Skip to Site NavigationSkip to main content
This site works best using the most recent versions of Firefox, IE, Chrome, and Safari. Some features of this site may not display properly if you are using an operating system more than 5 years old, or a browser from a similar era.
Loading
Change font: A B Choose the Cantata One font Choose the Dukeplus font
Change style: RRP Accessible Choose default styling Choose accessible styling

The Richard Rufus of Cornwall Project

Preparing Critical Editions of Rufus' Extant Works


Study: "Contamination"?

A Codex stemming from a single tradition,
or copied from more than one exemplar?

A Study of Codex Salamanca, BU, Bibl. General Historica 2322 (S)

Manuscript Salamanca, Biblioteca Universitaria, ms. 2322 is a very important witness to Richard Rufus of Cornwall's Scriptum in Metaphysicam, formerly called the Dissertatio in Metaphysicam. Though the manuscript lacks the first two books, the text of the other books it offers is very good; it has, for example, many fewer homoeoteleutons than most other witnesses to the text.

That high quality is achieved in part by correction, which raises an important question: Does the text in Salamanca BU 2322 represent a single manuscript tradition, or has it been contaminated by reference to a manuscript from another tradition?

For our work on the edition of the text, we wanted to see whether there was any evidence about whether S had been corrected by reference to a single original exemplar or whether it was contaminated by reference to a second manuscript.

Fortunately, we were able to answer that question, because most of book three was copied twice in BU 2322. By comparing the two copies, we were able to determine that the corrections came from the original exemplar.

We found that corrections, particularly marginal corrections, reflect the use of the same exemplar and are not readings originating from another tradition.

Moreover, we found that the first and second copies of Salamanca's book three share distinctive readings with each other on 318 occasions, including 198 errors that could not have come from Rufus' original. This compared with 10 cases where the two copies disagreed with each other and agreed with another manuscript. As we will see below, all of those cases can be accounted for by coincidence.

On the first occasion, the scribe copied very carefully, but on the second many more errors were made. The second scribe commonly made false starts on words, expunged them and went on. But though there are three times as many corrections in the second copy than in the first, still the second scribe failed to catch many of his mistakes. As a result, there are 127 individual errors in the second copy, compared with 8 in the first.

Moreover, none of the second scribe's corrections occurred in the margin, so there is little likelihood of a second corrector. In fact, the margins of the second copy include only a couple of words, each of which is also partly in the column, so that it looks as if the scribe simply miscalculated the space.

Though our conclusions were obvious when we finished our study, at the outset we thought that the story might be complicated and so we considered very carefully all the variants in every manuscript of this section of book 3, disregarding only those that could have no bearing on the manuscript relationships.

Our comprehensive study included all five manuscripts that preserve Richard Rufus of Cornwall's Scripum in Metaphysicam:
Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, ms. Vat. lat. 4538, fols. 1ra–102va (V)
Erfurt, Universitatsbibliothek, Amploniana Q. 290, fols. (E)
Oxford, New College, ms. 285, fols. (N)
Prague, Knihovna Metropolitni Kapituly, ms. M 80, (P)
Salamanca, Biblioteca Universitaria, ms. 2322, fol. 72ra–132ra (S)

Manuscripts NSV contain the redactio longior, a longer version of the text, consisting of both exposition and questions; the manuscripts EP represent the redactio brevior, a shorter version that is chiefly comprised of questions and includes lemmata only at the start of each book, together with very brief divisions.

As noted, for our study of the possible contamination of S, we have taken advantage of the fact that a substantial part of book three appears twice, at the beginning (fol. 72r–75r) and end (fol. 130r–132r) of this witness. The second copy of book three is called Z in the remainder of this study.

We collated all the witnesses for the shared part of book three, but we did not list all the variants we found: We ignored individual readings in EP or NV, when only one manuscript reported a variant on a given lemma, since such readings could not be the source of the Salamanca corrections. Similarly readings shared only by manuscripts of the redactio brevior, E & P, reflect redactional differences unrelated to the exemplar or exemplars from which Salamanca was copied. Except for marginal corrections, we only mentioned corrections of S to or from readings found in other manuscripts. As we will see below, such corrections do sometimes indicate manuscript relationship, but only for S and Z.

In the lists below the variants have been divided into eight categories. Our observations are also reported graphically in the context of the complete text. See SMet03sz.shtml. The reader may also consult that text to view the note numbers (numbered consecutively by lecture, using the format lecture#.note#).

The variants in the first four categories are shared by both S and Z.

Category I (green) includes cases where S and Z agree in error against the other manuscripts.

Category II (blue) is for cases where S and Z share the original reading and it is not shared by other manuscripts.

Category III (yellow) contains passages where SZ share an original reading with another manuscript.

Category IV (gold) covers passages where SZ share an error with another witness.

Categories V and VI contain passages where S and Z differ from each other.

Category V (violet) is for individual readings in S or Z unshared with another manuscript

Category VI (red) indicates a different reading of S or Z that is shared with another manuscript.

Category VII (gray) contains variants that we ignored because they did not appear to be significant for our study. We have neglected the following variants:
a. ergo / igitur, because scribes often use these words interchangeably.
b. missing ‘etc.’, since scribes seldom regard them as significant.
c. iste / ille etc., because they are often used interchangeably and the abbreviation marks used by scribes are ambiguous.
d. missing pars / parte etc. in the division of the text (divisio textus), since these words may be added to the text or left out by a scribe without reference to his exemplar.
e. missing contraction signs and missing abbreviation marks for missing -m or -n, -ur, since these are signs of scribal carelessness rather than differences in the exemplar.

More significantly for this study, this last subcategory is comprised of variant readings from the outline (divisiones) where our editorial practice differed from the rest of the edition. The divisiones follow a formula:

“Prima pars dividitur in duas partes. In prima parte ....; in secunda parte quae ibi incipit .... Prima pars incipit ibi ... secunda ibi ...etc.”

In the edition we repeated the entire formula for the sake of clarity even if it was only found in a minority of manuscripts. How much of this repetitive formula is dropped varies from manuscript to manuscript. Quite frequently instead of “Prima pars dividitur in duas partes,” we read “Prima in duas.” Additions or omissions to the formula cannot be considered errors, as the addition or omission of such a word would be if found elsewhere in the text. Hence we have not considered them in our study.

Category VIII (also green) contains such peculiarities in the spelling of words shared by both S and Z that seem to indicate a common exemplar. We did not find that such peculiarities linked S an Z with other manuscripts.

For our study of contamination the 10 variants of category VI are of special importance, since they might be cases where S2322 was copied from a second manuscript different from its original exemplar. An error shared with another manuscript might mean that the copyist used a second manuscript in addition to the primary exemplar from which the scribe copied. The scribe of S might have borrowed the error from another tradition, the traditions to which codex N or V belong. Of special importance are errors that S shares with N or V that are significant and are not likely to be made independently from a model.

When we look at the variants in category VI, we see that those few variants consist mostly of minor changes and omissions and missing abbreviation marks

Minor omissions:
Z shares one omission with E and P:   2.38 Sed modo om. EPZ
S shares one omission with N and V:   2.84 una om. NSV
S has a word in the margin that is omitted by V:   4.45 enim mg. S, om. V
Z shares an omission with V:   9.16 qui exp. Z, om. V

Minor changes:
Z shares the indicative with N and V:   3.49 demonstretur] demonstratur NVZ
S shares an illa with N, while Z has ista:   4.9 ita] illa (ia) NS, ista Z

Problems with abbreviation strokes:
1.40 numerabilibus] numeralibus (nu'alib9) PSV, nuablib9 Z
2.72 altera] alteratur VZ
5.34 proponit] ponitur N, ponit Z
6.38 proponit] ponit NZ

There is one place in the text where no manuscript has the right reading. S shares the reading of the all the other manuscripts, and Z may possibly be closer to what seems likely to be the correct reading. But difficult as this problem is for us as we seek to establish the text, it does not seem to raise difficulties in determining manuscript relations. The problem seems to have arisen in the original manuscript:
4.97 unius] nullius NSV, ullius Z

No consistent pattern emerges from these variants, so they cannot be evidence of a relation between S or Z and the other manuscript witnesses. Since these variants are few and minor, they are best explained as the result of coincidence.

Category I (198 variants), which contains passages where SZ share a mistake not found in other manuscripts, strongly suggests that SZ were copies from the same model with that same mistake. This category contains the most variants which is a strong indication that they were copied from the same exemplar.

Categories II (120 variants) and III (32 variants) also suggest a common examplar and do not indicate contamination. They only indicate that S and Z share a correct reading. The correct reading could be from the original exemplar and need not come from another tradition.

Category IV (19 variants) indicates that SZ were copied from a model in the same tradition as another manuscript. S and Z agree in error sometimes with N, sometimes with V. The shared mistakes do not appear to be significant, ranging from a different verb mode (indiget for indigeat, sint for sunt), missing words (non, est), or small mistakes (mediae for medii, aliud for aliquod).

Category V (137 variants) contains individual readings of S or Z. Because they are individual readings and are not shared by other manuscripts, they don't indicate corruption. S only has 11 individual readings. The low number of individual readings means that the copyist of S did not make a lot of mistakes and made a faithful copy of the exemplar. The scribe of S wrote ‘cuius’ for ‘cum’ and twice left out ‘quae ibi incipit’. In all the other five cases, where S has an individual reading, the reading of S is doubtful. Z has many more individual readings (127), which shows that the copyist was much more careless in copying his exemplar. The mistakes made by the scribe of Z include missing abbreviation hooks (‘oportet’ for ‘oporteret’), misread abbreviations (‘quaestionem’ for ‘quomodo’, ‘motus’ for ‘modus’ etc.), omissions, homoeoteleutons, repetitions etc.

As with all stemmata studies, we cannot exclude the possibility that correct readings were arrived at independently either from another manuscript or by an intelligent copyist. Suspicion is most likely to arise where the manuscript has been corrected – as when a reading appears above the line or in the margin. Let us take a closer look at the corrections in S. In our study, there were three instances of corrections, five marginal corrections (mg.), and no supralinear corrections.

Listed below are 3 instances where the copyist of S or Z corrected a word into another word in the column. These corrections can easily be explained by assuming that the copyist made a small mistake while copying, realized it and made the correction. Such corrections need not indicate corruption:
5.73 si nihil vel forsan: simul V, simul (in corr. S) SZ
6.51 Quorum in corr. Z, add. sed exp. una Z
9.11 duabus corr. ex: duobus S, duobus Z

The marginal corrections in S are the following:
2.14 secundae lac. SZ, add. (mg.) secunda S
3.39 moverunt lac. S, maunt mg. S, manerent (maunt) Z
3.71 Et – sensibilibus in imo col. S
4.45 enim mg. S, om. V
6.100 ipsum] numerum Z, lac. S, add. (mg.) num (?) S

In the second and last cases S has a lacuna in the text and a reading is supplied in the margin. This can be explained by assuming that the scribe of S was unsure about the reading in the exemplar, and later he or the corrector put it in the margin. Because the words in the margin of S are the same as the text in Z, these marginals don't indicate contamination. Rather, since both S and Z have the same mistake, these instances again indicate that S and Z used the same model, since they were clearly both uncertain what to do and would have supplied another reading if a different exemplar had been available.

In the first instance the copyists of both S and Z inserted a lacuna. Only the copyist of S wrote the word in the margin. There is no evidence that he got the word ‘secunda’ from a second model. The word ‘secunda’ might have been in the original of SZ, but so difficult to read that the scribes of both S and Z had difficulty with it.

In the third and fourth instances the copyist of S inserted a part of the text in the margin or at the bottom of the column. The reading of S is found also in Z. It is possible that the copyist of S realised he had skipped a passage from the model and inserted it in the column, without using a second copy.

So there is no evidence for corruption in the marginal corrections. They even seem to indicate that S only used one model. For, assuming that the scribe of S used two models, why would he write manerent for moverunt and numerum for ipsum, when the first readings are clearly mistaken?

Conclusion: The shared errors of SZ, demonstrate that S and Z were copied from the same model. There are only a few passages where S or Z agree in error with other manuscripts, and they are mostly insignificant. There is, therefore, no evidence for corruption.

Tables of Variants  (back to mention above)

Notes are numbered consecutively in each lecture, using the format lecture#.note#

I.   SZ share error that is not found in other mss. (green):

1.1 logicales] litigiosos SZ
1.3 praeparat] propriat N, praeparat (? Z) SZ
1.5 profunditatem] profunditates SZ
1.7 pars – partes] in duas SZ
1.9 parte – incipit] ibi N, om. SZ
1.11 incipit om. SZ
1.15 attendentes] antecedentes SZ
1.17 quod] si N, ut SZ
1.20 demonstrationes] demonstrativos SZ
1.22 autem add. scientia SZ
1.24 enim exp. S, om. Z
1.25 est om. SZ
1.27 dissolutiones] dissolutionem SZ
1.35 substantiis om. SZ
1.37 intrinseca] extrinsica SZ
1.38 Aliae] Ali SZ, ita forsan pro: Averroes (Av') SZ
1.44 animae] anima SZ
2.1 ista] hac SZ
2.2 disputare] disserere N, add. et hoc dialectice SZ
2.4 quae ibi incipit om. SZ
2.6 pars – partes] in tres SZ
2.8 parte – incipit om. SZ
2.11 aliam] a' V, add. quaestionem SZ
2.12 parte – incipit om. SZ
2.13 quartam proponit] quartam NV, disputa (dispu Z) lac. SZ
2.14 secundae lac. SZ, add. (mg.) secunda S
2.16 ista] illa pars SZ
2.18 pars – partes] in duas SZ
2.19 et om. SZ
2.19 non add. sic SZ
2.21 illud] istud N, secundum SZ
2.29 quae] quod SZ
2.34 Et om. SZ
2.35 ibi om. SZ
2.36 ibi add. scilicet SZ
2.39 mathematica ante scientia SZ
2.43 causando] creando ENP, lac. SZ
2.45 et finali om. SZ
2.46 haec] hoc SZ
2.62 considerat] consideret SZ
2.63 putet] putat SZ
2.64 hoc om. SZ
2.67 minoris] maioris SZ
2.68 qui] quia N, scientia quae SZ
2.70 si om. SZ
2.75 neque] nec SZ
2.78 in om. SZ
2.79 dissoluta erat om. SZ
2.81 talis om. SZ
2.87 diversa ante secundum SZ
3.1 quandam om. SZ
3.5 quae ibi incipit om. SZ
3.10 parte – incipit om. SZ
3.18 parte – incipit om. SZ
3.21 parte – ibi om. SZ
3.24 quattuor rationes] numerum quattuor rationum SZ
3.25 incipit om. SZ
3.29 similiter] si SZ
3.31 si sint] similiter N, si cum SZ, si sunt V
3.33 formas om. SZ
3.34 incipit ante ibi SZ
3.39 moverunt lac. S, maunt mg. S, manerent (maunt) Z
3.44 via om. SZ
3.46 substantia] scientia SZ
3.52 principiorum] principior SZ
3.53 principiatorum] principiorum SZ
3.56 quaestio ante alia SZ
3.61 sensibiles et medias] m. s. SZ
3.65 sit] est NV, sic SZ
3.66 sensibili ante caelo SZ
3.68 alios om. SZ
3.72 radios om. SZ
3.73 species corr. ex: sensus N, sensus SZ
3.75 species] sensus SZ
3.76 sensibiles] sensibilibus SZ
3.82 positionem om. SZ
3.84 formae] forma SZ
3.92 corruptibilium] corruptibilis SZ
3.96 ipsi om. SZ
4.3 parte – incipit om. SZ
4.6 dividitur om. SZ
4.8 incipit om. SZ
4.10 tertia – etc.2 om. SZ
4.14 et add. eam SZ
4.16 parte – incipit om. SZ
4.19 dividitur om. SZ
4.20 incipit om. SZ
4.21 negativam post partem SZ
4.23 scimus] suus SZ
4.24 Si] Sed SZ
4.25 et om. SZ
4.92 quae incipit ibi om. SZ
4.32 partem add. et hoc SZ
4.37 corpora] cor ! SZ
4.44 duas lineas] duos SZ
4.46 esse om. SZ
4.48 contradictio] condictio SZ
4.51 talis post est SZ
4.58 dictio vel forsan: dicto (dco) N, necessario SZ
4.65 principia] principium SZ
4.66 utrum unita sint] universaliora (ulteriora Z) aut SZ, utrum unita sunt V
4.70 principia post prima SZ
4.72 differentiam] differentias SZ
4.73 similiter post ens SZ
4.75 haberet] habet SZ
4.77 per accidens post potest SZ
4.78 et] sed SZ
4.81 vel accidens om. SZ
4.87 et propter hoc rep. SZ
4.88 unum corr. in: unam N, unus SZ
4.89 per se om. SZ
5.1 prima] hac SZ
5.3 proponit] ponit SZ
5.4 pars – illa om. (hom.) SZ
5.5 pars – partes] in tres SZ
5.15 quae – ibi om. SZ
5.18 pars – partes] in duas SZ
5.27 genus om. SZ
5.29 sunt] sint SZ
5.35 prius om. SZ
5.37 magis post est SZ
5.45 habere] habeat SZ
5.47 nota] natura SZ
5.58 Dicamus] Dicimus SZ
5.60 intelligibile add. dicitur vel est SZ
5.63 situali] sensibili SZ
5.64 corporali] corporea SZ
5.69 possunt] possint SZ
5.72 individua] media SZ
5.73 si nihil vel forsan: simul V, simul (in corr. S) SZ
6.9 ponit – partem post dixerimus SZ
6.15 incipit ante ibi SZ
6.20 dividitur – partes] in duas SZ
6.21 parte – incipit om. SZ
6.23 quae – ibi om. SZ
6.26 incipit ante ibi SZ
6.32 Epicuri autem ante inducit SZ
6.39 eorum] illorum SZ
6.40 parte – incipit om. SZ
6.42 pars – partes] in duas SZ
6.43 quod] quidem SZ
6.52 una] unum SZ
6.57 et – falsum] et hoc falsum est ENP, om. SZ
6.59 diversae sunt substantiae] sunt s. d. N, s. sunt d. SZ
6.61 illud] hoc SZ
6.62 dicitur ista quaestio] i. q. d. SZ
6.67 speciei] specie SZ
6.77 sic add. seu anticip. (sed vacat S) si sunt unum numero non erit numerus elementatorum compositorum maior numero elementorum et illud patet sic SZ
6.81 una dictio] unam dictionem SZ
6.85 si om. SZ
6.87 Epicureorum add. tantum SZ
6.90 ipsos] illos SZ
6.93 et lite post amicitia SZ
6.94 distinctio] destructio SZ
6.95 et om. SZ
6.96 cognoscat] cognoscit SZ
6.99 creata] tanta N, causata SZ
6.100 ipsum] numerum Z, lac. S, add. (mg.) num (?) S
6.105 modo add. quattuor SZ
6.110 sive] vel SZ
6.115 omnium] omnia SZ
6.116 sic] similiter SZ
6.119 sunt om. SZ
6.121 ex om. SZ
7.3 etiam] et SZ
7.8 scilicet om. SZ
7.11 Quidam] Eadem SZ
7.19 quaecumque] quemcumque SZ
7.22 destruxit] destruit SZ
7.23 unumquodque] unum quod est SZ
7.25 quae ibi incipit om. SZ
7.32 aliam add. ponit vel SZ
7.36 naturas post entes SZ
7.37 Platonici] Plato SZ
7.40 ista vel potius illa (ia) N, isti SZ
7.43 illud om. SZ
7.45 et om. SZ
7.47 sunt] sint SZ
7.55 generationes om. SZ
7.59 unum natura] unus nisi SZ
7.60 sequeretur] sequetur SZ
7.66 ipso] ipsi SZ
7.68 componi om. SZ
7.70 natura om. SZ
7.71 discernibilibus] dissimilibus V, om. SZ
8.2 sextam] secundam SZ, lectio dubia V
8.3 ibi om. SZ
8.6 quae ibi incipit om. SZ
8.9 punctus om. SZ
8.10 sint] sunt SZ
8.18 Mercurii] Iovis SZ, Mertirii V
8.28 aliquo add. in SZ
8.30 neque] non SZ
9.1 et om. SZ
9.6 tertiam] quartam SZ
9.8 quae ibi incipit om. SZ
9.10 parte illam] eam SZ
9.13 Si praem. Et SZ
9.18 Antequam] Ante autem quam SZ

II.   Only SZ have the correct reading (blue):

1.18 post] prima NV
1.31 una corr. ex: illa post scientia N, unum V
1.33 sint] sicut NV
1.34 ita] ista NV
2.9 Notum] Notandum NV
2.10 est] etiam(?) V, om. N
2.22 supposito] supra supposito N, supra V
2.26 manifeste om. NV
2.32 est aliquid] est id aliquid N, ad V
2.42 omne] esse (? (in corr.) V) NV
2.49 ut] et NV
2.51 consideret] considerat N, desiderat V
2.52 Si tamen] Sed tamen si N, Sic non V
2.55 scientia] sola NV
2.56 primam om. NV
2.59 est om. NV
2.60 excepta – omnium om. NV
2.77 ad] quoddam (ante ibi) N, quod V
2.85 ergo s. lin. N, add. hoc NV
3.7 unica] vera V, om. N
3.35 subiecta] substantia NV
3.40 aliquibus] pluribus NV
3.43 hoc] linea NV
3.45 enim] autem NV
3.47 intelligit] intellige N, intelligo V
3.50 alia] aliqua NV
3.55 istis] his NV
3.58 etc. – medias om. (hom.) NV
3.64 lunas] lineas NV
3.67 necessario] nunc NV
3.69 enim om. NV
3.78 et similiter] erit NV
3.80 est om. NV
3.85 intelligibilis] intelligibiles NV
3.86 est quaedam] erit NV
3.87 medicina] medicinam NV
3.88 ostendit om. NV
3.89 scientiae] substantiae NV
3.91 esset] est N, esse V
3.94 geometer] geometria NV
3.97 in cursu om. NV
4.5 secunda] pars V, add. pars N
4.11 decimoquartam] quartam decimam NV
4.36 erunt] ergo N, igitur V
4.40 igitur om. NV
4.42 et om. NV
4.43 ad] cum N, tamen V
4.47 medias] mathematicas NV
4.49 quaecumque vel forsan: quicumque V, quicumque N
4.54 sint] sunt NV
4.56 litterae] littera NV
4.57 universales] universalis N, universale V
4.62 communiter] consequenter N, communi rationi V
4.64 principiati om. NV
4.69 omnium om. NV
5.20 quando] quoniam NV
5.22 erit] eut V, om. N
5.38 et] quia NV
5.40 si] sed NV
5.43 altero] alio NV
5.44 complementi] completi NV
5.50 pure] pura NV
5.51 verus om. ENPV
5.53 scilicet om. NV
5.55 sensibilia] generalia NV
5.56 sunt om. NV
5.66 materia add. non NV
5.68 ingenerabile] generale N, ingenerale V
5.75 aliquibus] animabus NV
6.5 proponit post eam V, ponit N
6.11 enim dixerimus] autem diximus NV
6.13 alteram] aliam NV
6.35 proponit] ponit NV
6.64 et om. NV
6.65 omnis] in genere NV
6.66 alphabeti] in alphabeto NV
6.71 nisi om. NV
6.73 et om. NV
6.75 erit] esset NV
6.80 illud] aliud NV
6.84 nam] quia N, om. V
6.88 Amrroice] Amirocie NV
6.91 deos] ipsos N, eos V
6.97 est om. NV
6.102 et] vel NV
6.103 aliqua] alia NV
6.106 elementatum] elementum NV
6.107 constituatur] constituunt N, condensatum V
6.111 illi] ille NV
6.112 Ipse] Ipsa NV
6.113 dicebat] dicit NV
6.114 haberet] habent N, habet V
6.117 erunt add. circa NV
7.2 cum om. NV
7.9 diversorum opinantium] diversarum opinionum NV
7.12 vero] non NV
7.28 hoc om. NV
7.38 et om. NV
7.42 numerum] verum NV, vel forsan: numerum V
7.46 amicitiam] amicitia NV
7.49 enim om. NV
7.52 primae post quaestionis N, om. V
7.53 unum om. NV
7.57 est om. NV
7.58 substantiae] scientiae NV
7.61 necessario rep. NV
7.62 esse] ens V, om. N
7.64 sunt] secundum NV
7.65 possibilis] potens N, potius V
7.69 a om. NV
8.5 Unde antiqui] U. et a. N, om. V
8.13 numeros om. NV
8.14 substantiae] principia N, add. sicut V
8.16 sunt] sint NV
8.24 est om. ENPV
8.34 extenso nomine corruptionis om. ENPV
8.36 istis] aliis ENPV
8.38 est – compositum om. (hom.) ENPV
9.17 illarum] illorum NV
9.20 movit] monuit NV

III.   SZ share correct reading with another manuscript (yellow):

1.39 rebus] numeris P, talibus V
1.41 lapidum ESZ, lapidis NPV
1.46 numeri ante subiectum EP, numerum PV
2.40 simpliciter post negatur ENP
2.41 movens post esse ENP
2.47 ideo] igitur ENP
4.80 ergo om. ENP
4.82 ergo ante Haec ENP
4.86 una ante res NV
4.90 ens om. ENP
4.91 differentiam om. ENP
4.93 praedicaretur] praedicatur PV
4.94 et de differentia om. (hom.) NV
5.33 iste vel potius: ille (ie) EN
5.48 materia s. lin. V, om. EN
5.49 natura add. quia ENV
5.57 sunt om. ENP
5.59 igitur] ergo N, om. E
5.61 non] nec est V, om. E
5.77 domus om. ENP
6.53 omnium post hominum N, om. V
6.54 probabilis post est ENP
6.56 quod add. hoc ENP
8.21 figura om. ENP
8.25 necessaria] ostenditur V, om. E
8.26 in om. ENP
8.27 non om. ENV
8.32 etc] et corrumpuntur ENP
8.33 accidat] accidit (accit P) NP
8.35 sint] sunt ENP
8.39 propria om. ENP
8.40 corruptibile post est ENP

IV.   SZ share error with another ms. (gold):

1.28 finis] finem SVZ
1.36 Vigesima tertia] Septima N, Decima tertia SVZ
2.24 enim om. NSZ
2.44 aliquod] aliud SVZ
2.80 habeat] habet (post considerare SZ) NSZ
3.74 mediae] medii SVZ
4.53 quartam] quintam SVZ
4.55 individuales vel forsan: indivisibiles NSZ
4.59 individuales vel forsan: indivisibiles SVZ
5.32 Dico] Dicamus P, Dicto NSZ
5.70 non om. SVZ
6.55 est om. EPSZ
6.68 sunt] sint NSZ
6.70 sint] sunt (post unum N) NSZ
6.78 sint] sunt NSZ
6.79 ergo exp. Z, om. NS
6.122 indigeat] indiget NSZ
7.41 nomina] nomina vel potius: non (noa vel non) S, NVZ
8.37 possibilis] possibile (post est SZ) EPSZ

V.   S and Z have a different reading.
  A mistake not shared with any other ms. (violet):

1.2 hanc philosophiam] hac philosophia Z
1.10 Prima praem. Et Z
1.16 talia] talio Z
1.19 quaestionum] quaestionem Z
1.21 modus] mo-us S, motus Z
1.23 hebetudo add. et Z
1.29 tertiam causam lectio dubia Z
1.32 omnium add. substantia Z
1.42 in] et Z
2.23 oppositum lectio dubia Z
2.25 peccatum] pcm S, positionem (pom) Z
2.27 autem om. Z
2.28 Non – agentem om. (hom.) Z
2.31 est om. Z
2.33 movetur om. Z
2.37 non om. V, add. sed exp. non est in rebus, add. ult. quae non Z
2.48 una] unam Z
2.53 dicemus add. per illam Z
2.54 alta] altera Z
2.57 et finem ultimum rep. Z
2.61 cum ante igitur N, cuius ? (c') S
2.65 quae] quo Z
2.66 lineae] line Z
2.71 nota] natura Z
2.74 alia] aliqua V, alio Z
2.82 omnes om. Z
2.83 ita] ista Z
2.86 assignata] assingnata SpN, om. Z
3.8 perscrutandum] scrutandum Z
3.11 Quoniam] Quaestionem (qom) Z
3.26 Quoniam] Quaestionem (qom) Z
3.36 sunt rep. ? S
3.41 et lac. Z
3.42 sententiam lectio dubia V, scientiam Z
3.48 propter add. 9 Z
3.51 et om. Z
3.57 figmentum] sigmentum Z
3.60 superficiebus] superficientibus Z
3.63 caelum om. Z
3.70 Quis] Quid Z
3.71 Et – sensibilibus in imo col. S
3.77 exsistentes] exsistens Z
3.79 media – forma om. (hom.) Z
3.81 secundum om. Z
3.83 et om. Z
3.90 sic sunt] sunt N, sit Z
3.95 sphaera] semper N, sphaero Z, om. V
4.15 exemplificat] exemplificat (exicat) S, extricat (exticat) Z
4.26 et add. in Z
4.28 proponit] ponit Z
4.30 Quoniam] qm S, Quaestionem Z
4.34 Igitur] Igitur (gi) S, Gratia (ga) Z
4.35 Sed – sensibilibus om. (hom.) Z
4.38 et dimensiones] et diversificationes V, om. Z
4.39 et corpus om. Z
4.50 aliud] alium V, ad Z
4.52 ponit] proponit V, positum Z
4.60 sciet] sciat N, scit Z
4.61 vera] vero Z
4.63 genera om. Z
4.67 unita] universaliora S, viliora Z
4.79 esse] eam Z
4.83 falsa] secunda Z
4.84 habet om. Z
4.85 falsa] secunda Z
4.92 praedicatur] per de Z
4.95 unum] nomen (nn) Z
4.97 unius] nullius NSV, ullius Z
5.2 Et cum hoc om. Z
5.25 quinta ibi] verbi gratia Z
5.28 generalissimum] genera m Z
5.30 statim] instanti(?) Z
5.31 oportet] ostendit Z
5.34 proponit] ponitur N, ponit Z
5.36 contrario] converso Z
5.39 formam et secundum om. Z
5.41 erit vel forsan: ostendit Z
5.46 se add. species autem non est aliud quod genus nec habet esse separatum Z
5.52 prior om. Z
5.54 Nam] Nota Z
5.62 in om. Z
5.65 est om. Z
5.67 quam] quod Z
5.71 incorporea] incorporabilia N, in corpora Z
5.74 ut rep. Z
5.76 est om. Z
6.1 tamquam rep. Z
6.2 pars] per Z
6.10 quae ibi incipit om. S
6.17 exponi] oponi (opoi) Z
6.25 parte] partem Z
6.31 quorumdam – opinionem om. (hom.) Z
6.45 quae ibi incipit om. S
6.46 partes iuxta quattuor] i. q. S, om. (hom.) Z
6.49 enim lectio dubia S
6.50 omnium om. Z
6.51 Quorum in corr. Z, add. sed exp. una Z
6.58 unum – erit om. (hom.) Z
6.60 in om. Z
6.63 numero ? S
6.69 patet om. Z
6.72 nec] nullo Z
6.74 agens om. Z
6.76 compositum om. Z
6.83 unum om. Z
6.86 quae] quod Z
6.89 potant] petant Z
6.92 et – tantum rep. Z
6.98 compositione] ? V, positione Z
6.101 congregat om. Z
6.118 incorruptibilium] corruptibilium Z
6.120 quare] quia Z
7.27 qua – Zenonis om. (hom.) Z
7.31 Quaerit vel potius: Erit Z, om. N
7.33 quaerit in corr. N, lectio dubia S, quaeritur V
7.34 significent] significant Z
7.35 est quaerere om. Z
7.39 dicebant] dicabant Z
7.41 esse exp. S, om. NVZ
7.44 quod rep. V, quae Z
7.50 non s. lin. V, om. Z
7.54 ipsos] ipsam Z
7.63 modo om. Z
8.8 quaerit] .a. st Z
8.11 videtur] vidit (vidt) Z
8.12 substantiam] formam Z
8.15 aliquid] aliquis(?) Z
8.17 quod figura] per figuram Z
8.19 esset] essent N, esse Z
8.20 est om. Z
8.23 figura tum] figuratum Z
8.29 quodlibet] quolibet Z
8.31 non corrumpuntur] incorrumpuntur Z
8.41 causata] causati Z
9.4 quarum rep. Z
9.11 duabus corr. ex: duobus S, duobus Z
9.12 quarum] qua Z
9.19 dicit] videlicet S

VI.   Different S/Z shared with other mss. (red):

1.40 numerabilibus] numeralibus (nu'alib9) PSV, nuablib9 Z
2.38 Sed modo om. EPZ
2.72 altera] alteratur VZ
2.84 una om. NSV
3.49 demonstretur] demonstratur NVZ
4.9 ita] illa (ia) NS, ista Z
4.45 enim mg. S, om. V
6.38 proponit] ponit NZ
6.82 est om. NZ
9.16 qui exp. Z, om. V

VII.   List of errors not considered significant (gray):

a.  ergo / igitur

1.43 ergo] igitur SZ
1.45 igitur] ergo NV
3.54 igitur] ergo SZ
3.59 igitur] ergo SZ
4.71 igitur] ergo N, om. V
4.74 igitur] ergo SZ
4.96 ergo] igitur SZ
6.108 Igitur] Ergo SZ

b.  ‘etc.’ omitted

1.12 etc. om. SZ
1.13 etc. om. SZ
1.14 etc. om. SZ
2.5 etc. om. SZ
3.6 etc.] et N, om. SZ
3.12 etc. om. NSZ
3.14 etc. om. SZ
3.15 etc. om. SZ
3.19 etc. om. SZ
3.22 etc. om. NSZ
3.27 etc. om. SZ
3.28 etc. om. SZ
3.30 etc. om. SZ
3.32 etc. om. SZ
3.37 etc. om. SZ
3.38 etc. om. SZ
4.4 etc. om. SZ
4.17 etc. om. SZ
4.31 etc. om. NSZ
4.33 etc. om. SZ
5.7 etc. om. SZ
5.8 etc. om. SZ
5.9 etc. om. SZ
5.12 etc. om. NSZ
5.16 etc. om. NSZ, add. et V
5.21 etc. om. SZ
5.23 etc. om. SZ
5.24 etc. om. SZ
5.26 etc. om. SZ
6.12 etc. om. SZ
6.14 etc. om. NSZ
6.16 etc. om. NV
6.22 etc. om. NSZ
6.24 etc. om. SZ
6.27 etc. om. NSZ
6.30 etc. om. NSZ
6.41 etc. om. NSZ
6.47 etc. om. NSZ
6.48 etc. om. NSZ
7.1 etc. om. SZ
7.10 etc. om. NSZ
7.13 etc. om. SZ
7.14 etc. om. SZ
7.16 etc. om. SZ
7.17 etc. om. NSZ
7.18 etc. om. SZ
7.20 etc. om. NSZ
7.21 etc. om. NSZ
7.26 etc. om. NSZ
7.29 etc. om. SZ
7.30 etc. om. NSZ
8.1 etc. om. ENP
8.4 etc. om. SZ
8.7 etc. om. SZ
9.5 etc. om. SZ
9.9 etc. om. NSZ
9.14 etc. om. SZ
9.15 etc. om. SZ

c.  ille / iste, illa / ista etc.

2.58 illa] ista NV
3.62 istud] illud SZ
5.17 illa] ista SZ
7.56 istud] illud NV
7.67 isti] illi NSZ

d.  pars / parte etc.

1.6 parte om. NSZ
1.8 parte om. NSZ
2.3 partes om. SZ
2.7 parte om. SZ
2.17 partes om. SZ
3.2 partes om. SZ
3.3 parte om. NSZ
3.4 parte om. NSZ
3.9 partes om. SZ
3.13 partes] partis N, om. SZ
3.16 partes om. SZ
3.17 parte om. NSZ
3.20 partes om. SZ
3.23 partes om. SZ
4.1 partes om. SZ
4.2 parte om. SZ
4.7 partes om. SZ, add. per N
4.12 partes om. SZ
4.13 parte om. NSZ
4.18 pars om. NSZ
4.22 partes om. SZ
4.27 partes om. SZ
5.6 parte om. SZ
5.10 parte om. SZ
5.13 partes om. SZ
5.14 parte om. SZ
5.19 parte om. SZ
6.3 partes om. SZ
6.4 parte om. NSZ
6.6 parte om. NSZ
6.7 partes om. SZ
6.8 parte om. NSZ
6.18 partes om. SZ
6.19 parte om. SZ
6.28 partes om. SZ
6.29 parte om. NSZ
6.36 partes om. SZ
6.37 parte om. NSZ
6.44 partes om. SZ
7.4 partes om. SZ
7.5 parte om. NSZ
7.6 pars om. SZ
7.7 partes om. SZ
7.15 partes om. SZ
7.24 partes om. SZ
9.2 partes om. SZ
9.3 partes om. SZ
9.7 partes om. SZ

e.  Missing contraction sign or missing abbreviation mark for -m or -n, missing -ur sign

1.4 animos] aios Z
1.26 difficultatem] difficultate Z
1.30 facere] face Z
2.30 movetur] movet Z
2.50 videtur] videt Z
2.69 scientiam] scia Z
2.73 oporteret] oportet Z
2.76 ponitur] ponit ? Z
3.93 puncto] pucto Z
4.68 sint] sit Z
4.76 videtur rep. sed corr. N, videt Z
5.11 hanc] hac Z
6.34 ducens] dicens N, ducns S
6.104 corrumpitur] corrumpuntur V, corrupitur Z
6.109 agentem] agente Z
7.48 universalissima] ulissima Z
7.51 exsistentem] exsistente Z
8.22 tum] tu Z

VIII.   Significant Spelling & Abbreviation Peculiarities Shared by S and Z (green):

2.15 duas partes] .d.p. SZ
5.42 polygona] polligema SZ, polligomam ? (corr. ex: polligamo ?) N, poligoma V