Codex Divionensis (D)
This manuscript is now lost but is known to us from a number of sources, all discovered through the labour of Pierre PETITMENGIN 4, plus the Rigaltius edition:
|1.||Théodore de Bèze wrote a readings from it into a Mesnart edition (1545)4.||Location/Shelfmark: Bibliothèque Publique et Universitaire (Geneva) Bf. 81 fol. Rés.||Comments: The notes are very clear and generally preceded by the letter 'D'.|
|2.||Bèze intended to edit Tertullian. He corresponded with Pierre Pithou, who sent him a codex of s.XI, which is perhaps the Divionensis. This information comes from Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, edited by H. Aubert, publ. by A. Dufour and B. Nicollier, vol. XIII (1572), Geneva 1988, no. 885, p.23 n.4. (All details from Chapot, none checked).4|
|3.||Pierre Pithou (1539-15961) himself wrote the readings from this MS into a copy of the Gelenius edition (1550) which he possessed4.||Location/Shelfmark: Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève (Paris) , Cc fol. 233 Inv. 224.||Comments: The notes are written in red ink, and give some 200 variant readings.1|
|4.||Salmasius (Claude de Saumaise) wrote readings from the MS into a copy of the Pamelius-Junius edition (1597)4.||Location/Shelfmark: Bibliothèque Nationale Français (Paris), Réserve. C. 3004.||Comments: This was Salmasius' travel exemplar. The use made of it in his edition of De Pallio indicates that he was a careful editor.3|
|5.||Rigaltius used it for his edition in 1634. Checked.|
The codex contained works found in the Corpus Cluniacense. The following is not a complete list of works for which we have readings:
(From Rigaltius - Checked): Ad Martyras, De virginibus velandis, Adversus Iudaeos, De Praecriptione Haereticorum, Adversus Omnes Haereses, De Monogamia
The relationship of D to other members of the family was determined by J.-C. Fredouille1, who showed that it belonged to the alpha-branch of the family, and was a descendant of the Montepessulanus (M). From the variants in the text of Adversus Valentinianos, he was unable to determine exactly whether it was a direct copy of M, or via the lost intermediary from which the s.XV Florence MS VI.9 (N) was made. However F.Chapot while compiling the variants of Adversus Hermogenem was able to show that it was in fact copied directly from M.4
The readings given vary, not least because the text against which the collations were made varies. There are 139 common readings, of which a dozen vary. The Beza and Pithou readings have 176 lectiones in common, as they are based on two closely related editions. The readings given by Salmasius are more isolated, because the Pamelius text is rather different to the others. Rigaltius gives us three readings found in none of the collations.4
1. Jean-Claude FREDOUILLE, Tertullien : Contre les Valentiniens, Sources Chrétiennes 280 (1980), p.56-8, Critical edition in French with detailed introduction. Contains an analysis of the Corpus Cluniacensis. (Checked)
2. René BRAUN, Tertullien : Contre Marcion, Sources Chrétiennes 365 (1990), p20ff. French critical edition, introduction, translation. Checked.
3. CTC 1994, §1, review of René BRAUN, Tertullien : Adversus Marcionem, Liber III, Sources Chrétiennes 399 (1994), by Pierre PETITMENGIN. (Checked)
4. Frédéric CHAPOT, Tertullien : Contre Hermogene, Sources Chrétiennes 439 (1999), pp.54-5. French critical edition with Latin text, and French translation and notes. Checked.
This page has been accessed by people since 11th December 1999.
Return to the Tertullian Project / About these pages