Problems with the text
of 2 Dialogus
2.1
Dial. chapter 2, s
16
Version 1:
Cum
vero minor probatur auctoritate Iob, "In novissimo die" et cetera,
dicendum est quod per illa verba probatur quod anime sanctorum sperant
corporum
resurreccionem, sed non probatur per eam quod anime sanctorum habent
spem que
est virtus theologica vel
actum sperandi
qui non
stat
cum visione clara. (Translation:
"When the minor is
proved by the text of Job, 'On the last day' etc., it must be said that
these
words prove that the souls of the saints hope for the resurrection of
bodies,
but it is not proved by that [proposition] that the souls of the saints
have
the hope that is a theological virtue or
an act of hoping that is inconsistent
with clear vision.")
This
agrees with Ar
Ha Ko Pz Ly
Version
2: Cum
vero minor probatur auctoritate Iob, "In
novissimo die"
et cetera, dicendum est quod per illa verba probatur quod anime
sanctorum
sperant corporum resurreccionem, sed non probatur per eam quod anime
sanctorum
habent spem que est virtus theologica vel actum
sperandi quod stat
cum visione clara et
aliquando non stat cum ipsa (Translation:
"When
the minor is
proved by the text of Job, 'On the last day' etc., it must be said that
these
words prove that the souls of the saints hope for the resurrection of
bodies, but
it is not proved by that [proposition] that the souls of the saints
have the
hope that is a theological virtue or an
act of hoping that is consistent
with
clear vision and
sometimes is not
consistent with it.")
Sa has a
variant of this: … sed
non probatur per ea quod anime
sanctorum habent spem que est virtus theologica, sed probatur
quod habent
actum sperandi qui stat cum visione clara et aliud scilicet
spes que est virtus
theologica
non stat cum ipsa
Version
2 is found (with
variants) in Ca Fr Lb Sa Pa Pb Pc Vb Vd
Version
3:
Cum vero minor probatur
auctoritate Iob, "In novissimo die"
et cetera, dicendum est quod per illa verba probatur quod anime
sanctorum
sperant corporum resurreccionem, sed non probatur per eam quod anime
sanctorum
habeant spem que est virtus theologica vel
dicitur
quod
actus
sperandi
stat cum
visione
clara et alius
non stat cum
ispa (Translation:
"When the minor is proved by
the text of Job, 'On the last day' etc., it must be said that these
words prove
that the souls of the saints hope for the resurrection of bodies, but
it is not
proved by that [proposition] that the souls of the saints have the hope
that is
a theological virtue; or
it is said that
an act of
hoping is consistent with clear
vision and another is not consistent with clear vision.")
Version
3 is found (with
variants) in Ax Ba Es To Di Kg La Lc Un Va
Fi
omits some text by homoioteleuton, and ends:
… sed non probatur
per eam quoniam anime sanctorum habent spem que est virtus theologica vel actum sperandi stare
cum visione
dei clara ("…it is not proved…that the souls of
the saints have the hope
that is a theological virtue or
that an
act of hoping is consistent with clear vision
of God.")
We
have adopted version 1 because it makes good
sense and is an apt answer to the argument
from Job. Versions 2 and 3 look like unsuccessful attempts to amend a
text deriving from version 1 with the "non"
before "stat" omitted. Without the "non", version 1 would say:
"but it is not proved … that the souls … have
… an act of hoping that is consistent
with clear vision",
which makes bad sense. The best the would-be amenders could do was to
insert the
general comment that hope in some sense is, and in another sense is
not, consistent
with clear vision--a comment that does not advance the answer to the
argument
based on Job.
2.1
Dial., chapter 2, s
18
Version
1: et ideo
habent actum sperandi et
eciam visionem claram et
perfectam (Ca Ha Pz Ly)
Version
2: et ideo habent actum sperandi et
eciam visionem claram sed
perfectam (Pa Pb
Vd)
Version
3: et
ideo habent actum sperandi non
visionem claram sed
vindictam (Fi Vb)
Version
4: et ideo habent actum
sperandi non
ad visionem
claram sed
ad
vindictam (Es
La Ax Kg )
Version
1 is not quite satisfactory
because the
perfection of the vision is not to the point (and anyway the author
does not think that all the saints have perfect vision). The sed
in version 2 makes no sense. Version 3 makes sense, visionem
claram and vindictam being accusative as objects of the gerund
sperandi. Version 4 is equivalent to version 3. So we reject versions 1
and 2 and adopt version 3.
2.1
Dial. chapter 3, s 21
Group
A witnesses show one version, Group B another -- except that
Di
goes here with Group B, whereas normally it belongs to Group A:.
Version 1 PaCaPcPzLyFrArSaVd: supplicamus et petimus ut nos
exaltet in salutem paratam etc.
Version 2 DiVbEsBaToUnLaLbLcVa: legitur quod beatus Petrus dicit
ut nos exaltet in salutem paratam etc. (Fi: ut ait beatus Petrus ut
nos...)
Ly
adds to Pz
something derived from later in the chapter, and repeats the text from
Peter: quoniam anime sanctorum ut habetur in Apocalypsi usque ad diem
iudicii erunt sub altari et post diem iudicii super altare videbunt
deum facie ad faciem ut exponit beatus Bernardus probatur eciam
auctoritate beati petri dicentis 1 Petri 5 ut nos exaltet in salutem et
cetera
Version
1 makes good sense without the reference version 2 clumsily supplies to
the source of "ut nos" etc. The addition in Ly seems
conjectural.
2.1
Dial. chapter 3, s
24
A
group
Between
two sub-groups there is a variation
of word order in one phrase, which in the second version is preceded by
"et":
Version
1, Ca Pa Pb Pc Vd
Fr: primo si anima beati pauli adepta est beatitudinem
et secundum
veritatem adipiscetur
secundum
istum maiorem et perfecciorem gradum visionis
divine quam in raptu habuit
Version 2, Ha Ko Pz
Ly: primo si anima
beati pauli adepta est beatitudinem
et secundum
veritatem et
secundum
istum adipiscetur
maiorem
et perfecciorem gradum visionis divine quam in raptu habuit
The
sentence
following is: “Igitur videns divinam essenciam ad maiorem
gradum perfeccionis,
scilicet visionis divine, poterit exaltari.”
Next paragraph: “Minor
est
manifesta secundum omnes. Maior probatur primo auctoritate Augustini ad
Orosium, qui ait taliter: “Raptus
fuerat Paulus in tercium celum, id est ad intellectualem
visionem, ut deum, non per
corpus, non per similitudinem
corporis, sed
sicut est ipsa veritas cerneret”. Ex hiis verbis patenter
habetur quod anima
Pauli in raptu
vidit deum.”
(Translation: The
minor is manifest, according
to everyone. The major is proved, first,
by
a text of Augustine (To Orosius), who speaks thus: "Paul was
taken up into the third heaven, i.e. to intellectual vision, so that he
perceived God not through a body, nor through the likeness of a body,
but as he is truth itself". By these words it is clearly established
that in the rapture Paul's soul saw God.) This shows that in our text
"adepta est beatitudinem" refers to the rapture (2 Corinthians 12:2).
The paragraph after this ends: "and yet Paul's soul after his death was
exalted to a clearer vision". This suggests that in our text
"adipiscetur" means after Paul's death.
Neither of the versions above
explicitly sets out a major and minor from which
the conclusion
would follow. However, "si... igitur" could be taken as an argument in
the form of a conditional, with the tacit premise "what
actually happened in one case is possible". "Secundum
istum" means, I take it, that John XXII agrees with the true
proposition that Paul will obtain more perfect vision.
Perhaps
this phrase was omitted in some MS, re-inserted as a marginal comment,
then taken into the text at the wrong point; or perhaps it was
originally a reader's marginal comment taken into the text at two
different points.
Translation of version 2: "Is
proved first: If the soul of blessed Paul obtained beatitude [in the
rapture], and [in the future life] will attain (in truth, and according
to John XXII) a greater and more perfect grade of divine vision than it
had in the rapture, therefore one who sees the divine essence can
be exalted to a greater degree
of perfection, i.e. of divine vision".
B group
The
following witnesses have "sic" where the above have "si", they do not
have the "et" before "secundum veritatem", and
(except La)
there is no object (such as the "beatitudinem” of Group
A)
for
“adepta est”:
Vb: primo sic anima
beati
pauli adepta est secundum
veritatem adipiscetur secundum
istum maiorem
et perfecciorem
gradum visionis divine quam in raptu habuit
La:
primo sic anima
beati pauli adepta
est beatitudinem secundum
veritatem
et secundum
veritatem adipiscetur secundum
istum
maiorem et perfecciorem gradum [the
rest is omitted by
homoioteleuton]
Lb:
primo sic anima beati pauli
adepta est secundum
veritatem
et adipiscetur secundum
ista maiorem gradum visionis
divine quam in raptu habuit
Ax: primo
sic anima
beati pauli adepta est secundum
veritatem adipiscetur secundum
istum
maiorem et perfecciorem gradum
visionis divine essencie
quam in
raptu habuit
Lc: primo
sic anima
beati pauli adepta est secundum
veritatem et adipiscetur maiorem
et
perfectiorem gradum
visionis divine essencie
quam in
raptu habuit
Fi: primo
sic anima
beati
pauli in
raptu adepta est secundum
veritatem maiorem
et perfecciorem gradum visionis divine essencie quam in raptu
habuit
Vb,
from which
LaLbLcAx seem to derive, is close to Group A version 1, with the
omission of "beatitudinem et".
B Group
with possibly conjectural variants
Instead
of “adipiscetur”
there is “post
hoc
habuit”
or “post
mortem exaltata est”;
and “secundum
istum”
does not occur.
“Adepta
est” is modified by “in
raptu”
(otherwise found in the B group only in Fi), and its object is
“visionem
essencie divine”
(not
“beatitudinem” as in Group A).
These
differences could be due to conjectural
efforts to repair a version as in Vb, under the guidance of hints
provided in the next two paragraphs.
Di Kg:
primo sic anima beati
pauli adepta est visionem
essencie divine in
raptu secundum
veritatem sed
istum maiorem et perfecciorem gradum visionis divine essencie post hoc habuit
quam habuit in raptu
Es: primo
sic anima beati pauli adepta
est secundum
veritatem
[ins] in
raptu
[/ins] [m] visionem
essencie divine sed
post
mortem exaltata est ad claram divine
essencie [/m] [ins] visionem
secundum [/ins] maiorem et
perfecciorem gradum visionis divine essentie
quam
habuit in raptu
Ba:
primo sic anima
beati pauli adepta est secundum veritatem in raptu visionem divine
essencie sed
post mortem exaltata est ad claram divine essencie visionem secundum
maiorem et
perfecciorem gradum visionis divine essencie quam habuit in raptu
[Ba seems throughout to be a fair copy of Es.]
Each
of these versions does support
the conclusion “Igitur videns divinam essenciam ad maiorem
gradum perfeccionis, scilicet visionis divine, poterit
exaltari.”
Conclusion
Version 2, found in Ha Ko Pz
Ly, seems best.
2.1
Dial. chapter
3, s
62
Version 1: Cum vero conatur probare minorem (EsBaLaAx)
Version 2: Cum sic conatur probare minorem (VbPzLy)
Version 3: Tamen sic conatur probare minorem (CaPb)
Version 4: Tamen si conatur probare minorem (PaVd)
Other MSS have idiosyncratic readings.
Scott has drawn attention to the possible value of version 4, "However,
if
he tries
to prove the minor..." -- perhaps John did not actually offer this
proof, but if he had it could have been answered as follows... This
would make superfluous Ly's conjectural addition to the argument quoted
at the beginning of the chapter, s 21
(where he added: "Quoniam anime
sanctorum, ut habetur in Apocalypsi, usque ad diem iudicii erunt sub
altari, et post diem iudicii super altare videbunt deum facie ad
faciem, ut exponit beatus Bernardus"). If the original had read "si",
it would be easier to understand the origin of the "sic" found in
versions 2 and 3, which include the witnesses that are generally the
most
reliable.
But the context seems to be against this. The previous paragraphs (from
s
52 ) have
gone through the text of the argument at the beginning of the chapter (s 21)
up to "alias tunc non exaltarentur", and the last paragraph of the
chapter (s
66) answers the last
part of the argument. This (s 62)
is not the point at
which to introduce a hypothetical discussion of an argument John did
not use--that would come more suitably after
s 66. The conjectural addition in Ly seems appropriate, though what has
dropped out must have included something Ly does not supply, namely
John's interpretation of Apoc. 6:9 ("I saw under the altar
the
souls of them that were slain for the word of God"), corresponding to
our author's remark (s 62):
"For
the reason the souls of
the martyrs are said to be under the altar until the day of judgment is
not that they do not see the deity of Christ but only the humanity, as
the text is falsely expounded".
2.1
Dial. chapter 3, s 69
Version 1
Ca Pb Ko Fr Ar Pz Ly (most of group A): sed
secundum beatum
augustinum de cura pro
mortuis... (Likewise Fi:
et [q]
tamen [/q] secundum
augustinum de cura pro mortuis. Ha Ko: sed secundum augustinum
libro
de cura pro mortuis.)
Version
2
Vb
Lb Es Ba Ax La Lc Un To Va Di Kg (most of group B): et
per
consequens secundum beatum gregorium
de cura pro mortuis...
Intermediate
versions Sa:
et
per consequens
per beatum
augustinum
de cura pro mortuis. Vd:
sed secundum beatum gregorium
et
augustinum
de cura pro mortuis. Pa:
sed secundum beatum gregorium
augustinum
de cura pro
mortuis.
In s
82 there
is a back
reference that suggests that at this point the following passage should
have appeared: “Et
per consequens secundum beatum Gregorium,
qui videt facialiter deum non ignorat aliqua que apud viventes fiunt,
nec docentur de aliquo, nec revelatur eis aliquid quod prius non
viderint.
Sed secundum
beatum Augustinum De cura pro
mortuis
agenda...”.
[** Take account of these remarks of Jan Ballweg: s.o.
(I.3.1);
der Bezug auf die in
I.3.1
zitierte tertia ratio ist durch die Zählung im I.3.6., die
wörtlich übereinstimmende Einleitung (et per
consequens
secundum beatum) und die in I.3.7 nachfolgende wieder wörtlich
übereinstimende Passage (cum ultimo dicit...) weitgehend
sicher:
gleichwohl ist die Wiedergabe hier nur inhaltlich nachvollziehbar.
Sähe man in der Passage eine Umschreibung des Gregoriuszitats,
wie
es die Textüberlieferung nahelegt, würde das
Augustinuszitat
erst in 3.7. paraphrasierend wieder aufgegriffen; dies ist
unwahrscheinlich. Wahrscheinlich wurde an dieser Stelle der
ursprüngliche Text nach beatum sehr früh
zerstört und
von einem nur bedingt kundigen Schreiber rekonstruiert.]
2.1 Dial. chapter 11
In this chapter there are a number of passages that seem to disrupt, or
at least not advance, the argument, which therefore ought to be
deleted.
They may be some reader's marginal comments or summaries that have been
taken into the text.
The first of these is in bold in the following:
Tercio,
ex auctoritate prescripta evidenter ostenditur quod errans pertinaciter
contra veritatem catholicam quam non tenetur explicite credere est
hereticorum numero aggregandus. Nam errans pertinaciter contra
veritatem catholicam quam non tenetur explicite credere, defendens
eciam pertinaci animositate falsam et
iniquam sentenciam comprobatur (quia
defendens {La Lb Ly: describens W} pertinaciter sentenciam falsam contrariam
veritati quam non
{om. Ax Es Ba La Fr} tenetur
explicite credere propter solam pertinaciam {contumaciam Fi} et non {Bz: non solum W} propter
defensionem inter hereticos numeratur).
Sed
defendens
pertinaci animositate falsam et iniquam sentenciam secundum Augustinum
inter hereticos computatur. Igitur errans pertinaciter contra veritatem
catholicam quam non explicite tenetur credere hereticus est
censendus.
(Variants are given only for the bold passage.)
Third, it is evidently shown from
the above
text that one who errs pertinaciously against a Catholic truth that he
is not bound to believe explicitly is to be counted among the number of
heretics. For one who errs pertinaciously against a Catholic truth he
is not bound to believe explicitly is shown to be defending also
with pertinacious animosity a false and wicked opinion (because one who
pertinaciously defends a false opinion contrary to a truth that he is
not bound to believe explicitly is counted among heretics because of
his pertinacity alone and not because of his defence).
But one who defends with pertinacious animosity a false and wicked
opinion is counted among heretics, according to Augustine. Therefore
one who errs pertinaciously against a Catholic faith that he is not
bound to believe explicitly must be regarded as a heretic.
Here
is the argument in schematic form:
“P
is H. For
(1) P is proved also to be M (because...).
(2) But M is H, according to Augustine.
(3) Therefore P must be H.”
P= one who errs pertinaciously
against a
Catholic
truth that he is not bound to believe explicitly; M = one who defends
with
pertinacious animosity a false and wicked opinion; H=a heretic. The
argument
is clear and valid: Barbara, fig. 1, with the conventional order
of
premises
reversed.
The bold passage seems to be intended to reaffirm the first premise
against a tacit objection. The objection is that a pertinacious errant need not be a pertinacious defender (some who are in error do
not defend their error but keep quiet about it); the first premise is
therefore false, and Augustine's statement (the second premise) cannot
be applied to the pertinacious errant as such. The bold passage
rejects this objection, asserting that what makes the heresy
is not the defence but precisely the pertinacity. (The
qualification "that he is
not bound to believe explicitly" is irrelevant and
inappropriate.)
Is the bold passage authentic, or is it some reader's marginal comment
that has been taken into the text? The objection against authenticity
is that if the author had envisaged this objection, he would probably
have dealt with it more explicitly. But we have given the passage the
benefit of the doubt.
Quarto,
ex auctoritate supra infertur quod errans non pertinaciter contra
veritatem catholicam quam non tenetur credere explicite non est inter
hereticos computandus. Quia talem dicit Augustinus inter hereticos
minime computandum: talis enim paratus est corrigi per regulam fidei
Christiane, et ideo non errat scienter contra fidem; querit eciam cauta
sollicitudine veritatem,
et ideo non contra aliquid quod tenetur
credere explicite errat; quia
eciam paratus est corrigi,
non errat
pertinaciter, sed ex sola simplicitate vel ignorancia errat, et ideo
non est inter hereticos computandus.
Fourth, it is inferred from the
above text that
one
who errs,
but not pertinaciously, against a Catholic truth he is
not bound to believe explicitly
is not to be counted among
the
heretics. For
Augustine says that such a person is by no means to be counted among
heretics, since such a person is ready to be corrected by the rule of
Christian faith and therefore does not err knowingly against faith;
also he seeks the truth with careful solicitude and
therefore does
not err against something he is bound to believe explicitly;
also,
because he is ready to be corrected, he does not err pertinaciously,
but errs from simplicity alone, or ignorance; and therefore he is not
to be counted among the heretics.
[From the outset, the argument is about those who err against a truth
they are not bound to believe explicitly (see underlined words): the
deleted clause is not a conclusion, final or intermediate.]
Talis
enim non
fatetur se
errasse (errasse] Aw Vb Es Lb Fi
Fr: errare Ba La Lc Ax , errare
added Es) sed
fatetur quod non dixit vel (vel]
Aw Fr: nec Vb Es Ba La Lc Ax Fi ,
aut Lb) dicet
(dicet] Pa Pb Pz Ly Vb Es La Lb Ax Fi Fr: dicit Ca Ba , [b]aliquid[/b]
added
Lb) scienter
(aliquid added Es Ba La Lc Ax) contra
fidem
(fidem]
Pa Pb Ca Bw: veritatem
Pz Ly) et
quod si sciverit
se dixisse aliquid contra fidem
(si... fidem] omitted Fi) paratus
est
(est] Pa Ca Ed Bw: omitted Pb) revocare.
Magna
autem est differencia
inter revocacionem et protestacionem (protestacionem]
probacionem Ca ,
probatum Vb) si sciret
(sciret:
sciveret Lc) aliquid
dicere
(dicere] se dixisse
Es
Ba , dixisse Fi) contra
fidem (revocare
added Pa
Pb Ca Vb Fr , paratus est
revocare added Es Ba ,
revocaret added Fi; ?revocacio
added Lc; paratus esse revocare
talis enim non revocat quod nescit se erasse
added Lcm). Talis enim non
revocat sed protestatur se paratum
(paratum]
probatum Pa Ca Pz Vb) (talis... paratum ] omitted La Ax) revocare
si se
(se] omitted Fi) cognoverit
(cognoverit] cognovit Vb) contra
fidem
errasse vel errare (si ...
errare ] omitted Es Ba) (magna... errare
]
omitted Lb )
The most obvious point
of difficulty with this passage is the "revocare" marked in red:
neither revocare nor paratus est revocare makes good grammar. One
possibility is that the words underlined were
originally a marginal comment later inserted into the text,
with
the word at the insertion point, "revocare", being repeated at the end
of the insertion. (The hypothesis of insertion is supported by the fact
that the underlined words do not seem to contribute to the argument.)
In Es the
inserted phrase ends "paratus est revocare", which are the three words
before the putative insertion point. In fact, for Es and Lc it is
possible that the repetition is more extensive, namely all the words
marked in blue; on this view, the marginal comment brought into the
text would be the summary "magna autem est differencia inter
revocacionem et protestacionem".
On the hypothesis that
the underlined words are a marginal comment that has got into the
text, the
authentic text omits those words and also
the "revocare" or the "paratus est revocare" that follows
them.
It would read:
Septimo,
notandum est quod revocacio quam facit errans contra fidem non debet
esse condicionalis, sed debet esse pura et absque omni condicione.
Sicut enim penitencia de peccato commisso non debet esse condicionalis
sed sine condicione, ita non debet quis errans revocare errorem suum
sub condicione sed absolute. Videtur quod aliqui errantes contra fidem,
et eciam aliqui non errantes, ex consuetudine revocant aliqua sub
condicione, dicentes, “Si aliquid dixi vel dixero contra
fidem,
revoco totum”. Talis revocacio magis dicenda est protestacio
quam
revocacio: talis enim non fatetur se errasse, sed fatetur quod non
dixit vel dicet scienter contra fidem et quod, si sciverit se dixisse
aliquid contra fidem, paratus est revocare. Magna autem
differencia est inter revocacionem et protestacionem si sciret aliquid
dixisse contra fidem revocare.
Talis enim non revocat, sed
protestatur se paratum revocare si se cognoverit contra fidem errasse
vel errare.
Translation:
Seventh,
it must be noted
that is a revocation made by a person in error against the faith should
not be conditional but ought to be pure and unconditional. For just as
repentance for a sin committed should not be conditional but
unconditional, so one who errs should not revoke his error under a
condition but absolutely. It seems that some who err against
faith, and also
some who do not err, are accustomed to revoke certain things subject to
a condition, saying, "If I have said or say anything against the
faith, I revoke the whole". Such
a revocation should be called a
protestation rather than a revocation: for such a person does not say
that he has erred, but says that he did not or will not say anything
against the truth knowingly, and that if he learns that he said
anything against the faith, he is ready to revoke.
However, there
is a
great difference between revocation and protestation, if he knows that
he has said something against the faith to revoke
For
such a person does not revoke, but protests that he is ready to revoke,
if he learns that he has erred or does err against the faith.
An
alternative to the hypothesis that the words in
question should be deleted would be that some other words should be
added. If we add words found only in Lc in the margin, conjecturally
insert a "quod" and conjecturally amend the last "enim" to
"ergo", we would have:
Talis revocacio magis
dicenda
est protestacio quam revocacio. Talis enim non fatetur
se errasse, sed fatetur quod non dixit vel
dicet
scienter
aliquid
contra fidem,
et quod
si sciverit se dixisse aliquid contra fidem
paratus est revocare. Magna
autem est differencia inter
revocacionem et protestacionem
[quod] si sciret aliquid se
dixisse (se dixisse] Es) contra fidem paratus est revocare
(paratus
est revocare] Es) -- talis enim non revocat, quia
nescit se erasse [talis... erasse: Lcm). Talis enim
ergo
non
revocat sed protestatur se paratum
revocare si
se
cognoverit
contra fidem
errasse vel errare.
Translation:
Such
a revocation should be called a
protestation rather than a revocation. For such a person does not say
that he has erred, but says that he did not or will not say anything
against the truth knowingly, and that if he learns that he said
anything against the faith, he is ready to revoke.
But there
is a
great difference between revocation and a protestation [that]
if
he knows he has said something against the faith he is ready
to
revoke
For
such a person does not revoke, since he does not
know that he has erred. For
Therefore such a
person does not revoke but protests that he is ready to revoke if he
comes to know that he has erred or does err against the faith.
In other words: If a
person says he has not knowingly
erred but is ready to revoke if
he
comes to know that he has, then – since there is a big
difference
between actually
revoking and protesting readiness to revoke if one knows one
has
erred
(since such a person does not revoke, because he does not know he has
erred)—he
does not revoke but protests readiness to revoke if
etc.
This is a valid
argument, but the inferential steps are minute and the point it makes
hardly needs argument. Moreover, Lcm is not a weighty witness. It
therefore seems better to adopt the first hypothesis, that the passage
contains material that should be struck out. Without that material its
sense is as follows:
Such
a revocation should be called a
protestation rather than a revocation. For such a person does not say
that he has erred, but says that he did not or will not say anything
against the truth knowingly, and that he is ready to revoke if
he learns that he has said
anything against the faith. For
such a person does not [actually] revoke, but protests that he is ready
to revoke,
if he learns that he has erred or does err against the faith.
Item, errans contra fidem, si debet de pravitate heretica excusari,
oportet quod per ignoranciam excusetur. Errans igitur contra fidem qui
laborat ignorancia que non excusat nisi probetur, antequam probetur non
debet per ignoranciam excusari. Sed qui errat contra veritatem que apud
omnes catholicos est tamquam catholica divulgata vel ignorat
talem
veritatem esse apud omnes tamquam catholicam divulgatam vel
laborat ignorancia que ipsum apud ecclesiam non excusat nisi
ignoranciam talem probaverit, quia secundum sanctos canones, illa que
publice fiunt nemini licet ignorare, et si talem ignoranciam
allegaverit, ipsam probabit (9a, q. 1a, Ordinaciones, in textu et in
glossa). Igitur qui negat catholicam veritatem communiter apud
catholicos
divulgatam, si protestando qualitercumque se voluerit per ignoranciam
de pravitate heretica excusare, oportet quod ignoranciam huiusmodi
probet. Unde si iste posset probare legitime quod numquam audivit
aliquem catholicum predicare, tenere, docere vel asserere animas
sanctorum in celo videre deum, posset de pravitate heretica excusari,
sed aliter non — sicut eciam si quis negans Christum fuisse
passum per protestacionem huiusmodi (scilicet quod non intenderet
aliquid dicere contra fidem, et si diceret, totum revocaret) de
pravitate heretica excusaretur, nisi per alium modum de pertinacia
convinceretur.
Again,
one who errs against faith,
if he should
be excused of heretical wickedness, ought to be excused by ignorance.
Therefore anyone erring against the faith who labours under an
ignorance that does not excuse unless it is proved should not be
excused by
ignorance before he does prove it. But he
who errs against a truth published among all Catholics as Catholic either does
not know
that this truth has been published among all as Catholic or
labours under an ignorance that does not excuse him before the
Church unless he
proves that ignorance, for according to the holy canons no one is
permitted not to know things done publicly, and if he alleges such
ignorance, he will prove it (9, q. 1, Ordinationes,
in the
text and in the gloss [s.v. nisi probare, col. 866]). Therefore he who
denies a Catholic truth commonly published among Catholics, if by
protesting he
wishes in any way to excuse himself of heretical
wickedness by ignorance, ought to prove that ignorance. Thus, if this
man could prove lawfully that he never heard any Catholic preach, hold,
teach, or assert that the souls of the saints in heaven see God, he
could be excused of heretical wickedness, but otherwise not --- just
as by such a protestation (namely that
he did not intend to say anything against the faith, and if he
did he revoked the whole)
someone denying that Christ suffered would also [if he could prove
ignorance] be excused of heretical
wickedness, unless in some other way he were convicted of pertinacity.
[The argument is that only ignorance excuses, but ignorance of what is
commonly published as Catholic truth must be proved. The
alternative "either does not know... or labours under " an
ignorance that does not excuse unless proved is an irrelevance.]
Tract 2
Chapter 1 [[something wrong here: it
is the meaning of the Gloss that prelacy will last until all of us who
are, while in this present life, in one faith that does not differ
we expect next a first person verb, not occurrent. And if we are still
in the present life when the last judgment comes, will we meet in fide
or in clara visione? I would suppose in fide, not, as in Ballweg's
version, in clara visione: if those who are alive at the second coming
meet in clear vision, then who are referred to by "aliqui occurrent in
fide"? Ly's conjecture seems plausible, though perhaps it does not do
justice to the emphasis in the earlier part of the sentence on being in
the present life. I suspect that a larger passage has dropped out.]]
[[This is a bit odd; we"ve
already had 3 ways of taking peace; are these alternatives just two
more ways of taking peace? In fact the next two points are the ones his
conclusion depends on; he didn"t really need the first three]]
2.2
Dial. chapter 5, s. 290
Et istam beatitudinem vocat beatus Bernardus beatitudinem consummatam,
et a quibusdam integra beatitudo. [Missing text] tam primo modo quam
secundo modo dicta, est redempta. Sic beatus Iacobus loquitur...
For redempta, Ly substitutes: nuncupata. Dicitur eciam beatitudo status
perfectorum et in gracia existencium, ut sunt iusti in hac vita et
anime purgandorum post mortem
After integra beatitudo we need vocatur or something similar.
We don't know what dicta refers to: probably not beatitudo. The noun
that redempta agrees with may be anima, but that is not necessarily the
noun for dicta.
The sense of the missing text is best gathered from text below.
2.2 Dial. chapter 9,
s. 333
The consensus among the witnesses reads as follows:
Ubi sancti loquuntur de visione animarum sanctarum,
non utantur preterito pro presenti tantum ad monstrandum suum affectum
ad
sanctos, sed eciam ad monstrandum veritatem de visione earum pro
presenti;
igitur non utuntur presenti pro futuro. Sancti autem frequenter cum
loquuntur de
visione animarum sanctarum non solum loquuntur ad monstrandum veritatem
de
visione earum pro presenti. Igitur non utuntur presenti pro futuro sed
pro
presenti.
With this there are difficulties. (1) As it stands, it says that the
saints use past for present to show the truth of their vision for the
present (non
utantur preterito
pro presenti tantum
ad monstrandum suum affectum
ad
sanctos, sed
eciam ad
monstrandum veritatem de visione earum pro presenti), which is
inconsistent with the conclusion of the argument (Igitur
non utuntur presenti pro futuro sed pro
presenti). (2) The passage contains igitur twice. Is the clause
introduced by the first igitur (igitur
non utuntur presenti pro futuro)
an intermediate conclusion that becomes a premise of the next stage of
argument? But it is difficult to see how this clause is either a
conclusion of what precedes it or a premise of what follows. (3)
"Autem" often marks the minor premise. But the
apparent
minor (Sancti
autem frequenter cum loquuntur...) says that the saints do not
only speak to
show the truth etc., which
does
not help the conclusion.
The text of Ly differs from the consensus in several respects. (a) Ubi
becomes ubicumque (but ubi can also mean "whenever"). (b) Tantum is
moved and eciam removed, so that the text reads: non
utuntur preterito pro presenti ad monstrandum tantum suum affectum ad
sanctos, sed eciam ad monstrandum veritatem).
But if the editor's purpose was to eliminate difficulty (1)
he
did not succeed--his text still implies that sometimes the saints used
past for present to show present truth. (c). The
apparent intermediate conclusion (igitur
non utuntur presenti pro futuro) is deleted, which eliminates
difficulty (2).
Some other witness also differ from the consensus in ways relevant to
our difficulties. (d) A number of
Group B witnesses (Vb Lb
Es To La Fi Lc Un Va) do not have the first igitur, though they still
have "non utuntur presenti pro futuro". (e)
Several of the same
witnesses (Es To La Fi Lc Un) omit non solum, so that the sentence
means: "But often when the saints speak of the vision of the holy souls
they speak to show the truth of their vision for the present". But it
is still difficult to see how this functions as the minor
premise
of the argument.
Suggested reconstruction:
Ubi
sancti
loquuntur de visione animarum
sanctarum non utantur
preterito pro presenti tantum ad
monstrandum suum
affectum ad sanctos sed eciam ad monstrandum veritatem de visione earum
pro
presenti, igitur
non utuntur presenti pro futuro. Sancti autem
frequenter, cum loquuntur de visione animarum sanctarum, non solum
loquuntur ad
monstrandum [suum affectum ad sanctos sed eciam ad monstrandum] veritatem
de visione earum pro
presenti. Igitur non utuntur presenti pro futuro sed pro presenti.
(Deletion
of
igitur is supported by some Group B witnesses, but the other deletion
and the insertion are without MS support.)
Translation:
"When the saints speak
of the vision of the holy souls not only to show their feeling toward
the saints but also to show the present truth of their vision, they do
not use present for future. But often the saints, when they speak of
the vision of the holy souls, do not speak only to show [their
feeling toward the saints but also to show] the present truth of their
vision. Therefore [on those occasions] they do not use the present for
future but for present."
This
is a
valid argument. The text continues in the next section: "The
major [premise] is obvious,
because if they were using the present for the future they would in no
way be showing a present truth, but rather a future one. The minor
[premise] also appears beyond doubt to anyone reading the texts of the
saints," and there follows a discussion of a text of Gregory and one of
Innocent III. The argument given here for the major premise supports
the major in my reconstruction. The support given for the minor (see 334)
also shows that our author is
not trying to prove that the saints never
use present for future, but
merely that sometimes (or
frequenter) when they speak of the present vision of the holy
souls they use present tense and do not mean future.