Liber decretorum Dionysii: Difference between revisions

From Clavis Canonum
No edit summary
Line 70: Line 70:
The following three item are additions not found in the "reine Dionysiana" according to {{author|Wurm}} pp. 75-77:
The following three item are additions not found in the "reine Dionysiana" according to {{author|Wurm}} pp. 75-77:


37a. Leo I, {{JK|410}}
37a. Leo I, {{JK|410}}  
38. Gelasius I, {{JK|363}}
38. Gelasius I, {{JK|363}}
39. Anastasius, {{JK|744}}
39. Anastasius, {{JK|744}}
Line 76: Line 76:
The [[Collectio Dionysiana adaucta]] contains further additions from the letters of Leo I ({{author|Wurm}} pp. 77-78), namely {{JK|406}}, {{JK|412}}, {{JK|389}}, {{JK|399}}, {{JK|485}}, and {{JK|415}}.
The [[Collectio Dionysiana adaucta]] contains further additions from the letters of Leo I ({{author|Wurm}} pp. 77-78), namely {{JK|406}}, {{JK|412}}, {{JK|389}}, {{JK|399}}, {{JK|485}}, and {{JK|415}}.


== 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 combindes 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 decretalium was indeed composed by Dionysius, but that it was combindes with the conciliar collection only after his death ({{Author|Peitz}}, Studien p. [https://archive.org/details/dionysiusexiguus0000peit/page/11/mode/1up?view=theater 11]).


== The manuscripts ==
==The manuscripts==
For the manuscripts, see the [[:Category:Manuscript of DX]] ({{PAGESINCATEGORY:Manuscript of DX}} entries) and the individual articles:  
For the manuscripts, see the [[:Category:Manuscript of DX]] ({{PAGESINCATEGORY:Manuscript of DX}} entries) and the individual articles:
* [[Paris, BnF, lat. 3837]]
*[[Paris, BnF, lat. 3837]]
* [[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 decretalium 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), and assumes that the decretal collection was ''not'' the work of Dionysius Exiguus.
*{{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), and assumes that the decretal collection was ''not'' the work of Dionysius Exiguus.
* {{Author|Wurm}}, Studien p. 44 agrees with {{Author|Maassen}} that the two collections were still separate long after the death of Dionysius. As for the manuscripts, he pp. 31-32 likewise lists the Paris and the Vatican manuscripts (his '''Da''' and '''Db''', respectively) as copies of the "(reine) Dionysiana" (his '''D'''). Under the same heading he also lists two other manuscripts:
*{{Author|Wurm}}, Studien p. 44 agrees with {{Author|Maassen}} that the two collections were still separate long after the death of Dionysius, but . As for the manuscripts, he pp. 31-32 likewise lists the Paris and the Vatican manuscripts (his '''Da''' and '''Db''', respectively) as copies of the "(reine) Dionysiana" (his '''D'''). 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, Sessor. LXIII]].
**"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, Sessor. LXIII]].
** "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, Biblioteca 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|Mordek}} in LexMA 3 (1986) col. 1089 describes Dionysiana II as containing Canones Apostolorum and conciliar canons, 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 "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, 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 "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|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.
*{{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.
* {{Author|Zechiel-Eckes}}, Erste Dekretale, pp. 50-51 assumes that the decretal collection was an integral part of the second version of the Dionysiana II. Like Wurm (and using the same sigla), he 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}}, Erste Dekretale, pp. 50-51 assumes that the decretal collection was an integral part of the second version of the Dionysiana II. Like Wurm (and using the same sigla), he 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|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 Kéry and 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. 51 n. 74 who suspected that the 1661 edition relied on a corrupt Hadriana manuscript.
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. 51 n. 74 who suspected that the 1661 edition relied on a corrupt Hadriana manuscript.
As {{author|Brett}} p. 139 concluded:
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. [...]"  
:"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:
The editions are:
Line 113: Line 113:
*PL 67, col. 137–316. Online at https://archive.org/details/patrologiaecurs108unkngoog/page/n76/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  
*David {{author|Heith-Stade}}, Dionysius Exiguus, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108559133.015


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

Revision as of 14:12, 25 July 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 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.

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 36 (sic) decretals plus one imperial rescript:

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

The following three item are additions not found in the "reine Dionysiana" according to Wurm pp. 75-77:

37a. Leo I, JK 410 38. Gelasius I, JK 363 39. Anastasius, JK 744

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

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 decretalium was indeed composed by Dionysius, but that it was combindes with the conciliar collection only after his death (Peitz, Studien p. 11).

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 decretalium 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), and assumes that the decretal collection was not the work of Dionysius Exiguus.
  • Wurm, Studien p. 44 agrees with Maassen that the two collections were still separate long after the death of Dionysius, but . As for the manuscripts, he pp. 31-32 likewise lists the Paris and the Vatican manuscripts (his Da and Db, respectively) as copies of the "(reine) Dionysiana" (his D). Under the same heading he also lists two other manuscripts:
  • Green, Innocent p. 17 follows Maassen (only two complete mss).
  • Mordek in LexMA 3 (1986) col. 1089 describes Dionysiana II as containing Canones Apostolorum and conciliar canons, 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 "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."
  • 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.
  • Zechiel-Eckes, Erste Dekretale, pp. 50-51 assumes that the decretal collection was an integral part of the second version of the Dionysiana II. Like Wurm (and using the same sigla), he 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.
  • 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 decretalium have been called "a bibliographical nightmare" (Brett, Theodore, p. 122 n. 5) for good reasons. According to 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. Turner and Kuttner suspected that the source for this addition was Colchaeus' 1525 edition or its 1609 reprint which in turn relies on three copies of the Dionysio-Hadriana; Brett, in contrast, followed Wurm Studien p. 51 n. 74 who suspected that the 1661 edition relied on a corrupt Hadriana manuscript. As 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:

Literature

Categories

  • key is DX
  • belongs to: Dionysiana group
  • from Rome
  • saec. VI
  • entries based on Migne
Retrieved from "https://data.mgh.de/databases/clavis/wiki/index.php?title=Liber_decretorum_Dionysii&oldid=8898"