Henry of Ghent – författare

The three articles from Henry of Ghent’s Summa of Ordinary Questions translated in this volume are the first that deal with the Trinity.They follow upon Henry’s treatment of the divine attributes in articles forty-one to fifty-two. Article fifty-three asks ten questions about the sense in which a person exists in God, and article fifty-four asks ten questions about the emanations or processions of one divine person from another, while article fifty-five asks six questions about the properties or notions of the divine persons.Henry was obviously a voracious reader of the Fathers of the Church and the medieval masters of theology in the centuries before him. He cites extensively from Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, Boethius, Hilary of Poitiers, Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Lombard, Richard of Saint Victor, and Thomas Aquinas among Western Latin fathers and theologians and from Pseudo-Dionysius and John of Damascus among the Eastern or Greek fathers. But besides such well-known thinkers he cites other masters who are less well-known, such as Praepositinus, Simon of Tournai, Gerard La Pucelle, and Giles of Rome. Henry also quotes such philosophers as Aristotle, Porphyry, and Averroes, who of course have little to say on the Trinity.Brief introduction to the questions that Henry discusses in each of the three articles: In article fifty-three Henry first of all situates the following questions within his Summa of Ordinary Questions and explains that he will firstly deal with the persons in general in articles fifty-three and fifty-four and then withthe properties or notions of the persons in article fifty-five. Article fifty-three discusses “the manner of the being of persons in God” and article fifty-four is concerned with “the manner of one person’s emanating from another.”Article fifty-three has ten questions, the first of which is whether one needs to hold that there is a person in God. In his resolution of the question Henry appeals to what he previously established, namely, that we “must attribute to God whatever is without qualification more worthy or better to be than not to be.” Appealing to the authority of Richard of Saint Victor, Henry argues that “person” signifies something incommunicable in a rational or intellectual nature and is something of dignity and nobility. Hence, we must hold that there is a person in God.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Along with the Quodlibeta, the Summa is the most important work of Henry of Ghent, the famous philosopher and theologian of the University of Paris at the end of the 13th century. Fully justified is the praise expressed by Henry of Hereford (+1370) when he speaks of the "profunditas mirabilis" of this work.Just as the 15 Quodlibeta are a more extensive working out of Henry's quodlibetical disputations at the University of Paris, so too is the Summa a more detailed publication of his ordinary lessons in the faculty of theology, which the author himself preferred to call Quaestiones Ordinariae.This new critical edition of the Summa comprises articles 31-34. This new edition is preceded by a general introduction by professor L. Hödl, presenting the theological and philosophical ideas of Henry of Ghent, which are expressed in a systematic manner in his Summa.

The first two volumes of Henry of Ghent's Summa were published in 1991, edited by Dr. R. Macken, and in 1994, edited by Dr. G.A. Wilson. Now a third volume has been published, containing the articles 41-46, dealing with the goodness and perfection of God, His totality (totalitas) and infiniteness, His will and love. In 1277 a polemic began between the theological and philosophical faculties of the University of paris. In this polemic Magister Henry of Ghent (+1293) defended the position that knowledge of God could only be achieved by linking the divine concept to the biblical Neo-Platonic and the Aristotelian-cum-Averroean traditions. He found answers to every question posed by the philosophers and guided theologians through the philosophical labyrinth. His work is definitely on a level with the pentrating questions Thomas Aquinas asked in his Summa. The history of the texts written by the scholastics presents the double aspect of the university tadtion and frequent text revisions. The copied texts were corrupted as a result of frequent emendations. A computer text editing programme (Critical Edition Typoesetter) helps us te re-establish both emendations and corruptions (including emendations resulting in further corruptions). The list of variant readings should not only show the textual corruptions, but should also highlight the textual criticism of the scholastics which caused particular texts to become recognized as the standard.

Critical study of the ‘second part’ of Henry’s Summa devoted to the Persons of the Trinity Henry of Ghent’s Summa, art. 53-55, was composed shortly after Christmas of 1281, at the height of Henry’s teaching career in the Theology Faculty at the University in Paris. These questions, which begin the ‘second part’ of his Summa, are devoted to the Persons of the Trinity. They contain Henry’s philosophical analyses of the theoretical concepts person, relation, and universals. The text has been reconstructed based upon manuscripts copied from a first and second Parisian university exemplar. In the critical study that precedes the Latin text, the editors argue that the manuscript, Biblioteca VATICANA, Borghese 17, which contains the texts of these articles and which has, in the latter part of this manuscript, many of the features of an exemplar divided into pecia, could not have been the exemplar divided into pecia for these particular articles. The volume concludes with the typical tables. This publication is GPRC-labeled (Guaranteed Peer-Reviewed Content).

First critical edition of articles XXV–XXVII of the Summa (Quaestiones ordinariae) of Henry of GhentDas Buch bietet die erste kritische Edition der Artikel XXV-XXVII der Summa (Quaestiones ordinariae) des Heinrich von Gent. Dabei leistet es einen Beitrag zur Geschichte der Formen und Pfade der Ideenvermittlung im Mittelalter und zur mittelalterlichen Buchkultur.Die Kollationierung der Handschriften der Artikel XXV-XXVII und die Untersuchung ihrer materiellen Überlieferung haben der Editorin erlaubt, den Prozess der Ausarbeitung, Publikation und Verbreitung einer Portion von Heinrichs Summa über einen längeren Zeitraum in großer Detailgenauigkeit zu rekonstruieren.Die hier edierten Artikel enthalten ein Kernstück von Heinrichs theologischem und metaphysischem System. In der Behandlung von Einheit, Natur und Leben Gottes entfalten sie eine rationale Darstellung des ersten Prinzips. This book offers the first critical edition of articles XXV–XXVII of the Summa (Quaestiones ordinariae) of Henry of Ghent. At the same time, it contributes to our understanding of the forms and trajectories through which ideas were transmitted throughout the Middle Ages and to medieval book culture.Collating the manuscripts of articles XXV–XXVII and studying their material tradition allowed the editor to reconstruct in great detail how a portion of Henry’s Summa was prepared, published and disseminated over a considerable number of years.The primary text presents an authoritative overview of Henry's theological and metaphysical system. In dealing with the unity, nature, and life of God, it unfolds a rational explanation of the first principle.This publication is GPRC-labeled (Guaranteed Peer-Reviewed Content).