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

THE FIRST PARISIAN EXEMPLAR When the first exemplar is compared with manuscript A there are many places where it is clearly inferior to manuscript A.The General Table of the Number of Common Accidents by Groups found above shows that the first exemplar contains a total of two hundred fifty-seven accidents when compared to manuscriptA.1 These accidents include incorrect readings,homoeoteleuta , and omissions where manuscript A has correct readings. There are, however, instances where the first Parisian exemplar is superior to manuscript A or where it has readings that have been omitted by manuscript A. This exemplar, therefore, must be considered in the construction of the critical text of the present section of the Summa. Manuscript Biblioteca VATICANa, ms.Vat. Lat 854 (=ms I’) is a manuscript of particular importance in considering manuscripts that contain explicit pecia transitions belonging to the first Parisian exemplar because after its initial redaction based on the first Parisian exemplar it seems to have been methodically compared and corrected using manuscript A as its model. Evidence of manuscript I’ being corrected against manuscript A includes the following: on page 12, 67-68 the text reads “ . . .quia actus intelligendi non est nisi essentialis, dicere autem personalis, ut habitum est supra . . .” Manuscript A adds “est” after “autem” . This addition is not found in the manuscripts of the first Parisian exemplar, including manuscript I’ in its initial redaction. But when this manuscript was being corrected the addition to manuscript A was noticed and added above the line in manuscript I’ . None of the other manuscripts of the first exemplar make this addition. On page 54, 274-276 the text reads “ . . . et hoc quemadmodum in corporibus et formis corporalibus generabilium et corruptibilium semper quod prius est simplicitate est minus nobile, ut elementum quam mixtum . . .” Manuscript A reads “secundum” in place of “semper” . Initially manuscript I’ reads “semper” but when this manuscript is corrected the change in manuscript A is noticed and “semper” is deleted and “secundum” is written in the margin.Again on page 267, 26 the text reads “Contrarium apparet in ordinatione naturae, . . .” All the manuscripts ,including manuscriptsA and I’,omit the term“apparet” .But the copyist of manuscript A notices the omission and writes “apparet” in the margin just before the term “in” that begins a new line. When the copyist of manuscript I’ notices the marginal insertion he too adds it in the margin. None of the other manuscripts of the first Parisian exemplar make this correction. There are also four places in the present volume where manuscript A omits text but manuscript I’ in its initial redaction contains the omitted text. When manuscript I’ is later corrected against manuscript A these omissions 1 Cf. supra, p. XX. HenricusDEF.indd 40 20-12-2007 16:01:54 THE FIRST PARISIAN EXEMPLAR XLI are noticed and in three cases the corrector writes “va- cat” in the margin. In the fourth case he simply expunges the text.As presented here the text that is omitted by manuscriptA is given in italics and the operation of manuscript I’ reported in brackets. In the first three cases manuscript A commits homoeoteleuta and the corrector of manuscript I’ writes “va-cat” by the same text that was initially copied.The results of the “corrections” are corruptions and inferior readings that occur in each case. First, on pages 14, 35 – 15, 40: “Quare, cum voluntas Dei summe talis sit, Deus igitur non solum vult se ipsum, sed summe vult, in quantum volitum intimum est voluntati et est coniunctissimum per summam identitatem, quemadmodum summe se ipsum intelligit in quantum intellectum similiter est intimum et coniunctissimum per summam identitatem [“va-cat” ms I’], de quo habitum est supra.” On page 135, 249–256:“ . . . et alliceret sua bonitate et fructu inhabitationis voluntatem ad se concupiscendum, quae allecta moveret volentem ad concipiendum formam necessariorum ad ipsam promerendam, quibus conceptis moveret voluntas illa in actum quousque per essentiam suam in intellectum se faceret. Quo facto statim voluntas vel habens voluntatem per voluntatem se transferret in eam et eam inhabitaret. Quod si intellectus naturaliter illam in se haberet , ad nihil amplius moveret, sed per actum voluntatis se in eam transferret et eam inhabitaret [“va-cat” ms I’].” On page 198, 271-274: “ . . . ut quando ali­ quis delectatur de ipso actu contemplandi aut amandi Deum, sed in hoc non est causa delectandi principaliter sicut neque beatificandi. Non enim operatio est obiectum contemplandi aut amandi [“va-cat” ms I’] ut quis contempletur se contemplari ...”Since these three omissions...

Share