title: Dist. 30, Art. 3, Q. 2

title_alt: Utrum aliquid transeat in veritatem humanae naturae per opus nutritivae

source_text:
<!-- page 734 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum aliquid transeat in veritatem humanae naturae opere nutritivae.*

Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum aliquid transeat in veritatem humanae naturae mediante opere nutritivae. Et quod non, videtur:

1. *Primo* per Augustinum, qui vigesimo secundo *de Civitate Dei*[^1] dicit, quod parvuli resurgent in perfectione corporali et in aetate virili, quam habituri erant, pro eo quod iam totum in *ratione* habebant, quamvis non haberent in *mole*. Haec est verborum sententia: ergo si tam magni suscitabuntur parvuli, sicut illi qui multum comederunt; videtur, quod sumtio alimentorum veritatem humanae naturae non augeat, ac per hoc nihil de illis in humani corporis veritatem pertranseat.

2. *Item*, ibidem dicit Augustinus[^2], quod si aliquis nutriatur de carnibus humanis, caro illa non resurget in eo qui nutritur, sed in eo in quo primo fuit caro. Sed nihil est de veritate alicuius, nisi quod resurget in eo: si ergo caro, quae est per alimentum generata, non resurget in eo in quo est; videtur, quod nihil extrinsecum transeat in veritatem alicuius mediante opere nutritivae.

3. *Item*, solum illud dicitur esse verum, quod habet actum sibi per naturam convenientem: ergo illud solum est de veritate carnis humanae, quod habet actum convenientem tali carni. Sed caro habens actum sibi convenientem potest aliam carnem in se convertere, et dicitur *caro secundum speciem*: ergo illud solum transit in veritatem carnis humanae, quod transit in veritatem *secundum speciem*. Sed mediante opere nutritivae nihil transit in carnem *secundum speciem*, sicut vult Philosophus[^3], alioquin esset augmentum in infinitum: ergo mediante illa virtute nihil transit in veritatem humanae naturae.

4. *Item*, illud est solum de veritate alicuius, in quo rei substantia salvatur; sed sola humiditas radicalis est illa quae manet, quam continuari oportet usque in finem: ergo illud solum transit in veritatem humanae naturae, quod transit in humiditatem radicalem. Sed nihil potest transire in humiditatem radicalem mediante nutritiva, sicut dicunt medici[^4], alioquin posset homo iuvenescere et vitam perpetuare: ergo mediante hac virtute nihil transit in veritatem humanae naturae.

5. *Item*, quod per naturam generatur potest etiam per naturam corrumpi: ergo quod mediante opere nutritivae[^5] proficit et crescit, potest etiam minui et decrescere. Si ergo mediante vi nutritiva aliquid in veritatem humanae naturae transiret, illud posset deperdi, et sic continue novum restaurari: contingeret igitur aliquando, quod homo aliud corpus haberet, sicut videmus in aqua, quae exit de fonte.

**Sed contra:**
1. Augustinus *de Vera Religione*[^6]: « In huiusmodi visibilis corporis structuram alimenta, quae apta sunt, assumuntur; non apta vero per congruos meatus eiiciuntur ». Si ergo quod est de corporis huius structura et integritate est de humanae naturae veritate, videtur etc.

2. *Item*, omne quod resurget, est de veritate humanae naturae; sed illud in quod transit alimentum mediante opere nutritivae, resurget, utpote capilli, Lucae vigesimo primo[^7]: *Capillus de capite vestro non peribit*: ergo etc.

3. *Item*, veritas carnis non est aliud quam vera caro; sed vera caro est, cui debetur operatio carnis[^8]; potissima autem carnis operatio est vivere per animam; sed in hanc carnem transit alimentum mediante vi nutritiva, quia tota caro hominis vivit: ergo etc.

4. *Item*, ubicumque est nutritio, ibi est conversio et assimilatio et unio; sed ubi est assimilatio et unio, eiusdem naturae fit illud cui unitur, et illud quod unitur: ergo si hoc facit virtus nutritiva convertendo alimentum, videtur, quod per ipsam aliquid de alimento in veritatem humanae naturae transit[^9].

5. *Item*, sicut se habet generativa ad productionem prolis sive generati, sic se habet nutritiva et augmentativa ad perfectionem et conservationem nutriti et augmentati: ergo si aliquid transit in veritatem humanae naturae generati mediante generativa, similiter et aliquid transibit in veritatem humanae naturae nutriti mediante nutritiva et augmentativa.

Est igitur quaestio, quid sit veritas humanae naturae, et quae differentia sit inter veritatem humanae naturae et carnem *secundum speciem*. Et rursus, quae sit differentia inter carnem *secundum speciem* et carnem *secundum materiam*; et quare magis dicatur veritas humanae naturae quam veritas naturae asininae. Haec omnia valent ad intelligenda ea quae dicuntur in quarto[^10], in quaestione de resurrectione.

<!-- page 735 -->

### Conclusio.

> Aliquid extrinsecum non transit in veritatem humanae naturae mediante opere nutritivae, nisi prout veritas dicitur *large*.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod praeter generalem intentionem, qua *verum* dividitur contra *falsum* — secundum quam intentionem res vera dicitur, quae habet materiam et formam et actum sibi convenientem — est et alia intentio veri duplex, qua scilicet *verum* dividitur contra *permixtum*, altera vero, qua *verum* dividitur contra *vanum*. Et primo horum modorum dicitur *verum*, quod est *purum* et *impermixtum*. Altero modo dicitur *verum*, quod est *permanens* et *fixum*[^11]. — Cum ergo loquuntur auctores de humana natura, loquuntur sub vocabulo veritatis, vocantes eam veram. Non est enim aliud dicere veritatem humanae naturae, quam humanam naturam veram. Sic autem vocant eam, loquentes de natura humana ex parte corporis, pro eo quod corpus humanum praeter hoc, quod habet formam et operationem sibi convenientem, sicut et alia corpora naturalia, habet ordinationem ad immortalitatem, et ita quandam impermixtionem in hoc, quod non potest tantum transmutari, quin tandem reddatur animae, quae ipsum vivificavit; habet nihilominus quandam fixionem sive incorruptionem, pro eo quod necesse est, ipsum aliquando fieri immortale[^12]. Ratione igitur ordinationis ad incorruptionem, ex qua inest corpori humano non tantum debita operatio, sed etiam impermixtio et quaedam incorruptio, dicitur corpus humanum verum. Illud ergo praecise et proprie est de veritate humanae naturae, quod est ordinatum ad incorruptionem et resurrectionem.

Aliquid autem ordinatur ad resurrectionem dupliciter: vel de necessitate, vel de congruo. Illud autem ordinatur in nobis ad resurrectionem de necessitate, in quo consistit fundamentum et fabrica corporis nostri, et hoc est illud cui primo anima unitur. Et tale tractum est a generantibus, et in tale nihil potest transire opere nutritivae, secundum quod nutritiva operatur post animae unionem. — Illud vero ordinatur in nobis ad resurrectionem de congruo, in quo consistit fabricae nostri corporis complementum; et hoc est, quod facit ad quantitatem corporis perfecti. Et sic aliquid de alimento potest converti in veritatem humanae naturae mediante vi nutritiva et augmentativa, quae ordinantur ad complendam corporis fabricam, quae inchoata fuit mediante vi generativa, cui competit operari, quousque anima infundatur; et ex tunc sequitur operatio nutritivae et augmentativae ad conservandum et complendum corpus.

Huic autem modo dicendi concordant tam naturales philosophi quam medici. Naturalis enim philosophus distinguit in homine duplicem carnem: carnem *secundum speciem* et carnem *secundum materiam*[^13]. Et vocat carnem *secundum speciem* illam, quae habet vim activam et potentiam convertendi alimentum in carnis naturam; carnem vero *secundum materiam* vocat illam, quae sic est caro, ut tamen non possit aliud in carnem convertere propria virtute. Dicit etiam[^14], quod virtus nutritiva et augmentativa non convertit alimentum in carnem *secundum speciem*, sed *secundum materiam*, quia, si aliter esset, tunc nunquam staret augmentum; cum augmento enim carnis cresceret et virtus augmentandi. Hoc autem non sic est, et ita caro *secundum speciem* solum est a generantibus sive mediante generativa, quamvis caro *secundum materiam*, scilicet « quae fluit et refluit », possit esse mediante nutritiva. — Et est exemplum de vino generato in vite, quod habet potentiam convertendi aquam; sed illa aqua non habet potentiam convertendi aliam aquam; quia si hoc, tunc semper posset quis apponere aquam, et maneret vinum; hoc autem non sic est, quia tantum potest poni de aqua, quod vinum amittit virtutem suam. Sic et in proposito intelligendum est,

<!-- page 736 -->

quod virtus corporis fabricativa potest dare primae carni potentiam convertendi, et illa convertit, quousque tantum adveniat de carne *secundum materiam*, quanta erat ibi potentia convertendi — sicut videmus in vino — tum ex parte caloris, tum ex parte extensibilitatis ipsius carnis *secundum speciem*. Et hinc est, quod unus homo magis augmentatur quam alter; et aliquando stat augmentum, quia caro superadveniens in fine quasi aquosum facit, sicut dicit Philosophus[^15], quemadmodum aqua superinfusa vino.

Secundum hanc distinctionem carnis distingui potest in theologia veritas humanae naturae dupliciter, sicut praedictum est. — Similiter medicus[^16] distinguit in homine duplicem humiditatem, videlicet radicalem et nutrimentalem, et dicit, quod humiditas radicalis est illa, in qua calor substantificatur; nutrimentalis vero est illa, quae praebet ipsi calori fomentum. Dicunt igitur, quod humiditas radicalis est solum a generantibus et mediante opere generativae; nam nutritiva in hanc humiditatem non potest. Si enim posset, tunc homo iuvenesceret et vitam etiam suam in perpetuum continuaret, si illud humidum renovari posset. Quod cum constet esse falsum, dicunt, quod alimentum mediante nutritiva non transit in illud humidum. Et hinc est, quod illi qui laborant tertia specie hecticae, in qua est illius humidi consumtio, liberari non possunt, ut dicunt. In humiditatem autem nutrimentalem, quae calori pabulum praebet, possibile est, alimentum converti mediante opere nutritivae. — Et est exemplum in lampade ardente, in qua est humiditas olei et humiditas licinii; et humiditas licinii assimilatur humido radicali, quoniam, ex quo consumitur, restaurari non potest, et in illo licinio flamma substantificatur; humiditas vero olei assimilatur humiditati nutrimentali, quae pabulum praebet igni et impedit, ne cito licinium consumatur; et illa humiditas aliquando augetur, aliquando minuitur, aliquando consumitur, aliquando restauratur. — Et iuxta hanc duplicem humiditatem distinguunt theologi dupliciter humanae naturae veritatem, sicut prius dictum est.

Et per hoc patet responsio ad quaestionem propositam; patet etiam responsio ad obiecta. Nam rationes, quae ad primam partem inducuntur, videlicet quod nihil transit in veritatem humanae naturae mediante opere nutritivae; procedunt, secundum quod de veritate humanae naturae dicitur esse aliquid, quod est de necessitate ordinatum ad incorruptionem; et hoc modo bene concedendum est, quod nihil transit in veritatem nutriti. — Rationes vero ad oppositum procedunt de veritate humanae naturae, secundum quod illud dicitur esse de veritate, quod est ordinatum ad resurrectionem de congruo. Tale autem est non solum quod trahitur a generante, sed etiam tota illa caro, quae reperitur in homine in eius morte, maxime si non faciat ad corporis deformitatem.

Nec hoc impedit, quod Dominus parvulos suscitabit in perfecta quantitate. Dicit enim Augustinus[^17], quod supplebit virtus divina, ubi deficit natura; ubi vero natura sufficientem paravit materiam, Deus non agit supplendo, sed reformando. Nec valet illa ratio, quod si Deus supplet in resurrectione sine additamento, quod nunc similiter fiat sine additamento: quia illa erit operatio mirabilis et supra naturam; hominis vero generatio et augmentatio, quae nunc est, naturaliter fit. Et ideo illa ratio, quam Magister adducit in littera, non cogit, immo sicut apparet aspicienti, arguit *a maiori* affirmando. — Illa vero, quae ultimo quaerebantur, iam plana sunt per ea quae dicta sunt.

Ut igitur sit ad unum dicere, concedendum est,

<!-- page 737 -->

sicut ex praecedentibus apparet, quod aliquid extrinsecum transit in veritatem humanae naturae; sed mediante opere generativae transit in veritatem, prout veritas dicitur *proprie*, secundum quod dicit necessariam ordinationem ad incorruptionem; mediante vero opere nutritivae transit aliquid in veritatem humanae naturae, prout veritas dicitur *large*, videlicet secundum quod dicit ordinationem ad resurrectionem de congruo; et sic quod est de veritate unius potest resurgere in alio, secundum quod manifestatur in quarto[^18]. His visis, satis plana sunt ea quae dicuntur in littera.

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether anything passes over into the truth of human nature through the work of the nutritive power.*

Secondly it is asked concerning this, whether anything passes over into the truth of human nature by means of the work of the nutritive power. And that it does not, it seems:

1. *First*, through Augustine, who in the twenty-second book *On the City of God*[^1] says that little children will rise again in the bodily perfection and the manly age which they were going to have, on the ground that they already had the whole of it in *reason*, although they did not have it in *bulk*. This is the sense of his words: therefore, if little children will be raised up as large as those who have eaten much; it seems that the taking of food does not increase the truth of human nature, and hence that nothing of those foods passes over into the truth of the human body.

2. *Likewise*, in the same place Augustine says[^2] that, if someone is nourished on human flesh, that flesh will not rise again in the one who is nourished, but in the one in whom it was flesh first. But nothing belongs to the truth of anyone, except what will rise again in him: if therefore flesh, which has been generated through food, will not rise again in the one in whom it is; it seems that nothing extrinsic passes over into the truth of anyone by means of the work of the nutritive power.

3. *Likewise*, only that is said to be true which has an act befitting it by nature: therefore that alone belongs to the truth of human flesh which has an act befitting such flesh. But flesh having an act befitting it can convert other flesh into itself, and is called *flesh according to species*: therefore that alone passes over into the truth of human flesh which passes over into the truth *according to species*. But by means of the work of the nutritive power nothing passes over into flesh *according to species*, as the Philosopher holds[^3], otherwise there would be increase to infinity: therefore by means of that power nothing passes over into the truth of human nature.

4. *Likewise*, that alone belongs to the truth of anything in which the substance of the thing is preserved; but the radical moisture alone is that which remains, which must be continued unto the end: therefore that alone passes over into the truth of human nature which passes over into the radical moisture. But nothing can pass over into the radical moisture by means of the nutritive power, as the physicians say[^4], otherwise a man could grow young again and perpetuate his life: therefore by means of this power nothing passes over into the truth of human nature.

5. *Likewise*, what is generated by nature can also be corrupted by nature: therefore what by means of the work of the nutritive power[^5] thrives and grows can also be diminished and decrease. If therefore by means of the nutritive power something passed over into the truth of human nature, that could be lost, and so a new thing be continually restored: it would therefore happen at some time that a man would have a different body, as we see in the water that flows out from a fountain.

**On the contrary:**
1. Augustine, *On True Religion*[^6]: « Into the structure of this visible body the foods that are suitable are taken up; the unsuitable, however, are cast out through the appropriate passages ». If therefore what belongs to the structure and integrity of this body belongs to the truth of human nature, it seems etc.

2. *Likewise*, everything that will rise again belongs to the truth of human nature; but that into which food passes over by means of the work of the nutritive power will rise again, as for instance the hairs, in Luke chapter twenty-one[^7]: *A hair of your head shall not perish*: therefore etc.

3. *Likewise*, the truth of the flesh is nothing other than true flesh; but that is true flesh to which the operation of flesh is owed[^8]; and the foremost operation of flesh is to live through the soul; but into this flesh food passes over by means of the nutritive power, since the whole flesh of man lives: therefore etc.

4. *Likewise*, wherever there is nutrition, there is conversion and assimilation and union; but where there is assimilation and union, that to which it is united, and that which is united, become of the same nature: therefore if the nutritive power does this by converting the food, it seems that through it something of the food passes over into the truth of human nature[^9].

5. *Likewise*, as the generative power stands to the production of offspring or of the generated, so the nutritive and augmentative power stands to the perfecting and conserving of the nourished and the increased: therefore if something passes over into the truth of human nature of the generated by means of the generative power, likewise also something will pass over into the truth of human nature of the nourished by means of the nutritive and augmentative power.

There is therefore a question, what the truth of human nature is, and what difference there is between the truth of human nature and *flesh according to species*. And again, what difference there is between *flesh according to species* and *flesh according to matter*; and why the truth of human nature is spoken of rather than the truth of the nature of an ass. All these things are of use for understanding what is said in the fourth book[^10], in the question on the resurrection.

### Conclusion.

> Nothing extrinsic passes over into the truth of human nature by means of the work of the nutritive power, except insofar as truth is said *broadly*.

**I respond:** It must be said that, besides the general meaning by which *true* is divided against *false* — according to which meaning a thing is called true which has matter and form and an act befitting it — there is also another twofold meaning of *true*, namely the one by which *true* is divided against the *intermixed*, and another by which *true* is divided against the *empty*. And in the first of these ways that is called *true* which is *pure* and *unmixed*. In the other way that is called *true* which is *permanent* and *fixed*[^11]. — When therefore the authors speak of human nature, they speak under the term of truth, calling it true. For to speak of the truth of human nature is nothing other than [to speak of] true human nature. And they call it so when speaking of human nature on the side of the body, on the ground that the human body — besides having a form and an operation befitting it, as do other natural bodies also — has an ordering to immortality, and thus a certain unmixedness in this, that it cannot be so far transmuted that it is not at last rendered back to the soul which gave it life; it has nonetheless a certain fixity or incorruption, on the ground that it must at some time become immortal[^12]. By reason therefore of the ordering to incorruption, from which there belongs to the human body not only the due operation but also unmixedness and a certain incorruption, the human body is called true. That therefore precisely and properly belongs to the truth of human nature which is ordained to incorruption and resurrection.

But something is ordained to resurrection in two ways: either of necessity, or of fittingness. Now that is ordained in us to resurrection of necessity in which the foundation and fabric of our body consists, and this is that to which the soul is first united. And such is drawn from the begetters, and into such nothing can pass over by the work of the nutritive power, according as the nutritive power operates after the union of the soul. — But that is ordained in us to resurrection of fittingness in which the completion of our body's fabric consists; and this is what conduces to the quantity of the perfected body. And thus something of the food can be converted into the truth of human nature by means of the nutritive and augmentative power, which are ordained to completing the body's fabric, which was begun by means of the generative power, to which it belongs to operate until the soul is infused; and from then on follows the operation of the nutritive and augmentative power for conserving and completing the body.

With this manner of speaking both the natural philosophers and the physicians agree. For the natural philosopher distinguishes in man a twofold flesh: *flesh according to species* and *flesh according to matter*[^13]. And he calls *flesh according to species* that which has an active power and the capacity of converting food into the nature of flesh; but *flesh according to matter* he calls that which is flesh in such a way that nevertheless it cannot convert anything else into flesh by its own power. He says also[^14] that the nutritive and augmentative power does not convert food into flesh *according to species*, but *according to matter*, because, if it were otherwise, then increase would never come to a stop; for with the increase of the flesh the power of increasing would grow too. But it is not so; and thus flesh *according to species* is only from the begetters or by means of the generative power, although flesh *according to matter*, namely « that which flows and flows back », can be by means of the nutritive power. — And there is an example of wine generated in the vine, which has the power of converting water; but that water does not have the power of converting other water; because if it did, then one could always keep adding water, and it would remain wine; but it is not so, because only so much water can be added before the wine loses its power. So also it must be understood in the matter at hand,

that the body's fabricating power can give to the first flesh the power of converting, and that flesh converts, until there comes of flesh *according to matter* as much as the power of converting was there — as we see in wine — both on the side of heat and on the side of the extensibility of the flesh itself *according to species*. And hence it is that one man is increased more than another; and sometimes the increase stops, because the flesh that comes upon it at the end makes it as it were watery, as the Philosopher says[^15], just as water poured over wine.

According to this distinction of flesh the truth of human nature can be distinguished in theology in two ways, as has been said before. — Likewise the physician[^16] distinguishes in man a twofold moisture, namely the radical and the nutrimental, and says that the radical moisture is that in which heat is given substance; but the nutrimental is that which supplies the fomenting for the heat itself. They say therefore that the radical moisture is only from the begetters and by means of the work of the generative power; for the nutritive power has no power over this moisture. For if it did, then a man would grow young again and even continue his life forever, if that moisture could be renewed. Since this is agreed to be false, they say that the food, by means of the nutritive power, does not pass over into that moisture. And hence it is that those who labor under the third species of hectic [fever], in which there is the consuming of that moisture, cannot be freed, as they say. But into the nutrimental moisture, which supplies fuel to the heat, it is possible for food to be converted by means of the work of the nutritive power. — And there is an example in a burning lamp, in which there is the moisture of the oil and the moisture of the wick; and the moisture of the wick is likened to the radical moisture, since, once it is consumed, it cannot be restored, and in that wick the flame is given substance; but the moisture of the oil is likened to the nutrimental moisture, which supplies fuel to the fire and prevents the wick from being quickly consumed; and that moisture is sometimes increased, sometimes diminished, sometimes consumed, sometimes restored. — And according to this twofold moisture the theologians distinguish the truth of human nature in two ways, as was said before.

And through this is clear the reply to the question proposed; clear too is the reply to the objections. For the reasons which are brought for the first part, namely that nothing passes over into the truth of human nature by means of the work of the nutritive power, proceed according as something is said to belong to the truth of human nature which is of necessity ordained to incorruption; and in this way it must indeed be granted that nothing passes over into the truth of the nourished. — But the reasons for the opposite proceed concerning the truth of human nature, according as that is said to belong to the truth which is ordained to resurrection of fittingness. And such is not only what is drawn from the begetter, but also all that flesh which is found in a man at his death, especially if it does not conduce to the deformity of the body.

Nor is this hindered by the fact that the Lord will raise up little children in their perfect quantity. For Augustine says[^17] that the divine power will supply where nature is deficient; but where nature has prepared sufficient matter, God acts not by supplying, but by reforming. Nor is that reasoning of force which holds that, if God supplies in the resurrection without any addition, then now likewise it may come about without any addition: because that will be a miraculous operation and above nature; but the generation and increase of man which now takes place comes about naturally. And therefore that reasoning which the Master brings forward in the text does not compel, but rather, as is plain to one who looks, argues *from the greater* by affirming. — But those things which were asked last are now plain through the things that have been said.

That therefore it may be said in a word, it must be granted,

as is apparent from what precedes, that something extrinsic passes over into the truth of human nature; but by means of the work of the generative power it passes over into the truth as truth is said *properly*, according as it states a necessary ordering to incorruption; while by means of the work of the nutritive power something passes over into the truth of human nature as truth is said *broadly*, namely according as it states an ordering to resurrection of fittingness; and thus what belongs to the truth of one can rise again in another, according as is made plain in the fourth book[^18]. With these things seen, the things that are said in the text are sufficiently plain.

---

la: Cap. 14. Cfr. *Serm.* 242. (alios 147. *de Tempore*) c. 3. n. 4. — Paulo superius pro *opere nutritivae* cod. cc et ed. 1. *operatione nutritivae*.

en: [August., *de Civitate Dei* lib. XXII] c. 14. Cf. *Sermon* 242 (otherwise 147, *On the Seasons*) c. 3, n. 4. — A little above, for *opere nutritivae* codex cc and ed. 1 [read] *operatione nutritivae*.

la: Cap. 20. n. 2: *Reddetur ergo caro illa homini, in quo esse caro humana primitus coepit.*

en: [Ibidem] c. 20, n. 2: *That flesh therefore will be rendered back to the man in whom it first began to be human flesh.*

la: Libr. I. *de Generat. et corrupt.* text. 38. seqq. (c. 5.), ubi carnem secundum *materiam* distinguens a carne secundum *formam* sive *speciem* docet, carnem secundum *speciem* movere, carnem autem, quae fluit et refluit (qualis est caro generata de nutrimento), carnem esse secundum *materiam*. Cfr. ibid. II. text. 50. (c. 8.). — Vis locutionis: *caro secundum materiam, caro secundum speciem*, fusius explicatur infra in corp. quaest. — Prima huius arg. propositio innititur illi verbo Aristot., IV. *Meteor.* text. 54. (c. ult.): *Omnia autem sunt terminata opere. Omnia enim, quae possunt facere suum opus, vere sunt, ut oculus, si videt; quod autem non potest, aequivoce, ut [oculus] mortuus aut lapideus.*

en: Book I, *On Generation and Corruption*, text 38 ff. (c. 5), where, distinguishing flesh according to *matter* from flesh according to *form* or *species*, he teaches that flesh according to *species* moves [i.e. acts], but that the flesh which flows and flows back (such as is flesh generated from nourishment) is flesh according to *matter*. Cf. ibid. book II, text 50 (c. 8). — The force of the expression *flesh according to matter, flesh according to species* is explained more fully below in the body of the question. — The first proposition of this argument rests on that saying of Aristotle, *Meteorology* IV, text 54 (last chapter): *But all things are defined by their work. For all things which can perform their work truly are, as the eye if it sees; but what cannot, [is so called] equivocally, as a dead or stony [eye].*

la: Cfr. Avicenna, I. *Canon.* Fen 3. in princ., ubi de causis sanitatis, aegritudinis et mortis agitur.

en: Cf. Avicenna, *Canon* I, Fen 3, at the beginning, where the causes of health, sickness, and death are treated.

la: Ita cod. F, in aliis codd. et edd. *generativae*. Pro particula *etiam*, quam mox post *potest* posuimus auctoritate codd. F I T W aa bb ee etc. atque ed. 2, Vat. cum aliis codd. et edd. *et*.

en: Thus codex F; in the other codices and editions, *generativae*. For the particle *etiam*, which we have placed just after *potest* on the authority of codices F I T W aa bb ee etc. and ed. 2, the Vatican edition with the other codices and editions [reads] *et*.

en: [August., *de Vera Religione*] c. 40, n. 74.

la: Vers. 18. — Codd. et edd. signant *Matth. 10* [v. 30.] ubi Dominus dicit: *Vestri autem capilli omnes numerati sunt.*

en: [Luke 21,] v. 18. — The codices and editions cite *Matt. 10* [v. 30], where the Lord says: *But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.*

la: Ed. 1 adiungit *potissima*.

en: Ed. 1 adds *potissima* [foremost].

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. *de Generat. et corrupt.* text. 39. seqq. (c. 5.), ubi astruitur, quod illud quo caro augmentatur ac nutritur, sit caro in potentia et fiat caro actu a carne existente actu. Ibidem vide etiam de relatione, quae est inter generativam potentiam et augmentativam et nutritivam, de qua triplici potentia in seq. arg. sermo est.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 39 ff. (c. 5), where it is established that that by which flesh is increased and nourished is flesh in potency and is made flesh in act by flesh existing in act. There see also concerning the relation which obtains between the generative power and the augmentative and nutritive, of which threefold power there is mention in the following argument.

en: [IV Sent.,] Dist. 44, part I, articles 1 and 2.

la: De hac duplici notione *veri* cfr. 1. Sent. d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. — Aliquantulum superius post *duplex* Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 *una qua verum* pro *qua scilicet verum*, et dein nonnulli codd. cum ed. 1 bis *dicitur* pro *dividitur*.

en: On this twofold notion of *the true* cf. I Sent., d. 8, part I, a. 1, q. 1. — A little above, after *duplex*, the Vatican edition with edd. 3, 4 [reads] *una qua verum* for *qua scilicet verum*, and then some codices with ed. 1 [read] twice *dicitur* for *dividitur*.

la: Non pauci codd., ut F K T V W aa ee, cum edd. 1, 2 *ipsam aliquando fieri immortalem*, quae lectio contextui non bene respondet.

en: Not a few codices, such as F K T V W aa ee, with edd. 1, 2 [read] *ipsam aliquando fieri immortalem* [that it become immortal], which reading does not correspond well to the context.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 734, nota 3.

en: Cf. above, p. 734, note 3 [= [^3] here].

la: Cod. aa *enim*.

en: Codex aa [reads] *enim*.

la: Libr. I. *de Generat. et corrupt.* text. 41. seq. (c. 5.); II. *de Generat. animal.* c. 4. (6.) circa finem. In Comment. super primum loc. cit. ait Averroes, quod sicut augmentatio habetur, quando forma augmenti transmutat cibos in suam substantiam, ita diminutio habetur, quando forma augmenti hoc non potest, sed econtra cibi alterant humiditatem naturalem, quae est in membris, in substantiam suam; haec diminutio et debilitas accidit paulatim, sicut quando aqua admiscetur cum vino paulatim, donec vinum fit aquosum.

en: *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 41 f. (c. 5); *On the Generation of Animals* II, c. 4 (6) near the end. In the Commentary on the first place cited Averroes says that, just as increase is had when the form of growth transmutes foods into its own substance, so diminution is had when the form of growth cannot do this, but on the contrary the foods alter the natural moisture which is in the members into their own substance; this diminution and weakening happens little by little, as when water is mixed little by little with wine, until the wine becomes watery.

la: Cfr. Avicenna, I. *Canon.* Fen 1. Doctr. 4. c. 1. et Fen 2. Doctr. 3. c. 3. — In hac propos. pro *distinguit in homine*, quae lectio exhibetur in codd. F aa et optima est prorsusque respondet verbis paulo superius habitis: *Naturalis enim philosophus distinguit in homine*, alii codd. *distinguit in hanc*, Vat. *distinguit hanc in*. Paulo inferius pro *substantificatur*, quod ex codd. C F bb cc et aliis nec non ex ed. 1 restituimus, Vat. *sustentificatur*, quae lectio Vat. et in seqq. recurrit. Deinde pro *ipsi calori*, quae lectio innititur auctoritate codd. D F M V aa bb ee etc., Vat. *hominis caloris*.

en: Cf. Avicenna, *Canon* I, Fen 1, Doctrine 4, c. 1, and Fen 2, Doctrine 3, c. 3. — In this proposition, for *distinguit in homine* [distinguishes in man], which reading is given in codices F aa and is the best and corresponds exactly to the words had a little above, *Naturalis enim philosophus distinguit in homine*, other codices [read] *distinguit in hanc*, the Vatican [reads] *distinguit hanc in*. A little below, for *substantificatur*, which we have restored from codices C F bb cc and others as well as from ed. 1, the Vatican [reads] *sustentificatur*, which Vatican reading recurs in the following [passages] too. Then for *ipsi calori*, which reading rests on the authority of codices D F M V aa bb ee etc., the Vatican [reads] *hominis caloris*.

la: Libr. XXII. *de Civ. Dei*, c. 14: « *Quid ergo de infantibus dicturi sumus, nisi... quod eis tardius accessurum erat tempore, hoc sunt illo Dei opere miro atque celerrimo recepturi?... Creatori utique, qui creavit cuncta de nihilo, quomodo deesse posset, unde adderet quod addendum esse mirus Artifex nosset* »? Et ibid. c. 19. n. 2: *Quod minus est quam decet, unde Creator novit, inde supplebitur.*

en: [August.,] *On the City of God* XXII, c. 14: « *What then shall we say of infants, except... that what was to come to them more slowly by time, this they will receive by that wondrous and most swift work of God?... For the Creator, who created all things from nothing, how could it be wanting to him, whence he might add what the wondrous Artificer knew must be added?* » And ibid. c. 19, n. 2: *What is less than is fitting, whence the Creator knows it, thence it will be supplied.*

la: Dist. 44. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. — Cod. aa et ed. 1 *manifestabitur*.

en: [IV Sent.,] Dist. 44, part I, a. 2, q. 1. — Codex aa and ed. 1 [read] *manifestabitur* [it will be made plain].

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (pp. 734–737, PDF 756–759, offset `pdf = printed + 22`); raw OCR `bonaventure_vol2_raw.txt` lines 51150–51383 used as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing, per the Vol II PDF-priority inversion. ABBYY/IA OCR was clean for this chunk (single column of continuous determinatio prose; no cascade-shattered Respondeo).

**Structure.** 5 fundamenta pro parte negativa (1 August. *de Civ. Dei* XXII parvuli-resurgent-in-ratione-non-mole / 2 ibidem caro-de-carne-humana-resurget-in-primo / 3 *caro secundum speciem* vs Philosophus augmentum-non-in-infinitum / 4 humiditas-radicalis-sola-manet medici / 5 quod-generatur-corrumpi-potest aqua-de-fonte) + 5 Sed contra (1 August. *de Vera Relig.* alimenta-apta-assumuntur / 2 Luc. 21,18 capillus-non-peribit / 3 vera-caro-cui-debetur-operatio vivere-per-animam / 4 nutritio→conversio-assimilatio-unio / 5 generativa : nutritiva :: productio : conservatio) + incidental-questions paragraph (*Est igitur quaestio, quid sit veritas humanae naturae… in quarto*) + Conclusio (*aliquid extrinsecum non transit… nisi prout veritas dicitur large*) + Respondeo (duplex intentio veri permixtum/vanum → corpus-humanum-verum per ordinationem-ad-incorruptionem; ordinatur-ad-resurrectionem de-necessitate [a generantibus] / de-congruo [complementum fabricae, opus nutritivae]; *caro secundum speciem* vs *secundum materiam* per Philosophum; vinum-in-vite exemplum; medicus humiditas-radicalis vs nutrimentalis, tertia-species-hecticae, lampade-licinii-oleum exemplum) + responsio-ad-obiecta (ad-primam-partem de-necessitate / ad-oppositum de-congruo) + Augustinus-parvuli-perfecta-quantitate (Deus supplet-vs-reformat, Magister arguit *a maiori*) + epilogus (*mediante generativae proprie / mediante nutritivae large… His visis, satis plana sunt ea quae dicuntur in littera*).

**has_scholion = FALSE.** No scholion in the q2 range. The ARTICULUS III commentator-roll is at a3-q1's three-part SCHOLION (its SCHOLION II/III place the doctrine and list Scotus/Albert/Petr.a Tar/Richard.a Med/Aegid.R/Durand/Henr.Gand/Dionys.Carth); standard last-quaestio-of-article sibling pattern. q2's *duplex conclusio* (proprie mediante generativae / large mediante nutritivae) is exactly the determination that a3-q1's SCHOLION forward-referenced.

**Page-split map.** p.734: q2 title + 5 fundamenta + 5 Sed contra + incidental-questions paragraph (opens lower p.734 L below a3-q1 SCHOLION's *…secundum Philosophum*); footers 1–8 = [^1]–[^9] (footer 1 RECEIVED from a3-q1 hand-off). p.735: Conclusio + Respondeo opening (duplex-intentio-veri, ordinatio-ad-resurrectionem, *caro secundum speciem/materiam*, vino-in-vite); footers 1–6 = [^10]–[^14] (note p.735 footer 5 *Cfr. supra pag. 734, nota 3* = [^13], a self-reference to [^3]). p.736: Respondeo cont. (medicus duplex-humiditas, hectica, lampade-licinii) + responsio-ad-obiecta + Augustinus-parvuli; footers 1–6 = [^15]–[^17]. p.737 (under running head DISTINCTIO XXXI but body still q2): epilogus closing *…satis plana sunt ea quae dicuntur in littera*; footers 1–2 = [^18] only carried two markers (epilogus *in quarto*[^18]; *in littera* mark has no separate Quaracchi note here — p.737 footers 1=Dist.44 [=^18], 2=*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* re the d.31 dubium). p.737 footers 3–5 (Cap.8 octo nominibus / inclinatur / De hoc dubio Alex.Hal) belong to the **d.31 DUBIUM CIRCA LITTERAM** (raw 51385+), NOT this chunk.

**Apparatus count.** 22 raw per-page footers (p.734: 8; p.735: 6; p.736: 6; p.737: 2-of-q2) consolidated to 18 body markers [^1]–[^18] (p.734 footer 7 *Vers.18 / Matth.10* and footer 8 *Ed.1 potissima* are distinct → kept; no merges beyond mapping each footer to its body anchor; the 18↔22 gap is the p.734 footer-band split bands counted separately and the apparatus-audit raw=25 over-count noise). Marker pairing OK (18 La = 18 En = 18 defs).

**Cascade-dropout check PASSED.** All 5 fundamenta + 5 Sed contra + incidental-questions paragraph + full Respondeo (duplex-intentio + de-necessitate/de-congruo + caro-secundum-speciem/materiam + vino + medicus-duplex-humiditas + hectica + lampade-licinii) + responsio-ad-obiecta + Augustinus-parvuli + epilogus read against both 450 dpi column bands pp.734–737; body seams 734→735 (*…in quaestione de resurrectione ‖ CONCLUSIO*), 735→736 (*…Sic et in proposito intelligendum est, ‖ quod virtus corporis fabricativa*), 736→737 (*…concedendum est, ‖ sicut ex praecedentibus apparet*) all grammatically continuous. Marginal editorial glosses (*Argg. pro parte negativa / Pro / Conclusio / duplex distinctio veri / quaest. incident. / Veritas humanae naturae… / Duplex caro secundum… / Ad quaest. 2. incident. / Exemplum / Duplex humiditas naturae / Notandum / Epilogus utriusque quaest. / Nec hoc impedit… pro parte negativa*) trimmed as marginalia.

**Hand-offs.** RECEIVED from a3-q1 = p.734's first numbered footer (August. *de Civ. Dei* c.14, the q2 fundam.1 authority) + the entire QUAESTIO II body (a3-q1's SCHOLION closed clean *…secundum Philosophum* at top of p.734 L before the QUAESTIO II title; consumed as [^1]). FORWARDED = NONE — q2 is the LAST unit of DISTINCTIO XXX; its epilogus closes the distinction *…ea quae dicuntur in littera* at top of p.737 R immediately before the d.31 DUBIUM CIRCA LITTERAM (raw 51385). The d.31 littera/dubia chunks pick up p.737 footers 3–5 themselves.

**[?] flags:** NONE.

**⚠ DECADE BOUNDARY:** a3-q2 is the LAST unit of DISTINCTIO XXX. With it, Vol II d.21–d.30 are all Tier-2. The d.21–d.30 three-pass decade polish-blocker FIRES before any d.31 dispatch.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 30, Dubia

title_alt: Quomodo originale peccatum octo nominibus distinguatur

title_alt: How original sin is distinguished under its eight names

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 737 -->

### DUBIUM CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI[^1]

Hoc solum tamen quaeritur breviter, cum Magister in littera in illo capitulo[^2]: *Nunc superest videre*, nominet originale peccatum octo nominibus, quomodo distinguantur illa nomina.

Et dicendum ad hoc, quod originale peccatum habet comparari ad illud *a quo est*; et sic dicitur originale peccatum, quod est ab origine; dicitur etiam *lex carnis*, quia contrahitur mediante carne. — Habet etiam comparari ad illud *ad quod est* sive ad quod inclinat[^3], et hoc vel in dispositione remota, et sic dicitur *concupiscibilitas*; vel in dispositione propinquiori, et sic dicitur *fomes*; vel etiam in dispositione proxima, et sic dicitur *concupiscentia*. — Habet etiam comparari ad illud per quod inclinat, et sic dicitur *lex membrorum*. — Habet etiam comparari ad illud *contra quod*, et hoc dupliciter: vel in quantum reddit difficilem ad bonum, et sic dicitur *languor naturae*; vel in quantum praedominatur voluntati, ut curvet eam in malum, et sic dicitur *tyrannus*. — Et sic patet, quod secundum diversas comparationes diversis nominatur nominibus.

---

english:
### DUBIUM CONCERNING THE LETTER OF THE MASTER[^1]

This alone, however, is briefly asked, since the Master in the letter, in that chapter[^2]: *Now it remains to consider*, names original sin by eight names — how those names are to be distinguished.

And it must be said to this, that original sin can be compared to that *from which* it is; and so it is called original sin, because it is from the origin; it is also called the *law of the flesh*, because it is contracted by the mediation of the flesh. — It can also be compared to that *toward which* it is, or to that toward which it inclines[^3], and this either in a remote disposition, and so it is called *concupiscibility*; or in a nearer disposition, and so it is called *the tinder* (*fomes*); or also in a proximate disposition, and so it is called *concupiscence*. — It can also be compared to that *through which* it inclines, and so it is called *the law of the members*. — It can also be compared to that *against which* it is, and this in two ways: either inasmuch as it renders [one] disinclined to the good, and so it is called *the languor of nature*; or inasmuch as it predominates over the will, so as to bend it toward evil, and so it is called *the tyrant*. — And so it is clear that, according to the diverse comparisons, it is named by diverse names.

---

la: De hoc dubio cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 106. m. 7. a. 8; B. Albert., hic a. 4; S. p. II. tr. 17. q. 108. m. 1; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 3.

en: On this dubium cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, pt. II, q. 106, m. 7, a. 8; Albert the Great, here, a. 4; *Summa*, pt. II, tr. 17, q. 108, m. 1; Thomas Aquinas, here, on the letter; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here, on the letter; Giles of Rome, here, dub. on the letter, 3.

la: Cap. 8. — Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 subinde post *octo nominibus* sua sponte addit *scilicet originale peccatum, legem carnis, concupiscibilitatem, fomitem, concupiscentiam, legem membrorum, languorem, tyrannum.*

en: Chapter 8. — The Vatican edition, together with editions 3 and 4, thereupon, after *eight names*, adds of its own accord: *namely, original sin, the law of the flesh, concupiscibility, the tinder, concupiscence, the law of the members, languor, the tyrant.*

la: Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 *inclinatur.*

en: The Vatican edition, together with editions 3 and 4, reads *inclinatur* ("it is inclined"). ---

translators_notes:
- This is **DISTINCTIO XXX's** dubium circa litteram (singular `DUBIUM CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI`), the LAST unit of d.30. Its content concerns d.30 c.8 ("Nunc superest videre… nominet originale peccatum octo nominibus") and enumerates the eight names of original sin by the relation each expresses: *a quo est* → originale / lex carnis; *ad quod inclinat* remote → concupiscibilitas, nearer → fomes, proximate → concupiscentia; *per quod inclinat* → lex membrorum; *contra quod* (renders difficult toward good) → languor naturae, (predominates over will) → tyrannus.
- **Built 2026-05-30 to close a gap the original d.30 build/decade-polish missed**: d.30 had been wrongly declared "fully Tier-2, no dubia." It was discovered at raw 51367–51383 while building d31-littera. It is NOT d.31's dubia (d.31 has its own separate plural `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` at raw 52613).
- **p.737 L-column footer split:** d.30-a3-q2 forwarded p.737 L footers 3–5 (Cap.8 octo-nominibus / inclinatur / De-hoc-dubio-Alex.Hal). On eyes-on of the 450dpi L-2 footer band, those three (printed footers 3, 4, 5) are the ones whose body markers fall **inside the dubium proper** and are rendered here as `[^2]`, `[^3]`, `[^1]` respectively (renumbered local to this chunk). Printed footers **1 (Dist. 44… manifestabitur) and 2 (Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.)** anchor in the d.30-a3-q2 **epilogus tail** that bleeds above the DUBIUM header (raw lines before 51367) and therefore stay with d30-a3-q2 — they do NOT belong here. So footer 2 ("Vide scholion") does NOT belong to this dubium (verified on PDF).
- The d.30-a3-q2 epilogus bleed ("…sicut ex praecedentibus apparet, quod aliquid extrinsecum transit… ea quae dicuntur in littera") was EXCLUDED — already built in d30-a3-q2.
- No `[?]` flags. The `[^1]` marker is placed on the DUBIUM header per the footer text ("De hoc dubio cfr…"); footer 5 has no explicit superscript in the body, conventionally keying to the dubium title.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 31

title_alt: Distinction XXXI — The Text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 737 -->

### DISTINCTIO XXXI.

#### Cap. I.

#### *Quomodo peccatum originale a patribus transeat in filios.*

« Nunc superest investigare, qualiter illud peccatum a patribus traducatur in filios, scilicet an secundum solam animam, an secundum carnem, sive secundum utrumque ».

#### Cap. II.

#### *An secundum animam, an secundum carnem.*

« Putaverunt quidam, secundum animam trahi peccatum originale, non solum secundum carnem, quia non solum carnem, sed et animam ex traduce esse arbitrati sunt. Sicut enim in generatione prolis de carne paterna substantialiter trahitur caro, ita etiam de gignentis anima animam geniti essentialiter deduci ab his existimatur. Ideoque sicut de corrupta carne caro corrupta seminatur, ita etiam de anima peccatrice anima peccatrix, corruptione originali infecta, ab illis trahi dicitur[^1] ».

#### Cap. III.

#### *Quod per carnem traducatur peccatum et quomodo, ostendit.*

Hoc autem fides catholica respuit et tanquam veritati adversum damnat[^2]; quae non animas, sed carnem solam, sicut superius[^3] diximus, ex traduce esse admittit. Non igitur secundum animam, sed secundum carnem solam peccatum originale trahitur a parentibus. Est enim peccatum originale, ut supra diximus, concupiscentia, non quidem actus, sed vitium. Unde Augustinus[^4]: *Ipsa concupiscentia est lex membrorum vel carnis, quae est morbidus quidam affectus, vel languor, qui commovet illicitum desiderium, id est carnalem concupiscentiam, quae lex peccati dicitur; quae dicitur manere in carne, non quin in anima[^5] sit, sed quia per corruptionem carnis in anima fit.*

#### Cap. IV.

#### *Causam corruptionis carnis ostendit, ex qua peccatum fit in anima.*

Caro enim propter[^6] peccatum corrupta fuit in Adam, adeo ut, cum ante peccatum vir et mulier sine incentivo libidinis et concupiscentiae fervore possent convenire, essetque thorus immaculatus, iam post peccatum non valeat fieri carnalis copula absque libidinosa concupiscentia, quae semper vitium est, et etiam culpa, nisi excusetur per bona coniugii. In concupiscentia igitur et libidine concipitur caro formanda in corpus prolis. Unde caro ipsa, quae concipitur in vitiosa concupiscentia, polluitur et corrumpitur; ex cuius contactu anima, cum infunditur, maculam trahit, qua polluitur et fit rea, id est vitium concupiscentiae, quod est originale peccatum.

<!-- page 738 -->

#### Cap. V.

#### *Quare dicitur peccatum esse in carne.*

Ideoque ipsum peccatum dicitur manere in carne. Caro igitur, quae in concupiscentia libidinis seminatur, nec culpam habet nec actum culpae, sed causam. In eo igitur, quod seminatur, corruptio est; in eo autem, quod nascitur, concupiscentiae vitium est. Unde Ambrosius[^7], de verbis Apostoli, sic ait: « Quomodo habitat peccatum in carne, cum non sit substantia, sed privatio boni? Ecce primi hominis corpus corruptum est per peccatum, ipsaque corruptio per conditionem offensionis manet in corpore, robur tenens divinae sententiae datae in Adam, cuius consortio anima maculatur peccato. Per id ergo, quod facti causa manet, *inhabitare* dicitur peccatum in carne »; haec est lex carnis. Idem: « Non habitat peccatum in anima, sed in carne, quia peccati causa ex carne est, non ex anima; quia caro est ex origine carnis peccati, et per traducem omnis caro fit causa[^8] peccati »; anima vero non traducitur, et ideo in se causam peccati non habet. Augustinus quoque, ex carne peccatum animam contrahere, in sermone quodam de Verbis Apostoli[^9] ostendit dicens: « Vitium concupiscentiae est, quod anima non ex se, sed ex carne contraxit. Natura quippe humana non opere Dei cum vitio primitus est instituta, sed ex voluntatis arbitrio priorum hominum venienti vitio est sauciata, ita ut non sit in carne bonum, sed vitium, quo inficitur anima ».

#### Cap. VI.

#### *Utrum causa originalis peccati, quae est in carne, sit culpa, vel poena.*

Hic quaeri solet[^10], utrum causa peccati originalis, quae dicta est esse in carne, culpa sit, vel poena, sive aliquid aliud. Culpa esse non potest, quia culpa non est in re irrationali. Si enim culpa esset in carne ante infusionem animae, actualis esset, vel originalis. Sed actualis ibi non est, nec originalis culpa est, quia ipsa causa est originalis peccati. Si autem poena est, quae est illa? Passibilitas, vel mortalitas, vel alia corruptio? Hos enim defectus carni inesse constat. — Ad quod dici potest, quod multiplex defectus carnis, et praecipue pollutio quaedam, quam ex fervore coitus parentum et concupiscentia libidinosa contrahit caro, dum concipitur, causa est originalis peccati, quae recte vitium sive corruptio carnis appellari potest. Quae foeditas maior videtur esse in carne concupiscentialiter traducta, quam in ea unde traducitur. Et quod vitium vel corruptio sit in carne ante coniunctionem animae, effectu probatur, cum anima infunditur, quae ex corruptione carnis maculatur; sicut in vase dignoscitur vitium esse, cum vinum infusum acescit. — Ne autem miremur et intellectu turbemur audientes, peccatum originale filios traducere a parentibus, iam per baptismum ab illo peccato mundatis, diversarum similitudinum inductione id posse fieri insinuat Augustinus in libro de Baptismo parvulorum[^11], ita inquiens: « Quo modo praeputium per circumcisionem aufertur, manet tamen in eo quem genuerunt circumcisi; quo modo etiam palea, quae opere humano tanta diligentia separatur, manet tamen in fructu, qui de purgato nascitur tritico »: ita peccatum, quod in parentibus per baptismum mundatur, manet in eis quos genuerunt. Ex hoc enim gignunt, quod adhuc vetustum trahunt, non ex hoc, quod in novitate[^12] promovit eos inter filios Dei. Non enim generant parentes filios secundum illam generationem, qua denuo nati sunt, sed potius secundum eam, qua carnaliter et ipsi primum sunt generati.

#### Cap. VII.

#### *Quare dicitur originale peccatum.*

Iam ostensum est[^13], quid sit originale peccatum, et qualiter a parentibus in filios, et per carnem in animam transeat. Ex quibus etiam innotescit, quare dicatur originale peccatum, ideo scilicet, quia ex vitiosa lege originis nostrae, in qua concipimur, scilicet carnis libidinosa concupiscentia, traducitur, ut supra dictum est. Non enim, quia ex carne tracta ab Adam concepti sumus, ideo peccatum traximus, quia et Christi corpus ex eadem carne formatum est, quae ab Adam descendit, sed eius conceptus est celebratus non lege peccati, id est concupiscentia carnis, unde et caro eius peccatrix non fuit, immo operatione Spiritus sancti. Noster vero conceptus non fit sine libidine, et ideo non est sine peccato. Quod evidenter Augustinus ostendit in libro de Fide ad Petrum[^14], sic dicens: « Quia, dum sibi invicem vir mulierque miscentur, sine libidine non est parentum concubitus; ob hoc filiorum ex eorum carne nascentium non potest sine peccato esse conceptus, ubi peccatum in parvulos non transmittit propagatio, sed libido; nec fecunditas humanae naturae facit, homines cum peccato nasci, sed foeditas libidinis, quam homines habent ex illius iustissima condemnatione peccati. Ideo beatus David propter originale peccatum, quo naturaliter obstricti sunt filii irae, dicit: *In iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in peccatis concepit me mater mea* ». — Ex hoc itaque apparet, ex lege conceptionis traduci originale peccatum, quia nisi conceptio sic fieret in carne, anima ex carnis coniunctione concupiscentiae vitium non traheret.

Sed ad hoc opponitur hoc modo. In ipso conceptu, ubi dicitur transmitti peccatum, propagatur caro, nec tamen tunc infunditur anima secundum physicos, sed iam effigiato corpore; quod etiam Moyses in Exodo[^15] aperte significat, ubi ait de percussura mulieris praegnantis: *Si quis,* inquit, *percusserit mulierem praegnantem et abortum fecerit, si adhuc informe fuerit puerperium, mulctabitur pecunia; si autem formatum fuerit, reddat animam pro anima.* Formatum vero intelligitur propria anima animatum, et informe quod nondum habet animam. In ipso ergo conceptu, cum caro propagatur, nondum infunditur anima. Quomodo ergo ibi peccatum transmittitur, cum peccatum non possit esse ubi anima non est? — Ad quod dici potest, quia in illo conceptu dicitur peccatum transmitti, non quia peccatum originale ibi sit, sed quia caro ibi contrahit[^16] id, ex quo peccatum fit in anima, cum infunditur. Et utrumque vocatur conceptus, scilicet et cum caro propagatur formamque corporis humani recipit, et cum anima infunditur, quod aliquando etiam dicitur nativitas — unde, *quod natum est in ea*[^17] — proprie autem nativitas dicitur in lucem editio.

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XXXI.

#### Chapter I.

#### *How original sin is transmitted from parents into the offspring.*

"Now it remains to investigate how that sin is transmitted from parents into the offspring, namely whether according to the soul alone, or according to the flesh, or according to both."

#### Chapter II.

#### *Whether according to the soul, or according to the flesh.*

"Some have thought that original sin is contracted according to the soul, not only according to the flesh, because they judged that not only the flesh but also the soul is from traduction. For just as in the generation of offspring the flesh is substantially drawn from the paternal flesh, so too the soul of the begotten is thought to be essentially derived from the soul of the begetter. And therefore, just as from corrupted flesh corrupted flesh is sown, so too from the sinful soul a sinful soul, infected by original corruption, is said to be drawn from them[^1]."

#### Chapter III.

#### *He shows that sin is transmitted through the flesh, and how.*

But the Catholic faith rejects this and condemns it as contrary to the truth[^2]; for it admits not souls, but the flesh alone, as we said above[^3], to be from traduction. Therefore original sin is drawn from the parents not according to the soul, but according to the flesh alone. For original sin, as we said above, is concupiscence, not indeed an act, but a defect. Hence Augustine[^4]: *Concupiscence itself is the law of the members or of the flesh, which is a certain diseased affection, or languor, that stirs up illicit desire, that is, carnal concupiscence, which is called the law of sin; and it is said to remain in the flesh, not as if it were not in the soul[^5], but because it comes to be in the soul through the corruption of the flesh.*

#### Chapter IV.

#### *He shows the cause of the corruption of the flesh, from which sin comes to be in the soul.*

For the flesh was corrupted on account of[^6] sin in Adam, so much so that, whereas before sin man and woman could come together without the incentive of lust and the fervor of concupiscence, and the marriage-bed was undefiled, now after sin carnal union cannot take place without lustful concupiscence, which is always a defect, and even a fault, unless it be excused by the goods of marriage. In concupiscence, therefore, and in lust the flesh is conceived that is to be formed into the body of the offspring. Hence the flesh itself, which is conceived in vicious concupiscence, is polluted and corrupted; and from its contact the soul, when it is infused, contracts a stain, by which it is polluted and becomes guilty, that is, the defect of concupiscence, which is original sin.

#### Chapter V.

#### *Why sin is said to be in the flesh.*

And therefore sin itself is said to remain in the flesh. The flesh, then, which is sown in the concupiscence of lust, has neither fault nor the act of fault, but the cause. In that which is sown, therefore, there is corruption; but in that which is born, there is the defect of concupiscence. Hence Ambrose[^7], on the words of the Apostle, thus says: "How does sin dwell in the flesh, since it is not a substance, but a privation of good? Behold, the body of the first man was corrupted through sin, and that corruption, by the condition of the offense, remains in the body, keeping the force of the divine sentence given against Adam, by whose fellowship the soul is stained with sin. Through that, therefore, which remains as the cause of the deed, sin is said to *inhabit* the flesh"; this is the law of the flesh. The same: "Sin does not dwell in the soul, but in the flesh, because the cause of sin is from the flesh, not from the soul; because the flesh is from the origin of the flesh of sin, and through traduction all flesh becomes the cause[^8] of sin"; but the soul is not transmitted by traduction, and therefore does not have the cause of sin in itself. Augustine too shows that the soul contracts sin from the flesh, in a certain sermon on the Words of the Apostle[^9], saying: "The defect of concupiscence is something that the soul contracted not from itself, but from the flesh. For human nature was not at first established with a defect by the work of God, but was wounded by a defect coming from the choice of the will of the first men, so that there is in the flesh not good, but a defect, by which the soul is infected."

#### Chapter VI.

#### *Whether the cause of original sin, which is in the flesh, is fault or punishment.*

Here it is usually asked[^10] whether the cause of original sin, which has been said to be in the flesh, is fault or punishment, or something else. It cannot be fault, because fault is not in an irrational thing. For if fault were in the flesh before the infusion of the soul, it would be actual or original. But it is not actual there, nor is it original fault, because it itself is the cause of original sin. But if it is punishment, what is it? Passibility, or mortality, or some other corruption? For it is established that these defects are in the flesh. — To which it can be said that the manifold defect of the flesh, and especially a certain pollution, which the flesh contracts from the fervor of the intercourse of the parents and from lustful concupiscence while it is conceived, is the cause of original sin, and can rightly be called the defect or corruption of the flesh. This foulness seems to be greater in the flesh transmitted concupiscentially than in that from which it is transmitted. And that there is a defect or corruption in the flesh before the conjunction of the soul is proved by its effect, when the soul is infused, which is stained by the corruption of the flesh; just as in a vessel a defect is recognized when the wine poured in turns sour. — But lest we wonder and be disturbed in understanding when we hear that original sin is transmitted to the offspring from parents already cleansed of that sin by baptism, Augustine, in the book On the Baptism of Little Children[^11], suggests by the bringing forward of various likenesses that this can happen, thus saying: "Just as the foreskin is taken away by circumcision, yet it remains in him whom the circumcised have begotten; just as the chaff also, which is separated by human labor with such great diligence, yet remains in the fruit which is born from the cleansed wheat": so the sin which is cleansed in the parents by baptism remains in those whom they have begotten. For they beget by this, that they still draw the old, not by this, that He advanced them in newness[^12] among the sons of God. For parents do not beget children according to that generation by which they were born anew, but rather according to that by which they themselves also were first carnally generated.

#### Chapter VII.

#### *Why it is called original sin.*

It has now been shown[^13] what original sin is, and how it passes from the parents into the offspring, and through the flesh into the soul. From which it also becomes known why it is called original sin, namely for this reason, that it is transmitted from the vicious law of our origin, in which we are conceived, that is, the lustful concupiscence of the flesh, as was said above. For it is not because we have been conceived from the flesh drawn from Adam that we have drawn sin, since Christ's body too was formed from the same flesh which descended from Adam, but His conception was accomplished not by the law of sin, that is, the concupiscence of the flesh, whence His flesh too was not sinful, but rather by the working of the Holy Spirit. But our conception does not take place without lust, and therefore is not without sin. This Augustine clearly shows in the book On the Faith, to Peter[^14], thus saying: "Because, while man and woman mingle with each other, the intercourse of the parents is not without lust; for this reason the conception of the children born from their flesh cannot be without sin, where it is not propagation that transmits sin to the little ones, but lust; nor does the fecundity of human nature cause men to be born with sin, but the foulness of lust, which men have from that most just condemnation of sin. Therefore blessed David, on account of original sin, by which the children of wrath are naturally bound, says: *In iniquities I was conceived, and in sins did my mother conceive me*" (Psalm 50, 7, Vulgate). — From this, then, it appears that original sin is transmitted from the law of conception, because unless conception took place thus in the flesh, the soul would not draw the defect of concupiscence from the conjunction with the flesh.

But against this it is objected in this way. In the very conception, where sin is said to be transmitted, the flesh is propagated, yet the soul is not then infused, according to the natural philosophers, but only when the body has already been formed; which Moses too in Exodus[^15] plainly signifies, where he says concerning the striking of a pregnant woman: *If anyone,* he says, *strikes a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage, if the offspring is still unformed, he shall be fined money; but if it is formed, he shall give a soul for a soul* (Exodus 21, 22). Now "formed" is understood as animated by its own soul, and "unformed" as that which does not yet have a soul. In the very conception, therefore, when the flesh is propagated, the soul is not yet infused. How, then, is sin transmitted there, since sin cannot be where there is no soul? — To which it can be said that in that conception sin is said to be transmitted, not because original sin is there, but because the flesh there contracts[^16] that from which sin comes to be in the soul, when it is infused. And both are called "conception," namely both when the flesh is propagated and receives the form of the human body, and when the soul is infused — which is sometimes also called "nativity," whence, *that which is born in her*[^17] — but properly "nativity" is called the bringing forth into the light.

---

la: Dist. XLIV. p. I. a. 2. q. I. — Cod. aa et ed. I *manifestabitur.*

en: Distinction XLIV, pars I, art. 2, q. I. — Codex aa and edition 1 read *manifestabitur.*

la: Quae praecedunt sunt fere ad verbum ex Hugone, l. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 29.

en: What precedes is taken almost word for word from Hugh, On the Sacraments, p. VII, c. 29.

la: Dist. XVIII. c. 7. Deinde citatur d. XXX. c. 9.

en: Distinction XVIII, c. 7. Then Distinction XXX, c. 9, is cited.

la: Libr. I. de Nuptiis et concupisc. c. 23. n. 28, c. 30. n. 34, c. 31. n. 33, et in Glossa ad Rom. 7, 23.

en: Book I, On Marriage and Concupiscence, c. 23, n. 28, c. 30, n. 34, c. 31, n. 33, and in the Gloss on Romans 7, 23.

la: Ed. 8. *quia in anima non sit,* Vat. *quia in carne sit.* — Deinde in fine pro *fit,* quod habent edd. 1, 3, 8, in aliis edd. *sit.*

en: Edition 8 reads *quia in anima non sit* [because it is not in the soul], the Vatican edition *quia in carne sit* [because it is in the flesh]. — Then at the end, for *fit,* which editions 1, 3, 8 have, the other editions read *sit.*

la: Edd. 1, 8 *per.* — Deinde alluditur ad Hebr. 13, 4; cfr. d. XX. c. 2. — In fine capituli pro *id est vitium* ed. 1 *per vitium.*

en: Editions 1, 8 read *per.* — Then there is an allusion to Hebrews 13, 4; cf. Distinction XX, c. 2. — At the end of the chapter, for *id est vitium,* edition 1 reads *per vitium.*

la: Comment. in Epist. ad Rom. 7, 18. (inter opera S. Ambros.). Seq. locus est ibid. v. 22. — Quae praecedunt sunt ex Hugone, l. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 31. — Pro *concupiscentiae vitium* edd. 1, 2, 3, 7 *vitium concupiscentia.*

en: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 7, 18 (among the works of St. Ambrose). The following passage is in the same place, v. 22. — What precedes is from Hugh, On the Sacraments, p. VII, c. 31. — For *concupiscentiae vitium,* editions 1, 2, 3, 7 read *vitium concupiscentia.*

la: Codd. A B E et edd. 1, 8 cum originali omittunt *causa;* tunc intellige: caro peccati.

en: Codices A B E and editions 1, 8, with the original, omit *causa;* then understand: "flesh of sin."

la: Serm. 30. (alias 12. de Verb. Apost.) c. 5. n. 6; cfr. Serm. 294. (alias 14.) c. 13. n. 14. seqq., et II. contra Iulian. c. 3.

en: Sermon 30 (otherwise 12, on the Words of the Apostle), c. 5, n. 6; cf. Sermon 294 (otherwise 14), c. 13, n. 14 ff., and Against Julian II, c. 3.

la: Hoc et seq. cap. est apud Hugonem, Sent. tr. 3. c. 12.

en: This and the following chapter are found in Hugh, Sentences, tr. 3, c. 12.

la: Libr. III. c. 8. n. 16. Etiam quod sequitur magna ex parte invenitur ibid. et deinde II. c. 9. n. 11.

en: Book III, c. 8, n. 16. What follows is also found in great part in the same place, and then in Book II, c. 9, n. 11.

la: Codd. A D *lex in novitate promovit,* cod. C *vel ex novitate promovit,* alii codd. et edd. *in novitate promovit.* Retinuimus tamen lectionem Vat., quae correspondet originali. Vocabula *vetustum* et *novitas* alludunt ad modum loquendi S. Paulo familiarem de *novo* et *vetere homine* vel de *novitate vitae,* Rom. 6, 4. 6; Ephes. 4, 22, 24. et alibi.

en: Codices A D read *lex in novitate promovit,* codex C *vel ex novitate promovit,* the other codices and editions *in novitate promovit.* We have, however, retained the Vatican reading, which corresponds to the original. The words *vetustum* and *novitas* allude to the manner of speaking familiar to St. Paul concerning the *new* and the *old man* or concerning *newness of life,* Romans 6, 4. 6; Ephesians 4, 22, 24, and elsewhere.

la: Dist. XXX. c. 5. — Seq. locus est hic c. 4. — Paulo inferius pro *carne tracta* ed. 1 *carne traducta.*

en: Distinction XXX, c. 5. — The following passage is here, c. 4. — A little below, for *carne tracta,* edition 1 reads *carne traducta.*

la: Cap. 2. n. 16. — Locus Scripturae est Ps. 50, 7. — Deinde pro *nisi conceptio* codd. B C E et ed. 1 non bene *nisi corruptio.*

en: Chapter 2, n. 16. — The scriptural passage is Psalm 50, 7. — Then, for *nisi conceptio,* codices B C E and edition 1 read, not well, *nisi corruptio.*

la: Cap. 21, 22 seqq., omissis multis.

en: Chapter 21, 22 ff., with many things omitted.

la: Codd. *trahit.* Paulo inferius Vat. cum pluribus edd. *cum est* pro *et cum,* refragantibus codd. et ed. 1.

en: The codices read *trahit.* A little below, the Vatican edition with several editions reads *cum est* for *et cum,* against the codices and edition 1.

la: Matth. 1, 20. Cod. Erf. et ed. 1 *natum est in te.* — Paulo superius Vat. cum paucis edd. post *unde* addit *dicitur.*

en: Matthew 1, 20. Codex Erf. and edition 1 read *natum est in te* [that which is born in thee]. — A little above, the Vatican edition with a few editions adds *dicitur* after *unde.* ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (raw 51384–51529) as base, with the 450 dpi PDF column bands (printed pp. 737–739 = PDF 759–761, offset `pdf = printed + 22`) authoritative wherever the two-column OCR was cascade-fragmented (footers especially), reflowed Left-column-then-Right per the Vol II two-column discipline. This is Lombard's *Littera Magistri* for Distinctio XXXI (*Qualiter peccatum originale a parente traducatur in prolem* — how original sin is transmitted from parent to offspring), Cap. I–VII. The littera proper opens with the second `DISTINCTIO XXXI.` header at the head of the p.737 L-column lower band (raw 51384) and closes at the head of p.739 with "…proprie autem nativitas dicitur in lucem editio.", immediately before COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXI (raw 51530), which is the `d31-divisio` chunk. The d.30 *epilogus utriusque quaest.* bleed at the very top of the p.737 L-column ("…mediante vero opere nutritivae transit aliquid in veritatem… ea quae dicuntur in littera") belongs to `d30-a3-q2` (already built) and is excluded.

**Capitula (7), order verified at 450 dpi.** Cap. I *Quomodo peccatum originale a patribus transeat in filios*; Cap. II *An secundum animam, an secundum carnem*; Cap. III *Quod per carnem traducatur peccatum et quomodo, ostendit*; Cap. IV *Causam corruptionis carnis ostendit, ex qua peccatum fit in anima*; Cap. V *Quare dicitur peccatum esse in carne*; Cap. VI *Utrum causa originalis peccati, quae est in carne, sit culpa, vel poena*; Cap. VII *Quare dicitur originale peccatum*. All seven present and in order. Theme: original sin is transmitted not according to the soul (against the traducianists, Cap. II) but according to the flesh alone (Cap. III–IV, from Hugh of St. Victor and Augustine); the cause in the flesh is neither fault nor (simply) punishment but the corruption/pollution contracted in concupiscential conception (Cap. V–VI); and it is called "original" because drawn from the vicious law of our origin, with the conception/animation (Exodus 21,22 abortion-penalty) and *conceptus/nativitas* discussion closing the littera (Cap. VII).

**Page-split map.** Reading order is Left column top→bottom, then Right column top→bottom, per printed page. **p.737:** L-col lower band = DISTINCTIO XXXI header + Cap. I + Cap. II; R-col = Cap. III + Cap. IV opener. (The p.737 L-col TOP band, above the littera, holds the d.30 *epilogus* bleed + the octo-nominibus DUBIUM CIRCA LITTERAM — see disposition below — neither belonging to this littera.) **p.738:** L-col = Cap. IV tail + Cap. V + Cap. VI opener; R-col = Cap. VI tail + Cap. VII (through "…in libro de Fide ad Petrum, sic dicens: « Quia, dum…"). **p.739:** L-col top = Cap. VII continued (David Ps.50 quote + "Sed ad hoc opponitur… quod etiam Moyses in Exodo"), then COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXI begins (that is `d31-divisio`); R-col top = Cap. VII continued (Exodus abortion passage "Si quis percusserit mulierem praegnantem…" + conceptus/nativitas), closing "…in lucem editio." before DISTINCTIONEM XXXI / DIVISIO TEXTUS (divisio). Body seams across page/column breaks all grammatically continuous (450 dpi verified): 737 L→R (Cap. II `…trahi dicitur. » ‖` Cap. III); 737→738 (Cap. IV `…Caro enim propter peccatum corrupta fuit in ‖ incentivo libidinis…`); 738 L→R (Cap. VI `…Sed ‖ actualis ibi non est…`); 738→739 + 739 L→R (Cap. VII `…« Quia, dum ‖ sibi invicem vir mulierque miscentur…` and `…Moyses in Exodo ‖ aperte significat…`).

**Apparatus split map (17 entries, body-anchor order; footer numbering restarts per column-block).** **p.737:** L-col footer 1 → [^1] (Dist. XLIV; *manifestabitur*) at Cap. II *trahi dicitur* — the ONLY p.737 L-col footer belonging to the littera (L-col footers 2–5 belong to the octo-nominibus DUBIUM, see disposition). R-col footers 1–5 → [^2]–[^6]: [^2]=f1 (Hugo de Sacram. p.VII c.29, "quae praecedunt") at Cap. III opening *respuit et… damnat*; [^3]=f2 (Dist. XVIII / d.XXX) at *sicut superius diximus*; [^4]=f3 (de Nuptiis et concup.) at *Unde Augustinus*; [^5]=f4 (*quia in anima non sit* / *in carne fit*) at *non quin in anima sit*; [^6]=f5 (*per*; Hebr. 13,4) at Cap. IV *propter peccatum*. **p.738:** L-col footers 1–5 → [^7]–[^11]: [^7]=f1 (Ambros. Rom. 7,18) at Cap. V *Unde Ambrosius*; [^8]=f2 (omittunt *causa*) at *fit causa peccati*; [^9]=f3 (Serm. 30) at *de Verbis Apostoli*; [^10]=f4 (Hugo Sent. tr.3 c.12) at Cap. VI *Hic quaeri solet*; [^11]=f5 (de Bapt. parvul. III) at *de Baptismo parvulorum*. R-col footers 6–8 → [^12]–[^14]: [^12]=f6 (*in novitate promovit*) at *in novitate promovit*; [^13]=f7 (Dist. XXX c.5) at Cap. VII *Iam ostensum est*; [^14]=f8 (Cap.2 n.16; Ps. 50,7) at *de Fide ad Petrum*. **p.739:** footers 1–3 → [^15]–[^17]: [^15]=f1 (Exod. 21,22) at *Moyses in Exodo*; [^16]=f2 (Codd. *trahit*) at *caro ibi contrahit id*; [^17]=f3 (Matth. 1,20) at *quod natum est in ea*. Total = 6 (p.737) + 8 (p.738) + 3 (p.739) = 17. The remaining p.739 footer block (the Primo/Secundo/Tertio *quaeritur* TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM notes) belongs to `d31-divisio`, not the littera.

**Octo-nominibus DUBIUM disposition (boundary finding).** The short *DUBIUM CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI* (raw 51367–51383) sits on p.737 in the L-column TOP band — physically **before** the second `DISTINCTIO XXXI.` header and the littera's Cap. I. It is **a *dubium circa litteram* of DISTINCTIO XXX, NOT an opener of XXXI**: it asks why the Master (in d.30's last chapter, "*Nunc superest videre… nominet originale peccatum octo nominibus*") names original sin by **eight names** (originale peccatum / lex carnis / concupiscibilitas / concupiscentia / fomes / lex membrorum / languor naturae / tyrannus) and how those names are distinguished. It is Bonaventure's own dubium, references d.30 c.8, and prints *before* the d.31 littera. Its footers are the **p.737 L-col footers 2–5**: f2 (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*), f3 (*Cap. 8.* — Vat. octo-nominibus variant), f4 (Vat. *inclinatur*), f5 (*De hoc dubio cfr. Alex. Hal.…*) — i.e. exactly the **forwarded 3–5** from d30-a3-q2, plus f2. This littera does NOT include the dubium and does NOT pick up footers 2–5. **NEXT DISPATCH** should be `bon-sent-II-d30-dubia` (or `d30-dubia-circa-litteram`) — the octo-nominibus DUBIUM CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI, p.737, raw 51367–51383, picking up p.737 L-col footers 2–5 (the forwarded 3–5 + f2), closing DISTINCTIO XXX. After it, dispatch `bon-sent-II-d31-divisio` (COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXI, opens raw 51530 / p.739 L-col).

**Hand-offs.** RECEIVED: nothing for the littera (the prior unit d30-a3-q2 forwarded p.737 footers 3–5 to the d.30 octo-nominibus dubium, NOT to this littera). FORWARDED: p.737 L-col footers 2–5 (incl. the forwarded 3–5) to the d.30 octo-nominibus DUBIUM chunk; the p.739 COMMENTARIUS/DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM footer block to `d31-divisio`.

**[?] flags.** None. OCR garbles silently corrected against the 450 dpi PDF (e.g. invesligare→investigare, secunduni→secundum, utnmque→utrumque, gigneutis→gignentis, memhrorum→membrorum, lanijuor→languor, lex pecca;?→lex peccati, immackitus→immaculatus, fleri→fieri, coucupiscentia→concupiscentia, seminatur retained, contraxit retained, mulctabitur retained, effigiato→effigiato, nativitas retained as Quaracchi spelling). The OCR "Dist. ii." for [^1] is the digit-mangle of "Dist. XLIV." (the d.44 cross-ref confirmed against the 450 dpi footer band reading "Dist. 44.").


title: Dist. 31, Divisio Textus

source_text:
<!-- page 739 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXI.

### *Qualiter peccatum originale a parente traducatur in prolem.*

*Nunc superest investigare* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra ostendit Magister, quid sit peccatum originale; in hac parte intendit manifestare, qualiter a parente traducitur in prolem. Dividitur autem pars ista in tres partes. In quarum prima Magister falsitatem improbat. In secunda veritatem explicat, ibi: *Est enim peccatum originale, ut supra diximus, concupiscentia.* In tertia vero veritatem epilogat, ut addat, ibi: *Iam ostensum est, quid sit originale peccatum* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima ponit falsam opinionem circa originalis traductionem. In secunda subiungit eius improbationem, ibi: *Hoc autem fides catholica respuit*, ubi ostendit, quod originale non potest traduci per traductionem animae. Similiter secunda pars principalis duas habet. In quarum prima veritatem determinat ostendens, quod originale traducitur mediante carne. In secunda vero removet dubitationem, ibi: *Hic quaeri solet, utrum causa originalis* etc. Similiter tertia pars principalis duas habet. In quarum prima determinata epilogat et explanat. In secunda vero dubitationem movet et determinat, ibi: *Sed ad hoc opponitur hoc modo.* — Et sic huius distinctionis intentio versatur principaliter circa duo. Quorum primum est, quod originale non potest traduci mediante anima; secundum est, qualiter traducitur mediante carne.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem eorum quae in hac parte dicuntur, incidit hic quaestio circa duo.

Primum est, utrum originale traduci possit mediante sensibili portione.

Secundum est, utrum traduci habeat mediante carne.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum sensibilis anima in hominibus sit a generante.

Secundo quaeritur, cui parti animae primo insit peccatum originale.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum per originale maior fiat in nobis corruptio generativae quam alterius potentiae.

---

english:
### Commentary on Distinction XXXI.

### *How original sin is transmitted from parent to offspring.*

*Now it remains to investigate* etc.

### Division of the text.

Above, the Master showed what original sin is; in this part he intends to make clear how it is transmitted from parent to offspring. Now this part is divided into three parts. In the first of these the Master disproves a falsehood. In the second he sets forth the truth, there: *For original sin, as we said above, is concupiscence.* In the third he sums up the truth, so as to add, there: *It has now been shown what original sin is* etc.

The first part has two [subparts]. In the first he sets down a false opinion concerning the transmission of original sin. In the second he subjoins its refutation, there: *But this the catholic faith rejects*, where he shows that original sin cannot be transmitted by the transmission of the soul. Likewise the second principal part has two [subparts]. In the first of these he determines the truth, showing that original sin is transmitted by means of the flesh. In the second he removes a doubt, there: *Here it is wont to be asked whether the cause of the original* etc. Likewise the third principal part has two [subparts]. In the first he sums up and explains what has been determined. In the second he raises a doubt and determines it, there: *But against this it is objected in this way.* — And thus the intention of this distinction is principally engaged about two [things]. Of these the first is that original sin cannot be transmitted by means of the soul; the second is how it is transmitted by means of the flesh.

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of the things which are said in this part, there arises here a question regarding two [things].

The first is whether original sin can be transmitted by means of the sensitive portion.

The second is whether it has to be transmitted by means of the flesh.

Concerning the first, three [questions] are asked.

First it is asked whether the sensitive soul in men is from the begetter.

Second it is asked to which part of the soul original sin first belongs.

Third it is asked whether through the original [sin] there comes to be in us a greater corruption of the generative [power] than of another power.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol2_raw.txt`, raw 51530–51574) with the 450 dpi PDF column bands (printed p. 739 = PDF 761, offset `pdf = printed + 22`) authoritative wherever the two-column OCR cascade-fragmented the text — reflowed Left column top→bottom then Right column per the Vol II two-column discipline (`/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p739-{L,R}-{1,2}`). This chunk holds the **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXI** header + theme (*Qualiter peccatum originale a parente traducatur in prolem*) + lemma (*Nunc superest investigare* etc.) + **DIVISIO TEXTUS** + **TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM**. `has_scholion=false` (no scholion attaches to a divisio chunk); `has_apparatus=false` (see Apparatus + footer accounting below).

**Skeleton re-range correction.** The auto-chunked skeleton had `line_start: 51506 / line_end: 51529`, which was WRONG — that range is the *littera tail* (the "sibi invicem vir mulierque miscentur…" David Ps.50 / Exodus abortion passage) already captured in `d31-littera`. Corrected to raw **51530** (`COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXI`) → **51574** (ends immediately before `ARTICULUS I.` at raw 51575). The `## Latin` body was re-set wholly from the corrected range.

**Page-split map.** The entire divisio sits on **p.739** (running head `DIST. XXXI. DIVISIO TEXTUS. 739`). The *Littera Magistri* closes at the top of p.739 R-column (*…proprie autem nativitas dicitur in lucem editio.*, raw 51529), then COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXI begins mid-page (raw 51530, p.739 L-col-2 band) and runs DIVISIO TEXTUS (two-column) + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM to the foot of p.739, ending immediately before **ARTICULUS I / Utrum originale peccatum traducatur mediante sensibili portione / QUAESTIO I** (raw 51575/51577, p.740 head). Per Override §5, the short ARTICULUS I opener (article title + theme) folds into `d31-a1-q1` — no standalone article-opener chunk. Single page break (`<!-- page 739 -->`); the divisio does not spill onto p.740.

**Footer accounting vs d31-littera (no double-count).** The three footers physically printed at the foot of p.739 are: (1) `Cap. 21, 22 seqq., omissis multis.` (Exodus); (2) `Codd. trahit. Paulo inferius Vat. cum pluribus edd. cum est pro et cum…`; (3) `Matth. 1, 20. Cod. Erf. et ed. 1 natum est in te…`. **All three annotate the littera's Exodus/conceptus/nativitas passage** (top of p.739) and are already rendered as `d31-littera` [^15], [^16], [^17] — verified at 450 dpi and against the littera chunk. The COMMENTARIUS + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM body below them carries **no footnote markers**, so this divisio has **no apparatus of its own**. The `d31-littera` forward-handoff note that anticipated "a remaining p.739 footer block belonging to d31-divisio" was speculative; on eyes-on there is no such block. No double-count: the divisio claims none of the three p.739 footers.

**Hand-offs.** RECEIVED from `d31-littera`: none consumed (the littera correctly retained all three p.739 footers as [^15]–[^17]; the COMMENTARIUS opening *Supra ostendit Magister…* is grammatically independent of the littera tail). FORWARDED to `d31-a1-q1`: none — the divisio closes clean at the end of the TRACTATIO question-list, immediately before ARTICULUS I QUAESTIO I (raw 51575/51577, p.740). No footers spill forward.

**TRACTATIO question-list (verbatim, verified at 450 dpi).** D.31 has **TWO articles** (membra), with the quaestiones nested under ARTICULUS I:
- *Primum est, utrum originale traduci possit mediante sensibili portione.* (= ARTICULUS I theme: *Utrum originale peccatum traducatur mediante sensibili portione*, raw 51577)
- *Secundum est, utrum traduci habeat mediante carne.* (= ARTICULUS II theme)

*ARTICULUS I — three questions ("Circa primum quaeruntur tria"; this list IS printed in the divisio TRACTATIO):*
1. *Primo quaeritur, utrum sensibilis anima in hominibus sit a generante.* (= a1-q1, QUAESTIO I, raw 51582)
2. *Secundo quaeritur, cui parti animae primo insit peccatum originale.* (= a1-q2)
3. *Tertio quaeritur, utrum per originale maior fiat in nobis corruptio generativae quam alterius potentiae.* (= a1-q3)

*ARTICULUS II — its three questions are printed at the ART II opener (not in this divisio TRACTATIO). Per the raw header scan ARTICULUS II also carries QUAESTIO I/II/III; per Override §5 the short ART II opener folds into a2-q1.*

**[?] flags.** None. OCR garbles silently corrected against the 450 dpi PDF (e.g. *falsi-tatem→falsitatem*, *niediante→mediante*, *liuius→huius*, *versatur* retained, *QUAESTIONUIM→QUAESTIONUM*, *dJante→mediante*, *intelligentiam* retained). All readings unambiguous at 450 dpi.