Comparisons showing effect of policy change
In the earlier version our policy regarding text Ockham quotes from
other authors had been to follow the modern
edition of the source unless it was clear that the variants found
in our witnesses were essential to Ockham's argument or there was some
other reason for thinking that they were deliberate. The presumption
was that the modern edition should be followed, though this presumption
might be defeated.
Ballweg, Ubl and Scott expressed misgivings about this policy,
misgivings I came to share. So Scott and I have produced a new
version, with the presumption reversed: the witnesses (at least if they
are unanimous) will be followed unless there is a good reason (e.g.
that their text is unintelligible or ungrammatical) for following the
modern edition instead.
Statement of policy in Introduction to the volume, p. xiii:
Old policy statement:
Ockham may not always have had good texts of the sources he quotes. We
have a choice between two possible policies: to try to infer from our
witnesses the text that our author had before him, recording
differences from the standard modern edition of the source in our
apparatus, or to quote from the modern edition, recording the readings
of our witnesses in the apparatus. Either policy will give the reader
the same information. If some difference from the modern edition of a
quoted text seems relevant to the argument, or if it seems to be due to
deliberate editing on Ockham’s part (compression or
transition, for example), we follow our witnesses rather than the
modern edition. However, if there is
no special reason for departing from the modern edition we generally
follow it, since this saves our text from many confusions and
obscurities irrelevant to our author’s argument. We use
“S” (for “Source”) as the siglum for the modern
edition, which is identified in a nearby note on the quoted
passage (or in the list of references, p. xv below). Thus
“conatur] S Es Pz: cognatur Ly, conor W” means that the
source reads “conatur”, that this is also the reading of Es
and Pz, that Ly reads “cognatur”, and that the other
witnesses read “conor”.
(Emphasis added.)
New policy statement:
Where Ockham quotes from some other source (for example, Gratian, or
Marsilius), the text as found in our witnesses sometimes differs from
the text as found in modern editions of the source. Sometimes the
difference seems due to deliberate editing on Ockham’s part (for
example, compression, transition, correction of grammar), and sometimes
the wording as found in the witnesses is essential to the argument. In
all such cases we follow our witnesses against the modern edition of
the quoted text, but we record the reading of the modern edition in our
apparatus. Sometimes the difference seems accidental; in those cases
also we follow the witnesses against
the modern edition, if the witnesses are unanimous and their text makes
reasonable sense; however, if the difference seems accidental and the
text of the witnesses cannot be understood without forcing grammar or
sense, we follow the modern edition, reporting the text of the
witnesses in our apparatus. In every case both the reading of the
witnesses and the reading of the modern edition will be clear from the
apparatus; if the apparatus does not mention the source, it can be
inferred that it agrees with our text.
Comparisons
The following Word documents compare the text and translation before
and after the change of policy. The material crossed out is old, the
inserts are new.
Part 2, tract 1
Part 2, tract 2
Part 3, tract 1, book 1
Part 3, tract 1, book 2 (there is
no translation, so compares Latin text only)
Part 3, tract 1, book 3
Part 3, tract 1, book 4
I have done similar comparisons between the Latin text of these files
and the Latin text of the CTE/PDF files that will be printed, so I am
sure that the printed text and the Latin text in these Latin/English
files correspond exactly.
John Kilcullen
12 July 2009