In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CRITICAL TEXT In order to reconstruct a critical text for the portion of Henry’s Summa included 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 own liber 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, 19-20), manuscript A reads “Cum ergo divina natura perfectissima sit, ut habitum est supra, in Deo ergo est perfectissimus appetitus.” The other manuscripts add the term “voluntas ” after the second “ergo” . This is most likely a copyist’s error in trying to clarify the text before he studied the whole context, because the context of the discussion concerns the will and the text explicitly uses the term “voluntas ” two lines further down.While the amended text is not exactly incorrect, it does introduce a needless redundancy.Then in the second question (p. 10, 39-40) manuscript A reads “…quemadmodum lux est obiectum visus, sive per essentiam suam sive participata in specie coloris.…”All the other manuscripts omit the term “suam” after “essentiam” which helps to clarify the noun it modifies.While the resulting reading is again not exactly incorrect, it is definitely inferior to the reading of manuscript A. In question three (p. 16, 68-73) manuscript A reads “Et ideo non sequitur quod licet actus appetendi non est nisi respectu non habiti, quod similiter neque actus volendi, quia licet secundum rationem rei indifferenter respiciant habitum et habendum ambo, tamen secundum rationem usus nominis appetitus respicit habendum tantum, voluntas vero communiter utrumque.” Instead of “respiciant” all of the other manuscripts read “respiciunt” . This of course is a possible reading. But the subjunctive reading that manuscript A gives seems more consistent with the counterfactual nature of the proposition, and so is to be preferred. In question five (p. 23, 10-12) manuscript A reads “Si Deus se ipsum velit de necessitate, cum necessitatem illam nullus alius seu nihil aliud a se eam sibi possit imponere, ex se ipso ergo illam habet.” All of the other manuscripts add the term “de” after the term “cum” . This addition is puzzling, not only because the doubling of prepositions is most rare in medieval Latin, but because it is not necessary to the meaning of the proposition. Perhaps the eye of an early copyist in glancing from the line containing “de necessitate” passed down to the line containing “cum necessitatem” and inserted “de” before “necessitatem” . Free from the ambiguity of the double preposition, 1 Cf. HENR. DE GAND., Summa, art. 31-34, ed. R. MACKEN, pp. CXXII-CXXIV; Summa, art. 35-40, ed. G.WILSON, p. LXVI; and Summa, art. 41-46, ed. L. HÖDL, pp. LXII-LXV. HenricusDEF.indd 43 20-12-2007 16:01:54 XLIV CRITICAL STUDY the reading that manuscript A gives is clear and in good Latin style. So it is to be preferred.Again in question five (p. 25, 43-45) manuscript A reads “Cum igitur Deus est finis voluntatis cuiusque, quia est omnis boni bonum, voluntas quaelibet necessario vult bonum quod est Deus, dum tamen sit ei cognitum .”All of the other manuscripts omit the term “voluntatis” which helps to define the term“finis” . While the sentence is not rendered nonsensical by this omission because of the general context in which this proposition appears, manuscript A gives a more precise reading and is to be preferred. Finally in question five (p. 29, 146 – 30, 150) manuscript A reads “… Pater et Filius spirant Spiritum Sanctum libera voluntate concomitante necessitate, non ab aliquo alio agente quam sit ipsa voluntas quod ipsam incommutabiliter teneat in suo obiecto, sed, se ipso sibi huiusmodi necessitatem immutabilitatis libere imponente…” but all of the other manuscripts read “necessitate” instead of “necessitatem” . Perhaps this is because an early copyist saw “necessitate ” a few lines earlier. But the new reading moves away from the sense of the context of the passage and the reading of manuscript A is preferred. Such are the instances of manuscript A giving preferred readings over the rest of the manuscripts in article forty-seven. Similar examples can be found in the critical apparatus for the rest of the articles appearing in...

Share