Quodlibet IV

An Earlier Redaction of QQ. 7 & 8

AN EARLIER REDACTION OF QQ. 7 & 8 Above it was mentioned that the manuscript Paris, BnF lat. 16297 contains a version of questions 7 and 8 of Quodlibet IV and that these two questions have recently been transcribed and studied by A. Aiello and R. Wielockx .1 With the critical text now available in this volume, the texts of these two questions in this manuscript can now be compared with the definitive critical text contained here. The first thing which can be said about these two questions is that the manuscript which contains them was Godfrey’s student notebook.2 They would have been written while Godfrey was still a student in Paris, and reflect what would have been Godfrey’s interests during this early stage of his career. As a matter of fact, both questions deal primarily and directly with epistemological issues. A second thing to be noted is that these questions probably reflect a version of these two questions which was earlier than the text of the first Parisian university exemplar.3 A third observation, based upon the readings of the text, is that the text of the critical edition is a more developed text than the text contained in this manuscript, that is the text of critical edition provides arguments pro and contra, positions of near contemporaries of Henry against which Henry argues, and citations from authorities that Henry used to support his claims. For example, in question 7 the text of the critical edition begins with a general presentation of the forthcoming questions about creatures (see below , q. 7, lin. 5-10).This is followed by a paragraph in which Henry states that he will deal first with created intellects and then with their wills, and then Henry formulates the first question (see below, q. 7, lin. 11-17). The critical text then provides the arguments pro and contra (see below, q. 7, lin. 18-28). All of this is absent in the text of this question in Godfrey’s notebook. It is only when the “solutio” begins that the text of Godfrey’s notebook parallels the critical text, and even here there are noticeable absences, as the juxtaposition of the two texts illustrates, where the very words in Godfrey’s notebook are placed in italics when these exact words are the definitive text of the critical edition. 1 Cf. A.Aiello and R.Wielockx,“La versione …,” pp. 371-499. 2 Cf. J.J. Duin, “La Bibliothèque philosophique …,” pp. 22-36 and 137-160; J. Wippel , “Godfrey of Fontaines …,” esp. the section “Godfrey’s Library” on pages 361367 ; and A.Aiello and R.Wielockx,“La versione…,” pp. 371-499. 3 Cf. A. Aiello and R. Wielockx, “La versione…,” pp. 387-420; A. Aiello and R. Wielockx, Goffredo di Fontaines…, pp. 102-103. AN EARLIER REDACTION OF QQ. 7 & 8 XLI Henricus de Gandavo, Quodl. IV, q. 7 (cf. infra , q. 7, lin. 31-57). Text of Godfrey’s notebook (ed. A. Aiello – R. Wielockx, p. 376, 1-14). Quaestio ista non solum est de ipso humano vel angelico intellectu intelligendo se et alia creata quae sunt in ipsa per essentiam, sed etiam de intelligendo Deum visione beata, in qua per essentiam ipse est in intellectu sicut in cognoscente et inteligente. Sciendum est ergo hic in principio quod quorundam erat opinio de intellectu quocumque creato quia ex se solo in potentia est ad actum intelligendi quodcumque, propter quod oportet ipsum determinari per aliquid ad illud quod debet ab ipso intelligi, quo de potentia intelligente fiat actu intelligens, etiamsi illud sit intelligibile primum quod Deus est, ita quod sine illo determinante nullo modo quidquam potest intelligere, et hoc quemadmodum oculus corporis colorem praesentem in luce sine aliquo determinante ipsum, ut specie aliqua qua informatur ad colorem videndum, ipsum videre non posset omnino. Et, ut dicunt, per huiusmodi determinans intelligibile coniunctum est intelligenti, sicut et visibile videnti, et est forma quodammodo intelligentis et unum cum ipso et simile ei. Tale autem determinans, ut dixit illa opinio, non est nisi species intelligibilis informans intellectum et impressa ipsi ut subiecto, sicut species coloris se habet ad oculum. Idicrco ergo dicunt tenentes eam non solum quod intellectus non intelligit neque se neque alia quae sunt praesentia et per essentiam sine huiusmodi specie media, sed etiam quod nec Deum in visione gloriosa videt aut intelligit sine huiusmodi specie media, quam, ut dicunt, res ipsa intellecta, maxime cum Deum videndo intelligit, ex se ipsi menti imprimit et disponit ipsam ad intelligendum sive videndum. Sed tamen dicunt...