Manuscript Relations in Part I, Book 7, Chapters 1-3

John Kilcullen

A collation is in the lower frame. Relative sizes of frames can be changed by dragging the border.

The following groups of MSS can be distinguished:

VcVf(OxAv)We
Fi(AnCe)Bb
(BaDi)ToEsLbm
FrLa(CaVdAr)Un
NaLc
PaPbPcVa(VbSaLb)VgKoPz(LyGs).

Each line represents a different group. (Fr is sometimes like members of the group containing Ba.) Bracketing within a line indicates particular closeness.

In the third group "Lbm" means the corrections in the margin and between lines in Lb; these corrections are drawn from a MS close to To, whereas the uncorrected text of Lb is similar to VbSa.

The groups are similar to those for Part I, book 3, except for the change of affinities for Ko and Ar. These changes may be due to some change of exemplar -- for example, several different manuscripts in pieces may have been used in a period of rapid multiplication, or the one manuscripts may have been copied over a longish period of time using more than one exemplar. Another possibility is that one of the ancestors of a manuscript may have been corrected in part against a manuscript in a different line of descent.

Unique omissions suggest that Ox was not the exemplar for any of the other manuscripts (see pertinaciter), and neither was Av (see qui), nor Ba (see assercio), nor Di (see corrigi), nor To (see sit), nor Ce (see et), nor Un (see hereticos), nor Ar (see inter), nor Sa (see precedentium), nor Vg (see imperatoris).

Omissions not shared suggest that:

• An was not the exemplar for Fi or Bb (see condemnatos);
  

• Bb was not the exemplar for Fi, An or Ce (see talibus);
  
• Na was not the exemplar for Lc nor Lc of Na (see et, sed and et);
  
• La was not the exemplar for manuscripts of its group (see et);
  
• Pa was not the exemplar for manuscripts of its group (see talibus).

As in Part I, Books 3 and 4, the members of the group VcVfOxAvWe are the best in the sense that they either agree with the majority in a sensible reading or, if they are in a minority, show a better reading (or one as good), where the readings of other manuscripts can easily be miscopyings. For example, see

• licet -- licet is preferable to sed, since the clause is concessive;
  

• que -- that it should not be said without distinction, etc., is not the assertion, but a parenthetical comment about the assertion that all who believe, etc., so que not quod;
  
• quia -- what follows is not an inference from the assertion but a reason for the parenthetical comment, so quia, not quare;
  
• emanat -- the context calls for present tense;
  
• hereticorum -- a matter of indifference;
  
• pape -- the point is not merely that the assertion is heretical, but that it is made by the pope.

The reason that can be given in support of the minority reading might have been a reason motivating someone to make a conjectural correction, but the points above are mostly subtle and seem unlikely to have motivated a corrector.

Using the programs Collate and PAUP we made a computer analysis of the relationships between the MSS. It produced a stemma consistent with our own hypotheses. (Note: not all mss were included.)

Return to "Manuscript Relations"
Return to Table of Contents