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

THE TEXT EXAMINED INTERIORLY THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE MANUSCRIPTS, ESTABLISHED BY A GENERAL TEST COLLATION The general test collation of all the manuscripts containing the text edited in this volume was conducted by selecting one hundred and fifty lines from each pecia of the first exemplar. Pecia 70, however, begins late in question four of article fifty-two and it was, therefore, not possible to test the full hundred and fifty lines for this pecia. The test shows two kinds of accidents: those unique to a particular manuscript and those common to two or more manuscripts. The former reveals mainly scribal errors in copying while the latter permits manuscripts to be formed into groups based on the frequency of common accidents.§1. The Common Accidents a. THE GROUPS OF MANUSCRIPTS COMPARED FOR COMMON ACCIDENTS BY GROUPS Following the procedure for this series, manuscript A was employed as the referent for comparing the other manuscripts for common variant readings , additions, omissions and inversions.1 The following groups of manuscripts were discovered based on the test collation: eight manuscripts that were copied from the first exemplar of the university in Paris, which included LONDON, Brit. Lib. ms. Royal 10.D.VI, BRUGGE, Stadsbibl. ms. 179, BRUXELLES , Bibl. Royale, ms. IV.1202, PARIS, Bibl. Nat. ms. Lat. 15356, PADOVA, Bibl. Anton. ms. Scaffale 8, N. 141, PARIS, Bibl. Nat. ms. Lat. 15846, PARIS, Bibl. de l’Université ms. 34, and Biblioteca VATICANA, ms. Vat. Lat. 855; the two Oxford manuscripts OXFORD, Merton, ms. 108 and OXFORD, Balliol, ms. 212 which were copied from the first exemplar but yet form a distinct group based on common accidents unique to them; the Vatican manuscripts Vat. Lat. 854, 857, 858 which were also copied from the first exemplar but form a distinct group based on common accidents; and two manuscripts copied from the second exemplar of the University of Paris: ZWIJNAARDE, Comtesse Goethals de Mude, I and PADOVA, Biblioteca Capitolare, ms. C.45. The table provided below summarizes the common accidents by these groups, ordered by pecia. 1 Cf. HENR. DE GAND., Quodl., IX, ed. R. MACKEN, pp. XXVII-LIII; HENR. DE GAND., Summa, art. 31-34, ed. R. MACKEN, pp. LXIV-LXXXVIII. HenricusDEF.indd 19 20-12-2007 16:01:52 XX CRITICAL STUDY GENERAL TABLE OF THE NUMBER OF COMMON ACCIDENTS BY GROUPS Pecia 1st Oxford Vatican 2nd Exemplar group group exemplar 62 30 23 52 43 63 28 18 44 33 64 38 18 41 32 65 23 19 40 30 66 24 (15)2 42 36 67 42 20 31 35 68 26 17 63 33 69 26 12 50 35 70 (incomp.) 20 11 30 17 TOTAL 257 153 393 294 b. tHe GROUPS CHARACTERIZED INDIVIDUALLY2 1. Manuscript A The readings of this manuscript were used as a working text in order to compare the readings of the other manuscripts because of its importance, as established by Dr. R. Macken, Dr. G.Wilson, and Dr. L. Hödl for the critical edition of the Summa.3 Articles forty-seven through fifty-two of this section of the work do not contain extensive authorial corrections except for one instance of a homoeoteleuton omission which is corrected in the margin. None of the other manuscripts have this omission.4 In another place ms. A reads, “Velle autem cum sit quiddam appetere, sicut voluntas est quidam appetitus , est actio in qua quoquo modo convenit Deus cum infimis et inanimatis etiam…” All the other manuscripts add “qui” after “appetitus” which is unnecessary . Ms. I’, however, corrects this error and expunges the addition.5 In another place ms. A reads “ ...quemadmodum contingit quod in homine pernicioso aut male disposito appetitus principetur rationi” where all the other manuscripts omit the “quod” weakening the sense of the passage.6 There are some minor authorial corrections in ms. A, such as the correction of “dom2 OXFORD, Balliol, ms. 212, folios 219va-vb and 220v could not be read for the test collation. 3 Cf. R. MACKEN, “Les corrections d’Henri de Gand à sa Somme,” passim; and HENR. DE GAND., Summa, art. 31-34, ed. R. MACKEN, pp. XCIV-CXXI; ID., Summa, art. 35-40, ed. G.A. WILSON, pp. XLIII-LV; ID., Summa, art. 41-46, ed. L. HÖDL, pp. LXIILXVI . 4 Cf. the critical apparatus for article 49, question 5, p. 108, 597-599. 5 Cf. the critical apparatus for article 48, question 2, pp. 42, 14 – 43,16. 6 Cf. the critical apparatus for article 48...

Share