¹ The following descriptions of our codex have been given:

S. F. Maffei, Opusculi ecclesiastici, pp. 75–77. (This work forms the second part of a double folio volume with Istoria Teologica, published at Trento in 1742. Portions of the text previously printed in Osservazioni letterarie, III, 1738, occupy pp. 254–272 of the same work.)

Pietro and Girolamo Ballerini, Opera S. Leonis Magni, tom. III, 1757, De Antiquis Collectionibus Canonum, Pt. II, c. 9, reprinted in Migne P. L. 56. 143–148. This is an admirable short description of the codex and its contents. Other passages, with text (or notes) belonging to our codex are P. L. 56. 77–78, 433–453, 714–724, 823–862, 876–879.

Reifferscheid, A., Bibliotheca Patrum Latinorum Italica, in the portion published in Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Classe der kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien, XLIX (4 Jan. 1865) 35–40.Google Scholar

Maassen, F. C. B., Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts, 1870, pp. 546–551Google Scholar.

Spagnolo, A., Atti della R. Accademia delle Scienzie di Torino, 1896, xxxii. 509–524Google Scholar (though less known, quite an important description).

Turner, C. H., The Guardian, 11 December, 1895, pp. 1921–1922Google Scholar, and Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Juris Antiquissima, I, 625–626. (Hereafter cited as E. O. M. J. A.)

Schwartz, E., Nachrichten v.d. kgl. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl., 1904, 357–391Google Scholar, and Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1936, xxxv, 1–17. (Hereafter cited as Z. N. T. W.)

² The only good source for the history of the Chapter library at Verona is a series of articles by Canon Count Giambatista Carlo Giuliari, Chapter librarian, in Archivio Veneto, largely reprinted in book form as La Capitolare biblioteca di Verona, Parti I e II, Verona, 1888. The articles are: Archivio Veneto X, 239; XI, 51; XII, 56, 274; XIV, 39; XVI, 219; XVII, 232; XVIII, 5; XIX, 72; XX, 5, 203; XXI, 203; XXII, 271; XXIII, 5; XXVII, 453; XXVIII, 223, 426; XXX, 477; XXXIII, 203, 511; XXXV, 191.

The Vatican press has commenced a sumptuous Monumenta Palaeographica Veronensia under the initial editorship of Mgr. E. Carusi and W. M. Lindsay. Two fascicules have so far appeared, in 1929 and 1934 respectively, concerned with codices native to Verona down to the ninth century.

The following studies may also be noted:

Venturini, Teresa, Ricerche paleografiche intorno all' arcidiacono Pacifico di Verona, Verona, 1929Google Scholar.

Forchielli, G., Collegialità di chierici nel Veronese dall' VIII secolo all' età, comunale, in Archivio Veneto, Series 5, vol. III, 1928, pp. 1–117Google Scholar.

Lazzarini, Vittorio, Scuola calligrafica Veronese nel secolo IX, in Memorie di R. Istituto Veneto, xxvii, 1924Google Scholar. In the next volume of the same periodical, Giovanni Ongaro carries the same theme into the tenth century. This work was carried on by two theses; Venturini, Maria, Scriptorium Veronese nel secolo XI, 1930Google Scholar, and Giuliano, Maria Luisa, Cultura e scuola calligrafica Veronese nel secolo XII, 1931Google Scholar.

³ For the respective contributions of these scholars, see Additional notes A–F below.

⁴ For the classmark, see Additional note J below.

⁵ One line of facsimile of the script of our codex, drawn by hand, is given by Maffei as No. iv on the first plate opposite p. 62 in his Opusculi ecclesiatici. A photographic facsimile of the verso of f. 78 is given in Monumenta graphica medii aevi, T. Sickel, Vienna, 1855, as tabula III, fasc. 1. The same photograph is reproduced as No. 43 in Zangemeister, K. and Wattenbach, W., Exempla codicum Latinorum litteris majusculis scriptorum, Heidelberg, 1876Google Scholar. A facsimile in color is given in connection with the article cited below, by Prof. E. Schwartz, of both sides of f. 80, in Abhandlungen d. kgl. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, N. F., viii, No. 6.

Reifferscheid calls the hand eighth century, and in this he is supported by L. Traube, Nomina Sacra, p. 216, who concludes on the ground of its position in one development of abbreviation, ‘Vor den 8 Jahrhunderte kann er nicht gut geschreiben haben,’ though he says at once that it cannot be later than eighth century. On the other side is Maassen, who says (op. cit., p. 551) ‘das 7. Jahrhundert nicht überschreitet.’ He is followed in this judgment by Wattenbach, De Ferrari, Giuliari, Turner, Spagnolo and Feder.

⁶ The first part of the codex has an average of 28–30 lines to the page, the second only 26–28.

⁷ See J. D. Mansi, Concilia, IV, 401–415; 419–434. A good summary by an Anglican writer is ‘The case of Apiarius,’ B. J. Kidd, A History of the Church to A.D. 461, Vol. III, c. 9.

⁸ For the removal of seven leaves to the Casanatense library, see Additional note H. Between f. 121 and f. 122 a thin strip of margin is all that remains of a leaf that must have been spoiled and removed. The quaternions of T^* were: 37–44; 45–52; 53–60; 61–68; 69–71 and 1–5 of the Casanatense leaves; 6, 7 Casanatense and 72–77; 78–85; 86–93; 94–96 and 99–103; 104–111; 112–119; 120, 121, the excised leaf, 122–126. The second Casanatense leaf, which is the second middle leaf of the quaternion, bears the quaternion marking D.

⁹ Maassen agrees with Reifferscheid to call t a twelfth century hand. Cipolla, who inclined, on other than palaeographical grounds, to put it earlier, admits that it is a script developing in a way characteristic of the end of the eleventh century. This may be the closest approximation to the true date.

¹⁰ The text of this metrical prologue is given in Migne P. L. 56. 758. Also Reifferscheid, op. cit., pp. 35–36 from our codex, Maassen, op. cit., p. 46, Turner, op. cit., I, 105 and 254. Reifferscheid, on p. 36, gives also the text of the two following pieces from our codex.

¹¹ The text of pseudo-Isidore is given by J. Hardouin, Collectio conciliorum regia maxima, Paris, 1714, I, 6.

¹² Reifferscheid, loc. cit., gives the t text, but not the secondary hand.

¹³ This is the version of which the editio princeps by Christopher Justel, under the title Codex canonum ecclesiasticorum Dionysii Exigui, was published at Paris in 1628.

¹⁴ See Reifferscheid, Sitz. Akad. Wien, 26 July, 1865. (L, p. 754.)

¹⁵ Footnote to the first page of his article, Über die Sammlung des cod. Veronensis LX, in Z. N. T. W., xxxv, 1936.

¹⁶ So Reifferscheid, Maassen and Spagnolo. It is sufficiently characteristic to leave no doubt.

¹⁷ Codex XXXVIII (36). The date is 519 A.D.

¹⁸ xxvi, 293–306. (July, 1909.)

¹⁹ xxvii, 531–548. (December, 1910.)

²⁰ xxvii, 549–552.

²¹ Op. cit, pp. 444–452.

²² Ut in suburbicaria loca sollicitudinem gerat (urbis Romae episcopus). This limitation of the jurisdiction of the Roman see appears to derive from the paraphrase of Rufinus, H. E., x, 6.

²³ In the phrase propria jura serventur metropolitanis ecclesiis. The inclusion of the word metropolitanis classes Antioch among metropolitan churches. Its absence leaves the authority of the see indefinite, alongside that of Alexandria and Rome. The introduction of the adjective in the Latin, without warranty in the Greek original, reflects post-Nicene conflicts.

²⁴ With an addition to the common text which further emphasizes the quasi-Nicene authority accorded to these canons. See Turner, op. cit., II, 116.

²⁵ For the meaning of this title, see Additional note G below.

²⁶ Turner, op. cit., II, 190.

²⁷ See Maassen, op. cit., pp. 155–160 for the special character of the Breviarium in our codex. For the place of the Breviarium in African canon law, see L. Duchesne, Histoire de l'église ancienne, III, 123.

²⁸ See Maassen, op. cit., p. 182. From the opening words of Aurelius, this synod appears to have had the character of an annual synod.

²⁹ There is an edition of the Sardican pieces by F. Schulthess in Abhandlungen d. kgl. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, ph.-hist. Kl. N. F., x, No. 2, 1908, pp. 167–174, and a description by A. Zotenberg in his catalogue of the Syriac codices of the British Museum, p. 185.

³⁰ Of this letter, of which item XV alone purports to give the text, there is a neat précis in Sozomen, H. E., iii, 12. When read in connection with this, the θ text is seen to be too confused to be even a bad copy of the Latin original. When the writers are made to say that they hold illam scripturam quae continet catholicam fidem factam aput Nicaeam, the actual βιβλίον of the synod seems to be understood. This looks like a misunderstanding of a reference in the Greek to the γραφή (draft) whose συντομία gave opening to misinterpretation. The heading Definitiones = ὅροι, suggests that what follows is likewise a rendering of the Greek.

³¹ The comparison of item XVI with the Latin original in codex 483 of the Arsenal library at Paris, made by A. Feder in C. S. E. L., lxv, 103 seqq. leaves no doubt which was originally conceived in Latin. The notes to Turner's edition of item XVI, op. cit., I, 645–653, while aimed at emendations of the θ text, establish clearly the fact that it is derived from the Greek. See the notes on p. 645, l. 3; p. 646, l. 67; p. 649, l. 237; p. 650, ll. 279, 280; p. 652, l. 38; p. 653, l. 112. Of these, the third and the last may well be accounted decisive.

³² That the Sardican canons were original in Latin was first proved by Turner in J. T. S., iii, 376, note 2. That the θ text is made from a Greek version, and is not the original, is amply proved by Turner's edition and notes, op. cit., I, 490–531, corroborated by the argument of Schwartz, Z. N. T. W., xxx, 11–18. For a hint that the version was made in Africa, see Turner's notes on primas, op. cit., I, 489, 501.

³³ See Additional note I below.

³⁴ C. R. Sievers, who died on 10 December, 1866, wrote an introduction and notes to the Historia Acephala based on the text of Maffei, and these were published posthumously in Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie, 1868, under the title ‘Athanasii vita acephala, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Athanasius.’ (Introduction, pp. 89–148; text and footnotes, pp. 148–162.)

³⁵ On p. 68, line 1, sicubiliter is certainly the reading of the text, but it is no doubt a copyist's error for sicubi liber. In line 5, perferens should be proferens. Opitz has ignored the symbol which follows subibit at the end of the letter. Turner, op. cit., I, 633, prints P^* and suggests that the exemplar read PF for praefecto. There is, however, nothing in the Greek to warrant this, and the whole piece is the closest word-for-word translation. Further, the same symbol appears at the very end of XXII, where Batiffol and Turner both print a capital P. Batiffol adds the note J'ignore la signification de ce sigle. Schwartz, in his second Göttingen paper Zur Geschichte des Athanasius, p. 391, suggests Papa in apposition to episcopus, in this passage. Reifferscheid ignores the symbol at the end of XXII and represents it at the end of XXV by the ordinary abbreviation for per. It is, however, larger and more boldly crossed than usual, and the appearance of the whole symbol suggests that the letter T and perhaps F may be involved. In both contexts, it immediately precedes EXPLICIT. Now Jerome says, of the use of Amen in Hebrew MSS (ep. 138, ad Marcellam), that it is ‘ut solemus nos, completis opusculis, … interponere EXPLICIT, aut FELICITER aut aliquid istiusmodi.’ This suggests that it was customary in the fourth-fifth centuries to qualify explicit. We may suggest, therefore, that stood for perfectum, and that in both these contexts it has come down, in copying, from the fifth century Carthaginian book in which these Latin pieces are original. This would accord with Turner's belief that T contains abbreviations that have come down, in copying, from the African original nucleus (J. T. S., xxx, 115). Only by taking with explicit can both passages be explained.

³⁶ For the dating of the Isidorian texts, see Additional note G, below. Dionysius Exiguus is known to have been dead by 550 A. D.

³⁷ See Additional note F, below.

³⁸ In this connection, attention may be called to a vigorous summary concluding the article ‘Dionysius Exiguus’ by E. S. Ffoulkes in the Dictionary of Christian Biography.

³⁹ Z. d. Savigny-stiftung, 65, k. Abt., xxv, p. 80. Schwartz' suggestion that the Africans knew the canons of Sardica, but kept silence about them, seems completely unacceptable.

⁴⁰ Migne, P. L. 10. 671–676.

⁴¹ Augustine tells the story himself. Migne, P. L. 33. 176. And cf. P. L. 43, 516 and 576.

⁴² The canon forbids one bishop to receive the subject of another, whether clerical or lay. See J. D. Mansi, Concilia, III, 143–158.

⁴³ Fantastic as this passage appears, it probably clings very close to fact. Paul was politically troublesome, owing to his association with the ‘new citizen’ interest in Constantinople. It is likely that his activities were, by the winter of 341–342, becoming a major preoccupation of the Oriental church leaders. At this time, Eusebius of Constantinople was still alive and Stephen had already become bishop of Antioch. After the death of Eusebius, Paul threw himself on popular support in the capital, ignored the summons to Sardica, and finally came to grief in the Hermogenes riot, early in the winter following the synod.

In justification of the above rendering of insidiarentur Paulo, it may be noted that our Latin versionist virtually uses insidiari of the action taken by Alexander against Arius. (Seditione facta … Alexandro.)

⁴⁴ Migne, P. G. 26. 800 cd. By the time the ‘history’ was written, circumstances had changed this. See Schwartz, Z. N. T. W., xxxv, 6, 7.

⁴⁵ See Schwartz, Christliche Ostertafeln, pp. 26–29.

⁴⁶ See Hilary, fragment II, 23. Migne, P. L. 10. 651–652.

⁴⁷ See the studied protest in Apol. ad Constantium, para 4. (Migne, P. G. 25. 601. And compare P. G. 25. 308.)

⁴⁸ It is in the manner of a dossier to imply Constantius' recognition of the Athanasian cause by superposing his letter announcing the return of Athanasius immediately upon those of Athanasius and his friends. The text of the letter of Constantius has, however, been dropped out in copying.

⁴⁹ Migne, P. L. 43. 576.

⁵⁰ With regard to the synods of Gangra and Laodicea, no argument for a particular date has yet succeeded in covering all the evidence. All that can be said with assurance is that they belong to the mid-fourth century. (But see Schwartz, l. c., p. 31 and Turner, op. cit., II. 146.)

⁵¹ See note 29 above.

⁵² The diplomatic relations of Bishop Alexander of Antioch with Pope Innocent may explain both his leanings in the African dispute and his readiness to produce a Latin version of a document, when in correspondence with Western ecclesiastics.

⁵³ The close similarity of this creed with the old Latin versions of the ‘creed of the CL Fathers’ may be seen from A. E. Burn's study in J. T. S., ii, 102–110. The striking difference is in the Christological section. Here, the homoousion is missing. Christ is first predicated as true God from God and only then as sole-begotten Son of God. This has the effect of marking the sonship as a ‘sonship of nature,’ the sense in which the Syrians understood the homoousion. The only known parallel is in the creed of Apollinarius deduced by Caspari from his Kata Meros Pistis (Alte u. neue Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, 1879, pp. 65–146. The text is given in A and L. Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 1897, pp. 143–144). Here Christ is called true God from true God, God's only-begotten Son, consubstantial. From this Laodicean creed, as from XXIII, the Nicene trilogy ‘God from God, light from light, very God from very God’ is missing. It is also missing from the creed of Antioch as testified by Cassian and the Contestatio of Eusebius of Dorylaeum (Hahn, l.c.) and from the creed of Constantinople as it appears in the Latin versions of Sessio VI of Chalcedon (Burn, l.c.). That it afterwards crept into the text of the Constantinopolitanum is natural. We may conclude that it was not in the type of creed confessed by Meletius and the Syrians, c. 370 A. D., where the first predicate of Christ was true God from God, while the dogmatic intention was to declare Him to be the ‘Son of nature’ of the heavenly Father; i.e., homoousion where ousia is indistinguishable from phusis. These considerations confirm us in seeking the origin of the creed of item XXIII in Syria and before 379. And if this is right, the influence of Meletius, rather than that of Cyril of Jerusalem, is the real clue to the Constantinopolitanum.

⁵⁴ Cited by Schwartz in his Bussstüfen und Katechumenatsklassen, Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Strassburg, 1911, No. 7, p. 31 from p. 235 of the work on the Collection of the XIV Titles, in Russian, by Beneschewitsch.

⁵⁵ We should therefore suppose XXIII to be a Latin version prepared for Meletius to send to Rome, perhaps in company with III.

⁵⁶ Migne, P. L. 16. 958.

⁵⁷ J. T. S., ii, 103.

⁵⁸ This is not to say that the intention of the writer was not wholly to celebrate Athanasius. He might have to refer to events prior to his episcopate for that purpose.

⁵⁹ As an appendix to ep. lvi of Athanasius to Jovian, Migne, P. G. 26. 813–977. There is a translation in Archibald Robertson, Athanasius, N & P-N Fathers, iv, pp. 568–569.

⁶⁰ See Opitz, l.c., p. 47.

⁶¹ See Z. N. T. W., xxxv, 6. The continuous narration of church history from Nicaea would not be to the purpose of an Athanasian dossier, and is out of accord with the truncated character of IX.

⁶² The last section, from ὁ δὲ Γρηγόριος, is true to the outlook and manner of the ‘history.’

⁶³ The other being cod. Vat. 1319. See Turner, op. cit., I, 101–143 and J. T. S., vi, 85–86.

⁶⁴ In nearly all copies of the Acta of 419 the Nicene texts are omitted, but in three ancient codices the text of the version of Caecilian is written out in full. See Maassen, op. cit., pp. 8, 9. But here the ‘suburbicarian clause’ and metropolitanis are present. Schwartz, Z. d. Savigny-Stiftung, 56.3. 44–48, argues, on this account, that the ‘version of Caecilian’ cannot have been of any great antiquity or sacrosanctity in 419, since such interpolations were tolerated or even deliberately made for polemical ends. The θ text is nearer to the Greek, and Turner, op. cit., I, 103 expresses the belief that it is a revision of the other text, made by the Carthaginian envoys in the light of the Greek. But the concern of the Africans was not with readings, but with the presence or absence of certain canons. Schwartz, l.c., thinks that the version of Caecilian has the marks of Antioch as its source, and in this case, the absence of metropolitanis argues for θ being more primitive. If the so-called ‘version of Caecilian’ actually reached Africa from Syria in the late fourth century, θ is to be adjudged simply a better text than that which was copied into some of the exemplars of the Acta of 419 A. D.

⁶⁵ J. T. S., xxx, 115.

⁶⁶ As Maassen indicates (op. cit., p. 160), the θ text of the Breviarium is uncontaminated, as other copies are, by the inclusion of canons from the Carthaginian councils of 397 and 401 A. D. It is therefore likely to be a pure and ancient text. Duchesne's view, mentioned above, is that whereas the Acta of 419 had wide publication in a polemical interest, it was the Breviarium that was regarded in Africa as the summary manual of African canon law.

⁶⁷ J. T. S., xxx, 115 and, at greater length, in a contribution, entitled The Nomina Sacra in early Christian MSS, to the 4th volume of Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle (Studi e testi, 60: the relevant matter is on pp. 73–74).

⁶⁸ This is scored through by t, who substituted the attribution to Augustine.

⁶⁹ See p. xiii of the Preface to E. O. M. J. A., I, ii, 3 and J. T. S., vii, 81–82.

⁷⁰ Opportune quidem Theodosius noster mendosa exemplaria incusat, mendis scilicet quam plurimis codex laborat; at ipsum nonihil in eo genere et de suo largitum esse, haec subscriptio comprobat, ut jacet allata (p. 75, Opusculi Ecclesiastici).

⁷¹ A review of these studies, entitled Handschriften von Vivarium, occupies pp. 75–88 of the 4th volume of Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle (Studi e testi, 60), and is by Prof. Wilhelm Weinberger.

⁷² Migne, P. L. 70. 1125c.

⁷³ Migne, P. L. 70. 1126a.

⁷⁴ Migne, P. L. 70. 1115d.

⁷⁵ Dziatzko, K., Untersuchungen über ausgewahlte Kapitel des antike Buchwesens, 1900, p. 109Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Migne, P. L. 69. 849 (Varia, xi, 38). In De inst. Div. litt. c. viii, there is mention of the reception of books from Africa.

⁷⁷ Migne, P. L. 69. 960d–961b.

⁷⁸ Migne, P. L. 69. 1178d.

⁷⁹ Vita Chrysostomi, c. 9. Migne, P. G. 47. 31–32.

⁸⁰ It is difficult to strike a balance of probability between Vivarium and Bobbio for the VIII block redaction. If the scribe of T^* is the last redactor, who rearranged VII and added XI, XII, XXVII, the VIII block was added in loose form, and therefore probably on paper, and at the Vivarium. But this requires that the ad Nepotem and African canon-manual were at the Vivarium, and that the former, or a copy of it, also reached Bobbio. If we suppose that the three books were together for the first time at Bobbio, we have to suppose that the ad Nepotem Chalcedon was inserted into a Vivarium paper codex on sheets of vellum. Nothing material seems to hang upon the choice of alternative.

⁸¹ Maassen, op. cit., p. 547 notes that the corrections of t suggest that his authority was a codex of the type of cod. Vat. 1342. This codex does not seem to have survived, at any rate among the Verona rediscovered MSS.