G. Wilson – författare

A much-needed contemporary analysis of the Common Agricultural Policy and Germany's role within it. The authors investigate the effect of reunification on German policy today, and ask whether she has acted as leader, partner or obstructor in the formation of policy. Their analysis includes social and environmental aspects, as well as the economic and political, with a special focus on the 'green agenda' in European agriculture.

A much-needed contemporary analysis of the Common Agricultural Policy and Germany's role within it. The authors investigate the effect of reunification on German policy today, and ask whether she has acted as leader, partner or obstructor in the formation of policy.

Henry of Ghent's Summa, art. 1-5, composed probably before 1276, are the opening articles of Henry's grand masterpiece, his Quaestiones ordinariae or Summa. This Summa was, from what Henry himself indicated, to be in two sections: a section De Deo and a section De creaturis, but the second part was never composed, probably due to Henry's death in 1293. What has survived is an "unfinished cathedral," as Bayerschmidt has described.These opening articles are part of the "prolog" and they treat epistemological issues such as skepticism and the very possibility of human knowledge, divine "illustration," teaching, certitude, knowledge of non entities, the desire for knowledge, and the nature of study. This "epistemological" concern marked deeply the development of thought in the High Middle Ages and influenced the Franciscan, John Duns Scotus, and through Scotus, William of Ockham.The text of the critical edition is reconstructed based upon a manuscript of Godfrey of Fontaines containing these articles which was willed to the Sorbonne when Godfrey died. This manuscript seems to have been composed in the very school of Henry. Other manuscripts which were used were two that may have been copied from the apograph, three copied from the first Parisian exemplar divided into pieces (peciae), and two copied from a second exemplar.

The editon of Henry of Ghent's Quodlibet VII makes available the critical text of an influential work. Written near the end of 1282, this Quodlibet is perhaps best known because it contains Henry's initial discussion of the papal bull Ad fructus uberes, which had granted certain exaggerated privileges to the mendicants. Henry's text puts forward arguments which limit wide interpretations of the bull and sets forth a position which favors the secular clergy. These arguments set the stage for discussions of the privileges granted by the papal bull. Indeed, Richard of Mediavilla in his Quaestio Privilegii Papae Martini makes a case for the mendicants by addressing the arguments of Quodlibet VII point by point. Henry himself reiterates and elaborates his arguments in subsequent Quodlibetaand in the Tractatus super facto praelatorum et fratrum. His analyses of Ad fructus uberes lead to discussions of poverty in the religious life, which Henry argues is not a perfection but a means to perfection.Quodlibet VII also treats more philosophical matters, e.g. transcendentals, God's essence and knowledge, knowledge of the divine essence, genus, difference, matter, relation, quantity, human knowledge, and the human body. In addition, the text contains a response to some claims in Berthaud of Saint denis' Quodlibet I, q17. This fellow secular master has not been studied or edited, but he emerges here and in the Tractatus as a secular master with whom Henry disagreed.The edited text was established from the manuscript PARIS, Bibl. Nat., lat. 15350 and from manuscripts copied from a first university exemplar in paris. Three manuscripts, copied from a possible second exemplar, are collated for on pecia only. The critical study explains the editiorial method, which is complicated by two facts. First, the text of Quodlibet VII in the manuscript PARIS, Bibl. Nat., lat. 15350 seems to be copied from two different models. There is a noticeable change of ink in the text at the beginning of question 23. The text of this manuscript prior to this change is rather sonsestently superior to the first university exemplar. After this change, the text although occasionally equal or superior to the text of the first university exemplar, will often need to be coorected by the readings of the first exemplar. The second complication is that for three of the peciae, specifically peciae 10, 11, and 13, the manuscripts that depend on this exemplar form definite subgroups, probably because these peciae were either corrected or replaced.