Problems with the text of 2
Dialogus
2.1 Dial. chapter 2, s 16
Version 1: Cum vero minor probatur auctoritate
Iob, "In novissimo die" et cetera, dicendum est quod per illa
verba probatur quod anime sanctorum sperant corporum
resurreccionem, sed non probatur per eam quod anime sanctorum
habent spem que est virtus theologica vel actum
sperandi qui non stat cum
visione clara. (Translation: "When the minor is proved by
the text of Job, 'On the last day' etc., it must be said that
these words prove that the souls of the saints hope for the
resurrection of bodies, but it is not proved by that [proposition]
that the souls of the saints have the hope that is a theological
virtue or an act of hoping that is inconsistent
with clear vision.")
This agrees with Ar
Ha Ko Pz Ly
Version 2: Cum vero minor probatur
auctoritate Iob, "In novissimo die" et cetera, dicendum est quod
per illa verba probatur quod anime sanctorum sperant corporum
resurreccionem, sed non probatur per eam quod anime sanctorum
habent spem que est virtus theologica vel actum
sperandi quod stat cum
visione clara et aliquando non stat cum ipsa
(Translation: "When the minor is proved by the text of Job,
'On the last day' etc., it must be said that these words prove
that the souls of the saints hope for the resurrection of
bodies, but it is not proved by that [proposition] that the
souls of the saints have the hope that is a theological virtue or an act of hoping that is consistent
with clear vision and sometimes is not consistent
with it.")
Sa has a variant of this: … sed non probatur per ea
quod anime sanctorum habent spem que est virtus theologica, sed probatur quod habent actum sperandi
qui stat cum visione clara et aliud scilicet
spes que est virtus theologica non stat cum ipsa
Version 2 is
found (with variants) in Ca Fr Lb Sa Pa Pb Pc Vb Vd
Version 3: Cum vero minor probatur
auctoritate Iob, "In novissimo die" et cetera, dicendum est quod
per illa verba probatur quod anime sanctorum sperant corporum
resurreccionem, sed non probatur per eam quod anime sanctorum
habeant spem que est virtus theologica vel dicitur quod
actus sperandi stat cum
visione clara et alius non
stat cum ispa (Translation: "When the minor is proved by
the text of Job, 'On the last day' etc., it must be said that
these words prove that the souls of the saints hope for the
resurrection of bodies, but it is not proved by that
[proposition] that the souls of the saints have the hope that is
a theological virtue; or it is said
that an act of hoping is consistent
with clear vision and another is not consistent with clear
vision.")
Version 3 is
found (with variants) in Ax Ba Es To Di Kg La Lc Un Va
Fi
omits
some text by homoioteleuton, and ends: … sed non probatur per
eam quoniam anime sanctorum habent spem que est virtus
theologica vel actum sperandi stare cum visione
dei clara ("…it is not proved…that the souls of the saints have
the hope that is a theological virtue or that an
act of hoping is consistent with clear vision of God.")
We
have
adopted version 1 because it makes good sense and is an apt
answer to the argument from Job. Versions 2 and 3 look like
unsuccessful attempts to amend a text deriving from version 1
with the "non" before "stat" omitted. Without the "non",
version 1 would say: "but it is not proved … that the souls …
have … an act of hoping that is consistent with
clear vision", which makes bad sense. The best the would-be
amenders could do was to insert the general comment that hope in
some sense is, and in another sense is not, consistent with
clear vision--a comment that does not advance the answer to the
argument based on Job.
2.1 Dial., chapter 2, s 18
Version 1: et ideo habent
actum sperandi et eciam
visionem claram et
perfectam (Ca Ha Pz Ly)
Version 2: et ideo habent actum
sperandi et eciam
visionem claram sed
perfectam (Pa Pb Vd)
Version 3: et ideo habent actum
sperandi non visionem
claram sed vindictam (Fi Vb)
Version 4: et ideo
habent actum sperandi non ad visionem
claram sed ad vindictam (Es La Ax Kg )
Version 1 is not quite satisfactory because the
perfection of the vision is not to the point (and anyway the
author does not think that all the saints have perfect vision).
The sed in version 2
makes no sense. Version 3 makes sense, visionem claram and
vindictam being accusative as objects of the gerund sperandi.
Version 4 is equivalent to version 3. So we reject versions 1 and
2 and adopt version 3.
2.1 Dial.
chapter 3, s 21
Group A witnesses show one
version, Group B another -- except that Di goes here with
Group B, whereas normally it belongs to Group A:.
Version 1 PaCaPcPzLyFrArSaVd: supplicamus et petimus ut nos
exaltet in salutem paratam etc.
Version 2 DiVbEsBaToUnLaLbLcVa: legitur quod beatus Petrus dicit
ut nos exaltet in salutem paratam etc. (Fi: ut ait beatus Petrus
ut nos...)
Ly adds to Pz
something derived from later in the chapter, and repeats the text
from Peter: quoniam anime sanctorum ut habetur in Apocalypsi usque
ad diem iudicii erunt sub altari et post diem iudicii super altare
videbunt deum facie ad faciem ut exponit beatus Bernardus probatur
eciam auctoritate beati petri dicentis 1 Petri 5 ut nos exaltet in
salutem et cetera
Version 1 makes good sense without the reference version 2 clumsily
supplies to the source of "ut nos" etc. The addition in Ly
seems conjectural.
2.1 Dial. chapter 3, s 24
A group
Between two sub-groups there is
a variation of word order in one phrase, which in the second
version is preceded by "et":
Version 1, Ca Pa
Pb Pc Vd Fr: primo si anima beati pauli adepta est beatitudinem et secundum
veritatem adipiscetur secundum istum maiorem et perfecciorem gradum visionis divine quam in
raptu habuit
Version 2, Ha Ko Pz Ly: primo si
anima beati pauli adepta est beatitudinem et secundum
veritatem et secundum
istum adipiscetur maiorem et perfecciorem gradum visionis divine quam in
raptu habuit
The sentence following is: “Igitur videns divinam
essenciam ad maiorem gradum perfeccionis, scilicet visionis
divine, poterit exaltari.”
Next paragraph: “Minor est manifesta secundum omnes. Maior
probatur primo auctoritate Augustini ad Orosium, qui ait taliter: “Raptus fuerat Paulus in tercium celum, id est ad intellectualem visionem, ut deum, non per corpus, non
per similitudinem corporis, sed sicut est ipsa veritas cerneret”. Ex
hiis verbis patenter habetur quod anima Pauli in raptu
vidit deum.” (Translation: The minor is manifest,
according to everyone. The major is proved, first, by
a text of Augustine (To Orosius), who speaks thus: "Paul was taken
up into the third heaven, i.e. to intellectual vision, so that he
perceived God not through a body, nor through the likeness of a
body, but as he is truth itself". By these words it is clearly
established that in the rapture Paul's soul saw God.) This shows
that in our text "adepta est beatitudinem" refers to the rapture (2
Corinthians 12:2). The paragraph after this ends: "and yet Paul's
soul after his death was exalted to a clearer vision". This suggests
that in our text "adipiscetur" means after Paul's death.
Neither of the versions above explicitly sets out a major and
minor from which the conclusion would follow. However, "si...
igitur" could be taken as an argument in the form of a
conditional, with the tacit premise "what
actually happened in one case is possible". "Secundum istum" means, I take it, that John XXII
agrees with the true proposition that Paul will obtain more
perfect vision. Perhaps this phrase was omitted in some MS,
re-inserted as a marginal comment, then taken into the text
at the wrong point; or perhaps it was originally a reader's
marginal comment taken into the text at two different
points.
Translation of version 2: "Is
proved first: If the soul of blessed Paul obtained beatitude [in
the rapture], and [in the future life] will attain (in truth,
and according to John XXII) a greater and more perfect grade of
divine vision than it had in the rapture, therefore one who sees
the divine essence can
be exalted to a greater degree of perfection, i.e. of divine
vision".
B group
The following
witnesses have "sic" where the above have "si", they do not have
the "et" before "secundum veritatem", and (except
La) there is no object (such as the "beatitudinem” of Group A) for
“adepta est”:
Vb: primo sic anima beati pauli
adepta est secundum veritatem adipiscetur secundum istum maiorem et perfecciorem
gradum visionis divine quam in raptu habuit
La: primo sic anima
beati pauli adepta est beatitudinem secundum
veritatem et secundum
veritatem adipiscetur secundum istum maiorem et perfecciorem gradum [the rest is
omitted by homoioteleuton]
Lb: primo sic anima beati
pauli adepta est secundum veritatem
et adipiscetur secundum
ista maiorem gradum visionis divine quam in raptu habuit
Ax: primo sic anima beati pauli adepta est secundum
veritatem adipiscetur secundum istum maiorem et perfecciorem gradum visionis divine
essencie quam in raptu habuit
Lc: primo sic anima beati pauli adepta est secundum
veritatem et adipiscetur maiorem
et perfectiorem gradum visionis divine essencie
quam in raptu habuit
Fi: primo sic anima beati pauli in raptu adepta est secundum
veritatem maiorem et perfecciorem
gradum visionis divine essencie quam in raptu habuit
Vb, from which
LaLbLcAx seem to derive, is close to Group A version 1, with the
omission of "beatitudinem et".
B Group with
possibly conjectural variants
Instead of “adipiscetur”
there is “post hoc habuit” or “post mortem exaltata est”;
and “secundum istum” does
not occur. “Adepta est” is modified by “in raptu”
(otherwise found in the B group only in Fi), and its object is “visionem
essencie divine” (not “beatitudinem” as in Group
A).
These differences could be due to conjectural
efforts to repair a version as in Vb, under the guidance of hints
provided in the next two paragraphs.
Di Kg: primo sic anima beati pauli adepta est visionem
essencie divine in raptu secundum veritatem sed istum maiorem et perfecciorem gradum visionis
divine essencie post hoc
habuit quam habuit in raptu
Es: primo sic anima beati pauli adepta
est secundum veritatem [ins] in raptu
[/ins] [m] visionem essencie divine sed post mortem exaltata est ad claram divine essencie [/m] [ins] visionem secundum
[/ins] maiorem et perfecciorem gradum visionis
divine essentie quam habuit in raptu
Ba: primo sic anima beati pauli adepta est secundum veritatem in
raptu visionem divine essencie sed post mortem exaltata est ad
claram divine essencie visionem secundum maiorem et perfecciorem
gradum visionis divine essencie quam habuit in raptu [Ba
seems throughout to be a fair copy of Es.]
Each of these
versions does support the conclusion
“Igitur videns divinam essenciam ad maiorem gradum perfeccionis,
scilicet visionis divine, poterit exaltari.”
Conclusion
Version 2, found in Ha Ko Pz Ly,
seems best.
2.1 Dial. chapter 3, s 62
Version 1: Cum vero conatur probare minorem (EsBaLaAx)
Version 2: Cum sic conatur probare minorem (VbPzLy)
Version 3: Tamen sic conatur probare minorem (CaPb)
Version 4: Tamen si conatur probare minorem (PaVd)
Other MSS have idiosyncratic readings.
Scott has drawn attention to the possible value of version 4,
"However, if he tries to
prove the minor..." -- perhaps John did not actually offer this
proof, but if he had it could have been answered as follows... This
would make superfluous Ly's conjectural addition to the argument
quoted at the beginning of the chapter, s 21 (where he added: "Quoniam
anime sanctorum, ut habetur in Apocalypsi, usque ad diem iudicii
erunt sub altari, et post diem iudicii super altare videbunt deum
facie ad faciem, ut exponit beatus Bernardus"). If the original had
read "si", it would be easier to understand the origin of the "sic"
found in versions 2 and 3, which include the witnesses that are
generally the most reliable.
But the context seems to be against this. The previous paragraphs
(from s 52 ) have gone through
the text of the argument at the beginning of the chapter (s 21) up to "alias tunc non
exaltarentur", and the last paragraph of the chapter (s 66) answers the last part of
the argument. This (s 62) is not
the point at which to introduce a hypothetical discussion of an
argument John did not use--that would come more suitably after s 66. The conjectural
addition in Ly seems appropriate, though what has dropped out must
have included something Ly does not supply, namely John's
interpretation of Apoc. 6:9 ("I saw under the altar the souls of
them that were slain for the word of God"), corresponding to our
author's remark (s 62): "For the
reason the souls of the martyrs are said to be under the altar until
the day of judgment is not that they do not see the deity of Christ
but only the humanity, as the text is falsely expounded".
2.1 Dial. chapter 3, s 69
Version 1 Ca Pb Ko
Fr Ar Pz Ly (most of group A): sed secundum beatum
augustinum de cura pro mortuis... (Likewise Fi: et [q]
tamen [/q] secundum augustinum de cura pro mortuis. Ha Ko: sed
secundum augustinum libro de cura pro mortuis.)
Version 2 Vb Lb Es
Ba Ax La Lc Un To Va Di Kg (most of group B): et
per consequens secundum beatum gregorium de cura pro
mortuis...
Intermediate versions
Sa: et per consequens per beatum augustinum de cura pro
mortuis. Vd: sed secundum beatum gregorium et augustinum
de cura pro mortuis. Pa: sed secundum beatum gregorium
augustinum de cura pro
mortuis.
In s 82 there is a back
reference that suggests that at this point the following passage
should have appeared: “Et per
consequens secundum beatum Gregorium, qui videt facialiter
deum non ignorat aliqua que apud viventes fiunt, nec docentur de
aliquo, nec revelatur eis aliquid quod prius non viderint. Sed secundum beatum Augustinum
De cura pro mortuis agenda...”.
[** Take account of these remarks of Jan Ballweg: s.o. (I.3.1);
der Bezug auf die in I.3.1 zitierte tertia ratio ist durch die
Zählung im I.3.6., die wörtlich übereinstimmende Einleitung (et per
consequens secundum beatum) und die in I.3.7 nachfolgende wieder
wörtlich übereinstimende Passage (cum ultimo dicit...) weitgehend
sicher: gleichwohl ist die Wiedergabe hier nur inhaltlich
nachvollziehbar. Sähe man in der Passage eine Umschreibung des
Gregoriuszitats, wie es die Textüberlieferung nahelegt, würde das
Augustinuszitat erst in 3.7. paraphrasierend wieder aufgegriffen;
dies ist unwahrscheinlich. Wahrscheinlich wurde an dieser Stelle der
ursprüngliche Text nach beatum sehr früh zerstört und von einem nur
bedingt kundigen Schreiber rekonstruiert.]
2.1 Dial. chapter 11
In this chapter there are a number of passages that seem to disrupt,
or at least not advance, the argument, which therefore ought to be
deleted. They may be some reader's marginal comments or summaries
that have been taken into the text.
The first of these is in bold in the following:
Tercio, ex auctoritate prescripta evidenter ostenditur quod errans
pertinaciter contra veritatem catholicam quam non tenetur explicite
credere est hereticorum numero aggregandus. Nam errans pertinaciter
contra veritatem catholicam quam non tenetur explicite credere,
defendens eciam pertinaci animositate falsam et iniquam sentenciam
comprobatur (quia
defendens {La Lb Ly: describens W} pertinaciter sentenciam falsam
contrariam veritati quam non {om. Ax Es Ba La Fr} tenetur explicite credere propter
solam pertinaciam {contumaciam Fi} et non {Bz: non solum W} propter defensionem inter hereticos
numeratur). Sed defendens pertinaci animositate falsam et
iniquam sentenciam secundum Augustinum inter hereticos computatur.
Igitur errans pertinaciter contra veritatem catholicam quam non
explicite tenetur credere hereticus est censendus.
(Variants are given only for the bold passage.)
Third, it is evidently shown from the above text that one who errs
pertinaciously against a Catholic truth that he is not bound to
believe explicitly is to be counted among the number of heretics.
For one who errs pertinaciously against a Catholic truth he is not
bound to believe explicitly is shown to be defending also with
pertinacious animosity a false and wicked opinion (because one who pertinaciously
defends a false opinion contrary to a truth that he is not bound
to believe explicitly is counted among heretics because of his
pertinacity alone and not because of his defence). But
one who defends with pertinacious animosity a false and wicked
opinion is counted among heretics, according to Augustine. Therefore
one who errs pertinaciously against a Catholic faith that he is not
bound to believe explicitly must be regarded as a heretic.
Here is the argument in schematic form: “P
is H. For
(1) P is proved also to be M (because...).
(2) But M is H, according to Augustine.
(3) Therefore P must be H.”
P= one who errs pertinaciously against a Catholic truth that he is
not bound to believe explicitly; M = one who defends with
pertinacious animosity a false and wicked opinion; H=a heretic.
The argument is clear and valid: Barbara, fig. 1, with the
conventional order of premises reversed.
The bold passage seems to be intended to reaffirm the first
premise against a tacit objection. The objection is that a
pertinacious errant need
not be a pertinacious defender
(some who are in error do not defend their error but keep quiet
about it); the first premise is therefore false, and Augustine's
statement (the second premise) cannot be applied to the
pertinacious errant as such. The bold passage rejects this
objection, asserting that what makes the heresy is not the
defence but precisely the pertinacity. (The qualification
"that he is not bound to believe
explicitly" is irrelevant and inappropriate.)
Is the bold passage authentic, or is it some reader's marginal
comment that has been taken into the text? The objection against
authenticity is that if the author had envisaged this objection, he
would probably have dealt with it more explicitly. But we have given
the passage the benefit of the doubt.
Quarto, ex auctoritate supra infertur quod errans non pertinaciter
contra veritatem catholicam quam non tenetur credere explicite non
est inter hereticos computandus. Quia talem dicit Augustinus inter
hereticos minime computandum: talis enim paratus est corrigi per
regulam fidei Christiane, et ideo non errat scienter contra fidem;
querit eciam cauta sollicitudine veritatem, et ideo non contra
aliquid quod tenetur credere explicite errat; quia eciam
paratus est corrigi, non errat pertinaciter, sed ex sola
simplicitate vel ignorancia errat, et ideo non est inter hereticos
computandus.
Fourth, it is inferred from the above text that one who errs, but not
pertinaciously, against a Catholic truth he is not bound to believe
explicitly is not to be counted among the heretics. For
Augustine says that such a person is by no means to be counted among
heretics, since such a person is ready to be corrected by the rule
of Christian faith and therefore does not err knowingly against
faith; also he seeks the truth with careful solicitude and therefore does not err against
something he is bound to believe explicitly; also, because
he is ready to be corrected, he does not err pertinaciously, but
errs from simplicity alone, or ignorance; and therefore he is not to
be counted among the heretics.
[From the outset, the argument is about those who err against a
truth they are not bound to believe explicitly (see underlined
words): the deleted clause is not a conclusion, final or
intermediate.]
Talis enim non
fatetur se errasse (errasse] Aw Vb Es Lb Fi Fr: errare Ba La
Lc Ax , errare added Es) sed fatetur quod non dixit vel
(vel] Aw Fr: nec Vb Es Ba La Lc Ax Fi , aut Lb) dicet
(dicet] Pa Pb Pz Ly Vb Es La Lb Ax Fi Fr: dicit Ca Ba ,
[b]aliquid[/b] added Lb) scienter (aliquid added Es Ba La
Lc Ax) contra fidem (fidem] Pa Pb Ca Bw: veritatem
Pz Ly) et quod si sciverit se dixisse aliquid
contra fidem (si... fidem] omitted Fi) paratus est (est] Pa Ca Ed Bw: omitted
Pb) revocare. Magna autem est differencia
inter revocacionem et protestacionem (protestacionem]
probacionem Ca , probatum Vb) si sciret (sciret:
sciveret Lc) aliquid dicere
(dicere] se dixisse
Es Ba , dixisse Fi) contra fidem (revocare
added Pa Pb Ca Vb Fr , paratus
est revocare added Es Ba , revocaret added Fi; ?revocacio
added Lc; paratus esse
revocare talis enim non revocat quod nescit se erasse
added Lcm). Talis enim non revocat sed protestatur se paratum
(paratum] probatum Pa Ca Pz Vb) (talis... paratum ] omitted La Ax)
revocare
si se (se] omitted Fi) cognoverit (cognoverit]
cognovit Vb) contra fidem errasse vel errare (si ...
errare ] omitted Es Ba) (magna... errare ] omitted Lb )
The most obvious
point of difficulty with this passage is the "revocare" marked in
red: neither revocare nor paratus est revocare makes good grammar.
One possibility is that the words underlined were originally a
marginal comment later inserted into the text, with the word
at the insertion point, "revocare", being repeated at the end of
the insertion. (The hypothesis of insertion is supported by the
fact that the underlined words do not seem to contribute to the
argument.) In Es the inserted phrase ends "paratus est revocare",
which are the three words before the putative insertion point. In
fact, for Es and Lc it is possible that the repetition is more
extensive, namely all the words marked in blue; on this view, the
marginal comment brought into the text would be the summary "magna
autem est differencia inter revocacionem et protestacionem".
On the hypothesis
that the underlined words are a marginal comment that has got into
the text, the authentic text omits those words and also
the "revocare" or the "paratus est revocare" that follows
them. It would read:
Septimo, notandum est quod
revocacio quam facit errans contra fidem non debet esse
condicionalis, sed debet esse pura et absque omni condicione. Sicut
enim penitencia de peccato commisso non debet esse condicionalis sed
sine condicione, ita non debet quis errans revocare errorem suum sub
condicione sed absolute. Videtur quod aliqui errantes contra fidem,
et eciam aliqui non errantes, ex consuetudine revocant aliqua sub
condicione, dicentes, “Si aliquid dixi vel dixero contra fidem,
revoco totum”. Talis revocacio magis dicenda est protestacio quam
revocacio: talis enim non fatetur se errasse, sed fatetur quod non
dixit vel dicet scienter contra fidem et quod, si sciverit se
dixisse aliquid contra fidem, paratus est revocare. Magna autem differencia est
inter revocacionem et protestacionem si sciret aliquid dixisse
contra fidem revocare. Talis enim non revocat, sed
protestatur se paratum revocare si se cognoverit contra fidem
errasse vel errare.
Translation: Seventh, it must be noted that is a
revocation made by a person in error against the faith should not be
conditional but ought to be pure and unconditional. For just as
repentance for a sin committed should not be conditional but
unconditional, so one who errs should not revoke his error under a
condition but absolutely. It seems that some who err against
faith, and also some who do not err, are accustomed to revoke
certain things subject to a condition, saying, "If I have said or
say anything against the faith, I revoke the whole". Such a
revocation should be called a protestation rather than a revocation:
for such a person does not say that he has erred, but says that he
did not or will not say anything against the truth knowingly, and
that if he learns that he said anything against the faith, he is
ready to revoke. However, there is a great difference between
revocation and protestation, if he knows that he has said
something against the faith to revoke For
such a person does not revoke, but protests that he is ready to
revoke, if he learns that he has erred or does err against the
faith.
An alternative to the hypothesis that the words in
question should be deleted would be that some other words should be
added. If we add words found only in Lc in the margin, conjecturally
insert a "quod" and conjecturally amend the last "enim" to
"ergo", we would have:
Talis revocacio
magis dicenda est protestacio quam revocacio. Talis
enim non fatetur se errasse, sed fatetur
quod non dixit vel dicet scienter aliquid contra fidem,
et quod si sciverit se dixisse aliquid
contra fidem paratus est revocare. Magna autem est
differencia inter revocacionem et protestacionem [quod]
si sciret aliquid se dixisse (se dixisse] Es) contra fidem
paratus est revocare (paratus est revocare] Es) -- talis enim non
revocat, quia nescit se erasse [talis... erasse: Lcm). Talis enim ergo non revocat sed protestatur se
paratum revocare si se cognoverit contra fidem errasse
vel errare.
Translation:
Such a revocation should be called a protestation rather
than a revocation. For such a person does not say that he has
erred, but says that he did not or will not say anything against
the truth knowingly, and that if he learns that he said anything
against the faith, he is ready to revoke. But
there is a great difference between revocation and
a protestation [that] if he knows he has said something
against the faith he is ready to revoke For
such a person does not revoke, since he does not know that he has erred. For Therefore such
a person does not revoke but protests that he is ready to revoke
if he comes to know that he has erred or does err against the
faith.
In other words: If
a person says he has not knowingly erred but is ready to revoke if he comes to know that he has, then – since there
is a big difference between actually revoking and protesting
readiness to revoke if one knows one has erred (since such a
person does not revoke, because he does not know he has erred)—he
does not revoke but protests readiness to revoke if
etc.
This is a valid
argument, but the inferential steps are minute and the point it
makes hardly needs argument. Moreover, Lcm is not a weighty
witness. It therefore seems better to adopt the first hypothesis,
that the passage contains material that should be struck out.
Without that material its sense is as follows:
Such a revocation
should be called a protestation rather than a revocation. For such
a person does not say that he has erred, but says that he did not
or will not say anything against the truth knowingly, and that he
is ready to revoke if
he learns that he has said anything against the faith. For
such
a person does not [actually] revoke, but protests that he is ready to revoke, if he learns
that he has erred or does err against the faith.
Item, errans contra fidem, si debet de pravitate heretica excusari,
oportet quod per ignoranciam excusetur. Errans igitur contra fidem
qui laborat ignorancia que non excusat nisi probetur, antequam
probetur non debet per ignoranciam excusari. Sed qui errat contra
veritatem que apud omnes catholicos est tamquam catholica
divulgata vel
ignorat talem veritatem esse apud omnes tamquam catholicam
divulgatam vel laborat ignorancia que ipsum apud ecclesiam
non excusat nisi ignoranciam talem probaverit, quia secundum sanctos
canones, illa que publice fiunt nemini licet ignorare, et si talem
ignoranciam allegaverit, ipsam probabit (9a, q. 1a, Ordinaciones, in
textu et in glossa). Igitur qui negat catholicam veritatem
communiter apud catholicos divulgatam, si protestando qualitercumque
se voluerit per ignoranciam de pravitate heretica excusare, oportet
quod ignoranciam huiusmodi probet. Unde si iste posset probare
legitime quod numquam audivit aliquem catholicum predicare, tenere,
docere vel asserere animas sanctorum in celo videre deum, posset de
pravitate heretica excusari, sed aliter non — sicut eciam si quis
negans Christum fuisse passum per protestacionem huiusmodi (scilicet
quod non intenderet aliquid dicere contra fidem, et si diceret,
totum revocaret) de pravitate heretica excusaretur, nisi per alium
modum de pertinacia convinceretur.
Again, one who errs against faith, if he should be excused of
heretical wickedness, ought to be excused by ignorance. Therefore
anyone erring against the faith who labours under an ignorance that
does not excuse unless it is proved should not be excused by
ignorance before he does prove it. But he who errs
against a truth published among all Catholics as Catholic either does not know that
this truth has been published among all as Catholic or
labours under an ignorance that does not excuse him before the
Church unless he proves that ignorance, for according to the
holy canons no one is permitted not to know things done publicly,
and if he alleges such ignorance, he will prove it (9, q. 1, Ordinationes,
in the text and in the gloss [s.v. nisi probare, col. 866]).
Therefore he who denies a Catholic truth commonly published among
Catholics, if by protesting he wishes in any way to excuse himself
of heretical wickedness by ignorance, ought to prove that ignorance.
Thus, if this man could prove lawfully that he never heard any
Catholic preach, hold, teach, or assert that the souls of the saints
in heaven see God, he could be excused of heretical wickedness, but
otherwise not --- just as by such a protestation (namely that
he did not intend to say anything against the faith, and if he
did he revoked the whole) someone denying that Christ suffered
would also [if he could prove ignorance] be excused of heretical
wickedness, unless in some other way he were convicted of
pertinacity.
[The argument is that only ignorance excuses, but ignorance of what
is commonly published as Catholic truth must be proved. The
alternative "either does not know... or labours under " an
ignorance that does not excuse unless proved is an irrelevance.]
Tract 2
Chapter 1 [[something wrong here: it is the meaning of the
Gloss that prelacy will last until all of us who are, while in this
present life, in one faith that does not differ we expect next a
first person verb, not occurrent. And if we are still in the present
life when the last judgment comes, will we meet in fide or in clara
visione? I would suppose in fide, not, as in Ballweg's version,
in clara visione: if those who are alive at the second coming meet
in clear vision, then who are referred to by "aliqui occurrent in
fide"? Ly's conjecture seems plausible, though perhaps it does not
do justice to the emphasis in the earlier part of the sentence on
being in the present life. I suspect that a larger passage has
dropped out.]]
[[This is a bit odd; we"ve already had 3 ways of taking peace; are
these alternatives just two more ways of taking peace? In fact the
next two points are the ones his conclusion depends on; he didn"t
really need the first three]]
2.2 Dial.
chapter 5, s. 290
Et istam beatitudinem vocat beatus Bernardus beatitudinem
consummatam, et a quibusdam integra beatitudo. [Missing text] tam
primo modo quam secundo modo dicta, est redempta. Sic beatus Iacobus
loquitur...
For redempta, Ly substitutes: nuncupata. Dicitur eciam beatitudo
status perfectorum et in gracia existencium, ut sunt iusti in hac
vita et anime purgandorum post mortem
After integra beatitudo we need vocatur or something similar.
We don't know what dicta refers to: probably not beatitudo. The noun
that redempta agrees with may be anima, but that is not necessarily
the noun for dicta.
The sense of the missing text is best gathered from text below.
2.2 Dial. chapter 9, s. 333
The consensus among the witnesses reads as follows: Ubi sancti loquuntur de visione animarum sanctarum,
non utantur preterito pro presenti tantum ad monstrandum suum
affectum ad sanctos, sed eciam ad monstrandum veritatem de visione
earum pro presenti; igitur non utuntur presenti pro futuro. Sancti
autem frequenter cum loquuntur de visione animarum sanctarum non
solum loquuntur ad monstrandum veritatem de visione earum pro
presenti. Igitur non utuntur presenti pro futuro sed pro presenti.
With this there are difficulties. (1) As it stands, it says that
the saints use past for present to show the truth of their vision
for the present (non
utantur preterito pro presenti tantum ad monstrandum suum
affectum ad sanctos, sed eciam
ad monstrandum veritatem de visione earum pro presenti), which is
inconsistent with the conclusion of the argument (Igitur non utuntur presenti pro futuro sed pro
presenti). (2) The passage contains igitur twice. Is the clause
introduced by the first igitur (igitur
non
utuntur presenti pro futuro) an
intermediate conclusion that becomes a premise of the next stage
of argument? But it is difficult to see how this clause is either
a conclusion of what precedes it or a premise of what follows. (3)
"Autem" often marks the minor premise. But the apparent
minor (Sancti autem frequenter
cum loquuntur...) says that the saints do not only speak to show the truth etc., which
does not help the conclusion.
The text of Ly differs from the consensus in several respects. (a)
Ubi becomes ubicumque (but ubi can also mean "whenever"). (b)
Tantum is moved and eciam removed, so that the text reads: non utuntur preterito pro presenti ad monstrandum
tantum suum affectum ad
sanctos, sed eciam ad monstrandum veritatem). But if the editor's purpose was to eliminate
difficulty (1) he did not succeed--his text still implies that
sometimes the saints used past for present to show present
truth. (c). The apparent
intermediate conclusion (igitur
non utuntur presenti pro futuro) is deleted, which eliminates
difficulty (2).
Some other witness also differ from the consensus in ways relevant
to our difficulties. (d) A number of Group B
witnesses (Vb Lb Es To La Fi Lc Un Va) do not have the first igitur,
though they still have "non utuntur presenti
pro futuro". (e) Several of the same witnesses (Es To La Fi Lc Un)
omit non solum, so that the sentence means: "But often when the
saints speak of the vision of the holy souls they speak to show
the truth of their vision for the present". But it is still
difficult to see how this functions as the minor premise of
the argument.
Suggested reconstruction:
Ubi sancti loquuntur de visione animarum sanctarum
non utantur preterito pro presenti tantum ad monstrandum
suum affectum ad sanctos sed eciam ad monstrandum veritatem de
visione earum pro presenti, igitur non utuntur presenti
pro futuro. Sancti autem frequenter, cum loquuntur de visione
animarum sanctarum, non solum loquuntur ad monstrandum [suum
affectum ad sanctos sed eciam ad monstrandum] veritatem
de visione earum pro presenti. Igitur non utuntur presenti pro
futuro sed pro presenti.
(Deletion of igitur is supported by some Group B
witnesses, but the other deletion and the insertion are without
MS support.)
Translation:
"When the saints speak of the vision of the holy souls not only
to show their feeling toward the saints but also to show the
present truth of their vision, they do not use present for
future. But often the saints, when they speak of the vision of
the holy souls, do not speak only to show [their feeling
toward the saints but also to show] the present truth of their
vision. Therefore [on those occasions] they do not use the
present for future but for present."
This is a valid argument. The text continues in
the next section: "The
major [premise] is obvious, because if they were using the present
for the future they would in no way be showing a present truth,
but rather a future one. The minor [premise] also appears beyond
doubt to anyone reading the texts of the saints," and there
follows a discussion of a text of Gregory and one of Innocent III.
The argument given here for the major premise supports the major
in my reconstruction. The support given for the minor (see 334) also shows that our
author is not trying to prove that the saints never use present for
future, but merely that sometimes (or frequenter) when they speak
of the present vision of the holy souls they use present
tense and do not mean future.
Return to Table of
Contents