DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61385#0046
xl Chapter IV.—Genealogical History of the Texts.
The material is richly provided through a multitude of the paradise-
purgatory texts.1 MS. Cotton Vespasian E. I., fol. 219 if., is a
“ dispucatio mirahilis inter priorem . . . et inter spiritum . . ., whose
hero is Guydo.” Number 16, Bibliothek des Gymnasiums Caro-
linum, Osnabriick; Papierhs. . . D, 76, is a veritable “ Disputatio
inter priorem et spiritum GwidonisI A Kiel MS., “ Universitats-
Bibliothek, Miscellan. hs. 38, Bl. 175 ff., is 11 spiritus Gwidonis . . .
et . . . priorem quendam ” (Ritson’s cdiquem 1). The Darmstadt MS.
106 is: eyne disputatie tuschen eyme prior . . . ind eyme geiste . . .
Gwido heisch.
Whether Ritson’s Bodley 1731 be actual or imaginary, whether
it be but Harl. 1731, or Worseley 67 classified as Harl. 1731 or not,
is not clear. That the three be but descriptions of the same MS.,
and that recognized as MS. Harl. 1731, there is at present no
absolute proof. MS. B cannot be traced.
CHAPTER IV.
GENEALOGICAL HISTORY OF THE TEXTS.
I. Group Y.
§ 1. MSS. If and D in distinction from MSS. ApflfR.
1. Resemblances between MSS. D and H2.
Of approximately the same age, but differing often in peculiarities
of dialect, D and H., are undeniably connected in MS. development.
Noteworthy is the conspicuous lacuna occurring simultaneously in
both MSS. Lines 459—475 are wanting, the break marking practi-
cally the conclusion of MS. H2. Of the fifty-one lines, 407-—458,
omitted in MS. D, twelve are also deficient in MS. H2. Otherwise
coincidences marking the relationship of D and H2 are chiefly
mutilations characterizing the individual word. In this investigation
it must be recalled, that the comparison represents but 400 lines,
the last reading to be ascribed to the texts in common being
line 399.
Among the more conspicuous resemblances2 is that to be found
1 For the Swedish version see J. A. Ahistrand in the Samlinga/r utg. af
Svenska Fornskrift Sallskapet I. LI. f. Guidonis siels openbarelse.
2 It will be assumed as understood, that in this discussion only the more
conspicuous instances of the mutilation of the archetype are to be regarded as
affording conclusive evidence, determinative of the main results of the argument.
Naturally nothing else could be possible.
The material is richly provided through a multitude of the paradise-
purgatory texts.1 MS. Cotton Vespasian E. I., fol. 219 if., is a
“ dispucatio mirahilis inter priorem . . . et inter spiritum . . ., whose
hero is Guydo.” Number 16, Bibliothek des Gymnasiums Caro-
linum, Osnabriick; Papierhs. . . D, 76, is a veritable “ Disputatio
inter priorem et spiritum GwidonisI A Kiel MS., “ Universitats-
Bibliothek, Miscellan. hs. 38, Bl. 175 ff., is 11 spiritus Gwidonis . . .
et . . . priorem quendam ” (Ritson’s cdiquem 1). The Darmstadt MS.
106 is: eyne disputatie tuschen eyme prior . . . ind eyme geiste . . .
Gwido heisch.
Whether Ritson’s Bodley 1731 be actual or imaginary, whether
it be but Harl. 1731, or Worseley 67 classified as Harl. 1731 or not,
is not clear. That the three be but descriptions of the same MS.,
and that recognized as MS. Harl. 1731, there is at present no
absolute proof. MS. B cannot be traced.
CHAPTER IV.
GENEALOGICAL HISTORY OF THE TEXTS.
I. Group Y.
§ 1. MSS. If and D in distinction from MSS. ApflfR.
1. Resemblances between MSS. D and H2.
Of approximately the same age, but differing often in peculiarities
of dialect, D and H., are undeniably connected in MS. development.
Noteworthy is the conspicuous lacuna occurring simultaneously in
both MSS. Lines 459—475 are wanting, the break marking practi-
cally the conclusion of MS. H2. Of the fifty-one lines, 407-—458,
omitted in MS. D, twelve are also deficient in MS. H2. Otherwise
coincidences marking the relationship of D and H2 are chiefly
mutilations characterizing the individual word. In this investigation
it must be recalled, that the comparison represents but 400 lines,
the last reading to be ascribed to the texts in common being
line 399.
Among the more conspicuous resemblances2 is that to be found
1 For the Swedish version see J. A. Ahistrand in the Samlinga/r utg. af
Svenska Fornskrift Sallskapet I. LI. f. Guidonis siels openbarelse.
2 It will be assumed as understood, that in this discussion only the more
conspicuous instances of the mutilation of the archetype are to be regarded as
affording conclusive evidence, determinative of the main results of the argument.
Naturally nothing else could be possible.