Ly, Pz (from which Ly derives) and Mz end at the same point, part way through 3.2 Dial. 3.23. Ve and Na end later in the same chapter.
Un has lost material front and back; it ends part way through 3.2 Dial. 2.18.
Au,
Ba,
Ca,
Es,
Mw,
Pb,
Pc,
Pe,
and To
end part way through 3.2 Dial. 3.16 in the middle of a sentence
(at
"sedis scilicet Romanae antistitem",
=Ly fol. 270v a23): let's call
them the "antistitem" group. D'Ailly's Abbreviatio
also ends with 3.2 Dial. 3.16, "ultimum capitulum", with the
remark,
"Et non plus de hoc notabili opere potui reperire" (ed. Murdoch,
op.
cit., p.
127).
Near the end most MSS of the antistitem family also omit two
lengthy
passages found in
Ly, Mz, Ve and Na: (1) in chapter 15, after "studiosus" down to
"innodatus" (=Ly fol. 269v b2-40); (2) in chapter 16, after "ab
hominibus iudicari" down to "non iudicabitur a quoquam" (=Ly fol.
270r
b17-56).
In Es these passages are written in as additions at the end of the MS (232r). Where could the corrector have got them from? Not from Ba or from any other member of the antistitem group, since they are not found in any of those MSS; and not from any of of Pz, Ly, Mz, Ve and Na or their ancestors, since then he would also have added chapters 17-23. The corrector of Es must have had access to a member of another branch of the antitstitem tradition from which these passages were not omitted. (There is some confusion in the text at the end of the second marginal insertion. The text should read: ‘Item Nicolaus papa, ut legitur dist. 21. c. Nunc autem, ait, “Prima sedes non iudicabitur a quoquam.” Item Anterius papa, ut habetur 9, q. 3, c. Facta, ait, “Facta subditorum iudicantur a nobis, nostra vero a Domino iudicantur”. Item Sixtus papa, ut habetur 2, q. 5, c. Mandastis, cum fuisset criminatus…’. The marginal addition in Es reads: ‘… Item Nicolaus papa, ut legitur dist. [gap] non autem, ait, “Facta subditorum iudicantur a nobis, nostra vero a Domino iudicantur”. Item Sixtus papa, ut habetur [gap] ait “Prima sedes non iudicabitur a quoquam.” [End of marginal addition. Main text continues:] Nicholas papa, ut habetur 24, q. 3, c. Recta, ait, “Facta subditorum iudicantur a nobis, nostra vero a domino iudicantur”. Item Sixtus papa, ut habetur 2, q. 5, c. Mandastis, cum fuisset criminatur…’. Thus the end of the marginal addition has material out of place (the words in bold), and most of it is already in the main text.)
Vd contains the two omitted passages, but with an error toward the end of the second which suggests that it may have derived this passage (probably indirectly) from the same source as Es. (The erroneous passage reads: 'Item Nicolaus papa, ut legitur dist. 21. c. [omits nunc autem ait] [adds words from later] Item sixtus papa ut habetur ait "Prima sedes non iudicabitur a quoquam." Item Anterius papa…' -- perhaps the common indirect source of Es and Vd had words about Sixtus in the margin with the insertion point unclear.) So it seems that Vd shares an ancestor with the other extant members of the antistitem family, but, like Es, it contains material drawn from another branch of the antistitem family.
Di seems to have ended originally at "antistitem", omitting the two passages; however, it has been amended, apparently from Ly -- see above. Something similar happened with Fr. It seems that Di and Fr share an ancestor with the antistitem family, but they have been corrected and completed, Di from Ly and Fr from Mz, Pz or a kindred MS.
Ar has the two omissions characteristic of the antistitem group, and may therefore have had the same ancestor as the extant members of this group---but if so it had a closer ancestor that contained additional text. Ar ends later than the members of the antistitem group, part way through 3.2 Dial. 3.17, at "hoc multis rationibus improbatur primo" (=Ly fol. 271v a53). It ends in the middle of the first column of the page, which suggests that its exemplar had run out.
Hypothesis: Postulate X, which ended at "antistitem" but contained the two passages, and postulate two descendants of X, viz. X1 and X2, of which X1 lost the two passages and X2 did not. The extant MSS Ar, Au, Ba, Ca, Di, Es, Fr, Mw, Pb, Pc, Pe, To, and Vd all descend from X1. However, Es and an ancestor of Vd were corrected from a lost MS of the X2 tradition, or from a lost MS of the X1 tradition to which the two missing passages had been restored from some MS of the X2 tradition. Fr was corrected and completed from Pz or Mz (or some MS akin to these), and the corrector noticed the two missing passages and supplied them, though not clearly. Di was corrected and completed from Ly, and the corrector also noticed and supplied the two missing passages. An ancestor of Ar had also had material added at the end by a corrector with access to a more complete version of the book, but the corrector did not supply the two missing passages.
Thus it seems, judging from the way the text ends, that the extant MSS of 3.2 Dial. belong to three families: (1) Mz Pz Ly; (2) Ve Na; (3) the "antistitem" group.