Appendix Dacherianae Mettensis: Difference between revisions
→Literature: edition |
→Content, structure, sources: JK numbers |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
{{author|Schmitz}}, working with all known witnesses (and {{author|Seckel}}'s unpublished notes on the now lost Metz manuscript) pointed out that c. 8 was the ''[[Collectio de raptoribus]]'' compiled by Hincmar of Reims, which in the ''Appendix'' manuscripts was found in the very form that Hincmar of Laon used it (cf. [[Collectio canonum IV in Berlin, SBPK, Phill. 1764|''Collectio IV'' in Berlin, SBPK, Phill. 1764]]). | {{author|Schmitz}}, working with all known witnesses (and {{author|Seckel}}'s unpublished notes on the now lost Metz manuscript) pointed out that c. 8 was the ''[[Collectio de raptoribus]]'' compiled by Hincmar of Reims, which in the ''Appendix'' manuscripts was found in the very form that Hincmar of Laon used it (cf. [[Collectio canonum IV in Berlin, SBPK, Phill. 1764|''Collectio IV'' in Berlin, SBPK, Phill. 1764]]). | ||
The nine decretals in cc. 21-29 of the ''Appendix'' are six from the [[False Decretals]] and three genuine ones, namely Gelasius' {{JK|632}}, Leo's {{JK|402}}, and Symmachus' {{JK|754}}. The latter in exactely the version Hincmar of Laon cited in his ''Rotola prolixa'' and Phill. 1764 (quite different from the ''[[Collectio Arelatensis|Arelatensis]]'' version). Here and elsewhere, {{author|Schmitz}} demonstrated, the ''Appendix'' preserves the material Hincmar of Laon was working with, including all four excerpts from Benedictus Levita in Hincmar's ''Rotula''. Some of the material may also represent (genuine) law texts Hincmar compiled because the same sources were used in the (forged) materials he was working with. | |||
For Roman law, the ''Appendix'' was using the collection of Florus of Lyon extant in [[Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, A. 46 inf.]]. | For Roman law, the ''Appendix'' was using the collection of Florus of Lyon extant in [[Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, A. 46 inf.]]. | ||
Revision as of 09:14, 10 December 2025
| Title | Appendix Dacherianae Mettensis |
|---|---|
| Century | saec. IX |
| Author | Christof Rolker |
| No. of manuscripts | some (2 to 9) |
Transmission
The collection of 52 canons was extant in five manuscripts, three copies of the Collectio Dacheriana (all saec. IX, all lost) plus Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, A. 46 inf. (saec. IX) and Köln, Dombibliothek, Cod. 124.
The three lost copies are
- the exemplar of Barcelona, ACA, Ripoll 77,
Content, structure, sources
Seckel, working with Metz, BM, 236, divided the material as follows:
Die Appendix Dacherianae Mettensis setzt sich aus 52 in der Hs. nicht numerierten Kapiteln zusammen. Sachrubriken finden sich nur bei c. 1. 23. 30. 38. Die Kapitel sind mit Inskriptionen versehen, ausgenommen c. 6. 7. 12. 13. 19. 20. 43. 44. (50.) 51. 52.
Die Appendix geht mittelbar oder unmittelbar auf fünf größere Quellengruppen zurück: 1. Konzilien der Merowingerzeit (cc. 1-7); 2. ein Opusculum Hincmari Remensis (cc. 8-123); 3. Dekretalen (cc. 21-29); 4. Sirmondische Konstitutionen (cc. 46-48) und zwar const. 1. 3. 17 ohne den Kommentar des Florus von Lyon;4 endlich 5. Benedictus Levita.
Die 27 Stellen aus Ben. Lev. stehen nicht ungetrennt beieinander; sie sind vielmehr auf drei kleinere Massen verteilt (c. 14-20; 30-45; 49-52). Ich teile die 27 Stellen in Form einer Analyse unter Beibehaltung der handschriftlichen Rubriken und Inskriptionen mit. (Masse I, Bl. 124a bis 126b).
Schmitz, working with all known witnesses (and Seckel's unpublished notes on the now lost Metz manuscript) pointed out that c. 8 was the Collectio de raptoribus compiled by Hincmar of Reims, which in the Appendix manuscripts was found in the very form that Hincmar of Laon used it (cf. Collectio IV in Berlin, SBPK, Phill. 1764).
The nine decretals in cc. 21-29 of the Appendix are six from the False Decretals and three genuine ones, namely Gelasius' JK 632, Leo's JK 402, and Symmachus' JK 754. The latter in exactely the version Hincmar of Laon cited in his Rotola prolixa and Phill. 1764 (quite different from the Arelatensis version). Here and elsewhere, Schmitz demonstrated, the Appendix preserves the material Hincmar of Laon was working with, including all four excerpts from Benedictus Levita in Hincmar's Rotula. Some of the material may also represent (genuine) law texts Hincmar compiled because the same sources were used in the (forged) materials he was working with.
For Roman law, the Appendix was using the collection of Florus of Lyon extant in Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, A. 46 inf..
Literature
Seckel, Handschriften der falschen Kapitularien.- Zechiel-Eckes, Florus' Polemik gegen Modoin.- Schmitz, Appendix Dacherianae Mettensis (with an edition pp. 171-205).
