title: Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 314 -->

### Quaestio II. *Qualiter illa lux fecerit diem et noctem.*

Secundo quaeritur, qualiter illa lux faciebat noctem et diem. Et dicit Damascenus[^1], quod faciebat per emissionem radiorum et contractionem. Ait enim sic: «*In primis tribus diebus, effluxo et contracto lumine, Dominico praecepto dies et nox fiebat*». Et Basilius in Hexaëmero[^2]: «*Tunc autem non solaris corporis motu, sed diffusione principalis luminis, modo se subducentis, modo denuo reducentis, secundum divinam praeceptionem dies fiebat, noxque revertebatur*». Beda autem et alii expositores Latini dicunt, quod diem et noctem faciebat sua revolutione; et hoc habitum fuit in auctoritate prius[^3] posita, quae inducitur in littera: *Occidente luce paulatim* etc. — *Duplex expositio.*

*Contra primum modum dicendi obiicitur sic.*

*Fundamenta.*

1. Primo Scriptura dicit[^4]: *Divisit Deus lucem a tenebris*: ergo simul fuerunt lux et tenebrae; sed si lux illa faceret diem et noctem per emissionem et retractionem radiorum, cum non sit simul emissio et retractio, non esset simul tenebrarum et lucis divisio.

2. Item, Scriptura dicit[^5], quod lux illa faciendo diem faciebat vespere et mane; sed si sola radiorum emissione fieret dies, et sola contractione fieret nox, nunquam esset vespere et mane, sed semper esset clarus dies, vel obscura nox: ergo ille modus dicendi non competit sacrae Scripturae.

3. Item, *emittere* et *contrahere* radios sunt operationes oppositae: ergo cum solae potestates rationales sint ad opposita[^6], videtur, quod lux illa esset rationalis substantia: si ergo hoc est absurdum dicere, videtur etc.

4. Item, quod lux illuminet, iste est actus naturalis et necessarius: si ergo nulla substantia potest se ipsam privare sua necessaria et naturali operatione[^7], videtur, quod lux, ubi erat, non poterat non illuminare: ergo non poterat radios suos contrahere.

*Contra secundum modum obiicitur sic.*

1. Ad hoc, quod fiat motus alicuius corporis regularis et uniformis, non solum requiritur virtus motoris, sed etiam congrua dispositio ex parte mobilis et ex parte spatii: ergo si adhuc non erat facta orbium distinctio, videtur, quod nulla fieret huius corporis revolutio[^8]. — *Ad oppositum.*

2. Item, materia ex omni parte sua erat uniformis: si ergo motus est propter aliquam diversitatem, vel in eo quod movetur, vel in eo circa quod movetur, videtur, quod illa lux non moveretur: ergo non faciebat diem et noctem per suum motum.

3. Item, materia illa ex omni parte erat aeque illuminabilis: ergo si lux illa, ubicumque esset, illuminabat, quocumque moveretur, continue faciebat diem: ergo nunquam faciebat mane et vespere.

<!-- page 315 -->

4. Item, si per suum motum faciebat diem et noctem, cum lux illa ante fuerit producta quam mota, fuit producta ante omnem diem: ergo non fuit opus primae diei. Si tu dicas mihi, quod simul coepit esse et illuminare et moveri; quaero, ubi primo incepit moveri: aut enim ex *oriente*, aut ex *occidente*, aut ex aliqua *alia parte caeli*. Si ex *oriente*, ergo videtur, quod primo fecerit mane et postea vesperam, et hoc est contra Scripturam[^9], quae dicit: *Factum est vespere et mane*. Si ex *occidente*, ergo videtur, quod lux coeperit in occasu, quod est inconveniens. Si in aliqua *parte alia*, ut in meridie, tunc videtur, quod dies ille non habuerit viginti quatuor horas, quod est contra expositores[^10].

Et propter hoc est quaestio, ubi lux illa sit facta, et qualiter diem et noctem faciebat. — *Quaestio annexa.*

### CONCLUSIO.

> *Lux illa probabilius noctem et diem fecit suo motu, sicut nunc sol sua facit actione.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut praetactum est in principio[^11], duplex est hic modus dicendi: unus secundum doctores Graecos, videlicet Basilium et Gregorium et Damascenum; alter secundum Latinos.

*Opinio Graecorum.* Dixerunt enim Basilius et Damascenus, quod illa lux emissione et contractione radiorum diem et noctem faciebat; hoc autem dicebant esse in potestate ipsius lucis, non per virtutem propriam, sed per praeceptionem divinam. Et huius simile legimus in Scriptura, Exodi decimo[^12]: *Extendit Moyses manum in caelum, et factae sunt tenebrae horribiles in tota terra Aegypti tribus diebus*. Constat enim, quod in illo triduo sol erat in hemisphaerio terrae nostrae habitabilis, et in terram Iessen et in alias habitabiles regiones radios suae lucis emittebat, et a terra Aegypti radios eiusdem lucis contrahebat. Simile etiam forte factum est in passione Domini, ubi sol dicitur obscuratus fuisse[^13]: et hoc totum factum est non natura, sed divino praecepto. Et per hunc modum intellexerunt doctores Graeci fuisse in illo primo triduo; et propterea rationes prius inductae de naturali potestate in nullo eos laedunt. Auctoritates etiam sacrae Scripturae non videntur contraire, quia divisio illa lucis a tenebris non intelligitur quantum ad situm localem, sed quantum ad distinctionem formalem, sicut distinguitur habitus a sua privatione. Et quia ab hoc habitu in privationem et processus erat et regressus; quantum ad regressum in habitum dicitur fecisse mane, quod quidem fiebat radiorum emissione; quantum vero ad progressum in privationem dicitur fecisse vesperam, quod quidem fiebat radiorum contractione.

*Opinio Latinorum.* *Conclusio.* Alius[^14] modus dicendi est secundum Latinos doctores, qui videtur esse rationabilior, quia virtuti naturali possibilior, scilicet quod lux illa noctem et diem faciebat suo motu, sicut sol sua facit actione. Intelligitur enim lux illa facta fuisse, ubi nunc est sol — nam et ex illa formatus creditur esse sol[^15] — producta autem fuit super eam partem, supra quam est nostrum hemisphaerium, et illud hemisphaerium illuminando fecit diem, et progrediens pervenit ad occasum et fecit vespere, et post demum regrediens ad ortum fecit mane. Unde respectu unius et eiusdem hemisphaerii noctem et diem faciebat successive; respectu vero hemisphaerii nostri et alterius simul faciebat diem ex una parte et noctem ex alia, ex obiectu illius naturae densae[^16], quae erat in medio illius materiae; quae quamvis non esset adhuc in forma completa, erat tamen in illa parte ita densata, ut posset proiicere umbram, sicut in parte superiori pro sua raritate et quadam subtilitate poterat suscipere[^17] lucis influentiam. Et ideo utrumque horum insinuans Scriptura dicit: *Divisit Deus lucem a tenebris*, quantum ad existentiam lucis in uno hemisphaerio et tenebrae in alio; *et factum est vespere et mane*, quantum ad recessum a nostro hemisphaerio et quantum ad regressum.

*Solutio oppositorum.*

1. Hunc igitur modum tanquam probabiliorem sustinendo respondendum est ad primum, quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod non erat ibi idoneitas spatii nec corporis, per quod fieret motus alicuius orbis; dicendum, quod sicut sol in claritate illam lucem[^18] excedit, ita etiam in motus regularitate propter orbium distinctionem et complementum; et sicut lux illa claritatem habebat sufficientem pro illo statu, sic etiam superior pars materiae, quae rarior erat et purior, viam sibi praebebat ad motum habilem, quamvis non esset in tanta perfectione, in quanta nunc est aether.

<!-- page 316 -->

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod materia ex omni parte erat uniformis; dicendum, quod etsi ex omni parte esset influentiam lucis aequaliter nata suscipere, illa tamen lux non poterat undique illuminare, sicut et sol nunc non potest[^19]. Et ideo, cum ex una parte illuminabatur, ex alia parte erat obscura; et quia ad lumen uniformiter erat disposita, cum non posset simul illuminari, oportebat illuminari successive, et ita oportebat, fieri noctem et diem. Si tu quaeris, quare Deus non fecit lucem ita sufficientem, quod undique posset illuminare; dicendum, quod si sic fecisset, per illam lucem esset illuminatio, sed non horarum distinctio nec temporalis successio. Divinae autem dispositioni placuit, mundum quasi carmen pulcherrimum quodam decursu temporum venustare[^20].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod semper illuminabat, ergo semper diem faciebat; dicendum, quod non sequitur, quia non quaecumque illuminatio dies appellabatur, sed illuminatio, quae est in nostro hemisphaerio; quae magis *dies* dicebatur quam illuminatio alterius hemisphaerii, non propter id quod tunc erat solum, sed etiam propter id quod futurum erat[^21].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ante fuit producta quam mota; dicendum, quod in die naturali duo sunt, videlicet *claritas aeris* sive *rei transparentis*, et *successio temporis*. — *Ad diem duo requiruntur.* Claritatem autem faciebat lux radiorum multiplicatione in parte materiae transparentis; et quia lux simul est et lucet et illuminat, simul coepit isto modo dies cum luce. Successionem autem temporis faciebat vel ipsa mutabilitas, quae erat in materia informi ante productionem lucis, vel etiam ipsa lux mota, quae erat *nubes lucida*; et ita utroque modo successio temporis vel simul cum luce incipiebat, vel ante; et illa successio ad primum diem spectabat. Et ideo, quocumque modo dicatur *dies*[^22], formatio lucis est opus primae diei, non quia prima dies ipsam lucem praecesserit, sed quia simul incepit dies cum luce. Quamvis enim motus sequatur esse secundum naturam, tamen duratione potest simul cum mobili incipere. — Et si tu quaeras, ubi inceperit moveri; dico, quod ubi facta est. Sed de loco, ubi facta est, duae sunt opiniones. — *Ad quaest. connexam.*

*Opinio 1 cum duplici ratione.* Quidam enim dicunt, quod lux illa facta est in meridie. Et rationem huius assignant duplicem: unam quia lux illa primo faciebat vespere et postea mane, sicut dicit Scriptura: ergo videtur, quod prius tenderet ad occasum, quam rediret ad ortum. Alia ratio est, quia *Dei perfecta sunt opera*[^23], et ideo diem et lucem fecit in sua plenitudine et ita in meridie. Et hoc videtur sentire Beda et alii expositores, qui dicunt, primum diem a plena luce coepisse. Et si tu obiicias, quod tunc a principio diei usque ad mane non sunt viginti quatuor horae; respondent et dicunt, quod sex horae huius diei praecesserant, successione temporis pertranseunte, propter mutabilitatem ipsius materiae, et postmodum sexta hora, quae est in numero perfecto, facta est lux, quae est corpus perfectum in sui natura, in plena et perfecta irradiatione, utpote in meridie. Et cum esset tunc tempus aequinoctiale, usque ad occasum fuerunt sex horae, et postmodum usque ad ortum sequentis diei fuerunt duodecim, et sex praecesserant ante formationem lucis post creationem caeli et terrae, et ita factus est dies naturalis perfectus et integer.

*Opinio 2.* Alia opinio est, quod non fuerit mora temporis interiecta inter creationem et distinctionem, immo statim post creationem caeli et terrae produxit Dominus lucem, ita quod posterius natura, sed simul duratione. Et isti dicunt, quod lux illa coepit in oriente et sua revolutione perfecta, tendendo ab eodem puncto in idem, fecit diem naturalem. Et hoc videtur Hugo in libro de Sacramentis[^24] sentire. Ait enim, quod «*non fuit mora interiecta inter creationem et distinctionis inchoationem, quae incepit in lucis formatione*»; et istud videtur satis probabile, ut ibi coeperit lux illa in die primo, ubi conditus est sol in die quarto. Creditur[^25] enim sol quarto die conditus fuisse in oriente, non in meridie, et luna in occidente. Et si tu obiicias, quod prius deberet dicere: *factum est mane et vespere*; dicendum est, quod sicut dicit Magister in littera[^26], *mane* dicit finem praecedentis noctis, et ex hoc dicit quandam obscuritatem propter hoc, quod non tantum dicit diei initium, immo dicit noctis consummationem. Et quia in prima lucis formatione non praecesserat nox, sed statim lux incepit secundum suam totam potestatem illuminare; ideo dicitur dies illa coepisse a plena luce; adeo enim lucebat ibi ubi coepit, sicut si esset in meridie. Ideo non dicitur fecisse *mane*, quia non praecesserat dies[^27], sed prius *vespere*, quod est finis diei, et postmodum *mane*, quod est finis noctis, quia prius fecit diem, et postmodum fecit noctem.

*Iudicium huic.* — Et tam hic modus dicendi quam praecedens satis est probabilis, nec facile discernitur, quis eorum plus habeat veritatis; et ideo, quocumque istorum modorum dicatur, non est facienda magna vis[^28].

---

english:
<!-- page 314 -->

### Question II. *In what manner that light made day and night.*

Secondly it is asked, in what manner that light made night and day. And the Damascene[^1] says that it made [them] by emission and contraction of rays. For he speaks thus: «*In the first three days, with the light flowing out and being drawn back, by the Lord's command day and night came to be*». And Basil in the *Hexaëmeron*[^2]: «*Then indeed not by the motion of the solar body, but by the diffusion of the principal light — now withdrawing itself, now again drawing back — according to the divine command, day was made and night returned*». Bede, however, and the other Latin expositors say that it made day and night by its [own] revolution; and this was held in the authority earlier[^3] cited, which is brought forward in the [Master's] text: *With the light setting little by little*, etc. — *Twofold exposition.*

*Against the first mode of speaking it is objected as follows.*

*Foundations.*

1. First, Scripture says[^4]: *God divided the light from the darkness*: therefore light and darkness existed simultaneously; but if that light made day and night by emission and retraction of rays, since emission and retraction are not simultaneous, the division of darkness and light would not be simultaneous.

2. Likewise, Scripture says[^5] that that light, in making day, made *evening* and *morning*; but if day came to be by emission of rays alone, and night by contraction alone, there would never be evening and morning, but always a clear day, or a dark night: therefore that mode of speaking does not square with sacred Scripture.

3. Likewise, *to emit* and *to draw back* rays are opposed operations: therefore, since only rational powers are [ordered] to opposites[^6], it seems that that light would be a rational substance: if then this is absurd to say, etc.

4. Likewise, that light illumines, this is a natural and necessary act: if therefore no substance can deprive itself of its necessary and natural operation[^7], it seems that the light, where it was, could not but illumine: therefore it could not draw back its rays.

*Against the second mode it is objected as follows.*

1. For the motion of any body to be regular and uniform, there is required not only the power of the mover, but also a fitting disposition on the part of the movable and on the part of the space: therefore, if the distinction of the orbs was not yet made, it seems that no revolution of this body could come about[^8]. — *Against the opposite.*

2. Likewise, the matter was uniform on every side of it: if therefore motion is on account of some diversity, either in that which is moved, or in that around which it is moved, it seems that that light was not moved: therefore it did not make day and night by its motion.

3. Likewise, that matter was equally illuminable on every side: therefore if that light, wherever it was, illumined, then wherever it moved, it was continuously making day: therefore it never made morning and evening.

<!-- page 315 -->

4. Likewise, if it made day and night by its motion, since that light was produced before it was moved, it was produced before any day: therefore it was not the work of the first day. If you say to me that it began at once to be and to illumine and to be moved; I ask, where it first began to be moved: either from the *east*, or from the *west*, or from some *other part of the heaven*. If from the *east*, then it seems that it first made morning and afterwards evening, and this is contrary to Scripture[^9], which says: *Evening was made and morning*. If from the *west*, then it seems that the light began in the place of setting, which is incongruous. If in some *other part*, as at midday, then it seems that that day did not have twenty-four hours, which is contrary to the expositors[^10].

And on account of this there is a question, where that light was made, and in what manner it made day and night. — *Annexed question.*

### CONCLUSION.

> *That light more probably made night and day by its motion, just as now the sun does by its [own] action.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was touched on at the outset[^11], there is a twofold mode of speaking here: one according to the Greek doctors, namely Basil and Gregory and Damascene; the other according to the Latins.

*Opinion of the Greeks.* For Basil and Damascene said that that light made day and night by emission and contraction of rays; and this they said was in the power of the light itself — not by its own power, but by the divine command. And we read of something like this in Scripture, Exodus 10[^12]: *Moses stretched out his hand to heaven, and there were horrible darknesses in all the land of Egypt for three days*. For it is clear that in that three-day period the sun was in the hemisphere of our habitable earth, and was emitting the rays of its light into the land of Goshen and into other habitable regions, and was drawing back the rays of the same light from the land of Egypt. Something similar perhaps occurred at the Lord's passion, where the sun is said to have been darkened[^13]: and this whole was done not by nature, but by divine command. And in this manner the Greek doctors understood [the light] to have been in that first three-day period; and on this account the reasons earlier adduced from natural power in no way harm them. The authorities of sacred Scripture also do not seem to be against [them], because that division of light from darkness is not understood as regards local *position*, but as regards *formal* distinction, just as a habit is distinguished from its privation. And because from this habit into privation there was both a progress and a regress; as regards the regress into habit, it is said to have made *morning*, and this indeed came about by emission of rays; but as regards the progress into privation, it is said to have made *evening*, and this indeed came about by contraction of rays.

*Opinion of the Latins.* *Conclusion.* Another[^14] mode of speaking is that of the Latin doctors, which seems to be more reasonable, because more possible to natural power — namely that that light made night and day by its [own] motion, just as the sun does by its [own] action. For that light is understood to have been made where the sun now is — for from it the sun is believed to have been formed[^15] — and it was produced over that part above which is our hemisphere, and by illuminating that hemisphere it made *day*, and going forward it reached the setting and made *evening*, and finally going back to the rising it made *morning*. Hence with respect to one and the same hemisphere it made night and day in succession; but with respect to our hemisphere and the other [hemisphere] it made day on one side and night on the other at the same time — by the obstruction of that *dense* nature[^16] which was in the middle of that matter, which, although it was not yet in [its] complete form, was nevertheless so densified in that part that it could project a shadow, just as in the upper part, on account of its rarity and a certain subtlety, it could receive[^17] the influx of light. And so, intimating both of these, Scripture says: *God divided the light from the darkness*, as regards the existence of light in one hemisphere and darkness in the other; *and evening was made and morning*, as regards the withdrawal from our hemisphere and the return.

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].*

1. Maintaining, then, this mode as the more probable, it must be answered to the first [argument] that is objected to the contrary — that there was not there a fitness of space nor of body, through which the motion of any orb could come about — it must be said that just as the sun exceeds that light[^18] in clarity, so also in regularity of motion on account of the distinction and completion of the orbs; and just as that light had a clarity sufficient for that state, so also the upper part of the matter, which was rarer and purer, was furnishing itself a way to suitable motion, although it was not in such perfection in which the aether now is.

<!-- page 316 -->

2. To that which is objected, that matter was uniform on every side, it must be said that, even though on every side it was equally born to receive the influx of light, nevertheless that light could not illumine on every side, just as the sun even now cannot[^19]. And on this account, when it was illuminated on one side, on the other side it was dark; and because it was uniformly disposed to the light, since it could not be illuminated all at once, it had to be illuminated in succession, and thus it had to be that night and day came to be. If you ask, why God did not make the light so sufficient that it could illumine on every side; it must be said that, if He had done so, by that light there would be illumination, but not a distinction of hours nor a temporal succession. To the divine disposition, however, it pleased to adorn the world as a most beautiful song by a certain procession of times[^20].

3. To that which is objected, that it was always illuminating, therefore was always making day, it must be said that this does not follow, because not every illumination was called *day*, but the illumination which is in our hemisphere; which was more called *day* than the illumination of the other hemisphere — not on account of what then was alone, but also on account of what was to come[^21].

4. To that which is objected, that it was produced before it was moved, it must be said that in a natural day there are two [things], namely *the clarity of the air* or *of the transparent thing*, and *the succession of time*. — *Two things are required for a day.* The clarity, indeed, the light produced by the multiplication of rays in the part of the transparent matter; and because light at the same time both shines and illumines, in this manner day began at the same time as the light. The succession of time, however, was produced either by the mutability itself which was in the unformed matter before the production of light, or also by the moved light itself, which was *a luminous cloud*; and so in either mode the succession of time began either at the same time as the light, or before; and that succession pertained to the first day. And on this account, in whatever manner *day*[^22] is spoken of, the formation of light is the work of the first day — not because the first day preceded the light itself, but because day began at the same time as the light. For although motion follows being according to nature, nevertheless in duration it can begin at the same time as the movable [thing]. — And if you ask, where it began to be moved; I say, where it was made. But about the place where it was made, there are two opinions. — *To the annexed question.*

*Opinion 1, with a twofold reason.* For some say that that light was made at midday. And they assign a twofold reason for this: one, because that light first made evening and afterwards morning, as Scripture says: therefore it seems that it first tended toward setting before it returned to rising. The other reason is that *God's works are perfect*[^23], and therefore He made day and light in its plenitude, and so at midday. And this Bede and the other expositors seem to hold, who say that the first day began from a full light. And if you object that then, from the beginning of day up to morning, there are not twenty-four hours; they respond and say that six hours of this day had already preceded, with the succession of time passing, on account of the mutability of the matter itself, and afterwards in the sixth hour, which is in the perfect number, the light was made — which is a perfect body in its [own] nature — in full and perfect irradiation, as at midday. And since it was then the equinoctial time, until setting there were six hours, and afterwards until the rising of the following day there were twelve, and six had preceded before the formation of light after the creation of heaven and earth, and so the natural day was made perfect and entire.

*Opinion 2.* Another opinion is that there was no delay of time interposed between the creation and the distinction; rather, immediately after the creation of heaven and earth the Lord produced the light, such that it was *posterior in nature* but *simultaneous in duration*. And these say that that light began in the east, and by its completed revolution — tending from the same point to the same — it made the natural day. And Hugh in his book *On the Sacraments*[^24] seems to hold this. For he says that «*there was no delay interposed between the creation and the beginning of distinction, which began in the formation of light*»; and this seems sufficiently probable — that that light began on the first day there where the sun was established on the fourth day. For the sun is believed[^25] to have been established on the fourth day in the east, not at midday, and the moon in the west. And if you object that he should rather say: *morning and evening was made*; it must be said that, as the Master says in the [Lombard's] text[^26], *morning* means the end of the preceding night, and from this it means a certain darkness — on this account that it does not only mean the beginning of day, but rather means the consummation of night. And because in the first formation of light night had not preceded, but the light began at once to illumine according to its whole power; on this account that day is said to have begun from a full light — for there it shone where it began, just as if it were at midday. Therefore it is not said to have made *morning*, because day had not preceded[^27], but first *evening*, which is the end of day, and afterwards *morning*, which is the end of night, because it first made day, and afterwards made night.

*Judgment on this.* — And both this mode of speaking and the preceding is sufficiently probable, nor is it easily discerned which of them holds more truth; and therefore, in whatever mode of these [two] it is said, no great force is to be brought to bear[^28].

---

la: Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 7, in quo textu seculi cod. P substituimus *effluxo* pro *refluxo*; in graeco ἀναχεομένου, quod in recentiore versione redditur *sese diffundente*.

en: [John Damascene,] *On the Orthodox Faith* II, c. 7, in which text, following codex P, we have substituted *effluxo* for *refluxo*; in Greek ἀναχεομένου, which in the more recent version is rendered *sese diffundente* (diffusing itself).

la: Homil. 2. n. 8. secundum recentiorem versionem: *Tunc autem non secundum motum solarem, sed primigenia illa luce effusa et rursus contracta, secundum praefinitam a Deo mensuram, fiebat dies, et nox succedebat*.

en: [Basil,] *Homily* 2, n. 8, according to the more recent version: *Then indeed not according to solar motion, but with that primordial light poured out and again drawn back according to the measure prefixed by God, day was made and night succeeded*.

la: Hic c. 5. et in quaest. praeced. fundam. 2. Cfr. Ambros., I. Hexaëm. c. 10. n. 37; August., I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 10. n. 21. seqq., c. 16. n. 31, et IV. c. 21. n. 38. seq., ubi duplicis huius opinionis mentionem facit. Verba etiam Haymonis vide supra pag. 66, nota 8.

en: Here [in Lombard's text] c. 5 and in the preceding question, *fundamentum* 2. Cf. Ambrose, *Hexaëmeron* I, c. 10, n. 37; Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* I, c. 10, n. 21 and following, c. 16, n. 31, and IV, c. 21, n. 38 and following, where he makes mention of this twofold opinion. See also the words of Haymo above, p. 66, note 8.

la: Aristot., IX. Metaph. text. 3. et 10. (VIII. c. 2. et 5.).

en: Aristotle, *Metaphysics* IX, text 3 and 10 (VIII, c. 2 and 5).

la: Aristot., II. Magn. Moral. c. 7. (c. 6.): *Natura a nemine extrudi potest*. Cfr. August., I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 16. n. 31, ubi ait, quod nullum occurrit exemplum, quo istam emissionem contractionemque lucis probare possimus.

en: Aristotle, *Magna Moralia* II, c. 7 (c. 6): *Nature can be driven out by no one*. Cf. Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* I, c. 16, n. 31, where he says that no example occurs by which we could prove that emission and contraction of light.

la: Cfr. August., I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 12. n. 24.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* I, c. 12, n. 24.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: Cf. here the Master's [Lombard's] text, c. 4.

la: Huius quaestionis, ubi etiam verba Basilii et Damasceni sunt allata. De Gregorii Naz. sententia cfr. Comment. Eliae Cretensis n. 35. in eius Oratio 4. adversus Iulianum. — Plures codd. omittunt *et Gregorium*, dum econtra ed. 1 paulo inferius post *Basilius* addit *et Gregorius*.

en: Of this very question, where also the words of Basil and Damascene were adduced. On the opinion of Gregory of Nazianzus, cf. the commentary of Elias of Crete, n. 35, on his *Oration* 4, *Against Julian*. — Many codices omit *et Gregorium*, while on the contrary edition 1 a little later, after *Basilius*, adds *et Gregorius*.

la: Vers. 22. — Paulo inferius plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 perperam omittunt *terrae*. Ed. 1 dein *habitationis* pro *habitabilis*.

en: [Exodus 10,] verse 22. — A little later, very many codices with edition 1 wrongly omit *terrae*. Edition 1 then [reads] *habitationis* for *habitabilis*.

la: Luc. 23, 45: *Et obscuratus est sol*. — Non pauci codd. cum edd. 1, 2 paulo inferius *postea* pro *propterea*, et dein plures codd. modo singulari *Auctoritas etiam sacrae Scripturae non videtur contraire* [cod. bb *contrariare*].

en: Luke 23, 45: *And the sun was darkened*. — Not a few codices with editions 1, 2 a little later [read] *postea* for *propterea*, and then several codices in the singular [read] *Auctoritas etiam sacrae Scripturae non videtur contraire* [cod. bb *contrariare*].

la: Cod. I *Sed quoniam, ut dicit Augustinus* (II. de Gen. ad lit. c. I. n. 2.), *in operibus creationis non est quaerendum miraculum, ideo alius modus* etc. Mox nonnulli codd. *proximior* pro *possibilior*, et dein non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 *atione* pro *actione*, quae lectio fortasse respicit definitionem (Aristot. VI. Topic. c. 3.): *Dies est solis latio super terram*.

en: Codex I [reads]: *But since, as Augustine says* (II *On Genesis according to the Letter*, c. I, n. 2), *in the works of creation a miracle is not to be sought, therefore another mode* etc. Soon after, some codices [read] *proximior* for *possibilior*, and then not a few codices with edition 1 [read] *atione* for *actione* — which reading perhaps regards the definition (Aristotle, *Topics* VI, c. 3): *A day is the carrying of the sun above the earth*.

la: Cfr. infra dub. 2. et hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. et 5.

en: Cf. below, *dubium* 2, and here the Master's text, c. 3 and 5.

la: Ex cod. cc et ed. 1 supplevimus *ex alia*, scil. parte.

en: From codex cc and edition 1 we have supplied *ex alia*, namely *parte* (from the other part).

la: In cod. T additur *quandam*.

en: In codex T *quandam* is added.

la: Plures codd. *nubem*. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. et in Comment. hic q. 1. ad 3. et hic ad 4, ubi lux illa ex Augustino vocatur *nubes lucida*.

en: Several codices [read] *nubem* (the cloud). Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2, and in the Commentary, here q. 1 *ad* 3 and here *ad* 4, where that light from Augustine is called *a luminous cloud*.

la: Codd. inter se sunt divisi; una pars eorum cum Vat. omittit *nunc*, altera vero pars cum ed. 1 omittit *non*; cod. bb (a secunda manu) exhibet lectionem nostram.

en: The codices are divided among themselves: one part of them with the Vatican [edition] omits *nunc*, the other part with edition 1 omits *non*; cod. bb (in a second hand) exhibits our reading.

la: Cfr. de hoc tom. 1. pag. 786, nota 7. et pag. 832, nota 4. — Paulo superius post *illam lucem* cod. O addit *tantum*.

en: Cf. on this volume 1, p. 786, note 7, and p. 832, note 4. — A little above, after *illam lucem* codex O adds *tantum*.

la: Vide August., de Gen. ad lit. (imperf. liber) c. 6. n. 26. et 1. de Gen. ad lit. c. 12. n. 24.

en: See Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* (unfinished book) c. 6, n. 26, and *On Genesis according to the Letter* I, c. 12, n. 24.

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4. triplex modus, quo accipitur *dies*, recensetur.

en: Here in the Master's text, c. 4, the threefold mode by which *day* is taken is enumerated.

la: Deut. 32, 4. — Verba Bedae vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4, ubi etiam sequens obiectio tangitur. — Paulo inferius Vat. perperam *a prima luce* pro *a plena luce*.

en: Deut. 32, 4. — See Bede's words here in the Master's text, c. 4, where also the following objection is touched on. — A little later, the Vatican [edition] wrongly [reads] *a prima luce* (from a first light) for *a plena luce* (from a full light).

la: Libr. I. p. I. c. 6.

en: [Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments,*] book I, p. I, c. 6.

la: Plures codd. cum ed. 1 *Tenditur*.

en: Several codices with edition 1 [read] *Tenditur* (it is held).

la: Hic c. 4.

en: Here [in the Master's text,] c. 4.

la: Vat. *nox*, sed contra codd. et primas edd., nec non contra Magistrum, qui, hic c. 4, ait: *Mane ergo primus dies non habuit, quia nec dies praecesserat, qui sequentis diei initio terminaretur*.

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *nox*, but against the codices and the first editions, and also against the Master, who, here c. 4, says: *Therefore the first day did not have a morning, because no day had preceded that would be brought to its term by the beginning of the following day*.

la: Vide scholion praecedentis quaest.

en: See the scholion of the preceding question.

translators_notes:
- **Page span**: q2 opens on **p.314 L mid** (immediately below the d13-a1-q1 scholion item III, which closes with the Dionys. Carth. cross-reference); body fills p.314 L lower → p.314 R, then p.315 L → p.315 R, then p.316 L → p.316 R bottom. CONCLUSIO + Respondeo banner sits on p.315 L mid; *Opinio Latinorum* opens p.315 R upper; *Solutio oppositorum* item 1 begins p.315 R lower and bleeds onto p.316 L. *Opinio 1* (in meridie) sits on p.316 L lower; *Opinio 2* (Hugo's, no temporal delay) fills p.316 R; *Iudicium huic* tag + closing one-sentence judgment on both opinions closes p.316 R bottom. d13-a2-q1 opens at top of p.317.
- **Apparatus count**: 28 entries — 8 on p.314 + 10 on p.315 + 10 on p.316 — renumbered sequentially [^1]–[^28] in body-order of appearance (which matches printed-footer order on each page).
- **No scholion.** Per the Vol II convention noted in CLAUDE.md (a quaestio with no scholion is normal when the article's q1 scholion carries the cross-reference), d13-a1-q1 scholion item II already serves as the parallel-treatments reference for this quaestio's diem-noctem topic (Alex. Hal., S. Thom., Richard. a Med.). No additional p.316 R bottom footer apparatus is owned beyond [^28]; the *Vide scholion praecedentis quaest.* note in [^28] reflects this convention.
- **Boundary integrity (per CLAUDE.md polish-cadence pass 3)**: backward boundary with `d13-a1-q1` at p.314 L mid is clean — q1's scholion III ends with the Dionys. Carth. reference, and the centred "QUAESTIO II." banner with italic title *Qualiter illa lux fecerit diem et noctem* opens immediately below. Forward boundary at p.316 R bottom is clean — q2 closes with the *Iudicium huic* sentence "*non est facienda magna vis*[^28]", and "DIST. XIII. ART. II. QUAEST. I." (the next quaestio's running head) opens at top of p.317, owned by `d13-a2-q1`. The OCR running-head "DIST. XIII. ART. I. QUAEST. II. — 313" appearing in raw line band ~22311 (chunk line 64 of the pre-promotion skeleton) was a page-number garble (the running-head text was correct — q2 IS being treated at top of p.314 since q1 ends mid-column — but the OCR digit "314" was mangled to "313"); this is consistent with the +22 pdf-offset rule and the "never trust OCR'd digits" Vol II convention.
- **Frontmatter line-range**: `line_start: 22248, line_end: 22436` matches the semantic range (QUAESTIO II opener "Secundo quaeritur, qualiter illa lux faciebat noctem et diem" → end of *Iudicium huic* "non est facienda magna vis"). The manual-rescue split from former d13-a1-q1 (2026-05-23) was correct.
- **No `[?]` flags raised.** Body reconciled column-by-column against p.314 L-1/L-2/R-1/R-2, p.315 L-0/L-1/L-2/R-0/R-1/R-2, and p.316 L-0/L-1/L-2/R-0/R-1/R-2; footers reconciled against the same L-2/R-2 footer bands. Marginal labels (*Duplex expositio.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Quaestio annexa.*, *Opinio Graecorum.*, *Opinio Latinorum.*, *Conclusio.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Ad diem duo requiruntur.*, *Ad quaest. connexam.*, *Opinio 1 cum duplici ratione.*, *Opinio 2.*, *Iudicium huic.*) preserved inline per Vol II convention, not promoted to headings.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 13, Art. 2, Q. 1

title_alt: Whether light is a body or the form of a body

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 317 -->

## ARTICULUS II.

### *De ipsius lucis essentia et natura in se.*

Consequenter quaeritur de essentia et quidditate lucis corporalis in se. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum lux sit corpus, vel forma corporis. Secundo quaeritur, utrum sit forma substantialis, vel accidentalis.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum lux sit corpus, vel forma corporis.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod lux sit corpus.

*Ad oppositum.*

1. Augustinus in libro de Libero Arbitrio tertio[^1]: «*In corporibus lux primum locum tenet*».

2. Item, Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram, libro septimo[^2]: «*Anima omnem corpoream naturam dignitate naturae praecellit; per lucem tamen et aërem, quae in mundo praecellentia sunt corpora, corpus administrat*».

3. Item, Augustinus in epistola ad Volusianum tertia[^3]: «*Hominum*, inquit, *iste sensus est nihil nisi corpora valentium cogitare, sive ista grossiora, scilicet humor aut humus, sive subtiliora, sicut aër et lux; sed tamen corpora*».

4. Item, hoc videtur ratione. In spiritualibus est reperire spiritum, qui est pure lux[^4]: ergo similiter in corporalibus videtur, quod sit reperire corpus, quod sit pura lux: ergo videtur, quod id quod est luminosum in corporibus, sit lux pura. Sed illud est corpus, cum habeat extensionem, sicut patet in sole: ergo videtur, quod lux sit corpus.

5. Item, lux in sole est in plena actualitate et potestate multiplicandi se, ergo non videtur, quod sit permixta possibilitati materiae; constat autem, solem esse corpus: ergo videtur, quod pura lux sit corpus.

6. Item, nihil movetur localiter motu dimensivo et successivo nisi corpus[^5]; sed lux illa, quae primo creata fuit, suo motu faciebat diem et noctem: ergo erat corpus.

*Ad oppositum:*

*Fundamenta.*

1. Damascenus[^6]: «*Lumen est qualitas naturalis ipsius ignis*»; sed nulla qualitas est corpus: ergo lux non est corpus, sed qualitas corporis.

2. Item, dicit Philosophus[^7], quod forma est principium agendi, ergo quod maxime est principium agendi, illud maxime est forma: sed lux inter cetera corporalia est maxime activa: ergo videtur, quod sit pure forma. Sed nullum corpus est pure forma, cum omne corpus sit compositum: ergo lux non est corpus.

3. Item, Augustinus duodecimo super Genesim ad litteram[^8]: «*Lux est subtilissimum in corpore, et ob hoc animae vicinissimum*»; sed quod est vicinissimum nobilissimae formae, illud maxime participat rationem formae: ergo videtur, quod ipsa lux sit pure forma.

4. Item, nulli corpori opponitur aliquid privative, secundum quod corpus est; sed luci, secundum quod lux est, opponitur tenebra privative[^9]: ergo lux non est corpus.

### CONCLUSIO.

> *Lux proprie et in abstractione dicta non est corpus, sed forma corporis luminosi.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quidam, non attendentes nec interius considerantes verba Augustini, dixerunt, lucem esse corpus, pro eo quod posuerunt, aliquod corpus esse pure lucem, ita quod in eo nihil esset admixtum de tenebrositate materiae, sicut est corpus solare, a quo cetera corpora mundi recipiunt illuminationem. — *Opinio 1.* Sed cum supra[^10] probatum sit, quod nulla substantia per se existens, sive corporalis sive spiritualis, est pure forma nisi solus Deus; satis planum est, quod nullum corpus potest esse pure forma. Cum etiam nullum corpus

<!-- page 318 -->

careat extensione, et omnis extensio fundetur super materiam corporalem, nullum corpus potest esse sine materia: et ita[^11], nullum corpus potest esse pure forma. Si ergo lux *formam* dicit, non potest esse lux ipsum corpus, sed aliquid corporis. Si enim lux esset ipsum corpus, cum lucis sit ex se ipsa se ipsam multiplicare, aliquod corpus posset se ipsum multiplicare ex se sine appositione materiae aliunde; quod est impossibile alicui creaturae, cum materia non habeat educi nisi per creationem[^12].

*Opinio 2 cum distinctione.* Et ideo aliter dicendum est, quod sicut *humor* et *calor* dupliciter accipiuntur: aliquando enim dicunt *proprietates* sive *qualitates* corporeae substantiae, sicut dicuntur humor aquae et calor ipsius ignis; aliquando nominant ipsam *substantiam* sub tali forma, sicut dicit Augustinus[^13], quod *humor* et *humus* sunt elementa, et philosophi dicunt, quod *calor* est substantia quaedam subtilis. Sic intelligendum est a parte lucis, quod lux potest dici in *abstractione*, et sic nominat formam corporis luminosi, per quam corpus illud habet lucere et agere; et sic dicit Damascenus, quod lux est qualitas ignis. — *Conclusio 1.* Aliquando nominat in *concretione* ipsam, scilicet substantiam luminosam; et sic accipitur in illa divisione, scilicet quod tres sunt species ignis, scilicet carbo, flamma et lux[^14]. — *Conclusio 2.* Et per hunc modum loquitur Augustinus, quando dicit, quod «*lux tenet primum locum in corporibus*», et quod «*lux et aër sunt corpora subtiliora*». Vocat enim ibi *lucem* quod nos vocamus *ignem*, sicut ex verbis ipsius Augustini colligitur expresse.

Et per hoc patent obiecta ad utramque partem. — *Ad fundam.* Nam auctoritates et rationes, quae dicunt et probant, lucem non esse corpus, sed qualitatem, accipiunt lucem in abstractione, sicut patet.

*Solutio oppositorum.*

1. 2. 3. Auctoritates vero, quae ad oppositum inducuntur, loquuntur de luce, prout accipitur concretive. — Rationes vero, quae probant, quod aliquod corpus sit pure lux, non sunt cogentes.

4. *Notandum.* Ad illud enim quod obiicitur de similitudine spiritualium et corporalium, non est simile, quia lux *spiritualis* est communis Creatori et creaturae secundum analogiam. Et quia Creator pure actus est, ideo potest reperiri in spiritualibus lux in omnimoda actualitate, ita quod nihil habeat de possibilitate materiae nec de tenebrositate ignorantiae. *Corporalis* vero lux non reperitur nisi in creatura, quae ad hoc, ut per se existat, indiget sustentante materia[^15]; et ideo non potest inveniri lux pura per omnimodam exclusionem possibilitatis materiae, potest tamen reperiri pura lux per exclusionem opacitatis et tenebrae; et sic est in sole.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si lux solis esset permixta materiae, non posset se multiplicare perfecte; dicendum, quod praesentia[^16] materiae non tollit actualitatem formae, maxime quando corpus multum habet de specie et parum de materia; et quia in sole est abundantia lucis, quamvis sit ibi materia, non impeditur ab actione sua. Ea autem quae dicuntur habere lucem incorporatam, non habent perfectam potestatem multiplicandi se, non quia lux sit solum ibi in materia, sed quia corpora illa multum habent de materia et parum de specie.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lux primo creata mota fuit dimensive et successive; dicendum, quod lux ibi vocatur *nubecula lucida*[^17], quae vere corpus erat; et illa non fuit creata, pro eo quod fuit ex praeexistenti materia forma lucis sibi divinitus impressa vel educta. Sic igitur ex praedictis patet, quod lux, proprie et abstracte loquendo, non est corpus, sed forma corporis.

english:
<!-- page 317 -->

## ARTICLE II.

### *On the essence and nature of light itself in itself.*

Next it is asked about the essence and quiddity of corporeal light in itself. And concerning this two [things] are asked. First it is asked, whether light is a body or the form of a body. Secondly it is asked, whether it is a substantial form or an accidental [form].

### Question I. *Whether light is a body, or the form of a body.*

Concerning the first it is so proceeded and shown that light is a body.

*Against the opposite.*

1. Augustine in book three *On Free Choice*[^1]: «*Among bodies light holds the first place*».

2. Likewise, Augustine on *Genesis according to the Letter*, book seven[^2]: «*The soul excels every corporeal nature by the dignity of nature; nevertheless through light and air, which in the world are the more excellent bodies, it administers the body*».

3. Likewise, Augustine in the third letter to Volusianus[^3]: «*The sense of men*, he says, *is this — they are able to think of nothing but bodies, whether the grosser ones, namely water or earth, or the more subtle ones, such as air and light; but bodies, nonetheless*».

4. Likewise, this is seen by reason. Among spirituals one finds *spirit*, which is pure light[^4]: therefore in like manner among corporeals it seems that one ought to find a body which is pure light: therefore it seems that what is luminous in bodies is pure light. But that is a body, since it has extension, as is clear in the sun: therefore it seems that light is a body.

5. Likewise, light in the sun is in full actuality and power of multiplying itself; therefore it does not seem that it is mixed with the possibility of matter; but it is established that the sun is a body: therefore it seems that pure light is a body.

6. Likewise, nothing is moved locally with dimensional and successive motion except a body[^5]; but that light which was first created made day and night by its motion: therefore it was a body.

*On the contrary:*

*Foundations.*

1. Damascene[^6]: «*Light is a natural quality of fire itself*»; but no quality is a body: therefore light is not a body, but a quality of a body.

2. Likewise, the Philosopher says[^7] that form is the principle of acting, therefore that which is most of all the principle of acting is most of all form: but light, among other corporeals, is most of all active: therefore it seems that it is purely form. But no body is purely form, since every body is composite: therefore light is not a body.

3. Likewise, Augustine in book twelve on *Genesis according to the Letter*[^8]: «*Light is the most subtle [thing] in body, and on account of this is the nearest to the soul*»; but that which is nearest to the most noble form, that most of all shares the character of form: therefore it seems that light itself is purely form.

4. Likewise, nothing is opposed to any body privatively in respect of its being a body; but darkness is opposed privatively to light in respect of its being light[^9]: therefore light is not a body.

### CONCLUSION.

> *Light, properly speaking and said in abstraction, is not a body, but the form of a luminous body.*

**I respond:** It must be said that some, not attending to nor inwardly considering the words of Augustine, said that light is a body — on this account, that they posited that some body is purely light, such that in it nothing was mixed in of the darkness of matter, just as is the solar body, from which the other bodies of the world receive illumination. — *Opinion 1.* But since it was proved above[^10] that no substance existing through itself, whether corporeal or spiritual, is purely form except God alone, it is plain enough that no body can be purely form. Since also no body

<!-- page 318 -->

lacks extension, and all extension is founded upon corporeal matter, no body can be without matter: and so[^11], no body can be purely form. If, therefore, light means a *form*, light cannot be the body itself, but something *of* the body. For if light were the body itself — since it belongs to light from itself to multiply itself — some body could multiply itself from itself without the addition of matter from elsewhere; which is impossible to any creature, since matter cannot be brought forth except by creation[^12].

*Opinion 2, with a distinction.* And therefore it must be said otherwise: that just as *moisture* and *heat* are taken in two ways — for sometimes they mean *properties* or *qualities* of a corporeal substance, as one speaks of the moisture of water and the heat of fire itself; but sometimes they name the *substance itself* under such a form, as Augustine says[^13], that *humor* (moisture) and *humus* (earth) are elements, and the philosophers say that *heat* is a certain subtle substance. So is it to be understood on the side of light: that light can be said in *abstraction*, and in this way it names the form of a luminous body, by which that body is able to shine and act; and in this sense Damascene says that light is a quality of fire. — *Conclusion 1.* Sometimes it names in *concretion* the [substance] itself, namely the luminous substance; and so it is taken in that division, namely that there are three species of fire: charcoal, flame, and light[^14]. — *Conclusion 2.* And in this manner Augustine speaks when he says that «*light holds the first place among bodies*», and that «*light and air are the more subtle bodies*». For he there calls *light* what we call *fire*, as is gathered expressly from Augustine's own words.

And through this the [arguments] objected on both sides are clear. — *Reply to the foundations.* For the authorities and reasons which say and prove that light is not a body, but a quality, take light in abstraction, as is clear.

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].*

1, 2, 3. The authorities, however, which are adduced for the opposite [view], speak of light as it is taken concretively. — But the reasons which prove that some body is purely light are not cogent.

4. *Note.* For to that which is objected concerning the likeness of spirituals and corporeals, it is not similar — because *spiritual* light is common to Creator and creature according to analogy. And because the Creator is purely act, therefore in spirituals light can be found in every kind of actuality, such that it has nothing of the possibility of matter nor of the darkness of ignorance. *Corporeal* light, however, is not found except in a creature, which, in order that it may exist through itself, needs sustaining matter[^15]; and on this account pure light cannot be found by an entire exclusion of the possibility of matter, yet pure light can be found by the exclusion of opacity and darkness — and thus it is in the sun.

5. To that which is objected, that if the light of the sun were mixed with matter it could not multiply itself perfectly, it must be said that the *presence*[^16] of matter does not take away the actuality of the form, especially when a body has much of the species and little of the matter; and because in the sun there is an abundance of light, although matter is there, it is not impeded from its action. But those [things] which are said to have incorporated light do not have perfect power of multiplying themselves — not because the light is only there in the matter, but because those bodies have much of matter and little of species.

6. To that which is objected, that the first-created light was moved dimensionally and successively, it must be said that light is there called a *luminous little cloud*[^17], which was truly a body; and that [cloud] was not created — on this account, that out of pre-existing matter the form of light was divinely impressed or brought forth in it. Thus, then, from what has been said, it is clear that light, speaking properly and abstractly, is not a body, but the form of a body.

en: [Augustine, *On Free Choice* III,] c. 5, n. 16.

la: Cap. 19. n. 25, ubi textus originalis substituit *creaturam* pro *naturam*, et post *quae in* adiungit *ipso quoque*.

en: [*On Genesis according to the Letter* VII,] c. 19, n. 25, where the original text substitutes *creaturam* for *naturam*, and after *quae in* adds *ipso quoque*.

la: Alias 137. c. 2. n. 4, ubi textus orig.: *crassiora, sicut sunt humor atque humus, sive subtiliora, sicut aëris et lucis* etc.

en: Otherwise [numbered] 137, c. 2, n. 4, where the original text [reads]: *crassiora, sicut sunt humor atque humus, sive subtiliora, sicut aëris et lucis*, etc.

la: Epist. I. Ioan. 1, 5: *Deus lux est*. — Nonnulli codd. cum Vat. paulo inferius post *secundum ergo* repetunt *similiter*. Dein ex cod. cc et ed. 1 substituimus *id* pro *illud*.

en: 1 John 1, 5: *God is light*. — Some codices with the Vatican [edition] a little later, after *secundum ergo*, repeat *similiter*. Then, from cod. cc and edition 1, we have substituted *id* for *illud*.

la: Aristot., VII. Phys. text. 2: *Omne enim quod movetur, divisibile est*. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 37. p. II. a. 2. per totum. — De minori vide hic n. 1. q. 2.

en: Aristotle, *Physics* VII, text 2: *For everything that is moved is divisible*. Cf. I *Sent.* d. 37, p. II, a. 2, throughout. — On the minor, see here n. 1, q. 2.

la: Libr. I. de Fide orthod. c. 8. Cfr. etiam II. c. 7. — De minori cfr. Aristot., III. Metaph. text. 17. et VII. text. 1. seqq. (II. c. 5. et VI. c. 1.), ubi dicit, quod quantitates, qualitates etc. non sunt substantiae.

en: [John Damascene,] *On the Orthodox Faith* I, c. 8. Cf. also II, c. 7. — On the minor cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* III, text 17, and VII, text 1 and following (II, c. 5 and VI, c. 1), where he says that quantities, qualities, etc. are not substances.

la: Libr. II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 53. (c. 9.). Vide supra pag. 89, nota 5. et pag. 300, nota 1. — De activitate lucis cfr. August., VII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 15. n. 21. et c. 19. n. 25.

en: [Aristotle,] *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 53 (c. 9). See above p. 89, note 5, and p. 300, note 1. — On the activity of light cf. Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* VII, c. 15, n. 21, and c. 19, n. 25.

en: [*On Genesis according to the Letter* XII,] c. 16, n. 32.

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 70. (c. 7.).

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 70 (c. 7).

la: Dist. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. et I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 2.

en: D. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 1 and following, and I *Sent.* d. 8, p. II, q. 2.

la: Ita cod. cc cum ed. 1; in aliis *et iterum*, fortasse pro *unde iterum*. Paulo inferius cod. N *aliquid corporale* pro *aliquid corporis*, dein *cum lux nata sit* pro *cum lucis sit*.

en: Thus cod. cc with edition 1; in others *et iterum*, perhaps for *unde iterum*. A little later, cod. N [reads] *aliquid corporale* for *aliquid corporis*, then *cum lux nata sit* for *cum lucis sit*.

la: Vide supra d. 1. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. ad 5.

en: See above d. 1, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, *ad* 5.

la: De Gen. ad lit. (imperf. lib.) c. 14. n. 43. et III. de Gen. ad lit. c. 4. n. 6. seq. et c. 10. n. 14.

en: [Augustine,] *On Genesis according to the Letter* (unfinished book) c. 14, n. 43, and III *On Genesis according to the Letter*, c. 4, n. 6 and following, and c. 10, n. 14.

la: Aristot., V. Topic. c. 3. (c. 5.).

en: Aristotle, *Topics* V, c. 3 (c. 5).

la: Vide supra pag. 96, nota 8.

en: See above p. 96, note 8.

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 *possibilitas*.

en: Cod. cc and edition 1 [read] *possibilitas*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Cod. cc et ed. 1 *quod lux illa* pro *quod lux ibi*.

en: Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2. — Cod. cc and edition 1 [read] *quod lux illa* for *quod lux ibi*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Secundum principia scientiae naturalis illa aetate vigentis S. Doctor copiose disputat in hoc articulo de *luce*, in sequenti de *lumine*. *Lumen* autem ipsi est participatio *lucis*, sive aliquid a luce, tanquam eius fonte, influxum. Hinc dicitur I. Sent. d. 17. p. I. q. 1. in corp.: «*Lux potest tripliciter considerari, scil. in se et in transparenti et in extremitate perspicui terminati; primo modo est lux, secundo modo lumen, tertio modo hypostasis coloris*». Cfr. etiam I. Sent. d. 19. p. II. dub. 4. et II. Sent. d. 14. p. I. a. 3. q. 2. ad 3. Quomodo differant *splendor*, *radius* et *lumen*, «*quae omnia dicunt influentiam a luminoso*», docetur I. Sent. d. 9. dub. 7. Breviter haec comprehendit Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 2. a. 2.) his verbis: «*Lux dicit formam corporis luminosi, lumen formam corporis diaphani, radius directam oppositionem huius ad illam, splendor reflexionem huius a forma opaci corporis*»; quae verba magis explicantur a S. Thoma (hic q. unica, a. 3.).

Ceterum termini *lux* et *lumen* a multis frequenter pro eodem accipiuntur, praesertim ab iis qui utrumque significare qualitatem eiusdem rationis cum S. Thoma opinantur. Ipsum etiam *corpus luminosum*, cuius proprietas est lux vel lumen, interdum hoc nomine significatur, ut hic in corp. dicitur, proprie autem vocatur *luminare*.

<!-- page 319 -->

**II.** De *luce* et *lumine* etiam inter antiquos doctores diversae erant opiniones, quarum sex vel potius septem a S. Thoma in Comment. (loc. cit.) recensentur. B. Albert. autem (II. de Anima, tr. 3. c. 9.) omnes reducit ad quinque, «*quarum una antiqui Democriti fuit, qui de omnibus curam habuit, qui dixit, lumen esse corpus pervium, quod defluit continue a corpore luminoso. Alia autem sententia est, quae dicit, lumen esse formam substantialem, quae substantificat quidquid substantificatur in generabilibus et corruptibilibus. Tertia autem dixit, lumen esse substantiam spiritualem, non corporalem, quae quasi medium est inter substantiam corpoream et incorpoream. Quarta autem dixit, lumen omnino nihil esse secundum se, sed potius aliquid comitans coloratum*; dixit enim, *lumen non esse nisi coloris evidentiam in eo quod est coloratum*». Has quatuor opiniones in seqq. refutat, et c. 12. quintam, quae sit Aristotelis, addit: *Dicimus, lucem et lumen esse qualitatem luminosi corporis, secundum quod est luminosum, quae ab ipso procedit generata* etc.

Quod autem lux in se non sit *corpus* nec *quaedam effluvia substantialia*, ut postea Carthesio aliisque placuit, principales auctores cum S. Bonaventura certum esse dicebant. — Nostra aetate physici de luce, quatenus est *phaenomenon sensibile*, multa inquisierunt et plerumque docent, phaenomenon lucis effici motibus quibusdam undulatoriis in aethere productis. Hi autem motus manifeste supponunt «*aliquam virtutem sive vim activam*» (infra a. 3. q. 2.), quae iterum requirit subiectum, cui inhaereat.

**III.** Alii Scholastici hanc de luce vel lumine materiam plerumque vel una vel duabus quaestionibus sub diversis titulis absolvunt. In nullo alio invenimus easdem quatuor qq., quas habet S. Bonav. — Alex. Hal. aliqua tangit S. p. II. q. 46. m. 5. a. 3. — Scotus, in utroque Scripto, hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic loc. cit.; S. I. q. 67. a. 2. 3; Opuscul. n. 47. (alias 51.) de Natura luminis. — B. Albert., de hac tantum q. hic a. 2; S. p. II. tr. II. q. 51. m. 1. et de aliis qq. II. de Anima, tr. 3. c. 8. seqq. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. 3. 4. a. 2. q. 1–4. — Aegid. R. tangit has qq. hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. — Henr. Gand., Quodl. 3. 12. — Durand., hic q. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. unica. — Biel, hic q. unica.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** According to the principles of natural science flourishing in that age, the holy Doctor disputes copiously in this article on *lux*, and in the following on *lumen*. Now *lumen* for him is the participation of *lux*, or something flowing in from light as from its source. Hence it is said in I *Sent.* d. 17, p. I, q. 1, in the body: «*Light can be considered in three ways, namely in itself, in the transparent [medium], and in the extremity of a defined visible [body]; in the first way it is* lux, *in the second way* lumen, *in the third way the* hypostasis *of color*». Cf. also I *Sent.* d. 19, p. II, dub. 4, and II *Sent.* d. 14, p. I, a. 3, q. 2, *ad* 3. How *splendor*, *radius*, and *lumen* differ — «*all of which mean an influx from a luminous [body]*» — is taught in I *Sent.* d. 9, dub. 7. Peter of Tarantasia briefly comprises these (here q. 2, a. 2) in these words: «*Lux means the form of a luminous body,* lumen *the form of a transparent body,* radius *the direct opposition of this to that,* splendor *the reflection of this from the form of an opaque body*»; which words are more explained by St. Thomas (here q. unica, a. 3).

For the rest, the terms *lux* and *lumen* are frequently taken by many for the same thing, especially by those who, with St. Thomas, hold that both signify a quality of the same character. The very *luminous body* itself, whose property is *lux* or *lumen*, is sometimes also signified by this name, as is here said in the body — but properly it is called *luminare*.

<!-- page 319 -->

**II.** Concerning *lux* and *lumen* there were also diverse opinions among the ancient doctors, six or rather seven of which are enumerated by St. Thomas in the Commentary (loc. cit.). B. Albert, however (*On the Soul* II, tr. 3, c. 9), reduces all to five: «*One of these was that of Democritus of old, who took thought of all [things], who said that light is a pervious body which continuously flows down from a luminous body. Another opinion is that which says light is a substantial form which substantifies whatever is substantified among generables and corruptibles. A third said that light is a spiritual substance, not corporeal, which is as it were a middle between corporeal and incorporeal substance. A fourth said that light is altogether nothing in itself, but rather something accompanying the colored*; for it said that *light is nothing but the evidence of color in that which is colored*». He refutes these four opinions in what follows, and in c. 12 adds a fifth, which would be Aristotle's: *We say that lux and lumen are a quality of the luminous body, in respect of its being luminous, which proceeds from it as generated*, etc.

But that light in itself is not a *body* nor *certain substantial effluvia*, as later pleased Descartes and others — the principal authors with St. Bonaventure said this was certain. — In our age the physicists have investigated much about light insofar as it is a *sensible phenomenon*, and for the most part teach that the phenomenon of light comes about by certain undulatory motions produced in the aether. But these motions manifestly suppose «*some power or active force*» (below, a. 3, q. 2), which in turn requires a subject in which to inhere.

**III.** Other Scholastics for the most part settle this matter of light or *lumen* with either one or two questions under diverse titles. In no other do we find the same four questions which St. Bonaventure has. — Alex. Hal. touches on some [things] in the *Summa*, p. II, q. 46, m. 5, a. 3. — Scotus, in both *Scripta*, here q. unica. — S. Thom., here loc. cit.; S. I, q. 67, a. 2, 3; *Opusculum* n. 47 (alias 51) *On the Nature of Light*. — B. Albert, on this question alone, here a. 2; *Summa* p. II, tr. II, q. 51, m. 1, and on the other questions, *On the Soul* II, tr. 3, c. 8 and following. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1, a. 2; q. 2, a. 2. — Richard a Med., here a. 1, q. 2, 3, 4; a. 2, q. 1–4. — Aegid. R. touches on these qq. here q. 2, a. 1, 2. — Henr. Gand., *Quodlibet* 3, 12. — Durand., here q. 1, 2. — Dionys. Carth., here q. unica. — Biel, here q. unica.

---

translators_notes:
- **Page span**: q1 opens at **top of p.317 L** with the centred "ARTICULUS II." banner + italic article-rubric *De ipsius lucis essentia et natura in se.* + the Article opener "*Consequenter quaeritur de essentia et quidditate lucis corporalis in se. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo… Secundo…*" (folded into this q1 per Vol II convention — no standalone d13-a2-divisio chunk). QUAESTIO I title + body follow on p.317 L → p.317 R; CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (*Opinio 1*) at end of p.317 R; *Opinio 2 cum distinctione* fills p.318 L; *Conclusio 1*, *Conclusio 2*, *Ad fundam.*, *Solutio oppositorum* 1–6 on p.318 R; SCHOLION item I opens p.318 R bottom; items II + III continue on p.319 L upper + R upper. d13-a2-q2 opens immediately below scholion III on p.319 L mid (centred "QUAESTIO II." banner with title *Utrum lux sit forma substantialis, vel accidentalis.*).
- **Apparatus count**: 17 entries — 10 on p.317 + 7 on p.318 — renumbered sequentially [^1]–[^17] in body-order of appearance (which matches printed-footer order on each page). p.319 carries scholion text but no q1-owned footers; the *DIST. XIII. ART. II. QUAEST. II.* running head at top of p.319 belongs to the next quaestio.
- **Scholion**: three items spanning p.318 R bottom → p.319 L upper + R upper. **I.** glosses the lux/lumen distinction in Bonaventure (lumen = participatio lucis), cross-references the corpus parallels (I Sent. d. 17, d. 19, d. 9 dub. 7), and quotes Petrus a Tarantasia's quadripartite formula (lux/lumen/radius/splendor). **II.** surveys the ancient-doctors opinions on light (Albert's 5-fold reduction of S. Thomas's 6–7), refutes the Cartesian *effluvia substantialia* reading, and notes the 19th-century undulatory-aether physics as still requiring a subject. **III.** is the standard parallel-treatments back-reference (Alex. Hal., Scotus, S. Thom., B. Albert, Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Aegid. R., Henr. Gand., Durand., Dionys. Carth., Biel).
- **Boundary integrity (per CLAUDE.md polish-cadence pass 3)**: backward boundary with `d13-a1-q2` at p.316 R bottom / p.317 L top is clean — d13-a1-q2 closes with *Iudicium huic* "*non est facienda magna vis*", and p.317 L opens with the centred "ARTICULUS II." banner. Forward boundary at p.319 L mid is clean — scholion III closes with "*Biel, hic q. unica*", and the centred "QUAESTIO II." banner with italic title *Utrum lux sit forma substantialis, vel accidentalis.* opens immediately below; that opener is owned by `d13-a2-q2`.
- **Frontmatter line-range**: `line_start: 22445, line_end: 22585` matches the semantic range (ARTICULUS II opener "Consequenter quaeritur" → end of scholion item III "Biel, hic q. unica"). The auto-chunker boundary is correct.
- **No `[?]` flags raised.** Body reconciled column-by-column against p.317 L-0/L-1/L-2/R-0/R-1/R-2, p.318 L-0/L-1/L-2/R-0/R-1/R-2, and p.319 L-0/R-0; footers reconciled against p.317 L-2/R-2 and p.318 L-2/R-2 (p.319 carries no q1 footers). Marginal labels (*Ad oppositum.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Opinio 1.*, *Opinio 2 cum distinctione.*, *Conclusio 1.*, *Conclusio 2.*, *Ad fundam.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Notandum.*) preserved inline per Vol II convention, not promoted to headings.

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