Collectio Diessensis: Difference between revisions

Selected Canon Law Collections, ca. 500–1234
TStueber (talk | contribs)
Added chapters "Date and place of composition", supplemented chap. "Contents of the C. D."
TStueber (talk | contribs)
m Contents of the Collectio Diessensis: Changed title of chapter
Line 11: Line 11:




== Contents of the Collectio Diessensis ==
== Contents ==
{| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
{| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
|+
|+

Revision as of 16:20, 9 June 2025

Title Collectio Diessensis
Key ?
Alternative title Sammlung der Handschrift von Diessen
Century saec. VIII
European region of origin Southern Germany
Specific region of origin Bavaria/Salzburg?
Author Christof Rolker


The Collectio Diessensis is extant only in München, BSB, Clm 5508 (fragments of which are now München, BSB, Clm 29550/4). In its present, albeit fragmentary form, the Collectio Diessensis consists of 66 documents in total, primarily including synodal acts (Greek, African, Roman and Gallican), papal letters (from Siricius to Hormisda) and a couple of Symmachan documents, which originated with the Laurentian schism in Rome at the beginning of the sixth century. The Diessensis, as we have it today, is only preserved fragmentarily. In total, eight quires are lost, among them the first two of the manuscript. Given that the documents are numbered continually, we can see how many of them are lost (e.g. as the manuscript begins with number VI, the Canones Apostolorum, there are five documents missing in the beginning).


Contents

No. Numbering Document fols.
Text loss: nos. I–V
1 [VI] Canones apostolorum (Dion. I) – end 1ravb
2 VII Antioch 341 (Isid.) 1vb–5rb
3 VIII Laodicaea 363/4 (Isid.) 5rb–7rb
4 Constantinople 381 (Isid.) 7rbvb
5 VIIII Statuta Ecclesiae antiqua 7vb–11ra
6 X–XI Serdica 342 11ra–15vb
7 XII Arles 314 15vb–17rb
8 XIII Carthage, 25 May 419 17rb–23ra
9 XIIII–XVI Regesta ecclesiae Carthaginensis excerpta – beginning 23ra–39vb
Text loss: nos. XVII–XXI
10 [XXII] Chalcedon 451 (Dion. I) – end 40rava
11 XXIII Siricius: „Directa ad decessorem“ (J3 605) 40va–44rb
12 XXIIII Epao 517 44va–46rb
13 XXV Innocent I: „Etsi tibi frater“ (J3 665) – beginning 46va–47vb
Text loss: nos. XXVI–XXVII
14 [XXVIII] Innocent I: „Magna me gratulatio“ (J3 691) – end 48ra
15 XXVIIII Zosimus: „Exigit dilectio tua“ (J3 745) 48ra–49ra
16 XXX Boniface I: „Ecclesiae meae“ (J3 787) 49rava
17 XXXI Rescript of Emperor Honorius „Scripta beatitudinis 49va–50ra
18 Celestine I: „Cuperemus quidem“ (J3 821) 50ra–51vb
19 XXXII Celestine I: „Nulli sacerdotum“ (J3 823) 51vb–52rb
20 XXXIII Gesta de nomine Acacii 52rb–55ra
21 XXXIIII Leo I: „Quam laudabiliter pro“ (J3 919) 55ra–60rb
22 XXXV Leo I: „Diuinis praeceptis“ (J3 922) 60rb–63ra
23 XXXVI Leo I: „Regressus ad nos“ (J3 1086) 63ra–64ra
24 XXXVII Leo I: „Relatione sancti fratris“ (J3 897) 64ra–65rb
25 XXXVIII Leo I: „Lectis fraternitatis“ (J3 898) 65rbvb
26 XXXVIIII Leo I: „Cum de ordinationibus“ (J3 916) 65vb–68ra
27 XL Gelasius I: „Necessaria rerum“ (J3 1270) 68ra–73ra
28 XLI Gelasius I: „Probabilibus desideriis“ (J3 1338) 73rbva
29 XLII Gelasius I: „Diligenter inuestigauimus“ (J3 1322) – beginning 73vavb
Text loss
30 [XLIII] Rome 499 – end 74ra–75vb
31 Libellus Johannis diaconi 75vb–76ra
32 Rome 502 76ra–79rb
33 Zosimus: „Ex relatione fratris“ (J3 750) 79rbva
34 XLIIII–XLVIII Rome 501 79va–85va
35 XLVIIII Symmachus: „Hortatur nos“ (J3 1460) 85va–86rb
36 L Hormisda: „Benedicta Trinitas“ (J3 1530) 86rb–87vb
37 LI Edict of Emperor Glycerius „Supernae maiestatis 87vb–88vb
38 LII Order of publication by the PPO Italiae „Quemadmodum 88vb–88ara
39 LIII Leo I: „Epistolas fraternitatis“ (J3 1098) 88ara–91ra
40 LIIII–LV Valence 374 91ra–92rb
41 LVI Turin 398 – beginning 92rbvb
Text loss: no. LVII
42 [LVIII] Orange 441 – end 93ra
43 LVIIII Vaison 442 93ra–94rb
44 LX Vaison 529 – beginning 94rbvb
Text loss: nos. LXI–LXVIIII
45 [LXX] Ps.-Hieronymus: De septem gradibus Ecclesiae – end 94ara–96vb
46b LXXI Agde 506 (cc. 9b–49) 96vb–100vb
47 LXXII Vannes 461/91 100vb–102rb
48 LXXIII Letter of the Amoritan bishops „Dominis beatissimis 102rbvb
49 LXXIIII Éauze 551 102vb–103vb
50 LXXV Paris 614 103vb–106ra
51 LXXVI Clichy 627 106rb–107avb
46a LXXVII Agde 506 (cc. 1–9a) 107avb–108vb
52 LXXVIII Letter of Lupus and Euphronius „Domino sancto 108vb–109rb
53 LXXVIIII Ps.-Vigilius of Thapsus: De Trinitate, book VI 109rb–112ra
54 LXXX Constitutum Silvestri 112ra–114vb
55 LXXXI Gesta Liberii 114vb–117ra
56 LXXXII Gesta de Syxti purgatione 117ra–118rb
57 LXXXIII Gesta de Polychronii Ierosolymitani 118rb–120rb
58 LXXXIIII Gesta synodi Sinuessanae de Marcellino 120rb–123va
59 LXXXV Ps.-Clement: „Quoniam sicut a“ (J3 †27) 123va–124vb
60 LXXXVI Dicta s. Ambrosii de die prima 124vb–125vb
61 LXXXVII Synodal letter from Serdica 125vb–126vb
62 LXXXVIII Definitio fidei from Chalcedon 127ra–128va
63 LXXXVIIII Symbolum Nicaenum (including the Tomus Damasi) 128va–129vb
64 XC Expositio fidei 129vb–130ra
65 XCI Sermo. Credimus Iesum Christum 130rarb
66 XCII De fide catholica. Nos patrem 130rbva
67 Colophon 130vavb


In the only extant manuscript, the Collectio Diessensis (fols. 1r-130v) is followed by a partial copy of the Collectio Frisingensis I (fols. 131r-213r). As noted by Peter Landau, the extracts from the Frisingensis only draw on texts not contained in the Collectio Diessensis, aiming to “supplement” that collection.

Sources

The Collectio Diessensis closes with a colophon (fol. 130v) by the scribe, stating that the collection was composed by drawing on “three books” (ex tribus libris):

EXPLICIVNT CANONES EX TRIBVS LIBRIS EDITAE, QVOD INCHOAVI KL̅ AP̅R ET CONSVMMAVI IDVS SEPT̅B, IDEST DIEBVS CLXVI EBDOMATIB(VS) XXIIII. LEGE LETANTER, INTELLEGE PRVDENT(ER), COMPLE EFFICACIT(ER). LEGENTI VITA, POSSIDENTI PAX P(ER)PETVA, SCRIPTORI PRAEMIA AETERNA. AMEN.

Given striking similarities to other collections, Maassen suggested that these three books had to be copies of the Dionysiana, the Teatina and the Sanblasiana. While one of the “three books“ might indeed have been a copy of the Sanblasiana, recent studies by Stüber, following up on findings by Wurm, have shown that the materials from the Dionysiana (canons from Chalcedon, Carthage and Canones Apostolorum) and the Teatina (mainly papal letters) reached the Diessensis via an intermediary source, namely an early version of the Collectio Remensis (having taken shape about 550 in South Eastern France; an eighth-century version of the Collectio Remensis is extant in Berlin, Phill. 1743). The primitive version of the Collectio Remensis did not only draw on the Dionysiana I/II and the Teatina, but it also contained forth-century Greek councils following the so-called Interpretatio Isidoriana (antiqua), alongside a number of Gallican church councils. As the Diessensis also includes a number of documents that are neither present in the Remensis nor the Sanblasiana (among them are the synods of Agde, Vannes, Éauze, Paris 614 and Clichy), these documents are probably taken from another source. Given that these texts include a letter by three bishops from the ecclesiastical province of Tours, alongside a letter to the bishop of Angers (likewise in the province of Tours), there is some likelihood that this exemplar took shape in that area. The three exemplars used by the compiler of the Diessensis were then probably the following:

1)     A copy of the Collectio Sanblasiana

2)     A copy of an early version of the Collectio Remensis

3)     A “chronologically” ordered collection from Gaul (perhaps from the area of Tours), no longer extant

Date and place of composition

The most recent material are canons from Clichy 626 (Maassen, p. 631). Most scholars date the formation of the Collectio Diessensis shortly after its youngest component, the collection would then have been assembled in the first half of the seventh century (Gaudemet, p. 148 and Landau, p. 152). However, as some documents seem to have collated with a Dionysio-Hadriana, the collection is probably much younger than the documents contained therein. Given that the scribe of the colophon claims to have assembled the collection and written the manuscript all by himself, there is good reason to suppose that the codex unicus Munich 5508 is in fact the archetype of the Collectio Diessensis. This is supported by the observation of Bernhard Bischoff, who showed that the part of Munich 5508 containing the Collectio Diessensis was indeed written by a single scribe. If this hypothesis is correct, the Collectio Diessensis took shape in Salzburg at the end of the eighth century, during the pontificate of Arn, who, being likewise abbot of Saint-Amand in Northern France, had access to a fairly large number of canon law books.

Links

Literature

Maassen, pp. 624-636; Kéry, Collections pp. 3-4; Hoskin, Manuscripts p. 106.