In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

546 BOOK REVIEWS D.e summo bono. Liher II, Tractatus 1-4. By ULRICH OF STRASBOURG, O.P. Edited by ALAIN DE LIBERA. Corpus Philosophorum Teutoni· corum Medii Aevi, Vol. I, 2 (1). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1987. Pp. xliii +162. After the publication of works by Theodoric of Freiberg and Berthold of Moosburg, the Corpus Philosophorum Teutonicorum Medii Aevi has been continued by the start of an edition of a third representative of the German Dominican School: Albert the Great's "favorite disciple," Ulrich of Strasbourg (+ 1277). The success of the series' previous undertakings gives every reason to expect the rapid completion of this project as well, which had defied earlier attempts at complete edition. The extent and difficulty of the project made it necessary to distribute the text to several editors and to allow the volumes to appear in the chance order of their completion rather than according to the order of the original work. Simultaneously with de Libera's edition, Sabina PieperhofI edited Liber IV, Tractatus 1-2, 7 (Vol. I, 4 [l]) ; more recently (1988), the first book of the work has been edited by Burkhard Mojsisch: (I, 1). As the directors of the entire project, Kurt Flasch and Loris Sturlese, explain (I, 2 [l], IXs.), this necessary division of labor demanded that the work on the editions begin without the possibility of an exhaustive and :final judgment on the entire text tradition. The reader will certainly understand and accept the necessity of this limitation , agreeing however with the project directors that a final judgment on the text tradition must be reserved until more volumes have appeared. De Libera and PieperhofI have given somewhat different interpretations of the text tradition. The general directors, judging both editors to be correct for their respective segments, are forced to the hypothesis (by no means impossible in itself) that the manuscript in the library of the university at Erlangen (Cod. 530/1 = E) witnesses to one hyparchetype in the second book and to another in the fourth book. The significance of this hypothesis is all the greater for two reasons: the construction of a second hyparchetype, just as independent and reliable as the first, is the principal innovation in the new edition's evaluation of the text tradition; and because this new hyparchetype is constructed on the basis of only two manuscripts-for Book II, R (Cod. Vat. lat. 1311) and U (Vienna, Dominikanerkloster Cod. 170/204) ; for Book IV, R and E-Mojsisch has now followed de Libera's interpretation in its postulating RU as an independent and older hyparchetype. It will he interesting to see if coming editions can support this new view of the text tradition or if these first two sections will have to claim exceptional status. BOOK REVIEWS 547 Although de Libera argues his case with conviction, the evidence for the originality and reliability of the hyparchetype RU must he viewed as tentative. Often, he has proposed the longer reading of RU as the more probable, against the principles espoused by the general editors ( (XXXII; cf. XI) in accord with P. Maas, Textkritik {Leipzig, 1960). Although these general rules were never meant to he followed slavishly, RU is taken frequently to he the better reading, omitted by all others, where at least as good a case could he made for viewing the passage as an addition by RU. For example, " vel audientis" in II 1, 2, 9, interpreted by de Libera as original, is more likely to have been a later addition (cf. also II 1, 1, 37; 1, 2, 51; 3, 2, 135; 3, 3, 14; 3, 7, 25; 3, 8, 1; 3, 13, 316). In most other cases, a plausible enough argument could he made for the alternative reading, that the unique text of RU could he viewed as secondary; cf. II 2, 2, 75; 3, 2, 16; 3, 5, 106; 3, 7, 87. 173; 3, 9, 10; 3, 11, 127; 3, 13, 17. 65. 96. 174. 312. Only rarely does the unique tradition of RU seem to offer the singularly correct alternative (cf. II 2, 2, 32; 3, 6, 99. 130; 3, 8, 186) . Presumably moved hy the alternative reading in R...

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
2473-3725
Print ISSN
0040-6325
Pages
pp. 546-552
Launched on MUSE
2017-04-05
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.