For sigla see Witnesses to the text: sigla and descriptions
For Part 1 there are thirty-three witnesses falling into several
groups. The two groups worth most weight seem to be AvOxVcVfWe and BbFiAnCe.
The MS tradition for Part 2 will be explored by Volker Leppin and his assistants.
We still have a great deal of work to do on the relationship between MSS. We have not yet fully digested and studied the data gathered by thorough collation of several short sections. For preliminary analysis, see:
For 1 Dial. 3.1-5 the recognisable groups are:
Bb (Fi An Ce) (Fr La (Ko Ca) Un Vd)
(Na Lc) Vg Va Pc Pa Vb Sa (Pb Ar) (Pz (Ly Gs))
Ba Di To Es
Vc Vf (Ox Av) Br We
For 1 Dial. 6.1-35 they are:
Bb Fi An Ce Na Lc Sm Vd Ax Ca La Un
Vg Va Lb Pa Pb Pc Vb Ar Sa Ko Pz Ly
Ba Di To Es Fr
Vc Vf Av Ox We
For 1 Dial. 7.1-3 they are:
Bb Lc Na (Fi (An Ce))
Lb Vb Sa (Pb Pa) Pc Va Vg (Ko Pz Ly Gs)
Fr La Un Ca Ar
(Ba Di) To Es Lbm
Vc Vf (Ox Av) We
The early editions (Pz Ly) seem a priori especially likely to result from a deliberate effort to improve on the MS or MSS used as copy text, since the editors must have been especially conscious of the need to do a good job. How far this effort might go is illustrated by the fact that Ly includes passages, not found in Pz or in any MS, apparently composed from scratch by the editor: Part 3, tract 1, book 2, chapters 11 and 12; and in Part 3, tract 2, book 1, chapter 6.
The MSS used for the early editions do not seem to have survived. Since they represent (with an unknown degree of fidelity) otherwise unknown MSS, we are collating the editions along with the MSS.
'Good' may mean simply 'plausible'. It seems that during the middle ages those concerned in the copying of manuscripts were already trying to correct their text, sometimes perhaps by comparing one manuscript with another, sometimes perhaps by conjectural emendation. (See the list of marginal corrections in MdMwPcPeVe in 3.2 Dial., 1.1-5.) The plausibility of a manuscript may be due to the conjectures of medieval editors: a copyist who improved the text conjecturally under the guidance of ideas like our own about what the author is likely to have written would produce what we will think is a good manuscript.
The best evidence of good quality in a stronger sense -- i.e., as being closer to what Ockham actually wrote -- is to be looked for in things not likely to have been invented by conjecture or corrected from knowledge derived from other sources. So we must look for passages that are -
absent from other MSS, and seem -
the sort of thing Ockham is likely to have written,
Recognising such passages is of course a matter of judgment.
See John Kilcullen's sceptical reflections on reconstructing the text.
Return to Table of Contents