^{page 177 note 1} Hauréau, B., Notices et extraits VI (Paris 1893) 19.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 2} The first edition of the commentaries on the Opuscula Sacra appeared in Boethius, , Opera Omnia (Basel 1570) 1128–1273, reprinted in 1861, in PL 64.1247-1412. Silvain, R., ‘Le texte des commentaires sur Boèce de Gilbert de la Porrée,’ Archives d’hist. doctr. et litt, du moyen âge 21 (1946) 175-189, offered a list of corrections based on two Parisian manuscripts (Q and S of the present edition). To make Gilbert's commentary fully understandable, the Boethian text woven into it must be marked clearly; the absence of such distinction in the current editions makes for cumbersome reading.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 3} For instance, in his comment on De Trinitate, prol. (PL 64.1260C) Gilbert offers three alternative readings: ‘Sed et tantum vel Sane tantum vel Sed ne tantum,’ of which only the second and third are listed in the Peiper edition of the Opuscula Sacra (Leipzig 1871; p. 150), where the third is adopted as authentic, while Stewart, H. F., Rand, E. K., Boethius: The theological tractates… (London 1918) 4, preferred the second. These variants may have been noted in a single manuscript, which appears probable in view of Gilbert’s shorter version of the Boethian text in sect. 36 of the present edition. The author of the commentary on Boethius, , De Trinitate (MS Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 14489, fol. 72^r) read: ‘Sed sane tantum vel Nunc tantum’ and observes later: ‘Alia littera habet Sed ne.’ Another instance of variants is found in sect. 25 of this edition.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 4} The crucial quo and qua were the particular objects of criticism, whose significance and importance I have analysed in ‘The case of Gilbert de la Porrée, Bishop of Poitiers,’ Mediaeval Studies 13 (1951) 1–40. To add some examples, in his commentary on the second Traditio tractate, where Gilbert wrote of the Trinity: ‘illa, qua sunt, substantia’ (PL 64.1308D), the MSS listed as FNT read: ‘illa, quae sunt, substantia.’ Despite this correction the scribe of N interpolated: ‘illa, quae sunt — melius dicitur: qua sunt — substantia.’ On a later occasion he amplifies the text as follows: ‘Unde coacta expositio et auctor recte infert’ (PL 64.1309G). The passage ‘eorum, qua sunt id quod sunt, essentia’ (PL 64.1307A) shows ‘eorum, quia’ in FQ, ‘eorum quae’ in W, corrected to ‘eorum qua’ in D. Gilbert read ‘id unum quo solus est’ (De Trinitate, PL 64.1273D), but the scribe of N observes: ‘emendatiora exemplaria habent praeter id quod est.’ On the other hand, the scribe of Q states: ‘Boethius hic ponit quo, non quod.’ His Boethian text agreed with that remark, though this was not always the case. Peiper (p. 153) adopted ‘quod‘ against his best MS and Stewart-Rand (p. 10) confirmed his choice, but Gilbert's copy must have read ‘quo.’ Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 5} Cf. Haring, , art. cit. 13 n. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 6} Cf. Grabmann, M., Geschichte der scholastischen Methode II (Freiburg i. B. 1911) 409ff.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 7} See note 4. One may be inclined to assume that Gilbert made certain changes after the Council of Rheims. This was not the case and the controversial passages remained untouched even in those MSS that contain the (second) prologue (cf. infra n. 10) written after the Council. Generally, this second prologue is placed before the original one. In DW it follows the original prologue.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 8} Not satisfied with such warnings, a Munich MS (N), originally preserved at Tegernsee, offers several long marginal refutations to show that Gilbert of Poitiers contradicts both himself and St. Hilary, the ancient Bishop of the same city.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 9} I have not been able to collate MS Vatican, Reg. lat. 420, fols. 1-60 (saec. XIII), described by Wilmart, A., Codices Reg. latini II (Rome 1945) 508; MS Paris, Bibl. Nat., lat. 12120, fols. 115^r-214^r (saec. XIII); MS Bruges, Bibl. Publ. 133; MS Troyes 1841; and others. MS Paris, Ste. Geneviève 1394, fols. 10-34, contains only the commentary on the De Trinitate. The great popularity of these commentaries may also be gathered from Manitius, M., Handschriften antiker Autoren in mittelalterlichen Bibliothekskatalogen (Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, Beiheft 67; Leipzig 1935) 275ff.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 10} The first prologue (‘Omnium quae rebus percipiendis suppeditant…’) is printed in Gilbert of Poitiers on Boethius PL 64.1255-1257; the second (‘Libros quaestionum Anicii…’) is only partially edited in PL (64.1247-1248) and by Hauréau (Notices VI 19-21, using our MSS QRT), but completely (from MS T) by Grabmann, , op. cit. II 417 n. 3. For the relation between the two prologues, see supra n. 7 and Hauréau VI 21.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 11} The problem of the authenticity of Tractate IV, De fide catholica, has been debated repeatedly in the past fifty years. The criteria are not clearly decisive; E. K. Rand, who in 1901 denied the work to Boethius, found it necessary to reverse his position. Bark, W., ‘Boethius’ Fourth Tractate,’ Harvard Theol. Rev. 39 (1946) 55–69, concludes that ‘in the present state of the evidence it is more sensible to assume that Boethius wrote Tr. IV than to suppose that someone else wrote it…’ (p. 67). The De fide cath. may have been missing from Gilbert's Boethius. Cf. Peiper xxi f.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 12} Leitschuh, F., Kat. d. Handschriften d. kgl. Bibl. zu Bamberg I 1 (Bamberg 1895-1906) 409-411. In this MS the commentary on the De Hebdomadibus precedes that on the De Trinitate. — For the MSS in general, see Grabmann II 415 n. 1 and Manitius, M., Gesch. d. lat. Lit. d. Mittelalters III (Munich 1931) 213.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 13} Delisle, , ‘Inventaire des manuscrits…,’ Bibl. de l'École des Chartes 31 (1870) 140. The first part of this MS (fols. 2-187^v) contains works of St. Bernard.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 14} Assigned to the thirteenth century in Catal. of Harl. MSS (London 1808) 734.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 15} According to Lauer, Ph., Bibl. Nat., Cat. gén. des mss. latins II (Paris 1940) 354, the MS was written in the fourteenth century, but it would rather seem to belong to the third quarter of the thirteenth.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 16} Delisle, , ‘Inventaire,’ BEC 31.138.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 17} Delisle, , ibid. It was probably written about the year 1200.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 18} Delisle, , op. cit. 540.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 19} Grabmann II 431.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 20} Grabmann II 409, 415.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 21} Described and dated by Molinier, A., Catal. des mss. de la Bibl. Mazarine I (Paris 1885) 299. There is a great deal of evidence that the MS is of English origin and was written about 1225.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 22} Molinier, , loc. cit. Written about 1225.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 23} Grabmann II 415 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 24} Grabmann II 415.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 25} Delisle, , ‘Inventaire,’ BEC 31.540, and especially Hauréau, , Notices VI 18-22.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 26} Vattasso, M., Franchi de’, P. Cavalieri, Codices Vat. lat. I (Rome 1902) 420, assign the MS to the fourteenth century, but according to Msgr. Auguste Pelzer it belongs to the first half of the thirteenth.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 27} Vattasso-Franchi de’ Cavalieri, loc. cit. Gilbert of Poitiers on Boethius Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 1} This title is found only in B and is hardly authentic. DW carry the folio-heading De Hebdomadibus on each folio, while the folio-headings in P read: Boetius De Hedbomadibus cum commento. Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 2} om. S: ipsi W: add. in FQ Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 28} Vicaire, M. H., ‘Les Porrétains et l'Avicennisme avant 1215,’ Rev. des sciences phil. et théol. 26 (1937) 449ff., offers an analysis of Gilbert's concept of being which is far from satisfactory. With implicit reference to Gilbert's ‘simplicem puramque formam’ (sect. 7 of this edition), he affirms: ‘… la créature possède l'être pur et simple (esse). Mais celui-ci n'est autre chose que l'être divin lui-même’ (p. 462). But Gilbert's simplex puraque forma is not the divine form, in this particular case, but the created form examined in its simplicity and purity by a method of mathematical abstraction. Gilbert's notion of participation is not a veiled pantheism, as Vicaire admits, but a concept of causality.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 29} Gilbert derived the term ‘metonymia’ from Quintilian, , Inst. orat. 8.6.23, who defines it as ‘nominis pro nomine positio.’ Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 30} Disput. 91, qu. 2 (ed. Warichez, J., Louvain 1932, p. 263).Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 31} Quaest. De Veritate, qu. 21, a. 4. — It may be noted here that the authentic title of Boethius’ third Opusculum is: ‘Quomodo substantiae in eo, quod sint, bonae sint, cum non sint substantialia bona.’ Since Gilbert omitted this title, it is reasonable to omit it in the edition. As a general rule, the Boethian text of the MSS begins with ‘Postulas…’ — I may finally note that I received a great deal of information concerning MSS from Fr. W. Principe, C.S.B., in Paris, without whose co-operation the task of locating them would have been extremely difficult, for neither Grabmann nor Manitius offer a complete list.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 3} dederunt LV Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 4} contendunt P, D Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 5} autumant L, T Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 6} odd. in V, T Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 7} add. non FQ Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 8} detinet P, BET Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 9} sensu FQ Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 10} potius FLQ, ET: om. CPV Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 11} exponere NW Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 12} adumbrantur DW Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 13} rationum L Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 14} anxiomata all MSS, except H Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 15} illa BN Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 16} aliis C: aliquorum FQ Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 17} Cf. Quintilian, Inst. orat. 4.1.40, 9.2.23 Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 18} Cf. ibid. 2.4.27, 6.3.5, 8.6.14 Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 19} Cf. ibid. 1.10.38 Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 20} logoys CFPQ, BDEHW: logoy L, T Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 21} om. CR, AHX Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 22} om. CP, DW: add. ergo A Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 23} Cicero, De inventione 1.29.46: Si mater est, diligit filium. Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 24} om. FQ: del. L (cf. Boethius, In Top. Ciceronis 5: PL 64.1144A) Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 25} Eo quod PR, EM Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 26} om. LQ Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 27} eius LQ Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 28} discussit CPS, M: concussit N Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 29} ab PRV, X Google Scholar

page 185 note 1³⁰ Incipit liber tertius eiusdem ad eundem De Hebdomadibus: Quomodo substantiae in eo, quod sunt, bonae sint, cum non sint substantialia bona W: Liber Boetii De Hebdomadibus F Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 31} ut FQ, E Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 32} quibus L, T: quibus suae V Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 33} consueverunt LS, MN Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 34} In the prologue to his Paradoxa Stoicorum, Cicero observes that Cato often cited locos graves, called paradoxa, because they are admirabilia. He believes that those he is about to discuss are derived from Socrates. Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 35} Plato SV, M Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 36} exempla P, N Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 37} comperui FQ, ABEHMWX Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 38} veraciter PRSV, ABHMNX. Google Scholar

page 185 note 2³⁹ speculatamque W: speculatasque X Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 40} add. sunt et V.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 41} multiplicatis CFL Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 42} om. DW Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 43} cum or tum CV, BMN. Tamen occurs in the Boethian text of EFPQ, while the other MSS read tum. Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 44} viam HN: vias M Google Scholar

page 186 note 3⁴⁵ arismetica FLQS, ET: arimetica R, MW Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 46} geometria PRS, EHMT Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 47} astronomia CFPQR, ET Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 48} analecticis L, BHMNTX Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 49} proponuntur FL, E Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 50} proposui FLSV, DW. — In the Boethian text, FPQST read proposui. Q gives the stroke for both pro and prae. Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 51} proposui FL, W. Q again puts in the strokes for both pro and prae. Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 52} ostendi C: ostendant H Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 53} multiplicatis P .Google Scholar

page 186 note 4¹ This title is not given in any MS of Gilbert's text, while most MSS have either the Roman numeral or the above title in the Boethian text. Gilbert probably used Roman numerals to indicate the respective rules. Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 2} facilitatis CV Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 3} aequivocantur (for et qui voc.) CFQ, AH. Concerning the communes loci, see Auct. ad Herennium 2.14.22, 30.48 and Quintilian, Inst. orat. 2.1.9, 2.4.22 Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 4} dialeticorum FPQR, DEWX Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 5} anxiomata all MSS except AX .Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 6} add. in SV, E Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 7} universitate CFLPQRSV, ABENT Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 8} loquimur P Google Scholar

page 187 note 5⁹ om. BN Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 10} universitate V, DTW Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 11} dialeticorum FP, EX Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 12} universitate V, DW Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 13} om. vocatur… locus L, T Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 14} collatio P, A; colocutio N Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 15} tantum BN Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 16} approbant PR: comprobat N Google Scholar

page 188 note 6¹⁷ om. LPV Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 18} om. ab essentia V Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 19} ponunt DW: praedicantur P, N Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 20} om. aliquid. Et similiter… esse B Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 21} dicuntur PR, X: dicitur B Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 22} ipsa L, T: om. Q, E Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 23} add. est PR .Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 24} theoremata LV Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 25} This view is attributed to Alexander by Boethius, In lib. Arist. De Interpret. (ed. II) 1; PL 64.432D Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 26} substantiis P Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 27} theologos CF Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 28} om. secundum… est L Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 29} theologos CF, N Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 30} om. tam usu… septimam CL Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 31} explanabimus T: explicabimus M Google Scholar

page 189 note 7³² substantia T Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 33} eam LV Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 34} subsistentiam V Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 35} quod P, B .Google Scholar

page 190 note 8³⁶ om. LPRV Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 37} add. et FQ, E Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 38} add. proprietates E Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 39} quod P, DW: corr. to quo AH Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 40} add. est CPR .Google Scholar

page 190 note 9⁴¹ om. LPV Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 42} corr. to quo A Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 43} om. CFPR, DT Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 44} quod H .Google Scholar

page 191 note 10⁴⁵ om. LPRV: add. Regulae quintae expositio B Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 46} om. in eo DW Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 47} tamen LV Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 48} qua CQRV, (M?) Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 49} om. Et esse… est LR, M: om. i.e. cui… est S Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 50} quod P, HW: corr. to quod A Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 51} esse CV, W Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 52} quod R, H Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 53} quo LV, DW Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 54} om. proponitur… auctore L: actore W: auctor A .Google Scholar

page 192 note 11⁵⁵ om. PR Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 56} participatione P Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 57} om. cum… aliquid T .Google Scholar

page 192 note 12⁵⁸ om. PR Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 59} concreata FV Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 60} ibi CP, T: ubi L Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 61} quae H .Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 62} diversas CFQV, E Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 63} om. CPV, BDHMW: add. later R, X Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 64} haec QSV, AX: om. PR Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 65} Deo quod P: eo qui V Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 66} add. Deo BEN Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 67} utroque CP: utrumque H Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 68} om. V, B: utrumque H Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 69} quod DWX: corr. to quo A Google Scholar

page 193 note 13⁷⁰ om. Unde… est V: om. octava regula PR Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 71} aliquid P, ADW Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 72} quod CFLPQ, EH Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 73} quilibet CP, DNW .Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 74} quod HW Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 75} om. subsistens… compositum FLQ Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 76} om. unoquoque… quorum FLS Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 77} qua T: quam LS: marg. Talem simplicitatem glosator hic Deo attribuit. Violenta expositio N Google Scholar

page 194 note 14⁷⁸ om. LPV, T Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 79} quae D Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 80} om. ut… est P Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 81} om. ut quaelibet L: om. quaelibet S, T .Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 82} tantum DW Google Scholar

page 195 note 15⁸³ effectus CL, ADHMW .Google Scholar

page 195 note 16⁸⁴ quia FPQRV, E .Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 85} quia PRV Google Scholar

page 196 note 18¹ huius V: illius W Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 2} add. ostendit BN Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 3} All MSS read aliam and only the scribe of M tried to overcome the difficulty by writing et aliam. Yet only alia (quaestio) seems to make sense. Gilbert means to say that through this quaestio another quaestio is dialectically made doubtful, until the final ‘cloud of this enigma’ is dispelled. Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 4} non R, M: om. L, T .Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 5} tamen R, DW Google Scholar

page 197 note 19⁶ tamen PR Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 7} De inventione 1.40.72 Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 8} om. Quod enim… est L .Google Scholar

page 198 note 20⁹ substantiam E Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 10} quod PR Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 11} haberetur QRV, DEW Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 12} om. an. participatione P .Google Scholar

page 198 note 21¹³ habet V: habent R: habeant P Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 14} substantia A Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 15} quae R (V?).Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 16} Cf. Boethius, In Porph. 3: PL 64.108A, 110D Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 17} participan BN Google Scholar

page 198 note 22¹⁸ om. BN Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 19} All MSS, with the exception of R (simbebicota) and P (simbebikota), offer some sort of Greek letters that are partly illegible, partly resemble cumbhipota (FQ, B) or cumbhbirota (AMT). Gilbert probably copied the word from Quintilian, Inst. orat. 3.6.36 and presumably wrote it in Greek capital letters. Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 20} deleted E Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 21} om. quam proprietate… genere L .Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 22} exemplum PR Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 23} substantiae DW Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 24} om. PR Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 25} aliud LS Google Scholar

page 199 note 23²⁶ add. est LS Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 27} add. non N .Google Scholar

page 199 note 24²⁸ differentias L Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 29} quod CFLRS, ET: corr. to quo D: corr. to quod Q. Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 30} quae CFQ Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 31} om. DW: corr. to quo A Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 32} om. PRS Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 33} quod PR, DMNW Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 34} om. Sed… esse CFLPQR Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 35} diversae AM Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 36} Horace, De arte poetica 372 Google Scholar

page 200 note 25³⁷ om. V, DEW .Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 38} om. B. In the Boethian text all MSS read quin. Only in Q is quia corrected to quin, while S is also corrected bat illegible. Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 39} Gilbert's copy of Boethius must have read substantiali instead of substantialia, which both Peiper (p. 170) and Stewart-Rand (p. 44) adopted as authentic. This is confirmed by the Boethian text of all MSS except BS (which read substantiali).Google Scholar

page 201 note 26⁴⁰ om. CFLPQRV Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 41} ipsum CFQS, ABDHMNX Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 42} om. P, N: dominus R Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 43} essentia DW .Google Scholar

page 201 note 27⁴⁴ om. suum… esse PR Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 45} Deum S, ABDEMNTW Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 46} proprietate V .Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 47} tendunt B: tendere N Google Scholar

page 202 note 28¹ igitur LQ, T Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 2} om. ut… eorum R Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 3} om. ut… separantur L Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 4} add. vel DEW: add. est B (all Boethian texts read ut cum) Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 5} substantia FQ Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 6} actus L. In the Boethian text, all MSS except DLSX read actu and substantiate Stewart-Rand's correction (p. 44) of Peiper’s meaningless sentence (p. 171).Google Scholar

page 202 note 29⁷ ab S, AX Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 8} quidem L, ET Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 9} praesenti L, ET: praesentem CFQ, AM .Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 10} Cf. Cicero, De inventione 1.22.65 Google Scholar

page 203 note 30¹¹ om. ponamus… subsistunt L Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 12} esset LPR Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 13} substantia C.Google Scholar

page 203 note 31¹⁴ quo PR, B Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 15} debemus P, DW Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 16} quod R, H Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 17} esset BN Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 18} quod DEW Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 19} quod rotunditas occurs in the Boethian text of BEX and may have been found in Gilbert's Boethius. Google Scholar

page 204 note 32²⁰ essent CFLV, DW: esse H Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 21} esse S: est H: om. PR Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 22} esset DNW Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 23} quia N .Google Scholar

page 204 note 33²⁴ substantia N Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 25} videntur BN Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 26} videtur P: videntur R, N (D?).Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 27} videntur PR, W Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 28} videtur P, W Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 29} om. sit… quibus C, H Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 30} possit CLQ, DEHMNW Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 31} quolibet H: qualibet C Google Scholar

page 204 note 34³² quo B .Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 33} quod H Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 34} denominationem FPQRV, BN Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 35} om. primum… bonu m M Google Scholar

page 205 note 35³⁶ subsistentia ABDEHMNWX Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 37} annuntiant DW Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 38} quod CFLPQR, DHW .Google Scholar

page 205 note 36³⁹ denominatione EW Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 40} vel PR, AMN Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 41} sunt PRS, HT .Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 42} ab M Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 43} denominative E Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 44} In Gilbert's copy this chapter in Boethius ended with the sentence: Tunc enim in eo, which agrees with Stewart-Rand (p. 46), while Peiper (p. 172) adds: quod essent, non essent bona, si a primo bono minime defluxissent. The shorter Boethian text is found in BFNPQSV. L reads: Tunc enim in eo bona sunt and X is interpolated as follows: Tunc enim substantiae in eo bonae sunt. The other MSS have the longer version (adopted by Peiper), but four of them (DEMW) read: Tunc enim in eo quod sunt non essent… defluxissent.Google Scholar

page 206 note 37⁴⁵ incipit CR, DW Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 46} multarum F .Google Scholar

page 206 note 38⁴⁷ add. substantia i.e. BN Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 48} om. secundum vero… essentia P .Google Scholar

page 206 note 39⁴⁹ add. bonum BN .Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 50} add. bona CFPQR Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 51} add. bona LQ Google Scholar

page 207 note 40⁵² sunt P, ABHX Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 53} quae C: quo M Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 54} ipsum BN .Google Scholar

page 207 note 41⁵⁵ habet V, E. With the exception of M, all MSS read haberent in the Boethian text. Accordingly, most MSS continue with non possent, with the exception of S, MN. Both Peiper (p. 173) and Stewart-Rand (p. 48) adopted haberent. Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 56} om. Bono… primo R .Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 57} id quod sunt a quo quicquid CFLPQRSV Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 58} potuerunt CFLPQRV, ET Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 59} quod CQ Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 60} om. et all MSS, except A, in which it was added later, presumably to establish conformity with the Boethian text; et, though read in the Boethian text of all MSS, must have been missing in Gilbert's copy. Google Scholar

page 208 note 42⁶¹ Both Peiper (p. 173) and Stewart-Rand (p. 48) read: At non etiam alba in eo quod sunt alba esse oportebit ea quae alba sunt, quoniam ex voluntate Dei fluxerunt ut essent, alba minime. Gilbert took it to be a question and read: At non etiam alba in eo, quod sunt, alba esse oportebit ea quae alba sunt, quoniam ex voluntate Dei fluxerunt, ut essent? Mimine. The Boethian text in DW reads; An etiam… which would confirm Gilbert's interpretation. Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 62} add. Aliud eis est esse L, E .Google Scholar

page 208 note 43⁶³ sint CFLQV, ET .Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 64} quia PR, N Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 65} om. bona… dicuntur L Google Scholar

page 209 note 44⁶⁶ om. LQ, T Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 67} add. fluxerunt et a quo V Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 68} respondit FPR Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 69} ne N. Gilbert's copy of Boethius must have read nec, which is actually found in the Boethian text of V, NTX. Among the others, FLPQ, BDMW read ne, and in S, E ne is corrected to nec.Google Scholar

page 209 note 45⁷⁰ aliud L .Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 71} solum FQ: solus X Google Scholar

page 210 note 46⁷² denominatione HW Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 73} essentia CFLQ Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 74} God, the Id quod est Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 75} quoniam CPRV Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 76} ipso L, T: Deo V Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 77} actu PR Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 78} vel V: vel etiam BN Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 79} coepit L, EW .Google Scholar

page 210 note 47⁸⁰ om. nostram… mentem P .Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 81} dicuntur V, W: dicamur M Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 82} nobis L, T Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 83} add. est L Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 84} credimur DW Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 85} om. esse… dicimur L Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 86} simus L, DW Google Scholar

page 211 note 48⁸⁷ esse FQ, ET Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 88} conformativa L, T Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 89} dialeticorum FPQ, DEHWX Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 90} Explicit expositio Gisilberti Pictaviensis Episcopi super Boetii lib. De Hebdomadibus Bonorum B: Explicit liber De Hebdomadibus (written by a different hand) D: With the exception of CFV, the other MSS simply continue with the opening words of the next treatise: Non sum nescius etc. C continues with the first prologue to De Trinitate. F notes: Prologus Gilleberti Porretani in libro Boetii De duabus naturis et una persona Christi. V states: Incipit explanatio Pictavensis Episcopi super librum Anitii Severini Boetii Do duabus naturis et una persona Christi: lucidius exposita, perfectius expolita.Google Scholar