The
manuscript tradition of 2 Dial. is studied by Jan Ballweg in Chapter
4, "Literarische Einordnung von 'De dogmatibus
Papae Johannis'", from the
forthcoming book Im Streit um die Schau Gottes. Ockhams
'De dogmatibus Papae
Johannis' im
Spannungsfeld von Frömmigkeit, Theologie und Politik, by
Volker Leppin with Jan Ballweg, Claudia Heidemann
and Annette Weissenrieder. Ballweg's edition of the text will
be Chapter
5.
Ballweg found that the witnesses to the text fall into two main groups
with various sub-groups. See the graphical
representation of Ballweg's view of the relationship among
the witnesses. ( For description of the witnesses to which the sigla
refer, see Witnesses
to the Text: Sigla and Descriptions".) The witnesses Ballweg
regards as the oldest are Pa Ca Vb Fi and Ax.
John
Scott and I have carefully re-read thirteen of the witnesses (chosen as
representing different branches of the tradition) and
examined others in a more sporadic way. The readings of the
thirteen are recorded in our Collation.
(See the beginning of the Collation for explanation of conventions; the
lines are numbered for convenience of
reference.) Our observations and Ballweg's analysis
suggest the following grouping:
Group A: (Ca Pc) (Pa Vd) Pb (Di Fr Kg) (Ha Ko) Ar (Pz Lm) (Ly Gs)
Group B: (Vb Na Va) Lb ((Es
Ba To) (La Lc Un) Ax ) Fi Sa
(Witnesses with bold sigla are reported in the collation.)
We believe that Gs
and Lm can be dismissed, as being derived without change (except for
copying errors) from Ly and Pz respectively. We have collated Ba, but
we do not report its readings in our apparatus, since it seems to
be a copy of Es (see below). Ly itself is derived
from
Pz (see the dedicatory epistle of Jodocus Badius Ascensius at the
beginning of Ly). In 1 Dial. the editor of Ly seems also to have
consulted some other
witness
(akin to Fr) and has made many emendations (most of them probably
conjectural) to the text derived from Pz, but in 2 Dial. Ly is
copied
from Pz alone and with very little change (though the editor has paid
careful attention to the argument and supplied, by conjecture, some
sentences where he saw gaps; see ******). We have collated Ly and
reported its readings, since this (or Gs) is the text that
scholars
have generally used.
Fi Ax and Fr seem
full of
errors (i.e., implausible readings and omissions of text
necessary to the argument) not found in other witnesses. Sometimes
Fi seems to be a rather free
paraphrase; this is also true of Fr and even truer of Ha and Ko (see
Ballweg's appartus). Such witnesses cannot be dismissed altogether,
however, since a generally
inferior witness may include
good readings borrowed from some other branch
of the tradition. This is usually referred to as "contamination",
though the pejorative implications are unfair to medieval scholars
doing their best to improve their text. In the late middle ages,
especially with academic
texts, it was common practice to compare one's manuscript with others
and make interlinear and marginal amendments, which
might later be taken into the text of copies made from the
amended manuscript. (For "amendments" and "corrections" understand what
the person making them believed to be such.)
Es and Lb have corrections to the text,
some of which are in
the margin, others are between lines, others are inserts written over
erasures. In Es there are also marginal summaries of
argument.
In Es
the amendments are by several hands. The inserts upon erasures in Es
were
made in a distinctive, more formal, hand. Both Es and Lb in their
original state presented a deteriorated text with many omissions,
like Ax and Fi. For the most part the amendments merely restore omitted
or miscopied passages and bring the text back closer to that found in
other MSS of their group (see below). But in
at least one case (see 1493-1514)
a marginal amendment
in Es makes a useful contribution to the resolution of a textual
problem.
Groups A and B
The
division into Group A and Group B arises mainly from the fact that in
witnesses of Group B the text of sections 99
to the end of 120
has been inserted before section 73.
In other ways also the text of Group B is generally less
plausible.
In
Vb the misplacement divides the word in-tellexerunt, so
it must have happened after the sheets of Vb were written in correct
order. The phrase eadem
facilitate dicetur,
missing from its proper place at the top of what should have been fol.
176r (now 175r) is written into the bottom margin of what
should
have been 175v (now 176v). As it happens, the same phrase begins 177r,
which might suggest that an earlier omission by homoioteleuton led to
the insertion of the omitted text in the wrong place. But Anne
Kilcullen has suggested a better explanation, namely that the binder
mistook the phrase in the bottom margin, really intended as a
correction inserting words accidentally left out of the text, for
catchwords (though there is only one use of catchwords elsewhere in the
whole of the manuscript) and flipped the sheet to put the phrase at the
foot of the page immediately before eadem
facilitate at
the top of 177r.
Such
a mistake is
not likely to have happened at the same point in several different MSS.
(If several MSS were made with the
same page divisions it might, but there is no evidence of such a
practice. Even when an exemplar was shared out among a number
of
scribes, as was the case, for example, with Di, the
copyists often
had to space text out or compress it at the end to make it fit the
gathering. It seems that scribes were not in the habit of following the
page divisions of their exemplar.) It therefore seems very likely that
Vb is itself the ancestor of all the B group witnesses. In view
of
widespread "contamination", the
readings found in manuscripts derived from Vb may
not always be inferior to those of Vb, so we have not
disregarded all other members of Group B.
Within group B there
is a sub-group, consisting of Es Ba La and Ax
(with Lb, Fi, Fr occasionally agreeing). Ba seems to be a fair copy of
Es. There must have been some other ancestor (or some source of
"contamination") intermediate between Vb and the manuscripts of this
sub-group.
[Check this***]
In respect of
the general character of their text, the sub-group Di Fr
Kg belongs
in Group B, and Kg has the misplacement of text. However the
misplacement is not found in
Di
and Fr. Perhaps in their common ancestor the text misplacement had been
recognised and corrected. Kg has the misplacement, but with the
words intellexerunt ad purum
occurring at
both the beginning and at the end of the misplaced text.
Perhaps this reflects some Group B exemplar in which there were signs
to indicate how the text should be rearranged, signs misread by the
maker of Kg [**think about this**] but correctly read by the writer of
the common ancestor of
Di and Fr.
We refer to all the
A group by the siglum Aw, to all of the B group by Bw, to the sub-group
Ca Pa Pb as Az, to the sub-group Es Ba La Ax as Bz.
Agreements and
disagreements within Group B
There are cases in
which the rest of the B group agree against Es and
Ba, other cases in which the agreement is against Es Ba Ax, others in
which it is against Bz, i.e. all of Es Ba Ax La. One member of the B
group, Fi, and one
member of the A group, Fr (which may be derive from Vb--see above) sometimes appears on one side of
these disagreements and sometimes on the other. Lb often goes with Vb.
Sometimes Vb and Lb and
the other B group MSS that agree with them also agree with Aw, at other
times Aw is on the other side or has some third reading.
Aw Vb and others of group B against Bz: 329, 352 [trivial--find better] 983, 1032, 1033,
1618, 2062, 2207,
2452, 2546, 2851,
2905, 2948,, 3538, 3821,
3905*, 3926, 3992,
4119,
4138, 4340, 4341,
4427, 4490, 4682,
4963, 5520, 5788,
5818, 6075, 6082,(For
what is clearly
a
mistake shared by Es Ba La Ax see 6182.)
6185, 6679, 6761*,
7055*, 7069, 7071,
7264, 7682*, 7762, 8810,
8161,
8177*, 8288, 9136, 9224, 9343,
9555, 9740, 9807,
10098,
10108, 10738, 10740, 10757, 10888, 10891, 10925*, 11345, 11778*, 11922,
12647, 13017, 14677, 14725, 14778, 15190, 15756, 16231, 16743, 16979,
17148, 17220, 17481, 17663, 17730, 17868, 17871, 17875, 17889, 17931,
18334, 18779, 18772, 18857, 18869, 19004
La and Lb often agree
with Vb (often in agreement with group A witnesses) against Es Ba Ax. See 960, 1285, 1444, 1796,
3317, 4055,
4198, 4736, 5057,
6885, 7796, 9743.
At 3931 there is some evidence
of the
influence on La of the Es group. On the other hand, in at least one
place La agrees with witnesses of the A group against all members of
the B group, including Vb: see 6549-6555.
These facts suggest some degree of "contamination".
Ba and Es: There are many cases
in which
Es Ba disagree with all other witnesses, or at least with other members
of their sub-group.
See for example 89, 172, 493,
1482, 1653, 1979,
2027, 3163, 4023,
4590, 4593, 4618, 4986,
5173, 5942, 6006-6009,
6258, 6568,
7353, 7945, 7979,
9451, 10775, 12716 (idem--elsewhere also),
12813, 13122, 13451, 13814, 13816, 14003, 14257, 14265,
14586, 15078, 15800, 16573, 16688, 17487, 17707, 19091.
Ba
is very
close to Es as corrected and has the same marginal
summaries of argument (see 100,
220, 339,
512, 1201,
1463, 2087, 2111,
2148, 2403, 2816,
3169, 3542, 4043,
6574, 8360, 9391,
11491, 13692, 18353). Either Ba was the
MS from
which Es was amended or Ba is a fair copy of Es as amended. Closer
examination shows, we believe, that Ba is a copy of Es. The best
evidence is the existence of two passages in the text of Es that are
not in Ba (see 15987
to 16026 and 16609). Some
of the text inserted over erasure
in Es is not
followed by Ba (see 4953,
5013, 15163, 17265), and there
are two longish marginal amendments in Es
that are also marginal amendments in Ba (see 9816-9848 and 17637-17648).
These
facts
suggest that the copying of Ba was begun before
the correction of Es was completed, so that some of the later
marginal amendments to Es became marginal amendments in Ba also.
The corrections of Es often bring it into line with
other
members of the B group, sometimes with the A group, and often it is
difficult to know whether A or B is the source of the correction.
See 369-700, 719,
1896, 2624, 3066-77
(but 3072-3074 must derive from
the B group),
3590-3603, 3945-50, 4649-4653, 5471, 5619-5623,
5634, 5720-5721,
7148, 7557, 7768,
7687, 7953
-7977, 9816-9848, 14889-14892, 16634-16639, 17637-17648, 17676-17691.
Lb: There
are some
variants that suggest that Lb may have been copied (directly or with
few intermediaries) from Vb: see 1157,
5478, 6153, 17768-17775, 16342. But even before correction,
Lb is sometimes close to Es, e.g. at 3915
(note Ca maioribus minoribus), 3919,
3921. Marginal or interlinear
correction of Lb often seems to derive from some other member of the B
group but not Vb: 486, 693,
1147, 1157, 1248,
1285, 1314, 1396,
1479, 2323, 3009,
3638, 4998,
5478, 6019, 6040, 6157, 7937-7938, 7889, 10526, 10662, 10769-10773, 11301, 14414,14422, 14990, 15206, 15209, 17110, 17540,
17768-17775. At other times the
corrections could come from
Vb (or some MS copied from it), or in some cases also (or instead)
from
witnesses belonging to group A: see 1763-1774
(except 1768, which does not come
from Vb), 2016-2033, 2319-2327,
2600-2606, 3000-3028 [collation may need
rearrangement], 3047-3056,
4149-4159, 5087-5094, 5854-5858, 13461-13476, 15499-15533, 16542-16551, 17768-17775, 18244-18247 18254-18261. There is one
correction that must come from a witness belonging to group
A: see 11051.
It is clear that there is a good deal of "contamination" among the
group B witnesses, and for this reason it is appropriate to report
their readings, even if they are all copies, directly or indirectly, of
Vb.