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. 7.52-64:
Tradition A: Bb Fi An Na*
Tradition B: Vg
Tradition C: Ax
Tradition D: Di
Tradition E: Vc We
Incunabulum: Ly (basically tradition B)
Variant convergence accuracy level of witnesses in this segment:
Na 90.2%
Fi 84.0
An 82.5
Bb 81.9
We 81.2
Vg 76.4
Vc 70.4
Ly 68.6
Ax 56.1
Di 48.4
[NB.: reconstructed text at 100.0%.] These figures measure the closeness of
particular witnesses to the reconstructed text as to those variants which
are not universally shared. The relatively “low” results for Di,
Ax, and Ly don’t necessarily imply that the totality of their
text for 1 Dial. 7.52-64 is seriously corrupt, because the universally shared
variants amount to approximately 80% of the whole in this segment.
If one wishes to extrapolate from this to an overall evaluation of a particular
source’s integrity, one would obtain the following approximate figures for 1
Dial. 7.52-64:
Na 98.1
Fi 96.8
An 96.5
Bb 96.4
We 96.3
Vg 95.3
Vc 94.1
Ly 93.8
Ax 91.3
Di 89.8
As noted previously (cf. Introduction to
1 Dial. 6.51-67) Ax represents a somewhat corrupt version of
tradition C, veering towards tradition D. Its low accuracy level
in the current segment parallels that of Di, and is explained to some
extent by 120 erroneous readings converging with those of Di, though
scribal idiosyncracies and systematic inattentivenesses in the analyzed
representatives of both traditions contribute even more in this regard.
The adequacy status of Vc (Ancona E)
remains in significantly deteriorated mode in these chapters, as in all
previously posted portions of Book 7, because of continuing close contacts with
the erroneous components of tradition B (something Vc had largely
avoided in Books1-6). There are no less than 123 such common Ly/Vg/Vc
readings in the reconstructed passages of the segment under review, as well as
frequent Vc scribal textual innovations. We, on the other hand
does not exhibit much affinity towards those options of tradition B
which are less reliable, and therefore, in spite of a good many “corrections”
of the A tradition, presents us with
a much better text than Vc, Vg, or Ly.
I t is the tradition A manuscripts (representing,
I believe, the earlier posthumous edition of ca. 1348-1349) which come
closest here to Ockham’s intentions. Na (contaminated in Books 1-5, but
systematically tradition A- oriented thereafter) is particularly
impressive in this regard, displaying many less errors of omission than Bb,
Fi, and An. It is indeed a pity that this manuscript is very
faded in many folios of Part 1 of Dialogus, and hence sometimes very difficult
if not practically impossible to decipher on its own, though even in such
situations a comparison with other tradition A manuscripts and careful
word and letter measurements allows us fairly safe surmises as to Na’s
textual integrity. Happily, this important witness is quite readable (save for
a few lines) in 1 Dial. 7.52-64.
For some brief comments on the context of this segment see Fragments of
Ockham hermeneutics, p. 115.
George Knysh
Revised February 2008