The Soul-Body Problem at Paris ca 1200-1250: Hugh of St-Cher and His Contemporaries

Appendix: Text Editions

Appendix Text Editions InTrodUCTIon (a) The dIsPUTed qUesTIons (doUai 434) This appendix contains the first edition of five disputed questions preserved in the Ms Douai 434:1 (1) a question by Hugh of St-Cher, Quomodo anima uniatur corpori;2 (2) a question by Peter of Bar, De hiis que ex parte anime manebunt3 and three anonymous questions, (3) De trinitate anime,4 (4) Si anima est sue potentie5 and (5) De humana natura.6 Owing to the presence of a note placed at the beginning of the question, the first of these texts has been attributed to Hugh of St-Cher. The note reads frater h.: according to Odon Lottin, there is no doubt that it refers to Hugh of St-Cher.7 So far, no argument has been advanced against this attribution. The question De hiis que ex parte anime manebunt contains no explicit attribution . However, this writing clearly represents a continuation in regard to the question that precedes it in the manuscript, i.e. question n. 156, which is devoted to discussing the characteristics of the resurrected body. Now, the manuscript explicitly attributes question n. 156 to magister Petrus de Barro. Hence, quite probably question n. 157 was also written by the same author.8 Like the two questions by Peter of Bar, the two anonymous questions n. 114 and 115 are also closely related to each other. We can thus suppose that they were both composed by the same anonymous author. 1 Cf. supra, p. 1. 2 Ms. Douai 434, i, f. 119vb ; q. n. 285 according to the catalogue by Glorieux, “Les 572 Questions’’, p. 148. 3 Ms. Douai 434, i, f. 86rb-va ; q. n. 157, cf. Glorieux, “Les 572 Questions’’, p. 140. 4 Ms. Douai 434, i, f. 70rb ; q. n. 114, cf. Glorieux, “Les 572 Questions’’, p. 137. 5 Ms. Douai 434, i, f. 70rb ; q. n. 115, cf. Glorieux, “Les 572 Questions’’, p. 137. 6 Ms. Douai 434, ii, f. 189ra-va ; q. n. 550, cf. Glorieux, “Les 572 Questions’’, p. 245. From question n. 482 onwards, Glorieux ceases to number the leaves and starts to number the pages. Consequently, according to the catalogue, the question n. 550 appears on folia 379a 380a . 7 Cf. Lottin, “Un petit traité’’, pp. 468-475; id., “Quelques ‘Questiones’’’, pp. 79-81; Bieniak , “Una questione disputata’’, pp. 131-133. 8 Cf. Glorieux, “Les 572 Questions’’, p. 258. 180 aPPendiX Up to the present, except for the ms. Douai 434, no other witness of the five aforementioned questions has been found; hence, the present edition is based on only one manuscript. Inevitably, an edition of this kind is subject to several limitations : indeed, it is probable that some distortions caused by the transmission of the text have not been identified. The lack of a second witness is particularly noticeable in the case of Hugh of StCher ’s question Quomodo anima uniatur corpori: indeed, the Douai manuscript does not transmit the solution of the two articles the question consists of. Our edition therefore presents an incomplete text. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the reconstruction of the text we have at our disposal has been helped by the fact that Hugh, in his question, follows a chapter of Philip the Chancellor’s Summa de bono quite closely. By contrast, in the case of Peter of Bar’s question De hiis que ex parte anime manebunt the text transmitted by the Douai manuscript is complete; however, a passage of the question seems corrupt and therefore remains incomprehensible.9 Finally, the three anonymous questions do not present major textual problems. (b) hUgh of sT-Cher’s sentences commentary (I, 3) The text has been established on the basis of the following manuscripts: B Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, B II 20 (XiV sec.), f. 4va -6ra ;10 P Padova, Biblioteca Universitaria, 853 (Xiii s.), f. 4vb -6vb ;11 The two witnesses represent only a small part of the text tradition12, so a comparison between them does not allow any hypothesis about their position in the stemma. Nevertheless, it seems that neither of the two witnesses served as an exemplar for the other.13 9 Cf. infra, p. 209. 10 G. Meyer - M. Burckhardt, Die mittelalterliche Handschriften der Universitätsbiliothek Basel. Beschreibendes Verzeichnis. Abteilung B: Theologische Pergamenthandschriften, Basel: Verlag der Universitätsbibliothek, 1960, i, pp. 179-185. 11 A.I. Lehtinen, “The Apopeciae of the Manuscripts of Hugh of St...