PREFACE
See the Preliminary
comment to Part 1, Book 6, chapters 1-15.
The following
sources have been universally collated for the reconstruction of 1 Dial.
7.42-51:
Tradition A: Bb
An Fi
Tradition B: Va Vg
Tradition D: To
Tradition E: Vc We
Incunabulum: Ly
The “reliability
rate” of the witnesses is slightly different here from what it had been in 1
Dial. 6.1-35. The best source for our critical text is Fi (86% variants
convergence), followed by Bb and We (both at 84%), An
(82%), Vc (78%), Vg (77%), Ly (74%), Va (72%), with
To trailing significantly at 64%. The reason for the notable deterioration
of the Ancona E [Vc]
tradition’s accuracy at this juncture (We
remains excellent, as always) is due primarily though not exclusively to its
consistent borrowing of inauspicious and defective variants from the B
tradition (this can be verified in no less than 67 contexts). By contrast,
tradition D shows few similar borrowings in this segment, and otherwise
maintains practically none of the specific affinities to E discernible
in other sections of the First Part. To’s deviations from the “standard”
text are mostly idiosyncratic and not always erroneous. We have retained a few
of its unique readings, as well as those of other less accurate manuscripts,
where upon careful analysis they seem to provide a better rendition of Ockham’s
original intention than what is available in the normally more reliable
sources.
Two passages are of
special textological interest. There is an error common to all traditions at 1
Dial. 7.45.6, a transcription glitch where a scribe initially omitted a
line, and then upon resumption of the correct connection neglected to cancel
the prematurely scripted phrase “quod non videtur”, leaving it to dangle
its way into posterity. Secondly, there is an odd redundancy [“celatum”
“si celaretur”] also present in all traditions at 1 Dial. 7.44.97-102.
Both of these passages have been repaired in We, and neither in its
erroneous state seems plausibly attributable to Ockham’s autograph. The
hypothesis of an independent pre-publication editorial effort at the source is
thus correspondingly strengthened, and so is a skeptical evaluation of the
normative textological priority of traditions D and E compared to
A and B. Reparations would seem appropriate in a number of other
contexts, including 1 Dial. 7.48.141-145 and 1 Dial. 7.48. 150-151,
but for the time being I have let the consensus of the best extant manuscripts
stand.
What is reproduced
here is part of a large segment of Book 7 where Ockham systematically reviews
the duties (and criticizes the potential failings) of all members of Christian
Society (communitas fidelium) in the struggle against a heretic pope.
The “catholic army” (exercitus catholicorum) involved in “war” (bellum)
with this most powerful antagonist is made up of distinct “estates and ranks” (status
et gradus). Their full and organized mobilization is essential for the
success of the cause. Whether they are ecclesiastical prelates (bishops, abbots
et sim.), lay rulers (kings, princes, city state officers et sim.), or ordinary
people, artisans or peasants, they all have a role to play and a contribution
to make in the spiritual and physical conflict with their sovereign betrayer. 1
Dial. 7.42-51 examines the situation and proposed activism of the verbalist
professions (preachers and academics of all categories) in the contest. It was
of course the group to which Ockham himself belonged.
The links between
the apparently abstract statements of 1 Dial. 7.48 and the historical
circumstances of the Dialogus’ composition are obvious enough. The
nature and method of Ockham’s master political work easily fit into the action
parameters recommended here to protesting intellectuals. It has not, however,
been fully realized that 1 Dial. 7.50 likewise contains highly significant
Ockham biographical material. It is one of the rare contexts (another would be
1 Dial. 6.80) where Ockham’s psychological attitude to his academic persecutors
is made crystal clear, and the relationship between his commitment to support
Michael of Cesena’s understanding of Franciscan values and his (Ockham’s) own
theological and philosophical difficulties at
For a brief
interpretation of 1 Dial. 7.42-51, see my Fragments of Ockham Hermeneutics
pp. 112-115.
George Knysh
Revised February 2008