Some Critical Notes on Novatian's De Bono Pudicitiae and the Anonymous Ad Novatianum

SOME CRITICAL NOTES ON NOVATIAN'S DE BONO PUDICITIAE AND THE ANONYMOUS AD NOVATIANUM

G. F. DIERCKS

While preparing a new critical edition of the works of Novatian for the Corpus Christianorum, I was asked by the editor-in-chief, Father Abbot Dom E. Dekkers O.S.B., to add, as a sort of appendix, to the writings of the Roman clergyman the vehement invective by the man whose identity is still unknown at the moment.2 Apart from internal reasons for this

1 For a short survey of the history round the question of Novatian's authorship of the De Bono Pudicitiae see B. Melin, Studia in Corpus Cyprianeum (Upsaliae 1946) p. 6-9. His own conclusion on p.208/9. 2 A. Harnack, Ueber eine bisher nicht erkannte Schrift des Papstes Sixtus II. vom Jahre 257/8, TU 13 (Leipzig 1895)p. 1-70, was the first to dedicate a detailed study to this question. He came to the conclusion that Pope Sixtus II was the author of the pamfiet. E. W. Benson, Cyprian. His life, his times, his work. Appendix G. On the namelessEpistle Ad Novatianumand the attribution of it to Xystus (p. 557-564),though full of appreciation of Harnack's argumentation, still prefers a less definite conclusion: "it is the work of a responsible Bishop in or about Rome." He rejects the possibility that it should be Cornelius, as proposed already by Erasmus in his edition of 1520. Hamack's answer was not long in coming: Zur Schrift Pseudocyprians (Sixtus' II.) Ad Novatianum, TU 20 (Leipzig 1900) p. l l6-126 . After examining Benson's argu- ments one by one, he firmly abides by his original position. In the same year A. Rom- bold, Ueber den Verfasser der Schrift Ad Novatianum, Theol.Quartalschr. 82 (1900) 546-601, breaks a lance for Cyprian as the author, as suggested by the manuscripts and the editio princeps, and first defended by Pamelius. Nevertheless, in 1904, J. Grabisch, Diepseudo-cypr. Schrift Ad Novatianum. Ein Beitrag zur GeschichtePapstes Cornelius, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen, herausgegeben von Dr. Max Sdralek (Breslau 1904) p. 259-282, after an excellent exposition of the history of the question up to his times, returns to Erasmus' thesis: Cornelius was the author. Harnack, Chronologie II 1, p. 387-390 (short survey of the question), especially p.355/6, had no good word for him. A. d'Ales, Novatien. 1-?tudesur la thgologie Romaine au milieu du IIle siècle (Paris 1925), attributes both Ad Novatianum and the likewise anonymous Aduersus Iudaeos to Sixtus II (note additionnelle, p.25-30). A number of scholars, partly on account of the Bible quotations, adhere to the opinion first launched by Tillemont, that the work was written by some African Bishop who shared Cyprian's views. So W. Hartel, Cypriani Opera III (Vindobonae 1891)p. LX/LXI ; J. Quasten, Patrology II (Utrecht-Antwerp 1953) p. 367. This view is also shared by H. Koch in his highly important paper Zur pseudo-cypr. Schrift Ad Novatianum, in: Cyprianische Unter- 122 combination, there is also an external motive, viz., the close relationship of the tradition in which the two opuscula, De Bono Pudicitiae and Ad Novatianum, have been written, as may be shown by the following syn- opsis :

The editio princeps appeared in 1477 at Deventer (Holland) apud Rich. Paffroet and was reprinted, with some minor corrections, by Erasmus 6 (Bale 1520).6 A comparison of the text of these manuscripts and editions leads to the following stemma : suchungen (Bonn 1926) p. 358-420, who for the rest, however, confines himself to this very cautious statement: "die, auch von Benson nebenbei ausgesprochene, M6glich- keit, dasz wir eine theologische Studie oder gar eine Stilubung vor uns haben, scheint mir doch am meisten fur sich zu haben" (p. 419)and: "es ist eine Auseinandersetzung mit der novatianischen Lehre und Uebung, die nicht notwendig von einem Bischof verfaszt worden sein musz" (p.420). 3 Hartel, o. c., p. XLVI and LX. 4 F. von Soden, Die Cyprianische Briefsammlung,TU NF X 3 (Leipzig 1904). 5 M. Bevenot, The Tradition of Manuscripts. A Study in the Transmission of St. Cyprian's Treatises (Oxford 1961). " The reprints of Erasmus' edition and the new editions of Manutius (Rome 1563) and Morel (Paris 1564) brought some slight corrections, not based however on any manuscript. Pamelius (Antwerp 1568)mentions a codex S.Pantaleonis apud Coloniam, a fragmentum quoddam Lud. Carrionis, quo quaedam Cypriani opuscula continentur, a number of uariae lectiones listed by Henr. Gravius ex cod. Carthusiae Coloniensisin the margin of his edition of 1549 at Cologne, and castigationes Ioann. Costerii ad marginem adscriptae codicis Cauchii. It is impossible to identify these lost codices. All I can say is that the cod. S. Pantaleonis is closely akin to BT, if not identical with B. Hartel was the first to consult the codd. K and Z.