L'attenzione dell'A. si concentra sull'opposta concezione della distinzione tra essenza ed esistenza che per Egidio è reale, mentre per Enrico è solo intenzionale. In modo analogo, i due autori dissentono rispetto al tipo di realtà da ascrivere alle relazioni divine. Dopo avere dedicato un breve paragrafo al contesto dottrinale trinitario, l'A. passa ad esaminare in modo sistematico il pensiero dei due autori.

Dans sa Somme, art. 34, Henri de Gand se penche sur les questions se rapportant à la vérité en Dieu . Il n’y a pas tant d’auteurs qui se sont donné la peine d’étudier ce problème à fond, nous fait-il remarquer1 — bien à tort, d’après lui. Car trois problèmes fondamentaux concernant la vérité se superposent: celui de la localisation, celui de la définition classique et celui de l’essence de la vérité.

The context in which medieval theologians discuss 'relation' is nearly always a trinitarian one. They have to solve an awkward problem: to explain how in God the persons are identical with the divine essence, yet different among themselves. In this paper I want to argue that Henry of Ghent's interest in the nature of the Trinity acted as an impetus towards the development of his theory of the nature of relations. In this context the accounts of Thomas Aquinas and Giles (...) of Rome will be considered as important for understand18 ing Henry's account. Henry's positive account of relations stems from Avicenna. For Henry, a relation is not an aliquid but has two modes of being, both as an accident and as a relative. Henry's attempt to think the nature of relation leads to him developing a relational ontology. (shrink)

This modest contribution has been occasioned by the publication of the Proceedings of an international colloquium held at the De Wulf-Mansion Centre of the Institute of Philosophy in commemoration of the seven-hundredth anniversary of the death of Henry of Ghent. This colloquium had a twofold purpose: «first to establish a status quaestionis of the different fields of research concerning Henry’s doctrines and the critical edition of his work and, second, to provide a forum for specialists to exchange ideas and insights (...) on specific problems. The publication of the Proceedings offers an assessment of our present knowledge and opens up possibilities for further research». It is only natural, then, that the present contribution takes over this twofold end. On the one hand it will attempt to give a survey of what has been achieved thus far in studying Henry’s thought. On the other hand it hopes to derive from this survey a picture of what has been left undone until now, in order to set out a few lines for future research. More in particular it will push forward one issue that has been stepmotherly dealt with: relation. (shrink)