Witnesses to Part 2 of the Dialogus

John Kilcullen

The manuscript tradition of 2 Dial. is studied by Jan Ballweg in 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 Volker Leppin with Jan Ballweg, Claudia Heidemann and Annette Weissenrieder. Ballweg's edition of the text will be Chapter 5.

Ballweg found that the witnesses to the text fall into two main groups with various sub-groups. See the graphical representation of Ballweg's view of the relationship among the witnesses. The witnesses Ballweg regards as the oldest are Pa Ca Vb Fi and Ax.

John Scott and I have carefully re-read thirteen of the witnesses (chosen as representing different branches of the tradition) and examined others in a more sporadic way. The readings of the thirteen are recorded in our Collation. (See the beginning of the Collation for explanation of conventions; the lines are numbered for convenience of reference.) Ballweg's analysis and our own observations suggest the following grouping:

Group A: (Ca Pc) (Pa Vd) Pb (Di Fr Kg) (Ha Ko) Ar (Pz Lm) (Ly Gs)
Group B: (Vb Na Va) Lb ((Es Ba To) (La Lc Un) Ax ) Fi Sa
(Witnesses with bold sigla are reported in the collation.)

We believe that Gs and Lm can be dismissed, as being derived without change (except for copying errors) from Ly and Pz respectively. We have collated Ba, but we do not report its readings in our apparatus, since it seems to be a copy of Es (see below). Ly itself is derived from Pz (see the dedicatory epistle of Jodocus Badius Ascensius at the beginning of Ly). In 1 Dial. the editor of Ly seems also to have consulted some other witness (akin to Fr) and has made many emendations to the text as found in Pz, but in 2 Dial. Ly seems to have been copied from Pz alone. The editor of Ly has paid careful attention to the argument and supplied words or sentences, by conjecture, where he saw gaps; see e.g. 1424, 4155, 6195, 9013-30, 15988, 19539-44, 22617, 24865, 25425, 27371-6. We have collated Ly and reported its readings, since this (or Gs) is the text that scholars have generally used.

Fi Ax and Fr seem full of errors (i.e., implausible readings and omissions of text necessary to the argument not found in other witnesses). Sometimes Fi seems to be a rather free paraphrase; this is also true of Fr and even truer of Ha and Ko (see Ballweg's appartus). Such witnesses cannot be dismissed altogether, however, since a generally inferior witness may preserve good readings not in other witnesses. (Fi in particular, by itself or with one or two others, sometimes has what seems a good original reading; see 604, 4023, 5041, 6816, 13516, 26844.) Sometimes a reading has been borrowed from some other branch of the tradition, and for this reason also it is worthwhile to collate even generally unpersuasive witnesses. Borrowing from another branch is usually referred to as "contamination"; in the late middle ages, especially with academic texts, it was common practice to compare one manuscript with others and make interlinear and marginal amendments, which might later be taken into the text of copies made from the amended manuscript. (For "amendments" and "corrections" understand what the person making them believed to be such.)

Es and Lb have corrections to the text; some are in the margin, others are between lines, others are inserts written over gaps or erasures. In Es there are also marginal summaries of argument. In Es the amendments are by several hands. The inserts upon erasures in Es were made in a distinctive, more formal, hand. Both Es and Lb in their original state presented a deteriorated text with many omissions, like Ax and Fi. For the most part the amendments merely restore omitted or miscopied passages and bring the text back closer to that found in other MSS of their group (see below). In some cases, however, the reading of Es seems more convincing than other variants, and in at least one place (see 1493-1514) a marginal amendment in Es makes a useful contribution to the resolution of a textual problem.

Groups A and B

The division into Group A and Group B arises mainly from the fact that in witnesses of Group B the text of sections 99 to the end of 120 has been inserted before section 73. In Vb the misplacement divides the word in-tellexerunt, so it must have happened after the sheets of Vb were written in correct order. The phrase eadem facilitate dicetur, missing from its proper place at the top of what should have been fol. 176r (now 175r) is written into the bottom margin of what should have been 175v (now 176v). As it happens, the same phrase begins 177r, which might suggest that an earlier omission by homoioteleuton led to the insertion of the omitted text in the wrong place. But Anne Kilcullen has suggested a better explanation, namely that the binder mistook the phrase in the bottom margin, really intended as a correction inserting words accidentally left out of the text, for catchwords (though there is only one use of catchwords elsewhere in the whole of the manuscript) and flipped the sheet to put the phrase at the foot of the page immediately before eadem facilitate at the top of 177r.

Such a mistake is not likely to have happened at the same point in several different MSS. (If several MSS were made with the same page divisions it might, but there is no evidence of such a practice. Even when an exemplar was shared out among a number of scribes, as was the case, for example, with Di, the copyists often had to space text out or compress it at the end to make it fit the gathering. It seems that scribes were not in the habit of following the page divisions of their exemplar.) It therefore seems very likely that Vb is itself the ancestor of all the B group witnesses. In view of widespread contamination, the readings found in manuscripts derived from Vb may not always be inferior to those of Vb, so we have not disregarded all other members of Group B.

In addition to this displacement of text, there are many places in which the texts of A group and B group differ. Here are a few examples: 34, 38, 39, 217 -9, 620 -3, 663, 937, 951 -2, 1145, 1270, 1428, 1485, 43042, 3242, 3813, 3828, 4139, 4394 -9, 4558, 4851, 4905, 5151, 5222 19363, 19388 -91, 20937, 20984, 21578, (Fr often with A) 22376, 22752, (?)22452, (+Vb) 23574, 23695, 24325, 25078, 27569.

According to Ballweg, the sub-group Di Fr Kg belongs in Group B, and Kg has the misplacement of text. However the misplacement is not found in Di and Fr. Perhaps in their common ancestor the text misplacement had been recognised and corrected. Kg has the misplacement, but with the words intellexerunt ad purum occurring at both the beginning and at the end of the misplaced text. Perhaps this reflects some Group B exemplar in which there were signs to indicate how the text should be rearranged, signs misread by the maker of Kg but correctly read by the writer of the common ancestor of Di and Fr. In our observation, Fr very often agrees with the A group, but not so reliably as to be covered by siglum A.

Agreements and disagreements within Group B

Within group B there is a sub-group, which we call Bz, consisting of Es Ba La and Ax, and within Bz there is a sub-group consisting of Es and Ba: there are cases in which the rest of the B group agree against Es and Ba, other cases in which the agreement is against all of Es Ba La and Ax. One member of the B group, Fi, and one member of the A group, Fr (which may be derive from Vb--see above) sometimes appears on one side of these disagreements and sometimes on the other. Lb often goes with Vb. Sometimes Vb and Lb and the other B group MSS that agree with them also agree with A, at other times A is on the other side or has yet another reading. If Vb is the ancestor of all
B group MSS, then to account for the sub-groups within B we must assume lost exemplars or sources of contamination intermediate between Vb and the sub-groups within the B group.

A, Vb and others of group B against Bz (none is very striking, but the accumulation is telling): 329, 352,  983, 1032, 1033, 1618, 2062, 2207, 2452, 2546, 2851, 2905, 2948,, 3538, 3821, 3905*, 3926, 3992, 4119, 4138, 4340, 4341, 4427, 4490, 4682, 4963, 5520, 5788, 5818, 6075, 6082,(For what is clearly a mistake shared by Es Ba La Ax see 6182.) 6185, 6679, 6761*, 7055*, 7069, 7071, 7264, 7682*, 7762, 8810, 8161, 8177*, 8288, 9136, 9224, 9343, 9555, 9740, 9807, 10098, 10108, 10738, 10740, 10757, 10888, 10891, 10925*, 11345, 11778*, 11922, 12647, 13017, 14677, 14725, 14778, 15190, 15756, 16231, 16743, 16979, 17148, 17220, 17481, 17663, 17730, 17868, 17871, 17875, 17889, 17931, 18334, 18779, 18772, 18857, 18869, 19004, 19388, 19391, 19565, 19849, 19899, 19910, 19994, 20013, 20015, -19 20067, 20644, 20700, 21013, 21169, 21232, 21847, 22320, 22444, 23002,

Ba and Es: There are many cases in which Es Ba disagree with all other witnesses, or with other members of Bz. See for example 89, 172, 493, 1482, 1653, 1979, 2027, 3163, 4023, 4590, 4593, 4618, 4986, 5173, 5942, 6006-6009, 6258, 6568, 7353, 7945, 7979, 9451, 10775, 12716 (idem--elsewhere also), 12813, 13122, 13451, 13814, 13816, 14003, 14257, 14265, 14586, 15078, 15800, 16573, 16688, 17487, 17707, 19091, 19406, -09 19416, 19566, 20089, 24403.

Ba is very close to Es as corrected and has the same marginal summaries of argument (see 100, 220, 339, 512, 1201, 1463, 2087, 2111, 2148, 2403, 2816, 3169, 3542, 4043, 6574, 8360, 9391, 11491, 13692, 18353, 19340, 20116, 20475, 20693, 20727, 20991, 22321, 22492 (not Ba), 22823 (not Ba), 22908 (Ba) = 23230 (Es), 24959.) Either Ba was the MS from which Es was amended or Ba is a fair copy of Es as amended. Closer examination seems to show that Ba is a copy of Es. The best evidence is the existence of passages in the text of Es that are not in Ba (see 15987 to 16026, 16609, 20793. Some of the text inserted over erasure in Es is not followed by Ba (see 4953, 5013, 15163, 17265), and there are marginal amendments in Es that are also marginal amendments in Ba (see 9816-9848 and 17637-17648, 21803, 21806, 236251, -33 24403, 26828). These facts suggest that the copying of Ba was begun before the correction of Es was completed, so that some of the later marginal amendments to Es became marginal amendments in Ba also or were missed altogether..

The corrections of Es often bring it into line with other members of the B group, sometimes with the A group, and often it is difficult to know whether A or B is the source of the correction. See 369-700, 719, 1896, 2624, 3066-77 (but 3072-3074 must derive from the B group), 3590-3603, 3945-50, 4649-4653, 5471, 5619-5623, 5634, 5720-5721, 7148, 7557, 7768, 7687, 7953 -7977, 9816-9848, 14889-14892, 16634-16639, 17637-17648, 17676-17691.

Lb: There are some variants that suggest that Lb may have been copied (directly or with few intermediaries) from Vb: see 1157, 5478, 6153, 17768-17775, 16342, 19978). Marginal or interlinear correction of Lb often seems to derive one of the Bz group or from some member of the B group other than Vb: 486, 693, 1147, 1157, 1248, 1285, 1314, 1396, 1479, 2323, 3009, 3638, 4998, 5478, 6019, 6040, 6157, 7937-7938, 7889, 10526, 10662, 10769-10773, 11301, 14414,14422, 14990, 15206, 15209, 17110, 17540, 17768-17775, 22320, 22437, 24412, 24451, 25248. At other times the corrections could come from Vb (or some MS copied from it), or in some cases also (or instead) from witnesses belonging to group A: see 1763-1774 (except 1768, which does not come from Vb), 2016-2033, 2319-2327, 2600-2606, 3000-3028, 3047-3056, 4149-4159, 5087-5094, 5854-5858, 13461-13476, 15499-15533, 16542-16551, 17768-17775, 18244-18247 18254-18261, 22635 -6. There is one correction that must come from a witness belonging to group A: see 11051.  Even before correction, Lb is sometimes close to Es, e.g. at 3915 (note Ca maioribus minoribus), 3919, 3921.

La and Lb often agree with Vb (often in agreement with group A witnesses) against Es Ba Ax. See 960, 1285, 1444, 1796, 3317, 4055, 4198, 4736, 5057, 6885, 7796, 9743. At 3931 there is some evidence of the influence on La of the Es group. On the other hand, in at least one place La agrees with witnesses of the A group against all members of the B group, including Vb: see 6549-6555. These facts suggest some degree of contamination.

Contamination among group B witnesses is a reason why it is appropriate to report their readings, even if they are all copies, directly or indirectly, of Vb.

Return to Table of Contents