The Tertullian Manuscript Tradition in Italy^(RP)

by

Dr. E. Kroymann

(Minutes of the meeting of the Philosophical-historical Class of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. CXXXVIII Band 3, Vienna 1898) 

The manuscript tradition of Tertullian in Italy has so far played only a very modest role in the history of the establishment of the text of this writer. Only once - completely uncritically - was a portion of this - the Vatican - exploited for an edition; I mean that of Pamelius in 1579. Franz Oehler in his editio maior was content with a set of specimen extracts, which however were so scrappy, quite apart from their limited reliability, that an assessment of the tradition was completely impossible on the basis of those few extracts. To an attempt to assess this tradition as a whole was never attempted; the evidence was not easily accessible, was rather extensive and besides the mss in question were so modern that an adverse judgement that they were all of no value whatever, did not appear too daring.¹ However Oehler could not do this totally in good conscience. For a not insignificant portion of the works of Tertullian there was no other manuscript tradition than that of the 15th century. So that which he was able to offer in his apparatus as manuscript evidence ² - cod. Leidensis 2 and cod. Vindobonensis 4194 - was only a part of the tradition of the mss, certainly of Italian provenance, and at that not the best; and these were those he believed he could use without checking against the actual pages. It was high time to make some changes here. For the new edition of Tertullian in the Viennese corpus, knowledge of the recensio of the Italian tradition was recognized as an essential precondition, and with this job to execute in April 1896 I began my journey to Italy. That which I had to hand - the Pamelius edition and Oehler's samples - was by no means sufficient to give me a pointer to that library at which I should most appropriately begin my work, in order to achieve my purpose in as short a period as possible - my journey was calculated on 5-6 months - and by the way to give me the solution of the problem. My knowledge was limited to the fact that the bulk of the tradition was situated in the Laurentiana and Nazionale libraries in Florence and in the Vatican, and if I decided to begin on the Vatican then this was solely owing to the consideration that this library closes its doors on 29th June. This said, this choice was the most unfavorable which I could have made.

At the Vatican there are in total six manuscripts containing all or part of the corpus, from which five are actually in the Vatican, and one belongs to the Urban collection.

1. Cod. Vat. lat. 190 (38 x 25 cm). Magnificently set-out parchment ms saec. XV, written in two different hands. Carefully worked, but not even delicate initials; on the first page a colorful miniature of an old man reading (Tertullian?) represents the starting initial of book 1. The following index written by a later hand is at the front:

In isto volumine continentur infra scripta opera Tertulliani :

2. Cod. Vat. lat. 191 (26 x 17.5 cm). Parchment ms saec. XV, of simple design. It contains in the same order the same writings as the Vat. lat. of 190, with exception of the latter, the 5 books adversus Marcionem. written by a hand is somewhat jerky and squiggly.

3. Cod. Vat. lat. 189 (29.5 x 20 cm). Carefully written parchment ms with simpler initials saec. XV. It contains:

4. Cod. Vat. lat. 192 (29.5 x 20 cm). Parchment ms saec. XV. It contains:

5. Cod. Vat. lat. 193 (29.5 x 20 cm). Parchment ms saec. XV. It contains:

The three latter mss share the same format, same configuration and writing, which shows that they are a single unit containing the whole corpus. The sequence of the writings deviates from the normal arrangement, but is probably only owing to incorrect binding. All the mss specified so far lack any subscriptio; but the writing and configuration proves that they are written nonetheless in Italy.

6. Cod. Vat. Urb. 64 (35.5 x 24 cm). Parchment, glossy equipped luxury ms saec. XV, written by a single hand. The prefatory index ,which is later, enumerates the following writings:

This manuscript was likewise written in Italy. The subscriptio reads: Jacobus Middelburch scripsit.

I was completely deceived by my hope that proof of direct copying would allow me to substantially reduce the range of my apparatus. The first collation of de paenitentia that I made using the whole group of the mss proved that these manuscripts were all independent of one another, and also led to the result that, regardless of the closest relationship of all the codices, the Vat. 190 and 191 and the Urb. 64 stand together over against the Vat. 189 ( and 192 and 193). And from the collation of adversus omnes haereses came the result that the text-tradition of Vat. 192 (193), although outwardly it belongs to the Vat. 189, does not deviate massively from the Urb. 64 like the Vat 189 does in de paenitentia, and so therefore the Codd. Vat. 190, 191, 192, 193 and the Urb. 64 are separated as a uniform group from the Vat. 189. Thus it could only be concluded that the whole Vatican text-tradition must have flowed from two very closely related sources, but neither of which was present among the Vatican mss. These two sources are then joined by a third owing to an observation, from which we can assume that the Apologeticum cannot be an original constituent part of the corpus available in the Vatican tradition. As I had already noticed while comparing the Cod. Leidensis 2 in 1895, there was also in the Cod. Urb. 64 at the end of adversus Hermogenem the note: Finis Opera Tertulliani. So the Apologeticum must have penetrated into the corpus from a third source.

For my work this result was truly not very pleasing. It was quite possible that I would find the sources presupposed by me on my further journey, but nevertheless I could not confidently count on this. Thus, although I went away under the impression that I might spend time and trouble in vain, there was no alternative but to collect as much material as my stay in Rome would permit.

From Rome I traveled at the end of June to Naples, where I found two to my knowledge little-known mss in the library of the Museo Nazionale.

1. Cod. VI C 36 (29 x 22.5 cm). Paper manuscript saec. XV. The correct sequence of the pages has been disturbed owing to a mistake in binding. It contains:

The manuscript is the second part of the Vindobonensis 4194 collated by myself in the year 1895. This is proven because they share the same format and material, the same hand ⁷ and the same subscriptio: Antonii Seripandi ex Jani Parrhasii testamento. - the Vindobonensis 4194 finishes in adversus Marcionem lib. III cap. 17 with the words: tempestivus decore, and then another set of empty pages follows. The Naples cod. VI C 36 begins (I ignore the mis-binding of the pages) with adv. Marcionem lib. IV cap. V, then the remaining third of this book and the section at the beginning of the fourth book, are missing just like the same passage which in the Cod. Leidensis 2 is designated as missing by six pages left blank. From the absence of this piece, which is present in the other Italian tradition, these two manuscripts are characterized for all other purposes also as a special group. They will be discussed below together with their relationship to the other tradition.

2. Cod. VI B. 14. (42 x 29 cm). Parchment luxury manuscript saec. XV with excellent miniatures on the title page and decorated with elegant initials. It contains:

Comparing this manuscript with the tradition of the Vatican mss, using de paenitentia and the first 11 chapters of de monogamia as before, gave the result that its ancestor is the Vat. lat. 191, that finishes with adv. Valentinianos. This is because all the gaps, which are peculiar within the Vatican tradition to the Cod. 191, appear also in the Naples Codex, ⁸ and likewise the spelling mistakes peculiar to Vat. 191.⁹ The reverse is not the case, since in the Naples Codex several times there are gaps, which are not indicated in the Vat. 191, while the reverse is not the case. By the way I was mistaken initially over the true nature of this manuscript. It was written by an unskilled man, who sought to assist the corrupt tradition with his own judgement in many places, proceeding however with the most extensive arbitrariness. Some examples may illustrate its type:

De paenitentia:

De monogamia:

Also even without knowing the subordinate position assigned above, it is hardly likely that any value as a text-tradition would be awarded to the variants of this manuscript after an exact check of these samples. For the most part they are only a normalisation of the original expression,¹² and on the other hand completely worthless conjectures, in particular such as offendo domino; and there is no variant anywhere, which presents itself unquestionably as a valid tradition. If the copyist may perhaps sometimes have come to the correct reading,¹³ that proves nothing. Therefore as an independent witness of the tradition it could not be considered.

Having only come one step nearer to the solution of my work, I left Naples, now placing my whole hope on the treasures of the Florentine libraries. I start, beginning with the Laurentiana, with a description of the Tertullian manuscript collection.

1. Cod. Laur. LXXXIX, 55 (27 x 20 cm). Parchment ms saec. XV (end), in Bandini's judgement written in the hand of Politian. It contains the following writings of Tertullian on pages 267-315 :

2. Cod. Medic. Faesulanus 60 (39 x 27 cm). Parchment ms saec. XV, written in two columns by a single hand. On the rear side of the first page is the following index, written in a later hand:

After the Apologeticum there follows (not indicated in the index) a second copy of the de persecutione under the title: de fuga. How this arose will be dealt with below.¹⁵

3. Cod. Laur. XXVI, 12 (36 x 24.5 cm). parchment manuscript saec. XV. On the first page is the following index:

4. Cod. Laur. XXVI, 13 (36 x 24.5 cm). parchment manuscript saec. XV. It contains on the first 118 pages:

Then follow : Chrysostomus, Contra Judaeos. Prosper, Contra Cassianum, Cassianus, Contra Victorium. Chrysostom, Contra Anomios. A subscriptio is also lacking here.

The two codd. Laur. XXVI, 12 and 13 (Oehl. praef. p. VII under No. 5 and 6) form a unit. They are written and illuminated by a single hand. The artistic decoration is complete, so that Bandini's inspired praise ¹⁷ is not unjustified.

To these manuscripts of the Laurentiana can be added the following three Codices of the Bibliotheca Nazionale Magliabechiana.

1. Cod. conv. soppr. VI, 9 (32 x 29 cm). ¹⁸ saec. XV, in a single hand. It breaks down into two parts separated by two empty pages, whose first p. 1-134u contains the following writings:

The second part written by another hand contains:

2. Cod. conv. soppr. VI, 10 (38 x 30 cm). Paper manuscript saec. XV. It consists likewise of two parts separated by two empty pages. The first contains:

At the end of the last book is the following subscriptio: Iste liber finitus est per me fratrem Johannem de Lautenbach ordinis fratrum minorum in pforzhin in vigilia sancti Andreae apostoli sub anno domini MCCCCXXVI. Et iste liber pertinet p reu^mo i xpo pre. ac dno dno iordano de Ursinis cardinalis nostri ordinis protectoris. Deo gratias. Amen.

The second part contains:

Subscriptio: Iste liber finitus est per fratrem Thomam de lyph^ßam (sic) ordinis minorum in pfortzen feria quarta quattuor temporum in adventu domini ab incarnatione domini MCCCCXXVI .

3. Cod. conv. soppr, VI, 11 (30 x 24 cm). Paper manuscript saec. XV. It contains the same writings in the same order as cod. VI, 10 up to adversus Marcionem, where it stops in lib. 1 cap. 17 with the words: cui nunc subvenit malitia creatoris, adversus quam. Since these words form the conclusion of fol. 209v, the manuscript is therefore no longer complete. But today, since the cover is new, how much was lost can no longer be determined.

All three manuscripts of the Bibliotheca Nazionale carry this note on the inside top of the single volume cover: Ex hereditate Nicolai de Nicolis, the last, VI, 11 with the addition: cuius etiam manu scriptus. They were thus all three once in the possession of the well-known Florentine bibliophile Nicolaus de Nicolis, and then came by a testamentary arrangement into the library of the monastery of San Marco in Florence and thence in the removal from the latter came into the Bibliotheca Nazionale.

Once I had obtained an overview over this whole manuscript group, it required no very extensive analysis to say that, if the archetype of the Italian tradition was available still in Florence at all, it could only be the Cod. conv. soppr. VI, 10 in the Bibliotheca Nazionale. For anywhere else in Italy the tradition of the corpus over the 15th century did not go back far enough. And if in this century suddenly a whole set of manuscripts appear, then this is most simply explained by the fact that the exemplar was somehow imported from abroad to Italy at around this time. The Cod. VI, 9, which was likewise not written in Italy, cannot be the source of the remaining tradition, because it contains a completely different arrangement of the writings.

This leaves only the Codex written in Pforzheim in the year 1426.  If I had believed in Rome that the tradition there must rest on three sources, then the contents of the Nazionale gave me the same directly to hand.  These are the Cod. VI, 10 which is probably the first copy of the same by Nicolo’s own hand, the Cod. VI, 11, and for the Apologeticum (that is indeed missing from the Cod. VI, 10 in accordance with my earlier conclusion)  the Cod. VI, 9, in which the Apologeticum still appears separate from the other writings of the corpus.

This quite unprioritised list supplied me with a direction for my work of collation; to find out whether the actual details of the text would show the same. My next action was naturally to investigate whether the manuscript written by Nicolo was a copy of the codex written at Pforzheim (VI 10). Comparing de paenitentia supplied me with the detailed proof . By assuming that all gaps of the Cod. VI, 10 appeared in Nicolo's own manuscript also, I tabulated Nicolo's spelling mistakes, which can be explained only under the prerequisite in the following one that the Cod. VI, 10 was his exemplar.

p. 647, 16 offers the Cod. VI, 10: ²¹ pstringere tamen non pigebit. The e is so similar in the cursive of the Cod. P (VI 10) to the a that even an experienced eye differentiates between these two letters only with difficulty. As Nicolo took this e instead of an a, he wrote praestringere, what should in fact be ²² praestingam. The same error let him write at p. 657, 27 instead of sera obstructa : sere obstructa. Furthermore a bad moment for the copyist was meeting the letters u n m i. Because in P n and m are not rounded at the top, but pointed and if over the i the dot is missing, as is the case almost everywhere, then the danger of false readings is very great. Examples of such readings are: p. 659, 8 P: Quid ni ²³ et filium. Nicolo treats ni by regarding this as an m: Quid m. (d. i. enim) et filium. p. 662, 21 P: obeunt. One could equally easilly read, if one does not consider the sense, obemit, which was what Nicolo wrote. More frequently Nicolo adopted the cautious practise in doubtful cases of placing the second possible reading in the margin. For example see a quite eclatanter case in de paenitentia. p. 659, 20. P: Huius igitur penitentiae scde (i.e. secundae). Since the c approaches an e up to the not understood abbreviation and the tail at the heading of the letter d is so far extended the fact that it can likewise probably be taken as an abbreviation for the accusative ending m, then Nicolo, after he had written secundae , was not sure, whether not perhaps sedem was to be read, and set this reading caution for the sake of to the edge. ²⁴ - Generally this is Nicolo's principle for resolving the abbreviations of his exemplar. If he was not able to resolve it with security, then he leaves gaps, naturally with the intention of filling out it later. One example from many: p. 660, 12 P: ppris adsolvi. Nicolo left for ppris a gap, since the abbreviation for presbyteris is not very common and here besides is still incorrect. Those to whom these examples appear insufficient I refer to those the far down following compositions.

After I made sure that Nicolo's manuscript was in fact an apograph of P,  as I had assumed from the beginning,  in order to understand directly the entirety of the Italian tradition on a level basis, for the de paenitentia I compared the Laur. XXVI, 12 and the Med. Faes. 60.  The result was to confirm my prior considered opinion that all Italian Manuscripts ²⁵   go back directly or by an intermediary to Nicolo's copy in the the Bibliotheca Nazionale Cod. VI, 10. How the individual manuscripts distribute themselves against these two exemplars, the samples from de paenitentia may illustrate.²⁶

The foregoing material proves that only cod. Vat. lat. 189 was copied directly from P, and that every other manuscript was derived from Nicolo's copy. This drawback may be explained by the fact that Nicolo's was a very much more legible copy than the badly written Pforzheim codex (VI 10).  The remainder of Nicolo’s copy reinforces the faithfulness and accuracy available in the Vat. 189,  as the above sample proves.   But let's move on.  The Florentine scholar did not merely make orthographic alterations, he also eliminated dittographies, and lent an improving hand to obvious corruption.  On the other hand he misreads very frequently (praeceptum - praetextum; elimandis - eliminandis) and so in this way his copy gives us the exemplar much more inaccurately than the Cod. Vat. 189.

Now, after I had found the two closely related sources, which I postulated for the Vatican tradition, only a few further investigations remained for me.  Nicolo’s copy is complete in its current form only up to the first book of  adversus Marcionem.  However the Cod. Vat. Urb. 64 and the Med. Faes. 60, which were copied from it, include the complete corpus.  So it must be asked which is the exemplar of the last part of these manuscripts -  whether the lost Cod. P or the vanished second part of Nicolo's copy.  We have already noticed that the latter once contained more than is extant today. The same question arises for the cod. Laur. XXVI, 12 (l) and Laur. XXVI, l3³⁵; and finally the as yet unexamined Vat. 189,   Vat. 192 and 193 (e).   In the course of this investigation, which I executed against the adversus omnes haereses, it became necessary to also consult Cod. conv. soppr, VI, 9 ³⁶, which I will designate as M.  The first unambiguous result, was that cod. Laur. XXVI, l3 was copied from M.  The remainder, on the other hand, depended on P - it will be shown below whether directly or via an intermediary.  To prove this, it is sufficient to give these samples from the first chapter.

The situation remains the same in the whole work.  k is therefore copied from the Cod. M, which represents, as already this small sample shows, an independent, better and more complete tradition than P.  k is the only remaining copy which has come down to us of M, that the apparently standard MS l,  as we have seen, as derived later from the Cod. o, so one may conclude that the Cod. M came into Italy later than the Cod. P.

The source of the remaining three manuscripts e m c is just as undoubtedly P, whether directly or via an intermediary, as we have assumed most naturally for the second and no longer extant portion of Nicolo’s copy.  A more direct proof is not to be offered here naturally, but it seems at least very probable that the Vat. 192 (193), e and the Urb. 64, c derive from Nicolo's lost MS, while the second part of the Med. Faes. 60 is copied directly from P.  The following samples may serve to support this judgement :

That m goes back directly to P, from these examples one must consider very probable;  in the same way that e and c probably cannot have been copied directly from P.  If we examine the deviations of the manuscripts e and c from P, then they correspond to the text-type indicated above, which Nicolo copied;  along the way there have been improvements of obvious corruptions.  Now there are certainly places in our treatise, where e and c go in different directions, as one aligns with P m together, while the second offers something deviating.  These places do not  however make our assumption collapse;  they must be explained on the basis that one MS followed the main text reading of Nicolo's copy, while the other adopted a marginal variant.  I note the following cases from our treatise:

It is thus probable to me, that Nicolo's copy was originally complete, but that it was later - but very soon afterwards - mutilated by the detachment of a set of quaternions to its present form. When the Urb 64 and the Vat. 192/193 were copied, it was still intact. On the other hand Med. Faes. 60 and Laur. XXVI. 12, 13 must have resorted already for the last part to another source, while the Vat. 190 and 191 remained unfinished. However as is indicated by presence in the Vat. 190 of all five books of adv. Marcionem, then Nicolo's copy might have been at that time still more complete than today, as today it aborts in the middle in the 1st book adv. Marcionem.

There remains still the investigation of the Apologeticus, which as remarked above is not in Cod. P but is indeed contained in M.  Here we can take into consideration the Vat. Urb. 64, the Vat 193 and the Med. Faes. 60. ⁴¹ That the latter was used as exemplar for the Apologeticus by Cod. M seemed to me for other reasons extremely probable. For in it after aduersus Hermogenem the De persecutione is repeated under the title de Fuga. This work bears that title in Cod. M.  The copyist added it from this MS obviously thinking that it was a work - like the Apologeticum ⁴²   - not previously copied in the corpus from P.

The comparison was implemented with the first two chapters of the Apologeticus and led to the conclusion - as already anticipated - that the Vat. 193 (e) and Med. Faes. 60 (m) ⁴³ are derived from the Cod. M.   On the other hand the Apologeticus of the Vat can. Urb. 64 does not stem from this source. It displays instead the most apparent relationship with the text-type of the Apologeticus in the Cod. Leidensis 2, whose relation to the remaining Italian tradition as well as that of the Vindobonensis 4194 will have to be examined further down. The following samples may justify this statement: ⁴⁴

I've listed only the crucial variants here. The complete listing of all variants would show however, that they are extraordinarily closely related, despite the not inconsiderable number of deviations between the two manuscripts,  since they share the great majority of gaps in the text. - The final question is, what relationship do the tradition of the Leidensis 2 and the Vindobonensis 4194 have to the remaining Italian tradition, or more exactly said, to that of the Cod. P?  That it is more related to this, as to that of the Cod. M, the order of the writings which corresponds to P has already shown.  Let's start with a description of the two manuscripts.

Cod. Leidensis 2 (41, 5 X 28). Parchment manuscript, C 15, magnificently equipped and with richly ornamented title page. ⁵⁹ It is written in a wonderfully even hand; here and there a corrector's hand is visible, recognisable by the many smaller letters, which may be only little more recent. Fol. 175-182 are blank. A subscriptio is missing; however its provenance from Italy can be not doubted.⁶⁰ It contains:

Cod. Vindobonensis 4194 (29 X 22). Paper manuscript C. XV, written in the Italian cursive of the 15th century⁶¹. The last five pages are left empty; on the last page with writing is at the bottom the express remark: Hic desunt sex chartae. The gap is the same as in the Leidensis 2; ⁶² the last part of the third book of   adu. Marcionem  is missing and the at the beginning of the   fourth. The second volume of this manuscript is, as noticed above, the Naples Cod. VI C 36. Filed at the front in the manuscript are some pages, which contain the poem De Jona propheta and some citations of Tertullian by Jerome, Augustine and Lactantius, according to a signature in the hand of Janus Parrhasius. Yet another empty page follows, on whose reverse is the following note: Auli Jani Parrhasii et amicorum in duo buses voluminibus aureis emptus quattuor. The manuscript was thus once in the possession of the Roman humanist Parrhasius (d. 1534), and from his hand are the corrections going throughout one part of the Codex ⁶³, since the writing is the same. Apart from these corrections, which appear sometimes in the margin, sometimes between the lines, there may be met here and there, two clearly distinguishable correctors, which both must be older than those of the Parrhasius, as I will show at another opportunity. - From the possession of the Janus Parrhasius the manuscript moved into that of Antonius Seripandus, as a note tells us at the conclusion of fol. 230v: ⁶⁴ Antonii Seripandi ex Jani Parrhasii testamento. In all other respects the Codex contains the same writings as the Leidensis and apart from the disturbance arranged by misbinding in the Naples Manuscript contains them in the same order also.

The extraordinarily close relationship between the Viennese and Leiden manuscripts on the one hand and the Italian tradition on the other hand was long undoubted; so much so that Oehler considered (praef. p. 8) a more thorough check of the latter unnecessary (apart from M, which he could not take into consideration). For me, after I had succeeded in attributing the whole tradition to P and Nicolo's copy (o) the question was very simple. The two manuscripts could not be derived directly from P, because their exemplar must have had that large gap in Adv. Marcion, which is not in P. On the other hand still the possibility remained open that the two manuscripts originated from Nicolo's once complete copy, from which, as I sought to make probable, in the course of the time ever more became remote. The destruction could very probably begin with the loss of a Quaternio in adu. Marcionem. I took my sample from de paenitentia and list the crucial places here: ⁶⁵

I am content with these samples from the five first chapters. They prove that despite the very close relationship of the two mss, V and L cannot have flowed nevertheless from o (P). However my hope to find their exemplar was not fulfilled. Since the manuscripts were both written in Italy, it is reasonable to assume that it went there, after the two copies were taken from it, and as V and L like all the other Italian manuscripts belong to the l5th century, then it is most probable that their lost exemplar came rather at the same time with the Cod. P to Italy. Despite the extraordinarily close relationship of the two text traditions, I will not even suggest that P and the lost exemplar of V L derive from the same archtype, which as the subscriptio from P proves, was once in Pforzheim. The value, which V L possess for our analysis, is thereby clear. From the corresponding readings of V L first its exemplar - at least essentially - can be reconstructed, and this compared with the tradition of P will permit us in many cases of conclusions on its common, today lost archetype. For me personally this result was also in as much pleasing as I could now regard the time and effort, which I had spent on the collation of the Vindobonensis and Leidensis, as not entirely wasted.

Finally the question is still to be answered whether in that exemplar of V L the Apologeticus was contained or not. Since it is not contained in P, this question would a priori be answered in the negative from the previous results. The evidence also corresponds with this. Because in the Leidensis at the conclusion of adu. Hermogenem, which precedes the Apologeticus, there is the note: Finis operis Tertulliani. Laus deo, and in the Neapolitanus the Apologeticus is only added in another hand. Thus the exemplar of V L did not have this writing, any more than P.   The question, from where this text tradition comes, can for L ⁶⁷ be answered at least negatively that its source is not the Cod. M. Since however the Apologeticus  has still its own tradition apart from the tradition in the corpus, the exemplar might have to be looked for here, even if it cannot be proven today any longer.

What are the factual yields of this investigation? Firstly a simplification of the apparatus, which could hardly be expected at the beginning in view of the not inconsiderable number of manuscripts. Of the 17 manuscripts containing the corpus (I include here the Leidensis and Vindobonensis as one),  only four manuscripts remain as independent witnesses of the tradition, of which  P V L represent one tradition, and M the other. Of the latter I can state today that it is of the same branch as given to us from the 11th century by the Montepessulanus, Seletstadtiensis ⁶⁸ and that today missing Gorziensis ⁶⁹ of Rhenanus. Since the manuscripts of Montpellier and Schlettstadt only contain the smaller part of the writings of the corpus, although the Gorze MS which contained them all is lost, this illuminates the value and meaning of the Cod. M for those writings of Tertullian which are not available directly in the tradition of the 11th century. Because we will now be able in these works also to assess what Rhenanus gave as the tradition of the Gorziensis, so that we no longer have to follow him in blind faith. For the so far very insufficiently known tradition of V L we have a more reliable representative in P, for which V L will be a corrective in individual cases. Iin all other respects however I should warn that we should not expect too much from the new witnesses. Because it remains with what I noticed already in former times, ⁷⁰ that the independence of the two witnesses nevertheless is only very relative. If we look at our oldest tradition, which the Agobardinus can give us for several works, their relation is far more visible than their independence.   Because the few places wherein the Gorziensis of Rhenanus and our Codex M deviate from P V L, mean little against the the quantity of common gaps, corruptions and interpolations which all these MSS exhibit and the Agobardinus does not.  It is pure good fortune that the destruction is not the same in all the works.  Otherwise the task of the editor would require almost offensive levels of courage.

The following stemma may illustrate the dependencies and relationships of the Italian manuscripts - I leave thereby M and its copy Laur. XXVI, 13 unconsidered: ⁷¹

Apart from the tradition of the Apologeticus as part of the large corpus, in Italy as elsewhere there is also another separate tradition of this writing, on which I have to still report.

I had not been able to give hope up at least for this writing, which enjoyed a high celebrity in the ancient church , to find somewhere traces of an older tradition. But the odium, which was once attached to the name of Tertullian, has so far destroyed each track of venerable tradition, so fars as my investigation showed. From the Apologeticus manuscript, which I saw, only one is 14th century, the remainder belong to the 15th century on. I could not see no more of two Manuscripts, from which I got notes, because of lack of time. They are in the Bibl. communale of San Daniele in the Friaul and belong respectively, according to Mazzatinti's list to the 14th and15th century. ⁷²

From the five manuscripts compared by me four are very close to each other, indicating all the same tradition, represented by the Parisinus 2616; considerably deviating against it is the tradition of the Cod. Ambrosianus, which belongs to the 14th century. Since an assessment of this whole tradition will be possible only when the collation of the Apologeticus is complete, I am limited here to bare enumeration and description of the manuscripts.

1. Cod. Vat. lat. 194 (21, 5 X 14, 5). parchment manuscript. 15th century, with richly ornamented title page. Below is a papal coat of arms with the transcription, held by two angels: Quintus Nicolaus papa. The manuscript was therefore written between 1447 and 1455. The execution is uncorrected, of great clarity and elegance, the writing of a single hand; a signature is missing. The preceding title reads: Septimi Tertulliani uiri gravissimi Apologeticus versus gentis per Christianis. Fol. 80.

2. Cod. S. Salvatore No. 2844 of the university library of Bologna (17, 5 X 11). parchment manuscript. 15th century in a hand written with continuous corrections. The title is at the conclusion: Tertuliani uiri grauissimi Apologeticus versus gentes explicit more feliciter. Fol. 139. I only compared the first six chapters from this Manuscript.

3. Cod. Marcianus Cl. VIII, 11 (25 X 19). parchment manuscript. 15th century, which contains from fol. 1-42 a Epitome institutorum rei militaris of FlaviiVegetii, from fol. 43-78 the Apologeticus. Here also, the title is at the end: Explicit Apologeticus Tertulliani uiri eruditissimi et acutissimi versus gentes et de saeculi disciplina.

4. Cod. Taurinensis IV, 1 Bibl. Nazionale in Turin. Codex of various writers. 15th century, in two columns. The untitled text of the Apologeticus is fol. to 1-32v; writings of Vegetius and Lactantius follow.

5. Cod. Ambrosisius P. 51 (25 X 17). Parchment codex of various writers. 14th century. On the first page is the following index in a 16th century hand: Clementis Papae de recognitiones et in eas Rufini Turoni praefatio. Tertullianus, Apologeticus versus paganos. Dionysii Exigui ad Eugipium { ep}la cum Gregorii Nysseni de hominis imagine ac condicione libro a se latinatate donato. Codices de omnes antiqui characteris ann. 200. Somewhat further down and  written in another hand one reads: Felicibus auspiciis Illmi et Rmi Card. Federici Borrhomaei Bibl. Ambros. fundatoris Olgiatus (first praefetto the library) uidit anno 1603. - the codex is written in two columns both of 35 lines. The Apologeticus goes from fol. 145r - 179r. The subsequently added chapter headings are emphasized by red ink; the copyist noted their wording each time in the margin for the rubricator. Throughout the whole codex appears the hand of a corrector, which seems to me to be identical with that of the copyist.

Apart from the Cod. S. Salvatore 2844 I collated all these manuscripts completely. The evaluation will be found in the preface to the second volume of the Tertullian, whose publication Professor Wissowa has taken over.

1. P1 n.1. one compares Oehler's praef. p. VIII.

2. In P1 n.2. I speak over-euphemistically; because Oehler's collations do not deserve the name.

3. p.2 n.1. This is subsequently inserted by a still later hand.

4. p.6 n.1. Fol.98u, fol. lr-4u, fol. 99r-104r.

5. p.6 n. 2. From cap. 5, beginning with the words: lac a Paulo Corinthii. Fol. 5r-46u. After fol. 38u, as the copyist noted, a full Quaternio is missing, i.e. lib. IV ch. 28 (of the words: eius infuscat on) to ch. 36 (qui homo videbatur)

6. p.6 n. 3. This writing is due to another hand, likewise of the 15th century.

7. p.6 n. 4. Also the same correctors hand appears again here.

8. p.7 n.1. The de paenitentia lacks the gap peculiar to the Vat. 191. On the other hand the first 11 chapters of the book de  monogamia in the Vat. the 191 exhibits the same gaps in the Neap. VI, B. 14: Oehl. (edit. maior., always cited hereafter) I, p. 762, 20 ulla, p. 764, 4 Quod enim mere bonum est, non permittitur, p. 765, 5 spem, p. 765, 4, est.

9. p.7 n.2. In de paenitentia: I, p. 663, l3 retractatas for retractas, p. 665, 2 duo buses for duabus. In de monogamia: p. 762, 22 est for sit, 762, 26 loquor for loquar, 770, 22 idque pepius for idque saepius, 771, 24 dant ille for dum ille, 775, 24 cur for cui, 775, 25 ita apud for ut apud, 777, 31 avidius for a viduis.

10. p.8 n.1. The copyist had not seen that the statement in his original is to be taken as a question.

11 p.8 n.2. The copyist did not know the peculiar use of the word ingenium in Tertullian.

12. p.9. n.1. characteristic are asperitate for asperitudine, pertinent for spectant, the phrase orare et supplicare, peccanti for non paenitenti.

13. p.9 n.2. The quacunque for quaque nevertheless is disputable. In de paenitentia p. 644, 3 qui ( instead of quia) deus omnium conditor might even be an emendation.

14. p.9.n.3. This is identical to MS. No.7 in Oehl. praef. VIII. As I have already noted, this is a apographon of the Vat. lat.192, as the collation of adversus omnes haereses showed me. This is also shown by the following gaps which only appear in these two codices: p. 757.15 fuisse salutem carnis, p. 758, 8 loco, as well as the following spelling mistakes appearing only here: 756, 15 sacramenta potestatem instead of sacram potestatem, 756, 16 Sicut et for Et sicut. 767, 19 appears the words: inferiore virtute conceptum procreatum only in these two manuscript twice, p. 757, 26 huius mundi nolebant for haec mundi volebant. That the Vat. 192 is the exemplar follows from its certainly greater age.

15. p.10. n.1. under the index one reads the words: Cosma Medicaeus summus et praestantissimus vir et divini cultu observantissimus posteaquam per sua singulari virtute hoc monasterium condidit ac canonicis regularibus ea omnia paravit, quae ad bene vivendum necessaria sunt, ne optimorum librorum copia deesset hoc volumes Tertulliani monasterio dedit. Per cuius singulari pietate deus qui omnium meritorum retributor digna egg est praemia persolvere velit. - is missing one subscriptio. Writings of Gaudentius follow. The Codex is identical to that mentioned by Oehl. praef. p. VIII under No. 8.

16. p11. n.1. This is in reality the 5th book of adversus Marcionem, as stated correctly in the title at the end of the book.

17. p.12 n.1 Codex supra quam dici potes nitidissimus et elegantissimus, picturis cum Mediceo stemmate et emblematibus in primis duabus, paginis mirifice illuminatus et cum litteris initialibus auro variisque coloribus pictus.

18. p.12 n.2. Identical to that mentioned by Oehl. praef. p. VIII as Codex No. 9.

19. p.12 n.3. After this title in the index the following words have been by a more recent hand: sive de persecutione.

20 p.13 n.1. One subscriptio is missing.

21. p.15 n.1. I assign it a Pforzheim provenance with P.

22. p.15 n.2. The abbreviation _ for the infinitive ending is dominant in this Codex. It is written very flat in this case however, so that Nicolo often read it as the abbreviation for m.

23. p.15 n.3 This ni cannot be differentiated from an m.

24. p.16 n.1. By paying attention to this, I compared P in a set of places, where there were marginal readings in Nicolo's copy. It resulted that in all cases there had  been similar ambiguity as in the arrangement above in the Cod. P.

25. p.16 n.2. Naturally those manuscripts in which de paenitentia is contained do not require another special investigation. They are thereforel excluded.

26. p.16 n.3. Cod. conv. soppr. VI, 11 (Nicolo): o
Cod. Vat. lat. 190: a
Cod. Vat. lat. 191: b
Cod. Vat. Urb.64: c
Cod. Vat. lat. 189: d
Cod. Laur. XXVI, 12: l
Cod. Med. Faes. 60: m.

27. p.17 n.1 As the dot on the letter i is missing, then we can likewise probably read here nutote.

28. p.17 n.2  In o this originally was nutote. This is improved into initote, but appears as  metote at first sight. This appears also in all copies up to Cod. a, whose copyist, looking more exactly, wrote correctly initote.

29. p.17 n.3. Perstringe see. p.15

30. p.18 n.1. The line over the u was added later, as the brighter ink proves. When a b c m were copied, it was not yet present; l reproduces it, and is thus the latest copy.

31. p.18 n.2. Cfr. p. 15.

32 p.18 n.3. The place is definitive. With the syllable Sar- a line in P ends; the copyist has forgotten to add the following syllable dos (dios?). Neither Nicolo nor the copyist from d seem to have noticed, since they leave no gap but still retain the hyphen.

33. p.18 n.4. Cfr. p. 16. The sedem for secundae in the margin of o appears likewise in the margin in cod. a; in b it is written above the text. In the remaining copies it does not appear.

34. p.18 n.5. For the ppris of P a gap was left in o. It was filled by a later hand with the word suppliciter, which was absent when used by the copyists of a b c m, but was probably however present when l was made. See note 30 - p. 18, note l.

35. p.20 n.1 I label it k.

36. p.20 n.2. Cfr. p. 12.

37. p.21 n.1 The simultaneous appearance of fuisse in e and c presupposes another exemplar than P.

38. p.21 n.2 In P is the syllable ui because of the absence of the dot of  the i likewise probably to be read as in. The normal abbreviation for deinde is din; thus only the line over the syllable is missing in in P, which a man such as Nicolo could easily complete from his own judgement.

39. p.22 n.1 In Nicolo's copy we would have the reading reddidisse in the text, and assume the other one in the margin (or vice versa).

40. p.22 n.2 In P it is fuit. There however the descending line from a q- in the line above may have come down between the letters u and i, then one would read in haste fiat instead. Nicolo may have written this in his text, have put then however the correct fuit, as he maintains, in the margin, from where it was used in e, while c retained fiat.

41. p.23 n.1 I considered testing the Laur. XXVI 13, but my time was anyway very limited and it was not necessary, since this manuscript, as proved above, originates completely from M, which will therefore make the Apologeticus, no exception.

42. p.23 n.2 Thus reads the title in M.

43. p.24 n.1 I mean here naturally only this one writing.

44. p.24 n.2. I shall refer to the Leidensis 2 as L.

45. p.24.n.3 m1: approbanda. With m1 I mark the corrector's hand which appears only in m in the Apolog.

46. p.24 n.4 The e over the h is by a later hand.

47. p.24 n.5 The symbols { } is the abbreviation likewise for ri, ir just as for re and er.

48. p.24 n.6 m1: fato.

49. p.24 n.7 e omits quod.

50. p.25 n.1. m1: defendit

51. p.25 n.2. m1: noxae

52. p.25 n.3. m1: pure GET

53. p.25 n.4. In M the n is hardly to be differentiated in lucanos from an r.

54. p.25 n.5. The syllable tis has been corrected in such a way   that it can be read also tos.

55. p.25 n.6. m1: veritati

56. p.25 n.7. m1: quaestioni contemperatur

57. p.25 n.8. e gave the abbreviation p{ui} as parium, which is outwardly possible. m has correctly read  per uim.

58. p.26 n.1. The better tradition has: aemulae rationis.

59. p.26 n.2. That starting initial contains a fine miniature picture, which represents the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary.

60. p26 n.3. Cfr. Oehl. praef. p. 7.

61. p.27 n.1. The writing shows exactly the same character as that of Nicolo and differs even more strongly from the gothic writing character of codd. P and M.

62. p.27 n.2. Cfr. p. 6.

63. p.27 n.3. to fol. 160. From here on the codex has no corrections. But in the Naples manuscript the same hand appears again.

64. p.28 n.1. This reappears in the Naples manuscript.

65. p.28 n.2. I notice that Vindobonensis and Leidensis are approximately independent of each other; the Leidensis shows an extraordinarily large number of gaps which the Vindobonensis does not, but there is missing here and there in   the Viennese Codex also a smaller or larger number of words, which the Leidensis indicates. Where thus these two manuscript deviate together - being correct in o, the use of another exemplar for the reading is evident.

66. p.29 n.1. I thus label the Vindobonensis 4194 and associated Neapolitanus.

67. I took for this no samples from p.30 n.1. the Naples Codex.

68. p.31 n.1. The Cod. Paterniacensis of the Rhenanus.

69. p.31 n.2. I hopes to be able to furnish later proof that M is a copy of the Gorziensis.

70. p.31 n.3. Quaestiones Tertullianeae criticae, Praef. p. 12.

71. p.32 n.1. The special conditions for the transmission of the Apologeticus have here been left out of consideration.

72. p.33 n.1. My telegraphic request, to send the manuscript to me at Milan on the Brera (?) where I could have taken at least still some samples, was unfortunately unsuccessful.

This page has been online since 11th December 1999.