Relationships between the Manuscripts
In comparing the manuscripts for the preparation of the text we came to the conclusion that it would not be possible to make a conventional stemma to indicate the relationship of the various manuscripts. For we should have had to assume an enormous number of missing manuscripts, and the result would have been artificial. Furthermore, as we shall note, several scribes seem to have shifted from one manuscript to another as their model. But the collation of the manuscripts did reveal some definite groups. In general, the manuscripts fall into two major traditions: (I) CFLPPfSV and (II) ABBeEErGHJNOOa OeRVfWr1. A large number of small distinctions point to this grouping. But one of the most striking differences between these groups lies in the proof of X.42. Pf has the proof of the first group in the text and the proof of the second group, ascribed to Eggebericus, as an extra note before the beginning of book X. In our opinion, therefore, the manuscripts of tradition I are nearer the original text. Moreover, manuscripts C and P are the oldest which contain proofs beyond book VI. But some kind of contamination must have taken place between the groups: for instance, S contains an addition in VI.28 which JNOaOb have (and on the whole in books VI.5 — IX S resembles tradition II more than I), and the enunciations of XI.4 and 5 of C are in conformity with those of ABBeEErGHJNOaRWr, against those of FLOPPfSVVf.
KeywordsConstat Propositum Extra Note Small Distinction Major Tradition Related Manuscript
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.