Florence: Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conventi Soppressi J.6.9

Formerly Codex Florentinus Magliabechianus Conv. Soppr. I. VI, 9

(N)

Introduction Details Marginalia Catalogue Entries Bibliography
Location : Florence: Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale (formerly in the Bibliotheque Mediceo-Laurenziana), in the Conventi soppressi J.VI.9 (the letter J indicates the San Marco collection)
Date: 15th century
Corpus: Cluniacense (alpha branch). See Stemma.

INTRODUCTION

This manuscript (siglum N) is the only complete witness for the alpha branch of the Corpus Cluniacense. It contains 28 works of Tertullian, in two sections, including the Apologeticum (not present in the beta Cluny-Hirsau branch).  Tommaso Parentucelli either obtained it, or had it made, in 1433 or a little earlier 7.  The only Italian manuscript descended from it is codex. Laur. 26, 13 (the latter half of a collection starting as 26,12) 7.

N is descended from the Montepessulanus (M), as Kroymann demonstrated 8.  The first part of the manuscript is therefore the same as M, apart from copying errors, of which there are many 3.  The second part of of interest as the main witness for the Cluny-alpha text of these treatises, and presumably is copied directly or indirectly from the supposed second volume of M, now lost.

DETAILS

32 x 29 cms. Written on paper, by a single hand. Begins with 2 blank folios. Listed by Oehler, praef. p. viii as number 9. Once the property of the Florentine humanist Niccolo Niccoli († 1437).5, according to a note inside, and bequeathed with the rest of his books to the Abbey of San Marco 6.  The three manuscripts owned by Niccoli, N, F and Conv. Sopr. J.6.11, are listed in the catalogue of San Marco published by Ullman (Nos. 125, 126, 127).

The single volume is internally divided into two parts.  There is a table of contents at the start listing the contents of the first part.  Folios 1-136 contain the 10 treatises (treating each book of Adversus Marcionem as 1 book), plus the Apologeticum.  In the initial table of contents, which has "item Apologeticum" at the end, indicating the addition of the Apologeticum at some earlier point in the transmission. [Question: Is the text of the Apologeticum in N the same as that in M? Or was the Apol. in M added after the copy from which N was taken was made, and the Apol. in N has a different source?]  There is a fresh table of contents on folio 137 which lists the works in the remainder of the work; and indeed Ambrose of Milan, De incarnatione Christi (CPL 152) which is not however present in the volume and seems not to have been copied from the ancestor manuscript. Folios 137-202 contain the 17 remaining works.7

Volume 16

134 6 (or 138 8) folios contain:

Table of contents.
1. De patientia
2. De carne Christi
3. De carnis resurrectione
4. Adversus Praxeam
5. Adversus Valentinianos
6. Adversus Marcionem
Apologeticum

Volume 2

Folios Works
137  Table of contents 8
  7. De fuga 6 A later hand has added sive de persecutione 6
  8. Ad Scapulam 6
  9. De corona militis 6
  10. Ad martirias 6
  11. De penitentia 6
  12. De virginibus velandis 6
  13. De habitu muliebri 6
  14. De cultu feminarum 6
  15. De exhortatione castitatis 6
162v - 165v 16. Ad uxorem I and II 2
165v - 170v 17. De monogamia 1
  18. De pallio 1
  19. Contra Iudaeos 6
  20. Adversus omnes haereticos  6 [spurious]
  21. De praescriptionibus haereticorum 6
??? - 202 8  22. Adversus Hermogenem 6

There is no subscriptio.6

MARGINAL NOTES 7

In the margins of N there are comments written throughout the manuscript by the scribe himself, who was perhaps an Italian notary: in any case, the titles of the works are in an Italianising calligraphy and not at all transalpine (so François AVRIL, in Petitmengin p.82, against the general opinion; B. BISCHOFF as cited by TRÄNKLE in his edition of Iud. (1964, p.xc), "in Deutschland oder Frankreich entstanden"; A. DANELONI in Umanesmo e Padri della Chiesa, p.236, "corsiva transalpina"). The comments are mainly warnings about heretical statements.  

These comments are not found in M, the ancestor manuscript of N, at all.  But they refer to features which are not present in N.  

While N is written in long lines without columns, the comments show that the intermediate was in two columns, just like M, as is shown by "cave quod videtur error usque nunc quoque in sequenti columpna" ("beware error up to this point, also in following column") on folio 7r; and "cave sequenti columpna" ("beware in following column") on f. 64r. 

So the comments must have existed in the intermediate manuscript, which was copied from M and from which N was in turn itself copied. This was no doubt the manuscript which was slightly larger, and so contained the De incarnatione of Ambrose at the end, which is mentioned in the table of contents of N as the last item but is not in fact present.  No doubt the scribe copied the comments as he did each page.  The calligraphic layout of some of them supports this, such as the addition on f.95v: text which had been omitted because of the eye skipping down from the same word at the end of two different lines in Marc. IV, 39, 14 (cogaris etiam -- antecedunt) is placed on nine lines in the form of an inverted pyramid.  But such textual restorations are rare.

Most of the comments are concerned with possible theological errors which the reader might derive from the text.  A majuscule N encircled with four points appears frequently, seemingly meaning 'Nota bene', and often with an adverb such as cautissime, or even a compliment: N(ota) silogisticam hermogenis coniecturam (f. 191 r).  Often the warning is more explicit: cave, attende, expone pie, expone pie et lege caute, or simply error.  Once even vox dyaboli appears, on f.28v, against Prax. 1, 3 ceterum ego ad ipsum deum accessi

Sometimes they specify the type of error: "cave quia consentit in heresim prisce et montani" ("beware because he agrees with the heresy of Prisca and Montanus"), against f.14v, on Res. 11, 2.  Or "hic manifeste apparet quod in errorem montani lapsus est, ut de eo dicit ieronimus" ("here it manifestly appears that he fell into the error of Montanus, as Jerome says of him") on f.28v, against Prax. 1, 5, referring to De viris illustribus 53.  

More interestingly still, at the head of De monogamia, "Lege caute hunc librum, quia damnat secundas (sc. nuptias) et manifeste tenet errorem montani et priscille sicut 6º folio paraclitum abstulisse quod paulus indulserat." ("Read this book cautiously, because he condemns second marriages and clearly holds the error of Montanus and Priscilla, just as on the 6th folio he forbids what Paul allows"), on f.165v. (The reading is not altogether certain).  The passage to which he alludes is Mon. 14, 3: "cur non et Paraclitus abstulerit quod Paulus indulserit" ("why can't the Paraclete also forbid what Paul concedes"), which he has marked error pessimus ("worst error possible"), and is on f.169v.  This is 4 folios ahead, not 6; so the manuscript being copied had less on each page; smaller pages or more white space on each.

Tertullian's attitude to the Virgin Mary also comes in for criticism.  On f.7v, on Carn. 7:9, "si loquitur de matre christi, impie et falso loquitur" ("if he speaks of the mother of Christ, he speaks impiously and falsely").  On f. 81r, on Marc. IV, 19, 11, "si de matre christi intelligit, falsum dicit" ("if it is understood concerning the mother of Christ, he says falsely").

On the other hand the imperfections of his Trinitarian doctrine are considered more excusable, and account is taken of the evolution of doctrine.  On f.29r, against Prax. 2, 4 : "tres autem non statu sed gradu, nec substantia sed forma", he writes "Iste modus loquendi silicet quod sint tres gradus in forma et specie non est chatolicus hodie" ("This way of speaking, of course, that there are three grades in form and species is not catholic today".

The culture of the annotator is shown by his reference on f.6r, discussing Mark 8:38 as cited in Carn. 5:3, to a famous biblical manuscript: "nota hoc est in originali beati marchi quod est in aquilegia" ("Note: this is in the original Ms. of the blessed Mark which is at Aquilegia"). This places us in an Italian context.  There is also a reference to Orosius (VII, 17, 2 and 6) to explain who the Albiniani, Nigriani and Cassiani are, mentioned in Ad Scapulam 2:5:

Albinus et niger et cassius tyranni fuerunt eo tempore, unde dixit horosius piscennius nigrum et clodium albinum alterum in aegipto alterum in gallis contra imperatorem seuerum rebellantes unum in ci [...] alium lugduni ab eodem imperatore uictos atque imperfectos (f.141v).

(Albinus and Niger and Cassius were usurpers in that time, from which Orosius said that Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus, one in Egypt the other in Gaul, rebelling against the emperor Severus, were conquered and killed, one at Cyzicus, the other at Lyons.)

The blank after 'ci' shows that the copyist couldn't decypher the text, which must have been cizico.  

A complete edition of these notes would perhaps permit further inferences to be drawn about this erudite theologian and detecter of heresy, who would seem very naturally to fit into the Dominican order.

CATALOGUE ENTRIES

From Umanesimo e Padri della Chiesa. Manoscritti e incunaboli di testi patristici da Francesco Petrarca al primo Cinquecento, Firenze: Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, a cura di S. Gentile, [Milano] (1997):

43. TERTULLIANO, Opera. Scoperto da Tommaso Parentucelli e da questi mandato al Niccoli.

Sec. XV (1431-1433?); cart.; mm 300x210; cc. II, 202, I' (c. II membr.).
Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conventi soppr. J. VI. 9
(San Marco 527).

Copiato in una corsiva transalpina da un'unica mano (anche se in due momenti distinti: la prima parte è costituita dalle cc. 1-136, la seconda dalle cc. 137-202; ad entrambe è premesso un indice delle opere: cc. Ir, 137r), questo manoscritto comprende, in un diverso ordine, tutti i trattati tertul-lianei contenuti nel Conventi soppr. J. VI. 10 (vd. scheda 37); ha in più l'Apologeticum (cc. 114v-134v). Appartiene ad un ramo della tradizione manoscritta diverso da quello del codice di Pforzheim e della copia di Niccolò Niccoli (vd. schede 37-38). Presenta sui margini diverse annotazioni di mano dello stesso copista, quasi sempre notabilia, alcuni dei quali richiamano l'attenzione sui passi di Tertulliano che contengono dottrine errate, non ortodosse o, comunque, da considerare con cautela (Attende bene hic et caute, Cave; Error; Nota cautissime cuncta; Cavendum; Error notavi ecc). In una postilla di c. 28v viene sottolineata l'adesione di Tertulliano all'eresia di Montano: hic manifeste apparet quod in errorem Montani lapsus est, ut de eo dicit Ieronimus (nota vergata a margine di Adv. Prax. 5). Tali 'avvertenze' dovevano corredare il testo tertullianeo già nell'antigrafo e furono fedelmente trascritte da chi copiò il Conventi soppr. J. VI. 9. Oltre a queste particolari annotazioni vi sono numerosi notabilia, di scarso interesse, vergati in umanistica corsiva da una mano della seconda metà del Quattrocento.

Fu scoperto (e probabilmente fatto copiare) da Tommaso Parentucelli (per il quale vd. scheda 48), presumibilmente in Francia, tra il 1431 e il 1433. Della scoperta da notizia l'Aurispa in una celebre lettera del 6 agosto 1433 a Iacopino Tebalducci, scritta da Basilea. Annunzia al Tebalducci, pregandolo di avvertire il Niccoli, che Munsignor de Sancta Cruce [Niccolò Albergati] et maistro Thomase [Parentucelli] serrano qui infra octo iorne, e maestro Thomase porta seco tucte le opere de Tertulliano (Sabbadini 1931, pp. 81-83); l'Albergati e il Parentucelli giungevano a Basilea appunto dalla Francia (Manfredi 1995, pp. 1322-1324). Il codice venne portato ben presto in Italia, dove subito se ne impadronì il Niccoli, nelle mani del quale si trovava sicuramente nel 1434. Tale manoscritto è, forse, una copia dei volumina antiqua con i quali Traversari sperava di far emendare il volume molto scorretto del cardinale Giordano Orsini (cf. scheda 37). Non vi sono indizi, comunque, di una significativa utilizzazione del Conventi soppr. J. VI. 9 da parte del Niccoli, che tramite questo volume avrebbe potuto correggere numerose mende e lacune degli altri due esemplari di Tertulliano di cui disponeva.

Anche questo volume, dopo la morte di Niccolò Niccoli, entrò in San Marco, come rammenta la nota di possesso del convento, che figura sul verso dell'antica guardia membranacea (Iste liber est Conventus Sancti Marci de Florentia Ordinis Predicatorum. Ex hereditate docti viri Nicolai de Nicolis Fiorentini).

Bibliografìa

Kroymann 1898; Sabbadini 1905, p. 115; Sabbadini 1914, p. 256; Moreschini 1970; Ullman-Stadter 1972, pp. 71, 138, n° 127, 282; Rizzo 1973, p. 133, n. 1; Labardi 1981, pp. 383-384, n. 8, 391-392, n. 18.

Si espongono le cc. 142v-143r: a c. 142v conclusione del trattato Ad Scapulam e inizio del De corona.

Alessandro Daneloni

43. Tertullian, Works.  Discovered by Tommaso Parentucelli and sent by him to Niccoli.

15th century (1431-1433?); paper; 300x210mm; foliation: II, 202, I' (f. II is parchment). Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conventi soppr. J. VI. 9 (formerly San Marco 527).

Copied in a transalpine cursive by a single hand (even if in two distinguishable parts: the first being ff.1-136, the second ff. 137-202; an index is prefixed to each, ff. 1r and 137r), this manuscript contains, in a different order, all the works contained in Conventi soppr. J.VI.10 (see section 37); it has in addition the Apologeticum (ff. 114v-134v).  It belongs to a branch of the manuscript tradition different from the Pforzheim codex and the copy of Niccolò Niccoli (see sections 37-38).  Present in the margins in the same hand are various annotations, nearly always notabilia, some of which draw attention to passages of Tertullian which contain erroneous or unorthodox doctrine, or cautions (Attende bene hic et caute, Cave; Error; Nota cautissime cuncta; Cavendum; Error notavi etc).  In one annotation on f. 28v is emphasised the adherence of Tertullian to the heresy of Montanus: hic manifeste apparet quod in errorem Montani lapsus est, ut de eo dicit Ieronimus (note against Adv. Prax. 5).  Such 'advertisments' must have corrected the text of Tertullian already in the exemplar and were faithfully copied into Conventi soppr. J.VI.9.  Apart from these particular annotations there are numerous notabilia of limited interest written in a humanist cursive hand of the second half of the 15th century.

It was discovered by (and probably copied for) Tommaso Parentucelli (for whom see section 48), presumably in France, between 1431 and 1433.  The discovery is mentioned by Aurispa in a celebrated letter of the 6th August 1433 to Iacopino Tebalducci, written from Basle.  He announced it to Tebalducci, asking him to inform Niccoli, that Munsignor de Sancta Cruce [Niccolò Albergati] et maistro Thomase [Parentucelli] serrano qui infra octo iorne, e maestro Thomase porta seco tucte le opere de Tertulliano (Sabbadini 1931, pp. 81-83); Albergati and Parentucelli arrived at Basle from France (Manfredi 1995, pp. 1322-1324).  The codex was very swiftly carried into Italy, where Niccoli immediately took possession of it, in whose hands it is found in 1434.  This manuscript is perhaps a copy of the volumina antiqua with which Traversari hoped to amend the much corrupted copy of Cardinal Giordano Orsini (cf. section 37).  But there are no indications of meaningful use of the Conventi soppr. J.VI.9 on the part of Niccoli, who using it could have corrected numerous errors and lacunae of the other two copies of Tertullian at his disposal.

This volume also, after the death of Niccolò Niccoli, came to San Marco, as indicated by the owners' inscription of the convent, which appears on the verso of the ancient parchment guard-leaf (Iste liber est Conventus Sancti Marci de Florentia Ordinis Predicatorum. Ex hereditate docti viri Nicolai de Nicolis Fiorentini).

Bibliography

Kroymann 1898; Sabbadini 1905, p. 115; Sabbadini 1914, p. 256; Moreschini 1970; Ullman-Stadter 1972, pp. 71, 138, n° 127, 282; Rizzo 1973, p. 133, n. 1; Labardi 1981, pp. 383-384, n. 8, 391-392, n. 18.

The pages displayed are ff. 142v-143r: on f. 142v is the conclusion of the treatise Ad Scapulam and beginning of De Corona.

 

 

 

 

The bibliographical references expanded:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Paul MATTEI, Tertullien : Le Mariage Unique, Sources Chrétiennes 343 (1988), p102ff. French critical edition, introduction, translation. Checked.

2. Charles MUNIER, Tertullien : A son épouse, Sources Chrétiennes 273 (1980), p64ff. French critical edition, introduction, translation. Checked.

3. René BRAUN, Tertullien : Contre Marcion, Sources Chrétiennes 365 (1990), p20ff. French critical edition, introduction, translation. Checked.

4. Dom E. DEKKERS, CCSL I, p.vii. Checked

5. Charles MUNIER, Tertullien : La Penitence, Sources Chrétiennes 316 (1984), p.106ff. French critical edition, introduction, translation. Checked.

6. Emil KROYMANN, Die Tertullien-Ueberlieferung in Italien, Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, 138 (1897 or 1898) 3rd booklet (34 pages). also in English translation. p.12 Checked

7. Pierre PETITMENGIN, Tertullien entre la fin du XIIe et le début du XVIe siècle, in M. CORTESI (ed), Padri Greci e Latini a confronto: Atti del Convegno di studi della Società Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino.  Firenze: SISMEL (2004).  pp. 63-88.  Checked.  

8. Emil KROYMANN, Kritische Vorarbeiten für den III. und IV. Band der neuen Tertullian-Ausgabe, Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, 143 (1901), Band 6 (39 pages) also in English translation.

9. B. L. ULLMAN, Ph. A. STADTER, The public library of Renaissance Florence, Padova (1972), p.138. Not checked. (Details Petitmengin n.58)  San Marco catalogue entry.

10. Umanesimo e Padri della Chiesa. Manoscritti e incunaboli di testi patristici da Francesco Petrarca al primo Cinquecento, Firenze: Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, a cura di S. Gentile, [Milano] (1997). Checked.  Details Petitmengin 2004 n.43. Contains details of the main Florence Mss. pp.188-191=BML Laur.26,13; pp.223-225= BNC Conv. Soppr. J.VI.10 & 11; pp.236-7=BNC Conv. Soppr. J.VI.9.

This page has been accessed by ****** people since 11th December 1999.


Return to the Tertullian Project / About these pages