Corpus of Latin Ecclesiastical Writers, Vol. XIX: Works of Lactantius, Part I

understood that the codex was less worthy than those abundant praises with which he had adorned it in his Prolegomena, preferred to be too sparing rather than too lavish. Certain editors of Lactantius, when they placed faith in what either Thomasius or Isaeus had proposed as being excerpted from the Bologna codex, were sometimes held by the authority of the codex even in readings falsely transmitted by them, so that they themselves could not freely and correctly judge those passages and propagated errors up to our own memory¹. Hence it was all the more necessary...

¹ Thomasius sometimes transmits what is clearly false regarding the Bologna codex, perhaps because he confused the readings of this one with those of a certain more recent Bologna codex, which he mentions in the Preface fol. A 5b, but brings forward only a few readings in his notes. In the testimonies of Isaeus, however, it must be criticized that it cannot be discerned whether he calls this one alone by the letter B, by which he marks the ancient Bologna codex on p. X, or also the more recent Bologna codex, which he commemorates in the same place immediately after the ancient one. It is added that Isaeus sometimes even repeats what Thomasius erroneously transmits as being from the ancient Bologna codex. An even greater confusion is discovered among the Parisians Le Brun and Lenglet, who not only described what Thomasius had falsely reported regarding the ancient Bologna codex, but also, led by that letter B from Isaeus, often transferred perverse things into their annotations, which they themselves peddled as the true memory of the ancient codex. However, what the first hand wrote, or the second or third, which is of the greatest importance, all those editors are accustomed to neglect entirely. But we said before (p. XIV) regarding those four lacunae of codex B: that the codex is lacking in these places, as Ed. a S. Xaverio testifies in vol. IV p. 1, n. a; p. 75, n. c; p. 187, n. b; IX p. 296, n. b, it appears that it had already been mutilated by the year 1750, at which time the collation was made. I believe Thomasius did not see the first two leaves because he brings forward no reading from the first two leaves; nor does Isaeus bring any more. For the fact that the Parisians at p. 2, 18 use 'Bonon.' as a witness to a certain reading, it is possible that it is the other Bologna codex. On the other hand, regarding the part which is now missing, I 5, 23—6, 15, Thomasius inserts a certain reading in note 3, saying, 'the other of the codices of Saint Savior has', but that is almost a certain indication that he is indicating the more recent codex at this place: for he would have named the ancient one without ambiguity. Not even Isaeus has anything from this part. Let us now look at that entire gathering which is missing. At the passage on p. 47, 23 of our edition, Thomasius n. 12 has: 'Into the heaven which is called' is read thus in the ancient codex, the other codex of Saint Savior has 'into the heaven which we now call', which Isaeus repeats in his custom on p. XXVIII. But it is clearly incredible that Thomasius took that reading even from the intact codex. For not only does he propose no other reading from such a large part of book I which was written in that gathering, but also the numbers of the quaternions are by a hand that is not the first.