Collectio Dionysiana editions: Difference between revisions

Selected Canon Law Collections, ca. 500–1234
VisualWikitext
content moved from Liber decretalium article
 
slightly expanded
 
Line 1: Line 1:
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 ''[[Dionysiana]]'' not only has a complicated manuscript tradition, but the history of its printed editions is equally complicated.
 
According to {{author|Brett}}, [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627453.008 Theodore] pp. 138-140, the textual history can be described as follows: Justel's 1628 ''editio princeps'' 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.
 
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. [...]"

Latest revision as of 17:28, 30 March 2026

The Dionysiana not only has a complicated manuscript tradition, but the history of its printed editions is equally complicated.

According to Brett, Theodore pp. 138-140, the textual history can be described as follows: Justel's 1628 editio princeps 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:

Retrieved from "https://data.mgh.de/databases/clavis/wiki/index.php?title=Collectio_Dionysiana_editions&oldid=79117"