Reportatio IIA (Quaestiones in secundum librum Sententiarum) qq. 1-12: Quaestiones in secundum librum sententiarum (Reportatio), Quaestiones 1-12

VIII. The Edition

VIII. The Edition 1. Manuscripts There are 17 known witnesses to Francis’ commentaries on book II of the Sentences:153 A Admont, Bibliothek der Benediktinerabtei, 178, ff. 1ra - 69vb (s. XIV) B Città del Vaticano, BAV, Barb. lat. 791, ff. 1ra - 89vb (s. XV (1472)) C Città del Vaticano, BAV, Chigi. lat. B VII 113, ff. 105ra - 165rb (s. XIV (1327)) D Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 517, ff. 1ra - 35vb (s. XIV) E Città del Vaticano, BAV, vat. lat. 943, ff. 1ra - 45ra (s. XV) F Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, II. II. 182, ff. 258ra-297rb (s. XV) G Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek, Fol. 334, ff. 183ra-246vb (s. XIV) H Paris, BnF, lat. 3071, ff. 81ra - 124va (s. XIV) K Roma, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Vittorio Emanuele II, 1007 (S. Bonav. 2), ff. 1r - 175r (s. XV) L Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, 532, ff. 142ra - 225vb (s. XIV) N Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale, VII. C. 23, ff. 131ra - 200rb (s. XIV) P Praha, Metropolitni Kapituly, 531 (C 99), ff. 2ra - 130va (s. XIV) T Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, O. 206, sup., ff. 1ra - 11rb (s. XIV) V Città del Vaticano, BAV, vat. lat. 1096, ff. 119ra - 189ra (s. XIV) W Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, lat. 4826, ff. 2ra-91ra (s. XIV) Y Paris, BnF, lat. 3072, ff. 92ra - 147rb (s. XIV) Z Paris, BnF, lat. 15852, ff. 95ra - 153vb (s. XIV) As noted earlier, E has the redaction known as Reportatio IIB; DH carry a minor redaction of the major version; and the major version is witnessed by ABCFGKLNPTVWYZ. Of these, T only carries the last five and a half questions (qq. 44-49). F contains only qq. 1-30 and the first part of 31, while K is missing qq. 18-19. 153 See the list and full description of MSS in R. Friedman and C. Schabel, “Francis of Marchia’s Commentary on the Sentences”, pp. 39-48. LXXVIII INTRODUCTION 2. Stemma To establish the stemma, Girard Etzkorn and Camarin Porter conducted soundings on the text, collating all witnesses on questions 3, 10 (a. 1), 18, 22, 30, 38 and 42. Gordon Wilson then used their results to establish a preliminary stemma, which we confirmed and adjusted based on shared omissions and major variants from the established text. The stemma is thus provisionally meant to be applicable to the entire text of Reportatio IIA:154 Table 5: Franciscus de Marchia, Reportatio IIA Stemma Codicum γ ζ θ N G W Z α L A F P V κ ω B ι η ε β C Y K This stemma expresses the relationships among the texts, as best as we can determine, excluding contamination. A quantitative analysis of shared variants from the established text will be provided in the Introduction to the third volume of the Reportatio IIA, when the entire critical text is available. While no doubt exists concerning the right side of the stemma (β), some manuscripts on the left side (α) occasionally present conflicting relations that suggest contamination . To show how these relations and contaminations, combined with scribal particularities, express themselves in the text, we present four difficult cases of significant variation among the manuscripts. 154 Since it only presents the last few questions of IIA, T is not included in this stemma. LXXIX THE EDITION Case 1. One of the more complicated passages in book II occurs right at the beginning of q. 1 in the initial arguments. While this question is, as noted above, parallel to Francis’ Principium secundi, the principal arguments are not parallel . Moreover, Francis never responds to these arguments – for that matter, the response to the question Utrum creatio sit demonstrabilis de Deo does not appear until q. 2, a. 3 –, and so Francis does not mention the argument elsewhere in the text, which might otherwise have provided some insight into what he meant. Since they are introductory arguments, we cannot even assume they were meant to be compelling. As they appear in the redaction DH, the principal arguments do not pose any philological problems: Et videtur quod non, quia creatio-passio non est demonstrabilis de creatura, ergo nec creatio-actio de Deo. Contra: notior est actio quam esse et potentia. Sed esse demonstrant philosophi de Deo; nam philosophi demonstrant Deum esse. Ergo etc. (nn. 1-2) The initial argument against the demonstrability of God’s creative action argues from the indemonstrability of the reciprocal passion of creation. The counter-argument hinges on the claim that God’s existence is less known than God’s activity. Neither...