Henrici de Gandavo Summa

Henrici de Gandavo Summa: Quaestiones ordinariae art. XLVII-LII

MARKUS FÜHRER
Volume: 30
Copyright Date: 2007
Published by: Leuven University Press
Pages: 356
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qf00c
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    Henrici de Gandavo Summa
    Book Description:

    Volume 30 of the Henrici de Gandavo Opera Omnia series is devoted to Henry’s Summa quaestionum ordinariarum, articles 47-52. This section of Henry’s Summa deals with the action of the (divine) will; the divine will in relation to the divine intellect; divine beatitude; passion in relation to the divine being; the differences between the divine attributes; and the order of the divine attributes. The critical edition of the text is accompanied by a detailed introduction to the manuscripts and to Henry’s sources.

    eISBN: 978-94-6166-056-5
    Subjects: Philosophy

Table of Contents

  1. Front Matter
    (pp. I-IV)
  2. FOREWORD
    (pp. V-VI)

    As each new volume in this edition of Henry of Ghent’s works appears, we learn more about Henry as a thinker. A critical edition of a medieval writer not only determines the text with a scientific exactitude, but also reveals how the author skillfully employs his authorities in order to establish his position of analysis. In Henry’s case there are a few surprises, as the reader will see who peruses the tables and notes to this edition. Henry drew from a rather extensive reading of the standard medieval authorities of his day. There is little that is new or exotic...

  3. CRITICAL STUDY
    • THE EDITIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS
      (pp. IX-XIII)

      Two printed editions of Henry of Ghent’sSummaprecede the present critical edition. They are described by R. Macken in his article,Les corrections d’Henri de Gand à sa Somme, in hisBibliotheca manuscripta Henrici de Gandavo, and in the critical study of his edition of Henry’sSumma, art. 31-34¹. The first edition was printed in 1520 by Badius at Paris. It was reprinted in 1953 by the Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University². The second edition was printed in 1646 by Scarparius at Ferrara³. P. Glorieux in hisRépertoire des maîtres en théologie de Paris au XIIIesièclereports...

    • THE TEXT EXAMINED EXTERIORLY: HISTORICAL AND CODICOLOGICAL ELEMENTS USED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TEXT
      (pp. XIV-XVIII)

      Gómez-Caffarena has shown that in general a number of cross references exist between Henry’sSummaand hisQuodlibeta.¹ In articles 47-52 of the section of theSummaedited in this volume theQuodlibetaare implicitly referred to four times: p. 160, 822-823 (a reference toQuodlibet IV, q. 7); p. 227, 6-7 (a reference toQuodlibet IV, q. 15); p. 229, 46-49 (a reference toQuodlibet IV, q. 15); and p. 255, 156-159 (a reference toQuodlibet VI, q. 1). They are explicitly referred to seven times: p. 18, 19; p. 45, 80; p. 50, 185; p. 170, 21; p....

    • THE TEXT EXAMINED INTERIORLY: THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE MANUSCRIPTS, ESTABLISHED BY A GENERAL TEST COLLATION
      (pp. XIX-XXIX)

      The general test collation of all the manuscripts containing the text edited in this volume was conducted by selecting one hundred and fifty lines from eachpeciaof the first exemplar.Pecia70, however, begins late in question four of article fifty-two and it was, therefore, not possible to test the full hundred and fifty lines for thispecia. The test shows two kinds of accidents: those unique to a particular manuscript and those common to two or more manuscripts. The former reveals mainly scribal errors in copying while the latter permits manuscripts to be formed into groups based on...

    • MANUSCRIPT 8 (PARIS, Bibl. Nat., lat. 15355) INDEPENDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY TRADITION
      (pp. XXX-XXXIV)

      Articles 47 through 52 of Henry’sSummain this series contain only a few corrections and none of the compound levels of corrections as described in R. Macken’s critical edition ofSumma, art. 31-34.¹ For the portion of Henry’sSummathat appears in the present volume manuscript A is closer to the section of the work containing articles 35-40 as edited by G. Wilson.² There is evidence for the present portion of theSummathat corraborates Wilson’s hypothesis of manuscript A being copied from a written model.³

      In the inferior right margin of f. 204vbof manuscript A the words...

    • THE TOULOUSE MANUSCRIPT
      (pp. XXXV-XXXIX)

      There are a number of instances in the portion of Henry’sSummaedited in the present volume where the manuscript of Toulouse (T’) indicates its independence from manuscript A and the manuscripts of the first exemplar. Because of these instances, manuscript A cannot be regarded as the model of manuscript T’. There are two homoeoteleuta in manuscript A that are not found in manuscript T’, which indicate that manuscript T’ was not copied from manuscript A.¹ There are also seventeen homoeoteleuta in manuscript T’ that are not found in manuscript A.² So it is unlikely that manuscript A was copied...

    • THE FIRST PARISIAN EXEMPLAR
      (pp. XL-XLI)

      When the first exemplar is compared with manuscript A there are many places where it is clearly inferior to manuscript A. The General Table of the Number of Common Accidents by Groups found above shows that the first exemplar contains a total of two hundred fifty-seven accidents when compared to manuscript A.¹ These accidents include incorrect readings, homoeoteleuta, and omissions where manuscript A has correct readings. There are, however, instances where the first Parisian exemplar is superior to manuscript A or where it has readings that have been omitted by manuscript A. This exemplar, therefore, must be considered in the...

    • THE SECOND PARISIAN EXEMPLAR
      (pp. XLII-XLII)

      Two manuscripts, Padua,Biblioteca Capitolare, ms. C.45(=P’) and Zwijnaarde (Gent),Comtesse Goethals de Mude(=K’), make it possible to reconstruct the second Parisian university exemplar for the section of Henry’sSummaedited in this volume. The high number of common readings along with a significant coincidence ofpeciatransitions for the section of theSummaedited in the present volume¹ clearly indicate that the two manuscripts were copied from the same exemplar.

      The second exemplar introduces a number of changes that differentiate it from the first Parisian exemplar. For example, the test collation discovered that the second Parisian exemplar...

    • THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CRITICAL TEXT
      (pp. XLIII-XLV)

      In order to reconstruct a critical text for the portion of Henry’sSummaincluded in the present volume the manuscript Paris,Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. Lat. 15355(= A) was used as the principal working text. This manuscript is a copy of the autograph or possibly Henry of Ghent’s ownliber magistri.¹ There are a number of cases in the present volume where the readings of manuscript A are the only cogent readings possible. For example in the opening article of this volume alone there are six places where manuscript A has the better readings. In the first question (p. 4,...

    • THE REFERENCES IN SUMMA, ART. 47-52
      (pp. XLVI-XLVIII)

      The section of Henry’sSummaedited in this volume contains references to prior as well as subsequent articles of the work itself as well as to some of hisQuodlibeta. In one instance Henry refers his readers to the portion of theSummaknown as theDe creaturisthat he did not complete.² As has been demonstrated above, references to theQuodlibeta, particularlyQuodlibet VI, q. 1 help establish the date for the section of theSummaedited in this volume.³ But Henry’s reference to this work twelve times demonstrates a dependence on his earlier work and suggests a kind...

    • PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF THE SUMMA, ART. 47-52
      (pp. XLIX-XLIX)
    • THE GENESIS OF THE EXEMPLARS, REPRESENTED BY A DIAGRAM
      (pp. L-LI)
    • TECHNIQUE OF THE EDITION
      (pp. LII-LIII)
    • SYMBOLS
      (pp. LIV-LIV)
    • ABBREVIATIONS
      (pp. LV-LVI)
    • SIGLA OF THE MANUSCRIPTS
      (pp. LVII-LVIII)
  4. Summa, art. 47-52
    • ARTICULUS XLVII DE ACTIONE VOLUNTATIS, QUAE EST VELLE SIVE AMARE
      (pp. 3-34)

      Sequitur de actione voluntatis, quae est velle sive amare. Circa quam quaeruntur quattuor.|Primo de ipsa actione voluntatis, quae est velle vel amare secundum se. Secundo de ipsa in comparatione ad actionem intellectus, quae est intelligere. Et quia in altera illarum vel in ambabus consistit Dei beatitudo, ideo tertio quaeretur de Dei beatitudine. Et quia beatitudini adnexa est delectatio, ideo quarto quaeretur de Dei delectatione.

      Circa primum istorum quaeruntur quinque: primum, si Deus sit volens; secundum, si quilibet actus eius volendi sit eiusdem rationis; tertium, si Deus velit se ipsum; quartum, si actus volendi se ipsum principaliter terminetur ad essentiam vel...

    • ARTICULUS XLVIII DE ACTU VOLUNTATIS, QUI EST VELLE, IN COMPARATIONE AD ACTUM INTELLECTUS, QUI EST INTELLIGERE
      (pp. 35-63)

      Sequitur de actu voluntatis, qui est velle, in comparatione ad actum intellectus, qui est intelligere. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primum, si praeter istos duos actus divinos essentiales manentes intra sit aliquis alius. Secundum, si velle in Deo sit actio principalior quam intelligere....

    • ARTICULUS XLIX DE DEI BEATITUDINE
      (pp. 64-175)

      |Sequitur de Dei beatitudine. Circa quam quaeruntur octo. Primum, si beatitudo sit in Deo. Secundum, si tres personae unica beatitudine sint beatae. Tertium, si tres personae sint unus beatus vel plures beati. Quartum, si beatitudo Dei constet in uno vel in pluribus. Quintum, si Dei beatitudo sit eius essentia vel aliqua eius actio. Sextum, si aeque principaliter constet in actione intellectus et voluntatis. Septimum, si in se contineat rationes omnium beatitudinum. Octavum, si praesupponit productionem personarum....

    • ARTICULUS L DE DELECTATIONE ET AFFECTIONE DEI
      (pp. 176-210)

      | Sequitur de delectatione Dei. Et quia ipsa est affectio, ideo circa hoc quaerenda sunt duo. Primum de affectione in generali, utrum in Deo sit ponenda affectio. Secundum de affectione | delectationis in speciali, utrum sit in Deo ut aliquid adnexum eius beatitudini....

    • ARTICULUS LI DE DIFFERENTIA ATTRIBUTORUM DIVINORUM INTER SE
      (pp. 211-241)

      Pertractatis dubitabilibus quae pertinent ad divinas proprietates communes sive attributa eius, ut considerantur in se et absolute, sequitur de illis quae pertinent ad ipsa, secundum quod comparantur inter se et ad ipsam divinam essentiam. Et sunt duo: primum de differentia attributorum inter se et ab ipsa essentia; secundum vero est de ordine ipsorum inter se et ad illa quae in ipsa divina essentia considerantur. |

      Circa primum istorum quaeruntur tria. Primum si attributa in Deo aliquam habeant inter se differentiam. Secundum si quaedam illorum differant inter se plus, quaedam vero minus. Tertium si differentia eorum ponat aliquam compositionem in Deo....

    • ARTICULUS LII DE ORDINE ATTRIBUTORUM, QUI SEQUITUR EORUM PLURALITATEM
      (pp. 242-274)

      |Sequitur de ordine attributorum, qui sequitur eorum pluralitatem. Et circa hoc sunt quattuor dubitabilia. Primum, si sit ponere aliquem ordinem in divinis. Secundum, si ille ordo sit rationis tantum, vel naturae tantum, vel utriusque. Tertium, si ordo in divinis sit sine priori et posteriori. Quartum, si ordo in divinis sit sine primo, secundo et tertio....

  5. Tables
  6. Back Matter
    (pp. 293-298)