Excerpts from the Prolegomena

EXCERPTS FROM THE PROLEGOMENA OF ADOLPH STIEREN

CHAPTER I

Concerning the codices by which the work of Irenæus against heresies is contained.

1. *Concerning the three Erasmian codices.* I call the Erasmian codices those which Desiderius Erasmus, who first brought the work of Irenæus *Against Heresies* out from the hiding places of libraries and submitted it to the press, used in preparing his *editio princeps*. For he himself reveals, in his dedicatory epistle, that he used three manuscripts. One codex, preserved in Rome, was obtained to be described for the use of the most learned editor by Johannes Faber, an outstanding patron of studies; the others were provided from the libraries of monasteries—I know not which. We regret that Erasmus recorded nothing concerning the age, nature, and value of those codices. Yet we are quite convinced that the aforementioned codices were not of very good quality. For the Erasmian editions are riddled with countless errors, lacunae, and mutilated and corrupted periods. Nor can we embrace the opinion of some that those manuscripts were the same as those which bear the name of Joshua Mercer. For although one might concede that the Mercerian and Erasmian codices differ from one another, whoever examines more closely the variety of readings we have recorded cannot deny that they belong to the same family. ^A

II. *Concerning the ancient codex which Francis Feuardent used.* In the *Commonitorium* to the readers prefaced to his edition, Feuardent wrote these things: "A new collation was also added to the edition, including a Vatican manuscript codex, by the attentive reading and study of which—especially provided to us some time ago by the illustrious and learned D. Johannes Sant-André, canon of the Church of Paris—we have corrected more than six hundred places up to now." This is to be numbered among the best codices of Irenæus known to us so far. There were those who said that this ancient codex subsequently belonged to Isaac Vossius. Regarding that opinion, see what I have discussed below concerning the Vossian codex. It certainly seems strange that Massuet’s Vatican codex (see his preface) is sought in vain at Rome in our own time. ^B

III. *Concerning the Ottobonian codex.* The Ottobonian codex, according to Massuet, was preserved at Rome in the library of the most eminent Cardinal Ottoboni; it was paper, written in the 13th century, if Massuet is not mistaken. The later chapters of the fifth book were missing in this manuscript. Various readings, described from the said codex, were transmitted to Massuet from Rome. I do not know where the codex now hides. Massuet said its readings were almost the same as those which Grabe cites from two of Mercer’s codices. But the dependability and authority of the codex have appeared to me to be slight. ^C

IV. *Concerning the Passerat codex.* Massuet reveals that he used various readings which the hand of Passerat wrote along the margins of his copy of the Erasmian edition throughout the entire first book and the eight chapters of the second book. I do not doubt, with Massuet, that those various readings were drawn from a manuscript codex, and indeed an ancient and good one. But it did not fall to me, nor to the learned monk, to find the codex itself, the fact that not all of whose readings were recorded we regret. ^D

V. *Concerning the Claromontanus codex.* In the preface to his own edition, Massuet writes as follows: "A most learned man, the R. P. Johannes Hardouin, the prefect of that same library, provided for my use the first codex, obtained from the library of the Jesuit College of Clermont, whose kindness we have never failed to experience. This codex is of the best quality; since it was written at least 800 years ago, according to the witness of that most learned man of pious memory, D. Jean Mabillon—an assessor of such things as expert as any who ever lived—it appears to be the oldest of all those from which previous editions were made. However, it is mutilated; for having lost many leaves at the end, the fifth book remains truncated of almost the last ten chapters. Whether this happened by chance, or through the improvident zeal of some ignoramus (who perhaps was displeased by the error of the millennium defended by Irenæus), remains obscure. It is certain that the codex was once complete, since a part of the twenty-sixth chapter still survives. The rest, thereafter, perished to the end of the book. Hence it seems manifest that the Claromontanus codex is different from the Feuardentian: for the latter was complete, while the former is much more correct." Thus far Massuet. Seeking where that most ancient codex might now be preserved, there came into my hands the well-known catalog of the Meermann library and the *Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum* which Gust. Hænel edited. Having examined those books, I learned of the fate of the Claromontanus codex. When the Jesuits were expelled from France and the library of the Clermont college was sold publicly, the ancient codex of Irenæus passed into the hands of Meermann in the year 1764 or 1765; after the death of Meermann, in 1824, it migrated to England. For there, in the illustrious library which the most excellent Thomas Phillips established at the Middlehill villa located near the city of Broadway, the cited book of Hænel taught me that the Claromontanus codex is now preserved. D. Schwarz, of Jena, a colleague formerly most closely joined to me, and even now a most beloved friend, when he was visiting England some years ago, was asked by me to approach the most illustrious Thomas Phillips and seek from him the favor of inspecting the very ancient codex of Irenæus. This favor having been kindly granted by the most noble possessor of the manuscript, D. Schwarz committed to letters some things concerning the nature of the codex, which, upon his return to his homeland, he shared with me. It is a parchment codex, written in the 11th century according to the Meermann catalog (but in the 10th century according to the opinion of the most illustrious Thomas Phillips); it has 246 leaves, not 232 as is read in the Catalog; it is mutilated at the end and dirty on the first three leaves, and is of medium size. With the exception of a few pages, the codex is clean and unstained. It appears to have been clearly written in few abbreviations by several scribes. It is inscribed in red ink with these words: "Irenæus of Lyons, Bishop, against all heresies"; and it ends with these: "signified John the disciple of the Lord in the Apocalypse," explaining what the ten horns were...

seen by Daniel to be, saying it was said thus: "And the ten horns which you saw,"—which lib. v, 26, 1 read.

The most illustrious Thomas Phillips, although he had promised that he would transmit to me a specimen of the codex, I have not yet received it to this day.

VI. On the Merceri Codices. In the last paragraph of his Prolegomena, Grabe writes that a copy of the variant readings, which had formerly been extracted from two manuscript codices by Joshua Mercer and given to Isaac Vossius to be described by Dodwell, had been most readily communicated to him. It does not escape me that Harles notes in Fabricius, *Bibl. Græc.*, t. VII, p. 71: "In the Leiden library is the Erasmus Paris edition, compared with manuscripts." Hence the suspicion arose for me that this Erasmus edition contained the variant readings noted by Joshua Mercer. I owed a more accurate account of that book to Mr. Kist, a Leiden theologian, whom the most illustrious Mr. Geelius sent to me. What I had suspected was certain once I had examined the book: it was the same book in whose margins Joshua Mercer had written many variants, undoubtedly extracted from two codices. For to the individual variants the number 1 or 2 is added; these numbers are not to be interpreted as "codex first" and "second," so as to distinguish accurately between the two codices. But by the number 1 it is expressed that one of the two codices offers a reading, and by the number 2 that both codices offer a certain reading. For where the writer found a new reading in both manuscripts, there he did not write 1 and 2, but 1 and 1. From these, let the benevolent reader explain the signs of the codices in my edition thus: Merc. 1 = one of the Mercerian codices (but it is uncertain which one); Merc. 11 = both Mercerian codices.

Which codices these are, from which the critic wrote out the readings, he himself did not divulge. Although they are far different from the Erasmian manuscripts, they seem to belong to the same family as these, as we warned above. The copy communicated to Grabe was not accurately written. Through the new use of this book, it has come about that we are able to note the readings of the Mercer codices in their entirety and to correct the innumerable errors of Grabe, which had even crept into the Massuet edition.

VII. On the Arundel Codex. "The Arundel Codex," says Grabe, "already kept in the library of the Royal Society in London, which I judge to be four hundred years old, I myself compared diligently with the Feuardent edition three years ago; since the very kind gentleman Mr. Woodward, a member of the society, had most benignly procured for me the use of it. However, when the Reverend Mr. Battely, canon of Canterbury, later sent me of his own accord his copy of Irenæus, in which he had noted a large supply of the variant readings of said codex, I did not wish to pass over this benevolence of his, especially since I had used one or two of his observations written in the margin." Thus far Grabe. Since I had discovered, through the most illustrious Mr. Spiker, that this codex is kept in the British Museum in London, I asked Mr. Göttling, whom I esteem and value highly as one I once knew as a colleague for his sincere spirit, since he was about to go to England, to inspect the Arundel manuscript. He said that this parchment codex is numbered 87 among the Arundel manuscripts; that it contains 36 lines in each of its two columns, and that it is beautifully written, dating from the fourteenth century. The prologue, which Göttling noticed on the first page of the codex, I suspected to be the same one that Magnus Crusius mentions in a letter, in which he writes that in a new edition of Irenæus, which he had planned, both the prologue and the Arundel codex were to be printed. The prologue, which I had transcribed in London, is this: *Hyreneus, bishop of Lyons*, etc. We place this prologue before the books against heresies. See below. EDIT. PATR.

VII. On the Vossian or Burellian Codex. Where he treats of the Irenæus codices, Grabe says that Dodwell, who had long before meditated a new edition of the works of Irenæus, had, for that purpose, most accurately compared Isaac Vossius’s best codex with the Feuardent copy and had most readily communicated all the various readings collected thence to him. Massuet did not inspect this codex, as he did others which Grabe used.

Joannes Albertus Fabricius recorded (a) that in the Leiden Library there was kept an Irenæus manuscript codex, which had once been among the books of Isaac Vossius, Canon of Windsor. Since it did not escape me that Fabricius had noted that Irenæus was commemorated among the Latin Vossian codices, I requested, with due respect, through letters from Kist, a theologian of Leiden who is highly esteemed among our own, that he inform me about the character of that codex. The venerable man communicated these things to me by letter: that the Vossian codex was the same one which Henry Dodwell had once compared with the published text. It is established that the various readings collected from that codex were inserted into the Grabian edition. What then was to be hoped for from it? That the codex had been most accurately treated by Dodwell and the variety of readings most diligently noted by Grabe could be in doubt to no one to whom the thoroughness and skill of both men were known and understood. But Kist, to whom I have already testified my greatest thanks in the preface, added to his letters notes in which he had pointed out various readings observed by himself through a fresh comparison of some chapters of the codex with the Massuet edition. From this I learned that there are not a few places in which the codex dissents from the received reading, either having escaped Dodwell or having been omitted by Grabe, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Therefore, having taken into account that specimen communicated to me by Kist, I thought it worth the effort to compare the Vossian codex again, most scrupulously, with the common text.

Since these things were so, it was my greatest wish that the opportunity be given to me to inspect the codex. I rejoiced greatly that Mr. Geelius, a man of the highest distinction, sent the codex, committed to my care, to Jena. I openly profess that the humanity and benevolence of the excellent man, whose most illustrious name is celebrated even in our own lands, have been splendidly proven to me, and a grateful spirit impels me to render public thanks to him.

What fruits I have gathered from this codex, I intend to indicate, having first premised a few things about its nature, and to investigate the relationship that exists between it and the old Feuardent codex. The Vossian codex, numbered either 35 or 63 from the library of the illustrious man Isaac Vossius, is a parchment in smaller folio. Since he who numbered the individual leaves fell into error and numbered the leaf that was leaf 76 as the oldest... Furthermore, the *Catalogus librorum tam impressorum quam manuscriptorum Bibliothecæ publicæ universitatis Lugduno-Batavæ*, edited by the care and work of Wolfred Senguerd, James Gronovius, and John Heymann (Leiden, 1716, fol.), mentions on p. 517: *Irenæi op. Lugd. libb. v contra omnes hær. cod. ms.*

^A It happens that the codex contains not 115 folios, as the last folio indicates, but only 114, although nothing is missing from the context of the discourse. Each page is divided into two columns, as they are called, each of which consists of 49 small lines. The individual verses are marked out by thin lines drawn in ink for each single line. The entire codex is written clearly and beautifully in minuscule letters. Where initial letters were to be written, a space was left blank by the scribe of the codex, to be filled in later with a painting. But only the initial letters of the preface and of Book I are decorated with paintings; all the others still await a painter. Although the ink has sometimes faded a little, so that some words can be interpreted only with difficulty, I do not recall finding any passages regarding whose interpretation one would have to despair entirely.

Since the person who copied the codex seems generally to have followed an unusual method of writing, I have judged it not outside the scope of the matter to review, in my commentary written *On the Vossian Codex* (Leipsic, 1847), the symbols, or abbreviations of writing, which I have known the author of the codex to have used consistently.

The first four books are accurately divided into chapters; both a number and a title are written in red ink for each chapter. Tables precede books II, III, and IV, in which the arguments or titles of the chapters are listed. The person who wrote the codex did not divide Book V into chapters; the result is that the text proceeds from beginning to end without any interval or distinction. But chapter numbers are noted in the margin of Book V—I do not know by whom, certainly not by the person who copied the codex—using Arabic numerals, whereas the chapters of the first four books are indicated by the librarian with Latin numeral markers. But that division of chapters that a later hand gave to Book V did not satisfy readers. For I do not know who, in the space left between the two columns, proposed another division according to chapters, far different from the former.

Lacunae are not infrequently found in the codex, generally arising from the carelessness of the scribe. We do not doubt that the larger lacunae we observe arose because the person who wrote the codex exchanged words on account of the similarity of the final syllables, what they call *homoioteleuton*. These larger lacunae are generally not filled in. Sometimes it has happened that the scribe himself, or a second hand—as is clear from the method of writing and the paler ink—added in the margin small words that had been poorly omitted. ^B Whatever else is read in the margin either pertains to the subject matter of what is contained in the text, or was added for the sake of explanation. Since these seemed to me to be of no great value, I decided they should be omitted entirely.

Furthermore, we have seen that there are not a few defects in the codex ^D which should have been avoided by a learned man who grasped Irenaeus’s meaning everywhere. But however those defects may have crept into the codex, its authority is in no way diminished. Grabe and Massuet valued it highly because of the many excellent readings it offers. For the Vossian codex generally agrees with codices of the best quality; I shall touch only briefly here upon its memorable agreement with the old edition of Feuardent, about which I intend to dispute more below. From this, indeed, it is permitted to conclude that that manuscript exemplar of Irenaeus which the scribe of the Vossian codex followed was of good quality. I admit, indeed, that we are entirely ignorant of where and what the archetype of the Vossian codex was, nor can it be accurately determined when it was written. Let it be permitted, however, to propose a conjecture on this matter.

Where Irenaeus describes the system of the Marcosians and their custom of calculating from letters and numbers, librarians were accustomed to writing Greek even in codices of the Latin version. But indeed he who copied the Vossian codex, being ignorant of the Greek language, changed those Greek letters into Latin in such a way that he seems to have followed the form of the Greek letters more than their meaning. For the letters of each language correspond to each other in our codex as follows:

Ψ = y Γ = i or f A = a Y = v H = h Σ = c P = p Π = n A = a

From this method of writing it is clear that in the manuscript exemplar which was before the eyes of the librarian of the Vossian codex, the Greek letters were written in uncial form. This will not be a matter of doubt for him who has accurately compared with the Greek text the way in which the librarian wrote the two passages which Irenaeus cited from Homer and Hesiod. But if indeed it is certain that the Greek passages in the archetype of the Vossian codex were written in majuscule letters, it appears from this that the codex which the librarian of the Vossian codex followed was very ancient. For it is agreed that only the most ancient Greek codices are written in larger letters. For this reason the excellent character of the Vossian codex rests upon the most ancient codex from which it was copied, and those better readings which it exhibits flowed from a book ruined neither by the ignorance of scribes nor by the rashness of bunglers. For it will be certain to anyone who has understood, through examination of the codex, how great the scribe’s ignorance was, that the defects which are present in the codex arose through the fault of the scribe.

Now, however, we must ask whether Grabe used our codex accurately or not. That the aforementioned codex was never before the eyes of Grabe himself is evident from the fact that he says the collation was made most accurately by Dodwell. For if Grabe had compared even a single page of the codex with the collation provided to him by Dodwell, he would have seen that the codex had been collated so negligently and lightly that he could not have imagined that even Dodwell, a man still lauded among philologists, had collected the variety of readings. For I suspect that Henry Dodwell had handed over that codex to be collated by a man not sufficiently skilled, and did not take care that it should be handled accurately.

For Grabe did not wish to insert into his edition those readings which lacked any sense and were attributable to the error or ignorance of the librarians. On this account, he is certainly not to be blamed. But he omitted many readings which are recommended by a convenient sense. Added to this is the fact that Grabe not infrequently brought forward readings as if they were present in the Vossian codex, which are not found there at all. But those which were most falsely drawn from there, and almost all of which were inserted into his edition even by Massuet, no one has corrected up to this time; in our edition they are corrected.

Finally, Grabe, or rather he who collated the Vossian manuscript with the Feuardent exemplar, not infrequently passed over the best readings which the codex offers. The result of this was that Grabe’s genius sometimes shrewdly guessed what should be read. Thus the better readings of the Vossian codex modestly obtain a place of conjectures in the Grabe edition. However, it sometimes happens to Massuet that he finds in the Clermont codex, which he himself used, readings entirely neglected by the one who handled the Vossian codex. And therefore it does not seem strange that the codex preserved in the Jesuit library at Clermont is lauded by the most celebrated monk, inasmuch as it seems to provide excellent readings very often by itself. I shall propose very few readings of this kind.

^A It is known that it belonged to a canon of Windsor in England. On what occasion Vossius acquired the codex for himself, or who held it before him, we do not know at all. But concerning the first owner of the codex, something certain can emerge. For at the end of it, these words are written:

"These five books which Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon and martyr, the contemporary of the apostles, wrote against heresies, he gave as a gift for the remission of his sins; Friar Laurentius Burelli of Dijon [today: Dijon], Paris, doctor of theology, provincial of Narbonne of the sacred order of the Mother of God of Mount Carmel, to the library of the Parisian convent, in the year in which he himself, as vicar general, visited England and the Parisian convent, which was the fourteen hundred and ninety-fourth, as attested by his own autograph placed here on the day before the Kalends of November. And so, Burelli."

^B In the margin of the first page of the codex, beautiful paintings are to be seen, surrounding the text on three sides. Among the intertwined ornaments of foliage and figures, the painter depicted a coat of arms, in which, if I am not mistaken, three lightning bolts sent downward and three flames burning upward are portrayed. Around this coat of arms, these words are written: "Friar Laurentius, doctor, provincial of Narbonne, of the convent of Dijon, of the Carmelite order." There can be no doubt that these words were written by the same hand that wrote the codex itself. From this, it seems to be concluded that Laurentius Burelli was the first owner of the codex and that the codex was written at his expense with the intention that this most splendid book be given as a gift to the library of the Parisian Carmelite convent. Neither is there reason for us to doubt the time when the codex was written. For it is evident that the book was written at the end of the fifteenth century.

^C It cannot be said whether the Vossian codex was preserved in the Vatican Library at the time when Feuardentius prepared his edition, that is, toward the end of the sixteenth century, or not. Yet it would have been very strange if Feuardentius had called this codex, which was written scarcely fifteen lustra before, "ancient" or "most ancient" [i]. Would not such a learned man, since the true age of the codex could not be in doubt, have appeared to be one who had deceived his readers with fraud?

But there is added the great difference between the readings of the codices, which it cannot be denied that Massuet also considers. Grabius likewise noted many readings by which it is understood that the two codices differ greatly, and he proposed many excerpts from the Vossian which did not appear in the old Feuardentius codex. To these I have added a large abundance of new readings in my edition. Furthermore, the division of chapters differs, such as Feuardentius noted as known in the old codex, from that which I recognized the scribe of the Vossian codex to have followed. Since these things are so, for my part, I judge the Feuardentius codex to be completely different from the Vossian manuscript.

^D It is certain and indubitable that the Vossian codex…

^A must be numbered among the best manuscripts and that it belongs to the same family as the ancient Feuardentius and Claromontanus codices.

IX. The Vratislavian Codex. After having sufficiently discussed the nature and fortunes of the Latin Irenæus codices, I cannot pass over in silence the Greek manuscript of Epiphanius, which I used to correct the text of Book 1 of Irenæus. This codex is found in the Rhedigerian Library, which is in Vratislavia (Wrocław). The most distinguished Mr. Menzelius wrote these things to me about it: "Our parchment codex is of the largest format and displays from the beginning the epistle of Acacius and Paul, presbyters and archimandrites, by which they urge the same (Epiphanius) to write against the heresies, with the lengthier responsory of Epiphanius joined to it; then the *Panarion* itself, or the work against eighty heresies, in its entirety, and at its end is subjoined the *Ancoratus* or ^B *Sermo De fide* (Discourse on the Faith), in which Epiphanius, at the request of Palladius, the bishop of the city of Pamphilia, and the presbyters of the same—whose epistles are also prefixed—asserted and explained the doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity, especially concerning the Holy Spirit against the Macedonian heresy." The most distinguished Mr. Haasius of Vratislavia, who took care to collate with the said manuscript what Epiphanius had transcribed from the work of Irenæus, wrote that these things were noted in the catalogue of the Rhedigerian Library: "A parchment codex of 326 folios in folio, written in the 15th century by the hand of one person, not inelegantly. The binding, made in the Greek fashion and decorated with buckles at the ends, seems to have been fashioned by a Greek craftsman as well." Although the codex has provided us with some things by which the text of Irenæus might be amended, its critical authority nevertheless did not seem so weighty to us that we could follow it everywhere.

CAPTER II. Concerning the editions of Irenæus's work against heresies.

I. Concerning the Erasmian editions. 1526. The most scholarly work of the divine Irenæus, bishop of Lugdunum, digested into five books, in which he wonderfully uncovers and refutes the impious and monstrous opinions of ancient heresies, corrected by the collation of the most ancient codices, as far as possible, by the labor of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, and now for the first time brought to light by the labor of J. Froben. An index of things worth knowing has been added. At illustrious Basel, in the year M. D. XXVI. With Imperial grace and privilege. Folio. This is the edition princeps, which Desiderius Erasmus dedicated to Bernard von Cles, at that time bishop of Trent, with a dedicatory epistle prefixed. The *Obtestatio* of St. Irenæus to the scribes follows the letter, which holds the first place among the fragments of Irenæus. Erasmus prefixed titles to each book, under which the chapters are inscribed. Then the text of Irenæus follows. In the margin, the editor noted from the three codices he used some variant readings and conjectures and interpretations of more unusual terms. The arguments, as he calls them, for books II–V are prefixed; see in our Appendix page 6ff. Moreover, the edition princeps, and the one which appeared two years later, are much more corrected than those which, since the year 1534, were printed under the name of Desiderius Erasmus and sold publicly. I found the edition princeps in the libraries of the University of Leipzig and at Zitzen.

1528. Two years later, another edition in folio appeared from the Froben office, on whose title page, after the words "corrected by the labor of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam," these things are read: "and now recognized by the labor of the same, with those things corrected which had previously escaped." The hand of Erasmus himself removed some errors. The argument for book V, written a little more fully, is read in the new edition, as it is expressed again in our Appendix page 8. For the rest, there are few things by which this edition differs from the edition princeps. This edition is found in the academic libraries of Jena and Erfurt.

1531. Du Pin, in his *Bibliotheca nova ecclesiasticorum auctorum*, mentions an Erasmian edition which he says appeared at Paris in the year 1534. Grabe writes that he did not happen to see it. Massuet mentions no edition other than the first of Erasmus. Du Pin himself later seems to have doubted whether this edition ever really existed. For the learned censor of Massuet’s edition writing in the *Deutsche Acta eruditorum* of 1712 says this: (German text omitted relative to the Paris edition of 1534, which Grabe found in Du Pin but did not see himself, because Du Pin omitted it in the other edition of his *Bibliotheca ecclesiastica*, and thus seems to have recognized his error in this regard). We are permitted to correct the error of Du Pin. For in 1534 a new Erasmian edition appeared at Basel from the Froben office; it has the same form and the same title as the previous editions, except that it reads on the title page: "and now recognized again by the labor of the same, with those things corrected which previously had escaped." Hence it is clear that Erasmus himself reviewed the text of Irenæus with new care. But since better codices had not been at hand for the most learned man, he received into the text of Irenæus many things from variant readings or conjectures noted in the margin of the earlier editions. The result was that the text was ^C corrupted rather than corrected; which must be granted by anyone who has looked more accurately at the variety of readings noted in the margin. This edition is preserved in the library of the University of Göttingen. Desiderius Erasmus died at Basel in July 1536. Since, therefore, the edition of 1534 was the last one which the editor himself had adorned with new care, all the other editions which bear the most celebrated name of Erasmus seem to have been printed according to the standard of that one.

1545. *Against Heresies* of the divine Irenæus, bishop of Lugdunum, digested into five books, in which he wonderfully uncovers and refutes the impious and monstrous opinions of ancient heresies, corrected by the collation of the most ancient codices, as far as was possible, by the labor of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, and now reviewed again by the labor of the same, and brought to light much more corrected than before. To which was added a very copious index of illustrious things and men. Paris, at Mathurin Dupuys, at the sign of the wild man, via to St. James, 1545, 8vo. A very rare edition, completely unknown to Grabe, printed in elegant type. Nothing need be added concerning its critical authority to what we have discussed about the immediately preceding book; for it is very similar to it. This very rare edition is an ornament to my library.

1545. The learned censor of the Massuet edition in the *Deutsche Acta eruditorum* mentions an edition which he says appeared in 1545 at Basel in the largest format. But neither Grabe nor I have seen it.

1554.** Although Fabricius in his *Bibliotheca Graeca* and the censor of Massuet’s edition mention an edition of Erasmus from Basel in this year, I have not been able to find it in any libraries. Grabe also searched for it in vain.

**1560.** *The most learned work of divine Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, in five books, in which he wonderfully uncovers and confutes the impious and monstrous opinions of the ancient heresies; corrected by the labors of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam.* Basel, 1560. Folio. Grabe says of this book: "It is not superior to preceding editions in any way, except that in the place of the nude adjuration of Irenaeus, by which he adjured the scribes, it contains the entire words of Jerome in his *Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers* regarding Irenaeus, and that the Index of matters is more copious, as is evident from the first letter A." We already find a more copious Index in the edition of 1548; therefore the book of 1560 has nothing new except the passage of Jerome regarding Irenaeus. See the arguments I have set down regarding the edition of 1534. On the margin of this edition, which was shared with me from the library of the Göttingen Academy, are written conjectures by D. Heumann, about which see what I have written below.

**1563.** *The most learned work of divine Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, in five books, in which he wonderfully uncovers and confutes the impious and monstrous opinions of the ancient heresies; corrected by the labors of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam.* Paris, at the shop of Audoenus Parvus, at the sign of the Golden Lily, on the street leading to Saint Jacques. 1563. 8vo. This edition, which contains the same material as the preceding one, is printed more elegantly in larger type than the Parisian edition of 1545; the text is the same as in the editions of 1545 and 1565. You may find this book in the Hamburg library.

**1567.** *The most learned work...* (the title is the same as in the immediately preceding edition). Paris. At the shop of Audoenus Parvus, at the sign of the Golden Lily, on the street leading to Saint Jacques. 1567. This book contains the same material in the same manner as the edition of 1563. A copy of it was sent to me from the Leiden library, in which was written: "From the library of the illustrious Isaac Vossius," and on the margin Joshua Mercerus inscribed various readings gleaned from two codices.

**1570.** *The five books of divine Irenaeus, a most learned Greek writer, Bishop of Lyons, against the monstrous heresies of Valentinus and others, corrected more accurately than ever before, with the addition of the Greek [portions] which could be found; by the work and diligence of Nicolaus Gallasius, Professor of Sacred Theology, together with his annotations. A most copious index is also added.* At the shop of Joannes le Preux and Joannes Parvus. (Geneva) 1570. In this work are contained: a letter to D. Edmund Grindal, Bishop of London, in which the plan for this edition and this mission is set forth; a preface to the reader regarding the design of the entire work, and regarding the utility to be gathered from reading the ancient doctors; Greek terms which appear here and there in Irenaeus in alphabetical order; regarding the Life and writings of Irenaeus from Eusebius and Jerome; the ancient translation accurately corrected by comparing copies; the Greek of the same Irenaeus which could be found up to now, as Epiphanius had inserted it into his writings, then excerpted and converted into the Latin language, so that it might be compared with the ancient translation; summaries prefixed to individual chapters, by which whatever is essential in them is most fully declared; passages of Scripture, mention of which is made in them, are noted in the margin; annotations are added at the end, by which most obscure things are declared; some passages of Scripture are also explained, and a response is given to those who have abused the authority of this holy man against pious doctrine. But if you compare this work of Gallasius with the editions of Erasmus, you will concede that it is far superior to them. However, the Latin text is not corrected from codices, and the Greek is very often corrupt. The explanations, while sufficiently prolix, do not sufficiently illustrate obscure matters, and very many are of no great moment and contribute nothing toward correcting the text. The editor divided the fifth book, which had never before been divided into sections, into chapters.

**1571.** III. The Edition of Joannes Jacobus Grynæus. Only one year after Gallasius had published the books of Irenaeus to the public, Joannes Jacobus Grynæus, pastor of Basel, brought forth the *Opus against heresies*, which he calls "the most learned," illustrated and revised with a new translation of the first book, the arguments of the individual chapters, and an observation of variant readings. In place of the translation of the ancient interpreter, he substituted a new one, and, as he says in his preface, a much better one; that this was done badly by him, others before me have already judged. What he said, that the work was illustrated and revised with an observation of various readings, is openly false; for no variant readings are found in the margin. For which reason we consider the book of Grynæus to be less useful than the Erasmian editions.

IV. The Editions of Franciscus Feuardentius. 1575 and 1576. Massuet states in his preface that the first edition prepared by Franc. Feuardentius was printed by Nivellius in the years 1575 and 1576, and that it was not yet sufficiently purged of the vices of the previous editions. We learned the same from Dupin’s *New Library of Ecclesiastical Authors*. But neither Grabe nor I have been able to find this edition in libraries. Which matters little, since better editions by Feuardentius have not been lacking to us.

**1596.** *The five books of divine Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and martyr, against the heresies of Valentinus and similar Gnostics, now for the second time purged of numberless errors by a diligent collation of the editors’ codices, of the oldest and most trusted manuscript codex, and of another Vatican one, and enriched with several chapters; furthermore with all the Greek fragments extant among the ancients, and some writings of St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna and martyr, never before edited, finally with the sum of other parts of the same divine Irenaeus’s works which could be found.* Added to the individual chapters are various annotations by which the rationale of the corrections is rendered, many obscure things are illustrated, and whatever pertains to ecclesiastical antiquity, and to the confutation of both ancient and recent heresies, which could be elicited from these books, is copiously handed down. — Access also was had to the *Conflict of the Catholic Arnobius and Serapion the Egyptian concerning the triune and one God and the two natures in Christ*, never before printed. To the most illustrious prince and most reverend Cardinal Charles of Lorraine, Bishop of Metz and Strasbourg, etc. All by the study and labor of F. Franciscus Feuardentius, of the Order of Friars Minor, doctor of theology in the Paris faculty. Added is an index of Scriptures and of the more memorable matters. The rest, etc.

and more specifically on the following page. Cologne, in the Birckmann office, at the expense of Arnold Mylius. Year 1596. With the grace and privilege of His Sacred Imperial Majesty.

Dupinius has already noted that this second edition of Feuardentius, adorned with the help of two manuscripts—one of the Vatican, the other kept among the books of Jean Saint-André, canon of the Parisian Church—is much better than the former Feuardentian one; besides other things, it even contains Greek passages of Irenaeus inserted from various writers. But since Feuardentius himself explained in his *Commonitio* to the readers what had been accomplished in his edition, I would ask the readers to turn to our *Apparatus*, p. 22, and allow me to be silent on the character of the edition. Yet not even Feuardentius succeeded in restoring the text sufficiently well, nor in clarifying obscure matters with notes that were distinguished for their learning but suffered from prolixity. This edition is found in the libraries of Weimar and Jena.

1625: According to Johann Albert Fabricius (*Bibl. Graec.*, p. 79), the Feuardentius edition of 1625 was reprinted, which neither Grabe nor Massuet mention, and which I myself have not found.

1639: In the title by which the new edition is inscribed, after the words "Paris doctor of theology," the following are read: "Added to this new edition are certain other fragments of Irenaeus, taken from the library of the most eminent Cardinal Rupifucaldus, edited in Greek and Latin." Paris, 1639. With the privilege of the Most Christian King. Besides what is named in the title, nothing new was added to the edition, and it is not more corrected than the former. This book was sent to me from the library of the city of Leipzig.

1675: After the words "that could be found," regarding the enrichment of the parts, these are added to the title: "With the scholia and annotations of Jacques Billius, Fronton du Duc, and François Feuardentius, in which the method of the emendations is rendered, obscure points are illustrated, and whatever pertains to ecclesiastical antiquity is copiously explained." Paris, 1675. Otherwise, the title has the same things as are read in the editions of 1596 and 1639. This edition, expressed in less elegant type than the former, but otherwise in all respects most similar, is found in the Weimar library.

1677: The edition of Feuardentius, with all annotations and the Greek text omitted, was reprinted in the second volume of the *Bibliotheca Patrum Lugdunensis*, 1766.

V. The edition adorned by John Ernest Grabe. 1702. ^A The five books of the Father among the saints, our father Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, on the exposure and subversion of knowledge falsely so-called. Five books of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, against all heresies. John Ernest Grabe restored no small part of the Greek text; he corrected the very ancient Latin version from four manuscript codices; he appended fragments of other lost treatises; he illustrated all things with the notes of various men and his own. What else has been accomplished in this edition is shown by the Prolegomena. Oxford, at the Sheldon Theatre, at the expense of Thomas Bennet, at the sign of the Half Moon, in St. Paul’s Churchyard, London, in the year of the Lord 1702.

(a) In his *Commonitio* to the readers, Feuardentius wrote not only too briefly but also obscurely regarding the codices whose use was granted to him. It is certain that Feuardentius used the Vatican codex and another which, it seems, was kept at Paris. The Vatican manuscript, which he alleges specifically, was perhaps the same one that Erasmus and later Latinus Latinius consulted...

^B Dupinius praises the edition of Feuardentius so highly that he denies there is any need for a new edition of Irenaeus, unless perhaps, which can scarcely be hoped for, the long and seriously missed Greek text of the *Adversus haereses* should at length be found. But Grabe has brought forth Irenaeus into the light once more, cleared of corruption with much care and incredible industry by himself. He restored the Greek and Latin text by reprinting it according to the model of the Feuardentius edition; he revised the Latin interpretation from two codices of Mercer, the Arundel and the Vossian; and he added many Greek fragments drawn both from printed writings of others and from manuscripts; he noted the variety of readings with the greatest diligence, and with no unhappy success and admirable learning he explained many obscure places. Whoever wishes to learn more accurately what the editor has achieved in this book should turn to Grabe’s own Prolegomena in our *Apparatus*, p. 43 sqq., and the review of the edition published in the *Acta Eruditorum*, 1702, p. 309.

1712:

The five books of the Father among the saints, our father Irenaeus, Bishop and Martyr of Lyon, on the exposure and subversion of knowledge falsely so-called. Five books of St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, etc.

1734: In the year 1734 the Massuet edition was brought to light again at Venice. Besides the Greek fragments discovered by Pfaff in the Turin library and several polemical writings regarding those fragments, it has nothing new; but many typographical errors are contained in the new edition.

1829: A selected collection of the Holy Fathers of the Church, embracing exquisite works both dogmatic and moral, apologetic and oratorical, under the care of D. A. B. Caillau together with D. M. N. S. Guillon. Vol. II, Paris and Brussels, by Méquignon-Havard, publisher. (Leipzig, by F. Fleischer.) 1829. In this book are found passages excerpted from the books of Irenaeus *Adv. haer.*, reprinted from the revision of Massuet.

According to Johann Drusius, *Centuria* 1 *Miscell.*, cap. 44, Matthias Launoius, formerly a senator of Antwerp, attempted a more corrected edition of Irenaeus. But we have not succeeded in being more accurately informed about his plan.

Magnus Crusius had promised a new edition of Irenaeus, augmented by new fragments taken from codices and unpublished notes. Although the design of this book and others which he had promised lacked a happy outcome, I may repeat here Crusius’ own words concerning the new edition of Irenaeus. For he says in a little book which is inscribed: *Dissertatio epistolica* to the most eminent and reverend Lord Christian Wormius, Bishop of the diocese of Zealand in Denmark, concerning certain intact writings and fragments hitherto unpublished, which he happened to find on his French, English, and German travels, and now prepared to be brought to light, and in which Magnus Crusius of Schleswig, minister of the Word of God, very kindly invites learned men to compare notes, Leipzig 1728: "The attempt," he says, "to reprint the works of Irenaeus, most necessary to all lovers of the history of the primitive Christian Church, is indeed daring; but this undertaking is encouraged by the great rarity and lack of copies of both editions, both the Anglican one of J. E. Grabe and the Gallican one of René Massuet, which sell at too dear a price even in the very lands where they were printed and are sought in vain...

...although the codex seems to have been written in the late 15th century and kept in Paris at the end of the 16th century, while the Vossian appears to have been written in Gaul at the end of the 15th century: however, it seems to me, together with Massuet, based on the various readings of the said codices, that those codices are different, and that Feuardentius did not inspect the Vossian manuscript.

(b) We omit the review of the edition of D. Massuet, which lives again in our own. *Edit. Patr.*