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

THE TEXT EXAMINED EXTERIORLY HISTORICAL AND CODICOLOGICAL ELEMENTS USED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TEXT§1. The Authorship and Date of the Summa, art. 47-52 Gómez-Caffarena has shown that in general a number of cross references exist between Henry’s Summa and his Quodlibeta.1 In articles 47-52 of the section of the Summa edited in this volume the Quodlibeta are implicitly referred to four times: p. 160, 822-823 (a reference to Quodlibet IV, q. 7); p. 227, 6-7 (a reference to Quodlibet IV, q. 15); p. 229, 46-49 (a reference to Quodlibet IV, q. 15); and p. 255, 156-159 (a reference to Quodlibet VI, q. 1). They are explicitly referred to seven times: p. 18, 19; p. 45, 80; p. 50, 185; p. 170, 21; p. 172, 50; p. 216, 88; and p. 217, 103. For example, article 51, q. 1, p. 216 reads “Quaestionem istam determinavimus anno praeterito in quadam quaestione de Quolibet.” The reference is to Quodlibet V, q. 1 and reveals that this section of the Summa was written about a year after Quodlibet V, q. 1, which would place it in the year 1281.2 Article 49, q. 8, p. 170 reads “Sed perfecta operatio intellectualis supponit personarum productionem, ut ostensum est in 1a quaestione disputationis VIae de Quolibet.” This reference shows that at least this section of the Summa was composed after Quodlibet VI, q. 1, that is sometime between 1281 and Christmas of 1282. Prof. G.A. Wilson has presented a detailed analysis of the relation of the original oral nature of Henry’s Quaestiones ordinariae as university lectures and the Summa as a published document of the University of Paris.3 Elaborating upon Prof. L Hödl’s argument that there is a distinction between the origin of the Summa in the university setting and its literary inception as a written text published by the university, he notes that the academic origin of the Summa may be further distinguished due to its questions being orally delivered as university lectures.4 Three separate phases in the evolution of the Summa are distinguished.The first phase involves the disputation of the questions found in the work as part of the ordinary pedagogy of the uni1 Cf. J. GÓMEZ-CAFFARENA, “Cronologia de la ‘Summa’ de Enrique de Gante por relación a sus ‘Quodlibeta’,” in Gregorianum, 38, 1957 , pp. 116-133. While there are references in the Summa to the Quodlibeta, no references to articles 47 through 52 of the Summa are found in the Quodlibeta. 2 Ibid., p. 132. 3 Cf. HENR. DE GAND., Summa, art. 35-40, ed. G.A.WILSON, pp. XXI-XXVI. 4 Cf. L. HÖDL, “Der Projektband der kritischen Edition der Summa des Heinrich von Gent,” in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 64 (1988), pp. 226-227; ID., Introduction à l’édition critique de la Summa d’Henri de Gand, in HENR. DE GAND., Summa, art. 31-34, ed. R. MACKEN, pp. XXV-XXVII. HenricusDEF.indd 14 20-12-2007 16:01:52 THE TEXT EXAMINED EXTERIORLY XV versity. The second phase is concerned with the presentation of a written form of the work. It is important to note that this phase of the work was not yet subject to university publication. Such publication is what comprises the third and final phase of the work.5 Thus, there is a distinction between the first written form of the Summa and its presentation as a university publication . The articles in the present volume were most likely first written down sometime after 1281. It is also very likely that the disputations of the questions involved in articles forty-seven through fifty-two would have been held at about the same time as this first redaction to written form. The final phase, in which this portion of the work was edited for university publication, may not have occurred until some time just prior to 1292.6 Because, however, article fifty-two, which closes the present volume, also seems to close a subdivision of the finished part the Summa according to some instances in the manuscript tradition, the reasons which Hödl raises for delayed distribution of these particular articles by the University of Paris do not apply.7§2. The Summa as an Incomplete Work As far as the documents in our possession show, Henry of Ghent did not complete the last part of his Summa.The seventy-five articles that constitute the completed part of...

Share