follows {{Author|Kéry}} (only two mss of the collection plus two mss with excerpts). He comments (p. 151 n. 174) that {{Author|Firey}}'s assertion that [[Paris, BnF, lat. 3845]] was a copy of the Liber decretalium Dionysii probably goes back to the description of this manuscript in {{Author|Kéry}} p. {{Kéry|10}} (where both BnF, lat. 3845 und [[BnF, lat. 3837]] are said to contain "also decretals").


==Editions ==
==Editions ==
The editions of the Liber decretalium have been called "a bibliographical nightmare" ({{author|Brett}}, Theodore, p. 122 n. 5) for good reasons. According to {{author|Brett}} (pp. 138-140), the textual history can be described as follows: Justel's 1628 edition of the Dionysiana depended on his own copy (today [[Oxford, Bodleian Library, e Mus. 103]]) which has no decretals. In the second edition, however, "he printed the capitula of the decretals as far as Anastasius II from an unknown source" (p. 138); only in the 1661 edition, the text of the decretals was added. {{author|Turner}} and {{author|Kuttner}} suspected that the source for this addition was {{author|Colchaeus}}' 1525 edition or its 1609 reprint which in turn relies on three copies of the [[Dionysio-Hadriana]]; {{author|Brett}}, in contrast, followed {{author|Wurm}} Studien p. [https://archive.org/details/dionysiusexiguus0000peit/page/51/mode/1up 51] n. 74 who suspected that the 1661 edition relied on a corrupt Hadriana manuscript.
The editions of the ''Liber decretorum'' have been called "a bibliographical nightmare" ({{author|Brett}}, Theodore, p. 122 n. 5) for good reasons. See the separate article on the various editions and their relation to the manuscripts: [[Collectio Dionysiana editions]].
As {{author|Brett}} p. 139 concluded:
:"It seems to follow that the edition of 1661 is based on the second Dionysiana proper for the councils, but on a poor manuscript of the Hadriana for the decretals. As the Ballerini noted long ago (PL 56, 199-200), and Wurm after them (Studien, pp. 70 (no.23a), 75 (no.37a) and 79), the 1661 edition therefore included in the decretal section which does belong to the early Dionysiana some letters which were added later, notably Zosimus c. 4 and Leo I c. 49, as well as the appendix from Hilary onwards. These additions accumulated slowly; the Hadriana marks a late stage in the process. The 1661 text is also full of readings proper only to the Hadriana. [...]"
 
The editions are:
*Codex canonum ecclesiasticorum Dionysii Exigui, ed. Christophe Justel (Paris 1628). Online: https://digi.bib.uni-mannheim.de/urn/urn:nbn:de:bsz:180-digad-25043
*Codex canonum ecclesiasticorum Dionysii Exigui [...] editio altera, ed. Christophe Justel (Paris 1643). Online: https://books.google.de/books?id=YJYUAAAAQAAJ
*Bibliotheca iuris canonici veteris [...] vol. 1, ed. Guillaume Voel and Henri Justel (Paris 1661), 97–180. Online at https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dozp_JFtZCgC/page/n6/mode/1up
*PL 67, col. 137–316. Online at https://archive.org/details/patrologiaecurs108unkngoog/page/n76/mode/1up


==Literature==  
==Literature==  
*David {{author|Heith-Stade}}, Dionysius Exiguus, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108559133.015
{{Author|Maassen}} pp. {{Maassen|422}}-440; {{Author|Wurm}}, Studien; {{Author|Kéry}} pp. {{Kéry|10}}-21; {{Author|Fowler-Magerl}} pp. {{FM|29}}-32; David {{author|Heith-Stade}}, Dionysius Exiguus, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108559133.015


==Categories==
[[Category:Collection Key is DX]] [[Category:Canonical Collection]]
* key is DX [[Category:Collection Key is DX]] [[Category:Collection]]
[[Category:Collection belonging to Dionysiana group]]
*belongs to: Dionysiana group [[Category:Collection belonging to Dionysiana group]]
[[Category:Very small (less than 100 canons) collection]]
*[[Category:Very small (less than 100 canons) collection]] from Rome [[Category:Collection from Rome]] [[Category:Collection from Central Italy]]
[[Category:Collection from Rome]]  
*saec. VI [[Category:Collection saec VI]]
[[Category:Collection from Central Italy]]
*entries based on Migne [[Category:Clavis entries based on early printed books]]
[[Category:Collection saec V]]
[[Category:Collection saec VI]]
[[Category:Clavis entries based on early printed books]]

Latest revision as of 16:10, 13 December 2024


Title Liber decretalium Dionysii
Key DX
Alternative title Sammlung der Decretalen (Maassen)
Alternative title Dekretalensammlung des Dionysius (Wurm)
Alternative title The Decretal Collection (Firey)
Alternative title Collectio Decretorum (d'Avray)
Size Very small (less than 100 canons)
Terminus post quem 496
Terminus ante quem 523
Century saec. VI
Place of origin Rome
European region of origin Central Italy
General region of origin Southern Europe and Mediterranean
Main author User:Christof Rolker


Dionysius, after having translated conciliar canons, compiled a collection of decretals, using previous collections (not papal registers). Scholars agree that the resulting Liber decretorum was not completed before the second version of the conciliar collection (= Dionysiana II), but disagree whether the decretal collection was part and parcel of this second version or rather added later (perhaps much later).

Importantly, Dionysius distinguished between different kinds of papal letters and selected only "legal" (as opposed to "dogmatic") letters, a distinction that had a profound impact on Western canon law (d'Avray).

The Liber decretalium began with a dedicatory letter to a certain priest Julian followed by a capitulatio in the form of a numbered list of all rubrics of the decretals (Wurm p. 62).

Contents

The Liber decretalium does not have an independent manuscript tradition; it has to be reconstructed from later collections. According to Wurm, Studien pp. 62-81, it originally contained 38 papal letters (his nos. 1-24 and 26-39), one imperial rescript (his no. 25), and a florilegium (no. 28a); other decretals (his nos. 23a, 37a, and 37b) are not part of the "reine Dionysiana".

1. Siricius, JK 255

2. Innocent I, JK 311

3. Innocent I, JK 286

4. Innocent I, JK 293

5. Innocent I, JK 314

6. Innocent I, JK 315

7. Innocent I, JK 316

8. Innocent I, JK 304

9. Innocent I, JK 317

10. Innocent I, JK 313

11. Innocent I, JK 297

12. Innocent I, JK 302

13. Innocent I, JK 301

14. Innocent I, JK 309

15. Innocent I, JK 306

16. Innocent I, JK 308

17. Innocent I, JK 305

18. Innocent I, JK 310

19. Innocent I, JK 307

20. Innocent I, JK 318

21. Innocent I, JK 299

22. Innocent I, JK 303

23. Zosimus, JK 339. According to Wurm p. 70, Zosimus JK 345 (his no. "23a") was added after JK 339 in later versions.

24. Boniface, JK 353

25. Rescript by Emperor Honorius; see Wurm p. 71 and Maassen p. 320.

26. Boniface, JK 349

27. Boniface, JK 362

28. Celestine, JK 381, followed by a short florilegium (Wurm p. 72: no. 28a).

29. Celestine, JK 369

30. Celestine, JK 371

31. Leo I, JK 402

32. Leo I, JK 405

33. Leo I, JK 414

34. Leo I, JK 416

35. Leo I, JK 544

36. Leo I, JK 411

37. Leo I, JK 536. According to Wurm p. 79, later versions here also add Leo I, JK 410 (his no. "37a"), and the Dionysiana version in Roma, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, 2102 contains JK 410 followed by more decretals (his no. 37b)

38. Gelasius I, JK 636

39. Anastasius, JK 744

The Collectio Dionysiana adaucta contains further additions from the letters of Leo I, namely JK 406, JK 412, JK 389, JK 399, JK 485, and JK 415 (Wurm pp. 77-78).

Relation of conciliar and decretal collection

  • While Justel first had published only the conciliar collection of the Dionysiana (see below for details), the posthumous 1661 edition contained both canons and decretals. For centuries, this edition was used by scholars working on the Dionysiana. For many readers, the starting point of their studies was that Dionysius Exiguus had compiled a collection that was composed of a collection of conciliar decrees and a collection of decretals.
  • According to Maassen, the decretal collection was not the work of Dionysius Exiguus: "Es unterliegt daher nicht dem mindesten Zweifel, dass diese Decretalen nicht von Dionysius selbst in die Sammlung aufgenommen, sondern ein späterer Zusatz sind." (p. 436). He also pointed out that Pope Zachary in Gaudio magno when quoting both councils and decretals from a version of the Dionysiana still distinguished liber canonum and liber decretorum, indicating an existence as two distinct collections still in the eighth century (p. 438).
  • Peitz assumed that the Liber decretorum was indeed composed by Dionysius, but that it was combinded with the conciliar collection only after his death (Peitz, Studien p. 11).
  • Wurm, Studien p. 44 agrees with Maassen that the two collections were still separate long after the death of Dionysius, but nonetheless treats the decretals as part of the original Dionyiana (passim).
  • Mordek in LexMA 3 (1986) col. 1089 describes Dionysiana II as containing Canones Apostolorum and conciliar canons (no mention of decretals), but also (col. 1089-90) seems to assert that Dionysius himself was responsible for the integration of conciliar and decretal collections into one work, praising him for his "Prinzip der klaren, benutzerfreundlichen Ordnung des Materials: strikte Trennung zwischen Konzilien und Papstbriefen, chronologische Reihung der Dekretalen und - analog zu den Kanones - deren Gliederung in einzelne, für jeden Papst neu durchgezählte Kapitel."
  • Zechiel-Eckes, Erste Dekretale, pp. 50-51 assumes that the decretal collection was an integral part of the second version of the Dionysiana.
  • Firey, Collection assumes that the decretal collection was Dionysius' work, but remains neutral regarding the point in time the collections were combined. Above all, she stresses the variation between different copies, and the lasting tension between (largely stable) conciliar legislation on the one hand and the decretals as "a more readily expanded and clearly continuing source of legal opinion".

The manuscripts

For the manuscripts, see the Category:Manuscript of DX (2 entries) and the individual articles:

Scholars disagree about the number of extant manuscripts of the decretal collection, partly because they disagree about its relation to the collection of conciliar canons. Incomplete copies of the Dionysio-Hadriana can sometimes be confused with copies of the Liber decretorum Dionysii. In any case, there are different lists of manuscripts:

  • Maassen pp. 431-432 lists Paris, BnF, lat. 3837 and Città del Vaticano, BAV, Vat. lat. 5845 as the only two complete manuscripts (decretal collection including praefatio).
  • Wurm, Studien pp. 31-32 likewise lists the Paris and the Vatican manuscripts (his Da and Db, respectively) as copies of the "(reine) Dionysiana" (his D), although they contain a few texts which he describes as additions (28a = Zosimus JK 345). Under the same heading he also lists two other manuscripts:
    • "cod. Sessorianus LXIII" (his Ds) which he describes as a "vermehrte Dionysiana, ähnlich der Hadriana". he also asserts that this copy was collated with the Collectio Sanblasiana (p. 44). See Roma, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, 2102.
    • "cod. bibl. capit. Mutinensis, Ord. I nr. 12." (his Dm) which he describes as "die aus der D ausgeschriebene coll. Mutinensis" (p. 32). See Modena, Archivio Capitolare, O.I.12.
  • Green, Innocent p. 17 follows Maassen (only two complete mss).
  • Kéry lists the Paris and the Vatican copies among the manuscripts of the second recension of the synodal collection (p. 10) and follows Maassen to list them as the only manuscripts of the decretal collection (p. 11). Additionally she mentions two more manuscripts containing "small collections of excerpts", namely Paris, BnF, lat. 3847 and Paris, BnF, lat. 10399 (p. 11).
  • Firey, Collection likewise lists the Paris and the Vatican copies, but also Paris, BnF, lat. 3845 as containing the second version of the conciliar collection and the decretals: "Only three manuscripts represent the “Collectio Dionysiana” as generally conceived by subsequent editors and scholars: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 3837 (a ninth-century manuscript) contains the Preface to the Decretal Collection, the second (expanded) edition of the conciliar canons, and the collected decretals, as does a tenth-century manuscript, Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. 5845. One other ninth-century manuscript [scil. Paris, BnF, lat. 3845, CR] has the second edition of the conciliar canons and the decretals, but no preface."
  • Zechiel-Eckes, like Wurm (and using the same sigla), lists Paris, BnF, lat. 3837, Città del Vaticano, BAV, Vat. lat. 5845, but also Modena, Archivio Capitolare, O.I.12 as "Codices der Dion. 2" (p. 50) containing JK 255.
  • Heith-Stade, Dionysius Exiguus p. 330 does not list manuscripts but states that the decretal collection was only known from the Dionysio-Hadriana: "The Liber decretalium is known today from versions found in or retrieved from the Collectio Dionysiana-Hadriana."
  • d'Avray, Papal Jurisprudence p. 26, referring to the different lists in Kéry and Zechiel-Eckes, speaks of "two or three manuscripts" of Dionysius' decretal collection.
  • Hoskin, Letters pp. 151-152 largely follows Kéry (only two mss of the collection plus two mss with excerpts). He comments (p. 151 n. 174) that Firey's assertion that Paris, BnF, lat. 3845 was a copy of the Liber decretalium Dionysii probably goes back to the description of this manuscript in Kéry p. 10 (where both BnF, lat. 3845 und BnF, lat. 3837 are said to contain "also decretals").

Editions

The editions of the Liber decretorum have been called "a bibliographical nightmare" (Brett, Theodore, p. 122 n. 5) for good reasons. See the separate article on the various editions and their relation to the manuscripts: Collectio Dionysiana editions.

Literature

Maassen pp. 422-440; Wurm, Studien; Kéry pp. 10-21; Fowler-Magerl pp. 29-32; David Heith-Stade, Dionysius Exiguus, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108559133.015

Retrieved from "https://data.mgh.de/databases/clavis/wiki/index.php?title=Liber_decretorum_Dionysii&oldid=14056"