{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_34511/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_34511","id":"gutenberg_34511","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34511","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Medieval/Middle Ages","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Erigena, Johannes Scotus, approximately 810-approximately 877"],"text":"Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper, Josephine Paolucci\nand the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttps://www.pgdp.net.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS\n\nIN\n\nCLASSICAL PHILOLOGY\n\nVol. 5, No. 8, pp. 135-141, plates 1-11 October 13, 1920\n\n\n\n\nTHE SUPPOSED AUTOGRAPHA OF JOHN THE SCOT\n\nBY\n\nEDWARD KENNARD RAND\n\n{Transcriber's Note: ^ and {} around a number or letter signifies\na superscript.]\n\n\nIn the fifth part of Ludwig Traube's _Palaeographische Forschungen_,\n(which I had the honor of publishing after that great scholar's\ndeath)[1] evidence was presented for Traube's apparently certain\ndiscovery of the very handwriting of John the Scot. In manuscripts of\nReims, of Laon, and of Bamberg, he had observed certain marginal notes\nwhich were neither omitted sections nor glosses, but rather the author's\nown amplifications and embellishments of his work. Johannes had made\nsuch additions to his _De Divisione Naturae_ in the Reims manuscript,\nand they all appear in that of Bamberg. In the latter manuscript there\nare fresh additions--or enlargements as I shall call them in the present\npaper--which have similarly been absorbed into the text in two\nmanuscripts now in Paris. We thus have, in an interesting series, the\nauthor's successive recensions of his work. One of the shorter forms is\nthe basis of the text published by Thomas Gale in 1681; the most\ncomplete form was edited by H. J. Floss in 1852 from the Paris\nmanuscripts.[2] Though not venturing to carry out Traube's elaborate\nplans for treatment of the subject, I attempted to corroborate his\nbelief that the notes were in the hand of Johannes. The evidence seemed\nconclusive to me at the time, and was not questioned, so far as I know,\nin any subsequent publication. In the summers of 1912 and 1913, however,\nI examined the manuscripts of John the Scot in Paris, in Reims, in Laon,\nand in Bamberg, and became convinced, most reluctantly, that his\nautograph is yet to be found. I here present the chain of facts that\nmake this conclusion inevitable.[3]\n\nLet us start with the hypothesis that the marginal notes discovered by\nTraube are in the hand of Johannes himself and let us support this\nhypothesis until it becomes too heavy to bear. Our first document is the\nReims Manuscript 875 (= _R_) of the _De Divisione Naturae_. This is the\nwork of some six or seven writers, whose hands are sometimes hard to\ntell apart. Though it is the briefest and hence the earliest form of the\ntext that I have found, it is not the original draft of the work. The\nscribes could not have taken it from the author's dictation, for they\ncommit errors of various sorts that presuppose the existence of a text\nthat they were copying.[4] This text, which is as near to the original\nas our present information permits us to come, I will call _O_.\n\nBesides making corrections and additions in their copy of _O_, the\nscribes also insert marginal notes that have all the characteristics of\nthe author's own amplifications of his work. This fact does not militate\nagainst our present hypothesis, if we assume that Johannes added these\nmarginalia, or caused them to be added, in _O_, and that the scribes of\n_R_, at first forgetting to include them in the text of their new copy,\nlater wrote them in the margin.[5] In some cases, as we might expect, a\ndifferent ink is used. The insular hand (= _I_), which we are assuming\nto be that of Johannes, corrects minor errors in these enlargements now\nand then.[6] This fact is entirely in accord with our hypothesis.\n\nA number of enlargements omitted by the writers of the text were\nsupplied not by them but by special correctors, who were assigned, it\nwould seem, considerable portions of the manuscript to revise.\nParticularly important among these wide-ranging correctors are two hands\nthat I will call _r^{1}_ and _r^{2}_. The former is a largish hand with\nsome slight traces of Insular habits.[7] _r^{2}_ is very similar, and\nindeed may be merely a smaller variety of _r^{1}_. In the specimen that\nI have reproduced, as is true of both _r^{1}_ and _r^{2}_ elsewhere,\ncorrection by _I_ may be observed.[8] In all, I detected, or thought I\ndetected, five or six correcting hands, which sometimes supplement\nstretches of text written by others, sometimes supplement their own\ntext, and, in all the cases under discussion, add notes of the author\nwhich were evidently in the margin of _O_. It is sometimes hard to be\nsure whether _r_ is the text-hand or not. The point is not vitally\nimportant. The main fact is that several different kinds of correcting\nhand make, either in their own texts or in those of others, the kind of\nadditions or enlargements with which we are specially concerned.\nHowever, as we have seen, we can still retain our hypothesis by\nsupposing that _I_ is the hand of Johannes, while r represents various\ncorrectors who copied from _O_ enlargements added there by Johannes or\nat his direction.\n\nBut we have now to note an intimate connection between _I_ and _r_. They\ncollaborate on the same notes. Plate V (fol. 285^{v}) shows us an\nenlargement that begins in the hand (= _r^{3}_) that writes the text. It\nextends through _substantiam_ (1.3), then is succeeded by _I_ (_ex\nhis--horum est_), then returns (_Ibi--superans_), and finally gives way\nto _I_ once more (_dum--esse_). The interesting possibility and\nenlargements taken from _O_. Possibly two or more stages are represented\nby _O_, _r_ starting with an earlier, and _I_ supplementing from a more\ncomplete form--but into that _terra incognita_ of fresh hypothesis we\nneed not enter. _I_'s procedure, at any rate, seems exactly like that of\n_r_. Thus his practice of calling in a variety of _r_ to complete a note\ntoo large for the space is paralleled by _r^{4}_, the writer of the text\non fol. 231^{v} (Plate II), who uses up a legitimate amount of his\nmargin and then has _r^{5}_ finish it, with signs of references, on the\nfollowing page. The latter scribe uses a finer hand, and has no\ndifficulty in completing the note with a decent margin to spare.[9]\n\nSurely in the scribal play illustrated in Plate V, _I_ is acting more\nlike a fellow-worker than the author of the work. Likewise on another\npage, we note corrections and minor enlargements by the text-hand, then\nsimilar changes by _I_, and, finally, corrections of _I_ by the\ntext-hand.[10] If Johannes wished to change _cogitationes_ to\n_operationes_, it is strange that he did not do it himself rather than\nbeckon to some scribe to insert the word; another correction, _nisi_,\nadded above the line, is made in the hand of _I_. In short, _r_ and _I_\nare two different scribes collaborating on what would appear to be a\nrather difficult original or set of originals.\n\nMoreover, if _I_ is Johannes, he does not understand his own text. In\n_De Divisione Naturae_ i. 49 (Migne _P.L._ cxxii, 491 A) we read:\n\n     Omnium hominum una eademque [Greek: ousia] est. Omnes enim\n     unam participant essentiam, ac per hoc, quia omnibus\n     communis est, nullius proprie est. Corpus autem commune\n     omnium hominum non est. Nam unusquisque suum proprium\n     possidet corpus, non et [Greek: ousian]. Igitur communis\n     est, et corpus commune non est.\n\nThis passage forms part of one of the enlargements of _I_. In it he\nwrites _omnis_ for _omnes_, and _Non et [Greek: ousiae] igitur communis\nest_ for _non et [Greek: ousian]. Igitur communis est_. These are\nunderstandable errors for any scribe, but not for the author of the\nwork, to make. Others occur elsewhere in the Insular hand; I have not\nrecorded many, but I made no systematic search.\n\nWe now come to the most startling consideration of all, namely, that\n_there are two varieties of insular script in the book_. The first\nvariety, which I will now call _i^{1}_, is exhibited in all the plates\nthus far presented. It is loose, pointed, flowing, with few\nabbreviations or ligatures specially characteristic of Irish script.\nWith only one or two exceptions, it uses a _d_ with a curved shaft. The\nother variety (_i^{2}_), as Plate X (fol. 106) shows, is at once more\ncompact and regular, and more cursive, with more of the specifically\nIrish traits; it has a straight-shafted _d_. Furthermore, the two hands\nappear in different portions of the manuscript. _i^{1}_ is confined to\nfoll. 1-80^{v} (= quires I-X) and foll. 113-318^{v} (= quires XV-XLI),\nwhile _i^{2}_ appears only in foll. 81-112^{v} (= quires XI-XIV) and\nfoll. 319-358 (= quires XLII-XLVI). In the sections corrected by\n_i^{2}_, we note the same features as in the other parts. _i^{2}_\ninserts many long enlargements and makes many minor corrections. He is\nsupplemented in one of his own enlargements by _r^{2}_.[11] On another\npage, he is corrected by _r^{2}_, or possibly the text-hand.[12]\n\nOur last resort, if we are still to look for the autograph of John the\nScot in the various hands of Reims, is to suppose that, if not _i^{1}_,\nit is _i^{2}_. This is indeed the hand that Traube believed was the\nauthor's; it happened that almost all of the photographs taken for\nTraube contain enlargements by _i^{2}_ and not by _i^{1}_. Yet if\n_i^{2}_ is Johannes, why does that hand never correct the sections\nassigned to _i^{1}_? Of the two, _i^{1}_ seems more free, more\nindividual, more like an author's, unless that author be also a\ncalligraphist. But if we imagine that _i^{1}_ is Johannes, why does he\nnever appear in the sections assigned to _i^{2}_?\n\nOur chain of evidence draws us to the conclusion that neither _i^{1}_\nnor _i^{2}_ is Johannes, but that both are scribes employed by him,\ntogether with others, to correct and enlarge the manuscripts of his\nworks. The two Insular writers were very possibly the most important of\nhis workmen, for he entrusted most of the revision to them. Their task\nwas done in intimate cooperation with the other scribes. They would call\nthem in to finish their notes if considerations of space demanded, or,\nnow and then, merely to indulge in a pastime of alternate writing.\nPerhaps it was the difficulty of deciphering the original that induced a\nscribe to appeal more frequently than usual for help from a\nfellow-craftsman. I have confined my discussion to the manuscript 875 of\nReims, but the two Insular hands appear also in the manuscripts of\nBamberg and of Laon.[13]\n\nAfter all is said and done, the great value of Traube's discovery\nremains. It is positive that the enlargements in the manuscripts were\nmade at the direction of the author himself. They present to the modern\neditor of the _De Divisione Naturae_ the fascinating task of\ndistinguishing the different revisions, and of following the growth of\nthe subject in Johannes' mind. The best way, I believe, would be to\nprint on the left-hand page the enlarged form of the text, for that is\nthe form in which the author wished his work to be known to posterity.\nOn the right-hand page, the briefest form, the nearest approach to his\noriginal draft, might be given, with indication, in the critical\napparatus, of the successive stages by which the final text was reached.\nPossibly further research may reveal _O_, or even the hand of Johannes\nhimself. For the present, we at least have accessible--if the contents\nof the libraries of Reims and of Laon are accessible--the material for\npreparing a highly accurate and well-nigh unique edition of one of the\nmasterpieces of medieval philosophy.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] In Abh. d. k. b. Akad. d. Wiss., philos.-philol. u. hist. Classe,\nMuenchen, XXVI (1912).\n\n[2] In Migne, _Patrologia Latina_, vol. 122 (1865).\n\n[3] I have confined my illustrations almost entirely to passages\nexhibited in the plates. I have notes of many other examples quite as\npertinent, but do not include them here, believing that those presented\namply prove my point.\n\n[4] For an example, see Plate I (fol. 273). In the last regular line of\nthe page, after writing _caelestis essentiae particeps est_, the scribe\nfirst omitted the words _de die--caelestis essentiae particeps est_ (an\nexceedingly easy haplography) and then added them, with signs of\nreference, in the margin immediately below. As the error is one of sight\nand not of hearing, he must have had a text before him.\n\n[5] Plate II (fol. 231^{v}) contains a striking instance. After the\ncitation of St. Basil, the author bethinks him of another possible\ninterpretation of his words (_An aliud ex uerbis ipsius--intelligendum_)\nand sets it forth in the enlargement. It is not probable, I believe,\nthat the author dictated this forthwith to the scribe. As the existence\nof _O_ has been proved, it is more natural to assume that the\nenlargement had already been inserted there.\n\n[6] E.g., fol. 59 (I have no photograph). The added _quodam_ in l.10 of\nfol. 231 (Plate II) is not by _I_. See below, note 10. _Ut arbitror_ in\nthe right margin seems exactly the thing that an author tucks in when\nrevising and qualifying his work. But see below p. 138.\n\n[7] Plate III contains a specimen (fol. 64). At first this hand looks\nlike that of the text, but it is really different. The corrections are,\nI believe, by _r^{1}_ himself. They had been made in _O_, I infer, but\nat first were not observed by _r^{1}_. The heading _De agere et pati_ is\nby a hand of the thirteenth century or later (= _h_).\n\n[8] See Plate IV (fol. 15). As in the previous specimen, this hand is\nsimilar to that of the text, but not identical with it. The hand _h_\nadds three headings.\n\n[9] Fol. 232 (Plate VIII). _r^{5}_ then collated the work of _r^{4}_\nwith _O_, adding _quodam_ in l.10, and perhaps correcting\n_consequentius_ to _consequentias_ in l.12.\n\n[10] Fol. 58^{v} (Plate IX).\n\n[11] See fol. 81, Plate XI (= Plate I in _Pal. Forsch._).\n\n[12] Fol. 106 (Plate X).\n\n[13] For _i^{2}_ in the Bamberg MS, see _Pal. Forsch._, Plates III-VIII.\nFor _i^{1}_ in the Laon MS, see _Pal. Forsch._, Plate X.\n\n\n\n\nPLATES\n\n\n    Plate I. Fol. 273.\n\n    Plate II. Fol. 231^{v}.\n\n    Plate III. Fol. 64.\n\n    Plate IV. Fol. 15.\n\n    Plate V. Fol. 285^{v}.\n\n    Plate VI. Fol. 49.\n\n    Plate VII. Fol. 56.\n\n    Plate VIII. Fol. 232.\n\n    Plate IX. Fol. 58^{v}.\n\n    Plate X. Fol. 106.\n\n    Plate XI. Fol. 81 (= _Pal. Forsch._, Plate I).\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 1]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 2]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 3]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 4]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 5]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 6]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 7]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 8]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 9]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 10]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 11]","title":"The Supposed Autographa of John the Scot","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":2480}