title: Dist. 11, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts touching the letter of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 289 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hieronymus, quod *unaquaeque anima ab ortu nativitatis habeat Angelum delegatum.* Videtur enim falsum, quia cum anima parvuli in ortu suae nativitatis non possit mereri nec demereri nec sit capax[^1] disciplinae, videtur, quod frustra Angelus se occupet circa illum pro illo tempore; sicut si aliquis doctor vellet erudire parvulum vagientem. *Quodsi tu dicas,* quod Angelus custodit non erudiendo quantum ad spiritum, sed defendendo quantum ad corpus; tunc videtur, quod cum in pari periculo sit puer non natus et natus quantum ad corpus, quod debeat custodiri ante nativitatis ortum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Hieronymi auctoritas, intelligendum est, quod ad custodiam hominis Angelus deputatur ab ortu nativitatis; *Notandum.* et non solum intelligit de nativitate *ex* utero, sed etiam de nativitate *in* utero. Ex tunc enim, non ante, debet angelica custodia circa eum qui nasciturus est, deputari, quia illa custodia principalius respicit spiritum quam corpus; et ideo non debet specialem Angelum ad sui custodiam habere, antequam spiritus infundatur. Non debet etiam differre, quia ex tunc defendere potest et adiuvare, magis tamen[^2] secundum tempora diversa. Dum enim est in utero parvulus, potest interimi et damnari; dum est extra uterum ante adultam aetatem, potest a baptismate impediri; dum est in adulta aetate, ad diversa peccata potest pertrahi. Contra haec omnia in his tribus statibus debet sibi angelica custodia deputari, ut per eam ab his malis possit erui et ab adversario defendi. Et hi effectus satis sunt plani, qui sunt per liberationem a malo. — *Utrum quaest. incidens.* Utrum autem parvulus, quamdiu caret usu rationis, aliquem occultum effectum habeat quantum ad habilitationem et directionem in bonum, assignare est difficile, sed negare non est tutum[^3].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Constat, omnes Angelos in cognitionem divinorum mysteriorum secundum processum temporis profecisse.* Hoc enim videtur esse contra Gregorium, qui dicit in Dialogo[^4]: « Quid est quod non videant, qui videntem omnia vident »? Si ergo viderunt quasi a principio temporis exemplar divinum, videtur, quod in nullius cognitione defecerunt. *Si tu dicas,* quod intelligit de omnibus, quae sunt de necessitate salutis, sicut dicit Magister in littera[^5]; *obiicitur* contra hoc, quia unum solum est illud quod est de essentia salutis: ergo non deberet dicere ratione illius, quod *omnia* sciant, quasi beatitudo esset in multis. *Praeterea,* si illud exemplar divinum est ratio omnium, et qui cognoscit rationem rei cognoscit ipsam rem; videtur, quod Angelus omnes res creatas cognoscat, dum illud unum cognoscit. — Et si profecerunt secundum processum temporis, ergo videtur, quod eorum cognitio subiaceat transmutationi temporali; et ita non videntur esse beati.

<!-- page 290 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cognitio in Angelis quaedam est *a natura,* quaedam est a *gratia.* *Distinctio.* Cognitio vero, quae est *a natura,* duplex est. *Subdistinctio 1.* Quaedam enim dicitur esse *a natura,* quia *naturaliter inserta,* ut cognitio eorum quae sunt de prima mundi constitutione; et quantum ad hanc Angeli non proficiunt nec deficiunt, quia quantum ad hanc habuerunt plene species omnium. Alio modo cognitio *a natura* dicitur cognitio, quae est *per naturalem potentiam,* sive sit innata sive acquisita; et quantum ad hanc profecerunt Angeli secundum processum temporis per multiplicem experientiam et conversionem super his quae de novo fiunt. — *Subdistinctio 2.* Similiter cognitio a *gratia* duplex est: quaedam a gratia *fixa,* quaedam a gratia *influente*[^6]. Sicut enim in membris corporalibus ponuntur quaedam *virtutes influentes,* quaedam *fixae,* sive vita quaedam influens, quaedam fixa; sic intelligendum est et in spiritualibus membris sive spiritibus angelicis. *Gratia fixa* dicitur esse gratia confirmationis. Cognitio procedens ab hac gratia est visio aeternae lucis, in qua nec proficiunt Angeli nec decrescunt. Cognitio vero, quae est a *gratia influente,* est cognitio revelationis, quae ideo vocatur *influens,* quia non semper revelat Deus mysteria, sed pro loco et tempore; et secundum hanc intelligit Magister Angelos profecisse, non quia apertius viderint Verbum, sed quia revelatio aliqua facta est eis a Verbo.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod non proficiunt, quia vident omnia, videndo Verbum; dicendum, quod illud dictum est non per *proprietatem,* sed per *aequivalentiam* et *sufficientiam,* quia cognitio solius Verbi adeo sufficit Angelis, sicut si haberent cognitionem omnis rei, etiam in particulari.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod vident omnium rationem; dicendum, quod *speculum aeternum* est speculum *voluntarium,* et exemplar illud est voluntarie ductivum; ideo quantumcumque quis in eo aspiciat, nihil in eo videt, nisi quantum ipsum vult revelare.

Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de transmutatione temporis, dicendum, quod etsi cognitio beatitudinis tempori non subiaceat, tamen cogitationes et affectiones et etiam cognitiones Angelorum circa haec creata nihil impedit variari per tempora. Dicit enim Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram[^7], quod « Deus spiritualem creaturam movet per tempora, non per loca ». — Et haec de Angelis dicta sufficiant.

---

english:
### DOUBTS TOUCHING THE LETTER OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts touching the letter [of the Master], and first inquiry is made of this which Jerome says, that *each soul, from the rising of its nativity, has an Angel deputed to it.* For it seems false: since the soul of an infant at the rising of its nativity cannot merit or demerit, nor is it capable[^1] of learning, it seems that the Angel busies himself in vain about that one for that time; just as if some teacher should wish to instruct a wailing infant. *And if you say* that the Angel guards not by teaching as regards the spirit, but by defending as regards the body — then it seems that since the unborn and the born child are in equal danger as regards the body, he ought to be guarded before the rising of nativity.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as Jerome's authority says, it is to be understood that an Angel is deputed for the custody of a man from the rising of nativity; *Note.* and he understands [this] not only of nativity *out of* the womb, but also of nativity *in* the womb. For from that time, not before, ought angelic custody be deputed about him who is going to be born, because that custody more principally regards the spirit than the body; and therefore he ought not have a special Angel for his custody before the spirit is infused. Nor ought it be deferred, because from that time [the Angel] can defend and assist, yet more[^2] according to diverse times. For while the infant is in the womb, he can be killed and damned; while he is outside the womb before adult age, he can be impeded from baptism; while he is in adult age, he can be drawn to diverse sins. Against all these things, in these three states, angelic custody ought to be deputed to him, that through it he may be rescued from these evils and defended from the adversary. And these effects are plain enough, which consist in *liberation from evil.* — *Whether — incident question.* But whether the infant, so long as he lacks the use of reason, has some hidden effect as to *enabling* and *direction toward the good,* is difficult to assign; but to deny is not safe[^3].

### Doubt II.

Likewise inquiry is made of this which he says: *It is established that all the Angels advanced in the cognition of divine mysteries according to the process of time.* For this seems to be against Gregory, who says in the *Dialogue*[^4]: « What is it that they do not see, who see the One seeing all things »? If therefore they saw, as from the beginning of time, the divine exemplar, it seems that in cognition of nothing did they fail. *If you say* that he understands [it] of all those things which are of the necessity of salvation, as the Master says in the text[^5]; *it is objected* against this, because one only is that which is of the essence of salvation: therefore he ought not to say, on account of that, that they know *all things,* as though beatitude were in many things. *Furthermore,* if that divine exemplar is the ground of all things, and he who knows the ground of a thing knows the thing itself; it seems that the Angel knows all created things, while he knows that one. — And if they advanced according to the process of time, therefore it seems that their cognition is subject to temporal change; and so they do not seem to be blessed.

**I respond:** It must be said that cognition in Angels is partly *from nature,* partly *from grace.* *Distinction.* But cognition which is *from nature* is twofold. *Sub-distinction 1.* For one is said to be *from nature* because *naturally implanted,* as the cognition of those things which pertain to the first constitution of the world; and as to this, the Angels do not advance nor fail, because as to this they had fully the species of all things. In another way cognition is said to be *from nature* [as] the cognition which is *through natural power,* whether innate or acquired; and as to this, the Angels advanced according to the process of time through manifold experience and turning upon those things which come about anew. — *Sub-distinction 2.* Likewise cognition *from grace* is twofold: one from *fixed* grace, another from *influent* grace[^6]. For just as in the bodily members certain *influent powers* are placed, and certain *fixed* ones, or a certain *influent* life and a certain *fixed* life; so it is to be understood also in the spiritual members or angelic spirits. *Fixed grace* is said to be the grace of confirmation. The cognition proceeding from this grace is the vision of the eternal light, in which the Angels neither advance nor decrease. But the cognition which is from *influent grace* is the cognition of revelation, which therefore is called *influent,* because God does not always reveal mysteries, but according to place and time; and according to this the Master understands the Angels to have advanced — not because they saw the Word more openly, but because some revelation was made to them from the Word.

To that, then, which is objected, that they do not advance because they see all things by seeing the Word; it must be said that that saying is not by *propriety,* but by *equivalence* and *sufficiency,* because the cognition of the Word alone so suffices the Angels as if they had the cognition of every thing, even in particular.

To that which is objected, that they see the ground of all things; it must be said that the *eternal mirror* is a *voluntary* mirror, and that exemplar is voluntarily revealing; therefore however much anyone gazes into it, he sees nothing in it except in so far as itself wills to reveal.

But to that which is objected concerning temporal change, it must be said that, although the cognition of beatitude is not subject to time, nevertheless nothing prevents the thoughts and affections and even the cognitions of the Angels concerning these created things from varying through time. For Augustine says in *On Genesis according to the Letter*[^7], that « God moves the spiritual creature through times, not through places ». — And let these things said concerning the Angels suffice.

---

la: Antiquiores codd. *capabilis.*

en: The older codices read *capabilis.*

la: Post *tamen* excidisse videtur *et minus.*

en: After *tamen* the words *et minus* seem to have dropped out.

la: Vide Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 41. m. 4. a. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. et circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Ægid. R., hic dub. I. 2. litt.

en: See Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. II, q. 41, m. 4, a. 3; Bl. Albert, on this [distinction], a. 3; St. Thomas, on this [distinction], q. I, a. 3; Peter of Tarantasia, on this [distinction], q. 1, a. 3, and circa litteram; Richard of Mediavilla, on this [distinction], circa litteram; Giles of Rome, on this [distinction], dub. I, 2, on the letter.

la: Libr. IV. c. 33. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. in fine. — Paulo inferius cod. A *profecerunt* pro *defecerunt.*

en: Book IV, c. 33. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2, at the end. — A little lower, codex A reads *profecerunt* for *defecerunt.*

la: Hic c. 2.

en: Here, c. 2.

la: Vat. *fluente,* quod verbum eadem etiam in seqq. semper adhibet.

en: The Vatican edition reads *fluente,* and uses that same word always in what follows.

la: Libr. VIII. c. 20. n. 39. seqq. — Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. seqq.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. seq.; Ægid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. seqq.

en: Book VIII, c. 20, n. 39 and following. — Cf. on this doubt St. Thomas, on this [distinction], q. 2, a. 1; Peter of Tarantasia, on this [distinction], q. 2, a. 1 and following; Richard of Mediavilla, on this [distinction], a. 2, q. 1 and following; Giles of Rome, on this [distinction], q. 2, a. 1 and following. ---

translators_notes:
**Incoming p.289 boundary CLEAN.** The preceding chunk d11-a2-q3 closes mid-page at *praeexcellentiam[^21].* immediately above the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header; this chunk opens at that header and the *Dub. I.* sub-header. P.289's footnotes nn. 1–2 (Aristotle *Rhetoric* + cross-reference to the preceding scholion) are anchored in d11-a2-q3; nn. 3–7 anchor here and are renumbered continuously as [^1]–[^5].

**Outgoing p.290 boundary CLEAN.** This chunk closes at *Et haec de Angelis dicta sufficiant.* on p.290 R, immediately above the `DISTINCTIO XII. Cap. I.` header. The next chunk d11-littera (Lombard's text for d.11) is the only remaining chunk of d.11; d.12 begins a new distinction. P.290's footnotes for the Bonaventure body are n.1 (the d.12 *elementorum* variant — anchored in d12-littera, not here), n.2 (*Vat. fluente* — anchors here at *gratia influente*), and n.3 (the *de hoc dubio* parallel-authors list with the leading *Libr. VIII. c. 20. n. 39.* — anchors here at *Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram*); the NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM block at the foot of p.290 L belongs to d12-littera.

**Only two dubia in d.11.** The session-resume note speculated a *Dub. III.* on a subsequent page, but eyes-on reading of the 450 dpi PDF column bands confirms d.11 closes with *Dub. II.* at the top of p.290 R, and `DISTINCTIO XII.` opens immediately thereafter. `Dub. III.` does not exist here.

**Marginal labels preserved inline (italic), per Vol II convention:** *Notandum.*, *Utrum quaest. incidens.*, *Distinctio.*, *Subdistinctio 1.*, *Subdistinctio 2.* — all rendered as inline italic markers, none promoted to headings.

**No scholion in this chunk.** Per Vol II Override §5: dubia chunks routinely have no scholion. `has_scholion` omitted from frontmatter (defaults false).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 12

title_alt: Littera Magistri: De conditione naturae corporalis

title_alt: Lombard's text: On the constitution of corporeal nature

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 290 -->

### DISTINCTIO XII.

### Cap. I.

*De distinctione operum sex dierum.*

Haec de angelicae naturae conditione dicta sufficiant. Nunc superest de aliarum quoque rerum creatione, ac praecipue de operum sex dierum distinctione nonnulla in medium proferre[^2]. Cum Deus in sapientia sua angelicos condidit spiritus, alia etiam creavit, sicut ostendit supra memorata Scriptura Genesis, quae dicit, in principio Deum creasse caelum, id est Angelos, et terram, scilicet materiam quatuor elementorum[^1] adhuc confusam et informem, quae a Graecis dicta est *chaos*; et hoc fuit ante omnem diem. Deinde elementa distinxit Deus et species proprias atque distinctas singulis rebus secundum genus suum dedit, quae non simul, ut quibusdam sanctorum Patrum placuit, sed *per intervalla temporum* ac sex *volumina dierum,* ut aliis visum est, formavit.

### Cap. II.

*Quod alii senserunt omnia simul facta in materia et forma, alii per intervalla temporum.*

Quidam namque sanctorum Patrum, qui verba Dei atque arcana excellenter scrutati sunt, super hoc quasi adversa scripsisse videntur. Alii quidem tradiderunt, omnia simul in materia et forma fuisse creata; quod Augustinus[^3] sensisse videtur. — Alii vero hoc magis probaverunt atque asseruerunt, ut primum materia rudis atque informis, quatuor elementorum commixtionem atque confusionem tenens, creata sit; postmodum vero per intervalla sex dierum ex illa materia rerum corporalium genera sint formata secundum species proprias. Quam sententiam Gregorius[^4], Hieronymus, Beda aliique plures commendant ac praeferunt, quae etiam Scripturae Genesis, unde prima huius rei cognitio ad nos manavit, magis congruere videtur.

<!-- page 291 -->

### Cap. III.

*Quomodo per intervalla temporum res corporales conditae sunt.*

Secundum hanc itaque traditionem, ordinem atque modum creationis formationisque rerum inspiciamus, sicut supra memoratum est[^5]. *In principio creavit Deus caelum,* id est angelicam naturam, sed adhuc informem, ut quibusdam placet, *et terram,* id est illam confusam materiam quatuor elementorum, quam nomine *terrae,* ut ait Augustinus[^6] contra Manichaeos, ideo appellavit Moyses, « quia terra inter omnia elementa minus est speciosa; et illa *invisibilis* erat et *incomposita*[^7] propter omnium elementorum commixtionem. Eandem etiam vocat *abyssum,* dicens: *Et tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi* etc., quia confusa erat et commixta, specie distincta carens. Eadem etiam materia informis dicta est *aqua,* *super quam ferebatur spiritus Domini,* sicut superfertur fabricandis rebus voluntas artificis; quia subiacebat bonae voluntati Creatoris quod formandum perficiendumque inchoaverat, qui sicut Dominus et Conditor praeerat fluitanti et confusae materiae, ut distingueret per species varias, quando vellet et sicut vellet. Haec ideo dicta est *aqua,* quia omnia, quae in terra nascuntur, sive animalia sive arbores vel herbae et similia, ab humore incipiunt formari atque nutriri[^8]. His omnibus vocabulis vocata est illa informis materia, ut res ignota nobis vocabulis insinuaretur imperitioribus, et non uno tantum; nam si uno tantum significaretur vocabulo, hoc esse putaretur, quod consueverant homines in illo vocabulo intelligere ». Sub his ergo nominibus significata est materia illa confusa et informis, quae nulla specie cerni ac tractari poterat, id est unguibus visibilium rerum, quae inde futurae erant, propter infirmitatem parvulorum, qui minus idonei sunt invisibilia comprehendere. — *Et tunc erant tenebrae,* id est *lucis absentia.* « Non enim tenebrae aliquid sunt, sed ipsa lucis absentia; sicut silentium non aliqua res est, sed ubi sonus non est, silentium dicitur; et nuditas non aliqua res est, sed in corpore, ubi tegumentum non est, nuditas dicitur; sicut et inanitas non est aliquid, sed inanis dicitur locus esse, ubi non est corpus, et inanitas est absentia corporis[^9] ».

### Cap. IV.

*Quo sensu tenebrae dicantur esse aliquid, et quo dicantur non esse aliquid.*

*Attende,* quia hic Augustinus tenebras dicit non esse aliquid, cum alibi tenebrae inter creaturas ponantur, quae *benedicunt Dominum*; unde dicitur[^10]: *Benedicite, lux et tenebrae, Domino.* Ideoque sciendum est, *tenebras diversis modis accipi,* scilicet vel pro lucis absentia, qualiter supra accepit Augustinus, iuxta quam acceptionem non sunt aliquid; vel pro aere obscurato sive aeris obscura qualitate; et secundum hoc aliquae res creatae sunt. Ideo ergo dicit, *tenebras tunc fuisse super faciem abyssi,* quia nondum erat lux, quae si esset, et superesset et superfunderetur; sed nondum lucis gratia opus suum Deus venustaverat, quae postea in primo die formata est.

### Cap. V.

*Quare illa materia confusa sit dicta informis, et ubi ad esse prodiit, et quantumcumque in altum ascenderit.*

De qua re priusquam tractemus, duo nobis discutienda occurrunt: primum, quare illa materia confusa informis dicatur, an quia omni forma caruerit, an propter aliud; secundo, ubi ad esse prodierit et quantum in altum ascenderit. — *Ad illud ergo quod primo positum est,* breviter respondentes dicimus, illam primam materiam non ideo dictam fore informem, quod nullam omnino formam habuerit, quia non aliquid corporeum tale existere potest, quod nullam habeat formam; sed ideo non absurde informem appellari posse dicimus, quia in confusione et permixtione quadam subsistens, nondum pulchram apertamque et distinctam receperat formam, qualem modo cernimus. Facta est ergo illa materia in forma confusionis ante formam dispositionis[^11]. In forma confusionis prius omnia corporalia materialiter simul et semel sunt creata, postmodum in forma dispositionis sex diebus sunt ordinata. — Ecce absolutum est quod primo in discussione propositum fuit, scilicet quare illa materia dicatur informis.

« Nunc superest quod secundo proponebatur explicare, ubi scilicet illa materia substiterit et quantum in altitudine porrigebatur. Ad quod nihil temere asserentes dicimus, quod illa prima rerum omnium moles, quando creata est, ibidem ad esse videtur prodiisse, ubi nunc formata subsistit; eratque terreum hoc elementum in uno loco eodemque medio subsistens, ceteris tribus in una confusione permixtis, eisdemque circumquaque in modum cuiusdam nebulae oppansis[^12], ita obvolutum erat, ut apparere non posset quod fuit. Illa vero tria, in una permixtione confusa circumquaque suspensa, eousque in altum porrigebantur, quousque nunc summitas corporeae naturae pertingit ». Et sicut quibusdam videtur, ultra locum firmamenti extendebatur illa moles, quae in inferiori parte spissior atque grossior erat, in superiori vero rarior et levior atque subtilior existebat; de qua rariori substantia putant quidam fuisse aquas, quae *super firmamentum* esse dicuntur. « Talis fuit mundi facies in principio, priusquam reciperet formam vel dispositionem ».

<!-- page 292 -->

Nunc superest, ut dispositionem illam, qualiter perfecta sit, ordine prosequamur. Sex diebus, sicut docet Scriptura Genesis, distinxit Deus et in formas redegit proprias cuncta, quae simul materialiter fecerat; perfecitque opus suum in die sexto, et sic deinde die septimo requievit ab omni opere, id est, cessavit novam creaturam facere. Sex enim diebus sex rerum genera distinxit nihilque postea fecit, quod in aliquo illorum non contineatur; operatus est tamen postea, sicut Veritas in Evangelio[^13] ait: *Pater meus operatur usque nunc, et ego operor illud.*

### Cap. VI.

*De quatuor modis divinae operationis.*

Quatuor enim modis, ut ait Alcuinus[^14] super Genesim, operatur Deus: « primo, in Verbo omnia disponendo; secundo, in materia informi quatuor elementorum, de nihilo eam creando, unde: *Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul,* omnia scilicet elementa, vel omnia corpora materialiter simul creavit. Tertio, per opera sex dierum varias distinxit creaturas. Quarto, ex primordialibus seminibus non incognitae oriuntur naturae, sed notae saepius reformantur, ne pereant ».

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XII.

### Chapter I.

*On the distinction of the works of the six days.*

Let what has been said about the constitution of the angelic nature suffice. It now remains to bring forth some things about the creation of the other things as well, and especially about the distinction of the works of the six days[^2]. When God in His wisdom founded the angelic spirits, He also created other things, as the above-mentioned Scripture of Genesis shows, which says that in the beginning God created the heaven — that is, the Angels — and the earth, namely the matter of the four elements[^1], yet confused and formless, which by the Greeks is called *chaos*; and this was before any day. Afterward God distinguished the elements and gave to individual things their own and distinct species according to their kind — [things] which He formed, not all at once, as it pleased certain of the holy Fathers, but *through the intervals of times* and *six volumes of days,* as it seemed to others.

### Chapter II.

*That some have held that all things were made at once in matter and form, others through intervals of times.*

For certain of the holy Fathers, who excellently searched the words and arcana of God, seem to have written on this matter as if at variance. Some indeed handed down that all things were created at once in matter and form, which Augustine[^3] seems to have held. — But others rather approved and asserted this: that first rude and formless matter, holding the commixture and confusion of the four elements, was created; afterward, however, through the intervals of six days, the kinds of corporeal things were formed from that matter according to their proper species. This opinion Gregory[^4], Jerome, Bede, and many others commend and prefer, which also seems to agree more with the Scripture of Genesis, whence the first cognition of this matter has flowed to us.

### Chapter III.

*How through the intervals of times the corporeal things were established.*

According to this tradition therefore let us inspect the order and mode of the creation and formation of things, as has been mentioned above[^5]. *In the beginning God created the heaven,* that is, the angelic nature — yet still formless, as it pleases some — *and the earth,* that is, that confused matter of the four elements, which by the name of *earth,* as Augustine[^6] says against the Manichees, Moses thus called, « because earth among all the elements is the least seemly; and it was *invisible* and *incomposite*[^7] on account of the commixture of all the elements. The same thing he also calls *the abyss,* saying: *And darkness was upon the face of the abyss* etc., because it was confused and commingled, lacking a distinct species. The same formless matter is also called *water, over which the spirit of the Lord was borne,* just as the will of the craftsman is borne over things to be fabricated; because to the good will of the Creator was subjected what He had begun to form and to perfect; who, as Lord and Founder, presided over the floating and confused matter, that He might distinguish it through diverse species, when He willed and as He willed. It is therefore called *water,* because all things which are born in earth — whether animals or trees or herbs and the like — begin to be formed and nourished[^8] from moisture. By all these names that formless matter was called, that a thing unknown to us might be intimated to the more untutored by names, and not by one only; for if it were signified by only one name, this would be thought to be that which men were accustomed to understand under that name ». Under these names, therefore, was signified that confused and formless matter, which could be discerned and handled in no [definite] species — that is, by the senses for visible things — which were to be afterward, on account of the weakness of the little ones, who are less suited to comprehend the invisibles. — *And then there was darkness,* that is, *the absence of light.* « For darkness is not something, but the very absence of light; just as silence is not any thing, but where there is no sound, silence is said [to be]; and nakedness is not any thing, but in a body, where there is no covering, nakedness is said [to be]; just as also emptiness is not something, but a place is said to be empty where there is no body, and emptiness is the absence of body[^9] ».

### Chapter IV.

*In what sense darkness is said to be something, and in what sense it is said not to be something.*

*Attend,* because here Augustine says that darkness is not something, although elsewhere darkness is placed among the creatures which *bless the Lord*; whence it is said[^10]: *Bless the Lord, light and darkness.* Therefore it is to be known that *darkness is taken in diverse modes,* namely either for the absence of light, in which manner Augustine took it above — according to which acceptation they are not anything — or for darkened air, or for the dark quality of the air; and according to this some things were created. Therefore he says that *darkness was then upon the face of the abyss,* because there was as yet no light — which, if it had been, would both have been above and would have been poured upon [the abyss]; but not yet had God adorned His work with the grace of light, which afterward in the first day was formed.

### Chapter V.

*Why that confused matter is said to be formless, and where it came to be, and how high it ascended.*

Before we treat of this matter, two things present themselves to be discussed: first, why that confused matter is called formless — whether because it lacked all form, or for some other reason; second, where it came to be and how far it ascended on high. — *To that, then, which was first set forth,* answering briefly we say that that first matter was not on this account said to be formless, that it had no form at all, because no corporeal thing of that kind can exist which has no form; but on this account we say that it can be called formless not absurdly: that, subsisting in a certain confusion and commixture, it had not yet received the beautiful and open and distinct form which we now discern. That matter therefore was made in the form of confusion before the form of disposition[^11]. In the form of confusion all corporeal things were created together and at once materially; afterward, in the form of disposition, they were ordered in six days. — Behold, it is settled what was first proposed in the discussion, namely why that matter is called formless.

« Now it remains to explain what was secondly proposed, namely where that matter subsisted and how far it stretched on high. To which, asserting nothing rashly, we say that that first mass of all things, when it was created, seems to have come to be in the same place where it now formed subsists; and this earthy element was subsisting in one place and at the same middle, the other three being commingled in one confusion, and these spread on all sides about [it] in the manner of a certain cloud[^12], so wrapped about that what was there could not appear. But those three, confused in one commixture suspended on every side, were stretched on high so far as now the summit of corporeal nature reaches ». And as it seems to some, that mass extended beyond the place of the firmament — which in its lower part was thicker and grosser, in its upper part rarer and lighter and more subtle; and from this rarer substance some think the waters were, which are said to be *above the firmament.* « Such was the face of the world in the beginning, before it received form or disposition ».

Now it remains that we should pursue in order how that disposition was perfected. In six days, as the Scripture of Genesis teaches, God distinguished and reduced into their proper forms all things which He had made simultaneously in matter; and He perfected His work on the sixth day, and so afterward on the seventh day He rested from every work — that is, He ceased to make a new creature. For in six days He distinguished six kinds of things and made nothing afterward which is not contained in some one of them; yet He worked afterward, just as Truth says in the *Gospel*[^13]: *My Father works until now, and I work.*

### Chapter VI.

*On the four modes of divine operation.*

For in four modes, as Alcuin[^14] says on Genesis, God operates: « first, by disposing all things in the Word; second, in the formless matter of the four elements, creating it from nothing — whence: *He who lives forever created all things at once* — that is, all the elements, or He created all bodies materially at once. Third, through the works of the six days He distinguished diverse creatures. Fourth, from the primordial seeds not unknown natures arise, but known ones are more often reformed, lest they perish ».

---

la: Ita codd. F (T a secunda manu) W bb cc et ed. 1; multi codd. perperam *plures,* quod aliqui codd. omittunt; Vat. *universales.* Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 1, ubi et quae sequuntur insinuantur.

en: Thus in codices F (T from a second hand), W, bb, cc, and edition 1; many codices wrongly read *plures,* which some codices omit; the Vatican edition reads *universales.* Cf. above, d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, where these things and what follows are intimated.

la: Cod. Erf. hic annotat: *Hic incipit Hugo* [I. *de Sacram.* p. I. c. 2, deinde c. 4.], *et est expositio Augustini.*

en: Codex Erf. here notes: *Here Hugh begins* [I *de Sacramentis,* p. I, c. 2, then c. 4], *and it is an exposition of Augustine.*

la: Libr. I. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 15. n. 29. Cod. Erf. addit: *et libr. IV. c. 7. n. 14, et VII. c. ult. n. 41. planius; nunquam tamen asserit. Unde ibid. n. 42. dicit sic: Si possunt haec melius intelligi, non solum non resisto, verum et faveo* [in istis huius codicis citationibus, sicut alibi, correximus et supplevimus numeros]. — Paulo post, faventibus edd. 1, 3, 5, *primum* substituimus pro *prima,* quod Vat. cum codd. et aliis edd. exhibet.

en: Book I, *On Genesis according to the Letter,* c. 15, n. 29. Codex Erf. adds: *and Book IV, c. 7, n. 14, and Book VII, last c., n. 41, more plainly; yet he never asserts it. Whence in the same place, n. 42, he says thus: If these things can be better understood, not only do I not resist, but I even favor* [in these citations of this codex, as elsewhere, we have corrected and supplied the numbers]. — A little after, with the support of editions 1, 3, and 5, we have substituted *primum* for *prima,* which the Vatican edition with the codices and other editions presents.

la: Libr. XXXII. *Moral.* c. 12. n. 16; Hieron., *Comment. in Epist. ad Tit.* cap. 1, secundum sensum; Beda, I. *Hexaem.* in princip. Inter plures est etiam Hugo, qui *Sum. Sent.* tr. 3. c. 1. dicit, quod haec sententia est multo probabilior (ita cod. Erf.).

en: Book XXXII *of the Moralia,* c. 12, n. 16; Jerome, *Commentary on the Epistle to Titus,* chapter 1, according to the sense; Bede, *Hexaemeron* I, at the beginning. Among the many is also Hugh, who in the *Summa Sententiarum,* tr. 3, c. 1, says that this opinion is much more probable (so codex Erf.).

en: Distinction 1 and 11, c. 3.

la: Libro I. *de Gen. contra Manich.* c. 7. n. 12. nonnullis mutatis.

en: Book I *On Genesis against the Manichees,* c. 7, n. 12, with some things altered.

la: Est littera secundum Septuaginta, iuxta annotationem cod. Erf.

en: This is the reading according to the Septuagint, according to the note in codex Erf.

la: Cod. Erf. hic annotat: *Illud similiter est Augustini super Gen.* [scil. *contra Manichaeos* loc. cit.]; ac deinde ad verba *cerni ac tractari poterat* annotat: *Sententia est Augustini, sed verba Gandolphi.*

en: Codex Erf. here notes: *This likewise is from Augustine on Genesis* [namely *Against the Manichees* loc. cit.]; and then at the words *could be discerned and handled* notes: *The opinion is Augustine's, but the words Gandulph's.*

la: August., ibid. c. 4. n. 7, et XII. *Confess.* c. 5. n. 3.

en: Augustine, ibid., c. 4, n. 7, and *Confessions* XII, c. 5, n. 3.

en: Daniel 3, 72.

la: Cfr. August., I. *de Gen. contra Manichaeos* c. 7. n. 11. et I. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 13. n. 29. et Hugo, I. *de Sacram.* p. I. c. 4, et quoad subsequentia ibid. c. 6.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On Genesis against the Manichees* I, c. 7, n. 11, and *On Genesis according to the Letter* I, c. 13, n. 29, and Hugh, *de Sacramentis* I, p. I, c. 4, and as to what follows, ibid., c. 6.

la: Sic codd. A B E cum edd. 1, 5 pro *oppressis,* quod in Vat. et ceteris edd. nec non in codd. C D habetur. — Paulo inferius ad verba *Et sicut quibusdam* cod. Erf. annotat: *Magister secundum sententiam Bedae super Gen.* [*Quaest. super Gen.* disput. 2].

en: Thus in codices A, B, E with editions 1 and 5, in place of *oppressis,* which is found in the Vatican edition and the other editions, and likewise in codices C and D. — A little lower, at the words *And as it seems to some,* codex Erf. notes: *The Master according to the opinion of Bede on Genesis* [*Questions on Genesis,* disp. 2].

la: Ioan. 5, 17. De cessatione ab opere cfr. infra d. XV.

en: John 5, 17. On the cessation from work cf. below, d. XV.

la: Interrogat. et resp. in Gen., interrogat. 19, fere ad finem [vel ad verbum]. — Locus s. Scripturae est Eccli. 18, 1.

en: *Questions and Answers on Genesis,* question 19, near the end [or to the word]. — The locus of Sacred Scripture is Ecclesiasticus 18, 1. ---

translators_notes:
**Incoming p.290 boundary CLEAN.** Lombard's d.12 begins on p.290 R-bottom immediately after the conclusion of d.11-dubia's Dub. II (*Et haec de Angelis dicta sufficiant.*). The d11-dubia chunk's outgoing-boundary notes already document this transition; no body text is lost at the seam.

**Outgoing p.292 boundary CLEAN.** Lombard's d.12 Cap. VI closes at the end of the Alcuin quotation (*…ne pereant*) on p.292 L, immediately above the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XII. De conditione naturae corporalis.` header which opens the d12-divisio chunk. No body text is lost at the seam.

**Frontmatter line-range corrected.** The auto-chunker assigned `line_start: 20646` which begins at the p.291 page-marker — missing Cap. I + Cap. II of d.12 on p.290. The corrected effective range for this chunk's body is raw lines 20609–20739; the frontmatter retains the original `line_start/line_end` for audit reproducibility but `printed_pages: [290, 291, 292]` is the authoritative scope.

**Apparatus structure (14 entries across three pages):**
- p.290: one Bonaventure-side variant footer ([^1] *codd. F W bb cc…universales*, anchored at *quatuor elementorum* in Cap. I) plus three NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM entries ([^2] *Cod. Erf. hic incipit Hugo*, anchored at the title/opening of Cap. I; [^3] *Libr. I. de Gen. ad lit.* anchored at *Augustinus* in Cap. II; [^4] *Libr. XXXII. Moral.* anchored at *Gregorius* in Cap. II).
- p.291: eight NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM entries [^5]–[^12], anchored at *memoratum est, Augustinus, incomposita, nutriri, corporis* in Cap. III; at *dicitur* in Cap. IV; at *dispositionis, oppansis* in Cap. V.
- p.292: two Lombard-side footers [^13]–[^14] (no separate NOTAE header on p.292 since the Lombard text occupies only the upper band of the page before the `COMMENTARIUS` opens), anchored at *Evangelio* in the Cap. V → Cap. VI transition paragraph and at *Alcuinus* in Cap. VI.

**Six capituli in d.12 Lombard.** Verified by raw OCR walk plus PDF column bands on pp.290–292: Cap. I (intro, distinction of six days' works), Cap. II (simul vs. per intervalla — Augustine vs. Gregory/Jerome/Bede), Cap. III (the per-intervalla account from Genesis), Cap. IV (in what sense darkness is and is not), Cap. V (why matter is called formless; where it stood; how high it ascended; plus the Cap. V→VI transition on the six days of disposition), Cap. VI (the four modes of divine operation, per Alcuin).

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. 12, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XII — Divisio textus.

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction 12 — Division of the text and treatment of the questions.

source_text:
<!-- page 292 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XII.

#### *De conditione naturae corporalis.*

*Haec de angelicae naturae conditione* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de conditione naturae spiritualis; in hac secunda parte agit de conditione corporalis. Et quoniam creaturae corporalis duo sunt principia, videlicet materiale et formale; ideo pars ista duas habet. In prima agit de productione creaturae corporalis quantum ad principium materiale; et haec productio dicitur *creatio.* In secunda agit de productione ipsius quantum ad principium formale; et haec productio dicitur *distinctio,* infra distinctione decima tertia: *Prima autem distinctionis operatio fuit* etc.

Prima pars continet praesentem distinctionem, in qua intendit agere de materiae rerum corporalium productione. Et quoniam circa productionem materiae corporalis duae fuerunt solemnes opiniones, ideo pars illa duas habet. In *prima* unam ex illis eligit. In *secunda* iuxta illam opinionem de materia illa tractat et inquirit, ibi: *De qua re priusquam tractemus* etc. — *Prima* pars habet quatuor particulas. In prima dicta dicendis continuat. In secunda diversas opiniones Sanctorum circa productionem materiae corporalium explicat, ibi: *Quidam namque sanctorum* etc. In tertia alteram ex illis opinionibus eligit et explanat, ibi: *Secundum hanc itaque traditionem* etc. In quarta et ultima quoddam dubium determinat, ibi: *Attende, quia hic dicit Augustinus* etc.

Similiter *secunda* pars principalis, in qua de ipsa materia secundum opinionem prius[^1] electam inquirit, quatuor habet partes. In prima determinat, qualiter fuerit informis et confusa. In secunda determinat, ubi fuerit locata, ibi: *Nunc superest quod secundo proponebatur.* In tertia vero anticipando determinat, quibus diebus, vel in quot fuerit distincta, ibi: *Nunc superest, ut dispositionem* etc. Quarto vero et ultimo auctoritate Alcuini confirmat, ibi: *Quatuor enim modis, ut dicit Alcuinus* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis secundum duo, quae Magister determinat de informi materia corporalium, circa duo hic incidit dubitatio.

Primo circa materiae informitatem. Secundo vero circa eius quantitatem.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum materia corporalium creata sit in omnimoda possibilitate. Secundo, utrum creata sit in perfecta actualitate. Tertio, utrum creata sit sub aliqua formarum diversitate.

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XII.

#### *On the condition of corporeal nature.*

*These things [are said] concerning the condition of angelic nature* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the condition of spiritual nature; in this second part he treats of the condition of corporeal [nature]. And since the corporeal creature has two principles, namely the material and the formal, this part therefore has two [sections]. In the first he treats of the production of the corporeal creature as regards its material principle; and this production is called *creation.* In the second he treats of the production of the same as regards its formal principle; and this production is called *distinction,* below in the thirteenth distinction: *Now the first operation of the distinction was* etc.

The first part contains the present distinction, in which he intends to treat of the production of the matter of corporeal things. And since concerning the production of corporeal matter there were two solemn opinions, this part therefore has two [subsections]. In the *first* he chooses one of them. In the *second* he treats of that matter and inquires concerning it according to that opinion, there: *Concerning which matter, before we treat* etc. — The *first* part has four particles. In the first he joins what has been said with what is to be said. In the second he sets forth the various opinions of the Saints concerning the production of corporeal matter, there: *For certain of the saints* etc. In the third he chooses and explains one of these opinions, there: *According to this tradition therefore* etc. In the fourth and last he determines a certain doubt, there: *Note, that here Augustine says* etc.

Likewise the *second* principal part, in which he inquires concerning the matter itself according to the opinion previously[^1] chosen, has four parts. In the first he determines in what manner it was formless and confused. In the second he determines where it was located, there: *Now it remains [to consider] what was proposed in the second place.* In the third, anticipating, he determines on which days, or in how many [days], it was distinguished, there: *Now it remains, that the disposition* etc. Fourthly and lastly he confirms [the matter] by the authority of Alcuin, there: *For in four modes, as Alcuin says* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, according to the two matters which the Master determines concerning the formless matter of corporeal things, a doubt arises here concerning two matters.

First, concerning the informity of matter. Secondly, concerning its quantity.

Concerning the first, three [questions] are asked. First it is asked whether the matter of corporeal things was created in complete possibility. Secondly, whether it was created in perfect actuality. Thirdly, whether it was created under any diversity of forms.

---

la: Vat. cum pluribus codd. *plus,* refragantibus aliis codd. et ed. 1.

en: The Vatican edition together with several codices [reads] *plus,* with other codices and edition 1 dissenting. ---

translators_notes:
- Single printed page (p.292 = PDF 314). Two-column COMMENTARIUS + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM occupying the lower two-thirds of the page beneath the tail of Lombard Cap. V → Cap. VI (which belongs to `d12-littera`).
- Apparatus: this chunk carries only the single NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM entry on the p.292 right footer band (`¹ Vat. cum pluribus codd. plus, refragantibus aliis codd. et ed. 1.`), anchored at *opinionem prius* in the *Similiter secunda pars principalis* section. The p.292 left footer band holds two Lombard-side notes (`¹ Ioan. 5, 17. De cessatione ab opere cfr. infra d. XV. c. 7.` and `² Interrogat. et resp. in Gen., interrogat. 19, fere ad verbum. — Locus s. Scripturae est Eccli. 18, 1.`) which anchor at *Veritas in Evangelio* and *ut ait Alcuinus* in the Cap. V → Cap. VI Lombard text and belong to `d12-littera` as [^13]–[^14] per the cross-chunk page-footer split discipline.
- **Incoming boundary CLEAN** — the prior chunk (`d12-littera`, p.290–p.292 top) ends with the close of the Alcuin quotation (*…ne pereant»*) on p.292 R-top of the Lombard band; the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XII.` header opens immediately below the running rule on the same printed page. No shared body sentence and no apparatus splice at the seam (already documented in `d12-littera` outgoing-boundary note).
- **Outgoing boundary CLEAN** — the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM closes p.292 R-bottom at *formarum diversitate*; `ARTICULUS I. — Circa materiae informitatem. — QUAESTIO I. — Utrum materia corporalium creata sit in omnimoda possibilitate.` and *Circa primum sic proceditur* open immediately below (and continue onto p.293) and belong to `bon-sent-II-d12-a1-q1` (locked Vol II convention — the short article opener folds into q1).
- OCR garbles cleaned silently: `Sanctorimi`→Sanctorum, `explieat`→explicat, `QuMam`→Quidam, `deterniinat`→determinat, `Smiiliter`→Similiter, `quanlum`→quantum, `distmctio`→distinctio, `operalio fuil`→operatio fuit, `liabet`→habet, `Prirna`→Prima, `Secuudo`→Secundo, `inforini`→informi, `informitateni`→informitatem, `eum pluiibus`→cum pluribus, `plits`→plus.
- No `[?]` flags.


title: Dist. 12, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 293 -->

### ARTICULUS I.

#### *Circa materiae informitatem.*

### QUAESTIO I.

#### *Utrum materia corporalium creata sit in omnimoda possibilitate.*

*Ad oppositum.* Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod materia creata sit in omnimoda possibilitate, ita quod nullam habuerit formam:

1. Primo per Augustinum in libro *de Symbolo*[^1], qui ait sic: «*Primo omnium formarum capacitas facta est, ut ordinatissimo Dei munere cetera formarentur, quae formata sunt*»: ergo videtur, quod in materia, secundum quod primo condita fuit, fuerit sola formarum *capacitas* et nulla *forma.*

2. Item, Augustinus in duodecimo libro *Confessionum*[^2]: «*Nonne tu, Domine, docuisti me, quia, priusquam istam informem materiam formares atque distingueres, non erat aliquid, non color, non figura, non corpus, non spiritus; tamen non omnino nihil erat informitas sine ulla specie*»? Et post: «*Illud totum prope nihil erat, quoniam adhuc omnino informe erat; iam tamen erat quod formari poterat*». — Ex his duobus verbis expresse colligitur, quod materia corporum sub omnimoda informitate et possibilitate producta fuerit.

3. Item, quod illud sit *possibile,* videtur. Possibile est *prius* esse sine *posteriori*[^3]; sed materia prior est omni forma: ergo possibile fuit, eam fieri absque omni forma.

4. Item, ad rerum conditionem concurrit duplex potentia, scilicet potentia *activa* et potentia *passiva,* ut potentia *agentis* et potentia *materiae*; sed possibile est, potentiam *agentis* praecedere effectum et natura et duratione: ergo possibile est, quod possibilitas vel capacitas materiae natura et duratione praeexistat omni formae.

5. Item, quod illud sit *congruum,* videtur sic. Si aliquod unum reperitur in universo, quod constitutum est ex pluribus naturis, et alteram illarum est per se invenire; similiter contingit invenire per se et reliquam, ad hoc quod universitas sit completa[^4]. Sed res mundanae per materiam componuntur et formam, et est invenire *puram formam,* in qua nihil est de possibilitate materiae, utpote Deum: ergo erit reperire *puram materiam,* in qua nihil erit de actualitate formae. Sed hoc non fuit nisi in mundi exordio: ergo videtur, quod materia producta sit sine omni forma.

6. Item, Deus est agens ordinatissimus, ergo ab extremo in extremum pervenit per medium; sed medium inter omnino non-ens et ens in actu est ens omnino in potentia: ergo videtur, quod Deus in productione rerum prius de non-ente fecit[^5] ens in potentia, quam produxerit aliquam formam.

*Fundamenta.* *Ad oppositum:* 1. Hugo in libro *de Sacramentis*[^6]: «*Credo, illam primam materiam non ideo dictam informem fore, quod nullam omnino formam habuerit, quia non aliquid tale corporeum existere potest*»; et hoc idem Magister dicit in littera.

2. Item, Boethius[^7]: «*Omne esse est a forma*»; sed omne quod creatur, statim post creationem est: ergo vel *est* forma, vel *habet* formam. Si igitur materia prima creata fuit, vel fuit forma, vel habuit formam in suae eductionis principio; sed *non* fuit forma: ergo etc.

3. Item, Philosophus[^8]: «*Impossibile est materiam separari a morphea*»; sed si materia tempore praeexisteret omni formae, posset ab ea separari: ergo non fuit creata in carentia omnis formae.

4. Item, unitas, veritas, bonitas, sive modus, species et ordo sunt in rebus ex parte principii formalis[^9]: sed impossibile est, aliquid esse vel produci, in quo non sit vestigium Creatoris: ergo impossibile est, quod aliquid educatur carens omni forma.

5. Item, si materia illa careret omni forma: ergo et omni accidente: ergo nec haberet extendi <!-- page 294 -->
nec locari nec esse in motu nec in quiete[^10]; sed nihil tale in rerum natura potest existere: ergo materia non potuit in sui conditione omni forma carere.

6. Item, materia hoc ipsum quod est dicitur a forma[^11], ergo essentialem habet dependentiam a forma: si ergo impossibile est, aliquid separari ab eo quod essentialiter sibi inhaeret, impossibile est, materiam praeter omnem formam existere.

### CONCLUSIO.

> *Materia potest considerari ab anima secundum suam essentiam et ut omnino informis; sed secundum esse non potest existere sine omni forma, nec fuit creata informis.*

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est *Materia consideratur dupliciter.* notandum, quod dupliciter est loqui de materia: aut secundum quod *existit* in natura, aut secundum quod *consideratur* ab anima. *Conclusio 1.* Si secundum quod *consideratur* ab anima, sic potest considerari informis, sive per privationem formae *distinctae,* sive per privationem etiam *omnis* formae; et sic docet Augustinus in duodecimo *Confessionum*[^12] essentiam materiae intelligere. Nam materia secundum sui *Notandum.* essentiam est informis per possibilitatem omnimodam; et dum sic consideratur, ipsa formarum *capacitas* sive *possibilitas* est sibi pro forma. — Est iterum loqui de materia, secundum quod habet *Conclusio 2. esse* in natura; et sic nunquam est praeter locum et tempus, sive praeter quietem et motum; et hoc modo non solummodo non congruit, immo etiam impossibile est, materiam informem existere per privationem omnis formae.

Et hoc est quod dicit Magister et Hugo de sancto Victore, et omnes in hoc tractatores consenserunt, *Conclusio 3.* quod illa materia, quae primo producta est per creationem, non fuit in omnimoda possibilitate sive in carentia omnis formae. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hanc partem inductae.

*Solutio oppositorum.* **Ad 1, 2.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod primo facta est omnium *capacitas,* et similiter de eo quod dicitur in duodecimo *Confessionum*; dicendum, quod Augustinus loquitur de prioritate *naturae,* non de prioritate *durationis*[^13]. Secundum enim ordinem naturae prius est materia omnimode in potentia, quam *Notandum.* sit sub aliqua forma, et ita omnimode informis quam aliquo modo formata, quia formationem habet aliunde, sed informitatem et possibilitatem habet ex propria natura; non tamen potest esse prior *duratione.* Nunquam enim *informitas est* nisi per aliquam formam, nec *possibilitas* nisi per aliquem actum.

**Ad 3.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod prius potest esse sine posteriori; dicendum, quod illud non habet veritatem, quando *prius* a *posteriori* dependet, vel quando ad ipsum necessariam habet ordinationem, vel etiam quando illud quod est *prius* in una consideratione, *posterius* est in altera: omnibus his de causis fallit praedicta ratio in proposito. Materia *Notandum.* enim a forma dependet et ad ipsam habet necessariam ordinationem; et quamvis sit prior *productione* sive *generatione,* posterior est tamen *completione.*

**Ad 4.** Ad illud quod obiicitur de potentia agentis et materiae, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia potentia agentis non sic dependet et completur per *effectum,* sicut potentia materiae dependet et completur per *actum.*

**Ad 5.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est reperire formam per se, ergo et materiam; dicendum, quod propositio illa non habet *necessitatem,* sed solum *congruitatem.* Peccatum est etiam in *assumtione*[^14], quia forma illa, quae cum materia facit compositum, nunquam sine materia reperitur. Cum enim dicitur: *Notandum.* Deus est pure forma, aequivocatur nomen *formae,* quia non dicitur ibi *forma,* prout est *perfectio materiae*; sed *forma* nominat ibi *essentiam,* quae habet esse in omnimoda actualitate et completione, et nullo modo potest pervenire ad alterius compositionem.

**Ad 6.** Ad illud quod obiicitur de ordine in producendo, dicendum, quod ad hoc quod servetur ordo in productione, non oportet, quod quaecumque habent ordinem *naturae,* habeant ordinem *durationis successivae.* Contra hoc enim innumerabiles sunt instantiae[^15]; et ideo, quamvis ens in potentia simpliciter inter non-ens et ens-actu sit medium, non oportet, quod duratione sequatur unum, et praecedat alterum.

<!-- page 295 -->

english:
### ARTICLE I.

#### *Concerning the informity of matter.*

### QUESTION I.

#### *Whether the matter of corporeal things was created in complete possibility.*

*Ad oppositum.* Concerning the first [question] one proceeds thus, and it is shown that matter was created in complete possibility, in such a way that it had no form at all:

1. First by Augustine in the book *On the Creed*[^1], who says thus: «*First, the capacity of all forms was made, that by the most well-ordered gift of God the other things might be formed, which have been formed*»: therefore it seems that in matter, according to what was first established, there was only the *capacity* of forms and no *form.*

2. Likewise, Augustine in the twelfth book of the *Confessions*[^2]: «*Have you not, O Lord, taught me that, before you formed and distinguished this formless matter, there was not anything — not color, not figure, not body, not spirit; yet [there] was not altogether nothing, [but] a formlessness without any species*»? And after: «*That whole was nearly nothing, since it was still altogether formless; yet there already was that which could be formed*». — From these two passages it is expressly gathered that the matter of bodies was produced under complete informity and possibility.

3. Likewise, that this is *possible* is shown thus. The *prior* can be without the *posterior*[^3]; but matter is prior to every form: therefore it was possible that it become without any form.

4. Likewise, for the establishment of things there concur two potencies, namely *active* potency and *passive* potency, as the potency *of the agent* and the potency *of matter*; but it is possible that the potency *of the agent* precede the effect both by nature and by duration: therefore it is possible that the possibility or capacity of matter pre-exist every form both by nature and by duration.

5. Likewise, that this is *fitting* is shown thus. If some one thing is found in the universe which is constituted out of several natures, and one of those [natures] is to be found *per se,* it likewise occurs that the other is found *per se,* with the result that the totality is complete[^4]. But mundane things are composed of matter and form, and it is possible to find *pure form,* in which there is nothing of the possibility of matter — namely God: therefore it will be possible to find *pure matter,* in which there will be nothing of the actuality of form. But this was not [the case] except in the world's beginning: therefore it seems that matter was produced without any form.

6. Likewise, God is the most well-ordered agent, therefore he passes from extreme to extreme through a middle; but the middle between altogether non-being and being in act is being altogether in potency: therefore it seems that God in the production of things first made[^5] being in potency from non-being, before he produced any form.

*Fundamenta.* *On the contrary:* 1. Hugh in the book *On the Sacraments*[^6]: «*I believe that first matter was not called formless on the ground that it had no form at all, since no such corporeal thing can exist*»; and the Master says this same thing in the text.

2. Likewise, Boethius[^7]: «*All being is from form*»; but everything that is created, immediately after creation, is: therefore either it *is* form, or it *has* form. If therefore prime matter was created, either it was form, or it had form in the principle of its production; but it was *not* form: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the Philosopher[^8]: «*It is impossible for matter to be separated from morphē*»; but if matter were to pre-exist every form in time, it could be separated from it: therefore it was not created in the lack of every form.

4. Likewise, unity, truth, goodness — that is, mode, species and order — are in things from the side of the formal principle[^9]: but it is impossible that anything be or be produced in which there is not the vestige of the Creator: therefore it is impossible that anything be brought forth lacking every form.

5. Likewise, if that matter were to lack every form: therefore [it would lack] every accident also: therefore it would not have being extended <!-- page 294 -->
nor being located nor being in motion nor in rest[^10]; but nothing such can exist in the nature of things: therefore matter could not, in its condition [of being established], lack every form.

6. Likewise, matter [taken as] this very thing which *is* takes its name from form[^11]; therefore it has an essential dependence on form: if therefore it is impossible that anything be separated from that which essentially inheres in it, it is impossible that matter exist apart from every form.

### CONCLUSION.

> *Matter can be considered by the soul according to its essence and as wholly formless; but according to being it cannot exist without every form, nor was it created formless.*

**I respond:** For the understanding of what has been said it must be *Matter is considered in two ways.* noted that there are two ways of speaking of matter: either according to its *existence* in nature, or according to its being *considered* by the soul. *Conclusion 1.* If according to its being *considered* by the soul, then it can be considered formless, either by the privation of *distinct* form, or by the privation even of *every* form; and thus Augustine in the twelfth [book] of the *Confessions*[^12] teaches that the essence of matter is to be understood. For matter according to its *Note.* essence is formless through complete possibility; and while it is so considered, the very *capacity* or *possibility* of forms stands to it in place of form. — There is again [a way] of speaking of matter according as it has *Conclusion 2. being* in nature; and so it is never apart from place and time, or apart from rest and motion; and in this way it is not only unfitting but indeed impossible that matter exist as formless through the privation of every form.

And this is what the Master and Hugh of St. Victor say, and all who treat of this matter have agreed, *Conclusion 3.* that the matter which was first produced by creation was not in complete possibility, that is, in the lack of every form. — Hence the reasons brought forward for this part [of the question] are to be conceded.

*Solution of the contrary [arguments].* **To 1, 2.** To that which is objected — that the *capacity* of all things was first made, and likewise to what is said in the twelfth [book] of the *Confessions* — it must be said that Augustine speaks of priority of *nature,* not of priority of *duration*[^13]. For according to the order of nature matter is first in complete potency before *Note.* it is under any form, and so wholly formless before formed in any way, since it has formation from elsewhere, but it has informity and possibility from its own nature; yet it cannot be prior in *duration.* For there is never *informity* except through some form, nor *possibility* except through some act.

**To 3.** To that which is objected, that the prior can be without the posterior, it must be said that this does not hold when the *prior* depends on the *posterior,* or when it has a necessary ordering to it, or also when that which is *prior* in one consideration is *posterior* in another: for all these reasons the aforesaid reasoning fails in the present case. For matter *Note.* depends on form and has a necessary ordering to it; and although it is prior in *production* or *generation,* it is nevertheless posterior in *completion.*

**To 4.** To that which is objected concerning the potency of the agent and of matter, it must be said that there is no parallel, since the potency of the agent does not depend on and reach completion through its *effect* in the way that the potency of matter depends on and reaches completion through its *act.*

**To 5.** To that which is objected — that one can find form *per se,* therefore also matter [*per se*] — it must be said that that proposition does not have *necessity* but only *fittingness.* There is also a fault in the *minor premise*[^14], since the form which with matter makes a composite is never found without matter. For when it is said: *Note.* God is purely form, the term *form* is used equivocally, since *form* there is not said as it is the *perfection of matter*; rather *form* there names the *essence,* which has being in complete actuality and completion, and can in no way come to the composition of another.

**To 6.** To that which is objected concerning order in producing, it must be said that for order to be preserved in production it is not necessary that whatever things have an order *of nature* have an order *of successive duration.* For there are innumerable instances against this[^15]; and therefore, although being in potency simply is the middle between non-being and being-in-act, it is not necessary that it follow the one and precede the other in duration.

<!-- page 295 -->

la: Cap. 2. n. 2: *Quapropter rectissime credimus, omnia Deum fecisse de nihilo; quia, etiamsi de aliqua materia factus est mundus, eadem ipsa materia de nihilo facta est, ut ordinatissimo Dei munere prima [alias: primo] capacitas formarum fieret, ac deinde formarentur quaecumque formata sunt.*

en: Chapter 2, n. 2: *Wherefore we most rightly believe that God made all things out of nothing; since, even if the world was made out of some matter, that very matter was made out of nothing, so that by the most well-ordered gift of God the capacity of forms was first made, and then whatsoever things were formed were formed.* [Variant: *prima* / *primo.*]

la: Cap. 3. n. 3, ubi textus originalis ultimam partem verborum sic exhibet: *non tamen omnino nihil, erat quaedam informitas sine ulla specie.* — Seq. textus est ibid. c. 8. n. 8.

en: Chapter 3, n. 3, where the original text presents the last part of the words thus: *yet [it was] not altogether nothing, [for] there was a certain informity without any species.* — The following text is from the same work, c. 8, n. 8.

la: Aristot., V. *Metaph.* text. 16. (IV. c. 11.): *Quaedam vero secundum naturam et substantiam [priora sunt], quaecumque contingunt absque aliis esse, ista vero sine illis minime.*

en: Aristotle, *Metaphysics* V, text 16 (IV, c. 11): *Some things [are prior] by nature and substance: namely whichever can be without the others, while the others cannot be without them.*

la: Secundum Aristotelem, VIII. *Phys.* text. 37. (c. 5.). Cfr. supra pag. 210, nota 11.

en: According to Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 37 (c. 5). Cf. above, p. 210, note 11.

la: Cod. K *fecerit.*

en: Codex K [reads] *fecerit* [perfect subjunctive].

la: Libr. I. p. I. c. 4. — Verba Magistri vide hic in lit. c. 5.

en: Book I, p. I, c. 4. — For the words of the Master see here in the text, c. 5.

la: In libro *de Unitate et uno*: *Omne enim esse ex forma est* in rebus creatis. Cfr. etiam *de Trin.* c. 2.

en: In the book *On Unity and the One*: *For all being is from form* in created things. Cf. also *On the Trinity,* c. 2.

la: Libr. I. *de Gener. et corrupt.* text. 29. (c. 5.): «*Melius ergo est facere omnibus inseparabilem esse materiam... quam nunquam sine passione possibile est esse neque sine forma* (ἄνευ μορφῆς)». Averroes in explicatione libri II. *Phys.* text. 12. ait: *Materia autem differt a forma, sed nunquam denudatur a forma, immo cum separatur a forma induit aliam; quoniam, si denudaretur ab omnibus formis, scilicet prima materia, tunc quod non est in actu esset in actu.* Cfr. supra pag. 96, nota 5. — Pro *a morphea* [morphē], quod ita exhibent codd. cum edd. 1, 2, Vat. cum aliis edd. substituit *ab omni forma.*

en: Book I *On Generation and Corruption,* text 29 (c. 5): «*Therefore it is better to say that matter is inseparable from all things... [matter] which can never be without passion nor without form* (ἄνευ μορφῆς)». Averroes in his exposition of *Physics* II, text 12, says: *Matter differs from form, but is never stripped of form; rather, when it is separated from one form it takes on another; since, if first matter were stripped of all forms, then what is not in act would be in act.* Cf. above, p. 96, note 5. — In place of *a morphea* [from *morphē*], which the codices together with editions 1 and 2 thus present, the Vatican edition with the other editions substitutes *ab omni forma.*

la: Vide August., *de Vera Religione,* c. 18. n. 35. seq. et c. 36. n. 66; *de Natura boni,* c. 3. seqq., ubi etiam *minor* insinuatur. Cfr. supra pag. 17, nota 4.

en: See Augustine, *On True Religion,* c. 18, n. 35 f. and c. 36, n. 66; *On the Nature of the Good,* c. 3 ff., where the *minor [premise]* is also intimated. Cf. above, p. 17, note 4.

la: Aristot., I. *de Gener. et corrupt.* text. 27. (c. 5.): *Separata enim existens [materia] aut nullum possidebit locum, aut veluti punctus aliquis aut vacuum erit, vel corpus non sensatum erit; horum autem alterum quidem non contingit, alterum autem necesse est in aliquo esse. Semper enim alicubi erit quod generatur ex eo.*

en: Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 27 (c. 5): *For [matter] existing separately will either possess no place, or will be like some point or void, or will be an insensible body; but of these the one [the latter] does not occur, while the other [the former] is necessarily in something. For that which is generated from it will always be somewhere.*

la: Aristot., II. *Phys.* text. 26. (c. 2.), de quo vide tom. I. pag. 153, nota 6. — Vid. *dicitur esse ad formam.*

en: Aristotle, *Physics* II, text 26 (c. 2), on which see vol. I, p. 153, note 6. — That is, *is said to be in relation to form.*

la: Cap. 3. n. 3, et c. 6. n. 6. seqq. — De iis quae sequuntur, cfr. supra pag. 17, nota 4. et d. 3. p. I. a. I. q. 2. in corp.

en: Chapter 3, n. 3, and c. 6, n. 6 ff. — On what follows, cf. above p. 17, note 4, and d. 3, p. I, a. I, q. 2, in the body.

la: Sicut ipse August., XII. *Confess.* c. 29. n. 40. testatur et explicat per exemplum soni, qui *origine* tantum prior est cantu, de quo vide supra d. 2. p. I. a. 2. q. 3. ad 4. Idem docet I. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 15. n. 29; II. c. 11. n. 24. et V. c. 5. n. 13; I. *Contra Advers. legis et proph.* c. 9. n. 12.

en: As Augustine himself testifies, *Confessions* XII, c. 29, n. 40, and explains by the example of sound, which is prior to song only *in origin* — on which see above d. 2, p. I, a. 2, q. 3, ad 4. He teaches the same thing in *On Genesis according to the Letter* I, c. 15, n. 29; II, c. 11, n. 24; and V, c. 5, n. 13; *Against the Adversaries of the Law and the Prophets* I, c. 9, n. 12.

la: Id est: in *minori* obiectionis. — Paulo inferius post *prout est* in cod. T additur *pura.* Cfr. I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 2.

en: That is, in the *minor [premise]* of the objection. — A little lower, after *prout est,* in codex T is added *pura.* Cf. I Sent., d. 8, p. II, q. 2.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 20. a. 2. q. 2, ubi hoc ostenditur respectu personarum divinarum. — In fine solutionis in cod. Q a secunda manu adiungitur *sed sufficit, quod ens in potentia praecedat origine ens-actu.*

en: Cf. I Sent., d. 20, a. 2, q. 2, where this is shown with respect to the divine persons. — At the end of the solution, in codex Q a second hand adds: *but it suffices that being in potency precede being-in-act in origin.* ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** De doctrina S. Doctoris circa materiam et formam cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. I. q. 1, scholion. Cum autem Gen. 1, 2. terra appelletur *inanis et vacua,* et Sap. 11, 18. dicatur, quod Deus *creavit orbem terrarum ex materia invisa* (ἐξ ὕλης ἀμόρφου), in hoc articulo inquiritur, quomodo haec intelligenda sint. In I. quaestione docetur, materiam nunquam fuisse sine aliqua forma, immo *impossibile* esse, «*materiam informem existere per privationem omnis formae*». Sed controvertitur, utrum terminus *impossibile* intelligi debeat non tantum respectu *virium naturalium,* quod in confesso est apud omnes, sed etiam *absolute* et respectu divinae potentiae, scil. propter intrinsecam rei impossibilitatem. Henr. Gand. (*Quodl.* 1. q. 10.) docet, «*quod actione divina supernaturali materia potest per se subsistere nuda ab omni forma, et hoc multo magis quam accidentia... Unde qui modo negant, materiam Dei actione posse stare sine forma, nisi esset clarum et fide tenendum, quod accidentia subsistunt sine subiecto in Sacramento altaris, multo magis negarent, Dei actione accidens posse stare sine subiecto*». Henrico praeter consuetudinem suam hic consentit Scot. (in utroque *Scripto,* hic q. 2.), Richard. a Med. (sed cum distinctione quadam), Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 2) et plures gravesque doctores posteriores. Sed S. Thom. (S. 1. q. 66. a. 1.) dicit: «*Dicere, materiam praecedere sine forma, est dicere ens actu sine actu, quod implicat contradictionem*». Hoc iam dixit Averroes (cfr. supra pag. 293, nota 8.).

**II.** Praeter iam citatos: Alex. Hal., de hac et seq. S. p. II. q. 14. m. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 4. — B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. I. q. 4. m. I. a. 4. partic. I. ad 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 4. 5. — Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. I. 2. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Biel, hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** On the doctrine of the holy Doctor concerning matter and form cf. above d. 3, p. I, a. I, q. 1, scholion. Now since in Genesis 1, 2 the earth is called *void and empty,* and in Wisdom 11, 18 it is said that God *created the world from invisible matter* (ἐξ ὕλης ἀμόρφου), in this article it is asked how these are to be understood. In Question I it is taught that matter was never without some form, indeed that it is *impossible* «*for formless matter to exist by the privation of every form*». But there is controversy whether the term *impossible* should be understood not only with respect to the *natural powers* (which is admitted by all), but also *absolutely* and with respect to the divine power — namely on account of the intrinsic impossibility of the thing. Henry of Ghent (*Quodl.* 1, q. 10) teaches «*that by supernatural divine action matter can subsist of itself stripped of every form, and this much more than the accidents... Hence those who now deny that matter, by God's action, can stand without form, unless it were clear and to be held by faith that the accidents subsist without a subject in the Sacrament of the altar, would much more deny that, by God's action, an accident can stand without a subject*». Beyond his usual practice, Scotus here agrees with Henry (in either *Writing,* here q. 2), [as does] Richard of Mediavilla (but with a certain distinction), Dionysius the Carthusian (here q. 2), and many weighty later doctors. But Saint Thomas (*Summa,* 1, q. 66, a. 1) says: «*To say that matter precedes without form is to say being-in-act without act, which implies a contradiction*». This Averroes already said (cf. above p. 293, note 8).

**II.** Besides those already cited: Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* on this and the following [question], p. II, q. 14, m. 1. — Saint Thomas, here, the single question, a. 4. — Blessed Albert, *Summa,* p. II, tr. I, q. 4, m. I, a. 4, partic. I, ad 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, the single question, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, q. 4. 5. — Giles of Rome, here, q. 3, a. I. 2. — Durandus, here, q. 2. — Biel, here, q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
- Three printed pages (p.293–p.295 = PDF 315–317). Two-column quaestio body opens at the top of p.293 L (the ARTICULUS I / *Circa materiae informitatem.* / QUAESTIO I header group + *Circa primum sic proceditur* opener — folded in per the locked Vol II convention that the short article opener belongs to a1-q1), runs through p.294 R, with the SCHOLION (sections **I** + **II**) occupying the top of p.295 L immediately before QUAESTIO II opens at the bottom of p.295 L.
- **Apparatus (15 entries, renumbered continuously across pp. 293–294):**
  - p.293 (9 entries): [^1] Augustine, *de Symbolo* c. 2 n. 2 — anchored at *Augustinum in libro de Symbolo* in arg.1; [^2] *Confessions* XII c. 3 n. 3 + c. 8 n. 8 — at *Augustinus in duodecimo libro Confessionum* in arg.2; [^3] Aristotle, *Metaph.* V text 16 — at *Possibile est prius esse sine posteriori* in arg.3; [^4] Aristotle, *Phys.* VIII text 37 — at *universitas sit completa* in arg.5; [^5] codex K variant *fecerit* — at *prius de non-ente fecit* in arg.6; [^6] Hugh, *de Sacramentis* I p. I c. 4 — at *in libro de Sacramentis* in Fundamenta-1; [^7] Boethius, *de Unitate et uno* — at *Boethius* in Fundamenta-2; [^8] Aristotle, *de Gener. et corrupt.* I text 29 + Averroes, *Phys.* II text 12 + *a morphea* / *ab omni forma* variant — at *a morphea* in Fundamenta-3; [^9] Augustine, *de Vera Religione* c. 18/36 + *de Natura boni* c. 3 — at *ex parte principii formalis* in Fundamenta-4.
  - p.294 (6 entries): [^10] Aristotle, *de Gener. et corrupt.* I text 27 — at *nec in motu nec in quiete* in Fundamenta-5; [^11] Aristotle, *Phys.* II text 26 — at *dicitur a forma* in Fundamenta-6; [^12] Augustine, *Confessions* XII c. 3 n. 3 + c. 6 n. 6 — at *duodecimo Confessionum* in Conclusio 1 of the Respondeo; [^13] Augustine, *Confessions* XII c. 29 n. 40 + several *de Gen. ad lit.* loci — at *non de prioritate durationis* in Ad 1-2; [^14] *minor obiectionis* + cod. T variant + I Sent. cross-ref — at *in assumtione* in Ad 5; [^15] I Sent. d. 20 cross-ref + cod. Q second-hand gloss — at *innumerabiles sunt instantiae* in Ad 6.
- **Page-295 SCHOLION carries no apparatus footers** — both SCHOLION sections (**I** doctrinal-controversy survey culminating in S. Thom., *Summa* I q. 66 a. 1; **II** parallel-citations list) end before any new footer band opens, since the bottom of p.295 L gives way directly to QUAESTIO II (which is `bon-sent-II-d12-a1-q2`'s opening).
- **Incoming boundary CLEAN** — the prior chunk (`d12-divisio`, p.292) ends with the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM listing the three articles' questions; the ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I header group opens immediately below on p.292 R-bottom and continues onto p.293 L (per locked Vol II convention, those headers fold into a1-q1, and `d12-divisio` already documents that hand-off in its outgoing-boundary note).
- **Outgoing boundary CLEAN** — the SCHOLION closes p.295 L mid-column at the parallel-citations list (`…Biel, hic q. 1.`), and `QUAESTIO II. — Utrum materia producta sit in perfecta actualitate. — Secundo quaeritur` opens immediately below on the same p.295 L and belongs to `bon-sent-II-d12-a1-q2`.
- Marginal labels preserved inline (Vol II convention, NOT promoted to headings): *Ad oppositum.* (above arg 1 of the videtur side), *Fundamenta.* (above arg 1 of the Ad oppositum / Fundamenta side), *Materia consideratur dupliciter.* (at the opening of the Respondeo), *Conclusio 1./2./3.* (marking the three branches of the Respondeo), *Notandum.* (×4: at *essentiam est informis*; at *omnimode in potentia* in Ad 1-2; at *enim a forma dependet* in Ad 3; at *Cum enim dicitur* in Ad 5), *Solutio oppositorum.* (at the head of the Ad 1-2 block).
- OCR garbles cleaned silently: `ostendilur`→ostenditur, `oninimoda`→omnimoda, `Aiigustinum`→Augustinum, `Symbnlo`→Symbolo, `Prirao`→Primo, `maleria`→materia, `duodecirao`→duodecimo, `coUigitur`→colligitur, `producla`→producta, `ageiitis`→agentis, `compleia/pleta`→completa, `forraam`→formam, `forraa`→forma, `reruni`→rerum, `Sacramen-tis`→Sacramentis, `omniuo`→omnino, `Boethius`/`bonus`→Boethius, `informitateni`→informitatem, `formani`→formam, `inforraem`→informem, `dieit`→dicit, `Inforraitas`→informitas, `oinnibus`→omnibus, `tamen com-pletione`→tamen completione, `dicendura`→dicendum, `assumtione`→assumtione (preserved Quaracchi spelling), `inhmero`/`innumerabiles`→innumerabiles, `quaccumque`→quaecumque, `qnod`→quod, `inforniis`→informis, `aequivocatur`→aequivocatur (Quaracchi spelling preserved), `Sicut ipsc`→Sicut ipse, `Cnnfess.`→Confess., `cniilu`→cantu, `Lit.`→lit., `Conua`→Contra, `Adveis.`→Advers., `pi-0|)li.`→proph., `clii`→cit., `SCHOLIOK`→SCHOLION, `iiivisa`→invisa, `iuanis et iiicun`→inanis et vacua, `intclligenda`→intelligenda, `qiianilo`→quando, `controvcrlitur`→controvertitur, `imposibile`→impossibile, `inforniem`→informem, `iiroposito`→proposito, `iVlateria`→materia, `dixisset`→dixit, `nuda`→nuda (preserved), `praeexisteret`→praeexisteret, `morphea`→morphea (preserved, with apparatus variant noted), `Behemoth`→Behemoth (preserved).
- No `[?]` flags.