Migne Reading Room
PG 7 · cols. 405–420
A. Stieren, Prolegomena editionis Lipsiensis (excerpta)
Editors' preface
EXCERPTA EX PROLEGOMENIS ADOLPHI STIEREN
EXCERPTS FROM THE PROLEGOMENA OF ADOLPH STIEREN
Theologiae et pnilosophiae doctoris, in Universitate Litterarum Ienensi antehac theol. prof. E. O., nunc antistitis dioeceseos Isenacensis, Societatis historicae Lipsiensis sodalis ordinarii.
Doctor of theology and philosophy, formerly extraordinary professor of theology in the University of Letters at Jena, now superintendent of the diocese of Eisenach, ordinary member of the Historical Society of Leipzig.
(Edit. Opp. S. Irenaei, Lipsiae, T. O. Weigel, 1853, 2 vol. in-8.)
(Edition of the works of St Irenaeus, Leipzig, T. O. Weigel, 1853, 2 vols. in octavo.)
CAPUT I.
CHAPTER I.
De codicibus, quibus Irenaei opus adversus haereses continetur.
On the codices in which Irenaeus's work against heresies is contained.
I. De tribus codicibus Erasmianis.
I. On the three Erasmian codices.
Codices Erasmianos eos dico, quibus Desiderius Erasmus, qui opus Irenaei Adv. haer. e bibliothecarum latebris in lucem protractum prelo primus subdidit, in adornanda editione principe adjutus est. Ipse enim in epistola nuncupatoria prodit, se tribus manuscriptis usum esse. Unum codicem Romae asservatum Joannes Faber « egregius studiorum patronus » describendum curavit in usum doctissimi editoris; alteri autem e bibliothecis monasteriorum, nescio quorum, sunt praebiti. Dolemus, Erasmum de codicum illorum aetate, indole ac dignitate nihil commemorasse. Id tamen nobis persuasissimum est, dictos codices non adeo bonae fuisse notae. Etenim editiones Erasmianae innumeris mendis, lacunis, mutilis ac depravatis periodis scatent. Neque vero sententiam nonnullorum amplecti possumus, manuscripta illa eadem fuisse, quae a Josua Mercero nomen habent. Quamvis enim codd. Mercerianos et Erasmianos inter se differre concessurus sit, quicunque lectionum varietatem a nobis adnotatam paulo accuratius perlustraverit, eos tamen ad eamdem familiam pertinere negare non ausim.
By the Erasmian codices I mean those by which Desiderius Erasmus, who drew the work of Irenaeus Against Heresies out of the hiding places of libraries into the light and was the first to send it to the press, was assisted in preparing the first edition. For he himself discloses in the dedicatory letter that he used three manuscripts. One codex, kept at Rome, Johannes Faber, "a distinguished patron of studies", had copied for the use of the most learned editor; the others were supplied from the libraries of monasteries, I do not know which. We regret that Erasmus said nothing of the age, character and worth of those codices. Yet we are fully persuaded that the said codices were not of very good quality. For the Erasmian editions teem with countless errors, gaps, and mutilated and corrupted periods. Nor, however, can we embrace the opinion of some, that those manuscripts were the same as those which take their name from Josua Mercerus. For although whoever has surveyed somewhat more carefully the variety of readings noted by us will grant that the Mercerian and Erasmian codices differ from one another, I would not venture to deny that they belong to the same family.
II. De vetere codice, quo usus est Franciscus Feuardentius.
II. On the old codex which Franciscus Feuardentius used.
In Commonitione ad lectores editioni ipsius praemissa Feuardentius haec scripsit : « Accessit quoque editioni cum Vaticano manuscripto codice nova collatio, cujus, praesertim vero per illustrem ac eruditum D. Joannem Sant-Andreanum Ecclesiae Parisiensis canonicum, nobis pridem commodati codicis veteris attentiore lectione et meditatione adhuc supra sexcentos locos emendatiores reddidimus. » Qui inter optimos huc usque nobis cognitos Irenaei codices numerandus est.
In the Commonitio ad lectores prefixed to his edition Feuardentius wrote this: "There has also been added to the edition a new collation with a Vatican manuscript codex, by which, but above all by a more attentive reading and study of an old codex lent to us some time ago by the illustrious and learned Master Joannes Sant-Andreanus, canon of the Church of Paris, we have made more than six hundred places more correct still." This codex is to be numbered among the best codices of Irenaeus known to us up to now.
Fuere, qui dicerent, veterem hunc codicem postea fuisse Isaaco Vossio. De ea sententia vide, quae infra disputavi de cod. Vossiano. Mirum sane videtur Vaticanum codicem Massueti (vide ejus praefationem) et nostro tempore Romae frustra quaeri.
There were those who said that this old codex afterwards belonged to Isaac Vossius. On that opinion see what I have argued below on the Vossian codex. It seems truly astonishing that Massuet's Vatican codex (see his preface) is sought in vain at Rome in our own time too.
III. De codice Ottoboniano.
III. On the Ottobonian codex.
Codex Ottobonianus Massueto dicente Romae asservatus est in bibliotheca eminentissimi cardinalis Ottoboni; chartaceus fuit, saeculo XIII, ni fallitur Massuetus, scriptus. Posteriora libri quinti capita in hoc ms. deerant. Variae lectiones, e dicto cod. descriptae, Roma ad Massuetum transmissae sunt. Ubi nunc delitescat codex, nescio. Ejus lectiones fere easdem esse Massuetus dixit, quas Grabius ex duobus Merceri codicibus allegat. Sed fides et auctoritas codicis exigua nobis visa est.
The Ottobonian codex, as Massuet says, was kept at Rome in the library of the most eminent Cardinal Ottoboni; it was of paper, written in the XIII century, unless Massuet is mistaken. The later chapters of the fifth book were missing in this manuscript. Variant readings copied from the said codex were sent from Rome to Massuet. Where the codex now lies hidden I do not know. Massuet said that its readings were almost the same as those which Grabe cites from the two codices of Mercerus. But the reliability and authority of the codex have seemed slight to us.
IV. De codice Passeratiano.
IV. On the Passeratian codex.
Massuetus prodit se usum esse variis lectionibus, quas Passeratii manus per totum librum primum et octo libri secundi capita ad oram exemplaris Erasmianae editionis scripsit. Non dubitandum cum Massueto censeo, « quin variae illae lectiones e ms. codice, eoque perantiquo ac bonae
Massuet discloses that he used variant readings which the hand of Passerat wrote in the margin of a copy of the Erasmian edition through the whole first book and eight chapters of the second book. With Massuet I judge that one need not doubt "that those variant readings were excerpted from a manuscript codex, and that a very old one and of good
Editors' notes and page, col. 405
Page
- running head: 405 PROLEGOMENA EDIT. I
- marginal letters: A I. De tribus codicibus Erasmianis.; B codd. Mercerianos et Erasmianos inter se differre; C infra disputavi de cod.
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; full-width title block across 405-406 at top of column (EXCERPTA EX PROLEGOMENIS ADOLPHI STIEREN ... CAPUT I. De codicibus, quibus Irenaei opus adversus haereses continetur.) cut off at right edge in the column image; set at the head of 405 (Q2a: its right-hand half could not be checked against the column images); editors' matter: Adolphi Stieren Prolegomena, Cap. I (I. De tribus codicibus Erasmianis)
- running head: 405 PROLEGOMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS. 406
- marginal letters: A beside the first line of the columns (notae excerptae sint, right column); B beside codd. Mercerianos / propugnatus; C beside infra disputavi / codicem Claromontanum; D (none visible)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' matter (Stieren's prolegomena) set as layer 1; the title band EXCERPTA EX PROLEGOMENIS ADOLPHI STIEREN with its subtitle lines and CAPUT I heading is printed across the full width of cols 405-406 and is set here, at the head of 405
notae excerptae sint. » Sed nec docto monacho nec mihi contigit, ut codicem ipsum reperiremus, cujus non omnes lectiones adnotatas esse dolemus.
quality." But neither the learned monk nor I have had the fortune to find the codex itself, and we regret that not all its readings were noted.
V. De codice Claromontano.
V. On the Claromontanus codex.
In praefatione editionis ipsius Massuetus ita scribit : « Primum codicem, e bibliotheca Claromontani collegii Soc. Jesu acceptum, utendum mihi praebuit vir doctissimus, cujus humanitatem nunquam non experti sumus, R. P. Joannes Harduinus, eidem bibliothecae praefectus. Is optimae notae codex, cum ante annos ut minimum 800 scriptus sit, teste eruditissimo piae memoriae D. Joanne Mabillonio, perito, si quis unquam, talium rerum aestimatore, omnium, ad quos priores editiones factae sunt, videtur antiquissimus. Mutilus tamen est; avulsis enim postremis foliis pluribus, extremis fere decem capitibus decurtatus manet liber quintus. An casu, an improvido scioli cujuspiam (cui forte displicuerit millenariorum error ab Irenaeo propugnatus) zelo id acciderit, obscurum est. Certum est integrum olim fuisse codicem, cum pars vicesimi sexti capitis adhuc supersit. Caetera deinceps ad libri finem interierunt. Hinc Claromontanum codicem diversum esse a Feuardentiano manifestum videtur : hic enim integer fuit, ille vero multo emendatior. » Hactenus Massuetus. Quaerenti mihi, ubinam nunc antiquissimus iste codex servetur, in manus venerunt notissimus catalogus bibliothecae Meermani et Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum, quos Gust. Haenel edidit. Quibus libris perspectis de fatis codicis Claromontani edoctus sum. Cum Jesuitis e Gallia expulsis bibliotheca collegii Claromontani publice venderetur, antiquus Irenaei codex in manus Meermani transiit a. 1764 aut 1765; post mortem vero Meermani a. 1824 in Angliam migravit. Ibi enim in bibliotheca illustri, quam excellentissimus Thomas Phillips in villa Middlehill prope urbem Broadway sita instituit, codicem Claromontanum nunc asservari citatus Haenelii liber me docuit.
In the preface of his edition Massuet writes thus: "The first codex, received from the library of the Clermont College of the Society of Jesus, was furnished for my use by a most learned man whose kindness we have never failed to experience, the Reverend Father Joannes Harduinus, librarian of that same library. This codex of the best quality, since it was written at least 800 years ago, on the testimony of the most learned Dom Joannes Mabillon of pious memory, as skilled a judge of such matters as ever there was, seems the most ancient of all those from which the earlier editions were made. Yet it is mutilated; for, several of the last leaves having been torn away, the fifth book remains cut short by about its last ten chapters. Whether this happened by chance or through the ill-advised zeal of some smatterer (who perhaps disliked the error of the millenarians championed by Irenaeus) is obscure. It is certain that the codex was once entire, since part of the twenty-sixth chapter still survives. The rest, from there to the end of the book, has perished. Hence it seems plain that the Claromontanus codex is different from Feuardent's: for the latter was entire, while the former is far more correct." Thus far Massuet. As I sought where this most ancient codex is now kept, there came into my hands the very well-known catalogue of Meerman's library and the Catalogues of manuscript books which Gust. Haenel published. Having examined these books I was informed of the fortunes of the Claromontanus codex. When, after the Jesuits had been expelled from France, the library of the Clermont College was sold publicly, the ancient codex of Irenaeus passed into Meerman's hands in the year 1764 or 1765; and after Meerman's death, in the year 1824, it migrated to England. For Haenel's book cited above taught me that the Claromontanus codex is now kept there, in the illustrious library which the most excellent Thomas Phillips established in his villa of Middlehill, situated near the town of Broadway.
D. Schwarzius, Ienensis, collega antea mecum conjunctissimus, etiam nunc amicus dilectissimus, cum ante nonnullos annos visitaret Angliam, a me rogatus est, ut adiret illustrissimum Thomam Phillips et perantiquum Irenaei codicem inspiciendi veniam ab eo peteret. Qua venia a nobilissimo manuscripti possessore comiter data, D. Schwarzius nonnulla de codicis indole litteris mandavit, quae redux in patriam mecum communicavit. Codex est membranaceus, e catalogo Meermanniano saec. XI (sed ex sententia perillustris Thomae Phillips saec. X) scriptus, folia habet 246, neque vero 232, ut in Catalogo legitur; in fine mutilus ac tribus prioribus foliis sordidus formam habet mediam. Exceptis nonnullis paginis codex purus intaminatusque est. Luculenter et paucis siglis exaratus esse videtur a pluribus librariis. Rubro atramento his verbis inscriptus est : « Hireneus Lugdunensis episcopus contra omnes haereses ; » atque desinit in haec : — « significavit Joannes Domini discipulus in Apocalypsi
Mr Schwarz of Jena, formerly my very close colleague and still now a most beloved friend, when he was visiting England some years ago, was asked by me to call on the most illustrious Thomas Phillips and to ask him for leave to inspect the very ancient codex of Irenaeus. This leave having been courteously granted by the most noble owner of the manuscript, Mr Schwarz committed to writing some observations on the character of the codex, which on his return to his homeland he shared with me. The codex is of parchment, written, according to Meerman's catalogue, in the XI century (but in the opinion of the most illustrious Thomas Phillips in the X century); it has 246 leaves, and not 232 as one reads in the Catalogue; mutilated at the end and soiled on its first three leaves, it is of medium format. Apart from some pages the codex is clean and unsullied. It appears to have been written clearly and with few abbreviations by several scribes. It is inscribed in red ink with these words: "Hireneus, bishop of Lyons, against all heresies;" and it ends with these words: — "John the disciple of the Lord signified in the Apocalypse
Editors' notes and page, col. 406
Page
- running head: OMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS. 406
- marginal letters: A notae excerptae sint. »; B propugnatus) zelo id acciderit,; C codicem Claromontanum nunc asservari
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; full-width title block across 405-406 at top of column cut off at left edge and not set; Apo- split at end of column; editors' matter: Adolphi Stieren Prolegomena, Cap. I (continued)
- running head: 405 PROLEGOMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS. 406
- marginal letters: A notae excerptae sint; B propugnatus) zelo id acciderit; C codicem Claromontanum nunc asservari; D (none visible)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' matter (Stieren) set as layer 1; the full-width title band above is set at the head of 405 (pointer). The column ends with the word split at the break, Apo-; col 407's part begins with edisserens, so the tail was not carried anywhere. Q3 set the word whole here as Apocalypsi (the quoted passage is AH V, 26, 1: in Apocalypsi, edisserens), per the column-break rule; the tail at the head of 407 was not seen on its image, so its spelling and any comma after it are UNSURE. notissimus catalogus checked on the page by Q3: notissimus as printed.
edisserens quae fuerint decem cornua, quae a Daniele visa sunt, dicens sic dictum esse: Et decem cornua quae vidisti, » — quae lib. V, 26, 1 leguntur.
setting forth what the ten horns were which were seen by Daniel, saying that it was thus said: And the ten horns which you saw," — which things are read in bk. V, 26, 1.
Illustrissimus Thomas Phillips quanquam promiserat, sese codicis specimen ad me transmissurum esse, id tamen ad hunc usque diem non accepi.
Although the most illustrious Sir Thomas Phillipps had promised that he would transmit a specimen of the manuscript to me, yet right up to this day I have not received it.
VI. De codicibus Merceri.
VI. On the manuscripts of Mercier.
Ultimo Prolegomenorum suorum paragrapho Grabius scribit, sibi a celeberrimo Dodwello apographum variantium lectionum, quas a Josua Mercero olim e duobus mss. codicibus erutas Isaacus Vossius Dodwello describendas dedisset, libentissime communicatum esse. Me quidem non fugit, quod Harlesius in Fabricii Bibl. Graec., t. VII, p. 71 adnotat: « In bibl. Leidensi est edit. Erasmi Paris. collata cum msstis. » Inde suspicio mihi orta est, hanc Erasmi editionem lectiones variantes a Josua Mercero adnotatas continere. D. Kistio, Theologo Lugduno-Batavo, accuratiorem notitiam de libro illo debui, quem D. Geelius, vir clarissimus, ad me misit. Quod suspicatus eram, id mihi libro perspecto certum fuit: eumdem librum fuisse, cujus in margine Josuas Mercerus ascripserat satis multas lectiones, procul dubio ex duobus codicibus erutas. Singulis enim variantibus numerus vel 1 vel 2 additus est, qui numeri non interpretandi sunt « cod. primus et secundus, » ita ut accurate distinguatur inter duos codices. Sed numero 1 id exprimitur, unum ex duobus codicibus, atque numero 2 utrumque codicem lectionem aliquam offerre. Ubi enim scriptor in utroque manuscripto novam lectionem reperiit, ibi non scripsit 1 et 2, sed ita 1 et 1. Ex his lector benevolus signa codicum in mea editione ita explicet: Merc. I = unus ex codicibus Mercerianis (sed incertum est, uter); Merc. II = duo codd. Merceriani.
In the last paragraph of his Prolegomena Grabe writes that an apograph of the variant readings which, formerly drawn out by Josias Mercier from two manuscript codices, Isaac Vossius had given to Dodwell to be copied, was most gladly communicated to him by the most celebrated Dodwell. Now it has not escaped me what Harles annotates in Fabricius's Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. VII, p. 71: "In the Leiden library is the Paris edition of Erasmus collated with manuscripts." Thence the suspicion arose in me that this edition of Erasmus contained the variant readings annotated by Josias Mercier. To Dr. Kist, the Leiden theologian, I owed a more accurate notice concerning that book, which Dr. Geel, a most distinguished man, sent to me. What I had suspected became certain to me upon examining the book: that it was the same book in whose margin Josias Mercier had written down quite a number of readings, without doubt drawn out from two manuscripts. For to the individual variants the number either 1 or 2 is added, which numbers are not to be interpreted "first and second manuscript," so as to distinguish accurately between the two manuscripts. Rather, by the number 1 this is expressed, that one of the two manuscripts offers some reading, and by the number 2 that both manuscripts offer it. For where the writer found a new reading in each manuscript, there he wrote not 1 and 2, but thus: 1 and 1. From these things let the benevolent reader explain the symbols of the manuscripts in my edition thus: Merc. I = one of the Mercerian manuscripts (but it is uncertain which of the two); Merc. II = the two Mercerian manuscripts.
Quinam sint codices, ex quibus vir criticus transcripserit lectiones, ipse non prodidit. Qui quamvis a mss. Erasmianis longe diversi sint, ad eamdem tamen cum his pertinere videntur familiam, uti supra jam monuimus. Apographum cum Grabio communicatum non accurate scriptum erat. Novo hujus libri usu factum est, ut lectiones codd. Merceri integras adnotare innumerosque errores Grabii, etiam in Massueti editionem irreptos emendare possemus.
What manuscripts they were from which the critical man transcribed the readings, he himself did not disclose. And although they are far different from the Erasmian manuscripts, yet they seem to belong to the same family with them, as we have already pointed out above. The apograph communicated to Grabe was not accurately written. Through the new use of this book it has come about that we were able to annotate the readings of Mercier's manuscripts in full and to emend innumerable errors of Grabe that had crept even into the edition of Massuet.
VII. De codice Arundeliano.
VII. On the Arundel manuscript.
« Codicem Arundelianum, ait Grabius, in bibliotheca regiae societatis Londini jam asservatum, quem quadringentorum annorum esse arbitror, ipsemet quidem ante triennium cum Feuardentii editione diligenter contuli; utpote cujus usum vir supra modum humanus Dn. D. Woodward, dictae societatis sodalis, mihi benignissime impetraverat. Attamen cum reverendus D. Battely, canonicus Cantuariensis, postea suum Irenaei exemplar, in quo magnam variantium dicti codicis lectionum copiam adnotaverat, sponte mihi transmiserit, hanc ejus benevolentiam tacere nolui, praesertim quod una atque altera ad oram ascripta ejus observatione usus fuerim. » Hactenus Grabius. Quem codicem cum per D. Spikerum, virum clarissimum, Londini in Museo Britanno asservari comperissem, D. Goettlingium, quem olim collegam ob sincerum animum diligo maximique aestimo, in Angliam profecturum rogavi, ut manuscriptum Arundelianum perlustraturus esset. Is membranaceum hunc codicem dixit inter manuscripta Arundeliana numerum
"The Arundel manuscript," says Grabe, "now preserved in the library of the Royal Society at London, which I judge to be four hundred years old, I myself indeed three years ago diligently collated with the edition of Feuardent; inasmuch as a man gracious beyond measure, Dr. Woodward, fellow of the said Society, had most kindly obtained the use of it for me. Nevertheless, since the Reverend Dr. Battely, canon of Canterbury, afterwards of his own accord transmitted to me his copy of Irenaeus, in which he had annotated a great abundance of variant readings of the said manuscript, I was unwilling to pass over in silence this benevolence of his, especially because I have made use of one or two observations of his written in the margin." Thus far Grabe. When through Dr. Spiker, a most distinguished man, I had ascertained that this manuscript was preserved at London in the British Museum, I asked Dr. Goettling, a former colleague whom on account of his sincere mind I love and value most highly, when he was about to set out for England, to examine the Arundel manuscript. He said that this parchment manuscript among the Arundel manuscripts has the number
Editors' notes and page, col. 407
Page
- running head: 407 PROLEGOMENA EDIT. L
- marginal letters: A calypsi, edisserens quae fuerint; B logo Lugduno-Batavo, accuratiorem notitiam de; C scripserit lectiones, ipse non; D quo magnam variantium dicti
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; begins with fragment calypsi from 406 (Apocalypsi); nume- split at end of column; editors' matter: Adolphi Stieren Prolegomena, Cap. I (continued)
- other: the word numerum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 408
- other: footnote (a) (Bibliotheca Graec., t. VII, p. 78 ...) is printed at the foot of this column and runs on under col 408; it is set in n408, beside its call (pointer, Q2a)
87 habere; eumdem duabus, quas dicunt, columnis, quarum utraque 36 versus contineat, optime scriptum esse saeculo XIV. Prologum, quem Goettlingius prima codicis pagina animadvertit, eumdem esse suspicatus sum, quem Magnus Crusius memorat epistola, qua in nova Irenaei editione, quam molitus erat, et prologum codicis Arundeliani typis exprimendum esse scribit. Prologus, quem Londini exscribendum curavi, hic est:
87; and that the same is excellently written in two columns, as they call them, each of which contains 36 lines, in the fourteenth century. The prologue which Goettling noticed on the first page of the manuscript I suspected to be the same as that which Magnus Crusius mentions in an epistle in which he writes that in the new edition of Irenaeus which he had planned, the prologue also of the Arundel manuscript was to be printed. The prologue, which I took care to have copied out at London, is this:
Hyreneus, episcopus Lugdunensis, etc. Hunc Prologum praemittimus libris contra haereses. Vide infra. Edit. Patr.
Hyreneus, bishop of Lyons, etc. This Prologue we premise to the books against heresies. See below. Editors of the Patrologia.
VII. De codice Vossiano seu Burelliano.
VII. On the Vossian or Burellian manuscript.
Ubi de codicibus Irenaei agit, Grabius Dodwellum, qui jampridem novam operum Irenaei editionem meditatus sit, isto consilio ait optimum Isaaci Vossii codicem accuratissime cum Feuardentii exemplari contulisse indeque collectas varias lectiones omnes cum Grabio libentissime communicasse. Massuetus hunc codicem uti alios, quibus Grabius usus est, non inspexit.
Where he treats of the manuscripts of Irenaeus, Grabe says that Dodwell, who long ago had meditated a new edition of the works of Irenaeus, with that design collated most accurately the excellent manuscript of Isaac Vossius with the copy of Feuardent and most gladly communicated to Grabe all the various readings collected thence. Massuet did not inspect this manuscript, like the others which Grabe used.
Joannes Albertus Fabricius memoriae prodidit, in Bibliotheca Lugduno-Batava asservari Irenaei codicem ms., qui olim ex libris Isaaci Vossii canonici Windesoriensis fuerit. Cum me non fugerit, quod notaverat Fabricius, inter codices Vossianos Latinos Irenaeum bis commemorari: per litteras a Kistio, theologo Lugduno-Batavo inter nostrates aestimatissimo, ea qua par est observantia petii, ut de indole illius codicis certiorem me faceret. Vir ven. litteris mecum communicavit haec: codicem Vossianum esse eumdem, quem olim Henricus Dodwellus cum textu edito contulerit. Lectiones varias ex illo codice collectas Grabianae editioni insertas esse constat. Quid igitur novi inde sperare licuit? A Dodwello codicem accuratissime pertractatum et a Grabio lectionis varietatem diligentissime notatam esse nemini dubium esse poterat, cui solertia et peritia utriusque viri nota et perspecta erat.
Johann Albert Fabricius handed down to memory that in the Leiden Library there is preserved a manuscript codex of Irenaeus which formerly belonged to the books of Isaac Vossius, canon of Windsor. Since it did not escape me what Fabricius had noted, that among the Latin Vossian manuscripts Irenaeus is recorded twice: by letter I asked of Kist, the Leiden theologian most highly esteemed among our countrymen, with all due respect, that he should inform me concerning the character of that manuscript. The venerable man by letter communicated to me these things: that the Vossian manuscript is the same as that which Henry Dodwell formerly collated with the published text. It is established that the various readings collected from that manuscript were inserted into the Grabian edition. What new thing, therefore, was it permitted to hope for thence? That the manuscript had been most accurately handled by Dodwell and the variety of reading most diligently noted by Grabe could be doubtful to nobody to whom the shrewdness and skill of both men was known and well examined.
Sed Kistius, cui maximas gratias in praefatione jam testatus sum, litteris suis addidit schedulas, quibus notaverat varias lectiones ab ipso observatas nonnullis codicis capitibus cum editione Massuetiana denuo collatis. Inde cognovi, haud pauca, in quibus a lectione recepta codex dissentit, aut Dodwellum fugisse aut a Grabio sive consulto sive inconsulto esse praetermissa. Itaque speciminis illius a Kistio mecum communicati ratione habita, operae pretium existimavi codicem Vossianum iterum cum textu vulgato religiosissime conferre.
But Kist, to whom I have already testified my greatest thanks in the preface, added to his letter slips on which he had noted various readings observed by himself when some chapters of the manuscript were collated anew with the Massuetian edition. Thence I recognized that not a few things in which the manuscript dissents from the received reading either escaped Dodwell or were passed over by Grabe whether on purpose or inadvertently. Taking account therefore of that specimen communicated to me by Kist, I deemed it worthwhile to collate the Vossian manuscript again most scrupulously with the common text.
Quae cum ita essent, quam maxime mihi in votis erat, ut mihi codicis inspiciendi facultas daretur. Admodum laetatus sum, quod Geelius, vir amplissimus, codicem curis meis commendatum Ienam transmitteret. Egregii viri, cujus nomen clarissimum etiam in terris nostris celebratur, humanitatem et benevolentiam splendide mihi esse comprobatam aperte profiteor eique ut publicas persolvam gratias gratus impellit animus.
Since these things were so, it was in the highest degree among my wishes that the opportunity of inspecting the manuscript should be granted to me. I rejoiced exceedingly that Geel, a most distinguished man, transmitted the manuscript commended to my care to Jena. That the kindness and benevolence of the eminent man, whose most famous name is celebrated in our lands also, was splendidly proved to me, I openly profess, and a grateful mind impels me to pay him public thanks.
Ex quo codice quos fructus perceperim, paucis de ejus indole praemissis, indicare et quae inter eum et Feuardentianum codicem veterem intercedat ratio investigare in animo est.
What fruits I have reaped from this manuscript, after premising a few things concerning its character, it is in my mind to indicate, and to investigate what relation exists between it and the ancient Feuardentian manuscript.
Codex Vossianus duplici numero vel 33 vel « ex Bibliotheca viri illustris Isaaci Vossii 63 » notatus membranaceus est in folio minori exaratus. Cum is, qui singulis foliis numeros ascripsit, errore lapsus illi folio, quod folium numero 76 notatum
The Vossian manuscript, marked with a double number, either 33 or "from the Library of the illustrious man Isaac Vossius 63," is of parchment, penned in smaller folio. Since he who appended the numbers to the individual leaves, slipping by error, to that leaf which follows the leaf marked with the number 76
Editors' notes and page, col. 408
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 408 (call not in the foot images; column inferred from the Vossianus section, unverified)
Bibliotheca Graec., t. VII, p. 78. Memorantur notante Fabricio inter codd. Vossii duo Irenaei Latini codd. msti. catalogum, ad quem provocat Fabricius, non vidi. Sed Catalogi librorum mstorum Angliae et Hiberniae, qui prodiit Oxoniae 1697 fol., tomo II, recensentur codd. msti Is. Vossii, ibique p. 69 commemoratur sub n. 2660 « Irenaei codex antiquissimus. » Praeterea « Catalogus librorum tam impressorum quam manuscriptorum Bibliothecae publicae universitatis Lugduno-Batavae, cura et opera Wolfredi Senguerdii, Jabobi Gronovii, Joannis Heymann (Lugduni apud Bat. 1716 fol.), » nominatur p. 317 « Irenaei op. Lugd. libb. v contra omnes haer. cod. ms. »
Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. VII, p. 78. As Fabricius notes, two Latin manuscripts of Irenaeus are recorded among Vossius's manuscripts; the catalogue to which Fabricius refers I have not seen. But in the Catalogue of the manuscript books of England and Ireland, published at Oxford in 1697 (folio), volume II, the manuscripts of Isaac Vossius are listed, and there on p. 69, under no. 2660, is recorded "a very ancient codex of Irenaeus." Further, the "Catalogue of the books, both printed and manuscript, of the public library of the University of Leiden, by the care and labour of Wolferd Senguerd, Jacob Gronovius and Johann Heymann (Leiden, 1716, folio)" names on p. 317 "Irenaeus of Lyons, works, five books against all heresies, manuscript codex."
(printed under page 210)
Page
- running head: OMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS. 408
- marginal letters: A rum 87 habere; eumdem; B casse. Massuetus hunc codicem; C rat, cui solertia et; D tem et benevolentiam splendide
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; begins with fragment rum from 407 (numerum); editors' matter: Adolphi Stieren Prolegomena, Cap. I (continued)
excipit, numerum 79 dederit, accidit, ut codex non, uti folium ultimum prodit, 113, sed tantummodo 111 folia complectatur, quanquam in orationis contextu nihil desideratur. Unaquaeque pagina in duas quas dicunt columnas divisa est, quarum utraque 49 constat versiculis. Singuli versus singulis lineis subtilioribus atramento pictis praesignati sunt. Totus vero codex luculenter et pulchre scriptus est litteris minusculis. Ubi litterae initiales scribendae fuissent, ibi a codicis auctore spatium vacuum relictum est postea pictura explendum. Sed solae litterae initiales praefationis et libri I sunt picturis ornatae; caeterae omnes etiamnum pictorem desiderant. Quamvis interdum atramentum paululum palluerit ita, ut aliquot voces difficulter explicari possint; nullos tamen me invenisse memini locos, de quorum interpretatione prorsus desperandum fuisset.
gave the number 79, it has happened that the manuscript comprises not, as the last leaf discloses, 113, but only 111 leaves, although in the context of the discourse nothing is wanting. Each page is divided into two columns, as they call them, each of which consists of 49 lines. The individual lines are marked out beforehand with individual finer lines drawn in ink. And the whole manuscript is clearly and beautifully written in minuscule letters. Where initial letters were to have been written, there an empty space was left by the writer of the manuscript to be filled up afterwards with painting. But only the initial letters of the preface and of book I are adorned with paintings; all the rest still lack the painter. Although sometimes the ink has grown a little pale, so that some words can with difficulty be deciphered; yet I remember that I found no passages of whose interpretation one had altogether to despair.
Cum is qui codicem exaravit plerumque insolitam scribendi methodum secutus esse videtur: haud alienum ab re esse censui, sigla quae dicunt sive scribendi compendia, quibus codicis auctorem constanter usum esse cognovi, in commentatione mea De Codice Vossiano scripta (Lips. 1847) recensere.
Since he who penned the manuscript seems for the most part to have followed an unusual method of writing, I thought it not foreign to the purpose to review in my treatise written On the Vossian Manuscript (Leipzig, 1847) the sigla, as they call them, or abbreviations of writing which I recognized the writer of the manuscript to have constantly used.
Quatuor priores libri in capita accurate sunt divisi; cuique capiti et numerus et titulus atramento rubro praescriptus est. Libros II, III et IV praecedunt tabulae, quibus argumenta seu inscriptiones capitum recensentur. Librum V is, qui codicem scripsit, in capita non divisit; quo fit, ut textus sine intervallo et distinctione inde ab initio ad finem usque procedat. Sed in margine libri V capitum numeri notati sunt — nescio a quo, certe non ab eo, cujus manus codicem exaravit — numeris Arabicis, cum per priores IV libros numerorum notis Latinis capita a librario sint indicata. Sed ea, quam posterior manus libro V dedit, capitum divisio lectoribus non satisfecit. Tertius enim — nescio quis — in spatio inter duas columnas intermisso alteram divisionem secundum capita proposuit a priori longe diversam.
The first four books are accurately divided into chapters; to each chapter both the number and the title are prefixed in red ink. Books II, III, and IV are preceded by tables in which the arguments or titles of the chapters are reviewed. Book V he who wrote the manuscript did not divide into chapters; whence it happens that the text proceeds without interval and distinction right from the beginning to the end. But in the margin of book V the numbers of the chapters are noted — I know not by whom, certainly not by him whose hand penned the manuscript — in Arabic numerals, whereas through the first four books the chapters are indicated by the copyist in Latin numeral characters. Yet that division of chapters which the later hand gave to book V did not satisfy readers. For a third person — I know not who — in the space left between the two columns proposed another division according to chapters far different from the former.
Deprehenduntur in codice haud raro lacunae, scribae negligentia plerumque ortae. Quas animadvertimus majores lacunas inde exortas esse non dubitamus, quod is, qui codicem scripsit, voces commutavit ob similitudinem syllabarum finalium, quod dicunt ὁμοιοτέλευτον. Quae quidem majores lacunae plerumque non sunt expletae. Interdum factum est, ut scriba ipse vel secunda manus, quantum ex scribendi ratione et atramento pallidiori patet, in margine voculas male praetermissas adderet.
There are detected in the manuscript not rarely lacunae, for the most part arisen from the negligence of the scribe. The larger lacunae which we noticed we do not doubt arose from this, that he who wrote the manuscript confused words on account of the similarity of final syllables, which they call ὁμοιοτέλευτον [homoeoteleuton]. And these larger lacunae for the most part have not been filled up. Sometimes it happened that the scribe himself or a second hand, so far as is plain from the manner of writing and the paler ink, added in the margin little words badly passed over.
Quaecunque praeterea in margine leguntur aut ad argumentum eorum, quae textu continentur, spectant, aut explicationis causa addita sunt. Quae cum haud magni pretii mihi viderentur, ea omnino negligenda putavi.
Whatever things besides are read in the margin either look to the subject matter of the things that are contained in the text, or have been added for the sake of explanation. And since these seemed to me of no great value, I thought them to be altogether neglected.
Praeterea inesse vidimus codici vitia haud pauca, quae homini docto, qui Irenaei mentem ubicunque assequebatur, vitanda erant. Sed quoquo modo illa vitia irrepserint in codicem, auctoritas illius neutiquam est diminuta. Grabius et Massuetus eum ob multas quas offert egregias lectiones magni aestimaverunt. Plerumque enim consentit Vossianus codex cum codd. optimae notae; memorabilem ejus cum vetere Feuardentii consensum, de quo infra plura disputaturus sum, hoc loco tantummodo attingam. Inde vero concludere licet, illud Irenaei exemplar manuscriptum, quod scriba codicis Vossiani secutus est, bonae notae fuisse. Confiteor equidem nos omnino nescire, ubi et quale fuerit codicis Vossiani archetypum, neque accurate statui posse, quando illud scriptum fuerit. Liceat tamen hac de re conjecturam proponere.
Besides, we have seen that there are in the manuscript not a few faults which ought to have been avoided by a learned man who everywhere followed the mind of Irenaeus. Yet in whatever way those faults crept into the manuscript, its authority is by no means diminished. Grabe and Massuet valued it highly on account of the many excellent readings which it offers. For mostly the Vossian manuscript agrees with the manuscripts of the best quality; its memorable agreement with the ancient manuscript of Feuardent, concerning which I am about to dispute more fully below, I shall only touch upon in this place. And thence one may conclude that that manuscript exemplar of Irenaeus which the scribe of the Vossian manuscript followed was of good quality. I confess indeed that we are altogether ignorant where and of what sort the archetype of the Vossian manuscript was, nor can it be accurately established when it was written. Yet let it be permitted to propose a conjecture concerning this matter.
Ubi Irenaeus Marcosiorum systema describit eorumque morem ex litteris et numeris computandi
Where Irenaeus describes the system of the Marcosians and sharply censures their custom of computing from letters and numbers,
Editors' notes and page, col. 409
Page
- running head: 409 PROLEGOMENA EDIT. L
- marginal letters: A excipit, numerum 79 dederit,; B tam scribendi methodum secutus; C — nescio quis — in; D Praeterea inesse vidimus codici
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with Greek word, no facing Greek column; editors' matter: Adolphi Stieren Prolegomena, Cap. I (continued)
acriter perstringit, leguntur litterae Graecae, quas etiam in codicibus versionis Latinae Graece scribere consueverunt librarii. At vero is, qui codicem Vossianum exaravit, linguae Graecae ignarus, illas Graecas litteras in Latinas commutavit ita, ut Graecarum litterarum formam magis, quam earum significatum secutus esse videatur. Ita enim litterae utriusque linguae sibi invicem respondent in codice nostro:
there are read Greek letters, which even in the manuscripts of the Latin version the copyists were accustomed to write in Greek. But he who penned the Vossian manuscript, being ignorant of the Greek tongue, changed those Greek letters into Latin ones in such a way that he seems to have followed the shape of the Greek letters more than their meaning. For thus do the letters of the two languages correspond to each other in our manuscript:
Ψ = y Σ = c Γ = t aut f Ρ = p Δ = a Π = n Υ = v Λ = a Η = h
Ψ = y, Σ = c, Γ = t or f, Ρ = p, Δ = a, Π = n, Υ = v, Λ = a, Η = h.
Ex qua scribendi ratione patet, in exemplari manuscripto, quod ante oculos codicis Vossiani librario fuit, litteras Graecas forma unciali scriptas fuisse. Quod ei dubium non erit, qui, quomodo duos locos, quos ex Homero et Hesiodo citavit Irenaeus, scripserit librarius, accurate comparaverit cum textu Graeco.
From which manner of writing it is plain that in the manuscript exemplar which the copyist of the Vossian manuscript had before his eyes, the Greek letters were written in uncial form. Which will not be doubtful to him who accurately compares with the Greek text how the copyist wrote the two passages which Irenaeus cited from Homer and Hesiod.
Quod si vero certum est Graecos locos in archetypo codicis Vossiani litteris majusculis scriptos esse: inde apparet codicem illum, quem secutus est Vossiani codicis librarius, perantiquum fuisse. Constat enim vetustissimos tantum codices Graecos litteris majoribus esse exaratos. Qua de causa egregia codicis Vossiani indoles nititur antiquissimo, ex quo exscriptus est, codice, et meliores illae, quas exhibet lectiones, manaverunt ex libro neque scribarum ignorantia neque sciolorum temeritate pessundato. Vitia enim quae insunt codici scribae culpa esse orta cuique certum erit, qui quanta ejus ignorantia fuerit codicis inspectione intellexerit.
Now if it is certain that the Greek passages in the archetype of the Vossian manuscript were written in majuscule letters, thence it appears that that manuscript which the copyist of the Vossian manuscript followed was very ancient. For it is established that only the most ancient Greek manuscripts were penned in larger letters. Wherefore the excellent character of the Vossian manuscript rests upon the most ancient manuscript from which it was copied out, and those better readings which it exhibits flowed from a book ruined neither by the ignorance of scribes nor by the rashness of smatterers. For that the faults which are in the manuscript arose through the fault of the scribe will be certain to everyone who has understood by inspection of the manuscript how great his ignorance was.
Jam vero nobis quaerendum est, num Grabius codice nostro accurate usus sit necne. Grabio ipsi codicem saepe dictum nunquam ob oculos fuisse inde patet, quod collationem a Dodwello accuratissime factam esse dicit. Etenim si Grabius unam tantummodo codicis plagulam comparasset cum collatione sibi a Dodwello commodata, tam negligenter et leviter collatum esse codicem perspexisset, ut ne Dodwellum quidem, virum inter philologos etiamnum laudatum, lectionis varietatem collegisse opinari potuisset. Suspicor enim Henricum Dodwellum codicem illum viro non adeo perito conferendum tradidisse neque vero curasse, ut accurate pertractaretur.
And now we must inquire whether Grabe used our manuscript accurately or not. That the oft-mentioned manuscript was never before the eyes of Grabe himself is plain from this, that he says the collation was most accurately made by Dodwell. For if Grabe had compared only a single sheet of the manuscript with the collation lent to him by Dodwell, he would have perceived that the manuscript had been collated so negligently and lightly that he could not have supposed that even Dodwell, a man still praised among philologists, had collected the variety of reading. For I suspect that Henry Dodwell handed over that manuscript to a man not very skilful to be collated, and did not take care that it should be accurately handled.
Grabius enim suae editioni eas lectiones inserere noluit, quae omnino nullum sensum praeberent atque librariorum errori aut ignorantiae deberentur. Qua de re profecto non est vituperandus. Sed omisit multas lectiones, quae commodo commendantur sensu. Huc accedit, quod Grabius haud raro lectiones tanquam in codice Vossiano obvias attulit, quae ibi omnino non inveniuntur. Eae vero, quas falsissime inde haustas, etiam a Massueto fere omnes editioni suae insertas, nemo hucusque correxit, in editione nostra sunt emendatae.
For Grabe was unwilling to insert into his edition those readings which offered no sense at all and were owed to the error or ignorance of copyists. For which matter assuredly he is not to be blamed. But he omitted many readings which are commended by a convenient sense. Added to this is the fact that not rarely Grabe brought forward readings as if met with in the Vossian manuscript which are not found there at all. And those which, most falsely drawn thence, and almost all inserted by Massuet also into his edition, nobody has hitherto corrected, have been emended in our edition.
Denique Grabius aut potius is, qui ms. Vossianum cum exemplari Feuardentiano contulit, optimas quas offert codex lectiones haud raro praetermisit. Quo factum est, ut Grabii ingenium nonnunquam quid legendum sit sagaciter divinaret. Itaque meliores codicis Vossiani lectiones conjecturarum locum in Grabiana editione modeste obtinent. Evenit tamen interdum Massueto, ut lectiones ab illo, qui pertractavit codicem Vossianum, prorsus neglectas, in codice Claromontano quo ipse usus est, reperiret. Ideoque mirum non videtur, a celeberrimo monacho codicem in bibliotheca Jesuitarum Claromontana servatum laudibus extolli, quippe qui optimas lectiones saepenumero solus suppeditare videatur. Perpaucas ejusmodi lectiones proponam.
Finally, Grabe, or rather he who collated the Vossian manuscript with the Feuardentian copy, not rarely passed over the best readings which the manuscript offers. Whereby it happened that the genius of Grabe sometimes sagaciously divined what ought to be read. And so the better readings of the Vossian manuscript modestly hold the place of conjectures in the Grabian edition. Yet it sometimes happened to Massuet that he found in the Clermont manuscript which he himself used readings altogether neglected by him who handled the Vossian manuscript. And therefore it does not seem wonderful that the manuscript preserved in the Clermont library of the Jesuits is extolled with praises by the most celebrated monk, inasmuch as it seems oftentimes alone to supply the best readings. Very few readings of this sort I shall set forth.
Editors' notes and page, col. 410
Page
- running head: OMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS. 410
- marginal letters: A acriter perstringit, leguntur litterae; B fuisse. Quod ei dubium; C codicem saepe dictum nunquam; D falsissime inde haustas, etiam
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with Greek letters, no facing Greek column; editors' matter: Adolphi Stieren Prolegomena, Cap. I (continued)
Editio Grabii. Cod. Voss.
Edition of Grabe. Vossian Manuscript.
p. 40, l. 30, quasi erat unigeniti qualis erat unigeniti
p. 40, l. 30, quasi erat unigeniti [as if of the only-begotten]; qualis erat unigeniti [such as was of the only-begotten]
p. 83, propter quaternationem dicunt propter quaternationem ipsorum dicunt
p. 83, propter quaternationem dicunt [on account of the quaternion they say]; propter quaternationem ipsorum dicunt [on account of their quaternion they say]
p. 93, l. 4. cum autem discrepant cum autem discrepent
p. 93, l. 4. cum autem discrepant [now when they disagree (indic.)]; cum autem discrepent [now since they disagree (subj.)]
p. 103, l. 9, Cerdon autem quidem Cerdon autem quidam
p. 103, l. 9, Cerdon autem quidem [now Cerdo indeed]; Cerdon autem quidam [now a certain Cerdo]
p. 110, l. 34. stultitiam et audaciam in stultitiam et audaciam
p. 110, l. 34. stultitiam et audaciam [folly and audacity]; in stultitiam et audaciam [into folly and audacity]
p. 124, (cap. IV), l. 23, praeterit praeteriit
p. 124, (ch. 4), l. 23, praeterit [passes by]; praeteriit [passed by]
p. 140, l. 11, aquam dixisse aquam dixit esse
p. 140, l. 11, aquam dixisse [to have said water]; aquam dixit esse [said that water is]
p. 237, l. 4, 5, plurima evangelia plurima evangelii.
p. 237, l. 4, 5, plurima evangelia [very many gospels]; plurima evangelii [very many things of the gospel].
At vero sufficiant haecce, quibus, si opus fuisset, multa alia adjicere poteram. Apparet igitur, codicem Vossianum hucusque non ita esse pervestigatum, ut mihi dignus quidem videretur, cui novas curas adhiberem. Neque vero inficiabor, illa, quae ex ms. Vossiano hausta dedit Grabius, ex schedis meis multimodis aut correctum aut suppletum, praeterea nova quoque saepissime additum iri.
But let these suffice, to which, if there had been need, I could have added many others. It appears, therefore, that the Vossian manuscript has not hitherto been so thoroughly investigated as not to seem to me worthy indeed of my applying new cares to it. Nor indeed shall I deny that those things which Grabe gave as drawn from the Vossian manuscript will from my papers in many ways be either corrected or supplemented, and that besides new things also will very often be added.
Cum id in primis spectandum videretur, ut quaecunque de codice saepe dicto quaeri possunt, de iis accurate disputaretur: non negligenda erat quaestio explicatu difficillima. Fuerunt enim qui dicerent, codice Vossiano ante Grabium usum esse Feuardentium. Inter Vossianum, aiunt, et codicem veterem a Feuardentio saepissime laudatum tantam intercedere similitudinem, ut pro uno eodemque habendi sint. Cujus sententiae memor est Massuetus praefatione (pag. VII) ita disserens: « Et quidem veterem illum codicem, quo Feuardentius usus est, frustra quaesivimus, neque utrum perierit, an in alicujus bibliothecae forulis delitescat, scire potuimus. Sunt qui existimant eum in Vossii manus devenisse, sed utriusque lectiones conferenti diversos esse statim apparebit. » Sed velim, rem accuratiori examine satis dignam a Massueto non esse neglectam. Etenim negari nequit duos illos codices persaepe easdem lectiones suppeditare, saepissime etiam easdem in contextu lacunas habere. Huc accedit, quod libri V quinque posteriora capita a Feuardentio ex vetere codice primum evulgata, quae, quod equidem scio, in caeteris Irenaei codicibus desiderantur, adeo in codice Arundeliano et in vetustissimo Claromontano, in codice Vossiano leguntur.
Since this above all seemed to have to be kept in view, that whatever things can be inquired concerning the oft-mentioned manuscript should be accurately disputed: a question most difficult to explain was not to be neglected. For there have been some who said that Feuardent used the Vossian manuscript before Grabe. Between the Vossian, they say, and the ancient manuscript very often cited by Feuardent so great a similarity exists that they are to be held for one and the same. Mindful of this opinion, Massuet in his preface (p. VII) discourses thus: "And indeed that ancient manuscript which Feuardent used we have sought in vain, nor have we been able to know whether it has perished or lies hidden in the bookcases of some library. There are some who think that it came down into the hands of Vossius, but to one comparing the readings of both it will immediately appear that they are different." Yet I could wish that a matter well worthy of a more accurate examination had not been neglected by Massuet. For it cannot be denied that those two manuscripts very often supply the same readings, and very often also have the same lacunae in the text. Added to this is the fact that the last five chapters of book V, first published by Feuardent from the ancient manuscript, which, so far as I indeed know, are wanting in the rest of the manuscripts of Irenaeus, even in the Arundel manuscript and in the most ancient Clermont manuscript, are read in the Vossian manuscript.
Quid igitur dicendum? Profecto non esset, quod conquereremur de difficultate judicium hac de re ferendi, si, quod Feuardentius et Grabius omiserunt, editionibus suis accuratam codicum mss. quibus usi sunt descriptionem praemisissent. Sed Feuardentii vetus codex Romae in bibliotheca Vaticana asservatus est, dum Vossii codicem in Gallia scriptum exeunte saeculo XVII inter libros Isaaci Vossii
What therefore is to be said? Assuredly there would be no reason for us to complain of the difficulty of passing judgement concerning this matter if Feuardent and Grabe had premised to their editions what they omitted, an accurate description of the manuscript codices which they used. Now the ancient manuscript of Feuardent was preserved at Rome in the Vatican Library, while we know that the manuscript of Vossius, written in Gaul, was at the end of the seventeenth century among the books of Isaac Vossius,
Editors' notes and page, col. 411
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 411 (call not in the foot images; column inferred, unverified)
Massuetus, qui pag. 42 hanc lectionem habet, not. d ita autumat : « Sic recte Claromont. Cod. juxta Graeca οἷα ἦν ἡ τοῦ μονογενοῦς. »
Massuet, who has this reading on p. 42, judges thus in note d: "So rightly the Clermont codex, according to the Greek 'such as was that of the Only-begotten.'"
(printed under page 212)
(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 411 (call not in the foot images; column inferred, unverified)
Massuetus pag. 88 hanc lectionem exhibet et not. d : « Sic, ait, ex Graeco et Frontonis Duc. judicio restituimus »; sed nullam secutus est codicis auctoritatem.
Massuet gives this reading on p. 88, and in note d: "Thus," he says, "we have restored it from the Greek and on the judgement of Fronton du Duc"; but he followed the authority of no manuscript.
(printed under page 212)
(c) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 411 (call not in the foot images; column inferred, unverified)
Habent Erasmus, Feuardentius omnesque ad Massuetianam usque editiones discrepant. Massuetus vero mutavit lectionem in discrepent, nec tamen dicit, cujus codicis auctoritate hoc fecerit.
Erasmus, Feuardent and all the editions up to Massuet's have "discrepant". Massuet, however, changed the reading to "discrepent", yet does not say on the authority of which manuscript he did so.
(printed under page 212)
(d) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 411 (call not in the foot images; column inferred, unverified)
Hanc lectionem etiam Feuardentius habet, sed, uti videtur, ex Graeco contextu. Quapropter Grabius eam omisit. Massuetus p. 105 not. k ita disputat : « quidam] Ita Erasm. Gall. Clarom. et Pass. juxta Graecum. At in Feuard. (?) Oxon. et Valesiana Eusebii versione perperam quidem : quod erratum cum animadverterit Grabius, mirum cur ex Erasm. saltem et Gallas. non correxerit. » Corrigere potuit Grabius ex cod. Voss.
Feuardent too has this reading, but, it seems, from the Greek text; for that reason Grabe omitted it. Massuet, p. 105, note k, argues thus: "quidam] So Erasmus, Gallasius, the Clermont codex and Passerat, according to the Greek. But in Feuardent (?), the Oxford edition and Valois's version of Eusebius, wrongly 'quidem': since Grabe noticed this error, it is a wonder that he did not correct it at least from Erasmus and Gallasius." Grabe could have corrected it from the Vossius codex.
(printed under page 212)
(e) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 411 (call not in the foot images; column inferred, unverified)
Nihil notavit Grabius ad hunc locum, nisi hoc : « in Erasm. et Gallas. vitiose exstare stultitia et audacia. » Atque Massuetus p. 111, not. b, in solis quibus ipse usus sit codicibus, veram lectionem reperiri gloriatur.
Grabe noted nothing on this passage except this: "in Erasmus and Gallasius 'stultitia et audacia' stands, faultily." And Massuet, p. 111, note b, boasts that the true reading is found only in the manuscripts he himself used.
(printed under page 212)
(f) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 411 (call not in the foot images; column inferred, unverified)
Haec lectio a nemine notatur.
This reading is noted by no one.
(printed under page 212)
(g) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 411 (call not in the foot images; column inferred, unverified)
Massuetus p. 115, not. g : « genuinam, inquit, hanc lectionem solus suppeditat cod. Claromont., in aliis omnibus cum editt. tum mss. corrupte : aquam dixisse. »
Massuet, p. 115, note g: "This genuine reading," he says, "is supplied by the Clermont codex alone; in all the others, editions and manuscripts alike, corruptly: 'aquam dixisse'."
(printed under page 212)
(h) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 411 (call not in the foot images; column inferred, unverified)
« Ita solus », autumat Massuetus, « Claromont. cod. »
"So the Clermont codex alone," Massuet judges.
(printed under page 212)
Page
- running head: 411 PROLEGOMENA EDIT. L
- marginal letters: B tum, ut mihi dignus; C devenisse, sed utriusque lectiones; D ptum exeunte saeculo XVII
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Adolphi Stieren Prolegomena, Cap. I (continued)
canonici Windesoriensis in Anglia fuisse scimus.
canon of Windsor, in England.
Qua occasione Vossius codicem sibi comparavit, aut quis eum antea habuerit plane nescimus. Sed de primo codicis possessore certi aliquid prodi potest. Etenim ad calcem ejus scripta sunt haecce:
On what occasion Vossius acquired the manuscript for himself, or who had it previously, we are altogether ignorant. But concerning the first possessor of the manuscript something certain can be disclosed. For at the heel of it are written these words:
« Hos quinque libros quos contra haereses scripsit hyreneus lugduni pontifex et martir apostolis contemporaneus dono dedit in suorum peccatorum remissionem frater laurentius Burelli a divione [hodie: Dijon] paris. doctor theologus provincialis narbone sacri ordinis matris dei de monte carmeli librarie conventus parisiensis eo anno quo ipse vicarius generalis angliam et convictum parisiensem visitavit qui fuit millesimus CCCC nonagesimus quartus teste suo cyrographo hic apposito pridie Kalendas novembres. Itaque Burelli. »
"These five books which Hyreneus, pontiff of Lyons and martyr contemporary with the apostles, wrote against heresies, Brother Laurent Burelli of Divio [today: Dijon], doctor of theology of Paris, provincial of Narbonne of the sacred Order of the Mother of God of Mount Carmel, gave as a gift for the remission of his sins to the library of the Parisian convent in that year in which as vicar general he himself visited England and the Parisian convent, which was the one thousand four hundred and ninety-fourth, as witnessed by his own hand here appended on the day before the Kalends of November. And so Burelli."
In margine primae codicis paginae bellae conspiciuntur picturae textum a tribus lateribus cingentes. Inter frondium et imaginum intertexta ornamenta pictor insigne gentilitium pinxit, quo, ni fallor, tria fulmina deorsum missa et tres flammae sursum flagrantes adumbrata sunt. Circa quod insigne gentilitium scripta leguntur haec: « frater laurentius doctor provincialis narbone conventus divionis ordinis carmeli. » Haec verba ab eadem manu, quae codicem ipsum scripsit, exarata esse dubitari nequit. Inde concludendum videtur Laurentium Burellium primum codicis possessorem fuisse ejusque impensis codicem scriptum esse eo consilio, ut splendidissimus liber Bibliothecae conventus Parisiensis Carmelitarum dono daretur. Neque vero est, quod de tempore, quo codex scriptus sit, dubitemus. Patet enim librum exaratum esse exeunte saeculo XV.
In the margin of the first page of the manuscript handsome paintings are seen surrounding the text on three sides. Among the interwoven ornaments of leaves and images the painter painted a family coat of arms, in which, unless I am mistaken, three thunderbolts cast downwards and three flames blazing upwards are sketched. Around this family coat of arms are read written these words: "Brother Laurent, doctor, provincial of Narbonne, of the convent of Dijon of the Order of Carmel." That these words were penned by the same hand that wrote the manuscript itself cannot be doubted. Thence it seems we must conclude that Laurent Burelli was the first possessor of the manuscript and that at his expense the manuscript was written with this design, that the most splendid book should be given as a gift to the Library of the Parisian convent of the Carmelites. Nor indeed is there any reason for us to doubt concerning the time at which the manuscript was written. For it is plain that the book was penned at the end of the fifteenth century.
Dici quidem nequit, num codex Vossianus eo tempore, quo suam editionem paravit Feuardentius, id est sub finem saeculi XVI, in Bibliotheca Vaticana asservatus fuerit, an non. Attamen valde mirum fuisset, si Feuardentius hunc codicem, qui vix quindecim lustris ante scriptus fuit, veterem seu vetustissimum nominasset. Nonne vir doctissimus, cum vera codicis aetas dubia non esse posset, is esse videretur, qui fraude fefellisset lectores?
It cannot indeed be said whether at that time when Feuardent prepared his edition, that is towards the end of the sixteenth century, the Vossian manuscript was preserved in the Vatican Library or not. Nevertheless, it would have been very wonderful if Feuardent had named this manuscript, which had been written scarcely fifteen lustra before, ancient or most ancient. Would not the most learned man, since the true age of the manuscript could not be doubtful, seem to be one who had deceived his readers by fraud?
Sed accedit summum inter lectiones codicum discrimen, quod non negandum esse etiam Massuetus censet. Grabius quoque, multas lectiones adnotavit, quibus duos codices longe differre intelligitur, multasque ex Vossiano excerptas proposuit, quae in vetere Feuardentii codice non comparuerunt. Quibus largam novarum lectionum copiam in mea editione addidi. Differt praeterea capitum divisio, qualem Feuardentius in vetere codice cognitam notavit, ab ea, quam codicis Vossiani librarium secutum esse cognovi. Quae cum ita sint, equidem Feuardentianum codicem prorsus diversum esse censeo a Vossiano manuscripto.
But added to this is the greatest difference between the readings of the manuscripts, which Massuet also thinks is not to be denied. Grabe also annotated many readings by which the two manuscripts are understood to differ widely, and set forth many excerpted from the Vossian which did not appear in the ancient manuscript of Feuardent. To which I have added a large abundance of new readings in my edition. Besides, the division of chapters, such as Feuardent noted as known in the ancient manuscript, differs from that which I recognized the copyist of the Vossian manuscript to have followed. Since these things are so, I for my part think that the Feuardentian manuscript is altogether different from the Vossian manuscript.
Certum indubitatumque est Vossianum codicem
It is certain and undoubted that the Vossian manuscript
Editors' notes and page, col. 412
Footnotes
(i) ‹anchor: vetustissimum nominasset› · call in col 412
Ita appellat codicem in adnotationibus atque in titulo, quo inscripsit editionem suam.
So he calls the codex in his notes and in the title with which he headed his edition.
(printed under page 212)
Page
- running head: OMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS. 412
- marginal letters: A canonici Windesoriensis in Anglia; B tur picturae textum a; C id est sub finem; D Certum indubitatumque est Vossianum
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Adolphi Stieren Prolegomena, Cap. I (continued)
optimis mss. annumerandum esse et cum codd. vetere Feuardentii et Claromontano ad eamdem familiam pertinere.
is to be counted among the best manuscripts, and belongs to the same family as the codices, the old one of Feuardent and the Claromontanus.
IX. Codex Vratislaviensis.
IX. The Breslau codex.
Postquam de indole ac fatis Latinorum Irenaei codicum satis disputatum est : Graecum Epiphanii manuscriptum, quo usus sum ad corrigendum textum Irenaei libri I, silentio praetermittere non possum. Qui codex in bibliotheca Rhedigeriana, quae Vratislaviae est, reperitur. D. Menzelius vir clarissimus de eodem haec ad me scripsit : « Codex noster membranaceus est forma maxima et exhibet ab initio Acacii et Pauli presbyterorum et archimandritarum epistolam, qua eumdem (Epiphanium) ad scribendum contra haereses hortantur, adjuncta responsoria Epiphanii prolixiori; tum ipsum Panarium sive opus adversus octoginta haereses integrum, eique in fine subnectitur Ancoratus seu
Now that the character and fortunes of the Latin codices of Irenaeus have been sufficiently discussed, I cannot pass over in silence the Greek manuscript of Epiphanius which I used to correct the text of Irenaeus's Book I. This codex is found in the Rhediger library, which is at Breslau. The most distinguished Mr Menzel wrote this to me about it: "Our codex is of parchment, of the largest format, and presents at the beginning the letter of Acacius and Paul, priests and archimandrites, in which they urge him (Epiphanius) to write against the heresies, with Epiphanius's rather lengthy reply attached; then the Panarion itself, that is, the work against eighty heresies, entire; and to it is appended at the end the Ancoratus, or
sermo De fide, quo Epiphanius a Palladio Suedrorum Pamphiliae urbis praesule et presbyteris ejusdem, quorum etiam epistolae praemittuntur, rogatus, doctrinam de SS. Trinitate, in primis de Spiritu sancto contra haeresin Macedonianam asseruit et explicavit. » D. Haasius Vratislaviensis vir clarissimus, qui, quae Epiphanius ex opere Irenaei exscripserat, accurate cum dicto manuscripto conferenda curavit, in catalogo bibliothecae Rhedigerianae haec adnotata esse scripsit : « Cod. memb. 396 folior. in fol. unius hominis manu non ineleganter saec. XV scriptus est. Involucrum Graecorum more factum et crenulis in extremitatibus ornatum a Graeco itidem artifice elaboratum videtur. » Quamvis codex nonnulla nobis suppeditaverit, quibus textus Irenaei emendaretur, critica tamen auctoritas ejus non adeo gravis nobis visa est, ut eum ubique sequi possemus.
Discourse on the Faith, in which Epiphanius, at the request of Palladius, bishop of Suedra, a city of Pamphylia, and of its priests, whose letters are also prefixed, asserted and set forth the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity, above all of the Holy Spirit, against the Macedonian heresy." The most distinguished Mr Haase of Breslau, who saw to it that what Epiphanius had copied out of the work of Irenaeus was accurately collated with the said manuscript, wrote that this is noted in the catalogue of the Rhediger library: "A parchment codex of 396 leaves in folio, written not inelegantly by the hand of one man in the XV century. The binding, made in the Greek manner and adorned with little notches at the edges, appears to have been worked likewise by a Greek craftsman." Although the codex has supplied us with some things by which the text of Irenaeus might be corrected, yet its critical authority has not seemed to us so weighty that we could follow it everywhere.
CAPUT II.
CHAPTER II.
De editionibus Irenaei operis adv. haereses.
On the editions of Irenaeus's work Against Heresies.
I. De editionibus Erasmianis.
I. On the Erasmian editions.
1526. Opus eruditissimum divi Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis in quinque libros digestum, in quibus mire retegit et confutat veterum haereseon impias ac portentosas opiniones, ex vetustissimorum codicum collatione, quantum licuit, emendatum opera Des. Erasmi Roterodami, ac nunc primum in lucem editum opera Jo. Frobenii. Additus est index rerum scitu dignarum. Apud inclytam Basileam anno M. D. XXVI. Cum gratia et privilegio Caesareo. Fol.
1526. The most learned work of the blessed Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, arranged in five books, in which he wonderfully uncovers and refutes the impious and monstrous opinions of the ancient heresies, corrected as far as was possible from a collation of very old codices by the labour of Des. Erasmus of Rotterdam, and now published for the first time by the labour of Jo. Froben. An index of matters worth knowing has been added. At the renowned city of Basel, in the year MDXXVI. With imperial grace and privilege. Folio.
Haec est editio princeps, quam Des. Erasmus Bernardo de Gloss, tunc temporis episcopo Tridentino, praemissa epistola nuncupatoria dedicavit. Litteras excipit S. Irenaei Obtestatio ad scribas, quae inter Irenaei fragmenta primum locum obtinet. Singulis libris praemisit Erasmus titulos quibus capitula sunt inscripta. Tum textus Irenaei sequitur. In margine editor ex codicibus tribus, quibus usus est, adnotavit nonnullas varias lectiones et conjecturas et vocum inusitatiorum interpretationes. Argumenta, uti vocat, lib. II—V praemissa v. in Appar. nostro p. 6 seqq. Caeterum edit. princeps, eaque quae duobus annis post in lucem prodiit, multo emendatiores sunt iis, quae inde ab anno 1534 typis expressae sub nomine Des. Erasmi publice vendebantur.
This is the first edition, which Des. Erasmus dedicated, with a dedicatory letter prefixed, to Bernard of Gloss, at that time bishop of Trent. The letter is followed by St Irenaeus's Adjuration to Copyists, which holds the first place among the fragments of Irenaeus. Before each book Erasmus set titles in which the chapters are listed. Then the text of Irenaeus follows. In the margin the editor noted, from the three codices he used, a number of variant readings and conjectures and explanations of the more unusual words. For the Arguments, as he calls them, prefixed to Books II–V, see our Apparatus, p. 6 ff. For the rest, the first edition, and the one that appeared two years later, are much more correct than those which, from the year 1534 onwards, were printed and publicly sold under the name of Des. Erasmus.
Editionem principem reperi in bibliothecis Universitatis Lipsiensis et Zitzensi.
I have found the first edition in the libraries of the University of Leipzig and of Zeitz.
1528. Biennio post alia ex officina Frobeniana prodiit editio in-fol., in cujus titulo post verba : emendatum opera Des. Erasmi Roterodami, leguntur haec : ac nunc ejusdem opera recognitum, correctis iis, quae prius suffugerant. Ipsius Erasmi manus quaedam menda sustulit. Argumentum in librum V scriptum paulo auctius in nova edit. legitur, uti in Appar. nostro p. 8 iterum expressum est. Caeterum pauca sunt, quibus haec edit. differt ab edit. principe.
1528. Two years later another edition in folio appeared from the Froben press, in whose title, after the words "corrected by the labour of Des. Erasmus of Rotterdam", one reads this: "and now revised by his labour, with the correction of those things which had escaped before." Erasmus's own hand removed some errors. The Argument written for Book V is read somewhat enlarged in the new edition, as it is printed again in our Apparatus, p. 8. For the rest, there are few things in which this edition differs from the first edition.
In bibliothecis academica Ienensi et Erfordiensi haec edit. reperitur.
This edition is found in the academic libraries of Jena and Erfurt.
1534. Dupinius in Bibliotheca nova ecclesiasticorum auctorum memorat editionem Erasmianam, quae a. 1534 Parisiis in lucem prodierit. Grabius eam videre sibi non contigisse scribit. Massuetus praeter primam Erasmi editionem nullam commemorat. Dupinius ipse postea dubitasse videtur, num haec editio revera unquam exstitisset. Doctus enim censor edit. Massueti in Deutsche Acta eruditorum a. 1712 ita scribit : Wir thun hier mit Fleiss der
1534. Du Pin, in the Nouvelle bibliothèque of ecclesiastical authors, mentions an Erasmian edition which is said to have appeared at Paris in the year 1534. Grabe writes that he did not have the fortune to see it. Massuet mentions none besides Erasmus's first edition. Du Pin himself seems later to have doubted whether this edition had ever really existed. For the learned reviewer of Massuet's edition in the Deutsche Acta eruditorum for the year 1712 writes thus: "We here deliberately make no mention of the
Editors' notes and page, col. 413
Page
- running head: 413 PROLEGOMENA EDIT. L
- marginal letters: A optimis mss. annumerandum esse; B I. De editionibus Erasmianis.; C tavit nonnullas varias lectiones; D sunt, quibus haec edit.
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with German quotation, no facing Greek column; full-width heading across 413-414 (CAPUT II. De editionibus Irenaei operis adv. haereses.) stands between Ancoratus seu and I. De editionibus Erasmianis.; cut off at right edge in the column image, set here at the move; editors' matter: Adolphi Stieren Prolegomena, Cap. I-II
- other: a full-width band stands across cols 413/414 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 414 are set here, after the 3 above it in col 413 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
- running head: 413 PROLEGOMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS. 414
- marginal letters: A beside optimis mss. / sermo De fide; B beside I. De editionibus Erasmianis / Parisischen Edition; C beside tavit nonnullas / me adnotatam; D beside sunt, quibus haec edit. / tur. Quibus accessit
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' matter (Stieren) set as layer 1, in reading order: upper halves of 413 and 414, then the full-width CAPUT II band, then the lower half of 413; the lower half of 414 is in c414_a.md. UNSURE: (Epiphanium) and Suedrorum look like Epiphaninm and Snedrorum on the scan, where n and u are hard to tell apart in this type; set as the intended words. In the lower left the year before Parisiis looks damaged (a.).
Parisischen Edition von 1534, velche Grabius bei Du Pin gefunden, aber selbst nicht gesehen, keine Meldung, weil Du Pin selbst in der andern Edition seiner Bibliothecae ecclesiasticae selbige weggelassen, und also diessfalls seinen Fehler erkannt zu haben scheint.
Paris edition of 1534, which Grabe found in Du Pin but did not see himself, because Du Pin himself left it out in the other edition of his Bibliotheca ecclesiastica, and so seems in this matter to have acknowledged his error."
Errorem Dupinii emendare nobis licet. Prodiit 1534 enim Basileae ex officina Frobeniana nova Erasmi editio; eamdem formam eumdemque titulum ac priores editt. habet, nisi quod in titulo legitur : ac nunc ejusdem opera denuo recognitum, correctis iis, quae prius suffugerant. Inde liquet Erasmum ipsum novis curis Irenaei textum recognovisse. Sed cum viro doctissimo meliores codices ad manus non fuissent, ex variis lectionibus aut conjecturis in margine priorum editionum adnotatis plures in contextum Irenaei recepit. Quo factum est, ut textus magis corrumperetur, quam emendaretur; quod cuique concedendum est, qui lectionum varietatem a me adnotatam accuratius perspexerit.
We are able to correct Du Pin's error. For in 1534 a new edition of Erasmus appeared at Basel from the Froben press; it has the same format and the same title as the earlier editions, except that in the title one reads: "and now revised again by his labour, with the correction of those things which had escaped before." From this it is clear that Erasmus himself revised the text of Irenaeus with fresh care. But since the most learned man had no better codices to hand, he took a good many of the variant readings or conjectures noted in the margin of the earlier editions into the text of Irenaeus. The result was that the text was corrupted rather than corrected; which everyone must grant who has examined more carefully the variety of readings noted by me.
In bibliotheca Universitatis Gottingensis haec editio asservatur.
This edition is kept in the library of the University of Göttingen.
Desiderius Erasmus m. Jul. a. 1536 Basileae mortem obiit. Quoniam igitur edit. 1534 ultima fuit, quam editor ipse novis curis adornaverat, caeterae omnes editiones, quae Erasmi celeberrimum nomen ferunt, ad rationem illius typis expressae videntur.
Desiderius Erasmus died at Basel in the month of July in the year 1536. Since, therefore, the edition of 1534 was the last which the editor himself had prepared with fresh care, all the other editions which bear the most celebrated name of Erasmus seem to have been printed after its pattern.
1545. Contra haereses divi Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis in quinque libros digestum, in quibus mire retegit et confutat veterum haereseon impias et portentosas opiniones, ac vetustissimorum codicum collatione quantum licuit emendatum opera Des. Erasmi Roterodami, ac nunc ejusdem denuo recognitum, et quae quam antehac longe castigatiores in lucem dantur. Quibus accessit rerum et hominum insignium index locupletissimus. Parisiis apud Mathurinum Dupuys, sub signo hominis silvestris, via ad D. Jacobum 1545, 8.
1545. [The work] Against Heresies of the blessed Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, arranged in five books, in which he wonderfully uncovers and refutes the impious and monstrous opinions of the ancient heresies, and corrected as far as was possible by a collation of very old codices by the labour of Des. Erasmus of Rotterdam, and now revised again by him, and things which are brought to light far more corrected than before. To which has been added a very full index of notable matters and men. At Paris, at Mathurin Dupuys's, at the sign of the Wild Man, in the street of St James, 1545, octavo.
Editio perrara, Grabio prorsus ignota, elegantibus typis expressa. De ejus auctoritate critica nil addendum est iis, quae de proximo antecedente libro disputavimus; ei enim simillima est.
A very rare edition, wholly unknown to Grabe, printed in elegant type. On its critical authority nothing need be added to what we have argued about the book immediately preceding; for it is very like it.
Editio rarissima meae bibliothecae ornamento est.
This most rare edition is an ornament of my library.
1545. Doctus censor Massuetianae edit. in Deutsche Acta eruditorum memorat editionem, quam 1545 Basileae in forma maxima in lucem prodiisse dicit. Sed eam neque Grabius neque ego vidimus.
1545. The learned reviewer of Massuet's edition in the Deutsche Acta eruditorum mentions an edition which he says appeared at Basel in 1545 in the largest format. But neither Grabe nor I have seen it.
Editors' notes and page, col. 414
Page
- running head: OMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS. 414
- marginal letters: A sermo De fide, quo; B Parisischen Edition von 1534,; C me adnotatam accuratius perspexerit.; D tur. Quibus accessit rerum
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin with German quotation, no facing Greek column; full-width heading across 413-414 (CAPUT II. ...s Irenaei operis adv. haereses.) stands between ubique sequi possemus. and Parisischen Edition von 1534,, cut off at left edge in the column image; set in 413 at the move (pointer); editors' matter: Adolphi Stieren Prolegomena, Cap. I-II (continued)
- other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 413 (reading order, moved on receipt)
- misprint: velche (for welche), German quotation, first line below the band; kept as printed (Q1)
- running head: 413 PROLEGOMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS. 414
- marginal letters: A sermo De fide (upper half, set in 413); B Parisischen Edition von 1534; C me adnotatam accuratius; D tur. Quibus accessit rerum
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' matter (Stieren) set as layer 1; this file holds the lower half of col 414 only; the upper half of 414 and the full-width CAPUT II band are set in 413 (pointer). A short rule between the Göttingen sentence and Desiderius Erasmus is not set. Desiderius looks like Desiderins on the scan (n/u confusion in this type); set as intended.
1548. Opus eruditissimum divi Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis in quinque libros digestum, in quibus mire retegit et confutat veterum haereseon impias et portentosas opiniones, ex vetustissimorum codicum collatione quantum licuit Des. Erasmi Roterodami opera emendatum. Additus est index rerum observatu dignarum. Froben. Basileae. 1548. Fol.
1548. The most learned work of St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, digested into five books, in which he wonderfully uncovers and refutes the impious and monstrous opinions of the ancient heresies, emended, so far as was possible, from the collation of the most ancient manuscripts by the labour of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. Added is an index of things worthy of observation. Froben, at Basel, 1548. Folio.
Neque hunc librum Grabius vidit. Ex bibliotheca urbis Lipsiensis ad me transmissus est. V. quae disputavi de edit. 1534.
Neither did Grabe see this book. It was transmitted to me from the library of the city of Leipzig. See what I have disputed concerning the edition of 1534.
1554. Quam sub hoc anno Fabricius in Bibliotheca Graeca et censor editionis Massueti memorant editionem Erasmi Basileensem, in bibliothecis reperire mihi non contigit. Etiam Grabius eamdem frustra quaesivit.
1554. The Basel edition of Erasmus which Fabricius in his Bibliotheca Graeca and the reviewer of the edition of Massuet mention under this year, it did not fall to my lot to find in the libraries. Grabe also sought the same in vain.
1560. Opus eruditissimum — — — (titulus idem est atque editionis 1548) Basileae 1560. Fol.
1560. The most learned work — — — (the title is the same as that of the edition of 1548) at Basel, 1560. Folio.
Grabius de hoc libro ita agit: « In nullo (editio haec) praecedentibus praestantior, nisi quod loco nudae adjurationis Irenaei, qua scribas obtestatus est, integra habeat Hieronymi in Catalogo scriptorum ecclesiasticorum de Irenaeo verba, quodque Index rerum sit locupletior, ut vel ex prima littera A patet. » Indicem locupletiorem jam in edit. a. 1548 reperimus; nil igitur novi liber a. 1560 habet, nisi locum Hieronymi de Irenaeo. Vide disputata a me de edit. a. 1534.
Grabe treats of this book thus: "In nothing is this edition superior to the preceding ones, except that in place of the bare adjuration of Irenaeus, wherewith he adjured the copyists, it has in full the words of Jerome concerning Irenaeus in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, and that the Index of Matters is richer, as is plain even from the first letter A." The richer index we have already found in the edition of the year 1548; the book of the year 1560 therefore has nothing new except the passage of Jerome concerning Irenaeus. See what has been disputed by me concerning the edition of the year 1534.
Ad oram ejus editionis e bibliotheca academiae Gottingensis mecum communicatae D. Heumanni conjecturae scriptae sunt, de quibus infra vide quae scripsimus.
In the margin of a copy of that edition communicated to me from the library of the University of Göttingen are written the conjectures of Dr. Heumann, concerning which see below what we have written.
1563. Opus eruditissimum divi Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis, in quinque libros digestum, in quibus mire retegit et confutat veterum haereseon impias ac portentosas opiniones, ex vetustissimorum codicum collatione quantum licuit Des. Erasmi Roterodami opera emendatum. Additus est Index rerum observatu dignarum. Parisiis, apud Audoenum Parvum, sub intersignio lilii aurei, via ad divum Jacobum. 1563, 8.
1563. The most learned work of St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, digested into five books, in which he wonderfully uncovers and refutes the impious and monstrous opinions of the ancient heresies, emended, so far as was possible, from the collation of the most ancient manuscripts by the labour of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. Added is an Index of things worthy of observation. At Paris, at the house of Oudin Petit, under the sign of the Golden Lily, in the Rue Saint-Jacques, 1563, octavo.
Haec editio, qua eadem continentur atque antecedente, majoribus typis quam Parisina 1545 eleganter expressa est; textus idem est atque in editt. 1545 et 1563. Reperis hunc librum in bibliotheca Hamburgica.
This edition, in which the same things are contained as in the preceding one, is elegantly printed in larger type than the Paris edition of 1545; the text is the same as in the editions of 1545 and 1563. You find this book in the Hamburg library.
1567. Opus eruditissimum — — (titulus idem atque in edit. proxime antecedente) Parisiis. Apud Audoenum Parvum, sub intersignio lilii aurei, via ad divum Jacobum. 1567.
1567. The most learned work — — (the title is the same as in the immediately preceding edition) at Paris. At the house of Oudin Petit, under the sign of the Golden Lily, in the Rue Saint-Jacques. 1567.
Hic liber eadem eodem modo continet atque edit. a. 1563.
This book contains the same things in the same manner as the edition of the year 1563.
Ejus exemplar ad me missum est e bibliotheca Lugduno-Batava, in quo scriptum erat: « ex biblioth. viri illustris Isaaci Vossii 191. » In margine manus Josuae Merceri varias lectiones e duobus codd. erutas ascripsit.
A copy of it was sent to me from the Leiden library, in which was written: "from the library of the illustrious man Isaac Vossius 191." In the margin the hand of Josias Mercier wrote down various readings drawn out from two manuscripts.
1570. II. Editio Nicolai Gallasii.
1570. II. The edition of Nicolas des Gallars.
Divi Irenaei Graeci scriptoris eruditissimi, episcopi Lugdunensis, libri quinque adversus portentosas haereses Valentini et aliorum, accuratius quam antehac emendati, additis Graecis quae reperiri potuerunt; opera et diligentia Nicolai Gallasii, S. Theologiae professoris, una cum ejusdem adnotationibus. Additus est etiam index locupletissimus. Apud Joannem le Preux et Joannem Parvum. (Genevae) MDCCLXX.
Five books of St. Irenaeus, a most learned Greek writer, bishop of Lyons, against the monstrous heresies of Valentinus and others, more accurately emended than heretofore, with the Greek passages added which could be found; by the labour and diligence of Nicolas des Gallars, professor of Sacred Theology, together with the annotations of the same. Added also is a very rich index. At the house of Jean le Preux and Jean Petit. (Geneva) 1570.
« In hoc opere continentur: epistola ad D. Edmundum Grindallum, episcopum Londinensem, qua hujus editionis atque missionis ratio redditur; praefatio ad lectorem de instituto totius operis, et de utilitate colligenda ex lectione veterum doctorum; Graecae dictiones, quae passim apud Irenaeum
"In this work are contained: an epistle to Dr. Edmund Grindal, bishop of London, in which an account of this edition and its sending is given; a preface to the reader concerning the plan of the whole work, and concerning the utility to be gathered from the reading of the ancient teachers; the Greek expressions which here and there in Irenaeus
Editors' notes and page, col. 415
Page
- running head: 415 PROLEGOMENA EDIT. L
- marginal letters: A 1548. Opus eruditissimum; B atque editionis 1548) Basileae; C latione quantum licuit Des.; D blioth. viri illustris Isaaci
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Adolphi Stieren Prolegomena, Cap. II (continued)
- misprint: MDCCLXX (for MDLXX), in the imprint of the 1570 Gallasius edition "(Genevae) MDCCLXX."; kept as printed; the English gives the intended year 1570 (Q3)
occurrunt ordine alphabeti; de Vita et scriptis Irenaei ex Eusebio et Hieronymo; vetus interpretatio collatis exemplaribus accurate emendata; Graeca ejusdem Irenaei quae hactenus reperiri potuerant, uti Epiphanius scriptis suis inseruerat, inde excerpta et conversa in linguam Latinam, ut cum vetere interpretatione conferri possint; summae singulis capitibus praefixae, quibus plenissime declaratur quidquid in iis praecipuum est; loci Scripturae, quorum in iis mentio fit, ad marginem notati; additae sunt in fine adnotationes, quibus obscura pleraque declarantur: explicantur etiam nonnulli Scripturae loci, ac respondetur iis, qui, adversus piam doctrinam, hujus sancti viri auctoritate abusi sunt. »
occur, in alphabetical order; on the Life and writings of Irenaeus from Eusebius and Jerome; the ancient translation accurately emended by collating copies; the Greek passages of the same Irenaeus which had hitherto been able to be found, as Epiphanius had inserted them into his writings, excerpted thence and turned into the Latin tongue, so that they may be compared with the ancient translation; summaries prefixed to the individual chapters, whereby whatever is chief in them is most fully declared; the passages of Scripture of which mention is made in them noted in the margin; added at the end are annotations whereby most obscure things are declared: some passages of Scripture also are explained, and reply is made to those who against pious doctrine have abused the authority of this holy man."
Quod si comparaveris hoc Gallasii opus cum Erasmi editt., concedes id esse multo praestantius illis. Sed textus Latinus non ex codicibus est emendatus, et Graecus saepissime corruptus. Explicationes satis quidem prolixae res obscuras non satis illustrant, plurimaeque haud magni sunt momenti nihilque ad textum emendandum conferunt. Quintum librum, a nemine antea in sectiones divisum, editor in capita distinxit.
Now if you compare this work of des Gallars with the editions of Erasmus, you will grant that it is much superior to them. Yet the Latin text was not emended from manuscripts, and the Greek is very often corrupt. The explanations, prolix enough indeed, do not sufficiently illustrate obscure matters, and most of them are of no great moment and contribute nothing towards emending the text. The fifth book, divided by nobody previously into sections, the editor distinguished into chapters.
1571. III. Editio Joannis Jacobi Grynaei.
1571. III. The edition of Johann Jakob Grynaeus.
Uno tantum anno postquam Gallasius libros Irenaei in publicum ediderat, Joannes Jacobus Grynaeus, pastor Basileensis, Opus adv. haereses, quod vocat eruditissimum, nova libri primi conversione, singulorum capitum argumentis, et variae lectionis observatione illustratum et recognitum foras dedit. Pro translatione veteris interpretis novam, et, ut dicit in praefatione, multo meliorem substituit; quod male ab eo factum esse, alii ante me jam judicarunt. Quod dixit, opus variis lectionis observatione illustratum et recognitum esse, aperte falsum est; nullae enim in margine variae lectiones reperiuntur. Qua de causa Grynaei librum minus utilem censemus, quam Erasmianas editiones.
Only one year after des Gallars had published the books of Irenaeus to the public, Johann Jakob Grynaeus, pastor of Basel, put forth the Work against Heresies, which he calls most learned, illustrated and revised with a new translation of the first book, arguments of the individual chapters, and the observation of variant reading. In place of the translation of the ancient translator he substituted a new, and, as he says in the preface, much better one; that this was badly done by him, others before me have already judged. What he said, that the work was illustrated and revised with the observation of variant reading, is openly false; for no variant readings are found in the margin. Wherefore we deem the book of Grynaeus less useful than the Erasmian editions.
IV. Editiones Francisci Feuardentii.
IV. The editions of François Feuardent.
1575 et 1576.
1575 and 1576.
Massuetus praefatione prodit, primam a Franc. Feuardentio adornatam editionem typis Nivelli a. 1575 et 1576 expressam, eamque a priorum editionum vitiis nondum satis expurgatam esse. Idem ex Dupinii nova ecclesiasticorum auctorum Bibliotheca didicimus. Sed nec Grabio nec mihi contigit, ut hanc editionem in bibliothecis inveniremus. Quod parum refert, cum meliores Feuardentii editiones nobis non defuerint.
Massuet in his preface discloses that the first edition prepared by François Feuardent was printed with the type of Nivelle in the years 1575 and 1576, and that it was not yet sufficiently purged from the faults of the prior editions. We have learned the same from Du Pin's New Library of Ecclesiastical Authors. But it fell to the lot neither of Grabe nor of me to find this edition in the libraries. Which matters little, since better editions of Feuardent have not been wanting to us.
1596. Divi Irenaei, Lugdunensis episcopi et martyris, adversus Valentini et similium Gnosticorum haereses libri V, jam secundo diligenti editorum codicum collatione, vetustissimi magnaeque fidei manuscripti codicis atque alterius Vaticani ab innumeris mendis repurgati et aliquot capitibus aucti; praeterea omnibus, quae apud veteres exstant, fragmentis Graecis ac Latinis, item quibusdam S. Polycarpi, episcopi Smyrnensis et martyris, scriptis, nunquam antea editis, denique universis aliorum ejusdem D. Irenaei operum, quae reperire licuit, partibus locupletati. — Additae sunt ad singula capita variae adnotationes, quibus emendationum ratio redditur, obscura multa illustrantur, et quidquid ad antiquitatem ecclesiasticam, ac tam veterum quam recentium haereseon confutationem pertinet, quod ex his libris erui potuit, copiose traditur. — Accessit quoque Arnobii catholici et Serapionis Aegyptii conflictus de Deo trino et uno et duabus in Christo naturis, nunquam typis excusus. Ad illustriss. principem et reverendissimum cardinalem Carolum Lotharingum, Metensi et Argentinensi episcopo, etc. — Omnia studio et opera F. Francisci Feuardentii, ordinis F. Minorum, in S. facultate Parisiensi doctoris theologi. Accessit index scripturarum et rerum magis memorabilium. Reliqua vide,
1596. Five books of St Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons and martyr, against the heresies of Valentinus and similar Gnostics, now a second time by a diligent collation of the published editions, of a most ancient manuscript codex of great trustworthiness, and of another Vatican one purged from innumerable faults and augmented by several chapters; enriched besides with all the Greek and Latin fragments that are extant among the ancients, likewise with certain writings of St Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna and martyr, never before published, and finally with all the parts of the other works of the same St Irenaeus that could be found. — Added to the individual chapters are various annotations, whereby an account of the emendations is given, many obscure things are illustrated, and whatever pertains to ecclesiastical antiquity and to the refutation both of ancient and of recent heresies, so far as could be drawn out from these books, is copiously handed down. — Added also is the debate of Arnobius the Catholic and Serapion the Egyptian concerning God Triune and One and the two natures in Christ, never before printed. To the most illustrious prince and most reverend cardinal Charles of Lorraine, bishop of Metz and Strasbourg, etc. — All by the study and labour of Brother François Feuardent, of the Order of Friars Minor, doctor of theology in the Sacred Faculty of Paris. Added is an index of Scriptures and of the more memorable matters. For the rest see,
Editors' notes and page, col. 416
Page
- running head: OMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS. 416
- marginal letters: A occurrunt ordine alphabeti; de; B cationes satis quidem prolixae; C Qua de causa Grynaei; D bus, quae apud veteres
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Adolphi Stieren Prolegomena, Cap. II (continued)
lector, magis speciatim pagina sequente. Coloniae Agrippinae, in officina Birckmannica sumptibus Arnoldi Mylii. Anno 1596. Cum gratia et privilegio Sac. Caes. Majestatis.
reader, more particularly on the following page. At Cologne, in the Birckmann office at the expense of Arnold Mylius. In the year 1596. With the grace and privilege of His Sacred Imperial Majesty.
Alteram hanc Feuardentii editionem, duorum codicum ope adornatam, alterius Vaticani, alterius inter libros Joannis San-Andreani Ecclesiae Parisiensis canonici asservati, priori Feuardentiana multo esse meliorem Dupinius jam observavit; praeter alia etiam Graecos Irenaei locos ex variis scriptoribus insertos habet. Sed cum Feuardentius ipse in Commonitione ad lectores exposuerit, quid in editione ipsius praestitum esset : lectores rogatos velim, ut Appar. nostrum p. 22 adeant, mihique de ratione editionis tacere liceat. Attamen ne Feuardentio quidem contigit, ut textum satis bene restitueret, et notis doctrina conspicuis, sed prolixitate laborantibus res obscuras collustraret.
That this second edition of Feuardent, prepared with the aid of two manuscripts, the one Vatican, the other preserved among the books of Jean de Saint-André, canon of the Church of Paris, is much better than the prior Feuardentian edition, Dupin has already observed; besides other things, it also has Greek passages of Irenaeus inserted from various writers. But since Feuardent himself set forth in his Admonition to the Readers what had been accomplished in his edition, I would ask the readers to consult our Apparatus, p. 22, and allow me to pass over in silence the plan of the edition. Nevertheless, it did not fall even to Feuardent to restore the text well enough, and to elucidate obscure matters with notes conspicuous for learning, yet labouring under prolixity.
Reperitur haec editio in bibliothecis Vimariensi et Ienensi.
This edition is found in the Weimar and Jena libraries.
1625. Teste Joan. Alberto Fabricio (Bibl. Graec., pag. 79), Feuardentii editio 1625 recusa est, quam nec Grabius aut Massuetus memorant nec ego quidem reperi.
1625. On the testimony of Johann Albert Fabricius (Bibl. Graec., p. 79), Feuardent's edition was reprinted in 1625, which neither Grabe nor Massuet mentions, nor indeed have I found it.
1639. In titulo, quo nova editio inscripta est, post verba : Paris. Doctoris theologi leguntur haec : Adjecta sunt ad hanc novam editionem alia quaedam fragmenta Irenaei ex eminentissimi cardinalis Rupifucaldi bibliotheca deprompta Graece et Latine edita. Lutetiae Parisiorum. 1639. Cum privilegio Christianissimi regis.
1639. In the title by which the new edition is inscribed, after the words: Doctor of Theology of Paris, the following is read: Added to this new edition are certain other fragments of Irenaeus drawn from the library of the most eminent Cardinal de La Rochefoucauld, published in Greek and Latin. At Paris. 1639. With the privilege of the Most Christian King.
Praeter id in titulo nominatum editioni nil novi additum eaque priore non est emendatior. Ex bibliotheca urbis Leipsiensis hic liber ad me transmissus est.
Besides that named in the title, nothing new was added to the edition, and it is not more corrected than the prior one. From the library of the city of Leipzig this book was transmitted to me.
1675. Post voces : quae reperiri licuit, partibus locupletati, haec in titulo sunt addita : Cum scholiis et adnotationibus Jac. Billii, Front. Ducaei, et Franc. Feuardentii, quibus emendationum ratio redditur, obscura illustrantur, et quidquid ad antiquitatem ecclesiasticam pertinet, copiose explicatur. Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1675.
1675. After the words: enriched with the parts which could be found, the following was added in the title: With the scholia and annotations of Jacques de Billy, Fronton du Duc, and François Feuardent, by which the reason for the emendations is rendered, obscure matters are illustrated, and whatever pertains to ecclesiastical antiquity is copiously explained. At Paris, 1675.
Caeterum titulus eadem habet, quae in editt. 1596 et 1639 leguntur. Editio haec typis minus elegantibus expressa, quam priores, caeteris alioquin simillima, reperitur in bibliotheca Vimariensi.
For the rest, the title has the same things as are read in the editions of 1596 and 1639. This edition, printed in less elegant type than the prior ones, though otherwise most similar in other respects, is found in the Weimar library.
1677. Feuardentii editio omissis quidem omnibus adnotationibus et textu Graeco recusa est in Bibliothecae Patrum Lugdunensis tomo secundo 1766.
1677. Feuardent's edition, though with all the annotations and the Greek text omitted, was reprinted in the second volume of the Lyons Bibliotheca Patrum, 1677.
V. Editio a Joanne Ernesto Grabio adornata.
V. The edition prepared by Johann Ernst Grabe.
1702. Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Εἰρηναίου ἐπισκόπου Λουγδούνου ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως βιβλία πέντε. S. Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis contra omnes haereses libri quinque. Textus Graeci partem haud exiguam restituit; Latinam versionem antiquissimam e quatuor mss. codicibus emendavit; fragmenta aliorum tractatuum deperditorum subjunxit; omnia notis variorum et suis illustravit Joannes Ernestus Grabe. Quid ultra in hac editione praestitum sit, ostendunt Prolegomena. Oxoniae e theatro Sheldoniano, impensis Thomae Bennet, ad insigne lunae falcatae, in coemeterio S. Pauli, Londini anno Dom. 1702.
1702. Five Books of the Exposure and Overthrow of Falsely So-Called Knowledge by Our Father among the Saints Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. Five books of St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, against all heresies. Johann Ernst Grabe restored no small part of the Greek text; emended the most ancient Latin version from four manuscript codices; subjoined fragments of other lost treatises; and illustrated the whole with the notes of various scholars and his own. What more has been accomplished in this edition, the Prolegomena show. At Oxford, from the Sheldonian Theatre, at the expense of Thomas Bennet, at the sign of the Half-Moon, in St. Paul's Churchyard, London, in the year of the Lord 1702.
Editors' notes and page, col. 417
Footnotes
(a) ‹anchor: duorum codicum (a) ope adornatam› · call in col 417, second paragraph (call seen on the column image by Q3)
In Commonitione sua ad lectores Feuardentius de codicibus, quorum usus ipsi concessus erat, non solum nimis breviter, sed etiam obscure scripsit. Certum est Feuardentium codice Vaticano alioque, uti videtur, Parisiis asservato usum esse. Vaticanum manuscriptum, quod perraro allegat, fortasse idem fuit, quod Erasmus et postea Latinus Latinius consuluere. Quamvis vetus Feuardentii codex exeunte saec. XVI Parisiis servatus, Vossii vero exeunte saec. XV in Gallia scriptus esse videatur : mihi tamen cum Massueto ex dictorum codicum variis lectionibus censendum est, codices illos diversos esse, neque Feuardentium Vossii manuscriptum inspexisse.
In his Admonition to the readers Feuardent wrote about the manuscripts whose use had been granted him not only too briefly but also obscurely. It is certain that Feuardent used a Vatican codex and another, it seems, kept at Paris. The Vatican manuscript, which he very rarely cites, was perhaps the same one that Erasmus and later Latino Latini consulted. Although Feuardent's old codex appears to have been kept at Paris at the end of the sixteenth century, while Vossius's appears to have been written in France at the end of the fifteenth, I must nevertheless judge with Massuet, from the variant readings of the said manuscripts, that those codices are different, and that Feuardent did not examine Vossius's manuscript.
(printed under page 215)
Page
- running head: 417 PROLEGOMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS.
- marginal letters: A Coloniæ; B Τοῦ; C hæc; D sis
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only (except Greek book title in 1702 entry), no Greek printed; editors' matter: lector, magis speciatim
- misprint: 1766 (for 1677), in "Lugdunensis tomo secundo 1766." under the 1677 entry; kept as printed; the English gives the intended year 1677 (Q3)
- ligature: coemeterio in the 1702 imprint (in coemeterio S. Pauli) is printed with œ; set oe (Q3)
Dupinius Feuardentii editionem ita collaudat, ut nova Irenaei editione opus esse neget, nisi forte, quod vix sperari queat, Graecus operis Adv. haer. textus diu et graviter desideratus aliquando inventus fuerit. Sed Grabius Irenaeum multa cura atque incredibili industria a se emaculatum denuo in lucem emisit. Textum Graecum ac Latinum ad exemplar Feuardentii editionis recusum emendavit; Latinam interpretationem e codicibus duobus Merceri, Arundeliano et Vossiano recognovit; multaque fragmenta Graeca et ex scriptis aliorum excusis et ex mss. hausta adjecit; lectionis varietatem summa diligentia adnotavit nec infelici successu admirandaque doctrina multos locos obscuros explanavit. Qui quid editor in hoc libro praestiterit accuratius velit discere, is adeat ipsius Grabii Prolegomena in Appar. nost., pag. 43 seqq., et censuram editionis in Actis eruditorum a. 1702 publicatis, pag. 309.
Dupin praises Feuardent's edition so highly as to deny that there is need of a new edition of Irenaeus, unless perhaps, as can scarcely be hoped, the long and earnestly desired Greek text of the work Against Heresies should at some time be found. But Grabe issued Irenaeus anew into the light, cleansed of spots by himself with much care and incredible industry. He emended the Greek and Latin text reprinted after the copy of Feuardent's edition; he revised the Latin translation from the two manuscripts of Mercier, the Arundel manuscript and the Vossian; he added many Greek fragments drawn both from the printed writings of others and from manuscripts; he noted the variety of readings with the utmost diligence, and with no unhappy success and admirable learning explained many obscure passages. Whoever wishes to learn more accurately what the editor accomplished in this book should consult Grabe's own Prolegomena in our Apparatus, p. 43 ff., and the review of the edition in the Acta Eruditorum published in the year 1702, p. 309.
1712. Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Εἰρηναίου ἐπισκόπου Λουγδούνου καὶ μάρτυρος ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως βιβλία πέντε. S. Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis, etc.
1712. Five Books of the Exposure and Overthrow of Falsely So-Called Knowledge by Our Father among the Saints Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and Martyr. Of St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, etc.
1734. Anno 1734 editio Massuetiana Venetiis iterum in lucem prodiit. Praeter fragmenta Graeca a Pfaffio in bibliotheca Taurinensi reperta et plura scripta polemica de fragmentis istis nil novi habet; sed multa insunt novae editioni errata typographica.
1734. In the year 1734 the Massuetian edition came forth into the light again at Venice. Besides the Greek fragments found by Pfaff in the Turin library and several polemical writings concerning those fragments, it has nothing new; but there are many typographical errors in the new edition.
1829. Collectio selecta SS. Ecclesiae Patrum, complectens exquisitissima opera tum dogmatica et moralia, tum apologetica et oratoria, accurantibus D. A. B. Caillau una cum D. M. N. S. Guillon. Tom. II, Parisiis et Bruxellis apud Méquignon-Havard, editorem. (Lipsiae apud F. Fleischer.) 1829. In hoc libro reperiuntur loca excerpta ex Irenaei libris Adv. haer. iterum recusa ex recensione Massueti.
1829. Select Collection of the Holy Fathers of the Church, comprising the choicest works both dogmatic and moral, and apologetic and oratorical, under the care of D. A. B. Caillau together with D. M. N. S. Guillon. Vol. II, at Paris and Brussels, at the house of Méquignon-Havard, publisher. (At Leipzig, at the house of F. Fleischer.) 1829. In this book are found excerpted passages from the books of Irenaeus Against Heresies, reprinted again from the recension of Massuet.
Teste Joan. Drusio Centuria I Miscell., cap. 44 Matthias Launoius, senator olim Antuerpiensis, emendatiorem Irenaei editionem molitus est. Sed nobis non contigit, ut de consilio ejus accuratius edoceremur.
On the testimony of Johannes Drusius, Centuria I Miscell., chap. 44, Matthieu de Launoy, formerly a senator of Antwerp, undertook a more corrected edition of Irenaeus. But it has not fallen to our lot to be informed more accurately concerning his plan.
Novam Irenaei editionem, auctiorem novis fragmentis e codicibus depromptis et notis ineditis promiserat Magnus Crusius. Quanquam consilium hujus libri aliorumque, quos promiserat, successu caruit felici, ipsius Crusii verba de nova Irenaei editione hic repetere liceat.
A new edition of Irenaeus, enlarged with new fragments drawn from manuscripts and unpublished notes, had been promised by Magnus Crusius. Although the plan of this book and of others which he had promised lacked happy success, let it be permitted to repeat here the words of Crusius himself concerning the new edition of Irenaeus.
Is enim libello, qui inscribitur : Dissertatio epistolica ad eminentissimum atque rev. dn. Christianum Wormium, dioecesis Sialandicae in Dania episcopum, de scriptis quibusdam integris fragmentisque hactenus ineditis, quae in itinere Gallico, Anglico atque Germanico reperire contigit, et nunc in lucem publicam edenda parat, virosque eruditos insimul ad conferendas symbolas humanissime invitat Magnus Crusius, Slesvicensis, v. d. m. Lipsiae 1728. « conatum, ait, recudendi Irenaei opera, omnibus historiam Ecclesiae Christianae primitivae amantibus maxime necessaria, audacem quidem esse; sed suaderi hoc institutum magna raritate et defectu exemplarium utriusque editionis, tum Anglicanae Jo. Ern. Grabii, tum Gallicanae Renati Massueti, quae charo nimis pretio etiam in ipsis terris, ubi impressae sint, venditentur et frustra tamen
For in a booklet which is entitled: Epistolary Dissertation to the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Christen Worm, Bishop of the Diocese of Zealand in Denmark, concerning certain complete writings and fragments hitherto unpublished, which he happened to find in his French, English, and German journey, and now prepares to publish into the public light, and at the same time most courteously invites learned men to contribute their shares, by Magnus Crusius of Schleswig, Minister of the Divine Word, Leipzig, 1728, he says that the attempt to reprint the works of Irenaeus, most necessary to all who love the history of the primitive Christian Church, is bold indeed; yet this undertaking is recommended by the great rarity and lack of copies of both editions, both the English of Johann Ernst Grabe and the French of René Massuet, which are sold at too dear a price even in the very lands where they were printed, and yet in vain
Editors' notes and page, col. 418
Footnotes
(b) ‹anchor: etc.› · call in col 418, after "etc." at the end of the 1712 entry (call letter seen on the column image, Q2b)
Recensionem editionis D. Massueti, quae in nostra reviviscit, omittimus. EDIT. PATR.
We omit the description of Dom Massuet's edition, which lives again in ours. THE EDITORS OF THE PATROLOGY.
(printed under page 215)
Page
- running head: PROLEGOMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS. 418
- marginal letters: A Dupinius; B Τοῦ; C hær.; D insimul
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin only (except Greek book title in 1712 entry), no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dupinius Feuardentii editionem; last word ta-[men] split at column break
- other: the word tamen was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 419
saepius desiderentur. Suadent id (institutum) plurimae accessiones, quibus nova quaedam editio insignem in modum locupletari poterit : quippe tot ac tanta supersunt fragmenta Graeci textus ex codicibus Vaticanis (quorum copia Laurentio Alexandro Zacagnio praefecto olim Bibliothecae Vaticanae dignissimo debetur), Gallicanis et Anglicanis descripta, ut plurima inde loca vel suppleri vel emendari queant. Suadet industrius labor saepius laudati Grabii, qui paulo ante mortem Irenaeum suum curis secundis recognitum, a plurimis mendis vindicatum novisque adnotationibus auctum luci publicae destinaverat; licet Vindiciae ipsius
are rather often wanted. That [undertaking] is urged by the very many additions by which a new edition could be enriched in a remarkable way: for so many and such great fragments of the Greek text survive, copied from Vatican codices (access to which is owed to Lorenzo Alessandro Zaccagni, once the most worthy prefect of the Vatican Library), and from French and English ones, that a great many passages can be either supplied or corrected from them. It is urged by the diligent labour of the often-praised Grabe, who a little before his death had destined for publication his Irenaeus, revised with second thoughts, freed from very many errors and enlarged with new annotations; although his Vindiciae
contra Renatum Massuetum, quas Casimirus Oudinus in Commentario de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis memorat, inter manuscripta Grabiana neutiquam reperiantur. Suadent denique eruditissimae observationes ineditae Thomae Aisleri, Eduardi Bernardi, Francisci Junii, Danielis Heinsii aliorumque, quas propria ipsorum manu adnotatas inveni et, ne sterili labore amplius delitescerent, in usum publicum selegi. Prologum etiam manuscripto codici Arundeliano Operum S. Irenaei praefixum et in Grabii atque Massueti editionibus omissum ex Bibliotheca regiae societatis Londinensis, ubi iste codex asservatur, descripsi. »
against René Massuet, which Casimir Oudin mentions in his Commentarius on the ecclesiastical writers, are by no means found among Grabe's manuscripts. It is urged finally by the most learned unpublished observations of Thomas Aisler, Edward Bernard, Franciscus Junius, Daniel Heinsius and others, which I found noted down in their own hand and have selected for public use, so that they might not lie hidden any longer as fruitless labour. I have also copied, from the library of the Royal Society of London, where that codex is kept, the prologue prefixed to the Arundel manuscript codex of the Works of St Irenaeus and omitted in the editions of Grabe and Massuet."
CAPUT III.
CHAPTER III.
De apparatibus criticis aliorum in editiones receptis.
On the critical apparatuses of others taken into the editions.
I. De scholiis Frontonis Ducaei et Jac. Billii.
I. On the scholia of Fronton du Duc and Jac. Billius.
Fronto Ducaeus et Jacobus Billius (in Sacris Observationibus I, 33 sqq. et II, 5. Paris. 1585 ad calcem epistolarum Isidori Pelus. editis) scholia plura ad Irenaeum ediderant, quibus aut textum Latinum cum Graeco collatum emendarunt, aut plerumque feliciter obscuros locos collustrarunt. Praesertim Billius nobis laudandus videtur ob summam doctrinam, criticum ingenii acumen, elegantem scribendi rationem, observationibus ipsius conspicua. Quorum duumvirorum scholia Feuardentius primus in editionem Irenaei recepit; neque a Grabio, Massueto et nobis neglecta sunt; eorum plurima in Apparatu typis expressa reperis.
Fronton du Duc and Jacobus Billius (in the Sacrae Observationes I, 33 ff. and II, 5, published at Paris in 1585 at the end of the letters of Isidore of Pelusium) had published a number of scholia on Irenaeus, in which they either corrected the Latin text by collating it with the Greek or, for the most part happily, shed light on obscure passages. Billius above all seems to us worthy of praise for his consummate learning, the critical sharpness of his mind and his elegant manner of writing, conspicuous in his observations. Feuardent was the first to take the scholia of these two men into an edition of Irenaeus; nor have they been neglected by Grabe, Massuet and us; you will find most of them printed in the Apparatus.
II. De observationibus Heumanni et Francisci Junii in hanc novam editionem receptis.
II. On the observations of Heumann and of Franciscus Junius taken into this new edition.
E bibliotheca Academiae Gottingensis ad me perlata est editio Erasmi Basileensis a. 1560, quae olim fuit e libris Casp. A. Heumanni, professoris theol. Gottingensis. Vir doctissimus permultas emendationes in margine dictae editionis ascripsit, inter quas eas reperi, quas in Hamburg. vermischte Bibl., t. I, p. 144 sqq. publici juris fecit. Aliae conjecturae ingenium sagacissimum produnt; sed provido editori, cui fides et auctoritas codicum omnimodo tuenda et servanda est, plerumque respuendae fuerunt; aliae vero omnino nihil valere potuerunt ei, qui mentem Irenaei assecutus erat et scribendi ejus rationem penitus cognoverat.
From the library of the Academy of Göttingen there was brought to me Erasmus's Basel edition of the year 1560, which once belonged to the books of Casp. A. Heumann, professor of theology at Göttingen. That most learned man wrote a great many emendations in the margin of the said edition, among which I found those which he made public in the Hamburgische vermischte Bibliothek, vol. I, p. 144 ff. Some conjectures betray a most sagacious mind; but for a careful editor, by whom the reliability and authority of the codices must be guarded and preserved in every way, they mostly had to be rejected; others, again, could be of no value at all to one who had grasped the mind of Irenaeus and had come to know his manner of writing thoroughly.
Denique nobis commemorandus est criticus apparatus Francisci Junii, professoris olim theol. Lugduno-Batavi. Reperi enim in bibliotheca magniducali Vimariensi editionem Gallasii, in cujus margine tum magna copia emendationum, tum multa Graeca fragmenta scripta sunt. Haec editio transiit quondam in bibliothecam Marquardi Gudii, qui sub
Finally we must mention the critical apparatus of Franciscus Junius, formerly professor of theology at Leiden. For I found in the grand-ducal library at Weimar an edition of Gallasius in whose margin there are written both a great quantity of emendations and many Greek fragments. This edition once passed into the library of Marquard Gude, who under
Editors' notes and page, col. 419
Page
- running head: 419 PROLEGOMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS.
- marginal letters: A men; B I. De scholiis; C Gottingensis.; D Χαίρειν
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: first word [ta-]men split at column break; the word stands whole (tamen) at the end of col 418 and the tail is not repeated here (Q2b); Latin editors' matter in A-C: saepius desiderentur; full-width chapter title (CAPUT III. / De apparatibus criticis aliorum in editiones receptis.) above B and full-width section titles (SELECTA VETERUM TESTIMONIA / DE IRENAEO EJUSQUE SCRIPTIS. / Martyres Lugdunenses et Viennenses...) above D cut off at right edge, not set
- other: a full-width band stands across cols 419/420 in mid-page: the 3 paragraph(s) above it in col 420 are set here, after the 6 above it in col 419 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
- other: 2 full-width bands stand across cols 419/420 (after paragraphs 1+1, 6+3 of the two columns, counted from the top): the pieces are set in reading order, each pair under its own band; set each band where its piece begins
- other: the column continues with Χαίρειν ἐν Θεῷ σε ἐν πᾶσιν εὐχόμεθα (another unit); not set here
- running head: 419 PROLEGOMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS. 420
- marginal letters: A beside men saepius / contra Renatum Massuetum; B beside I. De scholiis / titulo libri; C beside tiones in margine / supergredi; D beside the Greek Χαίρειν ἐν Θεῷ of the next unit (Selecta veterum testimonia)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' matter (Stieren) set as layer 1, in reading order: upper halves of 419 and 420, then the full-width CAPUT III band, then the lower half of 419; the lower half of 420 is in c420_a.md. The column opens with the tail of a word split at the previous break (men), printed on the page; per the unit's join rule the word stands whole at the end of col 418 and the tail is not set here; the English begins with the clause. Casimirus looks like Casimirns on the scan (n/u in this type); set as intended. The full-width band SELECTA VETERUM TESTIMONIA DE IRENAEO EJUSQUE SCRIPTIS and the Greek and Latin under it belong to the next unit and are not set.
- other (Q2b): the col 420 paragraph set here (contra Renatum … descripsi. ») is cut off at the right edge of the col 419 images; only its line openings could be checked there.
titulo libri de istis adnotationibus manu exaratis haec scripsit : « Lectionum varietates e vetere codice, supplementa etiam et fragmenta Graeca ad hujus libri marginem ascripsit propria sua manu Franciscus Junius, theol. prof. Lugduni Batavorum. » Sed est quod Gudium errore deceptum esse censeam. Qui veteris Interpretis scribendi rationem callet, mecum dubitare nequit, emendationes Junii non e codice, sed e sagacissimo jndicio profluxisse. Nonnunquam enim factum est, ut Junius elegante eruditione adjutus interpretem barbare scribentem corrigeret e ratione scribendi, qua scriptores classici, quos dicunt, usi sunt. Multa, quae conjecit Junius et in charta per aquam glutinosam non densata pulcherrime et nitidissime scripsit, tam ingeniosum tamque eruditum et sagacem virum produnt, ut ejus conjecturas in notas meas recipiendi opportunitas jucundissima mihi fuerit. Doleo, adnotationes Franc. Junii finem libri I non supergredi. Fragmenta Graeca a Junio ex antiquissima Epiphanii editione exscripta sunt.
the title of the book wrote this about those handwritten annotations: "Variant readings from an old codex, and also supplements and Greek fragments, were written in the margin of this book in his own hand by Franciscus Junius, professor of theology at Leiden." But there is reason for me to judge that Gude was deceived by an error. Whoever is versed in the old Translator's manner of writing cannot doubt, with me, that Junius's emendations flowed not from a codex but from his most sagacious judgement. For it sometimes happened that Junius, aided by his elegant learning, corrected the translator's barbarous writing according to the manner of writing which the so-called classical writers used. Many things that Junius conjectured and wrote most beautifully and neatly on paper not sized with glue-water betray a man so ingenious, so learned and so sagacious that the opportunity of taking his conjectures into my notes has been most pleasing to me. I regret that the annotations of Franc. Junius do not go beyond the end of Book I. The Greek fragments were copied out by Junius from a very old edition of Epiphanius.
In Theoph. Christ. Harlesii Supplementis ad introductionem in historiam linguae Graecae, t. II, p. 203 legi haec : Variae lectiones sunt margini (editionis Grynaei) ascriptae, et Reinesius exemplari suo, quod servatur in bibliotheca Zitzensi, multas manu adjecit emendationes. Sperabam fore ut ex adnotationibus Reinesii, alioquin viri sagacissimi, aliquot fructus percipere possem. Sed spes me fefellit. Etenim plurima, quae Reinesius ad marginem scripsit, pertinent ad capitum inscriptiones. Caetera tremente, uti videtur, manu tam pessime sunt scripta, ut vix legi queant. Quae intentis oculis explicare potui, ea non satis digna visa sunt, quae in meam editionem reciperem.
In Theoph. Christ. Harles's Supplementa ad introductionem in historiam linguae Graecae, vol. II, p. 203, I read this: "Variant readings are written in the margin (of Grynaeus's edition), and Reinesius added many emendations by hand to his copy, which is kept in the library at Zeitz." I hoped that from the annotations of Reinesius, otherwise a most sagacious man, I might gather some fruit. But the hope deceived me. For most of what Reinesius wrote in the margin concerns the chapter headings. The rest is written so very badly, by a trembling hand as it seems, that it can scarcely be read. What I could make out with strained eyes did not seem worthy enough for me to take into my edition.
Editors' notes and page, col. 420
Page
- running head: PROLEGOMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS. 420
- marginal letters: A contra; B titulo; C supergredi.; D Te per
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Latin editors' matter set in A-C: contra Renatum Massuetum; facing Latin version in D (Te per omnia ac perpetuo...) left out; full-width headings above B and D cut off at left edge, not set
- other: the 3 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 419 (reading order, moved on receipt)
- misprint: jndicio (for judicio), in "e sagacissimo jndicio profluxisse" (this file, col 420 below the CAPUT III band); kept as printed (Q3 set it back from a silently corrected judicio; the j/n reading is clear on the column image)
- running head: 419 PROLEGOMENA EDIT. LIPSIENSIS. 420
- marginal letters: A contra Renatum Massuetum (upper half, set in 419); B titulo libri de istis; C supergredi. Fragmenta Graeca; D Te per omnia (next unit)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' matter (Stieren) set as layer 1; this file holds the lower half of col 420 only; the upper half of 420 and the full-width CAPUT III band are set in 419 (pointer). A short rule before In Theoph. Christ. Harlesii is not set. Under other: the full-width band SELECTA VETERUM TESTIMONIA DE IRENAEO EJUSQUE SCRIPTIS lower on the page is the next unit's title, not set.