Girard J. Etzkorn – författare

Henry of Ghent's Quodlibet XV, his last Quodlibet before his death, was composed sometime after the fall of Acre (May 10, 1291) and Nicolas IV's letter Illuminet super nos (sent on August 1, 1291), both of which are referred to in this Quodlibeta. This Quodlibet would have been prepared for distribution shortly after the public disputation was delivered, either in Advent of 1291 or Lent of 1292. The sixteen questions treat a range of issues, e.g. the immaculate conception, the omnipotence of God, the nature of an "instance", the absolute and ordained powers of the pope and the nature of a just war. The positions of Henry in Quodlibet XV were influential. For example, nearly a century after its composition, Thomas de Rossy refers to this text of Henry in his De conceptione Virginis Immaculatae. The text was reconstructed based upon manuscripts copied from a first Parisian university exemplar, manuscripts whose model was probably a second Parisian university exemplar, and a manuscript which was in the possession of Godfrey of Fontaines, whose model may have been a nearly completed version of what would ultimately be a source of the first Parisian exemplar.

In the process of completing his critical edition of Marcus of Orvieto’s Liber de Moralitatibus, Dr. Girard J. Etzkorn happened upon a set of questions attributed to Henry of Ghent at the end of Rome’s Bibliotheca Angelica codex 750. These questions are edited in this volume under the proviso ‘attributed to’ so that scholars may compare the texts with other works of the Ghentian master known to be authentic. Based upon some intitial comparisons Etzkorn concludes that the ten questions appear to be of two literary genres. The first six are best fitted into the category of Disputed Questions while Questions seven to ten are better characterized as Quodlibetal questions given their relative brevity and small number of objections ‘pro’ and ‘contra’. Moreover, the ten questions seem to be ‘selected’ questions and were not likely disputed at the same time. Future investigations are essential to find out if the questions may indeed be attributed to Henry himself or whether they have been written by one of Henry’s disciples who was ‘copying’ the thoughts and words of the master.

Ancient and Medieval Philosophy-Series 2, No. 37The Stadsbibliotheek of Brugge houses a manuscript (ms. 510, f. 227ra-237vb) that holds a short logical text on the Syncategoremata. In this manuscript the text is ascribed to Henry of Ghent, who was a leading thinker of the second half of the thirteenth century. If Henry wrote the text, he had much more technical knowledge of logic and semantics than is often imagined. The text was influenced by the logical works of Peter of Spain.

Reduced Price!Now only € 40,00 instead of € 80,00This commentary exists in two versions:The major version is contained in 17 manuscripts and the critical edition of it is being prepared by a team of specialists led by Prof. Tiziana Suarez-Nani of the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. A minor version is found in one Vatican manuscript and is being edited by Prof. Em. Girard J. Etzkorn. The texts edited in this volume all deal with creation, and investigate such central philosophical and theological issues as action, production, and causality, being and nothingness, the nature of time, God’s relation to the world he created, and the distinction between God’s creation and God’s conservation of the world. Typical of this section of Sentences commentaries is a discussion of the eternity of the world (q. 12), in which Marchia defends the (counterfactual) possibility of the world’s eternality as well as the possibility of an actual infinite. Somewhat more unusual for this part of a medieval Sentences commentary is Marchia’s highly detailed discussion of the problem of universals and the validity of syllogistic argumentation, all of this part of Marchia’s attempt to determine whether creation can be demonstrated about God (q. 1). Throughout these twelve questions, Marchia challenges the ideas of some of the later Middle Ages’ best minds, including Peter Auriol, Durand of St. Pourçain, John Duns Scotus, Henry of Ghent, and Giles of Rome.

Henry of Ghent, the most influential philosopher/theologian of the last quarter of the 13th century at Paris, delivered his fourth Quodlibet during 1279. This Quodlibet was written at the beginning of what could be called the height of his career.In total there are 37 questions, which cover a wide range of topics, including theories in theology, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophical anthropology, ethics, and canon law. In these questions Henry presents his mature thought concerning the number of human substantial forms in which he counters the claims of the defenders of Thomas Aquinas, particularly those in Giles of Lessines’s De unitate formae, but also those found in Giles of Rome’s Contra Gradus. He is critical of Thomas Aquinas’s theories concerning human knowledge, the ‘more’ and the ‘less,’ and virtue. He also is critical of Bonaventure’s analysis of Augustine’s notion of rationes seminales.There are 33 known manuscripts which contain the text of Quodlibet IV, and the critical text is reconstructed based upon manuscripts known to have been in Henry’s school, as well as manuscripts copied from two successive university exemplars in Paris.

Reduced Price!Now only € 40,00 instead of € 85,00The texts edited in this volume deal with angelology and anthropology, and particularly with the nature and the functions of immaterial substances like angels and the human rational soul. Marchia discusses such controversial issues as universal hylomorphism, i.e., whether angels and the rational soul are composed of both matter and form (q. 13), the immortality of the soul (qq. 18-19), and the nature and the object of the intellect and will (qq. 20, 21), as well as the functionality of the angelic intellect - whether angels understand through discursive reasoning (q. 23), and how they can speak with each other (q. 26). The problematic nature of the relationship between the material and the immaterial is approached through asking whether an angel can produce a material object (q. 22) and whether a material object can be the source of an angel's understanding of that object (q. 25). A particularly interesting treatment concerns how angels, immaterial substances, can be in a place (q. 16); this treatment includes Marchia's attempt to provide a physical theory explaining why an angel cannot move over some distance instantaneously.Throughout these fifteen questions, Marchia challenges the ideas of some of the best minds of the later Middle Ages, not only major figures of the thirteenth century like Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Henry of Ghent, and Giles of Rome but also fourteenth-century authors like John Duns Scotus, Hervaeus Natalis, Walter Burley, and Peter Auriol.This publication is GPRC-labeled (Guaranteed Peer-ReviewedContent).

Reduced Price!Now only € 40,00 instead of € 80,00In the questions contained in this volume, Francis of Marchia explores subjects that earned him his fame in the Middle Ages and in the history of ideas: physics and philosophical psychology. He confronts the key issues in celestial physics, concluding with his well-known proofs for terrestrial and celestial beings having the same type of matter (q. 32). Marchia's discussion of how elemental qualities persist in mixtures (qq. 33-36) leads to a spirited and unique defense of a mind-body dualism: not even the sensory faculties are coextensive with the body (q. 37). Moreover, each living being has two forms: the soul and the form of the body (q. 38). Marchia rejects the Averroistic doctrine of the unicity of the intellect (qq. 39-40), as well as acts of understanding being entirely the result of external stimuli (q. 41). Those positions in turn inform his investigation of the mechanics of thinking and willing, and his establishment of the will's priority over the intellect (qq. 42-47). Finally, Marchia balances human free willing with God's absolute power and cooperation in all matters (qq. 48-49).Throughout these questions, Marchia shows his originality and sharp intellect. Although at times his solutions look similar to those of John Duns Scotus, they are in fact very different, reflecting Marchia's awareness of the problems and limitations involved in not only Scotus' views, but also those of Aristotle and Averroes, Thomas Aquinas and Henry of Ghent, among many others.This publication is GPRC-labeled (Guaranteed Peer-Reviewed Content).