,,university ,,of ,,california ,,publications ,,in ,,classical ,,philology ,vol4 #e1 ,no4 #h1 pp4 #ace-ada1 plates #a-aa ,october #ac1 #aibj ,,the ,,supposed ,,autographa ,,of ,,john ,,the ,,scot ,,by ,,edward ,,kennard ,,rand ,transcriber's ,note3 and around a number or letter signifies a superscript4 ,in the fifth part of ,ludwig ,traube's ,palaeographische ,forschungen1 7which ,i had the honor of publishing after that great scholar's death7#a evidence was presented for ,traube's apparently certain discovery of the very handwriting of ,john the ,scot4 ,in manuscripts of ,reims1 of ,laon1 and of ,bamberg1 he had observed certain marginal notes which were neither omitted sections nor glosses1 but rather the author's own amplifications and embellishments of his work4 ,johannes had made such additions to his ,de ,divisione ,naturae in the ,reims manuscript1 and they all appear in that of ,bamberg4 ,in the latter manuscript there are fresh additions--or enlargements as ,i shall call them in the present paper--which have similarly been absorbed into the text in two manuscripts now in ,paris4 ,we thus have1 in an interesting series1 the author's successive recensions of his work4 ,one of the shorter forms is the basis of the text published by ,thomas ,gale in #afha2 the most complete form was edited by ,h4 ,j4 ,floss in #aheb from the ,paris manuscripts4#b ,though not venturing to carry out ,traube's elaborate plans for treatment of the subject1 ,i attempted to corroborate his belief that the notes were in the hand of ,johannes4 ,the evidence seemed conclusive to me at the time1 and was not questioned1 so far as ,i know1 in any subsequent publication4 ,in the summers of #aiab and #aiac1 however1 ,i examined the manuscripts of ,john the ,scot in ,paris1 in ,reims1 in ,laon1 and in ,bamberg1 and became convinced1 most reluctantly1 that his autograph is yet to be found4 ,i here present the chain of facts that make this conclusion inevitable4#c ,let us start with the hypothesis that the marginal notes discovered by ,traube are in the hand of ,johannes himself and let us support this hypothesis until it becomes too heavy to bear4 ,our first document is the ,reims ,manuscript #hge 7 ,r7 of the ,de ,divisione ,naturae4 ,this is the work of some six or seven writers1 whose hands are sometimes hard to tell apart4 ,though it is the briefest and hence the earliest form of the text that ,i have found1 it is not the original draft of the work4 ,the scribes could not have taken it from the author's dictation1 for they commit errors of various sorts that presuppose the existence of a text that they were copying4#d ,this text1 which is as near to the original as our present information permits us to come1 ,i will call ,o4 ,besides making corrections and additions in their copy of ,o1 the scribes also insert marginal notes that have all the characteristics of the author's own amplifications of his work4 ,this fact does not militate against our present hypothesis1 if we assume that ,johannes added these marginalia1 or caused them to be added1 in ,o1 and that the scribes of ,r1 at first forgetting to include them in the text of their new copy1 later wrote them in the margin4#e ,in some cases1 as we might expect1 a different ink is used4 ,the insular hand 7 ,i71 which we are assuming to be that of ,johannes1 corrects minor errors in these enlargements now and then4#f ,this fact is entirely in accord with our hypothesis4 ,a number of enlargements omitted by the writers of the text were supplied not by them but by special correctors1 who were assigned1 it would seem1 considerable portions of the manuscript to revise4 ,particularly important among these wide-ranging correctors are two hands that ,i will call r#a and r#b4 ,the former is a largish hand with some slight traces of ,insular habits4#g r#b is very similar1 and indeed may be merely a smaller variety of r#a4 ,in the specimen that ,i have reproduced1 as is true of both r#a and r#b elsewhere1 correction by ,i may be observed4#h ,in all1 ,i detected1 or thought ,i detected1 five or six correcting hands1 which sometimes supplement stretches of text written by others1 sometimes supplement their own text1 and1 in all the cases under discussion1 add notes of the author which were evidently in the margin of ,o4 ,it is sometimes hard to be sure whether r is the text-hand or not4 ,the point is not vitally important4 ,the main fact is that several different kinds of correcting hand make1 either in their own texts or in those of others1 the kind of additions or enlargements with which we are specially concerned4 ,however1 as we have seen1 we can still retain our hypothesis by supposing that ,i is the hand of ,johannes1 while r represents various correctors who copied from ,o enlargements added there by ,johannes or at his direction4 ,but we have now to note an intimate connection between ,i and r4 ,they collaborate on the same notes4 ,plate ,v 7fol4 #bhev7 shows us an enlargement that begins in the hand 7 r#c7 that writes the text4 ,it extends through substantiam 7#a4c71 then is succeeded by ,i 7ex his--horum est71 then returns 7,ibi--superans71 and finally gives way to ,i once more 7dum--esse74 ,the interesting possibility and enlargements taken from ,o4 ,possibly two or more stages are represented by ,o1 r starting with an earlier1 and ,i supplementing from a more complete form--but into that terra incognita of fresh hypothesis we need not enter4 ,i's procedure1 at any rate1 seems exactly like that of r4 ,thus his practice of calling in a variety of r to complete a note too large for the space is paralleled by r#d1 the writer of the text on fol4 #bcav 7,plate ,,ii71 who uses up a legitimate amount of his margin and then has r#e finish it1 with signs of references1 on the following page4 ,the latter scribe uses a finer hand1 and has no difficulty in completing the note with a decent margin to spare4#i ,surely in the scribal play illustrated in ,plate ,v1 ,i is acting more like a fellow-worker than the author of the work4 ,likewise on another page1 we note corrections and minor enlargements by the text-hand1 then similar changes by ,i1 and1 finally1 corrections of ,i by the text-hand4#aj ,if ,johannes wished to change cogitationes to operationes1 it is strange that he did not do it himself rather than beckon to some scribe to insert the word2 another correction1 nisi1 added above the line1 is made in the hand of ,i4 ,in short1 r and ,i are two different scribes collaborating on what would appear to be a rather difficult original or set of originals4 ,moreover1 if ,i is ,johannes1 he does not understand his own text4 ,in ,de ,divisione ,naturae i4 #di 7,migne ,p4,l4 cxxii1 #dia ,a7 we read3 ,omnium hominum una eademque ,greek3 ousia est4 ,omnes enim unam participant essentiam1 ac per hoc1 quia omnibus communis est1 nullius proprie est4 ,corpus autem commune omnium hominum non est4 ,nam unusquisque suum proprium possidet corpus1 non et ,greek3 ousian4 ,igitur communis est1 et corpus commune non est4 ,this passage forms part of one of the enlargements of ,i4 ,in it he writes omnis for omnes1 and ,non et ,greek3 ousiae igitur communis est for non et ,greek3 ousian4 ,igitur communis est4 ,these are understandable errors for any scribe1 but not for the author of the work1 to make4 ,others occur elsewhere in the ,insular hand2 ,i have not recorded many1 but ,i made no systematic search4 ,we now come to the most startling consideration of all1 namely1 that there are two varieties of insular script in the book4 ,the first variety1 which ,i will now call i#a1 is exhibited in all the plates thus far presented4 ,it is loose1 pointed1 flowing1 with few abbreviations or ligatures specially characteristic of ,irish script4 ,with only one or two exceptions1 it uses a d with a curved shaft4 ,the other variety 7i#b71 as ,plate ,x 7fol4 #ajf7 shows1 is at once more compact and regular1 and more cursive1 with more of the specifically ,irish traits2 it has a straight-shafted d4 ,furthermore1 the two hands appear in different portions of the manuscript4 i#a is confined to foll4 #a-hjv 7 quires ,i-,x7 and foll4 #aac-cahv 7 quires ,,xv-,,xli71 while i#b appears only in foll4 #ha-aabv 7 quires ,,xi-,,xiv7 and foll4 #cai-ceh 7 quires ,,xlii-,,xlvi74 ,in the sections corrected by i#b1 we note the same features as in the other parts4 i#b inserts many long enlargements and makes many minor corrections4 ,he is supplemented in one of his own enlargements by r#b4aa ,on another page1 he is corrected by r#b1 or possibly the text-hand4#ab ,our last resort1 if we are still to look for the autograph of ,john the ,scot in the various hands of ,reims1 is to suppose that1 if not i#a1 it is i#b4 ,this is indeed the hand that ,traube believed was the author's2 it happened that almost all of the photographs taken for ,traube contain enlargements by i#b and not by i#a4 ,yet if i#b is ,johannes1 why does that hand never correct the sections assigned to i#a8 ,of the two1 i#a seems more free1 more individual1 more like an author's1 unless that author be also a calligraphist4 ,but if we imagine that i#a is ,johannes1 why does he never appear in the sections assigned to i#b8 ,our chain of evidence draws us to the conclusion that neither i#a nor i#b is ,johannes1 but that both are scribes employed by him1 together with others1 to correct and enlarge the manuscripts of his works4 ,the two ,insular writers were very possibly the most important of his workmen1 for he entrusted most of the revision to them4 ,their task was done in intimate cooperation with the other scribes4 ,they would call them in to finish their notes if considerations of space demanded1 or1 now and then1 merely to indulge in a pastime of alternate writing4 ,perhaps it was the difficulty of deciphering the original that induced a scribe to appeal more frequently than usual for help from a fellow-craftsman4 ,i have confined my discussion to the manuscript #hge of ,reims1 but the two ,insular hands appear also in the manuscripts of ,bamberg and of ,laon4#ac ,after all is said and done1 the great value of ,traube's discovery remains4 ,it is positive that the enlargements in the manuscripts were made at the direction of the author himself4 ,they present to the modern editor of the ,de ,divisione ,naturae the fascinating task of distinguishing the different revisions1 and of following the growth of the subject in ,johannes' mind4 ,the best way1 ,i believe1 would be to print on the left-hand page the enlarged form of the text1 for that is the form in which the author wished his work to be known to posterity4 ,on the right-hand page1 the briefest form1 the nearest approach to his original draft1 might be given1 with indication1 in the critical apparatus1 of the successive stages by which the final text was reached4 ,possibly further research may reveal ,o1 or even the hand of ,johannes himself4 ,for the present1 we at least have accessible--if the contents of the libraries of ,reims and of ,laon are accessible--the material for preparing a highly accurate and well-nigh unique edition of one of the masterpieces of medieval philosophy4 ,,footnotes3 #a ,in ,abh4 d4 k4 b4 ,akad4 d4 ,wiss41 philos4-philol4 u4 hist4 ,classe1 ,muenchen1 ,,xxvi 7#aiab74 #b ,in ,migne1 ,patrologia ,latina1 vol4 #abb 7#ahfe74 #c ,i have confined my illustrations almost entirely to passages exhibited in the plates4 ,i have notes of many other examples quite as pertinent1 but do not include them here1 believing that those presented amply prove my point4 #d ,for an example1 see ,plate ,i 7fol4 #bgc74 ,in the last regular line of the page1 after writing caelestis essentiae particeps est1 the scribe first omitted the words de die--caelestis essentiae particeps est 7an exceedingly easy haplography7 and then added them1 with signs of reference1 in the margin immediately below4 ,as the error is one of sight and not of hearing1 he must have had a text before him4 #e ,plate ,,ii 7fol4 #bcav7 contains a striking instance4 ,after the citation of ,st4 ,basil1 the author bethinks him of another possible interpretation of his words 7,an aliud ex uerbis ipsius--intelligendum7 and sets it forth in the enlargement4 ,it is not probable1 ,i believe1 that the author dictated this forthwith to the scribe4 ,as the existence of ,o has been proved1 it is more natural to assume that the enlargement had already been inserted there4 #f ,e4g41 fol4 #ei 7,i have no photograph74 ,the added quodam in l4#aj of fol4 #bca 7,plate ,,ii7 is not by ,i4 ,see below1 note #aj4 ,ut arbitror in the right margin seems exactly the thing that an author tucks in when revising and qualifying his work4 ,but see below p4 #ach4 #g ,plate ,,iii contains a specimen 7fol4 #fd74 ,at first this hand looks like that of the text1 but it is really different4 ,the corrections are1 ,i believe1 by r#a himself4 ,they had been made in ,o1 ,i infer1 but at first were not observed by r#a4 ,the heading ,de agere et pati is by a hand of the thirteenth century or later 7 h74 #h ,see ,plate ,,iv 7fol4 #ae74 ,as in the previous specimen1 this hand is similar to that of the text1 but not identical with it4 ,the hand h adds three headings4 #i ,fol4 #bcb 7,plate ,,viii74 r#e then collated the work of r#d with ,o1 adding quodam in l4#aj1 and perhaps correcting consequentius to consequentias in l4#ab4 #aj ,fol4 #ehv 7,plate ,,ix74 #aa ,see fol4 #ha1 ,plate ,,xi 7 ,plate ,i in ,pal4 ,forsch474 #ab ,fol4 #ajf 7,plate ,x74 #ac ,for i#b in the ,bamberg ,,ms1 see ,pal4 ,forsch41 ,plates ,,iii-,,viii4 ,for i#a in the ,laon ,,ms1 see ,pal4 ,forsch41 ,plate ,x4 ,,plates ,plate ,i4 ,fol4 #bgc4 ,plate ,,ii4 ,fol4 #bcav4 ,plate ,,iii4 ,fol4 #fd4 ,plate ,,iv4 ,fol4 #ae4 ,plate ,v4 ,fol4 #bhev4 ,plate ,,vi4 ,fol4 #di4 ,plate ,,vii4 ,fol4 #ef4 ,plate ,,viii4 ,fol4 #bcb4 ,plate ,,ix4 ,fol4 #ehv4 ,plate ,x4 ,fol4 #ajf4 ,plate ,,xi4 ,fol4 #ha 7 ,pal4 ,forsch41 ,plate ,i74 99 99 99 99 99 ,illustration3 ,,plate #a 99 99 99 99 99 ,illustration3 ,,plate #b 99 99 99 99 99 ,illustration3 ,,plate #c 99 99 99 99 99 ,illustration3 ,,plate #d 99 99 99 99 99 ,illustration3 ,,plate #e 99 99 99 99 99 ,illustration3 ,,plate #f 99 99 99 99 99 ,illustration3 ,,plate #g 99 99 99 99 99 ,illustration3 ,,plate #h 99 99 99 99 99 ,illustration3 ,,plate #i 99 99 99 99 99 ,illustration3 ,,plate #aj 99 99 99 99 99 ,illustration3 ,,plate #aa