de la Chambre, William (Anglia Sacra [ed. Henry Wharton; London 1691] I 765, as quoted by E. A. Moody, op. cit. 56 n. 8) includes Thomas Bradwardine, Richard Fitz-Ralph, Walter Burley, John Maudith, Richard Killington, and Robert Holcot as members of De Bury's household. Contemporary scholarship assigns the Philobiblon to De Bury rather than to Holcot, as was once the case; see Michael Maclagen, ed, Philobiblon: Richard de Bury (Oxford 1960).
Eck, Eck, Chrysopassus (Ingolstadt 1517). I am grateful to Prof. Heiko A. Oberman for this reference.
Almain, Almain, Dictata super Sententias M. Roberti Holcot (Paris 1526). Almain discusses only Book I of the commentary.
Michalski, Michalski, XIVe siècle.’ Extrait du Bulletin de l'Académie polonaise des sciences et des lettres, classe d'histoire et de philosophie, année 1927 (Cracow 1928) 10-18, where Augustine of Ratisbon's difficulties are described at some length in the preface to the edition published by Johannes Trechsel in Lyons in 1497. Included in this edition are Holcot's Super Sententias, Conferentiae sex super sententias, De imputabilitate peccati, and Determinationes. The difficulties of the editor are evident in the text: In book I q. 1 of the Sentences we read ‘Nota, quod iste articulus IV est diminutus et incompletus, sed nusquam est reperire completum.’ At the conclusion of this question we read ‘Quaestio secunda, quam non omnes codices habent… de obiecto credendi.’ E. A. Moody, loc. cit., has recently pointed out that an opinion attributed to Ockham is actually the contradiction of Ockham's position. That these difficulties are found in this first book of the Sentence commentary, for which the extant MSS show the fewest textual variations, is suggestive of the problems involved in establishing the text of Holcot's works.
Michalski, , op. cit. (supra note 6) 9-18.
Michalski, , op. cit. (supra note 6) 13-14.
Ibid. Michalski's identification of Determinatio 1 with a question found in Richard Swineshead's Sentence commentary has since been questioned. Professor Moody informs me that the question belongs rather to Roger Rosetus.
Ibid.: ‘Il [London, British Museum Royal MS 10.C.VI] représente la seule rédaction émanant directement de l'auteur.’ The evidence adduced by Michalski for this thesis is discussed below.
Moody, E. A., op. cit. (supra note 1) 57-58.
r (question 71 in the following index) there is a question which includes in its body two others which are clearly separated in the Cambridge and Oxford MSS. Holcot did not substantially alter these two questions when he included them in the London MS.
James, M. R., A Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts in Pembroke College Library
r, where Holcot's Sentence commentary begins.
Warner, G. F.
Gilson, J. P., British Museum: Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collections
1921) I 327.
Wey, J. C., op. cit. (supra note 1) has published an edition of this brief discourse. It is labeled as a ‘Sermo finalis’ in Oxford, Oriel College, MS 15 fols. 204-205.
and Gilson, Warner, loc. cit. (supra note 23).
Mynors, R. A. B., Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Balliol College
1963) 267–268, gives a full description of the MS.
Michalski, , op. cit. (supra note 6) 13.
1925) 45–47, with regard to actual textual reference to this practice in the quodlibetal questions of Gerard of Abbeville.
Muckle, J. T. (op. cit. [supra note 1] 127) in the only recent attempt to present an edited text based on all three of the quodlibetal manuscripts cautions: ‘I consider that Ms. P [that is, the Cambridge MS] represents an unrevised record by Holcot but I hesitate to say that the MSS are reportationes for the reason that the variants … run much the same as the other MSS of the time.’
Michalski, , op. cit. (supra note 6) 17, where he says ‘Le recueil contenu dans Pembroke C., m'a rendu des services importants au cours de mes recherches, d'autant plus que dans le recueil de Balliol C., manquent plusieurs questions, qu'on trouve justement dans l'édition imprimée.’