-
The Second Parisian University Exemplar
- Leuven University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
THE SECOND PARISIAN UNIVERSITY EXEMPLAR The manuscript which was the actual second Parisian university exemplar has been lost, but the readings of this model can be reconstructed from the common readings of the manuscripts known to have been copied directly from it. The common readings of these manuscripts are usually further deteriorations of the text.There are, for example, forty-three known omissions due to a saut du même au même that have been identified in the second exemplar when compared to the text of the first Parisian university exemplar.1 However, there are some readings of the second exemplar which are the preferred readings and the second exemplar was valuable in establishing the definitive critical text. One example of a reading in the second exemplar which was used for the critical text appears in question 15, where the text of the first university exemplar and the Badius edition has an omission, the text of manuscript A and manuscript B contains a repetition (which is struck in ms. A), but the text of the second exemplar contains the correct reading. These texts can be juxtaposed (where the repetition in mss. A and B, as well as the supplied correct text of the second exemplar, are placed in bold): Text of the first exemplar (and the Badius edition) Text of mss A & B Text of the second exemplar Unde cum lumen est in perspicuo sub ratione luminis, cum perspicuum incipit terminari incipit ibi esse sub ratione coloris, et quanto magis terminatur sub maiori et perfectiori ratione coloris, ut patet in generatione colorum iridis in nube. Unde cum lumen est in perspicuo sub ratione luminis , cum perspicuum incipit terminari incipit ibi esse sub ratione coloris , et quanto magis terminatur sub maiori et perfectiori ratione coloris, et quanto magis terminatur sub maiori et perfectiori ratione coloris, ut patet in generatione colorum iridis in nube. (Cf. infra, q. 15, lin. 804-809.) Unde cum lumen est in perspicuo sub ratione luminis, cum perspicuum incipit terminari incipit ibi esse sub ratione coloris, et quanto magis terminatur sub maiori et perfectiori ratione coloris , tanto magis terminatur sub maiori et perfectiori ratione luminis perspicui, ut patet in generatione colorum iridis in nube. Certainly the reading of the first exemplar “et quanto magis…” requires something like “tanto magis…” and there seems to be an omission of text in this model. The “et quanto magis terminatur sub maiori terminatur sub maiori et perfectiori ratione coloris…” in mss.A and B is just a repeat of the words which precede the phrase, and ms. A is correct in striking by va- cat this repetition. Only the second exemplar correctly avoids the repetition and 1 Cf., J. Gray and G.A.Wilson,“The Historical Development…,” pp. 170-171. LXII CRITICAL STUDY has the correlative clauses “quanto magis…tanto magis….” Another example, also taken from question 15, illustrates the helpfulness of the second exemplar. Here the text of the first Parisian exemplar and ms. A seems defective, and the text of the second exemplar is correct. The texts can be juxtaposed (where the relevant variant readings appear in bold): The text of the first exemplar, ms. A The text of the second exemplar Non dico loci distantia, sed naturae excellentia , ita quod quidquid perfectionis naturae et essentiae est in priori in superexcellentiori gradu est in posteriori secundum modum inferius exponendum (Cf. infra, q. 15, lin. 49-52). Non dico loci distantia, sed naturae excellentia , ita quod quidquid perfectionis naturae et essentiae est in posteriori in superexcellentiori gradu est in priori secundum modum inferius exponendum. Henry’s point is that there is a hierarchy of natures or essences, and all perfection that is in a posterior being is in a higher degree present in a prior being. It is interesting that this is one of the few occasions where the edition of Badius follows the reading of the second exemplar, which happens to be the correct text. One final example of the second exemplar being helpful in reconstructing the critical text occurs in question 22.The text in question is “Et est intentio Philosophi quod solum cognitiva est in se rationem habens. Propter quod posuit in eo principalem operationem hominis secundum quod homo.” In this instance the manuscripts copied from the second Parisian university exemplar contain the correct word “posuit” whereas the first exemplar and ms. A read “proposuit” – Aristotle “posited” rather than just “proposed” that rationality was the main human activity. Rather interestingly, the Badius edition reads “posuit” with the second...