The compilation 'notitia dignitatum' (Cnd)
or
The compilation of lists and 89 pictures which begins with the item
notitia dignitatum omnium tam civilium quam militarium in partibus orientis
and ends with the item
ceteri praesides ad similitudinem praesidis dalmatiae officium habent

Cnd MAIN PAGE
Archetype, codex Spirensis, collectio Spirensis
Archetype

The Compilation 'notitia dignitatum' (Cnd) is the compilation of 89 pictures and lists, beginning with the list item notitia dignitatum omnium tam civilium quam militarium in partibus orientis and ending with the list item ceteri praesides ad similitudinem praesidis dalmatiae officium habent, that is derived and constructed from all those known and extant versions of it which are mutually-independent and which exist, therefore, as copies, either direct or indirect, of the same absent antecedent exemplar which is identified as their archetype (α). The Cnd, constructed from the consensus and concurrence of these mutually-independent versions, can exist as the most accurate copy of that absent archetype.

The α was contained in a book in the form of a codex . This codex apparently no longer exists, and no fragment of it has yet been certainly identified.

The α is known to have been copied several times independently, both directly and indirectly, between 1427 and 1551. At least nine of these independent copies, of part or all of α, are attested by the following mutually-independent versions of the Cnd, namely:

C Cambridge, FitzWilliam Museum, ms. 86-1972, (fol.1r-5v), {formerly Cheltenham, Phillipps 16397}

and facsimile copies of another six pages from the same manuscript book in

N Norwich,
Castle Museum of Art, Archaeology and Natural History, Bulwer Collection, drawings 1223.B.21; 1223.B.22; 1223.B.23 in the Colman Collection (accession no. 235 of 1951)
O Oxford, Bodleian library, western ms. 19854 - Canonici ms. misc. lat. 378, (fol.88v-170r).
P Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin ms. 9661, (fol.72r-146v).
F Frankfurt: fragments of a manuscript book dismembered in that town by one or more bookbinders, about 1630, including:

Ff Frankfurt am Main, Stadt und-Universitätsbibliothek, ms. lat. qu.76, (fol.1r-1v).

Fl Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, ms. BPL 2869, (fol.1r-v, 2r-v).
T Trento, Biblioteca comunale, ms. W 3103, (fol.70v-108v),

(β) Basel, Froben manuscript, which apparently no longer exists, and was the exemplar of:

L London, Victoria and Albert Museum, National Art Library, MSL/1957/2668 (fol.15v-102r),

A Andreas Alciatus, Dignitatum tam civilium quam militarium Imperii Occidentalis Index, (Basel, 1546), (col.471-p.487),

B imprint, by Hieronymus Froben, Notitia utraque cum Orientis tum Occidentis ultra Arcadii Honoriique Caesarum tempora, (Basel, 1552), (fol.[14]v-[96]v),
(This imprint is generally referred to as the edition of Gelenius or Sigmund Gelensky, but he cannot be shown to have done more than write the dedicatory letter).
V Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, ms. Barberini lat. 157, (fol.91r-172v).
M München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, cod. lat. monac. 10291: codex 1 = fol.1-170, (fol.88r-169v)
W München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, cod. lat. monac. 10291: codex 2 = fol.171-222, (fol.178v-222v)

Extracts from other independent copies of α exist in the notes, correspondence and commentaries of 16thC writers.

The designations used above to denote versions of the Cnd are also used to denote the codex, fragment or facsimile where the former and latter are coextensive. Where the version is not coextensive with the codex in which it is contained, the codex is identified by the symbol denoting the version, enclosed in brackets, as for example, {O}, denoting the codex containing the version O.

Codex Spirensis

The codex {O} contains a note stating that the contents preceding that note were copied in 1436 from a codex in a library at Speyer. Another codex, in which two codices, {M} and {W}, have been bound together within the same cover, containing the impressed date 1551, is prefaced by a note stating that the first codex, {M}, had been sent as a present from the dean and chapter of the Speyer cathedral, and that the second codex, {W}, comprised an accurate copy of the pictures contained in a codex which is identified, implicitly in the prefatory note to {M}, and explicitly in the minutes of the meetings of the cathedral chapter at Speyer, as having existed in its library. And the codex {t}, which is a copy of {T}, is prefaced by a note stating that its contents were copied in 1529 from a codex in the library of the cathedral chapter at Speyer. The other known and extant mutually-independent versions of the Cnd cannot be shown to have been copied from a codex other than the one which was copied, directly or indirectly, by the versions claiming to have been copied from a codex at Speyer. It can be concluded, therefore, that the codex which contained α existed in the library of the cathedral chapter at Speyer and, for that reason, this codex is generally referred to as the codex Spirensis (Σ).

But Σ must be distinguished from one or more copies of it which existed together with it in the same library. For example, the codex {M} coexisted in the chapter library, from at least January 1548, with the exemplar from which the pictures in {W} were indirectly derived after the middle of June 1550. Similarly, the codex {t}, which identified its exemplar as a codex in the chapter library, was copied from a codex which existed there in March-April 1529 and which cannot have been the exemplar of most of the remaining independent copies of the codex Σ. The existence of such copies of the codex Σ in the library of the cathedral chapter makes it difficult to determine the precise relationship between the versions of the Cnd and their α and this difficulty is increased by the fact that there is evidence that the contents of Σ were revised or changed between 1427 and 1551, possibly in an attempt to repair progressive physical deterioration of that codex.

Collectio Spirensis

The number and sequence of the contents of most of the codices containing a copy of α indicate that the contents of Σ comprised a miscellany derived from perhaps thirteen originally separate graphic entities corresponding to the following division:

[01] [Cosmographia (or) Cosmographia aethici] (1)
[a][(from Iulius Honorius)]

The archetype of this entity was not contained in Σ and probably began: In nomine dei summi. Incipit cosmographia feliciter [...]. Lectionum pervigili cura comperimus senatum populumque romanum totius mundi dominos [...] and ended: [...] Oceanus meridianus habet innumerabiles gentes quae nec colligi numero nec existimari aut conprehendi prae interiacentibus heremis possunt.
But in Σ, this entity probably began: Incipit situs et descriptio orbis terrarum. Lectionum pervigili cura comperimus senatum populumque romanum totius mundi dominos [...] and apparently ended: [...] Oceanus meridianus habet innumerabiles gentes quae nec colligi numero nec existimari numero aut comprehendi prae interiacentibus heremis possunt.

[b][ (from Orosius, Historiae. I.2]

The archetype of this entity was not contained in Σ and in both the archetype and in Σ, this entity probably began: Hanc quadripertitam totius terrae continentiam hi qui dimensi sunt [...] in Σ it apparently ended: [...] Tenet in longo milia passuum numero CLX, in lato milia XXVI. But in the archetype there were apparently two additional paragraphs, that probably ended: [...] ex aeterna urbe Roma initium sumens, quae caput est orbis et domina senatus. followed by a colophon: Explicit feliciter descriptio totius orbis tripertiti.

[02] [Itinerarium antonini (or) Itinerarium antoni ] (2)
[a][Itinerarium provinciarum]

The archetype of this entity was not contained in Σ and probably began: Incipit itinerarium provinciarum antoni augusti. Provinciae africae. A tingi mauretania id est ubi bacuates et macenites barbari morantur per maritima loca cartaginem usque. Ab exploratione quod mercurios dicitur tingi usque m.p. CLXXIIII. and apparently ended: [...] Isca dumnuniorum mp. XV.
But in Σ, this entity probably began: rationem quod mercurius dicitur tingi usque milia plus minus CLXXIIII.[...] and apparently ended: [...] Isca dumnuniorum mpm XV.

[b][Itinerarium maritimum]

The archetype of this entity was not contained in Σ and probably began: Item imperatoris antonini augusti itinerarium maritimum ut navigans qua litora tenens nosse debeat aut qua ambire incipiens a gadibus uel extrema africa perdocet feliciter. Incipit quae loca tangere debeas cum navigare ceperis [...] and apparently ended: [...] supra scriptae insulae in mari vagari solitae erant has apollo conligavit et stabiles fecit. Explicit.
But in Σ, this entity probably began: Itinerarium maritimum quae loca tangere debeas cum navigare ceperis [...] and apparently ended: and apparently ended: [...] supra scriptae insulae in mari vacare solitae erant has appollo colligavit et stabiles fecit

[03] [Septem montes urbis romae] and [De aquarum ductibus romam rigantibus] (3)
[a][Septem montes urbis romae]

The archetype of this entity was not contained in Σ and, in both the archetype and in Σ, the complete text of this entity was probably: Septem montes urbis romae. Tarpeius. Esquilinus. Palatinus. Caelius. Aventinus. Quirinalis. Viminalis.

[b][De aquarum ductibus romam rigantibus]

The archetype of this entity was not contained in Σ and probably began: Nunc aquarum nomina quae usibus aeternae urbis formarum constructionibus advectae sunt indicemus. Claudia inventa et adducta est a claudio caesare. [...] and apparently ended, in both Σ and in the archetype: [...] Nymphae laurentes nymphae genus amnibus unde est.
But in Σ, this entity probably began: Nunc nomina quarumcunque usibus aeternae urbis formarum confluctionibus avectae sunt indicemus. Claudia inventa et adducta est a claudio caesare. [...].

[04] Dicuil, Liber de mensura orbis terrae (4)

The archetype of this entity was not contained in Σ and, in both the archetype and in Σ, this entity probably began: Incipit prologus libri de mensura orbis terrae. Post congregatam epistolam de questionibus decim artis grammatice cogitavi ut liber de mensura provintiarum orbis terrae sequeretur [...] and apparently ended: [...] nocte bobus requies largitur fine laboris.

[05] [Notitia in provinciis galliarum vel gallicanis (or) Annuntiationes provinciarum] (5)

The archetype of this entity was not contained in Σ and probably began: In provinciis gallicanis decem quae civitates sint. Provincia lugdunensis prima civitates n. IIII. Metropolis civitas lugdunensium [...]. .
But in Σ, this entity probably began: In dei nomine incipiunt annuntiationes provinciarum urbium grecarum et pinnarum vel gallicanarum cum privilegiis suis. Civitas centroñ tarrentasia. [...] and apparently ended, in both the archetype and in Σ: [...] In provinciis num. XVII civitates numero CXV.
The beginning of the entity in Σ corresponds to the beginning of section 10 in the absent archetype which probably began: In provincia alpium graiarum et poeninarum civitates n. II. civitas centronium darantasia. [...] Σ began at this point and the sequence of the sections in Σ corresponds to sections 10-11, 1-9, 12-17 in the archetype of this entity.

[06] [Nomina provinciarum (or) Laterculus Polemii Silvii] (6)

The archetype of this entity was not contained in Σ and probably began: Nomina provinciarum. In italia sedecim. Campania in qua est capua. [...] and apparently ended [...] Valentia. Summa CXII
In Σ this entity probably began: De provinciis. Provinciae italiae sunt XVII. Prima campania in qua est capua.[...] and apparently ended: [...] Quinta valentia. Sexta orcades.

[07] [De montibus portis et viis romae] (7)

The archetype of this entity was not contained in Σ and copies of the archetype contain various editions of it.
In Σ this entity probably began: De montibus romae. Aventinus mons intra urbem dictus quod rex albanorum aventinus ibi sit sepultus et bello extinctus. [...] and apparently ended: [...] Salaria via romae est appellata quia per eam sabini[ni] sal mari deferebant.

[08] [De rebus bellicis] (8)

The archetype of this entity was contained in Σ and probably began: De rebus bellicis praefatio. Caelesti semper instinctu felicis rei publicae vestrae commoditas sacratissimi principes [...] and apparently ended: [...] ubi iustitia profitente discernuntur merita singulorum. . It contained 12 pictures.

[09]

[Disputatio hadriani augusti et epicteti philosophi (or) Altercatio hadriani augusti et epicteti
philosophi] (9)

The archetype of this entity was not contained in Σ and copies of the archetype contain various editions of it which, if entitled, all use the term disputatio, not altercatio.
In Σ this entity began with a picture, probably with the caption Disputatio hadriani augusti et epicteti philosophi. The following text probably began: Altercatio hadriani augusti et epicteti philosophi. Had. D: Quid erit nobis si cinctum solvas [...] and apparently ended: [...] Epic. D: Qui tanquam pisces adescantur.

[10]

[Regiones urbis romae (or) De regionibus] (10)

The archetype of this entity was not contained in Σ and probably began: Regio I porta capena continet aedem honoris et virtutis [...] and apparently ended: [...] Castra equitum singulariorum peregrinorum ravennatium lecticariorum silicariorum Misenatium tabellariorum victimariorum. Mensae oleariae per totam urbem n.Π.CCC
But in Σ, this entity began with a picture, probably with the caption: Urbs quae aliquando desolata nunc clariosior (B1552 (12) = gloriosior, M10291 (13) = praeclarior) piissimo imperio restaurata. The following text in Σ probably began as it did in the archetype and apparently ended: [...] Castra equitum singulariorum peregrinorum. (11)

[11]

[Regiones urbis constantinopolitanae or De regionibus] (14)

The archetype of this entity was not contained in Σ and probably began: Praefatio. Saepe litteris dediti, quos pro ingenii facultate latentium rerum cura sollicitat [...] and apparently ended in both Σ and in the archetype: [...] latitudo autem pedum sex milia centum quinquaginta.
In Σ, this entity apparently began: Regio prima continet domum placidiae augustae. [...] omitting the entire preface, as well as the introduction to - and first three items in the list of - the regio prima. This suggests the loss, from Σ before 1427, of the opening folio, of which the first page probably contained a picture and the second the opening text.

[12] [De gradibus (or) De gradibus cognationum] (15)

The archetype of this entity was not contained in Σ and copies of the archetype contain various editions of it.

In Σ this entity probably began: De gradibus. Gradus cognationum appellantur ab eo quod personae cognatorum aliae proximiore aliae longiore gradu sunt et ob id quasi gradatim altera alteram antecedit. [...] and apparently ended: [...] Item sobrini sobrinae, id est qui quaeve ex duobus consobrinis progenerantur.
The text was followed by a page that contained a stemmatic diagram or consisting of 72 squares each inscribed with one of the terms used to describe the male and female descendants, relatives and ancestors within a family over several generations. In the lower half of the page there existed two framed pictures, one to the left and one to the right of the central column of the diagram. Each of these two pictures contained the drawing of a goat.

[13] [Compilation Notitia .... habent (or) Notitia dignitatum] (16)

The archetype of this entity was contained in Σ and probably began: Notitia dignitatum omnium tam civilium quam militarium in partibus orientis. [...] and apparently ended: [...] Ceteri praesides ad similitudinem praesidis dalmatiae officium habent. It contained 89 pictures and occupied approximately half the total number of pages in the codex Σ.

In the codex {O}, two entities were added following the end of its copy of the miscellany [1-13]: namely, (a) Demensuratio provinciarum que non erat in precedenti codice sed de antiquissimo libro excerpta [...] (17) and (b) [...] Ex gregorio Nazianzeno theologo de VII mundi spectaculis Kyriaci Anconitani brevissima in Latinum expositio ad R.P.d.p. donatum [...] (18) which, as the note to (a) states, did not occur in Σ.

It is not known when or where the miscellany comprising the contents of Σ was compiled but, since copies of the miscellany exist only in copies of Σ, it is probable that this codex was also the first to contain it and, for this reason, the miscellany is sometimes referred to as the collectio Spirensis.

The miscellany comprising the contents of Σ was created either when the contents of separate codices were copied into one codex, or when formerly separate codices were bound together within one cover, and the evidence suggests that there were two such separate codices whose contents corresponded to Σ(1-7) and Σ(8-13), and that the first of these codices previously combined the contents of two formerly separate codices whose contents corresponded to Σ(1-4) and Σ(5-7).

The division of the contents of Σ into into thirteen graphic entities is subjective and other divisions have been proposed.

It should be stated that the purpose of any divison of the constituent parts into which any graphic entity can be divided should be to facilitate reference to those parts in any consideration their content, rather than to prejudge the outcome of such a consideration. It is not the intention, in dividing the contents of Σ into thirteen entities in this description, to introduce any such prejudgement.

At the beginning of the 19th century, Morelli (19) divided the miscellany into ten parts, comprising our entities [1, 2-3, 4, 5-6, 7, 8, 9, 10-11, 12, 13] and this division into ten opuscula was accepted by Parthey and Pinder (20) who added, however, that this series opusculorum, quae in codice Spirensi continebatur, in duas dividitur partes of which pars I comprised their five opuscula represented by our entities [1-7] and pars II their five opuscula corresponding to our [8-13]. This division was based on the fact that all of the entities [8-13] in the book Σ were accompanied by pictures, whereas entities [1-7] were not. These two conclusions - about the division of the miscellany into ten opuscula and two partes - were accepted by Pertz (21) and by Grünenwald. (22)

Whereas these writers had proposed a division into ten parts, Böcking identified eleven Stücke corresponding to our entities [1, 2, 3, 4, 5-6, 7, 8, 9, 10-11, 12, 13] (23) and the same division was adopted by Jordan (24) . Jullian also identified eleven textes but disagreed with Böcking concerning their identification, describing the eleven textes as those represented by our entities [1, 2-3, 4, 5-6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. (25)

Next, the miscellany was divided into twelve parts, first by Riese (26) who saw twelve opera in our entities [1, 2-3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. The same number, but a different division was proposed by Omont (27) , who described the twelve divers opuscules as [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10-11, 12, 13] and by Bieler, (28) who defined the texts as being [1, 2, 3, 4, 5-6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13].

Another group identified thirteen parts, which is the division adopted here: namely, [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. This was done by Seeck, (29) who called these entities libelli and partes. This division was subsequently adopted by Mommsen, (30) Sabbadini, (31) Neher, (32) Girard, (33) Valentini and Zucchetti, (34) Nordh, (35) and Thompson. (36)

But Schnabel (37) identified fifteen "Schriften" corresponding to our entities [1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. This division of the miscellany was subsequently adopted by Lehmann (38) and by Gottardi. (39) Schnabel had also initially accepted the conclusion, reached by Parthey and Pinder, that the entities comprising the miscellany could be grouped into two larger parts, comprehending the unillustrated entities [1-7] and the illustrated entities [8-12]. But he extended this division by arguing that the earliest codex known to us to have contained the miscellany [1-13] was Σ and that this comprised drei Teilen corresponding to our entitiess [1-7], [8], [9-11, 13], with [12] added later. (40)

In other words, the miscellany has been seen to be comprised of ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen or fifteen partes, libelli, opera, opuscula, texts, Schriften and Stücke and, within these numbers, the proposed entities are not always the same.

The disagreements about the division of the miscellany arise because of different identifications of the original compositions or compilations from which the entities in the miscellany were derived.

Part of the problem exists in defining what constitutes an original composition and then in distinguishing a composition (in which its author intentionally combined previously separate sources into a new form for the first time), from a miscellany (in which previously separate entities were bound together within a single book comprising, for example, a compilation in which the original composition by one author was bound together with, and was modelled upon or designed to complement, an earlier original composition, or a copy of it, by another author).

The identification of the original compositions or compilations from which the contents of the miscellany in the book Σ were derived is complicated by the fact that almost all those contents did not indicate exactly, or at all, the title of their originals, nor their authors or compilers, or the places and dates of their composition or compilation. Only one of the entities, Σ(4), was derived from an archetype that contained the the name of the author of the original composition, together with its date and apparent title.

Some of the problems inherent in the attempt to identify the original compositions or compilations from which the contents of the miscellany in Σ were derived exist also in the identification of entity Σ(13), the α of the Cnd, as a distinct and single entity within that miscellany.

Notes:--
(01)

Pertz, K.A.F., De Cosmographia Ethici libri tres. Scripsit Karolus Augustus Fridericus Pertz, (...). (Berolini, sumptibus Friderici Nicolai, MDCCCLIII);
Riese, A., Geographi Latini Minores (collegit, recensuit, prolegomenis instruxit Alexander Riese) (Heilbronn, 1878) pp.71- 103.

(02)

Parthey, G. & Pinder, M., Itinerarium Antonini Augusti et Hierosolymitanum ex libris manu scriptis ediderunt G. Parthey et M. Pinder. (Berlin, Friederich Nicolaus, 1848);
Cuntz, O., Itineraria Romana. Volumen prius: Itineraria Antonini Augusti et Burdigalense. (Stuttgart, Teubner, 1929) pp. 1-85.

(03)

Mommsen, T., Chronica Minora Saec. IV. V. VI. VII. Volumen 1 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, inde ab anno Christi quingentesimo usque ad annum millesimum et quingentesimum, edidit societas aperiendis fontibus rerum germanicarum medii aevi. Auctorum antiquissimorum tomus IX. Chronicorum minorum saec. IV. V. VI. VII vol.1). (Berlin, Weidmann, 1892). (reprint 1961). pp. 545-546;
Manitius, M., Aus Dresdener Handschriften: RhM nf.57 1902 pp. 397 (transcript from the destroyed manuscript Dresden Dc 182);
Valentini, R, & Zucchetti, G., Codice Topografico della Città di Roma [...] con una premessa di Pietro Fedele, Volume primo (Fonti per la Storia d'Italia pubblicate dal R. Istituto Storico Italiano per il medio aevo: Scrittori - secoli I-VI ) (Roma, 1940) pp. 294-296.

(04)

Parthey, G., Dicuili liber de mensura orbis terrae a Gustavo Parthey recognitus. (Berolini, in aedibus Friderici Nicolai (A. Effert & L. Lindtner), 1870); Tierney, J.J. & Bieler, L., Dicuili Liber de mensura orbis terrae (Scriptores Latini Hiberniae, Vol. VI) (Dublin, Institute for Advanced Studies, 1967) pp. 44-103.

(05)

Seeck, O., Notitia Dignitatum accedunt Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae et Latercula prouinciarum (Berlin, 1876) (reimpression Frankfurt a.M., Minerva, 1962) pp. 261-274: Notitia Galliarum;
Riese (1878) pp. 141-144;
Mommsen (1892) pp. 584-612.

(06)

Seeck (1876) pp. 254-260: Laterculus Polemii Siluii;
Riese (1878) pp. 130-132;
Mommsen (1892) pp. 535-542.

(07)

Mommsen (1892) pp. x-xi,
Valentini & Zucchetti (1940) pp. 296-301.

(08)

Schneider, R., Anonymi de rebus bellicis liber (Text und Erläuterungen (...) mit 10 in den Text gedruckten Abbildungen) (Berlin, Weidmann,1908) pp. 1-24;
Reinach, S., Un homme d'idées au bas-empire: RA Ser.5 16 1922 pp. 205-265 (text on pp. 255-265);
Thompson, E.A., A Roman reformer and inventor, being a new text of the treatise 'de rebus bellicis' with a translation and introduction by E.A. Thompson and a latin index by Barbara Flower. (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1952);
Condorelli, S., Riforme e tecnica nel De rebus bellicis (testo con comm. e vers.) (Messina, Sortino, 1971)
Ireland, R.I., De rebus bellicis: Part 2: Anonymi auctoris libellus De rebus bellicis. A treatise by an unknown author on military matters edited, translated and presented with commentaries on the text, language and style by Robert Ireland. (B.A.R. International Series 63). (Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, 1979) pp. 3-19;
Ireland, R.I., Anonymi auctoris De rebus bellicis, rec. I. R. Ireland. (Bibl. script. Graec. et Roman. Teubneriana) (Leipzig, BSB Teubner, 1984).

(09)

Suchier, W., L'Enfant sage : das Gespräch des Kaisers Hadrian mit dem klugen Kinde Epitus (die erhaltenen Versionen hrsg. und nach Quellen und Textgeschichte untersucht, von W. Suchier) (Dresden, Gesellschaft für romanische Literatur 24, 1910);
Daly, L.W. & Suchier, W., Altercatio Hadriani Augusti et Epicteti philosophi. (ISLL 24 1-2). (University of Illinois Press, 1939). Part 1: Daly, L.W., The Altercatio Hadriani Augusti et Epicteti philosophi and the question and answer dialogue. (pp.11-94), Part 2: Suchier, W., Die Altercatio Hadriani Augusti et Epicteti philosophi, nebst einigen verwandten Texten herausgegeben. (pp.97-166).
Suchier, W., Das mittellateinische Gespräch Adrian und Epictitus nebst verwandten Texten (Joca Monachorum) herausgegeben und untersucht von Walter Suchier. (Tübingen, Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1955).

(10)

Preller, L., Die Regionen der Stadt Rom. Nach den besten Handschriften berichtigt und mit einleitenden Abhandlungen und einem Commentare begleitet. (Jena, 1846);
Urlichs, C.L., Codex urbis Romae topographicus (Wirceburgi, ex aedibus Stahelianis, 1871);
Jordan, H., Topographie der Stadt Rom im Altertum. (Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1871-1907);
Jordan, H., Forma urbis Romae regionum XIIII. (Berlin 1874);
Richter, O., Topographie der Stadt Rom. (Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft III/3/2) (2nd ed.) (München, 1901);
Nordh, A., Prolegomena till den romenska Regionskatalogen. (Göteborg, 1936); Valentini & Zucchetti (1940);
Nordh, A., Libellus de regionibus urbis Romae. (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom, 8°, III. Akta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae, Series in 8°, III) (Lund, Gleerup, 1949);
Unterkircher, F., Notitiae regionum urbis Romae et urbis Constantinopolitanae. Glossarium latino-theotiscum. Codex Vindobonensis, 162 (Umbrae codicum occidentalium, 2) (Amsterdam, North Holland Publishing Company, 1960).

(11)

The words additional words [...] | rauennatium | lecticariorum | silicariorum | misenatium | tabellariorum | uictimariorum | mensae oleariae per totam urbem n.Π.CCC | which were not present at the end of entity [10] are also absent from a cognate entity of [10] that was not copied from the book Σ and is contained in the Codex Vindobonensis 162 (mid 9thC.) in the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek.

(12)

(B1552) [Hieronymus Frobenius & Nicolaus Episcopius] | NOTITIA VTRAQVE | CVM ORIENTIS TVM OCCIDENTIS | VLTRA ARCADII HONORIIQVE TEMPORA, | illustre uetustatis monumentum, imò thesaurus prorsum incomparabilis. | PRAEcedit aute(m) D. Andreae Alciati libellus, De magistratib. ciuilibusq(ue) ac | militaribus officijs, partim ex hac ipsa Notitia, partim aliunde desumptus.| CVI succedit descriptio urbis Romae, quae sub titulo Pub. Victoris circum|fertur: & altera urbis Constantinopolitanae incerto autore, nunqua(m) antehac | typis excusa, Imperialium uidelicet ac primariaru(m) sedium utriusq(ue) Reipub. | SVB iungitur Notitijs uetustus liber DE REBVS BELLICIS ad Theo|dosium Aug. & filios eius Arcadium atq(ue) Honorium, ut uidetur, scri|ptus, incerto autore. ITEM, ne quid de antiquo exemplari | omitteretur, Disputatio Adriani Aug. | & Epicteti philosophi. | FROBEN | BASILEAE, M D LII | Cum gratia & priuilegio Imp. Maiest. ad annos quinq(ue) |

(13)

(M10291) München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek: CLM 10291 which consists of two previously separate books subsequently bound together: the first book, now folia 1-170, was created before June 1550; the second book, now folia 171-222, was created between June 1550 and December 1551. (Maier, I., The Barberinus and Munich codices of the 'Notitia Dignitatum omnium': Latomus 28 1969 pp. 960-1035. on pp. 995-997 and p.1029 n.1).

(14)

Seeck (1876) pp. 229-243: Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae;
Riese (1878) pp. 133-139: Urbs Constantinopolitana nova Roma;
Unterkircher, F., (1960).
Books (O378) and (B1552) include a prefacing picture, which will be discussed later.

(15)

Huschke, P.E., Iurisprudentiae anteiustinianae quae supersunt. In usum maxime academicum composuit, recensuit, adnotauit Ph. Eduardus Huschke. Editio quinta denuo aucta et emendata. (Leipzig, Teubner, 1886) pp.626-632b;
Seckel, E. & Kuebler, B., Iurisprudentiae anteiustinianae reliquias, in usum maxime academicum compositas a Ph. Eduardo Huschke, editione sexta aucta et emendata ediderunt E. Seckel et B. Kuebler. Voluminis alterius, fasciculus prior. (Leipzig, Teubner, 1911) pp.183-185b;
Girard, P.F., Textes de droit romain, publiés et annotées par Paul Frédéric Girard. (5th ed.) (Paris, Rousseau, 1923) pp.502-503b;
Baviera, J., Fontes iuris Romani anteiustiniani. Pars altera. Auctores. Edidit notisque illustrauit Johannes Baviera. in Riccobono, S., Baviera, J., Ferrini, C., Furlani, J & Aragio-Ruiz, V. (eds.), Fontes iuris Romani anteiustiniani in usum scholarum ediderunt [...]. Editio altera aucta et emendata. Leges, auctores, liber Syro-Romano, Negotia. (Firenze, Barbèra, 1968) pp.631-634.

(16)

Böcking, E., Notitia dignitatum et administrationum omnium tam ciuilium quam militarium in partibus orientis et occidentis (ad codd. mss. Monachiensium, Romani, Parisiensium ac Vindobonensis editorumque fidem recensuit tabulis ad cod. ms. Biblioth. Reg. Palatin. Monachiens. depictis commentariis indicique illustrauit Eduardus Böcking). (Bonnae, impensis Adolphi Marci, ab A. 1839 usque ad A. 1853). Vol.1 (1839), Vol.2 (1849), Vol.3 (1850), Vol.4 (1853);
Seeck (1876) pp. 1-225.

(17)

The demensuratio has been edited by Riese (1878) pp. 9-14 [Hieronymi presbyteri] Dimensuratio prouinciarum.

(18)

Way, A.C., Gregorius Nazianzenus: in Kristeller, P.O. & Cranz (eds.) Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Medieval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries. ( ) (Vol.2) pp.61-62 states that Kyriacus translated this poem, which has been ascribed to Gregory Nazianzen, in 1436 and dedicated the translation to Donato in book (0378). But he also dedicated the same translation to Johannes Cornelius in the book: Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana: Ottob. Lat. 2967 (fol.25: De Septem Mundi Spectaculis ex Gregorio Nazianzeno Theologo Kyriaci Anconitani brevissima in Latinum expositio ad Johannem Federigi filium Cornelium Venetum Patricium et egregium virum) and to Federicus Contarenus in the book: Firenze, Biblioteca Ricardiana, 152 [N.III.29] (Ex Gregorio Theologo Sanctissimo de Septem Mundi Spectaculis Kyriaci Anconitani brevissima in Latinum expositio ad Federicum Contarenum Venetum praestantem et Patricium Virum)

(19)

Morelli, I., Iacobii Morellii, Bibliothecae Regiae divi Marci Venetiarum custodis, Bibliotheca Manuscripta Graeca et Latini Tomus primus. (Bassani, ex typographia Remondiniana, A. MDCCCII) pp. 370-ff.

(20)

Parthey & Pinder (1848) p. xxvii.

(21)

Pertz, K.A.F., (1853) p. 65.

(22)

Grünenwald, L., Die Speyerer Handschriften des Itinerarium Antonini, der Notitia dignitatum und der römischen Weltkarte des 4ten Jahrhunderts. (Sonderdruck der Palatina, 1906 No.32-39) (Speyer, 1906) pp.20-21.

(23)

Böcking, E., Über die Notitia dignitatum utriusque imperii. (Eine Abhandlung zur Literaturgeschichte und Kritik). (Bonn, bei Adolph Marcus, 1834) pp. 20-32 and p.19 n.1.

(24)

Jordan (vol.2 1871) p.2.

(25)

Jullian, C., Note sur un manuscrit de la Notitia dignitatum: MEFR 1 1881 pp. 286-287. He presumably considered entities [2] and [3[ as one texte since he did not refer to (3] in his list.

(26)

Riese (1878) p. xxxv, n.2.

(27)

Omont, H., Notitia Dignitatum imperii Romani. Réproduction réduit des 105 miniatures du manuscrit latin 9661 de la Bibliothèque Nationale. (Paris, 1911) pp. 2-3.

(28)

Bieler, L., The text tradition of Dicuil's 'Liber de mensura orbis terrae': PRIA 64 no.1 1965 pp. 1-3.

(29)

Seeck, O., (1876) p.x. Actually, Seeck numbered fourteen libellos illos diuersissimos, qui in codice Spirensi extabant because he included, as his first item, 1. Picturae eae, quas Böckingius in primis editionis suae foliis describendas curauit.This reference is imprecise. At the beginning of what he entitled Tomus I: Notitia dignitatum in partibus orientis, Böcking printed, on two pages, the two pictures which (O) added at the beginning of its copy of the miscellany (except that Böcking changed the caption RES PVBLICA ROMANORVM. (O) to RES PVBLICA ROMANA and the caption .DIVVS. AVGVSTVS. PATER. (O) to DIVVS AVGVSTVS PATER PATRIAE) while, at the beginning of his Tomus II: Notitia dignitatum in partibus occidentis, Böcking again printed two pictures, reprinting the first of the earlier two pictures, with the caption RES PVBLICA ROMANA, but replacing the second with the picture which, in Σ, prefaced the text of entity (10a) - except that, this time, Böcking omitted the caption: Urbs quae aliquando desolata nunc clariosior piissimo imperio restaurata. (B = gloriosior, M = praeclarior).

(30)

Mommsen (1892) pp. 527-529.

(31)

Sabbadini, R., Di un nuovo codice della 'Notitia Dignitatum': Rivista di Storia e Geografia (Catania) 1 1901 pp. 26) initially referred to 14 scritti che compongono la collezione dell'archetipo di Spira (but he did not list them) which subsequently became 13 scritti che compongono dell'archetipo di Spira in Di un nuovo codice della 'Notitia Dignitatum' (Spogli Ambrosiani Latini): SIFC 11 1903 p. 261 (again not listed). He did list the 13 opuscoli, but in a very peculiar order, [ 1, 2, 4, 6, 5, 7, 10a, 3, 8, 11, 10b, 12, 9] in his Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne'secoli XIV e XV. (2 vols.) (Firenze, G.C. Sansoni, 1905 - 1914) vol.1, pp. 119-120.

(31)

Neher, R., Der Anonymus De Rebus Bellicis (Inaugural Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde einer hohen philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Tübingen) (Tübingen, J. J. Heckenbauer 1911) p. 10.

(33)

Girard, P.F., Alciat et la 'Notitia dignitatum': Studi in onore di Silvio Perozzi, (Palermo, 1925) p. 61.

(34)

Valentini & Zucchetti (1940) p. 78.

(35)

Nordh (1949) pp.6-7. He added (p.24) that Σ could be divided into two parts, [1-11] and [12-13] and that the contents of Σ were copied from two books corresponding to those two parts.

(36) Thompson (1952) pp. 6-7.
(37)

Schnabel, P., Der verlorene Speirer Codex des Itinerarium Antonini, der Notitia Dignitatum und anderer Schriften: SPAW (phil.-hist. Klasse) 29 1926 p. 242.

(38)

Lehmann (1934) pp. 10-11.

(39)

Gottardi, E., Ricerca e illustrazione di codici latini nelle biblioteche di Trento: StudTrent 35 1956 pp. 418-419.

(40)

Schnabel (1926) p. 257, stated that part 1 = [1-7] was written after 1000; part 2 = [8] was written after 1100; part 3 = [9-11, 13] was written in Anglo-Saxon script in the 9th century, with [12] added by a later hand on an empty leaf at the end of [11].

-THIS PAGE WAS WRITTEN BY - Dr. Ingo Maier - AND WAS LAST REVISED ON - 10 November 2008 - - - - -
Comments welcome ingomaier@hotmail.com
START OF PAGE
Cnd MAIN PAGE