WITNESSES TO 2 DIALOGUS

By Jan Ballweg

Translated by John Kilcullen

Translator's note: This is a translation of part of 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 Jan Ballweg, Volker Leppin et al. The references to De dogmatibus (=2 Dialogus) are to be interpreted as follows: The first, Roman, numeral refers to the first or second of the two tracts into which De dogmatibus is divided (i.e. 2.1 Dial., 2.2 Dial.). The next, arabic, numeral refers to the chapter, the next to one of the numbered paragraph into which the editors have divided the text. Thus "I.10.42" refers to treatise I, chapter 10, paragraph 42. Line numbers (occasionally mentioned) refer to the line numbering of the Latin text to be included in the book.


Ar |Ax |Ba |Ca |Di |Es |Fi |Fr |Gs |Ha |Kg |Ko |La |Lb |Lc |Lm |Ly |Na |Pa |Pb |Pc |Pz |Sa |To |Un |Va |Vb |Vd

See also Witnesses to the Text: Sigla and Descriptions.

Contents

Grouping of MSS (See graphical representation)

GROUP A
Sub-group AGL
: Ar Gs Pz Ly Lm | Observations on AGL Ly Pz
Sub-group PC: Ca Pc | Observations on Ca-Pc
Sub-group DFK: Di Fr Kg | Observations on Di-Fr | Observations on Di-Kg
Sub-group HK: Ha Ko | Observations on Ha-Ko
Sub-group PV: Pa Vd | Observations on Pa-Vd
MSS of A group not belonging to a Sub-group: Pb

GROUP B
MSS of B group
not belonging to a sub-group: Ax Fi Lb Sa
Sub-group BET: Ba Es ToObservations on Ba-Es-To
Sub-group LLU: La Lc Un 
Nebengruppe NVV: Na Va VbObservations on Va-Vb-Na

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sources
: Unprinted | Printed
Secondary literature


THE TEXT TRADITION OF 2 DIALOGUS:
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF WITNESSES
ACCORDING TO FAMILIES

The work referred to in the following as 2 Dialogus, consisting of the two-part treatise De dogmatibus, is extant in 24 manuscripts and one manuscript fragment of the first of its parts, and also in three early printings.[Note 1] In the following pages the manuscripts are named according to the place where they are preserved today, or sometimes according to an early owner. They include one MS each from Aix-en-Provence (Ax), Basel (Ba), Cambrai (Ca), Dijon (Di), Florence (Fi), Frankfurt am Main (Fr), Klosterneuburg (Kg), Cologne (Ko), Naples (Na), Salamanca (Sa), Toulouse (To), and the Escorial (Es), three from the Vatican (Va Vb Vd), four from London (La Lb Lc, Lm from Lambeth Palace), and five from Paris (Pa Pb Pc, Ar from the Arsenal, Un from the Sorbonne). One MS in Leiden is named according to its first owner, Pope Hadrian VI (Ha). The early editions are named according to the place of printing, the Editio princeps after Paris (Pz), Trechsel's edition after Lyon (Ly). Only the third early edition is named after its publisher, Goldast (G). None of the MS is to be regarded as the autograph or archetype of De dogmatibus. The tradition first begins in the last third of the 14th century, i.e. at least a half century after the origin of the text. A verification of the traditional ascription of De dogmatibus to William of Ockham is therefore possible only through technical considerations of the MS tradition or by content.

The manuscripts named can be organised into groups and sub-groups by characteristics of text organisation, omissions, transpositions and the wording of particular formulations. The fundamental distinction between two head-groups, which we refer to as the A-group and the B-group, is based on a striking break in the flow of text, by which the text of 2.1 Dial. jumps from a place in chapter 3.3 to a place in chapter 4.9, and the text omitted thereby is appended in continuity with the insertion, i.e. in Chapter 6.1 This entanglement of the text, which produces an overall organisation of text that cannot be justifed in view of content, caused in an early stage of the tradition by an interchange of gatherings that Vb now immediately reflects,[Note 2] is the chief characteristic differentiating the two chief groups. The B-group characterised by this break in text includes the MSS Ax Ba Es Fi Kg La Lb Lc Na Sa To Va Vb Un. The mix-ups of the text that are uniquely in Pa, Sa and Vd, or the missing parts of text, as in To, have no effect on the grouping.

In the following the MSS are arranged according to the two head-groups, and within the groups further sub-groups are formed according to degree of kinship. Especially striking are the close kinship between Ar, G and Lm; between Ba, Es and To; between Ca and Pc; between Di and Kg, and also Di and Fr; between Ha and Ko; between La, Lc and Un; between Pa and Vd; and between Na, Va and Vb. The sub-groups of MSS are designated in this chapter and in the critical apparatus of the edition by the omission in each case of the second letter, thus: AGL, BET, CP, DFK, HK, LLU, PV, NVV. The oldest are Ax, Fi, Vb, Pa, Ca, which come from the last third of the 14th century. Ca is not suited to be a lead manuscript, because at the beginning of each page at least 5-10 lines of one column have been destroyed. The descriptions are listed in alphabetical order of the first letter of a collective siglum, so far as sub-groups are present; manuscripts that cannot be included in any fixed sub-group are presented in alphabetical order in the sub-group, "without sub-group".

The description is tailored to the purpose of helping the user of the edition, and it therefore deliberately diverges from what is expected of descriptions in a library catalogue,[Note 3] in so far as information irrelevant to the present purpose could not, for reasons of space, be included; this is especially true of MSS for which an appropriate catalogue description exists. Obviously, in view of varying page sizes, especially in parchment, information about measurements must be taken with a grain of salt. In the case of MSS that we have personally looked at (Ar Ax Ba Di Fi Es Pa Pb Pc Pz Sa To Un Va Vb Vd), the measurements were taken in 2 Dialogus, as also other particulars, such as watermarks, catchwords and peculiarities of binding, refer primarily to this Part of the manuscript. We have not classified the script, because the terminology is not uniform.[Note 4] Under the heading "observations" we have given information significant for determining the relations of dependence/independence among the MSS and evaluating their quality; moreover, a few examples must suffice, which make no claim to completeness and often are not mentioned again in the Apparatus for reasons of space. Both dependency and quality have influenced the establishment of the stemma. Just as significant for this purpose were the histories of the various MSS given under the heading "Provenance".

Provenance is treated in a rather detailed way because it can perhaps illuminate the reception of Ockham's work and is capable of indicating which "public" was interested in De dogmatibus. Admittedly, the first owner or commissioner are seldom known, and the names of the scribes (though occasionally found) are mostly undiscoverable. Which "public" Ockham had in view as readers of his writings can thus be inferred from the reception only indirectly and hypothetically, on the assumption that the intellectual and political leadership had a certain continuity in their interests and manner of thought. At all events, in respect of De dogmatibus, the accumulation of MSS of this text in the late 14th and the first half of the 15th centuries shows clearly that Ockham's influence really began in the century after his death. The discussion of Provenance replaces an originally planned chapter on the "Reception and Later Influence" of Ockham's political writings, which perhaps cannot be written until the edition of all parts of the Dialogus is completed.


Overview of MS description according to groups:

Group A:
Ar, G, Lm (= AGL)
Pz, Ly
Ca, Pc (= CP)
Di, Fr, Kg (= DFK)
Ha, Ko (= HK)
Pa, Vd (= PV)
Pb

Group B:
Ax
Fi
Lb
Sa
Ba, Es, To (= BET)
La, Lc, Un (= LLU)
Na, Va, Vb (= NVV)

(See graphical representation)


GROUP A

SUB-GROUP AGL

Ar Paris, Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, Lat. 517

Fol. 238rb-257rb. Parchment and paper;[Note 5] ; page size 210 mm x 290 mm; text area : 203 mm x 153 mm; 2 columns , 15th century.

Binding:

Brown calf, back gold stamped, on which is written, "Dialogus Ocham MS"

Watermark:

A combination of single lilly on a crest and a Latin cross with nail in the shaft.[Note 6]

Other contents:

Pierre d'Ailly: Abbreviatio Dyalogi (fol. 1ra-15ra); Ockham: 1 Dialogus (fol. 17ra-238ra); 3.2 Dialogus (fol. 257rb-303v); fol. 16 is blank.

Script:

Fols. 17ra-75vb are by one hand, the rest by another.[Note 7] Only one hand wrote the text of 2 Dial.; a similar hand, perhaps a second, often remarked in the margin "nota bene" or "notabile", which we find also in the margin of 1 Dial.;[Note 8] occasionally there are paraphrases of the content of nearby text.[Note 9]

A four-line initial stands at the beginning of 2 Dial., there are three-line initials sometimes at chapter beginnings, both without in-fill or decoration. Rubrication is in red almost throughout, occasionally in blue.

The beginning of 1 Dial. is decorated with a 13-line initial and a miniature; on the lower margin is a frieze of flowers, leaves and fruit with a central coat of arms (rampant lions in black on a gold ground); the coat of arms is framed at each side by a rampant lion. So far it has not been identified.

Observations:

Ar corrects itself by pointing [expunction, i.e. putting dots under each letter to be deleted] if something is added that (despite a certain sense) should not stand: in I.1.3 to non omnes, qui sperant aliquid futurum, carent visione divina, Ar adds futura, but then eliminates it again.[Note 10] In the same chapter Ar and G, with most MSS, read insultabitur, while Lm and Pz alone write exultabitur. Moreover, we can recognise the origin of this MS from the older Paris tradition [represented by Ca Pb and Pa]: at the end of I.2.13 CP and Pa among others instead of errat write only erat, which is untenable in content and syntax; Ar follows this first with erat, but then amends with an interlinear "r" to errat.

Provenance:

According to the Exlibris (fol.11r) the MS comes from the library of the Grands-Augustins in Paris. No earlier owner is known, neither is the bearer of the coat of arms on fol. 17r, nor who or what is concealed behind the note "B.B" found on fol. 1r and fol. 303v. The origin period of 1460/70 that we can infer from the script and watermark, and the stemmatic finding of a close kinship with the three early printings, of which the editio princeps (Pz) appeared in Paris in 1476, and likewise with the MS Lm, which is considered a copy of Pz, allows us to place Ar in the milieu of this anonymous (perhaps because of the royal prohibition on Nominalism [1474]) project [i.e. the printing of Pz], that was carried on in a printery in the Rue Saint-Jacques.[Note 11] Thus Ar might have a common exemplar with the version of the text of 2 Dialogus that was used by the printers.

Literature:

Henry MARTIN, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, 9 vols., Paris 1885-1892; here vol. 1, p. 366.Danielle MUZERELLE, "Les fonds médiévaux de la Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal (Paris)", in Pluteus 1, 1983, pp. 177-189, p. 182.

Gs Print edition in Melchior Goldast, Monarchia Sacri Romani Imperii

vol. II pp. 740-770; Frankfurt/Main 1614, reprinted Graz 1960.[Note 12]

Observations:

Goldast introduces an error in canon law: in I.10.36 he has for C.1 q.7 c.22 prima quaestione septimo capitulo Si quis episcopus, whereas rightly it must read septima.

Provenance:

Goldast took over the text of Trechsel's edition (Ly), apparently without consulting other manuscripts.[Note 13] Thus there are in Gs and Ly readings that diverge from Ar Lm and Pz, as for example at the end of I.2.1, where Gs and Ly exclusively, and not Pz, insert a long passage of text including two authorities taken from Bernard and 1 Peter 5, found in no other MSS.[Note 14] In I.5.3 there is an eye-jump from purgata to purgata, which only in Ly and G leads to the loss of omnis ergo anima purgata, which is found in Ar Lm and Pz; or at the beginning of I.5.1, where in the phrase sequitur quod only G und Ly write nunc instead of quod, whereas Ar Lm and Pz have the quod that prevails in the A-Group. At the end of I.4.13 Ar Lm and Pz together with other witnesses read damnationem, whereas G and Ly write the more easily understood damnatione. The few differences between Ly and G are rather insignificant, as for example in I.4.13, where eandem ratione (attributable to printer's error) in G appears as eadem ratione in Ly.

Pz Editio princeps

Anonymous, printed and issued in Paris, Hain-Coppinger nr. 11937, vol. II. Copy used: Bibliothèque Nationale de France Rés. D.2196[Note 15], fol. 1ra-26vb (no foliation); Page size: 220 mm x 280 mm; text area: 137 mm x 195 mm; about 41 lines per page, two columns; date[Note 16]: 5 July 1476.

Watermark:

In Rés D 2194 there is most often a crowned lily coat of arms,[Note 17] also a siren,[Note 18] which both appear also in Rés D 2196.[Note 19]

Other contents:

(Rés D 2194) vol. 1: Ockham, 1 Dialogus, Abbreviatio Dyalogi of Pierre d'Ailly for 1 Dialogus. - Vol. 2 (Rés D 2194 und Rés D. 2196): Abbreviatio Dyalogi of Pierre d'Ailly for 2 Dialogus und 3 Dialogus[Note 20], Ockham: 3 Dialogus; Compendium errorum.

Provenance:

The printing was done not by Petrus Caesaris Wagner, the head of the German nation's house of study,[Note 21] and Johannes Stoll, as Hain states, but in the workshop of the "soufflet vert" (Ad intersignium viridis follis [sic]) by two printers, Louis Simonel of Bourges and Richard Blandin of Evreux, who were probably former students of Stoll and Wagner.[Note 22]

The thesis that the editio princeps came from the workshop of the "soufflet vert" in the Rue St. Jacques is based on the fact that the type used in Ockham's work is identical with that used in works demonstrably attributable to these printers.[Note 23]

The exemplar for this printing is, according to findings regarding the stemma, a late MS closely related to Ar, which was made a few years earlier. The exemplar goes back to the older Paris tradition of the lead MS Pa. With this corresponds the addition of Pierre d'Ailly's Abbreviatio Dyalogi---and here d'Ailly's authorship seems already to have been forgotten; at least there is nowhere any reference to the author, whereas in Ar, in which the same watermark is found, on two occasions the originator of this tabula was noted, though by other hands. Whether one can place this printing and its anonymity in reference to the prohibition of Nominalism in 1474, according to which the books of Ockham and Pierre d'Ailly, among others, were to be handed over to royal officials,[Note 24] remains undecided.

The Sorbonne library, from which Rés D 2194 comes, was purged in 1474, but already at the end of August 1474 the books were back there again.[Note 25] So far, nothing contradicts an acquisition of Ockham's editio princeps in the new build-up of the [library] holdings after 1476. But the fact that the printing and its preparation, presumably over several years, fell within the time of the prohibition of Nominalism and yet the project was not broken off, shows clearly that the printer assumed, as much as before, and correctly, that there was a market for Ockham's political work worth such an investment. Rés D 2196 was produced for or given to the Collège de Harcourt, a college of Theologians, as is shown by a handwritten entry in the bottom margin of fol. 1r.[Note 26]

Literature:

Astrik L. GABRIEL, "Via antiqua und Via moderna", in Antiqui et moderni, Misc. Med. 9, Berlin 1974, p. 452.Jürgen MIETHKE, "Marsilius und Ockham", Medioevo 6, 1980, p. 564.Hilary Setton OFFLER, Ockham, Opera politica IV, Oxford 1997, p. 8.MURDOCH, Abbreviatio, p. xlvii.

Ly Print edition by Johannes Trechsel

"Guillelmus de Occam O.F.M, Opera plurima: Dialogus de Imperio et pontificia Potestate"; Reprinted London 1962; fol. 155ra-180vb, two columns, Lyon 1494.

Other contents:

Ockham: 1 Dialogus, 3.1 Dialogus, 3.2 Dialogus.

Provenance:

Offler supposed that Trechsel used not only the Paris Editio princeps, but also a MS lost in the meantime that offered a better tradition.[Note 27] Within the framework of this [present] edition it does not seem sensible to analyse in detail the differences between the two printings. However, it is occasionally noticeable in Goldast, who took over Trechsel's text, that sometimes a nuance of text occurs that was evidenced otherwise only in very old witnesses such as Pa, Fi, Vb or Ax. From the letter of Jodocus Badius to Johannes Trithemius, with which Badius prefaces Trechsel's edition, it transpires that Trechsel had learned men revise the Dialogue before printing;[Note 28] thus an otherwise unknown member of the Augustinian Hermits, Augustinus of Regensburg, is found to be the real editor.[Note 29]

Literature:

Ph. RENOUARD, Bibliographie des impressions et des oeuvres de Josse Badius Ascensius, imprimeur et humaniste 1462-1535, vol. 3, Paris 1908 (reprint New York, nd), p. 86-88.

Lm London, Lambeth Palace, cod. 168

Fol. 25r-63r; 286 x 200 mm; one column; paper and parchment; end of 15th or beginning of 16th century.

Binding:

Calf leather.

Other contents:

Pierre d'Ailly: Abbreviatio Dyalogi (fol. 1r-23r); Ockham: 3.1, 3.2 Dialogus (fol. 63r-180r); 3.2 Dialogus (fol. 180v-288v); Compendium errorum (fol. 289r-314r).

Script:

Written in one hand throughout. There is a 4-line undecorated initial at the beginning of 2 Dialogus, otherwise a 2-line initial at every chapter beginning. A few corrections by the same hand.

Provenance:

According to a notation on fol. 315r (Ex bibliotheca domini Oliverii Francis cancellarii) this codex once belonged to François Olivier, chancellor of France (1545-1560) under Henry II when Calvinism spread in France and found adherents in part among the nobility.[Note 30] The John Boswell whose name is found on the same page, possibly in a 17th century hand,[Note 31] was apparently a later owner or lender-out of the manuscript (lending libraries being already found in England). Owners of the MS before François Olivier are unknown.

The Compendium errorum, contained in the same MS, likewise printed in 1476 at the sign of the "soufflet vert", was written, according to Offler in a French hand, which indeed copied the text from the Editio princeps, but in a few places provides "superior readings to all the other witnesses".[Note 32]

Probably Lm and Pz have a common Paris exemplar, from which they were copied independently of one another.[Note 33] Offler's observations on Compendium errorum can be confirmed for 2 Dialogus only after stemmatic analysis. The Tabula taken from Pierre d'Ailly's Abbreviatio handed down in the same context also refers us to a Paris exemplar closely related to Ar.

Literature:

Montague Rhodes JAMES / Claude JENKINS, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Lambeth Palace, Cambridge 1931, vol. II, p. 265.Ian MURDOCH, Abbreviatio, p. xlviii.Hilary Setton OFFLER, Opera Politica, IV p. 8 f.

Observations on the kinship AGL Ly Pz

All these MSS give us knowledge of a common notion of the shape of the text. Thus in I.4.4 the veritas, which in this place Ockham will first prove, is replaced by heresis already evaluated in its content, all five make the same eye-jumps,[Note 34] often have the same omissions,[Note 35] though not completely ;[Note 36] sometimes they differ from one another when they find in the exemplar an imperfectly readable phrase.[Note 37] There are also places in which Trechsel, followed by Goldast, "improved" the text with lengthy additions found in no other witness.[Note 38]

Admittedly, Ar has only a common exemplar with the later witnesses of this group ; otherwise the fact that Ar has omissions found in Lm and G could not be explained.[Note 39]


SUB-GROUP CP

Ca Cambrai, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS lat. 286 (271)

Fol. 163rb-179r; parchment; 465 mm x 311 mm, 2 columns, late 14th century.[Note 40]

Binding:

Black leather on wood, front contemporary with the MS, back modern.[Note 41]

Other contents:

Ockham, 1 Dialogus (fol. 1-163ra); 3.2 Dialogus (fol. 179rb-217vb); Contents list of 3.2 Dialogus (fol. 218ra-219rb, not identical with that at the end of Lb).

Script:

Fire damage affects the first lines of one column on each folio, i.e. on the recto the "a" column has been affected, on the verso the "b" column. The writing in those places in the first lines is partly unreadable, or readable only with great difficulty. The MS likewise shows water damage, probably done in putting out the fire.

The whole MS and thus also 2 Dialogus is written througout by one hand; there are a few marginalia, crossings-out and corrections.[Note 42]

At the beginning of each chapter there is a 3-line initial decorated with filgaree spiral designs. At the beginning of 2 Dialogus there is a 13-line intial with miniature; otherwise the initials are 3-line with filling (spiralling lines with two or three turns). Recognisable are a cleric sitting, perhaps a pope,[Note 43] and some standing persons in the right half of the picture. The sitting pope holds an unrolled scroll with the legend anno, apparently as a visualisation of the consistorial declaration in De dogmatibus I.0.2. Of the four hearers three are tonsured, the first with right hand raised to receive the scroll can be recognised as a Benedictine or Augustinian. At the feet of the standing hearers is a kneeling writer, who likewise writes anno on a page. That is, the reportationes, mentioned in the Proömium of De dogmatibus I, are represented as dictated by the Pope. The miniature is meant to give the impression that the reportationes represent the Pope's declaration authentically. The writer drawn small is probably supposed to be one of the reportatores of the pope's preaching mentioned in several places in 2 Dialogus.

Provenance:

According to the catalogue information of Auguste Molinier[Note 44] the volume once bore the signature, "Cathédrale, ancien 21"; it therefore belonged to the old holdings of Cambrai Cathedral. On fol. 163ra, after the explicit of 1 Dial. 7 and the Sequitur secunda pars dialogi Okam, follows an entry of the name J. Maurroy.

The close kinship of Ca with Pc, which Pedro de Luna probably acquired in Paris, and the still fairly close kinship with Pa, which originated in Paris, suggests that Ca also had a Paris exemplar. The apparently early entry of the MS into the Cambrai cathedral library and the other findings can be seen as confirmation of the suggestion sometimes made that the MS may come from Pierre d'Ailly's library.[Note 45] After a year as rector of the Collège de Navarre in Paris, 1397, d'Ailly was named bishop of Cambrai by Benedict and held that office for 13 years. He engaged in manifold reform activities in Cambrai and also in building up a library in the cathedral, to which he also donated volumes from his private collection.[Note 46]

An early Abbreviatio Dyalogi already indicates D'Ailly's interest in Ockham's Dialogus. It is contained in two Paris MSS and one in Cologne, and found a wide, though anonymous, dissemination, insofar as it is also found in the Editio princeps of the Dialogus (Paris 1476).[Note 47] The editor of the Abbreviatio Dyalogi, Ian Murdoch, dates the origin of the Abbreviatio by internal arguments before the outbreak of the schism, more narrowly in the years 1368-1376, when d'Ailly studied Ockham's theology intensively,[Note 48] and states that d'Ailly's interest in 2 Dialogus clearly exceeded his interest in other parts of the Dialogus.[Note 49] The Collège de Navarre demonstrably had an Ockham MS.[Note 50] When we look at the Ockham holdings of the Collège de Navarre we do not see Pierre d'Ailly as donor,[Note 51] but this could mean that he took his Ockham MSS with him to Cambrai or first had them made for him there.Ca might well then have originated in Cambrai in accordance with a Paris exemplar. Admittedly, there is in Ca itself no indication that it came from Pierre d'Ailly's collection. The MS arrived in the Bibliothèque Municipale in Cambrai during the French Revolution.

J. Maurroy cannot be identified in Nathalie Gorochov's recently published "biographical notes" on the personnel of the Collège des Navarre.[Note 52]. Probably he was a professional scribe from Paris or Cambrai, only occasionally connected with Pierre d'Ailly.

Literature:

Catalogue général des Manuscrits des Bibliothèques publiques de France: Départements, vol. 17: (Cambrai), ed. Auguste MOLINIER, Paris 1891, p. 109. - Denis MUZERELLE, Manuscrits datés des bibliothèques des France, vol. 1 Cambrai, avec la collaboration de Geneviève Grand, Guy Lanoë, Monique Peyrafort-Huin, CNRS Ed., Paris 2000, p. 56.

Pc Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 3657

Fol. 289r-321r, parchment; page size: 251 mm x 161 mm, text area: 195 mm x 107 mm, one column. End of the 14th century.

Binding:

Leather binding of the 18th century with royal arms and gold stamped. On the back: "Guillelmus Okam"

Other contents:

Ockham: 1 Dialogus (fol. 1r-208r); 3.2 Dialogus (fol. 210r (287r); fol. 209 r-v and fol. 288r-v are blank.

Script:

Various hands are found in the whole MS, but only one hand wrote 2 Dialogus, though with sporadic marginal corrections by another hand. At the beginning of the text there is a 4-line initial with gold inlay; occasionally there is a 2-line initial at the beginning of a chapter, decorated with filigree line patterns in red and blue, closely related to those in Pa; at a section[Note 53] there is sometimes a pattern like vine tendrils.

In 2 Dialogus there are few marginal annotations or corrections[Note 54] and no traces left by users.

Provenance:

No indication of scribe or owner can be recognised, yet the provenance of the MS can be reconstructed. Ehrle already suspected that the MS belonged to cardinal Pedro de Luna before his election as pope (1394).[Note 55] From 1393 Pedro de Luna, Cardinal since 1375, lived as ambassador in France, working politically for the solution of the Schism, perhaps therefore also with an interest in the political theory in 1 and 3 Dialogus. It is very likely that the MS, related to Pa --- probably decorated in the same workplace as Pa, though not written by the same scribe, and also only relatively close in text to Pa --- was acquired in Paris at that time. There is admittedly no indication that could prove that the Cardinal had commissioned this very MS.

Against this is also the fact that occasionally in the MS there is recognisable a certain incompetence regarding Canon Law, as for example in II.9.4 in a citation from X 3.41.6, where the scribe first left out the complete reference (Extra, de celebratione missarum, Cum Marthae) and senselessly includes the extra, which the closely related MS Ca writes, in the citation: quod sancti extra orationibus nostris non indigent.. A canon lawyer who had studied and taught in Montpellier, as Pedro de Luna had, would probably have made a marginal correction when he read this passage,[Note 56] as is variously attested in other works of his;[Note 57] the lack of any such indication might confirm that his interest did not extend to the beatific vision of the saints. If however he did commission Pc, 2 Dialogus would have to have been rather an inadvertent concomitant ; the fact that it stands after 3.2 Dialogus, suggests however that it was a deliberate addition and not an inadvertent continuation following the copying of 1 Dialogus from the exemplar. Pedro de Luna therefore probably bought a MS put together in this form, or received it as a gift from an unknown person.

The further history of the MS was reconstructed already by Franz Ehrle; his results can be confirmed on the basis of the catalogues of the Avignon libraries published by Herniette Jullien de Pommerol and Jacques Monfrin: when Pedro de Luna became pope or anti-pope, the MS is lost from sight; it was most likely part of the pope's Bibliotheca minor, which he took with him in his various places of residence during 1403-1411,[Note 58] but it is then documented as part of the library that Benedict XIII took with him in 1412 to Peniscola. There the volume was part of his Bibliotheca maior, thus one of the books for the pope's daily use, no fewer than 1408 volumes. It was catalogued there after the pope died in 1423, then followed a path followed also by many other MSS on the initiative of Cardinal Pierre de Foix into the Collège de Foix founded by him in Toulouse, and from there in 1680 on Colbert's initiative into the national library in Paris.[Note 59]

Literature:

Catalogue général des manuscrits latins, vol. 6, ed. P. GASNAULT et al., Paris 1975, p. 468 f.Jürgen MIETHKE, "Marsilius und Ockham", in Medioevo 6, 1980, P. 558 n. 558.Anneliese MAIER, "Die Bibliotheca Minor Benedikts XIII. (Pedro de Luna)", in: AHP 3, 1965, pp. 139-191, republished in AMA III, pp.1-53.

Observations on the kinship Ca-Pc

Omissions in Ca appear in Pc as additions between the line, e.g. in I.10.16, where the est present in all other MSS is missing in Ca and supplied in Pc above the line. In other places also Pc orients itself primarily to Ca, as in II.5.6, where the Quandoque of the text, which Pc at first , exactly like Pa Pb and DF, replaces with scilicet quando; afterwards Ca, by crossing out scilicet and adding another scilicet, reforms this as quando scilicet.

I.10.15 illustrates the relationship of Ca and Pc to one another and to other MSS. Here in Ax BE DF LL NVV PV and Pb defendens was replaced by describens: Ca came to the unmeaning variant describeris quia describens; in this reading Pc simply decided on the syntactically unsuitable describeris. Sometimes Pc supplemented the Ca text, but also in the sense of the predominant and correct reading: in I.10.16 a quia was inserted by Ca in non est inter hereticos computandus in a quotation from Augustine: non quia inter . . . : Pc noticed the missing predicate and amended, perhaps following Augustine or perhaps in accordance with his own judgment: non quia est inter.…

Ca checked what he wrote; in I.10.40 the writer crossed out a longish passage (Ex…veritatem) following the quotation from C.1 q.7 c.20, which otherwise is missing only in Va and Sa because of recognisable eye-jumps, but he added it again; Pc here shows no difference. Pc also checked what he wrote; for example, in I.10.45, where the est was supplemented by a confirming manifestum, which certainly was again crossed out, when the writer remembered the earlier adverbial manifeste.

Altogether Ca and Pc seem MSS of moderate quality. Ca seems to be the older of the two: if Ca was produced in Paris before or shortly after Ailly's promotion as Bishop of Cambrai, 1397, and Pedro de Luna acquired Pc in Paris in 1393, this suggests that the two MSS had a common exemplar, which they copied with different degrees of accuracy, and used no other MS sub-group of the A group, such as the PV-exemplar (though this does not rule out the possibility that the exemplar of PV was akin to the exemplar of CP).


SUB-GROUP DFK

Di Dijon, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 340 (249)

Fol. 274v-299r, Paper; page size: 271 mm x 205 mm; text area: 228 mm x 140 mm; single column, 15th century.

Binding:

Stamped calf leather, back partly scuffed. Like most volumes from Cîteaux, the binding of Di was renewed in the rebinding of the Cîteaux library's holdings by Abt Jean de Cirey, 1480-81.[Note 60] The volume shows in the front traces of a torn-off clasp and a chain mounting plate; glued to the back is a strip of parchment with the label Dialogus Guillelmi Okam; the binding may well be the original binding; small prickings show a lily coat of arms and lambs in a rectangle. A coat of arms under a mitre and bishop's staff stamped in gold, and likewise the inscription around it, Bibliotheque de Cisteaux, were attached in the 17th or 18th century. A slightly raised glued-on strip with red points comes from the time of the French Revolution.[Note 61]

Watermark:

The most frequent is the oxhead with flower,[Note 62] other marks are found only occasionally.[Note 63]

Other contents:

Ockham: 1 Dialogus (fol. 1-274v), 3.2 Dialogus (fol. 299v-377v).

Script:

Many different hands can be seen, often writing only a few pages.[Note 64] In 2 Dialogus two hands appear, fol.265r-285v and fol. 285r-302v, without any recognisable loss of text or change of stemmatic orientation at the break (I.10.2 ) (probably the borderline between peciae). The first of these two hands belongs apparently to a certain Johannes de Montiers[Note 65] who writes from fol. 265r; the second, anonymous, writes as far as fol. 302v.

In the part written by the first hand there are five-line initials at the beginning of 2 Dialogus and two-line initials at chapter beginnings, both without decorative forms or filling; there are few marginalia, mostly chapter numbers, occasionally statements of content.[Note 66] In the part written by the second hand there are scarcely any noticeable initials and practically no marginalia.

On each recto page up to fol. 285r there is the header primus liber secunda pars.

Observations:

Di shows self-correction, e.g. of longish passages that are framed by va- cat and thereby deleted[Note 67] or of individual words by crossing out the mistaken words and noting the correct ones in the margin.[Note 68]

Provenance:

The MS comes, as admittedly only the binding allows us to conclude, from Cîteaux and arrived at the municipal library of Dijon from Cîteaux in the course of the abolition of the monastery at the beginning of the French Revolution, with the dispersal of the monks and the library together with the larger property.[Note 69] Who had the MS produced is unknown; apparently it was some member of the Cistercian order who, in the church-political debates of the 15th century, wished to become acquainted with one of the most important reference texts on ecclesiological questions. The manuscript's lack of decorative forms, which we anticipate from the undecorated initials, and the numerous changes of hand, makes the text seem a text for use, though at least for 2 Dialogus it shows no sign of use. Some previous owner not a member of the Order would surely have left an owner's mark and regarded it as highly valued equipment.[Note 70]

Interest in the question of an heretical pope in 1 Dialogus needs no special basis in the late 14th and early 15th centuries, but if we impute a current interest in the text the question of the political orientation of Cîteaux compels attention. As is well known, the Cistercian order in the great western schism was caught in the middle ; in particular the Abbot of Cîteaux regarded the Roman pope as schismatic and for his part acknowledged the pope in Avignon. Cîteaux itself was not only ground down, but also plundered several times, for example already in 1350 and 1359, and again in 1438 and among the most frequently of all French religious houses in the following years. Certainly, the Cistercian order in France still possessed "a certain vitality",[Note 71] if we glance at the (admittedly in comparison with earlier times rather modest) twenty-four new foundations by the Order in the 15th century. In 1480 Abt Jean de Cirey sought to reform the order and especially the Cîteaux cloister, which especially benefited the library. If we saw a direct relationship between the Schism and the political disruptions resulting from it and the production of MS Dijon 340, then the dating can be narrowed to the first half of the 15th century, though this remains an assumption.

It may refer to this , that MS Dijon 340, as the single Cistercian MS among all the Ockham MSS here used, had difficulties in recognising quotations from St Bernard. In II.5.2 Ockham specifically cites Bernardus: Di changes this to Augustinus; the closely related Fr follows that at first, but crosses it out and writes Bernardus between the lines. Just a little later Bernardus is again cited specifically: Di and Fr first write Jeronimus, Fr then corrects to Bernardus. One could also, admittedly, adopt the interpretation that the scribes of Di regarded themselves in especially high degree as the custodians of the grail of St Bernard's wisdom, and quotations that they did not know or were not willing to accept as Bernard'safter all, in the first of the two places it was said that Bernard had written that the souls would not immediately see God or the divine naturethey preferred to impute to another saint. Then there would be here a conscious alteration of the text, out of consideration for Cistercian readers. Certainly, it is also possible that the scribe or redactor simply could not assign the passage; but in this case also, we recognise how much he felt obliged to be careful precisely with the writings of the saints of his order. Both interpretations could confirm that the MS was copied in Cîteaux, or at least by a Cistercian for his own use.

Di offers one of the rare indications that the text was still read during the French Revolution, but understood now differently than before, perhaps even, in Ockham's sense, in an anticlerical way. Under the customary content summary, de potestate Ecclesie et Summi pontificis, a hand of the Revolutionary period added: et primo et fautoribus haereticorum.[Note 72]

Literature:

Catalogue général des manuscrits des Bibliothèques publiques de France: Départements, vol. 5: Dijon, ed. MOLINIER, OMONT, BOUGENOT and GUIGNARD, Paris 1889, p. 92. - Yolanta ZALUSKA, "L'enluminure et le scriptorium de Cîteaux au XIIe siècle", Commentaria cistercienses, Studia et documenta IV, Cîteaux 1989, p. 33.

Fr Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek Frankfurt am Main, MS. lat qu. 4

Fol. 238v-258v; 315 mm x 215 mm; paper; 2 columns; about 1460.[Note 73]

Binding:

Pigskin of the 15th century, with attributes characteristic of the Cologne binding style, according to the catalogue description.[Note 74] On the back: Dyalogus Ockam.

Watermark:

A tower.[Note 75]

Other contents:

Ockham: List of chapters of the Dialogus (fol. 1-8v); fol. 12v: Prologue; fol. 13r-238r 1 Dialogus; fol. 258v-272: Compendium errorum Johannis XXII; fol. 272v-396v 3.21 Dialogus and 3.2 Dialogus; fol. 397r-450v: Octo questiones.

Script:

Written throughout in a bastarda Cologne-Lower Rhine type of hand; marginalia are written in part in different hands, corrections by the scribe's hand, at least in 2 Dialogus.

For the Compendium errorum in the same MS, H.S. Offler states that the MS is the work of "a careless scribe", whose text was amended in some places by a German scribe.[Note 76]

There is a 7-line initial with decorative filling at the beginning of 2 Dialogus, a 3-line initial without filling at the beginning of each chapter.

Provenance:

According to Gerhard Bredehorn and Karin Powitz the MS is of German origin. An origin in a workshop of the Fraterherren was proved by analysis of decorative forms. This reform movement, also familiar as the "Brethren of the Common Life", their customary name before their papal confirmation as Regular Canons in 1424, was not distinguished directly by an interest in political theory or book loving, and discussions of the heresy of a pope certainly could have little interest to most members of the order.[Note 77] The scriptoriums carried on by the Brethren served in a small way to equip their own houses with pious books, but much more to secure their livelihood.[Note 78] After all, Ockham's chief writings were much sought after in the market at that time, as shown not least by the appearance only a few years later of the editio princeps and Trechsel's printing. No indications of personal possession marks can be gathered from the catalogue description.

The close kinship between Di and Fr, which both come from the monastic sphere, if also from different orders, can be no accident, as the following analysis shows; we must assume a common exemplar. Perhaps an unknown person commissioning a copy himself provided the text to be copied to the Brothers; at any rate, in favour of this is the fact that no other Ockham MS has been recognised as coming from the milieu of the Fraterherren.

Literature:

Karin BREDEHORN / Gerhardt POWITZ, "Die mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Gruppe Manuscripta Latina", in: Kataloge der Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt (Main) 1979, p. 7 ff.Hilary Setton OFFLER in: William Ockham, Opera politica IV, Auctores britannici medii aevi, Oxford 1997, p. 8.Jürgen MIETHKE, "Ein neues Selbstzeugnis Ockhams zu seinem Dialogus", in: From Ockham to Wycliff, eds. Anne Hudson and Michael Wilks, Oxford 1987, p. 25.

Observations on the kinship Di-Fr

Di might well be older than Fr, since Fr often follows Di , but then notices the error and amends it: besides the names of authorities mentioned [above], there are passages in which Di writes something incomprehensible, as for instance at the end of II.5.3, where the talis in the predominant reading is replaced in Di with tollit; Fr took this over at first, but then crossed it out. Likewise in II.5.4, where the correct umquam is replaced in Di and Fr with numquam; Fr afterwards crossed out the n- and thereby amended it to umquam. There are many similar places. For example, in I.10.31, concerning the imprisonment of Thomas Waleys, where carceri mancipavit, replaced in the text of Di with carere mancipavit, remains misunderstood by the Cistercian; Fr crosses out the carere before mancipavit and writes carceri after it: we can recognise here that the scribe was at the same time the corrector and that the correction took place immediately (with a certain thought interval) during copying. Admittedly, omissions in Di could be corrected only in the margin or between the lines, as in I.10.17 where a missing, but syntactically necessary qui in the phrase ille qui molestat appears between the lines, or in II.5.1, where a negat that in Di and Fr first read negata, was altered in Fr, by expunction of -ta and insertion of -vit, to negavit. Admittedly this is also a unique variant, which suggests the thought that Fr had made its correction of the text of their exemplar as reflected in Di not in accordance with another MS, but in accordance with the scribe's own judgment. Admittedly, there are also places which require another explanation: in I.8.9 Di adds to separatam an aliam, which Fr writes in place of the same lemma without noticing the error.

The questionable character of both MSS is especially clear in I.10.23, where an eye-jump in a backward direction has apparently happened to the common exemplar: after credere explicite in the first clause of the eighth argument the eye has jumped back to the credere explicite of the seventh argument: while Di adds only the half sentence quod et hoc ipse scit constat de heretica pravitate and then breaks off, Fr writes this and then its continuation: convinci. Et ideo talis per protestationem huiusmodi nullo . . . , before he notices the error. Fr has mostly, though not always more thoroughly than Di, thought through the common exemplar. Moreover, II.10.29 also shows that Fr sometimes allowed itself a comprehensive creative grasp : praedicantes in the phrase qui . . . praedicantes veritatem catholicam et pravitatem hereticam impugnantes persequitur …in the common exemplar read procuratores: while Di repeats the sentence without alteration, Fr changes the construction to: …procuratores veritatis catholice et pravitatis heretice impugnando ….

Kg Klosterneuburg, Bibliothek des Augustiner-Chorherrenstifts, Ccl.331

Fol. 355r-365v; Paper; 296-302 mm x 215 mm; single column; 15th century.

Binding:

Cover: Modern, half-leather binding, certainly made in the institution

Watermark:

Pair of ox heads.[Note 79]

Other contents:

A collection of heterogenous content: Opinions of the Fathers, (fol. 1-174); several writings of Petrus Damiani (fol. 175-222); anonymous sermones festivales (fol. 223-306 and fol. 376-378); Heinrich von Oyta: lecturae super psalm. (fol. 307-354); an anonymous chronica brevis mundi (fol. 379-390); Theophilus presbyter, liber de diversis artibus et de temperamento colorum et in nudis corporibus (fol. 391-399)

Script:

Kg has the text break in I.3.3 typical of the B group. Its inclusion in the same sub-group as Di and Fr, which do not have the text break, and thereby in the top-group A, is due to stemmatic findings that arise in many particular places. Also Di and Fr are, in accordance with their particular variants, rather to be included in the B group.[Note 80]

Several hands appear in the whole MS, but only one hand, which cannot be demonstrated in other parts of the MS, appears in the fragment of 2.1 Dialogus; this breaks off in I.6.3; fol. 363r-v is blank.

In 2.1 Dialogus there are no initials as at the beginning of the MS; on the other hand, there are 2-4 line empty spaces at the chapter beginings, intended to be taken up by initials, in which however there are only letters in script size. Decorative forms are not found in 2 Dialogus.

The scribe made self-corrections, e.g by crossing out mistaken additions.[Note 81]

Provenance:

Like Di and Fr, Kg is of monastic origin. Because of the lack of other owners' marks besides Liber S. Marie virginis in Newnburga Claustrali (fol. 1r, 222r, 399v), the rejection of ornament and the absence of the scribe's name, the MS allows no certain statement of provenance. One can only assume, as with its nearest relatives, that it is a copy produced or bought on monastic commission. It is not clear what led to interest in Ockham on the part of the regular canons of Klosterneuburg (adjacent to Vienna), which in the mid-15th century became a place of humanistic learning.[Note 82] However, it is known that in the early 15th century the foundation was reformed and with that the library was considerably enlarged by targeted purchases. The choir monk Kolomann von Knapp took part as the foundation's representative at the Council of Basel and also bought MSS there.[Note 83] Admittedly, Kg gives no hint of purchase in Basel.

The fact that 2 Dialogus 1 is incomplete in Kg without any recognisable physical reason for the breaking off, in conjunction with the rather below-average quality of the text, permits the conclusion that the scribe either reproduced a physically mutilated exemplar or at some point lost interest in Ockham. However, the Liber Gomorrhianus of Petrus Damiani is also transmitted incomplete in the same MS; the rather contemplative texts in Kg seem, on the contrary, to be complete. In so far as 2.1 Dialogus and the Liber Gomorrhianus are the only texts in this MS that show a certain interest in criticism of the Church, it is possible that their incompleteness may be explained by decided lack of interest. A text that deals with the beatific vision of the saints could suggest to an anthologist unfamiliar with Ockham the idea that this is a purely edifying treatise; perhaps the disappointment with the true character of the text, perhaps also indignation with the anti-papal polemic instead of a pious meditation, was the reason why the copy was broken off. Moreover, Kg is besides Ha the only Ockham MS here dealt with that otherwise contains no text of Ockham or from the Dialogus.

Observations on the kinship Di-Kg

Kg and Di are sometimes in kinship when other MS of the A or B group stand out from these. In I.2.3 the prevailing text, and also Fr, reads, in reference to Paul's rapture, beatitudinem; in Ax BET Fi LLU Lb and NVV this word is lacking, in Ax Ba Di Fi and To there is even a gap. Di and Kg fill this with the essentially correct visionem essencie divine in raptu, which shows that the scribe of their exemplar was actively following the argument.

Literature:

Literatur: H. PFEIFFER / B. CERNÍK, Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum, qui in bibliotheca canonicorum regularium s. Augustini Claustroneoburgi asservantur Bd. 2, Wien 1931, pp. 91-94. - Gerda KOLLER, "Kolomann Knapp, ein Leben im Schatten des Konzils", in: Jahrbuch des Stiftes Klosterneuburg NF 3, 1963, pp. 110-136. - Floridus RÖHRIG, Das Stift Klosterneuburg und seine Kunstschätze, Wien 1994.


SUB-GROUP HK

Ha Leuven, Fakulteit Godgeleerdheid, MS Grand Séminaire Cod. 17

Fol. 480v-499v; paper; 295 x 215 mm; single column; end of 15th or beginning of 16th century.[Note 84]

Binding:

Calf leather on wood (15th century); on the back, SS. Adriani VI Opera propria manuscripta from the 19th century.

Watermark:

Gothic P, above it a little four-petalled flower.[Note 85]

Other contents:

A collection with 7 parts (A-G):

From fol. 460 there is another pagination, which begins with "96" and continues on the recto side for only four folios. Counting back hypothetically from 96 fol., we arrive at fol. 363, exactly at the beginning of part B. This suggests that the codex had originally consisted of two parts, the academic autograph writings of Adrian Florensz in Part A and writings of other provenance in parts B-G.

Script:

Many hands in the whole codex, including that of Adrian Florensz, but in 2 Dialogus only one hand.

The text shows considerable changes in comparison with the prevailing readings and stands in close kinship with Ko. Both have thereby a special standing in the tradition and are to be regarded as an abbreviating reworking of the original text, whose statements are thus presented more clearly.

Ha shows no decorative forms, few marginal corrections, occasional crossings-out of text; the projected two line initials at chapter beginnings were not carried out, leaving empty spaces.

Provenance:

On a fly leaf we read: hic liber propria manu Summi Pontificis Adriani Sexti conscriptus, olim Lovanii in bibliotheca Collegii papalis ejusdem catenea ferrea alligatus erat, et nobis traditus est a R. D. Vanderlinden Decano Lovaniensi ut in Bibliotheca Seminarii nostri conservatur. Engelbertus Archiep. Mecheln. Adrian Florensz, pope as Hadrian VI from 9.1.1522 to 14.9.1523, gave this codex , probably before his election, to the college he had founded in the University of Louvain, where he himself as Adrian Florensz had studied and taught; he twice became rector and finally in 1497 Chancellor. The codex became part of a chained library there. At the French Revolution, when the University's wealth was scattered, the volume came to the hands of the Deacon of Louvain, Abt Vanderlinden, who gave it to the Archbishop of Mecheln (Malines), Mgr. Sterckx; the latter handed it over between 1832 and 1838 to the library of the seminary in Mecheln. Later the volume came again to Louvain.

The more interesting question is, what was the provenance of the text exemplar that was copied at the commission of Adrian Florensz , when Ha was compiled. At this point it should be remembered that 2 Dialogus is found in a part of the codex (G), that contains yet other texts of Franciscan provenance, such as the preliminary stage Quare detraxistis of the Fraticelli treatise Veritatem sapientis, but also texts that have no specifically Franciscan significance. The Fraticelli origin of the treatise Quare detraxistis, which stands immediately before 2 Dialogus, which was ascribed to Ockham, and which was written by the same hand as 2 Dialogus, could indicate a common Italian exemplar, perhaps a Franciscan collection, which, as demonstrable Gallicisms in Quare detraxistis show, was again filtered in a Parisian intermediate stage of the tradition, and/or was copied by a French scribe.[Note 86]

Admittedly, the common origin of Quare detraxistis and the reworking of 2 Dialogus in Ha can not be cogently proved. Certainly, it is well-known that in the last third of the 14th century Italian Fraticelli took up Ockham's Dialogus and, in their fight for survival against the official Church, called for the reading of his works.[Note 87] If Italian Fraticelli had already known the text of 2 Dialogus in the form it has in Ha, this would have considerable consequences for the formation of the critical text. Ha would then show the oldest known text formation of 2 Dialogus, and would therefore come closer than all other MSS to the autograph. Decisive for the assumption that 2 Dialogus could have obtained its characteristic text form first in Paris, is the close kinship with 2 Dialogus in the Cologne MS (Ko), which also contains the Abbreviatio Dyalogi of Pierre d'Ailly and therefore seems to have its roots in the Paris academic milieu; in this circle of shortened text versions, admittedly of the A group, the oldest representative of which are the exemplars of PV and CP, which differ considerably from Ko and Ha in numerous particular formulations and in whole passages. This suggests that the readings of Ko are to be explained by a common exemplar with Ha, or copying from it.

Certainly no extended residence in Paris is documented in the biography of Adrian Florensz; however the relationships of personnel between the University of Paris and the University of Louvain, first founded in 1425, were close[Note 88] and could easily explain the travels of such a text. Unlike the many other MSS in which 2 Dialogus is transmitted as part of the whole Dialogus, and therefore were transmitted because of a political interest on the commissioner's part, the context of transmission in Ha shows rather Adrian Florensz's interest in Franciscan texts, which, as is demonstrable at least for Quare detraxistis, were copied also from a Franciscan source, probably a collection. The question which text tradition is to be made authoritative, can be clarified first by a comparison between Ha and Ko.

Literature:

Carlo DE CLERCQ, "Catalogue général des manuscrits du grand séminaire de Malines", Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques de Belgique vol. 4; Gembloux-Paris 1937, p. 41-56, here p. 53.E. REUSENS, Anecdota Adriani Sexti, pp. XLIV-XLVII (= Syntagma doctrinae theologicae Adriani Sexti, Louvain 1862, pp. XLVI-XLIX).Jan BALLWEG, "Zum Ursprung von Veritatem sapientisEin neuer Aspekt der Rezeption michaelitischen Gedankengutes bei den italienischen Fratizellen im 14. Jahrhundert", in Picenum Seraphicum 20, 2001, Nouva serie, pp. 47-112, here pp. 53-59.

Ko Köln, Stadtarchiv, MS: GB Fo.76

Fol. 275r-297v; 290 x 210 mm; paper; single column; around 1470.

Binding:

Brown leather binding, restored; original leather binding of the 15th century with scudding-knife lines and individual stamps on the front cover, 2 clasps added; at each of front and back a new flyleaf and a newer one glued on.

Watermark:

Oxshead;[Note 89] letter Y;[Note 90] letter P.[Note 91]

Other contents:

Ochkam: 1 Dialogus (fol. 1-274); Pierre d'Ailly, Abbreviatio Dyalogi (fol. 297v-313v).

Script:

In the whole codex two hands appear, but in 2 Dialogus only one. There are crossings-out and occasional corrections in the margin; sometimes additions are made by a second hand, where there is a gap in Ha.[Note 92]

A four-line red initial stands at the beginning of 2 Dialogus, there are 2-line red initials at the beginning of every chapter. This MS is the only one to have recognised that the designation of De dogmatibus as 2 Dialogus is questionable;[Note 93] the scribe might thus have been more than a hired scribe just copying mechanically.

Provenance:

There are erased ownership marks of the 15th and 16th centuries, partly readable under quartz light: magistro (?) Johanni (?) de Gambach; underneath that: ad usum fratris < . . . > de Campana (?) ordinis Carmelitarum conventus Coloniensis (?) inmeriti lectoris (?).[Note 94] A more recent ownership mark comes from the 16th/17th century: Publius Mimus. Shelf marks of the Cologne Carmelite library are cancelled.

The persons named are otherwise unknown, but they might have belonged to the Cologne Carmelite convent. Admittedly, the Carmelites were not an order whose learning had reached the level of the Franciscans or Dominicans, and also their participation in the ecclesiological debates of the early 14th century---as for example the poverty controversy through Gerardo of Bologna and Guido Terreni, who both defended John XXII's teaching against the Franciscan dissidents---remained rather insignificant.[Note 95] In the visio-conflict the Order gave sporadic support for the immediate vision of the saints, as for example by the general of the order, Pierre Desmaisons, who, however, had no influence on the course of the conflict.[Note 96] With this option it should not be forgotten that it had been John XXII to whom the Order owed an abundance of privileges, which placed it on the same level with the Franciscans and Dominicans.[Note 97] The order already had houses of study in many places, in Cologne already in the late 13th century and in Paris already in the middle of the 13th century; it also had a scholarly infrastructure, which can explain the travels of a text or even a MS from Paris to Cologne.[Note 98] Precisely in the years 1440-1460 an especially large number of Cologne students were registered who went to Paris, Since the Abbreviatio Dyalogi is found only in Paris MSS, a Paris exemplar is also probable for Ko. The question whether the copying was motivated by Ockham's name or by the ecclesiological consequence of the Dialogus must probably remain open. In any case it is a speculation to see a relationship to the efforts to reform the Order made by the saintly general of the Order, Johannes Soreth, who forwarded the reform movements resulting from the 1453 meeting of the Cologne provincial chapter, as for example in Moers and Enghien, and for this in 1457 received endorsement from Calixtus III. The schism between these Carmelites of the "Calixtus observance", and those of the "Eugenian observance" (i.e. the observance endorsed by Eugene IV), whose centre was in Mantua, could have been the spiritual framework for the discussion of the question of an heretical pope and thereby also the political theory of Ockham. This active interest on the scribe's part could also explain the surprise [see note] over the transmission of the De dogmatibus as 2 Dialogus. That nevertheless he copied the purely theological text could suggest the conclusion that he made the copy as a commissioned work.

Literature:

Joachim VENNEBUSCH, Die Theologischen Handschriften des Stadtarchivs Köln, Teil 1. Die Folio-Handschriften der Gymasialbibliothek. Mitteilungen aus dem Stadtarchiv von Köln, ed. Hugo Stehkämpfer, Köln-Wien 1976, pp. 59-61.Ian MURDOCH, Abbreviatio Dyalogi p. xliii.

Observations on the kinship Ha-Ko

In I.2.12 in the context of a progress ad aliquam perfectionem there is in Ha the formulation perfectius gradum, which in Ko is written between the lines as an amendment of the prevailing reading perfectionem. Therefore Ko would be amended in accordance with Ha.

At the end of I.2.15 we find an et which in Ko was first written as quam and crossed out; then between the lines is written a qui, which we find in Ha in the text. This seems to indicate that Ko was amended in accordance with Ha, but also it cannot be ruled out that Ha may be a copy made from the amended Ko. There is a similarly polyvalent situation in I.10.52, where after tamen an attached illud in Ha is crossed out, that in Ko no longer appears.[Note 99] This could be, and probably is, a matter here of a scribal error that has crept in, which the scribe himself noticed and amended; the assumption of a correction in accordance with Ko or another MS is here unnecessary.

The improbability of the supposition that Ko was amended in accordance with Ha is seen in II.3.6, where a citation going back to Gregory the Great from the Ordo Missae of Innocent III is completely missing in Ha and even led to an empty line space, but in Ko is replaced by the corresponding prevailing reading ; since the text was not cited verbatim, it is also unlikely that the scribe of Ko looked the place up: Ha cannot have been the exemplar for Ko. There are further examples of the correction of Ko according to the prevailing reading.[Note 100]

The situation is similar in a place in I.3.2, where of the author's Patriarche et Prophete in Ko there remains in Ha only Patriarche: Ko can here not depend on Ha; Ha can however have been copied from Ko, if a scribal error has crept in here. The common exemplar of Ha and Ko is sometimes the only MS that has checked and amended the text of glosses, as in II.6.3, where in qui venerit expectat ut coronetur only Ha and Ko (besides G) add the prior that the sense requires, in accordance with the text of the Gloss of Petrus Lombardus. It seems as if the exemplar of Ha-Ko has good knowledge of Augustine: when in I.10.42 the topic is that Augustine has published (perpendit) a later sine conditione revocation of a error, Ha-Ko know that this publication happened in libris suis; Goldast for his part is the only witness to replace perpendit with praedicavit, perhaps because he referred the place erroneously to John XXII.


SUB-GROUP PV

Pa Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 14313

Fol. 156va-170vb; parchment, page size: 400 mm x 315 mm; text area: 213 mm x 295 mm; 2 columns; dated 11 May 1389.

Binding:

Green paper on pasteboard with stamped coat of arms on front and back with the inscription "ex Bibliotheca Sancti Victoris Paris", probably of the 18th century.[Note 101] Back largely scuffed; written on the hinge "Guil. Okam".

Other contents:

Ockham 1 Dialogus (fol. 1-156rb).

Script:

By one hand throughout, scarcely any marginal comments,[Note 102] a few corrections of scribal errors by crossing out or expunction, scarcely any entries between the lines.

Ornamentation by geometrical line patterns; illuminated 5-line initial in red and blue at the beginning of 2 Dialogus as well as 2-line initials at chapter beginnings.

Between I.10.1 and II.3.6 there is a disturbance in the sequence of sheets, perhaps due to the exchange of fol. 163 and 164 and likewise fol. 165 and 166 in the exemplar;[Note 103] the correct ordering of the affected folios 162-167 must be read off from the flow of Ockham's text: fol. 162 - 164 - 163 -166 - 165 - 167. There was no loss of text.

The scribe notes at the end (fol. 170vb): Explicit. Iste liber completus fuit gracia spiritus sancti anno domini [May 11, 1389] …Nomen scriptoris est S. de Portis[Note 104].

Provenance:

On the lower margin of fol. 1r there is the note: hic liber est sancti victoris parisiensis inveniens quis reddat amore dei.[Note 105] This note indicates (if the reconstruction by Gilbert Ouy of the library of the Paris Parliament advocate Simon de Plumetot (d.1443) applies) the location of the volume after Plumetot, as a sympathiser of the English crown, left Paris at the return in 1436 of Charles VII to Paris, and at the same time entrusted his book collection to the canons regular of S. Victor.[Note 106] In the same MS Ouy also recognised Plumetot's annotations in his own hand on 1 Dialogus.[Note 107] In 2 Dialogus the marginalia are recognisable in only one place. This may have real grounds---perhaps it reflects the fact that Plumetot as jurist felt less attracted to the genuinely theological problematic of 2 Dialogus Whether Plumetot was the first owner of Pa remains unclear, though it also cannot be quite ruled out; in 1389, certainly, he turned 18 years old, he studied at this time in Paris as bursarius of the canons regular of S. Victor, before changing to the faculty of law in Orléans, where he is documented in 1394. Ouy's construction had not remained without contradiction: doubt that Plumetot owned at all a MS containing 1 and 2 Dialogus is expressed by Miethke,[Note 108] who with reference to a list of Ockham's writings in a MS coming from Plumetot's collection[Note 109] pointed out from that that Plumetot was interested exclusively in Ockham's political writings.

Literature:

Léopold DÉLISLE, "Inventaire des manuscrits latins de Saint-Victor conservés à la Bibliothèque Impériale sous les numéros 14232-15174", in: Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes 30, 1869, pp. 1-79, here: S. 5 [short notice].B. HAURÉAU, Notices et extraits de quelques manuscrits latins de la Bibliothèque Nationale, vol. 3, 1891 (at nrs. 14246-14929).François RABELAIS: Catalogue de la Bibliothèque de Saint-Victor au seizième siècle, Paris 1862.Emile CHATELAIN, "Les manuscrites du collège de Navarre en 1471", in: Revue des bibliothèques 11, 1901, pp. 362-411.Gilbert OUY, "Simon de Plumetot" p. 375 nr.29.Gilbert OUY / Veronika GERZ-VON BÜREN (eds.): Le catalogue de la bibliothèque de Saint-Victor de Paris de Claude Grandrue, 1514. Introduction, texte et index, concordances, Paris 1983.Gilbert OUY, "Les manuscrits de l'Abbaye de Saint-Victor: catalogue établi sur la base du répertoire de Claude de Grandrue (1514)". Bibliotheca Victorina 10 [Paris], Brepols 1999.

Vd Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS lat. 4098

Fol. 102vb-111rb, paper; page size: 430 x 280 mm; text area: 285 mm x 175 mm; 2 columns; 15th century.

Binding:

Dark red leather binding with gold stamping on the back and the label "4098".

Watermark:

A column with a capital with five tori and a three-membered base.[Note 110]

Other contents:

Ockham 1 Dialogus (fol. 1ra-102vb); 3.2 Dialogus [ends in c. 3.2] (fol. 111va-132ra).

Script:

One hand wrote the whole MS throughout. Exclusively red 3-4 line initials, as at the beginning of 2 Dialogus, without any decoration. Many marginalia provide explanation of the text and correction, sometimes also correction by erasure,[Note 111] a few places in the text apparently left open by the scribe remain as gaps.[Note 112] The text is divided from the page margins by vertical lines which at their upper ends swing out sideways.

After II.1.4 (fol. 104vb) a piece of text is missing, which the scribe added at the end at fol. 110vb-111rb, where in a short transition text he refers to the fact that it is unclear to him where the text remaining after the conclusion of the work belongs;[Note 113] it is left first to the corrector, his dominus et preceptor, as he says, to find this out, which the latter has also done by suitable cross-references. We can conclude from this that the correction took place soon after the conclusion of the copying, and the marginalia reflect a checking of the text, but not use. From the number and density of the marginalia it seems to be the conclusion that the intensity of correction has been greatest in 2 Dialogus.

Observations:

A citation error in canon law happened to the scribe which the attentive corrector also did not notice: in I.10.41 in a canonistic quotation the scribe replaced the reference D.2 c.42 with distinctione secundo capitulo Ego Berengarius.[Note 114] On the other hand in I.1.7 fides in the text is amended in the margin to spes;[Note 115] the corrector must have been a theologian rather than a canonist.

Provenance:

Apart from the watermark of the paper that relates to central Italy, the MS offers no indication of its provenance. The close relationship with Pa, which clearly has a Paris origin, could also make a Paris exemplar probable for Vd also; however, the MS's journeying from Paris to Rome remains in need of explanation. In a larger compass a transportation has been reconstructed of MSS from Avignon to Paris with a stopover in Peñiscola and in the Collège de Foix in Toulouse,[Note 116] likewise in the opposite direction from Avignon to Rome.[Note 117] Since its script clearly indicates that Vd originated later than Pa, we must assume that an earlier unknown owner brought the MS to Rome; it closely follows its exemplar, perhaps a wandering Paris peciae exemplar,which Pa also followed. We cannot finally decide whether the copy was produced in Paris, perhaps during the studies of its owner, or---as the watermarks, if we assume a further intermediate stage, could indicate--- in Italy, perhaps even in Rome.

The phrase dominus et preceptor meus, with which the scribe refers to the person who gave him this commission, can perhaps be interpreted as showing that he was no simple hired copist, but also stands in a fuller life-relationship with him, perhaps belonged to his familia. Vd might thus come from the collection of a prelate studying in Paris.[Note 118] The MS was included in [Etzkorn's] Iter Franciscanum apparently because Ockham was a Franciscan, but the MS shows no sign of Franciscan provenance.

Literature:

Girard ETZKORN, Iter Vaticanum Franciscanum. A Description of some hundred Manuscripts of the Vaticanus Latinus Collection, Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters, ed. J. A. Aertsen, vol. 50, Leiden-New York-Köln 1996, p. 89. - Richard SCHOLZ, Unbekannte Kirchenpolitische Streitschriften I p. 144 [somewhat erroneous].

Observations on the kinship Pa-Vd:

In I.10.8 Pa and Vd are the only MSS to read omelyas instead of Amasias. In I.10.37 et ex iure positivo is missing only in Pa and Vd. It is demonstrable that the marginal corrections in Vd agreeing with the prevailing readings sometimes correspond to an omission in Pa[Note 119] or, in an uncommon variant, Vd shows a gap where Pa shows an uncommon but easily falsifiable reading;[Note 120] sometimes Vd also has deleted by expunction a variant found in Pa and not elsewhere demonstrable.[Note 121] Vd and Pa thus had an indirect common exemplar, whereas Vd was apparently corrected in accordance with another MS. Vd sometimes consciously separates itself from less closely related MSS and then follows Pa, as in II 5.6, where Ar Ca Pb Pc add to the habere a cor that makes no sense (and is not clearly readable) before the following quotation torrens voluptatis, which is missing in Pa and in Vd is deleted by expunction. We can speculate whether Pa followed the text of the common exemplar more attentively and Vd found the error in accordance with Pa, or whether Vd was corrected without dependence on Pa. The conclusion suggests itself that a MS standing close to Pa was consulted for correction; the difference in age of the two MSS is enough to make a direct dependence between the two MSS unlikely.


MSS OF THE A-GROUP NOT BELONGING TO A SUB-GROUP

Pb Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 15881

Fol. 163vb-184rb; page size: 303mm x 230 mm; text area: 153 x 225 mm; parchment; two columns; 14th century.[Note 122]

Binding:

Parchment over wood; inscription "Dialogi MS".

Other contents:

Ockham, 1 Dialogus (fol. 1ra-163vb), 3.2 Dialogus (fol. 185ra-229rb); fol. 184v is nearly blank.[Note 123]

Script:

1 Dialogus was written by many hands; the last of these hands also wrote 2 Dialogus directly following 1 Dialogus;[Note 124] 3 Dialogus is by another hand. Two-line initials with linear pattern decorations, clearly reminiscent of Pa, but somewhat more modestly executed, are found at the chapter beginnings of 2 Dialogus. The beginning of 1 Dialogus is decorated with a frame in gold, red and blue. Marginalia, appearing only at the beginning of the text and perhaps cut off by a binding,[Note 125] are by another hand,[Note 126] probably of a user, who soon lost interest after beginning to read.

Provenance:

The only external criterion is a stamp of the Sorbonne[Note 127] and a shelf-mark ("nr. 620") on the fly leaves front and back; there is no note of when the volume arrived in the Sorbonne and from there to the Bibliothèque Nationale. Especially in its decorative forms, we can recognise a certain closeness to Pa, which is confirmed by the paleographical evidence that they were written at about the same time. It might be a matter of an exemplar of Paris origin.

The lack of any group membership does not mean that the MS stands in complete isolation; it belongs clearly to the Paris A-Group and often has common readings with CP and VD. When the changeable MS Sa leans towards the A Group, a pronounced proximity to Pb is mostly recognisable. The opinion John Kilcullen refers to as expressed by Gilbert Ouy to Ian Murdoch that Ca und Pb may have been copied for Pierre D'Ailly, is, at least for Pb, not verifiable.[Note 128] The especially close kinship between Pb and Ar noticeable in the early books of 1 Dialogus is also not traceable in 2 Dialogus.

Literature:

Léopold DELISLE, " Inventaire des manuscrits latins de la Sorbonne, conservés à la Bibliohèque Impériale sous les nos. 15176-16718 du fonds latin ", in: Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes 31, 1870, pp. 1-50; 135-161, here [as brief notice]: p. 27.


GROUP B

MSS NOT BELONGING TO A SUB-GROUP

Ax Aix-en-Provence, Bibliothèque Méjanes, MS lat. 1463 (1329)

Fol. 176ra-191rb; parchment; page size: 315 mm x 220 mm; text area: 220 mm x 162 mm; 2 columns; 14th century.

Binding:

Modern binding in green cardboard, perhaps from the beginning of the 19th century. The back is bound in leather (perhaps 17th century), and bears an inscription stamped in gold on a red ground: Johannes XXII. Opera.

Other contents:

Ockham 1 Dialogus (fol. 1ra-175vb)

Script:

Written throughout in one hand, a 12-line intensively decorated initial in red, blue and gold at the beginning of 2 Dialogus; the first part-sentence, Verba oris eius iniquitas et appears in 3-line script. The same pattern with 6-line initials executed in red and blue alternating irregularly which appear in the first line in 2-line script at the beginning of every chapter.

Observations:

Sometimes there are readings that show little understanding of the text, as for example at I.4.2, where the already often mentioned and correctly written phrase opera misericordie is suddenly to be read omnia misericordie, or rather, inflected, with omnibus instead of operibus. In I.4.13 it renders a scripture reference to Mark 16:16, not indeed, as AGL and DFK do, with a reference to Matthew, but with a completely incomprehensible, but clearly written, mora; in the citation it presents the form qui crederit instead of qui crediderit. In other ways the scribe's knowledge of Latin functions weakly: in I.3.2 he forms the genitive wrongly in a comprehensible way: promissionis impletis instead of impletae. Admittedly, the scribe also corrected while writing some of his own mistakes by crossing out, as in II.10.8, where at explicite he adds habent filium quam minores but then crosses it out again, or in I.10.51, where initially he omitted by eye-jump from explicite to explicite a second argument (Secundo qui esto quod non negaret veritatem, quam tenetur credere explicte) indispensable to the construction of the text (an omission otherwise found only in AGL and BET), but then with a va-cat eliminated the consecutive clause added at the first explicite and wrote the second argument. Certainly, we cannot conclude that he corrected his exemplar; he recognised his own eye-jump and eliminated it. There are also simple corrections e.g. by expunction of mistaken syllables, as in II.5.3, where quibuscumque by expunction of -bus became quicumque.

Provenance:

The MS arrived at the Bibliothèque Méjanes in the year 1906 as a gift of Auguste Pécoul (1837-1916). Pécoul's biography[Note 129] admittedly allows no further statement on the origin of the MS. From a widely distributed family of aristocratic culture, Auguste Pécoul in 1861 entered the École des Chartes and, after studying law in Aix-en-Provence, stayed some time in Solesme but without becoming a monk. He cultivated many contacts, especially with personalities in the Spanish monastic world, where he visited for many years to gather historical documents for a planned monograph ("Les moines d'Occident"). After his return, for 3-4 years he was French ambassador in Madrid, and in this time attained many honours from Spanish Academies. Also in Rome, his next station as secretary to the French embassy in the years just before 1871, he quickly won the respect of Pius IX. Pécoul left the diplomatic service and in 1871-1885 made further journeys in Spain. He rejected an offer by Leo XIII to buy his library and in his will bequeathed it to the somewhat unenthusiastic Bibliothèque Méjanes, having already in 1906 and 1910/11 given it important parts of his collection, among them (in 1906) MS 1463. The closer provenance of the MS, e.g. the question where Pécoul bought it, cannot be clarified by external criteria, though probability favours an origin from a Spanish monastic collection. To this also corresponds the stemmatic finding of a close kinship with BET.

The partially effaced coat of arms on the lower part of fol.1r could throw light on the first owner. In a blue shield it shows 6 friezes with (from the top downward) 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 balls in red or in silver (3rd and 5th down); the ball frieze in the second, fourth and sixth rows from the top are destroyed. On both sides two curving lines go out from the shield; above the shield there is a looping line, the opening of which is pierced by a diagonal arrow. An identification of these arms has so far not been possible. Likewise the decorative forms of the initials, which differ completely from the Paris pattern recognised in Pa, Ca and Pb, are so far not more closely identifiable.

Literature:

Catalogue général des Manuscrits des Bibliothèques publiques de France: Départements vol. 45: Paris-Besançon-Aix, 2e supplement, Paris 1915, p. 478.

Fi Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. XXXVI, dext. cod. 11

Fol. 127ra-141va; parchment; page size: 300 mm x 210 mm; text area: 225 mm x 150 mm; 2 columns; last third of the 14th century.

Binding:

Bound with dark brown linen covered pasteboard; leather back, on which is a shield masked by the inscription: Anonymus, Dialogus de Fautoribus et Credentibus Haereticorum. The inner sides of the binding is masked with paper that shows a watermark in modern script, perhaps of the 18th century.[Note 130]

Other contents:

Ockham: 1 Dialogus (fol. 1ra-126vb).

Script:

1 Dialogus is written by two hands (change at fol. 72va linea 6), 2 Dialogus by another hand. 1 and 2 Dialogus differ considerably also in other ways. Initials in red and blue with filagree, rubrics in red and blue and chapter superscriptions in red, as in 1 Dialogus, are completely lacking in 2 Dialogus. An intended 4-line initial at the beginning of the text of 2 Dialogus was not carried out, and likewise the 2-line initials at the beginning of every chapter. Marginalia in other hands are often met with in the part of 1 Dialogus copied by the first scribe,[Note 131] less often in the part copied by the second scribe, and hardly at all in 2 Dialogus, whose scribe often leaves erasure-free gaps in places apparently unclear to him, to make room for an expected correction, perhaps never carried out; 1 Dialogus has hardly any gaps in the text. In 2 Dialogus the pre-drawn guidelines for the lines of text are very visible, in 1 Dialogus not so. At the beginning of 2 Dialogus the quality of the parchment changes noticeably, from fol. 127r being less corrugated, certainly in a few places as a result of flaking of the writing.[Note 132] 2 Dialogus also lacks the book number we find in 1 Dialogus written in each case in the top margin between the two columns. At the end of 1 Dialogus there stands on the bottom margin the correct entry, 11 sexterni sunt.[Note 133] 2 Dialogus consists of two single gatherings each of 8 pages, recognisable also from the page numbering on the lower right.[Note 134] After the explicit in 1 Dialogus there stands the note Vinum scriptori debetur de meliori, which suggests that this is the conclusion of the whole work planned. 1 Dialogus and 2 Dialogus were therefore bound together from distinct MSS at a later date (see Provenance). This suggests the thought that 2 Dialogus was here taken over from a stand-alone MS, such as otherwise exists only with Kg and Ha.

Observations:

It is striking that an x is often written as s: ansietatem instead of anxietatem or Calistum instead of Calixtum.[Note 135] The frequent defensare instead of the usual defendere is found also in the already described MS Ha (e.g. fol. 475v line 12), that is, in a fraticelli text of clear Italian origin, which admittedly has an intermediate Paris stage of transmission.[Note 136] The Italo-Franciscan origin of Fi becomes clearer at the end of II.5.4, where the scribe of Fi was unwilling to accept the phrase that simply referred to Ps. 123:15, Quamquam autem propter prosperitatem mundanam dicuntur esse beati, and after mundanum inserted non, otherwise found only in Vb. Fi itself corrects recognisable scribal errors, e.g. in II.3.9, where it first takes over the tunc clarius of the predominant reading of the A-Group, then expunges tunc and after clarius inserts it again: this yeilds the reading of the B-Group, clarius tunc. This key position, recognisable here, of Fi for the tradition is illuminated also somewhat by I.10.30, where an almost complete iudicandus reads censendus in Fi; Vb also writes censendus, but then expunges it and writes iudicandus.

Fi strove for a coherent text form: in I.2.3, where the topic is the blessedness attained by Paul, it adds in raptu, but then crosses this out. The scribe tried to take an overview of the text structure: because of this, in I.2.22 he crossed out tertio modo and replaced it by quarto modo.

Provenance:

On the back of the first parchment page[Note 137] there is a series of entries in different hands. The oldest entry stands somewhat in the middle of the page: Iste liber est ad usum fratris Ludovici de Nerlis, quem emit parisius dum ibidem studens existerit anno domini MCCCLXXII, and permits the assumption that the MS with 1 Dialogus was bought in Paris in 1372,[Note 138] which admittedly says nothing of its origin. The entry at the very top of the page comes probably from the 15th century, Liber Conventus Sancte Crucis de florentia ordinis minoris, with the following title statement: Liber dialogorum qui versatur inter magistrum et discipulum. In the 18th century one hand added the title statement de credentibus, fautoribus et receptoribus hereticorum and wrote liber der dogmatibus under it. Beside it stands the old S. Croce shelf-mark, no 412.

This, as well as the findings stated above under "script", probably imply that at the latest in the 18th century 1 Dialogus and De dogmatibus were bound together. The date 1372 and the reference to Ludovico de Nerli, who cannot be shown to have been in the Paris Minorite house of studies,[Note 139] can be assumed - if it is reliable[Note 140] - only for 1 Dialogus. Knysh's observation that the writing of place names in 1 Dialogus 5.24 refers to western France[Note 141] could also apply to 1 Dialogus but not to 2 Dialogus.

Already in the 18th century Bandini expressed the careful opinion that the MS of De dogmatibus was written by Thedaldus da Casa.[Note 142] Many MSS of the Laurenziana coming from the collection of the Florentine Minorite convent, S. Croce, are associated with the name of this Franciscan bibliophile from Mugello, who in the hierarchy of the Order became Minister Calavoniae. Thedaldus was both founder [of the convent] and a hands-on scribe.[Note 143] A Petrarch MS dated 1373, which in 1406 he bequeathed as part of a gift comprising 70 MSS during his lifetime to S. Croce,[Note 144] in a part of the text designated in the explicit as autograph shows the same angular script as De Dogmatibus in Fi, but with fewer, and in part also different, abbreviations, so that Thedaldus da Casa comes into the question as scribe of De dogmatibus in Fi only on the assumption of a greater time distance. The provenance of De dogmatibus in Fi thus has nothing to do with Paris. The date should be indicated as the end of the 14th Century. Instead of a Parisian provenance, which cannot be verified by the stemmatic evidence, there is here an intra-Franciscan transmission.

Also, there is a stemmatic divergence between 1 Dialogus and De dogmatibus in Fi. For 1 Dialogus John Kilcullen has established[Note 145]; a kinship between MSS from Padua (An)[Note 146], Cesena (Ce)[Note 147] and Basel (Bb);[Note 148] the only relevance of this for 2 Dialogus is the verifiable closeness with Ba, which likewise comes from the Basel Dominican convent. The kinship of De dogmatibus in Fi with Ba and of Ba with the Languedoc related MSS Es and To shows that De dogmatibus [in Fi] had common roots with a lost MS that circulated in the Languedoc in Franciscan circles of Italian origin. A confirmation of the Franciscan origin of the codex is also recognisable from the fact that Fi sometimes shows a reading that approximates the reading found in the parallel places in the MS of the Chronicle of the so-called Nicolaus Minorita.[Note 149] Thus Fi possibly refers back, though across a few intermediate stages, immediately to the milieu of the Munich Franciscans.

Literature:

Ang. Mar. BANDINI, Catalogus codicum latiorum Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae, IV, continens exactissimam recensionem MSS condicum circiter DCC, qui in Florentino S. Crucis coenobio minor conventualium adservabantur, Florence 1777, p. 716 f. - F. MATTESINI, "La biblioteca francescana di S. Croce et Fr. Tedaldo della Casa", in: Studi Francescani 57, 1960, pp. 254-260.

Lb London, British Library, MS Harley 33

Fol. 168v-185v; 302 mm x 215 mm; parchment and paper;[Note 150] single column; early 15th century.

Binding:

A modern binding.

Watermark:

None[Note 151]

Other contents:

Ockham 1 Dialogus (fol. 76r-168v).

Script:

One hand wrote 2 Dialogus throughout; there are frequent corrections by another hand in the form of completion of gaps left open, crossings-out, insertions between the line, or marginal additions. A 5-line undecorated initial stands at the beginning of 2 Dialogus, 2-line undecorated initials at the beginning of each chapter. At the end of the MS there is a table of contents of 1 Dialogus, which stands in no recognisable relationship to the Abbreviatio of Pierre d'Ailly.

Observations:

The exemplar, or the scribe, of Lb seems to have been well informed about the Visio controversy: in II.4.5, where the topic is John's sermons on the visio, the first hand in Lb, adding precision, inserts tres in the text. No other MS has as many insertions and corrections as Lb, which perhaps is to be understood as an especially basic effort to produce a useful text, even if the result does not always correspond to the effort.

The tendency of the correction [is to supply readings similar to those of BET. This] can only be represented by example. At the beginning of I.10.30 Lb in the margin replaces the prevailing reading in the A-Group, impugnat which attacks that person (i.e. John XXII) who attacks those who preach Catholic truth, with the B-Group reading , molestant et persequuntur: this not only signifies a weakening, but also refers to John XXII's adherents, who are not actually attacked until 2.2 Dialogus. The oldest MSS of the B-Group, Fi and Vb, have here etcetera or an omission. The marginal correction took place in dependence on BET LLU. This becomes clearer at the end of II.5.4, where the scribe of Fi and Vb are unwilling to take over the expression Quamquam autem propter prosperitatem mundanam dicuntur esse beati, and after mundanum insert non, which is also found in the text flow of Lb, but was crossed out; then between the lines was inserted a mitigating aliqui, found also in Ax BET LLU. From this it can be inferred hypothetically, that, besides Fi and Vb, Lb also comes from the radical Franciscan circles, but was corrected in the sense of the Franciscan community or the Dominicans (cf. provenance of BET). It is similar in II.8.6, where the reprobati of the text reads reprobari in NVV and at first also in Lb, but then in Lb it was amended to reprobi, which we also find in Ax BET among others; here Fi characteristically has a gap. In II.10.4 the prius est certus of the critical text is corrected in Lb in the margin into possumus esse certi, which probably not coincidentally is the reading of BET. Other examples could be given.[Note 152] Sometimes, admittedly, a correction can be recognised that is against the A-Group , as in I.10.24, where the errat of the critical text appears as errans in CP DF PV and Lb , but then, by expunction of the final s, crossing out the n and inserting t between the lines was corrected to errat.

Lb used its exemplar carefully. Thus in II.4.5 he noticed an eye-jump (speciem. Ex quibus verbis evidenter habetur, quod visio Dei per speciem) in his exemplar, but could not eliminate it because he did not know the text documented in all the other MSS and replaced the erroneous place with a que harmonious with the content. Simple self-corrections in the flowing text are also demonstrable.[Note 153]

Provenance:

Coats of arms formerly on the back or on the binding, which have been preserved in a new binding, allow a few inferences:[Note 154] Deologus [sic!] oc[ham 2o] fo [del.!] Iesu tamquam Ex dono illustrissimi principis et domini. Domini humfridi filii fratris Regum et Patrui [sic]. Ducis Cloucestrie Comitis Penbrochie. Et magni Camerarii Anglie and the coat of arms of Humphrey of Gloucester. This man was a patron with humanistic interests and man of political power, the youngest son of Henry IV, count of Pembroke, since the death of Henry V in 1422 the regent for Henry VI and in the end the driving force for the prosecution of the war in France; he died in 1447, when his star was already sinking.[Note 155] Several times he gave substantial numbers of MSS to the old Oxford university library;[Note 156] he gave the Ockham MS in the year 1443.[Note 157]

Cyril Ernest Wright apparently found evidence that the MS was written for Duke Humphry[Note 158] by the Italian humanist Piero Candido Decembrio, through whom Gloucester bought MSS and had classical texts translated.[Note 159] It may therefore be interesting that Decembrio took part in the council of Basel, though this points to no more than one possible explanation of the difficulties of the stemmatic classification of Lb. That is to say, Lb changes frequently between the main lines of transmission. The correcting second hand often made changes in the direction of the B-Group , more exactly of the Dominican BET-sub-group, and thus often corrected a reading of the older NVV-sidegroup. In a book market as in Basel it could have been most easily possible that many exemplars would be available to the scribe. Ian Murdoch's sugestion that (along with Ca) this MS belonged also to Pierre d'Ailly when he was bishop of Cambrai[Note 160] cannot be verified from the organisation of the text. The paleographical analysis also reached varying results.[Note 161] In any case, the assumption that the exemplar of Lb, like that of Fi and Vb, was Italian and Franciscan , but was corrected in a Dominican direction , is relatively sure, and harmonisable with Wright's findings. In the home of the venerabilis inceptor the text of De dogmatibus, which was probably regarded as a theological work[Note 162]the strange designation deologus in the dedication is not otherwise explainable will probably have found a rather limited understanding on the part of an owner primarily interested in classical texts.[Note 163]

In the 17th century the MS belonged to the book collector Sir Simonds D'Ewes († 1650), who added many notes to the volume.[Note 164] When at the beginning of the 18th century his library was dissolved,[Note 165] the MS arrived, like many others from D'Ewes collection, in the collection of Robert Harley[Note 166] and later in the Harley holdings of the British Library.

Literature:

N.R. KER, "The Chaining, Labelling, and Inventory Numbers of Manuscripts belonging to the Old University Library", in Bodleian Library Record 5, 1955, pp. 176-180. - KER, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain. A list of surviving books, London 1941, p. 79.MURDOCH, Abbreviatio p. xxxiv.Alfonso SAMMUT, "Unfredo Duca di Gloucester e gli umanisti italiani", Medioevo e umanesimo 41, Padua 1980, p. 102 f. nr. 9.A. G. WATSON, The Library of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, London 1966, p. 121 f. (A. 209).A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum, I, 1808, 4 nr. 33.K. H. VICKERS, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. A Biography, London 1907, p. 429 f.C.E. WRIGHT, Fontes Harleiani, London 1972.

Sa Salamanca, Biblioteca universitaria, MS. 1971

Fol. 276rb-299rb; parchment; page size: 260 mm x 205 mm; text area: 202 mm x 148 mm; 2 columns; 15th century.

Binding:

Calf leather on pasteboard, rebound probably in the 18th century. Inside of the binding in marbled paper, with further flyleaf in paper with a watermark ("ARTIN") in modern script; on the back, "Ockham Dialogi".

Other contents:

Ockham 1 Dialogus (fol. 3r-276rb), fol. 2r-v are blank.

Script:

Two hands wrote the entire codex (change at fol. 125); 2 Dialogus is by one hand only. A space for a 4-line initial was left at the beginning of 2 Dialogus, but it was not executed; -erba oris eius iniquitas in 2-line script. In the text following planned 4-line initials were also left out at the chapter beginning.

The scribe counts 2 Dialogus as lib. 8 of 1 Dialogus and makes this clear by an VIII in red ink on the right-hand margin of each recto, just as he also marked the preceding books of 1 Dialogus. Occasionally parts of the text in 2 Dialogus have become mixed up: in I.10.36 (fol. 289rb) II.5.8 is added and extends to II.8.2 (fol. 290rb); after that the text is continued by I.10.46; the missing section (I.10.36 to I.10.46 ) follows in II.5.8 (fol. 295rb-296rb); both sections are added in the middle of the text flow; the permutation must thus have happened in an exemplar; the scribe of Sa apparently noticed nothing of this.

Observations:

Self-correction by expunction shows understanding of the text: in II.8.1 in subalterari the er is expunged, so that it yeilds the correct sub altari.( In I.10.44 the critical text reads existit, Sa originally wrote existat like Ba, but then amended this to existunt as in NVV. Also, in I.10.33 Sa follows the NVV-Group and amends a se into a sic, as otherwise Lb and Vb have; Ax BE LLU have here sic se.

Provenance:

On the front inside of the binding there is a glued on Ex libris with several shelf-marks of the royal library in Madrid (VII Y II; 2 G 4; 736). The shelf-mark on the parchment (fol. 2v) Bart 168, which is also on the back of the inner binding page, indicates that the MS originally belonged to the library of the College of S. Bartolomé in Salamanca.[Note 167] Later, probably in the 18th century,[Note 168] it was conveyed to the palace library in Madrid. First in 1954 more than 1000 MSS, including also the later MS 1971, went from Madrid to the University Library of Salamanca.[Note 169]

The College de San Bartholomé was established in 1401 by Diego de Anaya y Maldorado († 1437), who was the initially the prince's tutor, took part in the council of Constance as representative of Castille and bishop of Tuy, later Orense; under his former pupil and at that time king, Henry III, he became president of the royal council and in 1418 finally rose to Archbishop of Seville. Although at first he opted for Benedict XIII, who also in 1414 confirmed the College de San Bartholomé, in 1423 Diego de Anaya y Maldorado took the oath of obedience to Martin V. In a partly faded notarial protocol on fol. 1r, which does not come from any of the hands of MS 1971, there is a suitable date (ano 36) in the first line and in the third line the name of the founder.

The stemmatic classification of Sa in the field of NVV and Lb, though this cannot be thoroughly confirmed, which is true also of its sometimes recognisable closeness to Pb, permits the conclusion that Sa was ultimately of conciliar origin. If Vat. lat. 4001 (Va) was copied at the council of Basel, which admittedly only the colophon with the finish date 5.6.1437 indicates,[Note 170] one could assume this also for Sa. To this corresponds also the kinship with Ba, which probably is to be explained by a common exemplar, although the scribe of Sa in doubtful cases decides against this and in favour of the exemplar of Va. It is very probable that the exemplar of Sa is to be sought among the Ockham MS which circulated at the council and that Sa originated in Basel.

Concerning this we may refer to the fact that Bart. 168 was not the only Ockham MS in Salamanca. From the testament (which has been published several times) of Juan de Segovia in MS 221 of the Salamanca university library, it follows that this very learned churchman, since 1434 a member of the council of Basel, besides a larger gift to the Salamanca university library, bequeathed also a MS containing 1 Dialogus and a tabula;[Note 171] the MS described there can admittedly not be identified with MS 1971, because its line information does not correspond with what is found in MS 1971. There is no tabula in MS 1971, and no traces are recognisable of such a provenance; the Segovia MS must be regarded as missing.[Note 172] Juan de Segovia certainly knew not only Ockham's Octo quaestiones and 1 Dialogus, as the excerpts already edited by Krämer[Note 173] show, but also 2 Dialogus,[Note 174] as has often been overlooked.[Note 175] How current the problematic of the visio-conflict still was at the time of the council of Basel appears also in the fact that in MS 81 of the Salamanca university library, some parts of which are likewise the autograph of Juan de Segovia,[Note 176] in the margin, encompassing a report of Sessio IV of the Basel council, not only is there the revocatio of Pope John XXII,[Note 177] but there also surfaces part of the list of John XXII's visio errors, corresponding nearly verbatim with the list known from the Chronicle of Nicolaus Minorita.[Note 178]

Literature:

Oscar LILAO FRANCA / Carmen CASTRILLO GONZÁLES, Cátalogo de manuscritos de la Biblioteca Universitaria de Salamanca, vol. 2; Manuscritos 1680-2777, Salamanca 1997, p. 300. - Paul Oskar KRISTELLER, Iter Italicum. A finding List of Uncatalogued or Incompletely Catalogued Humanistic Manuscripts of the Renaissance in Italian and Other Libraries, vol. 4, Leiden-New York, Copenhagen, Cologne, 1989, pp. 598-606, here: p. 600b; F. RUIZ DE VERGARA Y ALAVA, Historia del Colegio viejo de S. Bartholomé, mayor de la celebre Universidad de Salamanca, 2nd edn. ed. J. DE ROXAS Y CONTRERAS, Marques de Alventos, Madrid 1766-1770, vol. III pp. 308-341, here: p. 303.Benigno HERNANDEZ MONTES, "Biblioteca de Juan de Segovia. Edición y commentario de su escritura de donación", Biblioteca Theologica Hispana, ser. 2, textos 3, Madrid 1984.J. GONZÁLES, "El maestro Juan de Segovia y su biblioteca", Consejo superioro de investigaciones cientificas, Instituo "Nicolas Antonio", Colleción bibliografica 6, Madrid 1944.


SUB-GROUP BET

Ba Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, A VI.5

Fol. 350r-380r; page size: 295 mm x 210 mm; text size: 195 mm x 120 mm; paper; one column; 15th century.

Binding:

Thin wood covers with yellowish deer leather coat, two broken-off leather latches, traces of pulled-out chains on the front cover at the top. Both covers are covered on the inside with parchment. The back cover on the outside bears a parchment shield with a statement of contents and the old monastic shelf-mark (a n 1). The binding was repaired in 1935.

Watermark:

Oxhead,[Note 179] whole ox,[Note 180] oxhead with star.[Note 181]

Other contents:

Ockham: 1 Dialogus (fol. 2r-350r); 3.2 Dialogus (fol. 380r-427v); fol. 428r-453 is blank.

Script:

Four, perhaps five, hands are found in the whole codex.[Note 182] 2 Dialogus is by two hands, a smaller section of it perhaps in a third. Marginal annotations include brief summaries of nearby text, sometimes also header or footer lines,[Note 183] marginal additions of places missing in the text[Note 184] and corrections.[Note 185]

Space is left for a 3-line initial at the beginning of 2 Dialogus and 2-line initials at chapter beginnings; the initials were not executed. This unpretentious appearance may be typical of MSS of the Basel Dominican convent.[Note 186]

Observations:

See also the BET-kinship.

The scribe or redactor of Ba takes the trouble to add citations missing in the exemplar. For example, in II.8.3 Ba adds to the citation from Apoc. 6:9-11 beginning talis est the reference Apoc 6 missing in all other MSS; Es repeats this in the margin.

Provenance:

According to an entry in the parchment fly leaf[Note 187] and a shelf-list on the parchment shield of the back cover, A VI.5 comes from the collection of the Basel Dominican house, which owned still other works of Ockham's (B VI.2: 1 Dialogus[Note 188]; B II.24: Opus Nonaginta Dierum) that came from the collection of Master in Theology and Prior Johannes von Effringen († 1375), as an ownership entry suggests.[Note 189] Johannes von Effringen had reached the rank of Master about 1350 in Montpellier, but after 1347 can be traced as Prior of the Basel Dominicans. After 1356, together with Johannes von Dambach, who had likewise studied in Montpellier, he lived in Strassburg and appeared in 1358/59 as vicar general of the Strassburg bishop; after 1371 he was living again in Basel.[Note 190]

According to the observations of John Kilcullen the MS from Effringen's collection (B VI.2) in 1 Dialogus is related to the MS Fi,[Note 191] which also contains 2 Dialogus, which external inspection confirms. Also Ba (A VI.5) is at least relatively closely akin to Fi stemmatically. Certainly, it can not come from the collection of Johannes von Effringen, because the script compels a later dating. Already M. Steinmann assumed from age and script an origin from the council of Basel, even though there is no entry in the volume that could document this.[Note 192] The close stemmatic kinship of Ba with Es and To,[Note 193] MSS that relate to the Dominican heartland of Languedoc and Effringen's stay as a student in Montpellier could point to a mediating common exemplar.

If Es was copied in Toulouse, probably from To or its exemplar, the numerous demonstrable corrections of Es according to Ba[Note 194] could have been done in Basel at the council, to which a Dominican from Languedoc had brought Es with him as reference text for the expected discussions. The kinship of Ba and especially of Bb with Fi confirms indirectly the here assumed localisation of Fi to the Languedoc and thus perhaps to the circles of Italian Franciscan exiles in Narbonne.[Note 195]

The dated ownership mark on the inside of the front cover Ex libris bibliotecae academie Basiliensis 1559 refers to the fact that in 1559 most of the library of the former Dominican convent was transferred to the University.

Literature:

There is no modern catalogue description, but only an unpublished description of the MSS; we thank the Basel public library for making them available. Cf. also the brief mention of the MS in: G. MEYER / M. BURCKHARDT, Die Mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Basel Abt. B, 1, Basel 1960, [on Basel Universitätsbibliothek B VI.2] p. 570. - Georg BONER, "Das Predigerkloster in Basel", in: Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 33,1934, pp. 197-303 and 34, 1935, pp. 107-259.

Es Escorial, Biblioteca privada de los padres Agustinos de El Escorial

unnumbered

Fol. 175rb-192va; parchment; page size: 350mm x 220 mmm; text size: 215 mm x 160 mm; 2 columns; end of 14th or beginning of 15th century.[Note 196]

Binding:

Leather binding over pasteboard with gold stamping from the 18th century, made by the Augustinians of Alcoy (Alicante); on the back: "Guillelmi Occam, Dialogi contra Johannem papam."[Note 197]

Other contents:

Ockham 1 Dialogus (fol. 1ra-175ra); 3.2 Dialogus (fol. 192va-232r).

Script:

The text in the whole MS is by one hand; marginalia as corrections or text paraphrase come from another hand, which sometimes carries out corrections between the lines,[Note 198] on erasures,[Note 199] or as additions in gaps left by the first hand,[Note 200] easily recognisable by the darker ink and smaller script. Three-line initials in blue or red stand at the beginning of 2 Dialogus and at the chapter beginnings; rubrics are likewise confined to red and blue. Also in 1 Dialogus and in 3.2 Dialogus we find the same corrections by the same hand.[Note 201]

Observations:

The notably conscientious corrector of Es had good canonistic knowledge: in I.10.39, in the citation from C. 1 q. 7 c. 19 regarding the heretical group, the Donatists, the scribe linked the erroneous donat ist a of his exemplar afterwards by hyphens to the correct donatista. In I.10.4 all MSS except Ba and Es read nescimus, while the proof text C.24 q.3 c.40, and likewise Ba and Es, read nesciunt; Es there adds the mus between the lines. In I.10.13 the corrector adds 24 q. to the gap left open for the reference to C.24 q.3 c.29; the dixit Apostolus stands in much thinner script, certainly not the corrector's, between the line diagonally above and after it. In II.8.9 Es gives the reference place in a citation taken from the Liber Extra of Innocent III (X 3.42.3), not, as almost all other MSS do, with the false De hereticis cap. Maiores, but correctly with De baptismo; in this Ba follows it.

Provenance:

Es in its current form comes from the Augustinian convent Alcoy.[Note 202] On the back of the empty binding page there is a very damaged 4-line comment, which is contemporary, and in its red script and size exactly corresponds to the Incipit prologus dyalogorum Okam on fol. 1ra. It does not stand on an erasure,[Note 203] but has been made partly illegible by frequent wearing in many places rubbing through the parchment. It probably indicated a first owner.[Note 204] However at least a few words are recognisable: iste lieber [sic] est sanct [destroyed names].…fratrum quam fecit scribi thol<os>e dum e<ra>t ibi . . . , which permits the conclusion that Es was copied in Toulouse[Note 205] on the instruction of a particular person; it remained there only temporarily, but after that has been in the possession of Brothers, probably Dominicans. Perhaps the production of Es served a Dominican prelate's scholarly preparation for participating in the Basel council, where the just lately copied MS underwent a correction by use of a MS closely related to Ba. The stemmatic finding of a close kinship of Es with To can confirm this.

Who this participant in the Basel council was, in whose luggage Es was transported from the Languedoc to Basel, one can only speculate.[Note 206] Very probably he was a Dominican who had undergone canonistic training. The corrector of Es might be looked for among this person's collaborators. Thus the marginalia in Es are scarcely to be attributed to a keen participant in debate as traces of use, but as editorial treatment of a MS for a user who did not recognisably use the text of 2 Dialogus. If it is right that the commissioner was a Dominican, Ockham, whose political writings would probably be known to Dominicans only from the milieu of the Spirituals and who himself would perhaps be regarded as a Spiritual, already would have been a persona non grata, whose writings it would be better not to read.

Perhaps this ties together the problem of the change of Order to the Augustinians [i.e. of ownership from Dominicans to Augustinians, see above] and the damnatio memoriae of the former owner with the further travels of the MS. Unfortunately it is not known when the codex arrived in Alcoy, but the transfer could have taken place already in Basel. Perhaps the Dominican sold the anti-papal and heretical writing of Ockham at the end of the Council, when he no longer needed it, instead of keeping it under lock and key. The codex of course came to the private library of the Augustinians in the Escorial first in the second half of the 16th century; here also the precise moment is unknown.

Literature:

José M. OZETA, "Códice de las ‚Diálogos' de Ockham en la Biblioteca privada de los PP. Agustinos del Escorial", in: La Ciudad de dios 189, 1976, pp. 493-412.

To Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 221 (I, 162)

Fol. 218ra-238v; paper; page size: 304 mm x 195 mm; text area: 193 mm x 149 mm; 2 columns; end of the 14th century.

Binding:

Remains of a contemporary wood cover covered with stamped leather with latches and 5 round fittings of copper (four of which form a rectangle and one is centered) are integrated into the modern restoration. On the old leather are recognisable rhombic ornaments with stamped motives (among others lillies as well as other botanical ornaments ). This kind of binding seems typical for the Toulouse Dominicans.

Watermark:

Oxes head[Note 207]

Other contents:

Ockham: 1 Dialogus (fol. 1ra-218ra); 3.2 Dialogus c.3 (fol. 238va-289vb).[Note 208]

Script:

The script of 2 Dialogus is by one hand. Four-line initials, undecorated, in red and the first line in 2-line script at the beginning of 2 Dialogus, later 3-line initials at chapter beginnings, no decorative forms. Omission of a part of the text (fol. 224va) from I.3.6 line 8 dicendum est to I.4.5 esse inquietem; at this place there is a column left blank.[Note 209] In 1 Dialogus und 3.2 Dialogus the words discipulus and magister are underlined in red, in 2 Dialogus also the markers at the chapter or paragraph beginnings. Sometimes there are larger quantities of text at first in darker ink and then underlined in red (e.g. fol. 143vb). Gaps in the flow of text (e.g. fol. 2rb, 3rb) are omissions. Catchwords divide the text into 24 gatherings each of 12 fol.

Observations:

To sometimes offers readings that are mistaken, even completely meaningless in content. See for example I.4.9, where anime (a key concept of the whole text) standing before separate is replaced with ait, or I.4.10, where omnia was written for anime. With references To's scribe often works quite unskilfully, as in I.3.4, where the reference Mag. Sent. libro 2 d. 11 is shortened to Mag Sent libro d. enim.Sometimes a nearness to Fi is recognisable, which makes less likely the otherwise apparent nearness to BE, as for example in I.6.2, where propter ista appears as pueriliter in Ax BE LLU Lb NVV and Sa, but in To and Fi is omitted. In I.6.3 To, with the reading igitur instead of the reading usual in the B-Group, ingreditur, that only in Es appears as augustinus dicitur, is quite untypical, which indicates that To does not depend on Ba or Es, but is (to put it at its highest) is based on Es as an exemplar not always deserving of belief. In the unusual construction in I.7.1: verbis [scil. Johannes' XXII.] …se non pertinaciter relatis, in BET Fi and DF the se is changed to sed, which really negates the pope's obduracy.

Provenance:

According to the information in the Catalogue général, the MS comes from the Dominican house in Toulouse; however, the MS contains no explicit reference to that.[Note 210] In the political centre of the Dominican Order the interest in Ockham may certainly have been of another kind than in learned Paris (though a university was founded in Toulouse already in 1229-33 and the Dominican Studium functioned as studium generale from 1300 at the latest, alongside Paris the most important establishment of the Order, and from 1368 Toulouse was also the resting place of the bones of the Order's teacher, Thomas Aquinas). Already in Ockham's lifetime the Dominican general chapter had adopted decisions against Marsilius of Padua and Michael of Cesena,[Note 211] and Ockham, to whose Dialogus Spirituals and Fraticelli appealed in their fight for survival against the papacy, himself counted probably as a Spiritual to theologically uneducated members of the Order. A MS that gives no indication of the purpose for which it was produced or cannot be put in any relation with an outstanding personality, can be classified only hypothetically. In the case of To, the danger Ockham constituted, recognisable in the mishearing of Ockham by the Fraticelli and Spirituals, might have stimulated interest in the Dialogus. Things in common with the Franciscan MS Fi could suggest the assumption that To's exemplar was itself a Franciscan MS. Perhaps the Schism, in which the Languedoc Dominicans opted for Urban, stimulated a new ecclesiological interest in the opponents' arguments.

Literature:

Catalogue général des Manuscrits des Bibliothèques publiques des départements, vol. 7, Toulouse, Nîmes, sous les auspices du Ministre de l'instruction publique, Paris 1855, p. 140 f.

Observations on the kinship Ba-Es-To

Distinctive omissions are often found only in these three MSS: in II.5.8 in place non habent, apparently not legible or mechanically destroyed in the exemplar, in BET there is a gap, i.e. there was no other MS available to the scribe by which a correction could be made. BET is thus a group closed in itself. A gap is also often found where the available reading is unreasonable. At the beginning of the same chapter II.5.8, after the words anime et corporis cum stola, which are documented in all [other] MSS of the B-Group, in BET there is only a gap, which should indicate that something here is not right (a distinction is actually being drawn here between the stola anime and the stola corporis). Similarly in II.6.3, where the scripturarum interpretibus conjectured in our edition reads scripturis metricis in part of the A-Group as, and in the B-Group there is something quite incomprehensible and unreadable; here in BE and Fi there is a gap.

There are many places that can be pointed out in which Es was corrected in the margin or between the lines in accordance with [some MS like ] Ba: at the end of I.2.17 the words ad clariorem visionem dei are missing in Di Kg To and Es, but added in the margin in Es. Similarly in I.2.11, where in words from a sermon of John XXII, bonam voluntatem habemus, the habemus is missing in Di Kg To and Es but present in Ba, and probably in accordance with this source is added in Es in the margin. The words paradisus regio in I.2.6 appear in BE with quasi inserted between them to increase the clarity, which stands in the text in Ba, in the margin in Es. Certainly one should not think of this process in too mechanical a way: in I.10.42, in a passage for a letter of Augustine to Vincentius that Ockham cites from C.23. q.6 c.3, after sententia there is a non, not relevant to the sense, found in Augustine but not in the Corpus iuris canonici, and likewise not in Ba; in the margin Es adds nisi, not following mechanically, but reflecting on the mixed exemplar. The scribe of Es had less difficulty in II.6.1, where in Ba and Es the bridge passage and the beginning are missing from the quotation from the gloss to 1 Cor. 9:24; BE add the missing words in the margin, from which it must be supposed that Es corrected in accordance with the marginal note in Ba. It is clearer in I.10.41, where the dicens introducing the quotation from D.2 c.42 in Ba is extended with enim, which can be found also in Es in the margin, but not in To. As the final example for this one more place will be explained from II.4.3 (line 16), where by the omission of non in Ax DF LLU it is is implied that God saw per corporalem visionem; BE add in the margin the non documented in the A-Group. The list of examples could be extended.[Note 212] The fact that Es first follows To, but was then amended in accordance with Ba, can be shown well in I.10.37: here the ore confessio standing in the presumable archetype is miswritten in To as confessio autem, i.e. with the omission of the important ore; Es at first follows exactly; Ba writes confessio autem ore, and Es adds ore in the margin. We find exactly the same in II.6.3 (line 6), where the syntactically necessary qui in a reference falls out of the gloss in the B-Group, including To and Es; it is present however in Ba; Es then adds qui in the margin. We find something similar in I.3.2, where angelicas dignitates is missing in Di Kg Es and To; it is present in Ba, and in Es it is added in the margin. Es [sometimes] consciously turns away from the reading in To: in I.10.27 poterit excusari in the archtype (well-documented here) becomes se excusari in To, and at first also in Es; then in Es se is crossed out, so that Es follows the correction exemplar Ba. In II.10.10 To and Es are the only MSS that insert sive adhibere after adherere; Es then crosses this out again and thus arrives at the reading of Ba. At places like these we can recognise that the correction was carried out very exacly. Es followed the exemplar not without critical reflection: in I.5.3 only in Ba and Es (probably in accordance with Ba) an unneccessary dei is inserted in the phrase regnum Christi; Es then crosses this out again. Because dei here in Es does not stand in the margin, we must certainly assume that it stood already in the immediate exemplar of Es, which thus is only kin to To, but cannot be identical with it.


SUB-GROUP LLU

La London, The British Library, Addit. MS 33,243

Fol. 260v-283v; parchment; 287 mm x 212 mm; single column; 2nd half of the 15th century.

Binding:

Leather binding with gold punched margin. Marbled paper on the inside.

Other contents:

Ockham 1 Dialogus (fol. 1-260r)

Script:

One hand wrote 2 Dialogus. There is an approx. 10-line initial, decorated in basketwork, inscribed within a square, at the beginning of 2 Dialogus; the two lines following next are in a 2-line script. At the beginning of each chapter there are 4-line, less decorated initials with a following word written in 2-line script.

Provenance:

At the end of the MS there is the information (fol. 283v): pertinet Celestinis Ambianensibus, et hoc per dominum eruditissimi atque preclarissimi viri, domini ac magistri Francisci de Ranchicourt, utriusque iuris licentiati meritissimi atque insigis ecclesie Atrebatensi canonici, Anno Domini M.D. 7, luce 12a septembris, in qua cum reverendus in Christo pater dominius Francsicus de Heluin, Dei gracia Ambiannensis episcopus, in eadem civitate suum primum …celebravit introitum.La comes from the collection of the licentiatus utriusque juris François de Ranchicourt, Canon of Arras, who in 1507 bequeathed the MS to the Celestines of Amiens. According to the catalogue information, the codex was written in Italy. How it came into the possession of François de Ranchicourt is unknown -- perhaps during one of his stays for purposes of study in the south of France; the stemmatic closeness to BET and DF could at least point in this direction.

Literature:

Catalogue of the Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum in the years 1882-1887, London 1889, p. 281 f.MIETHKE, "Marsilius und Ockham", p. 555.

Lc London, British Library, Royal 7. F XII

Fol. 238rb-262v; parchment; 337 mm x 231 mm; 2 columns; 15th century.

Binding:

Modern binding with leather corners and leather back.

Other contents:

Ockham, 1 Dialogus (fol. 1-238r)

Script:

One hand wrote 2 Dialogus. There is an approx. 8-line initial at the beginning of 2 Dialogus; the first two lines are in 2-line script, 5-line initials at the beginnings of chapters. Illuminations as leaf and tendrils pattern between the two columns on fol. 238 at the beginning of 2 Dialogus and likewise in the top margin.

Observations:

The scribe of Lc noticed his own errors and corrected them by crossing out, as for example in I.10.11, where an added se fundare was eliminated by insertion of a spaced out va-cat. In I.10.16 in a quotation from the Summa of Thomas Aquinas in the phrase superiores angeli instead of superiores there is a mistaken inferiores, but it is then corrected again in the margin to superiores, as it is also in La. And besides, there are many places in which Lc amends the text in the margin;[Note 213] in any case, the editor of Lc had the possibility of checking the text of his exemplar while copying, either by comparison with another MS or by checking the consistency of content. Admittedly this is not completely true: in I.5.4, in a Bible quotation from John 17:24 (volo ut ubi ego sum et ipsi sint mecum) he not only gave the mistaken reference Joh primo, but also (as a result) could not verify the quotation, which he writes as ubi ego sum illic sit et minister meus.

Provenance:

An early owner was William Grey, Bishop of Ely (1454-1478), whose coat of arms can be found on the margin of fol. 2. According to the note on fol. 1b (liber domus de Balliolo in Oxonia ex dono reverendi in Christo patris et domini dom. Wilhelmi Gray Eliensis episcopi) the volume belonged to the extensive collection that he bequeathed to Balliol College in Oxford.[Note 214] Grey was a humanist with travel experience in Italy, who also, as his gift to Balliol College in Oxford shows, had interests in the political questions of the time, Schism and Council. If the MS is an English production,[Note 215] the question is certainly superfluous whether it could have originated in Italy. Admittedly, for the stemmatically very closely related MS La an Italian origin is assumed.[Note 216] If this is so, one must assume that Lc is a copy made in England from La or a common exemplar.

Literature:

G. WARNER / J. GILSON, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collection, vol. 1, London 1921, p. 205.R.A.B. MYNOR, Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Balliol College Oxford, Oxford 1963, pp. xxiv-xlv.MIETHKE, "Marsilius und Ockham", p. 555.N. R. KER, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain. A list of surviving books, London 1941, p. 80.D. M. SMITH, Guide to Bishop's Registers of England and Wales, 1981, pp. 67-75.

Un Paris, Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne, MS Univ. 226

Fol. 169ra-187va; parchment; page size: 310 mm x 230 mm; text size: 225 mm x 160 mm; 2 columns; 15th century.

Binding:

Half-binding with leather back, on which is inscribed: "Ex collegio Trecorensi, Guillelmi Okam, Dialogi".

Other contents:

Ockham 1 Dialogus (fol. 1r-168v); 3.2 Dialogus (fol. 190r-212v); fol. 188r-v is blank.

Script:

In the whole codex several hands are recognisable. 2 Dialogus came from one hand, corrections are in one other hand;[Note 217] 3.2 Dialogus was written by a further hand. The same marginalia and rubrication in red and blue are found in the whole volume.[Note 218]

At the beginning of 2 Dialogus there is a 6-line initial provided with gold inlay, which is decorated with filigree spiral line patterns and page ornaments, similar to what is found in Pa and Pc. There are 2-line initials with line patterns at the beginning of each chapter.

Observations:

Un often corrects in the margin the probably erroneous or gap-prone exemplar in quotations relating to canon law: in I.10.3 Un supplied in the margin the missing 4 after "d." in the citation De consecratione d.4 c.54. In I.10.23 a quotation from C.23 q.6 c.3 is at first designated in Un as 13; Un then corrected this in the margin to 23. In I.10.46 in the citation C.24 q.2 c.2 Un registered the mistaken information c.23 q.2 c. legitur; in the margin the same hand (presumably) amended this to the correct 24 q.2 c. legatur. In II.8.9 in the mistaken reference Extra De hereticis cap. Maiores Un crossed out the mistaken de hereticis, admittedly without finding the correct solution (X 3.42.3). Despite the frequently recognisable commonality of La and Lc with Un, LaLc cannot be dependent on Un: In I.10.31 lines 9-11 the text portion male…preditcam is missing in Un, as in Ax BET and Lb, but it is present in La and Lc.

Provenance:

Long before its admission into the library of the Sorbonne the MS belonged to the Collegium Trecorense,[Note 219] as can be read from the information on origin on the back. This Collège du Trégurier, a foundation of the early 14th century for eight poor students from a Breton diocese, underwent some crises and needed three re-foundings in the 14th and 15th centuries. Already Henry IV inflicted heavy damage on the Collège, when he wanted to integrate it into the refounding of the Collège Royal, which was only partly realised. In 1610 Louis XIII sold part of the property and buildings. Finally in 1763 the union took place with the Collège Louis-Le-Grand. At the bottom on fol. 35r there is a stamp Collegium Ludovici Magni with an old shelf-mark (nr. 151). The first owner of the MS is unknown. Fol. 1 is damaged, the original binding leaf was possibly lost in a rebinding.

In the colophon of 2 Dialogus (fol. 187v) there is a note by the scribe: Per manum Yvonis de Vico Croceo, dyocesis Leonensis oriundi. On this person, probably a hired scribe in 15th century Paris, nothing is otherwise known. A similar piece of information is found already at the end of 1 Dialogus with indication of another name.[Note 220]

Literature:

Catalogue général des Manuscrits des Bibliothèques publiques de France: Université de Paris, Paris 1918, p. 68 f.


Sub-group NVV

Na Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III, MS Nat 245.( VII.C.31

Fol. 129v-140v; parchment; 288 mm x 215 mm; 2 columns; 14th century.[Note 221]

Binding:

Old parchment binding, on the back: "Guil. Ocham. De pertina[cia] prav[itate]".

Other contents:

Ockham, 1 Dialogus (fol. 1-129r); 3.2 Dialogus (fol. 141r-187v); fo. 140rv is blank.

Script:

Written by two hands , 2 Dialogus by one only; a 4-line inital at the beginning of 2 Dialogus in red and blue, 3-line initials at the beginning of every chapter. Hardly any marginalia, by a later hand.[Note 222]

Provenance:

The codex comes from the library of the religious house of S. Giovanni a Carbonara in Naples, which in 1792 was named a royal library. The purchase of the MS probably goes back to the building up of the library there by the Augustinian general and council theologian Girolamo Seripando, who in 1507 entered this house and led it as Prior from 1539.[Note 223] In which of the numerous purchases of MSS commissioned by Seripiando Ockham's Dialogus was bought is not documented; correspondingly the previous career of the MS also remains in the dark. However, Cesare Cenci states, admittedly without proving this in more detail, that the two hands in which it was written were not Italian hands. The close kinship with Va and Vb, which probably originated in the milieu of the council of Basel, could support such an interpretation; the paleographically deducible age hypothetically suggests it is from Constance. Admittedly, proofs of this are lacking. It also remains unknown how the codex arrived in Naples.

Literature:

Cesare CENCI, Manoscritti francescani della Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli, vol. 1, Quaracchi 1971, p. 406.Paul Oskar KRISTELLER, Iter Italicum, I p. 403a; GUTIÉRREZ, "La biblioteca di S. Giovanni a Carbonara di Napoli", in: Analecta Augustiniana 29, 1966, pp. 59-212.

Va Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 4001

Fol. 172rb (187va; paper; size of page: 235 mm x 337 mm; text area: 240 mm x 155 mm; text in 2 columns; dated: 1436.

Binding:

Green partly damaged leather binding over pasteboard with coat of arms of the Vatican on the front; on the white leather back "Vat. 4001".

Watermark:

Dragon.[Note 224]

Other contents:

Ockham, 1 Dialogus (fol. 1ra-172rb); fol. 117r-120v are blank.

Script:

The whole MS comes from one hand. In 1 Dialogus there are a few marginalia by two further hands, which refer to missing text passages added in other places afterwards,[Note 225] or, as also in 2 Dialogus, they give the organisation of the text.[Note 226] As in 2 Dialogus empty unerased places left blank by the scribe are sometimes not completed;[Note 227] in 2 Dialogus marginal corrections are very few.[Note 228]

A 17-line initial in red and blue stands at the beginning of 1 Dialogus; the rubrics following are in red and blue alternately. An 8-line initial stands at the beginning of 2 Dialogus, in each case 4-line initials are at chapter beginnings, both initials are without ornament.

Observations:

In Va there are corrections that the scribe carried out immediately while writing: e.g. in I.5.1, where the correcting second hand used va-cat to delete[Note 229] a ten-word addition occurring only in Va, by the expunction of mistaken words or letters and the addition of correct words[Note 230] or letters.[Note 231] The corrector seems to have had at his disposal an exemplar that offered a text different from that of the NVV-Group: the words rationes et auctoritates at the end of I.10.12 show in NVV as actiones et rationes, but in Va are amended by the second hand between the lines first by expunction of actiones, and then the insertion of auctoritates.[Note 232]

Provenance:

In a colophon (fol. 187va) the scribe gives 5th June 1437[Note 233] as date of completion, which could favour an origin at the Council of Basel, in favour of which there is admittedly otherwise no explicit indication, e.g. by a statement of place. Because of a rebinding in the Vatican library every hint of an earlier owner, if there was one, has been erased. Finally, the MS might have belonged to the Vatican library even before the rebinding.

After analysing 1 Dialogus Knysh apparently came to the conviction that Va belongs to the large MS family that twice got into print, in 1476 (Pz) and 1494 (Ly).[Note 234] For 2 Dialogus such a grouping is definitely to be excluded. However, it is very clear, especially in Va, that both parts of the Dialogus were copied together. This finding [i.e. that the kinship of Va differs from 1 Dial. to 2 Dial.] can be explained only if, directly or indirectly, two different exemplars were used. At the bookmarkets such as the great councils there were probably several available Ockham MSS. Knysh's finding also, that the corrections in 1 Dialogus 6 were made from [some MS akin to] Ba and Vc (Vat. lat. 4087) can confirm the assumption that in Basel there were several Ockham MSS.

Literature:

Brief mention in: MIETHKE, "Marsilius und Ockham", p. 566 n. 73. - SCHOLZ, Unbekannte Kirchenpolitische Streitschriften, I p. 143.

Vb Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 4096

Fol. 171va-188va; parchment; page size: 305 mm x 217 mm; text area: 210 mm x 155 mm; two columns; late 14th century.[Note 235]

Binding:

Green leather binding over pasteboard with coat of arms of the Vatican on the front; on the white leather back, "Vat. 4096".

Other contents:

Ockham, 1 Dialogus (fol. 1-171v); [Anon.]: Conclusiones Ioannis Wyclif (fol. 189ra-b)[Note 236]; Tabula capitulorum Dialogorum. Ockham (incomplete; fol. 189va-190vb).

Script:

Three or four hands wrote the [various parts of] the complete codex, including the pages on Wyclif and the Tabula; however 2 Dialogus was written by only one hand, whose part began on fol. 51ra, after the same scribe had already written fol. 1ra-30vb.[Note 237] Additions certainly come from other hands, as already at the beginning of the treatise: Incipit secundus tractatus de dogmatibus Jo 22i, which was inserted afterwards.[Note 238] In the MS as a whole there are many marginalia by different hands.[Note 239]

The initial at the beginning of 1 Dialogus clearly resembles that of Va; admittedly the initial in Vb is somewhat more generously decorated. At the beginning of 2 Dialogus there is a 5-line initial with filigree decoration; 2-line initials, less decorated, are at the beginning of individual chapters. Striking designs repeatedly applied to the margins throughout the MS represent in quick strokes a human head in profile.[Note 240] Pointing hands serve to emphasise important places.[Note 241]

In Vb the break in the text that characterises all MSS of the B-Group occurs exactly at the end of a page. The interchanged fol. 175 and fol. 176 contain text portions of almost the same length (110 lines from I.3.3 to I.4.9 and 111 lines from I.4.9 to I.6.1 ) and are at the end of an otherwise intact gathering.[Note 242] Unlike a similar error in 1 Dialogus,[Note 243] this mix-up did not attract anyone's attention. Vb thus reflects more immediately than other witnesses the origin of the text break, if we assume that the copy was made page-by-page. That the scribe wrote on fol. 176ra the ntellexerunt belonging to the i on fol. 174vb without becoming conscious that there was something wrong here, certainly seems questionable. An interchange of sheets in binding is the conceivable explanation that lies closest, though it is unprovable and technically rather problematic.

At the beginning of 2.2 Dialogus a hand, not that of the most attentive reader, noted in the bottom margin of fol. 47ra that this is not the third part of the Dialogus (which is not contained in Vb) referred to at the beginning of 1 Dialogus and regarding which a user of the text speculated when he wrote forte tractatus tercius in the margin at II.1.0.[Note 244]

Observations:

Vb shows partial variants of particular words, which suggest doubtful linguistic knowledge: e.g. errorantes instead of errantes,[Note 245] or writing errors that arouse doubt of his understanding of the content.[Note 246] In II.8.2 Vb wrote the same sentence twice, without noticing. Sometimes there are also in Vb self-corrections by crossing out words or syllables[Note 247] or of added supplementations that the scribe or the editor apparently on a later check regarded as superfluous.[Note 248] The impulse to change the text after superficial checking led once in II.4.3 to the crossing out of a et Deus necessary to the content and present in all other witnesses.

Vb and Va are close kin to one another. Both have partly misunderstood their exemplar, as in I.3.6, where, in a passage from the Dialogues of Gregory the Great quoted in accordance with the Sentences [of Peter Lombard], instead of dialogorum we read dixi locorum, paleographically understandable but meaningless in its content. Sometimes Va seems like a copy of Vb as corrected, as for example in I.10.54, where Vb adds to explicite a sentence of nine words which it again crosses out except for per talem; this per talem is found as a unique addition in Va.[Note 249] Certainly there are also other instances. For example in I.10.23, where the topic is the removal of John XXII from the papacy, Vb corrects by crossing out the original propositum and adds papatum between the lines, but in Va there is only propositum.

Sometimes the relationship between Va and Vb is somewhat confusing, as in II.4.4, where the correct essentiam inVb is expunged and replaced by substantiam, whereas Va, perhaps following Vb corrected as exemplar, first writes substantiam, but then expunges this and replaces it with essentiam, which is still found in Na. Na could also depend on the corrected Vb, or Vb could have been corrected in accordance with Na. In I.10.49 Vb crosses out a quod after the introductory concluditur manifeste, while Va and Na, alongside Fi and a few MSS of the A-Group, write this quod.

Provenance:

On fol. 191r we find the note: istum librum commodavi magistro Bernardo Boerii Ordinis Carmelitarum in mense Iunii anno Domini MCCCCXIII et eundem mihi reddidit die 26 Ianuarii anno Domini MCCCCXIIII. So in 1413/1414 the volume was lent to a Master of the Carmelite Order named Bernhard Boerii, who kept it some seven months. Whether he revised it, copied it or just kept it, must remain an open question. No information can be found on this user of the codex or on the owner who lent it to him. The fact that Bernardus Boerius's membership of the Carmelite Order is especially mentioned, and not passed over in silence as something obvious, could indicate that Vb was not located in a library of the Carmelite Order or house, but in a place accessible to someone interested, and thus probably not an aristocratic private library or one accessible only to members of a religious house. The date could point to the council of Constance, which is confirmed by the close kinship to Va, which can be brought into connection with the council of Basel. We could then assume that a professional stationarius had made this, or a related exemplar, available for copying at both councils. The fact that a theological untrained scribe seems to be responsible for the multiplication of texts copied from Vb harmonises with the state of the text, and with the break in the text that noone noticed. The incorporation of Vb in Etzkorn's Iter Franciscanum was apparently based on the content of the MS, not on grounds of provenance. Nevertheless, the fact already raised with Fi [above], that in a quotation coming from Ps. 123:15 the incompatibility of prosperitas mundana and beatitudo was emphasised by the insertion of a non,[Note 250] speaks for an at least mediate Franciscan exemplar.

Literature:

Girard J. ETZKORN, Iter Vaticanum Franciscanum. A Description of some Hundred Manuscripts of the Vaticanus Latinus Collection, Leiden - New York - Cologne 1996, p. 87 f.MIETHKE, "Marsilius und Ockham" p. 552 n. 26. - SCHOLZ, Unbekannte Kirchenpolitische Streitschriften, I p. 143.

Observations on the kinship Va-Vb-Na:

Sometimes all three MSS show a common reading that differs so much from the archetype that a common exemplar must be assumed. Instead of torrentem voluptatis in a quotation from Bernard given in II.5.7, NVV write cor correptem, a construction of questionable sense. The relationship of the three MSS with one another is shown by places like I.10.32, where the promovet in Ockham's presumable text appears in Na as reprobet movet; Vb first wrote the same, then expunged re- and -bet and arrived at promovet, whereas Va wrote removet, perhaps because of a misunderstood reading of the correction in Vb. At all events, Na seems to have an exemplar closely akin to Va-Vb, yet not the same as either of these. In II.8.10 the percipient of the archetype appears in Vb as participent, as also in Va, there corrected to percipient, which is to be read also in Na. Admittedly, we should not overestimate the importance of variants that seem paleographically very similar.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SOURCES
Unprinted

Anonymus: contra libellum famosum pro fratre Thoma Waleys, Basel, Universitätsbibliothek B.VII.30 fol. 85r-106r.

Bonagratia von Bergamo, [Appellation against the first Visio sermon, on 10 April 1332], Vat. lat. 4009, fol. 207r-213r., partly edited in: L. Oliger, Frater Bonagratia von Bergamo et eius Tractatus de paupertate Christi et Apostolorum, in: AFH 22, 1929, pp. 292-335 and pp. 487-511, here as number 12, p. 309. [Appellation against the declaration made in the consistory of  3 January 1334]; Vat. lat. 4009 fol. 164r-168r, partly edited ibid. number 13 p. 311.

Geraud Du Pescher: Expositio super quadripartitum Johannis Papae and Dogmaticum de anima separata a corpore et de unione Dei, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France lat. 4367, fol. 52-82 and fol. 88-101.

Guiral Ot: Libellus de visione Dei, Ottob. lat. 280, fol.1r-53v.

Jacques Fournier: Libellus de statu animarum ante generale iudicium, Vat lat. 4006 fol. 16ra-218ra.

Nikolaus von Lyra, De visione divine essencie ab animabus sanctis a corpore separatis, Paris Bibl. Nat. lat. 3359, fol. 17v-24v.

Printed

Annibal di Ceccano, ed. Dykmans, M.: Pour et contre Jean XXII en 1333. Deux traités avignonnais sur la vision béatifique, Studi e testi 274, Città del Vaticano 1975, pp. 61–165.

Anonymus, De visione beata, ed. Dykmans, Pour et contre Jean XXII, pp.169-396.

Armand de Bélvezér, ed. Franziscus van Liere, Armand of Bélvézer on Eschatology. An Edition of his responsiones ad 19 articulos, in: AFP LXII, 1992, pp. 7-134.

Durand de Saint-Pourçain: Libellus de Visione Dei, ed. Cremascoli, Studi Medievali 3.ser., 25,1, 1984, pp. 429–442.

Jacques Fournier: Proömien zu: De visione beatifica und Decem questiones in Durandum, Prooemium, ed. A. Maier, Zwei Prooemien, Benedikts XII., in: AHP 7, 1969, pp. 131–161, Text: pp. 147–161, also in: id, Ausgehendes Mittelalter (AMA). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Geistesge­schichte des 14. Jahrhunderts, 3 Bde., storia e letteratura 97, 105, 138, Rome 1964–1977, pp. 447–479.

Johannes von Aragona, ed. M. Dykmans, Lettre de Jean d’Aragon, patriarche d’Alexandrie, au pape Jean XXII sur la vision béatifique, in: Analecta sacra Terraconensia 42, 1969, pp. 143–168.

Johannes Lutterell, Epistola magistri Ioannis Luterellis Anglici Doctoris Sacre Theologie ad Quemdam D. et Curie Romane Disputantem, ed. F. Hoffmann, Die Schriften des Oxforder Kanzlers Johannes Lutterell. Texte zur Theologie des Vierzehnten Jahrhunderts. Erfurter Theologische Studien 6, Leipzig 1959. pp. 103-119.

Johannes Rubeus, ed. M. Dykmans, Jean XXII et les Carmes. La controverse de la vision, in: Carme­lus 17, 1970, pp. 151–192, Text: pp. 163-192.

Johannes Regina von Neapel: Utrum anime sanctorum separate a corporibus ante resurrectionem generalem videant clare et aperte vel beatifice divinam essen­tiam, ed. P. T. Stella, in: Salesianum 35, 1973, pp. 53–99, pp. 63–99 (Text).

Robert von Anjou: ed. M Dykmans: Robert d’Anjou. La vision bienheureuse. Traité envoyé au pape Jean XXII, Miscellanea Historiae Pontificae 30, Rom 1970.

Thomas Waleys: Sermo, ed. T. Kaeppeli, Le procès contre Thomas Waleys, pp. 93–108.

Thomas Waleys: De instantiis et momentis, ibid. pp. 157–183.

Thomas Waleys: Epistola, ibid. pp. 240–248.

Trottmann, Chr. (ed.): A propos de la querelle avignonnaise de la vision béatifique: une réponse dominicaine au chancellier John Lutterell, in: AHDLMA 61, 1994, pp. 263–301.

Walter von Chatton: [Sermon] ed. M. Dykmans: Les Frères Mineurs d’Avignon au début de 1333 et le sermon de Gautier de Chatton sur la vision béatifique, in: AHDLMA 66, 1971, pp. 105–148.

William of Alnwick, ed. M. Dykmans, Le dernier sermon de Guillaume d’Alnwick, in: AFH 63, 1970, pp. 259–279.

Secondary Literature

 Dykmans, M.: Fragments du traité de Jean XXII sur la Vision béatifique, in: RThAM 37, 1970, pp. 232–253.

Dykmans, M.: Le cardinal Annibal de Ceccano (vers 1282-1350). Étude biogra­phique suivie du testament du 17 juin 1348, in: Bulletin de l’Institut hist. belge 43, 1973, pp. 145–344.

Dykmans, M.: Le cardinal Annibal de Ceccano et la vision béatifique, in: Gregorianum 50, 1969, pp. 343–382.

Etzkorn, Girard, Iter Vaticanum Franciscanum. A Description of Some hundred Manuscripts of the Vaticanus Latinus Collection, Studien du Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters, ed. J. A. Aertsen, Bd. 50, Leiden-New York-Köln 1996

Jullien de Pommerol, Marie-Henriette / Monfrin, Jacques †, Bibliothèques ecclésiastiques au temps de la papauté d’Avignon II. Inventaires de prélats et clercs français – Edition. Documents, études et répertoires publiés par l’IRHT 61, ed. Paris 2001.

Jullien de Pommerol, Marie-Henriette / Monfrin, Jacques, La bibliothèque pontificale à Avignon et à Peñiscola pendant le grand schisme d’Occident et sa dispersion. Invenataire et concordances. Collection de l’Ecole française de Rome 141, 2 Bde., Rome 1991

Maier A.: Die Pariser Disputation des Geraldus Odonis über die Visio beat­ifica Dei, in: Archivio italiano per la storia della pietà 4, 1965, pp. 213–252, again in: AMA III pp. 319–372.

Maier, A.: Schriften, Daten und Personen aus dem Visio-Streit unter Johann XXII., in: AHP 9, 1971, pp. 143–186; again in: AMA III pp. 543–590.

Maier, A.: Zu einigen Disputationen aus dem Visio-Streit unter Johann XXII., in: AFP 39, 1969, pp. 97–126; again in: AMA III pp. 415–445.

Maier, A.: Zur Textüberlieferung einiger Gutachten des Johannes von Neapel, in: AFP 40, 1970, pp. 5–27.

Maier, A.: Zwei unbekannte Streitschriften gegen Johann XXII aus dem Kreis der Münchener Minoriten, in: AHP 5, 1967, pp. 41–78; again in: AMA III pp. 373–414.

Maier, A.: Der Handschriftentransport von Rom nach Avignon im Jahre 1566, in: Mélanges Tisserant 7, Studi et Testi 237, Vatikan 1964; again in: AMA III pp. 167–186.

Ouy , Gilbert: Le Collège de Navarre. Berceau de l’humanisme français, in: Enseigmente et ie intellectuell (IXe- XVIe siècle), Actes du 95e congrès national des sociétés savantes, Reims 1970, Philologie et histoire jusqu’à 1610, t. 1, Paris 1975, pp. 275-299.

Trottmann, Chr.: La vision béatifique. Des disputes scolastiques à sa définition par Benoît XII, Bibliothèque des écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 289, Rome 1995.

Trottmann, Chr.: Deux interprétations contradictoires de Saint Bernard: les sermons de Jean XXII sur la vision béatifique et les traités inédits du cardinal Jacques Fournier, in: Mélanges de l’École française de Rome - Moyen Age 105, 1993, pp. 327–379.

Trottmann, Chr.: Théologie monastique et théologie scolastique dans le Traité De statu animarum sanctarum ante generale iudicium du cardinal Jacques Four­nier (futur pape Benoît XII), in: Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filoso­fica Medievale (forthcoming).

 

 

NOTES

Note 1. For the fundamental list of manuscripts see Léon BAUDRY, Guillaume d'Ockham, sa vie, ses oeuvres, ses idées sociales et politiques, Paris 1949, pp. 288-292. The starting-point for this edition was the online list of John Kilcullen, sigla.html.

Note 2. Vb = Vat. lat. 4096 fol. 174vb: In I.3.3 at the end of a page the flow of text breaks off in the middle of a word, non i-ntellexerunt, the inserted section of text (ch. 4.8) begins with non posset and ends with intrabunt; immediately after that the continuation of the text follows with -ntellexerunt. For details see description of Vb.

Note 3. See, for instance, the guidelines on cataloguing MSS of the Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft, 5 erw. Auflage, Bonn - Bad Godesberg 1992, pp. 9-14.

Note 4. On this problem see Jacques LEMAIRE, Introduction à la codicologie, Université catholique de Louvain, Publications de l'institut d'études médiévales, textes, études, congrès, vol. 9, Louvain-La-Neuve 1989, p. 161 f.; B. BISCHOFF / G.I. LIEFTINCK / G. BATTELLI, Nomenclature des écritures livresques du IXe au XVIe siècle, Paris CNRS 1954.

Note 5. In the relevant part of the MS the following folios are parchment: fol. 237, 238, 244, 245, 251, 252. All the rest are paper.

Note 6. On fol. 15r, where this watermark is not covered by writing and can be perceived despite faded red colouring, the nail in the cross is clearly visible on closer examination. See PICCARD XIII nr. 1134, with an illustration from Malines, 1483; origin of paper from central France. - The Siren watermark that crops up in the MS (fol. 78 and fol. 288), which is also found in Pz (BRIQUET IV nr. 13858: 1458-1467), confirms the dating.- MURDOCH, Abbreviatio, p. xlvi, believes that the nail is absent, and dates the MS 1467-1485 by reference to BRIQUET, Les Filigranes. A Facsimile of the 1907 Edition, with supplementary material contributed by a number of Scholars, ed. A. STEVENSON, 4 vols., Amsterdam 1968, here vol. I, pp. 397, 121-124, and III nrs. 1541-1576.

Note 7. The change of hands is at fol. 75vb line 9.

Note 8. This is sometimes supplemented, e.g. at fol. 19v, nota diffinicionem affecionis veritatis.

Note 9. Fol. 252v: nota quod sicut duplex est tranquilitas ista et pax et est subditorum modus pacis.

Note 10. Similarly in I.1.4 where dei is added to visio facialis, but is then expunged again.

Note 11. GABRIEL, Via antiqua and via moderna, p. 452 f.

Note 12. Reprint of the edition of Hannover 1611.

Note 13. OFFLER, Opera politica, IV p. 10.

Note 14. Paratam]Quoniam anime sanctorum, ut habetur in Apocalypsi …nos exaltat in salutem add. G Ly; see the critical apparatus. The elimination of this passage is based not only on the tradition, but also on the fact that the combined citation from 1 Peter 5:6 and 1 Peter 1:5 appeared already a few lines above. The possibility that in all witnesses except Gs and Ly an eye-jump has happened, and that consequently Trechsel could here go back to a very old MS differing from all other witnesses, is, however, implausible and unprovable.

Note 15. The two-volume print Rés D. 2194 is no doubt the more expensive product, with a 4-line initial in red and blue, and red leather binding with gold stamping. However, because of damage to the binding, it is hardly possible to turn the pages and because of its unsuitability for photographing it is ruled out as basis of our work. We have used for text work therefore Rés D. 2196, which consists of only volume 2. As we know from the same watermark and format, this volume comes from the same printery, but it has a lower level of presentation, i.e. paper binding (perhaps from a rebinding in the 19th century) and modest initials.

Note 16. The date always given in the literature is found at the end of vol. 1 of Rés D. 2194 (Impressus Parisius anno Domini 1476, die 5 Julii feliciter). In Rés D. 2196 no date can be found and in the explicit there is no date and place.

Note 17. E.g. fol. 23r and following pages. Cf. PICCARD XIII nr. 1557. Origin of paper: north east France.

Note 18. E.g. fol. 19r, fol. 44r, and 45r: BRIQUET nr. 13858, with examples from central France and Paris, between 1458-1467.

Note 19. Very occasionally there is also a unicorn motif.

Note 20. The Abbreviatio is found at the beginning only in Rés D. 2194; in Rés D 2196 it stands at the end of the volume. In Rés D. 2194 2 Dialogus occupies fol. 21ra-47vb; fol. 48 is blank; the Compendium errorum begins on fol. 49ra.

Note 21. According to GABRIEL, Via antiqua, p. 445, Wagner came from the Diocese of Posen in Silesia. - Otherwise: Anatole CLAUDIN, Pierre César et Jean Stoll, imprimeurs parisiens du XVe siècle: documents inédits, Paris 1900, pp. 6 and 8, who believed that Wagner came from Gent and Stoll from Basel.

Note 22. On the workshop of the "soufflet vert": Anatole CLAUDIN, Histoire de l'Imprimerie en France au XVe et XVIe siècle, Paris 1900/1901, reprint Nendeln/Liechtenstein 1976, vol. 1, pp. 151-170, especially pp. 155 and 161 f.; also vol. 2, pp. 366-375. See also GABRIEL, Via antiqua, p. 452; MIETHKE, Marsilius und Ockham p. 564.

Note 23. GABRIEL, Via antiqua, p. 453 note 77, with reference to information by letter from Ilona HUBAY. (.

Note 24. EHRLE, Sentenzenkommentar Peters von Candia, p. 316.

Note 25. Gabriel, Via antiqua S. 447.

Note 26. Fol. 1r: Pro venerabili collegio Haricurie. As the computus for the year 1329-30 shows, this was the Collège de Harcourt, located in the rue de la Harpe, then occupied by at least six fellows of Theology. See COURTNEAY, Parisian Scholars in the Early Fourteenth Century. A social Portrait, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought 4th ser., Paris 1999, pp. 69, 221 and (for its location) the map, p. 61. For detains on the history of this College, founded in 1280 by a wealthy noble family from Normandy and abolished only in 1793, see: L.-M. TISSERAND, Histoire générale de Paris, II, Topographie historiques du vieux Paris, vol. 5, Région occidentale de l'Université, Paris 1887, pp.419-428.

Note 27. OFFLER, Opera Politica, IV p. 10. Cf. BAUDRY, Guillaume d'Occam, Paris 1950, p. 257 ff.

Note 28. Printed in GOLDAST II p. 392 f. Cf. also RENOUARD, Bibliographie, p. 86 ff. - On this see SCHOLZ, Streitschriften, I, p. 146.

Note 29. Cf. MIETHKE, Ockhams Weg, p. 118, n. 443.

Note 30. E. ISERLOH, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, IV p. 411.

Note 31. Date according to JAMES/ JENKINS, Descriptive Catalogue, p. 265, who however does not identify François Olivier; cf. OFFLER, OPol IV p. 8. The reading "John Boswell" seems to be clear; the person remains unknown.

Note 32. OFFLER, Opera politica, IV p. 9.

Note 33. There are numerous examples of a very close relationship between Lm and Pz: I.8.7 teneret; I.9.2 praevio; I.10.15 ihitur; I.10.20 alieni; II.2.2. nunc. Whether Lm is a copy of Pz cannot be said with certainty.

Note 34. E.g in I.5.2 generale promissis …generale] promissis generale om. AGL LY Pz.

Note 35. In I.2.12 AGL Ly Pz omit after exaltabuntur a longer passage (in iudicio ad clariorem visionem quia clarius videbunt divinam essentiam post iudicium quam nunc videant. Tunc enim exaltabuntur), apparently here also as a result of an eye-jump. I.4.3, where the discussion is about John XXII's tract on the Visio question, Ockham presumably wrote et in tractatu suo; AGL Ly Pz leave out suo and give the title of the tractate wrongly as Quere..

Note 36. E.g. in I.5.5 only Ly and G insert after iudicantes et caetera a longer passage (non poterit probari, quod ante diem iudicii nime eorum non videant essentiam divinam), lacking in Pz and all other MSS.

Note 37. I.6.2: reunite] veri vite Ar, unite G Ly; vere vite Lm Pz

Note 38. At I.10.35: tenentes] Sed dices forte, ex hac auctoritate videtur posse inferri, quod qualitercunque errantes teneantur errorem suum revocare, si voluerint videri correcti: cuius tamen oppositum assumitur in secundo, quod sequitur ex dictis add. G and Ly. - Such passages originate either as a result of Augustinus of Regensburg's revision, or by mechanical errors (as perhaps in I.2.1 the addition after "paratam", which leads to the two occurences one after the other of the same citation).

Note 39. For example, at I.5.1, line 3 primo …iudicium] om. Ar Ax Un

Note 40. See the dating in MUZERELLE, Manuscrits datés, p. 56, who assigns Ca very narrowly to the 2nd half of the 14th century. Compare e.g. the paleographical closeness to Cambrai, Bibl. Munic. MS 613, ibid. p. 237 plate 97, dated to 1383.

Note 41. For this and other information for the description of the MS we thank Annie Fournier of the Bibliothèque Municipale in Cambrai.

Note 42. For example, in I.2.1: visionem] di visionem, di expunged;

Note 43. Compare a similar headdress and similar sitting position in miniatures that depict John XXII in Vat lat. 4004 fol. 19, illustration in TROTTMANN, Vision, figure 1b, and MS Paris BN lat. 365 fol. 1, illustration in DYKMANS, Sermons, p. 2.

Note 44. Catalogue général des manuscrits des Bibliothèques publiques de France, vol. 17, p. 109.

Note 45. Ian MURDOCH, Critical Edition of Pierre d'Ailly's Abbreviatio Dyalogi Okan [sic], Thesis Monash University 1981, p. xxxiv n. 41 refers to information in a letter from Gilbert OUY to this effect. In 1980 MIETHKE, Marsilius und Ockham, p. 560 n. 57, made the same statement, probably independently. - On Pierre d'Ailly and his role as Maecenas of the Collèges de Navarre and donor, see MUZERELLE, Manuscrits datés, p. XIII-XIX.

Note 46. Gilbert OUY, Le collège de Navarre, berceau de l'humanisme français, p. 281. - On d'Ailly's biography: B. GUENÉE, Entre l'Eglise et l'Etat: quatre vies de prélats français à la fin du Moyen-Age, XIIIe-XVe siècle, Paris 1987, p. 125-299. - On his donations in the year 1402: Louis SALEMBIER, Le cardinal Pierre d'Ailly, Tournoing, 1931, p. 362.

Note 47. Paris BN lat. 14579 fol. 75-88, described in MURDOCH, Abbreviatio, p. xliii: The writer was a certain Guillaume de Longueil. Also Paris, Arsenal 517, fol. 1-15, description ibid. and in the present edition as Ar, see above. Also Cologne, Stadtarchiv ms GB f.o 76, fol. 297v-313v, description Murdoch, ibid., and in the present edition as Ko, see below.On the Abbreviatio in der Editio princeps (in the present edition Pz): MURDOCH, p. xl.

Note 48. MURDOCH, Abbreviatio, pp. xix. and xxiii.On the Abbreviatio see also Francis OAKLEY, The Political Thought of Pierre d'Ailly. The Voluntarist Tradition, New Haven - London 1964, p. 202.

Note 49. MURDOCH, Abbreviatio, p. xxi.

Note 50. On its library, though only according to a late catalogue: Emile CHATELAIN, "Les manuscrits du collège de Navarre en 1741", in Revue des bibliothèques 11, 1901, pp. 362-411, here p. 367, nr. 65; registers the Dialogi de hereticis in connection with Ockham's Sentences commentary.On this catalogue see also Jacqueline ARTIER, " La bibliothèque du collège de Navarre au XVIIIe siecle ", in Mélanges de la Bibliothèque de Sorbonne 7, 1986, pp. 105-124, here p. 108.

Note 51. CHATELAIN, Manuscrits du collège de Navarre, p. 409.

Note 52. Nathalie GOROCHOV, Le collège de Navarre de sa fondation (1305) au dèbut du XVe siècle (1418). Histoire de l'institution, de sa vie intellectuelle et de son recrutement, Paris 1997, p. 664, where we do indeed find a Jean de Maraye, but no J. Maurroy. - He is unknown also in MUZERELLE, Manuscrits datés, p. 56 und p. 327.

Note 53. E.g. fol. 289r at the beginning of. I.1.1.

Note 54. Marginal corrections are only seldom found, e.g. fol. 296r, 298r, 301v, 303v, 304v, 311v, 311v, 318r. In the correction on fol. 304r a second hand amended erat by the insertion of -r- to errat. On fol. 314r another hand in somewhat darker ink and smaller script wrote ad stolam. - Different stages of revision can be recognised, e.g. on fol. 300v line 16, where as last word christiani is inserted in darker ink; before that ther was perhaps a gap, as we find occasionally, without previous erasure (e.g. fol. 293v line 3, fol. 295 line 4 from the bottom); christiani was crossed out and by the same hand heretici, matching the content, was supplied in the margin by the same hand.

Note 55. Franz EHRLE, Historia bibliothecae Romanorum Pontificium, p. 555 nr. 1582.

Note 56. In a similarly questionable way CP in I.10.36 writes concilium Martini pape.

Note 57. JULLIEN DE POMMEROL / MONFRIN, Bibliothèque pontificale S. XV

Note 58. Anneliese MAIER, "Die 'Bibliotheca Minor' Benedikts XIII. (Petrus de Luna)", in: AHP 3, 1965, S. 139-191, also in AMA III, Storia e letteratura 138, Rom 1977, p. 1-53, here p. 26 nr. 134.Cf. also Franz EHRLE, "Die kirchenpolitischen Schriften des Petrus von Luna (Benedikts XIII.)", in: ALKG 7, 1900, pp. 515-575.

Note 59. Cf. JULLIEN DE POMMEROL / MONFRIN, Bilbiothèque pontificale, II p. 940 on lat. 3657, using the modern inventory numbers of the various catalogues they analysed (year of catalogue in brackets): Lun 1582 (of 1394), Pa 697 (Peniscola 1415-1415), Pd 12 (fragm. inventory from 1413), Pb 618 (Peniscola Bibl. Maior 1423), Fa 73, Cardinal de Foix (1429), Fc II 18 (Colbert 1680). - On the binding we still find the old Paris notation, "Regius 4273 5A".

Note 60. ZALUSKA, L'enluminure, p. 33-36, cf. also A. DEROLEZ, Art. "Cîteaux II. Buchmalerei", in: LMA II 1981, reprint Stuttgart-Weimar 1999 col. 2107. - On Jean de Cirey: Louis J. LEKAI, The Cistercian Order. Ideal and Reality, no place, 1977, pp. 105 f., 111.

Note 61. For these and other clues I thank the staff of the Bibliothèque Municipale in Dijon.

Note 62. E.g. fol. 88, fol. 183, fol. 274; close to PICCARD II-3 nr. 235/236 or BRIQUET nr. 14700.

Note 63. E.g. on fol. 107v there is a vine (e.g BRIQUET nr. 13003/13005)- On the front flyleaf there is, on a page used in the binding, a monogram (probably "dp" with star and cross, cf. BRIQUET nr. 9747; on the difficulty of reading the monogram, ibid. p. III, p.510a), which is demonstable first after 1476; this fits the time of de Cirey's rebinding. - On fol. 303r there is a five-leaved clover

Note 64. Further changes of hand take place in fol. 87v, 146r, 166r, 200r, 211r, 220r, 221r, 265r, 302r, 323r, 348r, 365r, u.ö. , partly even in the middle of the text, as on fol. 146r.

Note 65. Fol. 274r: Incipit secunda pars sive secundus tractatus et est de dogmatibus falsis Johannis XXII ac hereibus implicatis. Johannes de montiers. There is no indication of his membership of an order.

Note 66. E.g. Fol. 281v line 1 from the bottom de anima sancti latronis; fol. 282r line 1 from the bottom ultima ratio pro ipsa heresi; both probably by another hand. - Correction by emendation with darker ink and thicker pen are found, e.g. fol. 277r line 23: corporibus gloriosis.

Note 67. II.8.2 after dei.

Note 68. I.10.46: potest] poterat (deleted) Di, potest Dim

Note 69. The MS carries no ex-libris; the only clue is the binding (see above) and the context of transmission. Cf. Catalogue général des Manuscrits des Bibliothèques publiques de France, vol.5, Dijon 1889, p. 92. - For many friendly references I thank colleagues of the Bibliothèque Municipale in Dijon.

Note 70. In handwriting style and design of the text Dijon MS 340 resembles a MS from Troyes, Bibl. Munic. 349, a copy of Benedict XII's commentary on Matthew, from the 15th century. On this: BALLWEG, "Ordensreform", p. 133. Here also we know of no previous owner outside the order, and the copy was apparently done to have at hand this text of a Cistercian pope revered as holy in the order.

Note 71. This is the perhaps somewhat too favourable view of Erwin ISERLOH, "Vom Mittelalter zur Reformation", in: Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte III/2 1968/1985, reprint 1999, p. 696.

Note 72. Fol. 1v.

Note 73. Date according to BREDHORN / POWITZ, Mittelalterliche Handschriften p. 7; so also in OFFLER, OPol IV p. 8 in accordance with the watermark.

Note 74. BREDEHORN / POWITZ, Mittelalterliche Handschriften p. 8.

Note 75. PICCARD I nr. 297 (1459-1461).

Note 76. OFFLER, Opera politica IV p. 9.

Note 77. Admittedly, it is not impossible that some outstanding personalities had taken, and had to take, a position in the vicissitudes of the time. Cf. for example Groote's choice of the Urbanist party in the Schism: R.R. POST, The Modern Devotion. Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism, Leiden, 1988, pp. 149-159.

Note 78. R. STUPPERICH, Art. "Brüder und Schwestern vom gemeinsamen Leben", in: LMA II (1981), reprint Stuttgart-Weimar 1999, col. 733 ff.

Note 79. In the relevant part (fol. 355-366) there is a pair of ox heads (Close to: PICCARD II-3, nr. 121-123, with examples from 1424-1434), which can be demonstrated in identical form in many Klosterneuburg MSS. - For beta radiography of the watermarks and further friendly information we thank Dr. Alois Haidinger of the Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Note 80. A possible explanation for this is that the common indirect exemplar of Di, Fr and Kg in De dogmatibus I came from the B group (in De dogmatibus II there seems to be a greater affinity with the A group); while Kg reflects this immediately, the common exemplar of Di and Fr, which are more closely related to one another than to Kg, has corrected the text and thus eliminated the break. If Di is older than Fr , and its origin is perhaps in France, a MS of the A group would have been used in this connection.

Note 81. E.g. I.2.10: peregrinamur] per hoc quod ambulamus et on per speciem add. (crossed out.) Kg

Note 82. F. RÖHRIG, Art. "Klosterneuburg", in: LMA V (cited after the reprint, Stuttgart-Weimar 1999 col. 1226 f.); cf. F. RÖHRIG, Das Stift Klosterneuburg und seine Kunstschätze, p. 37 f.

Note 83. KOLLER, Kolomann Knapp S. 110 ff.

Note 84. For the reference to this MS we thank Prof. Dr. Jürgen Miethke, Heidelberg. - For friendly support during the description of the MS we thank Frans Gistelinck, Leuven.

Note 85. BRIQUET nr. 8677.

Note 86. In more detail on Quare detraxistis: BALLWEG, Zum Ursprung von veritatem sapientis p. 56. - On the Fraticelli: Duncan NIMMO, "Reform and Division. From Saint Francis to the Foundation of the Capuchins", Bibliotheca Seraphico-Capuccina 33, Rom 1987, p. 242; Decima L. DOUIE, The Nature and the Effect of the Heresy of the Fraticelli, Manchester 1932.

Note 87. Lettera de' fraticelli nella quale rendon ragione del loro scisma, testo inedito bel buon secolo di nostra lingua, ed. G. VANZOLINI, Bologna 1865, reprint, Bologna. 1965, p. 20.

Note 88. Cf. Astrik Ladislaus GABRIEL, "Intellectual Relations between the university of Louvain and the university of Paris in the 15th century", in The Universities in the Late Middle Ages, ed. Jozef Ilsewijn, Leuven 1978, pp. 82-132, here p. 85.

Note 89. Piccard IX nr. 181/186 (1469-1480).

Note 90. Briquet nr. 9183 (1472-1476).

Note 91. Briquet nr. 8527 (1463-1472).

Note 92. E.g I.7.1 relatis] gap Ha; relatis (second hand) Ko; referre GL.

Note 93. Fol. 275r: Sequitur tractatus secundus principalis qui est de dogmatibus Johannis pape 22i. Puto tamen quod tractatus ille qui sequitur, non sit ille qui est 2a pars principalis huius operis, tum quia non procedit dyalogando, tum quia non tractat de erroribus bullatis contentis in 4or constitutionibus Johannis 22i, sed tantum de erroribus per eum predicatis quos tamen se tractaturum in hac 2a parte in precedenti tractatu pluries promittit.

Note 94. Readings according to the statements in the Catalogue of Joachim VENNEBUSCH, Theologische Handschriften des Stadtarchivs Köln, p. 60.

Note 95. On this see Joachim SMET / Ulrich DOBHAN, Die Karmeliten. Eine Geschichte der Brüder U.L. Frau vom Berge Karmel. Von den Anfängen (ca. 1200) bis zum Konzil von Trient, Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1981, pp. 56-61.

Note 96. On the role of the Carmelites in the visio-conflict see Marc DYKMANS, " Jean XXII et les carmes. La controverse de la vision ", in: Carmelus 17, 1970, pp. 151-192.BALLWEG, Ordensreform p. 176 with note 121.

Note 97. H. J. SCHMIDT, Art.: "Karmeliter", in: LMA V (reprint Stuttgart-Weimar 1999) col. 997-1000, here col. 999.

Note 98. A.L. GABRIEL, "'Via antiqua' and ‚via moderna' and the migration of Paris Students and Masters to the German Universities in the Fifteenth century", in: Antiqui et moderni, Miscellanea mediaevalia 9, 1974, pp. 439-487, on Cologne and the opposition there to the via moderna: pp. 464-467.

Note 99. Similar observations (in Ha there is an addition, in comparison with Ww, that is crossed out, which no longer appears in Ko) are certainly often found: I.10.18 line 16, where the appropriate conclusion in the prevailing reading is replaced by a completely different passage; moreover, there appears in Ha, by crossing out in paracio the amended word revocacio, which is missing from this place in Ko.

Note 100. I.1.6 qui habet charitatem dei is in Ha replaced by: quibus ex caritate deligit deum; in Ko quibus is corrected by crossing out the -bus and altering the following word into qui charitatem dei.

Note 101. On the date of the binding see also the writing (probably 18th century) on the waste sheet used on the back inside of the binding

Note 102. The only marginal comment by another hand is on fol. 166r, on I.10.43.

Note 103. How this confusion happened remains somewhat mysterious: a exchange of gatherings or binding error in Pa itself can be ruled out; the last change of gathering before this happend after fol. 158, which shows a catchword on its verso side; after that follow 12 sheets that belong to one gathering; this gathering size is found almost throughout Pa; cf. the preceding catchwords on fol. 108v, 120v, 132v etc.

Note 104. The "S" could also be a decorative form, as they surround the whole Colophon.

Note 105. The same also on fol. 170va. - On fol. 1r there are also old inventory numbers from the 18th century: "195" and "298". Cf. the concordance in OUY / GERZ-von BUREN, Le catalogue de la bibliothèque de Saint-Victor de Paris 1983, p. 426.

Note 106. Cf. Gilbert OUY, "Simon de Plumetot (1371-1443) et sa bibliothèque", in: Miscellanea codicologica F. Masai dicata, ed. P. Cockshaw, M.-C. Grand, P. Jodogne, Vol. II, Gent 1979, pp. 353-381, esp. p. 363 and p. 375 nr. 29 on Pa.OUY: " Le Collège de Navarre. Berceau de l'humanisme français ", in: Enseignement et vie intellectuelle (IXe-XVIe siècle), Actes du 95e congrès national des sociétés savantes, Reims 1970, Philologie et histoire jusqu'à 1610, vol. 1, Paris 1975, pp. 275-299 on the intellectual milieu and on Plumetot: p. 296.

Note 107. Verification is possible only sporadically. Sometimes parts of the text appear in the margin that are bound to it by reference marks and are to be regarded as the addition by another hand of passages erroneously left out, e.g. fol. 83r, 93v; besides that we find sporadically framed commentaries, e.g. accumulated on fol. 49v and fol. 50r, which show the main focus of Plumtot's interests.

Note 108. Jürgen MIETHKE, "Marsilius und Ockham", in: Medioevo 6, 1980, p. 553 n. 31.

Note 109. BN lat. 14619 fol. 121va.

Note 110. Fol. 103, close to BRIQUET nr. 4412 with examples from Siena and Venice 1465-1471. - On the inner fly leaf is the watermark BRIQUET nr. 6303 with examples from Rome 1462-1471 and Udine 1465.

Note 111. Fol. 106v at line 12 from the bottom by the second hand, which here apparently corrects a correction of its own.

Note 112. Fol. 116rb line 5 from the bottom and line7 from the bottom.

Note 113. On fol. 110va after the explicit of De dogmatibus and a short paragraph: Adverte hic diligenter quia columpnes tres immediate sequentes spectant ad tractatum precedentem nescio enim in quo loco seu qua carta locari debeant. Reliquo quoque illud domino et preceptori meo etc.

Note 114. Fol. 107rb.

Note 115. Fol. 103ra.

Note 116. Cf. Marie-Henriette JULLIEN DE POMMEROL / Jacques MONFRIN, " La bibliothèque pontificale à Avignon et à Peñiscola pendant le grand Schisme d'occident et sa dispersion, Inventaires et concordances ", BEFAR nr. 141, Rome 1991, vol. 1, p. XIX and the schematic overview after p. XXXIV.

Note 117. Anneliese MAIER, "Der Handschriftentransport von Avignon nach Rom im Jahre 1566:, in: Mélanges Eugène Tissérant vol. 7, Studi e testi 237, Vatican 1964, pp. 9-27, reproduced in: AMA III pp. 167-186.

Note 118. Admittedly the compilation in M.-H- JULLIEN de Pommerol / Jacques MONFRIN † (eds.), Bibliothèques ecclésiastiques au temps de la papauté d'Avignon II. Inverntaires de prélats et clercs français - Edition. Documents, études et répertoires publiés par l'IRHT, Paris 2001, shows not one Ockham MS in the possession of a prelate. No doubt the interest was greater in the mid-15th century.

Note 119. I.10.23: Vdm (fol. 106va line 18): per; Pa (fol. 164vb line 25): om.

Note 120. E.g. in a quotation from C.1 q.7 c.19 in I.10.39: et a spiritu; Pa: in aspectu; Vd: in gap.

Note 121. I.3.1: quicunque] tale (pkt) add. Vd, tale add. Pa

Note 122. L. BAUDRY, Guillaume d'Ocam. Sa vie, ses œuvres, ses idées sociales et politiques, I, Paris 1949 p. 290. - The volume was given the same date already by a Sorbonne librarian, who, in the year 1783, on the front inner cover under the heading "ms du 14e siècle contient", pasted in a short list of contents.

Note 123. On fol. 184v there something hardly legible in very thin light brown writing, which may perhaps read ad dei honorem, probably a probatio pennae; however, it does not come from a writer of Pb.

Note 124. Change of hands on fol. 157ra.

Note 125. That the codex was trimmed at least once is also shown by sheet numbering (placed on the bottom right) from "4-16" on fol. 172r-184r, where the "10" is trimmed ; the same holds for the catch words on fol. 168v and fol. 156v.

Note 126. At one time on the left, right and upper margin of fol. 164r. This user seems to have been especially interested in the Thomistic evidences in I.1.1 and I.1.5; at all events he emphasised these in the side margins; on the upper margin he gave a short summary of the topic of the treatise (anime beate ante generale iudicium non vident facie ad faciem deum in claritate). - On the right margin of fol. 170ra the writer attempted a division of the text, while in the margin he put a sign for responsio

Note 127. Fol. 1r bottom margin.

Note 128. John KILCULLEN, "Change of Exemplar, Change of Handwriting".  - Perhaps here Pb was confused with Lb.

Note 129. We follow the information of Geneviève DE MESLOIN, Essayo de un catalogo razonado de los libros y folletos realtivos a la péninsul iberica, del "fondo Pécoul" de la Biblioteca Méjanes, Aix-en-Provence, vol. 1, Aix-en-Provence 1961/62, typescript. (Dipl. des études supérieures, Faculté des lettres, Aix-en-Provence). An extract in French translation is in the Bibliothèque Méjanes. The second volume, which lists the relevant works, gives no information relating to MS 1463.

Note 130. At all events the MS already existed in its present form at the latest in the 18th century, as is shown by the entry by BANDINI, composed in 1777, in the Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae, vol. IV col. 716 f.

Note 131. Sometimes there is noted in the margin in thin red, probably entered later, the text of a chapter superscription; less often there are paraphrases of the text in the margin (e.g. fol. 63va).

Note 132. The text quality is especially bad on fol. 130va.

Note 133. Fol. 126vb. - With the exception of the 9th gathering, which comprises only fol. 97r-106v, all comprise 12 pages. The last gathering (ab fol. 119r) was shortened because the text ended.

Note 134. Fol. 127r = 1 to fol. 130r = 4, likewise fol. 137r = 3, fol. 138r = 4. A catchword, as found in 1 Dialogus on fol. 12v, 24v, 36v etc., was unnecessary here.

Note 135. II.3.4; I.10.47; cf. in general on this, though without reference to regional speech forms, STOTZ III pp. 318-323.

Note 136. Cf. BALLWEG, Zum Ursprung von Veritatem sapientis p. 56 n. 41.

Note 137. The modern foliation, which is entered top right on the recto pages, first begins at the beginning of 1 Dialogus and goes through the whole MS; the parchment flyleaf however belongs clearly to the actual MS.

Note 138. On Ludovico Nerli also: MATTESSINI, La biblioteca francescana di S Croce, pp. 261 and 263.

Note 139. Cf. the bibliographical Repertorium of the persons buried in the Paris house of studies in: Laure BEAUMONT-MAILLET, " Le Grand Couvent des Cordeliers de Paris ", Bibliothèques de l'Ecole des Hautes-Etudes, Section 4, Science Hist. et Phil., 325, Paris 1975, pp. 363-432.

Note 140. The library of S. Croce, incidentally, still had a copy of the Chronicle of Nicolaus Minorita, which according to the Ex libris on the back of the binding arrived in 16.10.1766 at the Bibliotheca Medicea Laurenziana (Plut. 20 sin. XII; see also: WITTNEBEN, Bonagratia p. 196 n. 11). The volume in its technical organisation exhibits common traits with the 1 Dialogus MS, e.g., the text part is written in red in smaller script on the bottom margin on fol. 2ra, probably as model for the scribal process in red; also the script is very similar. - In addition to the description of this MS in GÁL/FLOOD, Chronica p. 10* f. it should be noted that the MS does not end with the list of contents on fol. 168v-169r, but with a version of Quoniam ut ait Leo papa (fol. 169-172rb) paleographically considerably different from the script found elsewhere in the MS.

Note 141. Cf. "Manuscripts and Sigla", the description of Fi .

Note 142. BANDINI, Catalogus IV col. 717. On da Casa see in detail: MATTESSINI, La biblioteca di S. Croce p. 262 ff.

Note 143. On Thedaldus: BANDINI, Catalogus, praefatio pp. XLI-XLIV; WITTNEBEN, Bonagratia p. 196 n. 10; MATTESINI, "La biblioteca francescana di S. Croce et Fr. Tedaldo della Casa", in: Studi Francescani 57, 1960, pp. 254-260.

Note 144. Florenz, Bibliotheca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. XXVI, sinis., Cod. IX, fol. 270rb: Explicit libellus sine nomine domini francisci petrarche padue scriptus mccclxxiii per fratrem thedaldum de mucello ordinis minorum. In the work in question there are certainly only fol. 269v-271rb. - The same hand that made the entry in Fi ad ususm fratris Ludovici de Nerlis . . . , noted here on fol. 1v: Iste liber est ad ususm fratris Theodaldi da Casa, quem munus assignavit armario florentine in coventu fratrum minorum 1406.

Note 145. KILCULLEN, "Manuscripts and Sigla", in reference to Fi.

Note 146. In this MS, which contains 1 Dialogus only, we read: Magister Laurentius conduxit in Paduam 2 Aprilis 1409 m.sua. This certainly does not prove a Paris provenance.

Note 147. According to Albinia C. DE LA MARE, "Lo scriptorium di Malatesta Novello", in: Fabrizio LOLLINI / Pierto LUCCHI (eds.), Libraria Domini: I manoscritti della Biblioteca Malatestiana: testi e decorazioni, Bologna 1995, pp. 34-93, here: p. 92, this codex, which contains, besides 1 Dialogus, a Dilucidatio super Psalmum Miserere, allegedly by Michael von Cesena, written between 1452 and 1465 by two unknown scribes for Malatesta Novello, also has an Italian origin.

Note 148. Basel, Universitätsbibliothek B.VI.2, comes from the collection of the Dominican Johannes von Effringen, who studied in France and was promoted Master in Montpellier, cf. Georg BONER, "Das Predigerkloster in Basel", in: Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 33, 1934, pp. 197-303 and 34, 1935, pp. 107-259, here vol. 34, p. 156 and p. 180.

Note 149. Cf. e.g. at the beginning of I.7.1, where according to Fi and BE invigilamus was put as Ockham's presumed text ; Nicolaus Minorita reads invigilabimus (ed. GÁL/FLOOD p. 1030 in accordance with BN MS 5154 fol. 303v -- exactly the same also in Vat. lat. 4010 fol. 238r); most other MSS have a different reading .

Note 150. Fol. 171-172v are parchment and likewise fol. 179-180v, otherwise paper.

Note 151. According to written information from the British Library on 7.10.2003.

Note 152. In I.10.43, towards the end: concluditur appears as gloriam in Lb and NVV, which makes little sense: on the margin a second hand in Lb corrects to claret, which is also found in Ax BET Fi LLU.II.5.9 also shows the Lb scribe's turning against NVV, where the consummata describing beatitudo appears in Lb NVV as constituta, but in Lb in the margin was corrected to consummata; or in II 10.10, where the fidelibus of the critical text reads sanctibus in Vb and Lb, but in Lb it was crossed out and fidelibus written instead between the lines.

Note 153. E.g. I.10.11: intelligere] inferre Lb, intelligere Lbb.

Note 154. Meanwhile in a later binding glued to fol. 1 (shelfmark) and fol. 2 (dedication with coat of arms). Cf. the illustration in KER, "Chaining", table vi below, with transcription p. 177: it shows damage to the writing after deologus as far as tamquam, so that the reading between must count as reconstruction. Illustration also in VICKERS, table after p. 360 below, the description of the MS ibid. p. 429.

Note 155. Besides the monographs of VICKERS and SAMMUT, who studied Gloucester's correspondence with Italian humanists, among others Leonardo Bruni, briefly also in Kurt KLUXEN, Geschichte Englands, 4. Aufl. Stuttgart 1999, p. 128 ff.; R.A. GRIFFITHS, Art. "Pembroke", in: LMA VI (ND Stuttgart-Weimar 1999) col. 1870.

Note 156. There is an inventory of his three gifts of 129, 10 and 135 MSS in SAMMUT, Umfredo pp. 60-84; MS Harley 33 is in the third gift as no. 16 of this gift, or no. 155 of all three gifts, ibid., p. 74. Cf. also KER, Chaining p. 176. - The old shelf-mark Q-15 is on a parchment strip on fol. 1, cf. also: WATSON, Library of Sir Simonds d'Ewes p. 122.

Note 157. SAMMUT p. 72.

Note 158. WRIGHT, Fontes Harleiani p. 200, according to Harley 33 fol. 96: "gift from Pier Candido Decembrio, who wrote the manuscript for him".

Note 159. VICKERS pp. 353-363. Incidentally, Gloucester apparently also studied his books, so far as he had time; thus at the end of one volume (Oriel MS 32) there is an autograph entry, ibid. p. 258.

Note 160. MURDOCH, Abbreviatio p. xxxiv f., relying on Gilbert Ouy and his observations on the paleographical nearness of Vb to other writings from d'Ailly's collection.

Note 161. French cursive (according to MURDOCH, Abbreviatio p. xxxv), English gothic cursive (according to SAMMUT, p. 103).

Note 162. One portion of the gift of MSS comprised theological works, partly of the early Church (the following are only examples): Eusebius [nr. 10 of the whole numbering in SAMMUT pp. 60-84 ], Origin [nr. 15], Augustine [nr. 131-136, 142, 144 and above], Johannes Chrysostomus [nr. 146 f.], and of the middle ages: Bernhard [nr. 59, 65, 151], Petrus Damiani [nr. 23], Richard of S. Victor [nr.14], Vincent of Beauvais [nr. 188 ff.], Innocent III. [nr. 149], Nicolaus of Lyra [nr. 1 ff.], alongside philosophical writings of Arabic authors [nr. 68, 98 f., 102] and many classics (among others Plato, Aristotele, Cicero, Pliny, Seneca up to Petrarca and Boccaccio).

Note 163. Nevertheless, it could also show a certain interest in political theory that he possessed an exemplar of Aegidius Romanus's "mirror for princes", De regimine principum (SAMMUT nr. 271), and before he bequeathed it to the University of Ockham studied it with friends: so at least VICKERS, p. 286.

Note 164. From his hand came the number 76 on the top of fol. 3 and especially on fol. fol. 2v: Quae [sic] an iste Liber dialogus ockami a Goldasto editos continet, cf. WATSON, Library of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, p. 121 f. nr. 209A.

Note 165. See WATSON p. 54 ff.

Note 166. WRIGHT, Fontes Harleiani, p. 131.

Note 167. On this college, which counts as among the four most significant of the Salamanca colleges: Ana Maria CARABIAS TORRES, "Collegios mayores: centros de poder. Los collegios mayores de Salamanca durante el siglo XVI", vol. 2, Acta Salamancticensia, Histria de la universitad 46, Salamanca 1986, pp. 392-41.

Note 168. The second edition of the work of F. RUIZ DE VERGARA Y ALAVA, Historia del Collegio veiejo de San Bartholomé, mayor de la celebre Universidad de Salamanca, revised by J. de Roxas y Contreras and published in 1770, notes in a register of all MSS in the possession of the college (vol. 3, pp. 308-341; here p. 323): Guillelmus Okan, Dialogo de Haeretica pravitate. Comienza: Nominibus curioso existis nec me desinis infestare, y acaba: Correctionem caritativam nullatenus recusabo; vol. 1 vitela, tiene 278 hojas en fol.

Note 169. KRISTELLER, Iter Italicum, IV, p.599b.

Note 170. Cf. MIETHKE, "Marsilius und Ockham" p. 566 n. 73.

Note 171. Benigno HERNANDEZ MONTES, Biblioteca de Juan de Segovia, p. 97 nr. 57, lists a Dialogus Ocham, which also contained a tabula (p. 97 nr. 57 [in J. GONZALES, Juan de Segovia y su biblioteca, p. 166 nr. 50]): Dialogus Ochan et tabula desuper alphabetica. Prime membrane ultima linea sic dicit: De "assercionibus catholicis et hereticis, que sunt veritates theologice", Ultime vero membrane prima linea sic dicit: "Princeps an principes habeant potestatem coercendi papam hereticum", Libro VIo C. 91, 92, 93 De. - M. STEINMANN, "Ältere Theologische Literatur am Basler Konzil", in: Xenia medii aevi historiam illustrantia oblata Thomae KAEPPELI O.P., II, Storia e letteratura 142, Rome 1978, pp. 471-482, here p. 477 n. 21 already refers to the Testament of Segovia.

Note 172. So already MIETHKE, "Marsilius und Ockham", p. 566 n. 73.

Note 173. Werner KRÄMER, Konsens und Rezeption. Verfassungsprinzipien der Kirche im Basler Konziliarismus, Münster 1980, edited the fragments from a partly autobiographical MS, Salamanca, Biblioteca Universitaria MS 246, fol. 71r-72r (Octo questiones q. 1 c. 1-7) and Salamanca, Biblioteca Universitaria MS 246, fol. 73r (1 Dialogus V 8 ad 4) in: KRÄMER, Konsens und Rezeption, pp. 416-424.On this MS: Oscar LILAO FRANCA / Carmen CASTRILLO GONZÁLES, Cátalogo de manuscritos de la Biblioteca Universitaria de Salamanca, Bd. 1, Manuscritos 1-1679bis, Salamanca 1997, p. 197, nr. 11 (Octo quaestiones) und nr. 12 (Dialogus).

Note 174. This text after I.10 concerning fides explicita and fides implicita are found in autograph in MS 246, fol. 73v-74r (cátalogo I S. 197 nr. 14), likewise in copy in MS 81, fol. 282v-283v (Cátalogo I S. 85, there with a reference to Dialogus 2.1.10 as source).Cf. Jesse D. MANN, "An excerpt from William of Ockham's Dialogus in the Biblioteca Universitaria de Salamanca and its place in the works of Juan de Segovia", in: Manuscripta 35, 1991, p. 176.

Note 175. KRÄMER, Konsens und Rezeption, p. 430, sees here excerpts from Eymericus, as Juan de Segovia has also established in his own hand; cf. the next note.

Note 176. MS 81 fol. 175r-188r: Index directorii Nicolai Eymerici.On this MS: Cátalogo I pp. 81-86.

Note 177. Fol. 189v-190v: Revocatio Ioannis pape XXII de supradicta materia decalarata per successorem suum antedtictum benedictum XII fuit ista: Ne super hiis . . . , text as in GÁL/FLOOD, Chronica, p. 1016.

Note 178. MS 81, fol. 190rm (cf. GÁL / FLOOD, Chronica, p. 1051): primus error est, quod anime sanctorum …non vident nec videbunt deum facie ad faciem …secundus error quod anime …nec ibunt in infernum …tertius error quod diabolus et demones non sunt in inferno nec penis infernalibus cruciantur. In what follows the pope's treatise on the visio is mentioned with correct title and the relevant sermons are briefly paraphrased.

Note 179. E.g. fol. 364r, 373v or fol. 377r: PICCARD I-2 nr. 263 with examples from 1452; origin of paper: upper Rhein.

Note 180. E.g. fol. 11r; especially in 1 Dialogus it is found almost throughout; close to: BRIQUET nr. 2776 with examples from France (Potiers 1436, Angers, Colmar, Tulle) and Germany (Augsburg, Mainz among others).

Note 181. E.g. fol. 447r, close to Piccard II-2 nr. 635 with examples from Basel 1444/45; origin of paper: upper Rhein.

Note 182. The unpublished description of this MS assumes three hands. There is no doubt that the first hand wrote 1 Dialogus; the scarcely noticeable transition from the second to the third hand, which wrote from fol. 360r, is recognisable from the now less rounded letters, the greater distance between words and the generally somewhat brighter ink; also particular words are written differently. Possibly there is a further hand from the last 8 lines of fol. 174r; in any case a fourth or fifth hand wrote 3.2 Dialogus from fol. 380r.

Note 183. As for example fol 376v and 377r in clearly brighter ink, possibly by the same hand in another work session.

Note 184. Fol. 363v: apostate supplied in the margin by the same hand; on fol. 369r; a piece missing in the text is supplied in the margin.

Note 185. fol. 365r line 12: contraria is overwritten by communia in a darker ink by another hand.

Note 186. BONER, Predigerkloster, p. 161.

Note 187. Fol. 1r: Iste liber est fratrum predicatorum domus basiliensis.

Note 188. On this see G. MEYER / M. BURCKHARDT, Die Mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Universitätsbiliothek Basel. Abteilung B: Theologische Pergamenthandschriften, Band I, Basel 1960, pp. 569-571, under dating at the mid-14th century (p. 571): if this is true, B.VI.2 is closer in time to the autograph than any one other MS of 1 Dialogus.

Note 189. MEYER / BURKHARDT, Mittelalterliche Handschriften p. 571 referring to fol. 225v: Iste liber est fratrum predicatorum domus basiliensis et est de libris magistri Johannis von Effringen oretur pro eo.

Note 190. On the biography see BONER, Predigerkloster, p. 180.

Note 191. Cf. the "Observations" on Fi.

Note 192. M. STEINMAN, Ältere Theologische Literatur, p. 477 n. 21. Also MIETHKE, "Marsilius und Ockham", p. 565 n. 73 regards MS Basel Univ. A VI.5 as conciliar.

Note 193. The watermark of the oxen head at least is similarly omitted.

Note 194. E.g.: I.10.17: qui] om. To, Es (second hand), present in Ba; I.10.20: imitantur] om. To; Esm (second hand), present in Ba; II.5.1 Deum] present in To; in Es crossed out; om. Ba.

Note 195. Cf. the observations on Fi in this chapter.

Note 196. Date according to OZAETA, Códice de los Diálogos p. 495.

Note 197. After papam there is probably an opus, which however has been erased.

Note 198. E.g. fol. 184rb line 13: non;

Note 199. Sometimes also erased places remain blank, as e.g. fol. 186ra line 20 after papa, where a quod was removed, but was not overwritten with a new word, or fol. 182vb line 20 from the bottom, where at the beginning of the line there is a gap. Very often there is a new word written in darker ink over an erased word, e.g. fol. 184ra line 4 from the bottom, where after the con that stays there a new-ditione has been written; or fol. 185rb line 17: sermonibus; fol. 185rb z. 24: sunt probanda; such intensive corrections are especially frequent on fol. 184v-185r and fol. 187va.

Note 200. E.g. fol. 184ra line 6: qui inserted, veritatem crossed out; fol. 186ra: berengarius; fol. 186rb: pretendit.

Note 201. E.g. fol. 32vb: quod universale collegiums is in darker ink on an erasure; or fol. 229va line 15 from the bottom: non.

Note 202. OZAETA, "Códice de los Diálogos", p. 494, confirmed by letter by the Padres of the Escorial, to whom we give thanks for their friendly support.

Note 203. The opinion of OZAETA, "Códice de los Diálogos" p. 495.

Note 204. Ozaeta, "Códice de los Diálogos", p. 495.

Note 205. Knysh, "Manuscripts and Sigla", confirms this reading in his additions on Es

Note 206. The most recent list of participants known to me is: Josef LEINWEBER, "Ein neues Verzeichnis der Teilnehmer am Konzil von Pisa 1409. Ein Beitrag zur Frage seiner Ökumenizität", in: Konzil und Papst. Historische Beiträge zur Frage der höchsten Gewalt in der Kirche, Festgabe für Herrmann Tüchle, München - Paderborn - Wien 1975, pp. 207-246; the list on pp. 221-246, permits no identification. Perhaps the person looked for moved in the milieu of ambasiatores et procuratores of the University of Toulouse or Montpellier (p. 240); perhaps he also belonged to the associates of the general of the order of Augustinian Hermits, Petrus de Wyenna, who was listed among the Magstri de universitati Tholosannensi in theologia (p. 244).

Note 207. E.g. fol. 105r; close to BRIQUET nr. 14312 with examples from Provence dated 1419.

Note 208. The first two treatises of the third part are missing, fol. 238va: Incipit tertius tractatus sive tertia pars dialog. Okam.

Note 209. A similar empty space comprising 3 pages is at the end of 1 Dialogus 5 (fol. 151v-152r).

Note 210. In the introduction to the Catalogue général des Manuscrits des Biliothèques publiques des départements, vol. 7 p. VIII, the holdings of the former Dominican house preserved in Toulouse were listed; in part the Catalogue relies on MS Toulouse 883, but it rounds out its list in accordance with the 17th century MS Paris BN lat. 10395 fol. 232, where a Dialogista anonymus ordinis Minorum is mentioned. Certainly, Ockham's name is found in many places in MS 221, as for example fol. 1ra, fol. 238va, fol. 276ra.

Note 211. Acta capitulorum generalium, vol. 2, in: Monumenta ordinis fratrum predicatorum historica (MOPH), ed. B. M. REICHERT, vol. 4, Rome - Stuttgart 1899, pp. 201-205.

Note 212. I.10.5: quia] quia non Di To; quia non Es; quia BaI.10.6 ideo] qui add. Ba EsmI.10.25 qui] probabili Ba; probabile add. EsmI.10.33 aut] seu Ba; seu EsbII.5.1 Deum] om. Ba La; crossed out Es FrI.10.28 vincitur] convincitur Ba; vincitur Es, con Esm.

Note 213. I.3.2: angelicas] auctenticas LLU; angelicas Lcm.I.3.2.: predicantes] presentes Lc; predicantes Lcm.I.4.10: mulieri] multiplicem Lc; mulieri Lcm.I.4.3: beata] vreata BE LLU; beata Lcm.I.10.48: non tenetur] om. Ax Ba To LLU; non tenetur Lcm.II.8.8: non] om. Ax BE LLU; non Lcm.II.5.10: voluptatis vocat] om. Ax NVV LLU; vocat Lcm. I.10.18: aliqui] aliquod Lc, aliqui Lcm.II.6.2 truncant] cantant Ax BET Fi NVV LLU; truncant Lcm

Note 214. This collection also include, for example, Mss Balliol 164; 165A; 165B; 166A, which contained material on the Schism and the Council; cf. MIETHKE, " Marsilius und Ockham ", p. 555 n. 41.

Note 215. WARNER / GILSON, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts, p. 205.

Note 216. So in a description of La transmitted by letter in 1999 by the British Library: "written in Italy."

Note 217. E.g. fol. 176vb line 21 shortly before the end of I.10.3 the first hand left a place open, where the second hand in darker ink and in somewhat smaller script inserts the missing words (explicite multi enim aliqua). Other places the first hand left open sometimes remain open also in the correction, e.g. fol. 169va line 12, fol. Fol. 179vb, fol. 186va z. 4, fol. 186vb line 8 from the bottom, fol. 187va; in one other gap an erasure is recognisable (fol. 174va line 19).

Note 218. Foliation on the upper right of the page is modern; there are no traces of older foliation.

Note 219. Map in: William J. COURTENAY, Parisian Scholars in the Early Fourteenth Century. A social portrait, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought 4, ser. 41, Cambridge 1999, p. 61. - L.-M. TISSERAND / C. PLATON, Histoire générale de Paris II, Topographie historique du vieux Paris, vol. 6, Région centrale de l'université, Paris 1897, pp. 283-286, with documents, pp. 506-511.

Note 220. Fol. 168vb: Explicit liber septimus et ultimus primi tractatus prime partis dyalogorum Okam .... Incipit secunda pars sive secundus tractatus eius de dogmatibus Joh. 22 [Rubr] Vermeley.

Note 221. Dating according to CENCI, Manoscritti, p. 406.

Note 222. E.g fol. 135rb

Note 223. On Seripando's biography: GUTIERREZ, La Biblioteca, p. 60. - The Ockham MS was registered for the first time in an inventory from 1570, which das GUTIERREZ, La biblioteca, pp. 86-198 edited. In it we find VII c.31 Guilelmi de Occam dialogus inter magistrum et discipulum as nr. 2333 on p. 193.

Note 224. Fol. 117 or fol. 120, close to: PICCARD X nr. 333 with examples from Montpellier 1401/02; origin of paper: upper Italy.

Note 225. Fol. 143rb: hic est notabilis defectus, sed quere in fine libri ad tale signum …et inveniens illud quod deficit. Such references are found in three other places still (fol. 168vb; 169vb; 170rb). With these a mix-up of pages was corrected.

Note 226. E.g. fol. 5ra: Explicit liber primus. Incipit liber secundus de assertoribus catholicis et hereticis. - Cf. e.g. fol. 172rb: Incipit secundus tractatus de dogmatibus Johannis 22i. and the notation capitulum primum, capitulum secundum, ibid.

Note 227. Fol. 156vb; in 2 Dialogus such places are found on fol. 174va or fol. 183vb; on fol. 179vb line 19 on the left margin there is a very thin cross, which possibly refers to a gap still to be worked on; similarly crosses in the margin are found in places that show no recognisable correction (fol. 175rb line 3 from the bottom; fol. 178vb line 11 from the bottom; fol. 183rb line 15; fol. 189 ra line 2 from the bottom; that is, the correction was made by the scribe.

Note 228. E.g. fol. 177vb line 15 from the bottom (I.8.5): vanam (expunged), in the margin veram in thinner ink.

Note 229. I.5.1 reddetur] solummodo post diem iudicii ergo anime ante diem iudicii add. Va; va-cat Vab.

Note 230. I.10.22: tenens] corrigens (expunged), tenens (2nd hand) Va.I.10.36 correcti] Et ideo pure et sine omni conditione (expunged) add. Va. Here it is a matter of an eye-jump upwards, which the scribe apparently did not notice.II.10.4 divinas] que papa et cardinales (expunged) add. Va.I.10.11 nonnulli] ignoranter (expunged) add. Va.

Note 231. I.2.24 altari] altiari, -i- expunged, results in altari.

Note 232. Fol. 179va line 2 f.

Note 233. Fol. 187va; the entry on fol. 116vb: 1437, 14 die mensis septembris comes from a second hand.- Knysh, "Manuscripts and Sigla", in his observations on Va offers an explanation of the differing dates: according to this, the sextern with 1 Dialogus 7 and the De Dogmatibus was completed on 5th June 1437; only after that were the 10 sexterns with the first 6 books of 1 Dialogus were added. - One should certainly notice that the later dating at the end of 2 Dialogus comes from the hand of the head scribe, whereas the dating on fol. 116vb comes from the second correcting hand. It can thus also relate to something other than the conclusion of the scribal process, e.g. the conclusion of the correction of 1 Dialogus 1-6.

Note 234. Knysh on Va at: /pubs/dialogus/sigla.html.

Note 235. Date according to SCHOLZ, Unbekannte Kirchenplitische Streitschriften, I p. 143; ETZKORN, Iter Vaticanum, p. 87.

Note 236. Ed. J. LOSERTH, Ioannis Wyclif opera minora, London 1913, pp. 19-73.

Note 237. Fol. 31r also began a new gathering; fol. 50vb is blank.

Note 238. Fol. 171va.

Note 239. Cf. the marginalia on fol. 4rb; fol. 5va; especially numerous on fol. 10r-v; a new hand again annotated fol. 14ra: De aliquibus opinionibus Santi Thome de Aquino; another again wrote on fol. 27r: supponendum est quod prelati habunt bonum concilium; cf. also: fol. 73va; fol.82ra; 103va. - In 2 Dialogus a hand at least similar to that on fol. 14ra sometimes wrote a heading at the top of the page, and indeed the same hand over both columns, as on fol. 172v: de raptu beati Pauli; on fol. 174a multipliciter potest dici summum stands over only the a-column; the b-column is taken up with the secundus tractatus usual on the recto page, which replaces a secundus tractatus (mostly cut off by trimming the MS) that in every case stands over the a-column of every opposed verso and recto pages. On the top margin of fol. 178rb the same hand noted: contra revocationem domini Johannis XXII. - Also in 2 Dialogus readers took an interest in Thomas: thus for example on fol. 178vam we read: que sunt credenda ab omnibus explicite secundum Thomam; cf. also fol. 184vbm.

Note 240. Fol. 171rb; fol. 184va; fol. 185ra.

Note 241. E.g. fol. 17rbm; fol. 53rbm; fol. 54ram.

Note 242. The next gathering began with fol. 177r. This gathering began after fol. 176v (catchword).

Note 243. Cf the note on fol. 47ra: Nota lector hic magnum scriptoris defectum.Nam ab ista clausula in ista linea ultima scripta, scilicet "qualis numquam fuit ab initio" totum vacat et superfluit usque infra, fol. 3 columna 2, linea 14, ubi habetur "mundi usque modo" et totum residuum iterum habetur infra libro sequenti sexto et transposite valde. Et quia credo ibi bene esse de hoc non curo, vel si vis aliter: emenda vacat" ab isto capitulo ab ista clausula, videlicet "ordinarius", quodest capitulum 33 usque ad medium capituli et ultra, scilicet 41, quia totum illud habetur magis ordinate libro sexto plenarie. Ideo non computetur inter capitula, scilicet 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, et sic totum iste tractatus non habebit nisi 35 capitula quoniam alia superfluunt.

Note 244. Fol. 183ram: Tractatus iste non est tractatus tertius de quo supra probat* discipulus in principio libri, sed estvalius tractatus, que est de potestate et iurisdictione imperiorum ....

Note 245. I.10.18.

Note 246. I.5.1 in sede majestatis] in se majestatis.

Note 247. I.10.10 recessit] recedicisset, -dici- expunged. Vb.I.10.45 errantes] contra fidem (all crossed out) add. Vb.

Note 248. I.10.24 reputandum] hoc etiam aliter consimiliter probatur qui teneret et doceret Christum non fuisse passum (all crossed out) add. Vb

Note 249. I.10.54 explicite] ergo per talem protestationem minime excusatur nec talis protestatio (all except per talem crossed out) add. Vb, per talem add. Va

Note 250. At the end of  II.5.4.