Magistri Johannis Hus: Quodlibet, Disputationis de Quolibet Pragae in Facultate Artium Mense Ianuario anni 1411 habitae Enchiridion (review)

Beginning in the thirteenth century, quodlibets were a part of the academic program of the theology and philosophy faculties of universities and were almost always held in Advent or Lent. The January date of the 1411 Hus quodlibet was an exception. The first of the two days of the quodlibet was a day of debate presided over by a master who proposed a question of his own for discussion. He also accepted questions from anyone present on any subject and answers were suggested by the master and others. On a second day shortly afterwards, the master would present orally his determination—his answers to the questions raised. The extant records of quodlibets are either written notes of the determination or, more likely, an edited version of them compiled later.

Generally the number of questions discussed was about a score (the Hus quodlibet has sixty-eight). The topics raised were not related and so the master faced a challenge to organize them. The unusual organizational device used by Hus was to arrange the questions by the dates on which those asking them had become masters, the most senior master first. Hus erred four times in imposing this sequence. The editor on three other occasions was forced to reorder the contributions in the manuscript so as to make the contents coherent.

This sumptuous edition is a reprint of one published in 1948. The publisher has a twofold project: first to publish the manuscript works of Hus (about twenty-five volumes) and secondly to republish books published earlier which are now hard to find. One volume in category 1 has appeared; this is the first in category 2. The new edition is identical to its 1948 predecessor apart from the addition of an introduction and a biography of Ryba, both four pages long. There is only one complete manuscript of the 1411 Hus quodlibet (Prague, National Museum Library V C 42). Parts of the quodlibet are found in eight other manuscripts and the foliation in these is shown by marginal notes beside the corresponding sections in the base text. There are two sets of footnotes. The first relates the passages to material found in other sources; the second gives differences in wording between the main text and the eight partial ones. The critical apparatus as well as the introduction are helpful and put together carefully.

The description of provenance is more sketchy than it need be. The MS must have been copied between 1416 (the date of the second quodlibet it contains) and 1455 when its owner died. There is no mention of watermarks which would have allowed a closer dating. The book was kept for a time in the Church of St. Vitus in Český Krumlov. It was not listed in Bartosˇ's 1926 catalogue of the National Museum Library. Ryba tell us though that the book was a part of the library's collection in 1938. The museum's record keeping at the time was good and it isn't evident why there is no record of the MS's accession date or of its source. The new edition could also have benefited from a bibliography which would have mentioned also sources since 1948, such as Marie Tosnerová's 2001 book which contains a listing of manuscripts acquired by the National Museum since 1926.