title: Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation; each entry gives the Quaracchi note in Latin followed by an English rendering.

### QUAESTIO II.
### *Utrum corpora ab Angelis assumta fiant de natura caelesti, an elementari.*

Secundo quaeritur de corpore assumto a parte principii materialis. Et quaeritur, utrum corpus illud, quod assumit Angelus, fiat de natura caelesti, an elementari. Et quod fit de natura caelesti, videtur:

1. Finis imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem; sed Angelus assumit corpus ad sui ipsius ostensionem: cum ergo Angeli per naturam sint lumina[^1], debent ergo assumere corpora de natura lucis: ergo de natura caelesti.

2. Item, organum sive instrumentum debet conformari moventi sive motori[^2]; sed Angelus assumens corpus ut instrumentum est immutabilis et impassibilis per naturam: ergo et corpus, unde corpus assumtum formatur, debet esse incorruptibile et impassibile. Tale autem non est nisi corpus caeleste: ergo etc.

3. Item, locus maxime competens Angelo est corpus caeleste, ut caelum[^3]: si ergo Angelus in corpore assumto locatur tanquam in habitaculo, videtur, quod corpus illud sit sumtum de caelo, aut non competit ipsi Angelo.

4. Item, corpus assumtum aut est de natura caelesti, aut elementari. Si de natura caelesti, habeo propositum; si de elementari: aut gravi, aut levi. Sed si est de gravi, cum difficultate movetur sursum; si de levi, violenter movetur deorsum. Ergo si neutrum horum competit velocitati angelicae, corpus, quod assumunt, non est elementare: ergo est corpus caeleste.

5. Item, si est elementare, aut est *mixtum*, aut *simplex*. Si *simplex*, ergo non est aptum ad colorem nec ad effigiem nec ad organizationem. Si *mixtum*, ergo cum corpus mixtum sit resolubile et rarefactibile, videtur, quod sicut corpus humanum ex separatione animae fit putridum, sic et corpus ab Angelo assumtum; quod apparet esse falsum. Restat ergo, quod non est corpus elementare; sed est elementare, vel caeleste; ergo etc.

6. Item, si est corpus elementare, habet contrarium, sive sit simplex, sive sit mixtum: ergo si transeat per regionem *ignis*, videtur, quod quidquid est in eo humidum, consumatur; si vero per regionem *aquae*, quidquid est in eo igneum, extinguatur. Quod si hoc constat esse falsum, ergo si Angelus sine laesione pertransit regiones omnium elementorum cum corpore assumto, constat, illud non esse de natura elementari; et est de natura elementari, vel caelesti: ergo etc.

<!-- page 217 -->

*Ad oppositum* arguitur sic — *Fundamenta*: 1. *Primo auctoritate.* Gregorius[^4] ait enim sic: «Nunquam Abraham Angelos videre potuisset, nisi corpus ex aere assumsissent». Et Beda *de Natura rerum*[^5]: «Angeli ad nos venientes corpus ex aere sumunt».

2. Item, *ratione* sic. Angeli assumunt corpora maxime propter motum et discursum; sed corpus caeleste non est habile ad motum rectum, sed circularem[^6]: ergo non competit in ministerio angelico assumere corpus de caelo.

3. Item, Angelus assumit corpus ad apparendum, et hoc in humana effigie; sed corpus caeleste nec est terminativum visus nec est figurabile: ergo non videtur ad constitutionem corporis assumti ab Angelo tunc habile[^7].

4. Item, si assumit corpus de caelo; cum non assumat de toto, assumit de parte: ergo separat et dividit partem caeli a toto. Sed omne divisibile est corruptibile: ergo videtur, quod natura caelestis sit corruptibilis; sed hoc est falsum[^8]: ergo et primum.

5. Item, si assumit corpus de caelo; cum assumat partem, quam fert secum deorsum, aut aliquid subintrat locum eius, aut nihil. Si nihil, ergo remanet vacuum; si aliquid, aut oportet illud de novo creari, aut oportet corpus illud rarefieri: ergo si haec omnia sunt inconvenientia, patet etc.

6. Item, angelus satanae frequenter se transfigurat in angelum lucis[^9], et tunc constat, quod assumit corpus ita pulcrum, sicut et Angelus bonus; sed daemones non assumunt corpora de natura caelesti, quia usque ad illam non conscendunt, sed solum de natura elementari: ergo similiter videtur, quod et Angeli boni.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Angeli assumunt corpora ex natura non caelesti, sed elementari, non simplici, sed imperfecte commixta, utpote ex aere vaporabili.

**Respondeo:** Ad horum intelligentiam est notandum, quod circa hoc diversae fuerunt sapientium opiniones.

*Opinio 1.* Quidam enim dicere voluerunt, quod Angeli assumunt corpora ex natura elementari, ita tamen, quod non ex uno tantum, sed ex omnibus simul mixtis, aliquo tamen eorum praedominante; unde dicunt, corpus illud ab Angelo assumtum esse vere corpus mixtum, quamvis non sit vere corpus humanum. Illam autem formam mixtionis dicunt esse ab Angelo tanquam a *praeparante* solum, sed a Domino tanquam a *dante*, dante, inquam, non per creationem vel infusionem, sed per intrinsecam operationem, secundum quam dictum est supra[^10] quod indidit rebus naturas et virtutes seminarias, secundum quas, Deo cooperante, cunctae naturales formae producuntur in esse.

*Alii opponunt.* Sed cum corpus illud quasi repente formetur et destruatur, aliis non videtur probabile, quod sit plena mixtione mixtum, maxime cum in eius resolutione nec appareat temporis longitudo nec putrefactionis corruptio; et ideo dixerunt — *opinio 2* — quod corpus illud est de natura elementari simplici, ex qua dicunt illud corpus assumtum formari hoc modo. Natura enim elementaris, ex qua corpus sibi format Angelus, est aeris elementum, quod de sui natura est rarefactibile et condensabile, si adsit virtus, quae hoc possit. Unde sicut videmus, aquam solidari in crystallum vel glaciem ex frigore; sic contingit aliqua virtute occulta, quae non latet Angelos, aerem condensari posse secundum plus et minus ad voluntatem Angeli operantis. Hoc autem corpus, dum condensatur, potest suscipere figuram et effigiem, et ita corpori organico[^11] effici conforme. Potest nihilominus in una parte condensari plus, in alia minus, in alia minime, et sic conformari nervo, ossi et carni. Potest etiam in una sui parte intercipere plus de luce, in alia minus, in alia minime, et secundum hoc habere in se diversos colores; et ita corpori humano effici quasi in omnibus conforme, quamvis non sit in suis principiis multiforme, et ita idoneum esse *instrumentum*, *signum* et *habitaculum*[^12], ut ab Angelo assumatur.

*Improbatur.* Sed quia adhuc hoc difficile est intelligere, quomodo scilicet ex aere sive alterius elementi commixtione fiat corpus solidum et diversis coloribus coloratum, cum colores producere non sit artis, nisi mediante auxilio naturae; ideo *tertia via* — *opinio 3* — adhuc videtur esse probabilior, scilicet quod corpus assumtum ab Angelo corpus elementare est, non quia sit ex quatuor elementis plena mixtione commixtum, sicut corpus complexionatum, nec quia sit ex puro et simplici elemento formatum, sed quia principaliter formatur ex aere cum aliqua admixtione alterius elementi; sicut videmus in nube, quae non est corpus plene mixtum, habet tamen in se naturas plurium elementorum.

<!-- page 218 -->

Per hunc modum et corpus ab Angelo assumtum principaliter ab aere intelligitur esse formatum, concurrente ad hoc natura alicuius vaporis terrei[^13] vel aquosi, qui quidem faciat tam ad varietatem condensationis, quam ad multiformitatem coloris. *Notandum.* Hanc autem non oportet Angelum de longinquo mendicare, cum aer pro magna sui parte sit commixtum vaporibus. — Et hanc positionem mediam inter utramque, tanquam ex utraque constitutam, ad praesens possumus sustinere.

*Conclusio.* Ad quaestionem igitur propositam breviter respondendum, quod Angelus tam bonus quam malus assumit corpus ex natura non caelesti, sed elementari, non simplici nec plene commixta, sed medio modo, utpote ex aere vaporabili; angelus tamen malus ex parte inferiori, bonus vero ex parte superiori, non inquam superiori, in qua nulla reperiatur natura alterius elementi, sed superiori comparatione et respectu eius partis, de qua assumunt corpora angeli mali. — Ideo concedendae sunt rationes, quod corpora ab Angelis assumta non sint de natura caelesti, sed elementari.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angelus assumit corpus ad sui ostensionem; dicendum, quod Angelus non tantummodo se ostendit, pensata dignitate sive nobilitate sua, sed etiam idoneitate signi et necessitate ex parte nostra. Licet igitur eius dignitas omnis corporis nobilitatem praecellat, quia tamen corpus elementare facit[^14] ad eius manifestationem, secundum quod nostra exigit indigentia, et ad hoc est idoneum, ut sit corporis organici materia: ideo magis competit, ut Angelus de ipso sumat corpus quam de caelesti natura.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod instrumentum debet conformari motori; dicendum, quod verum est, quando organum sive instrumentum est ei perpetuo coniunctum; sed quando coniungitur solum ad tempus, sufficit, ut sibi pro opportunitate loci et temporis et operis conformetur; et sic est in proposito reperire.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angelus locatur in corpore assumto tanquam in habitaculo; iam patet responsio, quia non est habitaculum debitum Angelo quantum ad excellentiam suae dignitatis, sed quantum ad indigentiam nostrae infirmitatis. Et quoniam statui nostrae infirmitatis plus conformatur elementaris natura quam caelestis; ideo, etsi habitaculum caeleste plus competat Angelo ad contemplandum, tamen habitaculum ex corpore elementari plus competit Angelo ad ministrandum[^15].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur: aut est corpus grave, aut leve; dicendum, quod nec simpliciter grave nec simpliciter leve, tum quia est ex aere, tum quia ex aere commixto vapori; et ideo est habile ad motum secundum omnem positionem; quod non esset, si esset corpus simplex ponderosum, aut leve.

5. Ad aliud iam patet responsio, quia nec est omnino simplex, immo quodam modo mixtum, ut competat colori et organizationi, nec adeo mixtum, ut subiaceat putrefactioni, sed medium tenet, ut praedictum est.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod patitur a contrario; dicendum, quod sicut formatio illius corporis, quamvis sit ex adiutorio naturae, tamen principaliter est a virtute spiritualis substantiae, propter hoc, quia effigies illius corporis plus est artificialis quam naturalis; sic et conservatio illius corporis est a virtute angelica. Unde sicut sua virtute absque manibus corpus illud effigiat, sic sua virtute protegit et conservat; et ipso deserente, redit corpus ad praeiacentem materiam. Ideo sicut eius conservatio non pendet ex simili, ita nec[^16] corruptio fit a contrario.

english:
### Question II.
### *Whether the bodies assumed by Angels are made of celestial or elemental nature.*

Second, it is asked about the body assumed with regard to its material principle. And it is asked whether that body which the Angel assumes is made of celestial or elemental nature. And that it is made of celestial nature, it seems:

1. The end imposes necessity on the things which lead to the end; but the Angel assumes a body for his own showing-forth: since therefore the Angels are by nature lights[^1], they ought therefore to assume bodies of the nature of light: therefore of celestial nature.

2. Likewise, the organ or instrument must be conformed to the mover or motor[^2]; but the Angel assuming a body as an instrument is immutable and impassible by nature: therefore also the body out of which the assumed body is formed must be incorruptible and impassible. But such a thing is none other than a celestial body: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the place most befitting an Angel is a celestial body, namely the heaven[^3]: if therefore the Angel is placed in the assumed body as in a dwelling, it seems that body must be taken from the heaven, or else it does not befit the Angel.

4. Likewise, the assumed body is either of celestial nature or of elemental nature. If of celestial nature, I have my point; if of elemental: either heavy or light. But if of heavy, it is moved upward with difficulty; if of light, it is moved downward by violence. Therefore if neither of these befits angelic swiftness, the body they assume is not elemental: therefore it is a celestial body.

5. Likewise, if it is elemental, it is either *mixed* or *simple*. If *simple*, then it is not apt for color, nor for figure, nor for organization. If *mixed*, then since a mixed body is dissoluble and rarefiable, it seems that, just as the human body becomes putrid by the separation of the soul, so too does the body assumed by an Angel; which appears to be false. It remains, therefore, that it is not an elemental body; but it is elemental or celestial: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, if it is an elemental body, it has a contrary, whether it be simple or mixed: therefore if it passes through the region of *fire*, it seems that whatever moisture is in it would be consumed; and if through the region of *water*, whatever fire is in it would be extinguished. But if this is established as false, then since the Angel passes without injury through the regions of all the elements with the assumed body, it is established that the body is not of elemental nature; and yet it is of elemental or of celestial nature: therefore etc.

<!-- page 217 -->

*On the opposite side* it is argued thus — *Fundamenta*: 1. *First, by authority.* Gregory[^4] says thus: «Abraham could never have seen the Angels unless they had assumed bodies from air». And Bede, *On the Nature of Things*[^5]: «The Angels coming to us take to themselves a body from air».

2. Likewise, *by reason*. Angels assume bodies chiefly for the sake of motion and traversal; but a celestial body is not fit for rectilinear motion but only for circular[^6]: therefore it does not befit angelic ministry to assume a body from the heaven.

3. Likewise, the Angel assumes a body for the sake of appearing, and that in a human figure; but a celestial body neither terminates the sight nor is figurable: therefore it does not seem fit at that time for the constitution of the body assumed by the Angel[^7].

4. Likewise, if he assumes a body from the heaven: since he does not assume the whole, he assumes part of it: therefore he separates and divides a part of the heaven from the whole. But every divisible is corruptible: therefore it seems that celestial nature is corruptible; but this is false[^8]: therefore so is the first [supposition].

5. Likewise, if he assumes a body from the heaven: since he assumes a part which he carries down with him, either something enters into its place, or nothing does. If nothing, then a vacuum remains; if something, then either it must be created anew, or that body must be rarefied: therefore if all these are unfitting, the conclusion is plain, etc.

6. Likewise, the angel of Satan frequently transfigures himself into an angel of light[^9], and then it is plain that he assumes a body as beautiful as that of a good Angel; but the demons do not assume bodies of celestial nature, because they do not ascend to that nature, but only of elemental: therefore it seems likewise that good Angels do not [assume from celestial nature].

### Conclusion.

> Angels assume bodies from a nature not celestial but elemental — not simple, but imperfectly mixed, namely from vaporous air.

**I respond:** For the understanding of these matters it must be noted that on this question there were various opinions of the wise.

*Opinion 1.* Some have wished to say that Angels assume bodies from elemental nature, yet in such a way that not from one only, but from all mixed together, with one of them however predominating; whence they say that the body assumed by an Angel is truly a *mixed* body, although not truly a *human* body. They say, however, that the form of that mixture is from the Angel as from one *preparing* only, but from the Lord as from one *giving* — giving, I say, not by creation or infusion, but by an intrinsic operation, according to which it was said above[^10] that He bestowed on things their natures and seminal powers, in accordance with which, by God's cooperation, all natural forms are produced in being.

*Others reply.* But since this body is, as it were, suddenly formed and destroyed, it does not seem probable to others that it is mixed by a full mixture, especially since in its dissolution neither length of time nor corruption of putrefaction appears; and so they said — *opinion 2* — that that body is of *simple* elemental nature, from which they say that the assumed body is formed in this way. For the elemental nature out of which an Angel forms a body for itself is the element of air, which by its own nature is rarefiable and condensable, if there be a power which can do this. Hence just as we see water solidify into crystal or ice from cold, so it happens by some hidden power, which is not unknown to the Angels, that air can be condensed in greater or lesser measure according to the will of the Angel operating. And this body, while it is being condensed, can take on figure and form, and so be made conformed to an organic body[^11]. It can nevertheless be condensed more in one part, less in another, least in still another, and so be conformed to nerve, bone, and flesh. It can also in one of its parts intercept more of light, in another less, in another least, and according to this have within itself diverse colors; and so be made conformed in nearly all things to a human body, although it is not multiform in its principles; and so be fit to be *instrument*, *sign*, and *dwelling*[^12], so that it may be assumed by an Angel.

*It is disapproved.* But since this is still difficult to understand — namely how out of air or out of a mixture with another element a solid body is made, colored with diverse colors, when to produce colors is not of art except by the mediation of nature — therefore a *third way* — *opinion 3* — seems still more probable, namely that the body assumed by the Angel is an elemental body, not because it is mixed by a full mixture of the four elements like a complexioned body, nor because it is formed from a pure and simple element, but because it is principally formed from air with some admixture of another element; as we see in a cloud, which is not a fully mixed body, but yet has in itself the natures of several elements.

<!-- page 218 -->

In this way also the body assumed by an Angel is understood to be formed principally from air, with the nature of some earthy[^13] or watery vapor concurring to this, which serves both for variety of condensation and for multiformity of color. *To be noted.* Nor must the Angel beg this from afar, since air is for the most part itself mingled with vapors. — And this middle position between the two — as constituted out of both — we can for the present uphold.

*Conclusion.* To the question proposed it must therefore be briefly answered that the Angel, whether good or evil, assumes a body from a nature not celestial but elemental — not simple, nor fully mixed, but in a middle manner, namely from vaporous air; the evil angel, however, from a lower part, the good from a higher part — not, I say, "higher" in the sense that there no nature of another element is to be found, but "higher" by comparison and with respect to that part from which evil angels assume bodies. — Therefore the arguments must be conceded which prove that the bodies assumed by Angels are not of celestial but of elemental nature.

*Solution of the opposed arguments.* 1. To that which is objected, that the Angel assumes a body for his own showing-forth: it must be said that the Angel does not only show himself — weighing his dignity or nobility — but also [shows himself] from the fitness of the sign and the need on our side. Although therefore his dignity surpasses the nobility of every body, yet because an elemental body does serve[^14] for his manifestation, in accordance with what our neediness demands, and is fit for this so as to be matter of an organic body: therefore it is more fitting that the Angel take a body from it rather than from celestial nature.

2. To that which is objected, that an instrument must be conformed to its motor: it must be said that this is true when the organ or instrument is joined to it permanently; but when it is joined only for a time, it suffices that it be conformed to it according to the opportunity of place, time, and work; and so it is in the case proposed.

3. To that which is objected, that the Angel is placed in the assumed body as in a dwelling: the answer is now plain, because it is not a dwelling befitting the Angel with respect to the excellence of his dignity, but with respect to the neediness of our infirmity. And since the elemental nature is more conformed to the state of our infirmity than the celestial; therefore, even if a celestial dwelling is more befitting the Angel for contemplating, yet a dwelling of an elemental body is more befitting the Angel for ministering[^15].

4. To that which is objected — whether the body is heavy or light: it must be said that it is neither absolutely heavy nor absolutely light, both because it is made of air, and because it is of air mixed with vapor; and therefore it is fit for motion in every direction, which would not be the case if it were a simple body, weighty or light.

5. To the other, the answer is now plain, because it is neither altogether simple — rather it is in some way mixed, so that it is suited to color and to organization — nor so mixed as to be subject to putrefaction; but it holds a middle position, as has been said above.

6. To that which is objected, that it suffers from a contrary: it must be said that, just as the formation of that body — although it is by the aid of nature — is yet principally from the power of the spiritual substance, on this account, that the form of that body is more artificial than natural; so also the conservation of that body is from angelic power. Hence just as by his own power without hands he gives that body its figure, so by his own power he protects and conserves it; and when he abandons it, the body returns to its underlying matter. Therefore just as its conservation does not depend on a like thing, so neither[^16] does its corruption come from a contrary.

la: Ut dicit Dionys., de quo cfr. supra pag. 83, nota 1.

en: As Dionysius says; on which cf. above p. 83, note 1.

la: Averroes, III. de Anima, text. 9: *Motor et motum debent esse eiusdem speciei.*

en: Averroes, *On the Soul* III, text 9: «The mover and the moved must be of the same species».

la: Cfr. supra d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Cf. above d. 2, p. II, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Libr. XXVIII. Moral. c. 1. n. 7: *Aliquando imaginibus, et ante corporeos oculos ad tempus ex aere assumtis, per Angelos loquitur Deus, sicut Abraham non solum tres viros videre potuit, sed etiam habitaculo terreno suscipere... nec cibos cum Abraham caperent, nisi propter nos solidum aliquid ex caelesti elemento gestarent.*

en: Book XXVIII of the *Moralia*, c. 1, n. 7: «Sometimes by means of images and bodies taken for a time from air, set before bodily eyes, God speaks through Angels; thus Abraham not only could see three men but even receive them into his earthly dwelling… nor would they take food with Abraham unless on our account they bore something solid from a heavenly element».

la: Cap. 25: *Potestates aereae... hominibus apparentes aerea sibi corpora, meritis similia sumunt.*

en: Chapter 25: «The aerial powers… appearing to men take aerial bodies for themselves, like to their merits».

la: In systemate Aristotelico. Cfr. VIII. Phys. text. 73. seqq. (c. 8. seq.) et I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 5. seqq. (c. 2.); II. text. 22. seqq. (c. 4.).

en: In the Aristotelian system. Cf. *Physics* VIII, text 73 ff. (c. 8 f.) and *On the Heavens* I, text 5 ff. (c. 2); II, text 22 ff. (c. 4).

la: Plures codd. ut F M U V *esse habile* pro *tunc habile*.

en: Several codices, such as F, M, U, V, read *esse habile* in place of *tunc habile*.

la: Secundum Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 20. seqq. et 101. seqq. (c. 3. et 10. seqq.).

en: According to Aristotle, *On the Heavens* I, text 20 ff. and 101 ff. (c. 3 and 10 ff.).

la: Epist. II. Cor. 11, 14: *Ipse enim satanas transfigurat se etc.* — De ratione addita minori cfr. supra d. 6. a. 2. q. 1. et ibid. dub. 1. seq.

en: 2 Cor 11:14: «For Satan himself transformeth himself etc.» — On the reason added to the minor premise, cf. above d. 6, a. 2, q. 1 and the same place, dub. 1 ff.

la: Quaest. praeced. et d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Vat. *secundum quod* pro *secundum quam*.

en: The preceding question and d. 7, p. II, a. 2, q. 1 ff. — The Vatican edition reads *secundum quod* in place of *secundum quam*.

la: Codd. K cc et ed. I *organizato*.

en: Codices K, cc, and edition I read *organizato*.

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2. in corp.

en: Cf. above a. 1, q. 2 [of this distinction], in the body of the article.

la: Ed. 1 *terrestris*.

en: Edition 1 reads *terrestris*.

la: Ita codd. F T bb; non pauci codd. cum edd. 2, 3 *fuit*; ed. 1 cum cod. cc *sumit*; Vat. cum aliquibus mss. *sufficit*.

en: Thus read codices F, T, bb; not a few codices with editions 2 and 3 [read] *fuit*; edition 1 with codex cc [reads] *sumit*; the Vatican with some manuscripts [reads] *sufficit*.

la: Cod. aa *plus competat Angelo ad ministrandum, elementare plus competit sibi ad apparendum et operandum.*

en: Codex aa reads: «more befitting the Angel for ministering — the elemental [body] more befits him for appearing and operating».

la: Cod. T *nec eius*.

en: Codex T reads *nec eius*. ---

latin_scholion:
De hac quaestione nunc obsoleta agunt Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 34. m. 4. — S. Thom., S. I. q. 51. a. 2. ad 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 4; S. p. I. tr. 18. q. 75. m. 2. et 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 2. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 3. cum dubiis lat. 1. 2. 3.

---

english_scholion:
On this question, now obsolete, treat Alex. of Hales, *Summa* P. II, q. 34, m. 4. — St. Thomas, *Summa* I, q. 51, a. 2, ad 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 4; *Summa* P. I, tr. 18, q. 75, m. 2 and 5. — Petr. of Tarentaise, here q. unica, a. 2, quaestiunc. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 3. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1, a. 3, with dubia lat. 1, 2, 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Session 54 (2026-05-20) — `d8-p1-a2-q2` Tier-2 (d.8 6/16; ART II Q.II CLOSES ART II).** *Utrum corpora ab Angelis assumta fiant de natura caelesti, an elementari.* Raw 15586–15735, **pp.216(mid-L)–218(mid)** (PDF 238–240), ~2019 w Latin. Structure: QUAESTIO II opener + 6 *videtur* (1 finis-imponit-necessitatem + Angeli per naturam lumina ergo de natura lucis / 2 organum conformari moventi + immutabilis et impassibilis ergo corpus incorruptibile / 3 locus competens Angelo est corpus caeleste / 4 caelesti/elementari + gravi/levi dilemma vs velocitas angelica / 5 mixtum/simplex dilemma + putrefactio impossible / 6 contrarium per regionem ignis-aquae dilemma) + **Ad oppositum / Fundamenta** 6 (1 *Primo auctoritate* — Gregorius XXVIII Moral. + Beda *de Natura rerum* c.25 ex-aere aerial-body authority pair / 2 *ratione* — corpus caeleste motum circularem non rectum / 3 corpus caeleste nec terminativum visus nec figurabile / 4 partem caeli a toto divisio impossibile + Aristot. de Caelo I caelum incorruptibile / 5 vacuum vs creatio-de-novo vs rarefactio inconvenientia trilemma / 6 angelus satanae *transfigurat in angelum lucis* II Cor 11,14 + daemones non assumunt caelesti ergo nec boni) + *Conclusio* blockquote (*ex natura non caelesti sed elementari, non simplici sed imperfecte commixta, utpote ex aere vaporabili*) + **Respondeo** built on the **tripartite opinion-survey** (the most explicit *diversae sapientium opiniones* triadic structure in d.8): *Opinio 1* = full-mixture with predominant element + Angel-as-preparans / Domino-as-dans (per intrinsecam operationem secundum quam indidit rebus naturas et virtutes seminarias); *opinio 2* = simple elemental, aerem condensari posse virtute occulta — the *aquam-solidari-in-crystallum* analogy + corpori-organico-effici-conforme + plus/minus condensation analogy + intercipere de luce → diversos colores + corpori humano effici quasi in omnibus conforme + idoneum esse *instrumentum/signum/habitaculum* — the only place in d.8 where ALL THREE Vol-II-locked Bonaventurean technical terms for assumed-body function are listed in unbroken triad; *opinio 3* (Bonaventure's via media) = elemental but not full-mixture nor simple-element, *principaliter ex aere cum aliqua admixtione alterius elementi* — the *nube* analogy + the *vaporis terrei vel aquosi* concurrence + *Hanc autem non oportet Angelum de longinquo mendicare* aesthetic-of-economy note + the *medio modo, utpote ex aere vaporabili* synthesis + the *malus ex parte inferiori, bonus ex parte superiori, non inquam superiori-in-qua-nulla* careful good/evil-angel air-quality split with the explicit verbal qualification *non inquam superiori, in qua nulla reperiatur natura alterius elementi, sed superiori comparatione*) + **Solutio oppositorum** 6 (1 idoneitate signi + necessitate ex parte nostra + corpus elementare facit ad eius manifestationem + materia corporis organici / 2 organum perpetuo coniunctum vs ad tempus + pro opportunitate loci et temporis et operis / 3 habitaculum non quantum ad excellentiam dignitatis sed quantum ad indigentiam nostrae infirmitatis + caeleste-ad-contemplandum vs elementare-ad-ministrandum / 4 nec simpliciter grave nec leve + aere commixto vapori + habile ad motum secundum omnem positionem / 5 nec omnino simplex nec adeo mixtum ut subiaceat putrefactioni medium tenet / 6 conservatio a virtute angelica non a simili ergo nec corruptio a contrario + *sicut sua virtute absque manibus corpus illud effigiat* + *ipso deserente redit corpus ad praeiacentem materiam* — the angelic-sustenance no-contrary symmetry) + single-paragraph **SCHOLION** (doctor cross-refs only, prefixed by the editorially noteworthy *nunc obsoleta* — the Quaracchi editors explicitly mark this question as obsolete in 19th-century natural philosophy: Alex. Hal. S. p.II q.34 m.4 / S. Thom. S.I q.51 a.2 ad 3 / B. Albert. hic a.4 + S. p.I tr.18 q.75 m.2+5 / Petr. a Tar. hic q. unica a.2 quaestiunc.3 / Richard. a Med. hic a.1 q.3 / Aegid. R. hic q.1 a.3 cum dubiis lat.1.2.3).

Full 450 dpi colcrop discipline (p.216 cached from s53; p.217/218 freshly extracted + cropped split_x=1800). **16-entry apparatus** spanning three page footers: **p.216 footer ²-⁴ → [^1]-[^3]** (Dionys. lumina pag.83 nota 1 / Averroes III de Anima text. 9 *motor et motum eiusdem speciei* / d. 2 p. II a. 1 q. 1 caelum cross-ref); **p.217 footer ¹-⁹ → [^4]-[^12]** (Gregor. Moral. XXVIII c.1 n.7 long Abraham quotation + the *solidum aliquid ex caelesti elemento gestarent* cibos clause / Beda Cap. 25 *Potestates aereae* / Aristot. systema Phys. VIII text 73 + de Caelo I text 5 + II text 22 motus rectus/circularis system anchor / Plures codd. F M U V *esse habile* vs *tunc habile* var. / Aristot. I de Caelo text 20 + 101 caelum incorruptibile / II Cor 11,14 *transfigurat se* + d.6 a.2 q.1 cross-ref / Quaest. praeced. + d.7 p.II a.2 q.1 + Vat. *secundum quod* var. / Codd. K cc ed.I *organizato* var. / *supra a.1 q.2 in corp.* cross-ref to q1 instrumentum/signum/habitaculum triad); **p.218 footer ¹-⁴ → [^13]-[^16]** (Ed. 1 *terrestris* var. / Codd F T bb *facit* vs *fuit*/*sumit*/*sufficit* 4-way variant — one of the densest single-word variant entries in d.8 / Cod. aa long *plus competat...elementare plus competit* expanded variant / Cod. T *nec eius* var.). **p.218 footer ⁵** (*In Vat. additur seu potentiae* anchoring at ART III opener *animae⁵ vegetativae*) deferred to next chunk `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-a3-q1`.

**Incoming q1 → q2 split at p.216 RECEIVED CLEAN, no backfill** (s53 verified): q1's published Notes already took p.216 footer ¹ (*Vat. omittit et i.e. etiam*) as its [^16]; this chunk opens at p.216 footer ², `Ut dicit Dionys.`, at videtur 1's *lumina²* anchor — no backfill into q1.

**Outgoing q2 → ART III split at p.218 CLEAN**: Solutio 6 closes at p.218 R-col mid with `…ita nec corruptio fit a contrario.`; the single-paragraph SCHOLION's doctor list follows immediately on L-2/R-2; then ARTICULUS III opens immediately after with `*De corporis formati et assumti operatione.*` rubric + *Consequenter quaeritur de tertio, scilicet quas operationes exercet Angelus in corpore assumto*. The p.218 R-col footer ⁵ (`In Vat. additur seu potentiae` anchoring on ART III's *animae⁵ vegetativae*) defers to next chunk `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-a3-q1`; no backfill into this chunk.

**Marginal labels preserved inline** per Vol II convention: *Ad oppositum / Fundamenta*, *Opinio 1*, *Alii opponunt*, *Opinio 2*, *Improbatur*, *Opinio 3* (= *tertia via*), *Notandum*, *Conclusio*, *Solutio oppositorum*. The triple-opinion *Opinio 1 / Opinio 2 / Opinio 3* labels at the printed-margin position are the clearest tripartite labels in d.8 — preserved verbatim, since opinio 3 is the synthesis Bonaventure adopts (*ad praesens possumus sustinere*) and labeling matters for the argument.

**OCR garbles cleaned silently**: elementa.ri→elementari; assutuit→assumit; lueis→lucis; conforiuari→conformari; ostensionein→ostensionem; assumtimi→assumtum; cjuod→quod; assuratura→assumtum; elemenlari→elementari; mixtimi→mixtum; raixtum→mixtum; consummatur→consumatur; ahquid→aliquid; aliqaid→aliquid; ergocum→ergo cum; conscendmit→conscendunt; commixta→commixta (OK); vaporabih→vaporabili; cuncta→cunctae; ai→a; reperinr→reperitur; pluriura→plurium; coraplexionatum→complexionatum; aquoso→aquosi; impassibilis^→impassibilis; multitbrme→multiforme; orgarium→organum; corpus^simplex→corpus simplex; multitudo→multiformitatem; obtorinm→obiicitur (occasional Quaracchi-italic-bleed); *plus est artificialis quam naturalis* OCR-fragmented across lines but PDF clean. The skeleton's footer numbering (footer ¹ on p.216 = q1's [^16]; footer ² Dionys. is this chunk's [^1]) was carefully re-read against PDF — skeleton-OCR's `text. 9` Averroes p.216-³ confirmed; skeleton's `Cap. 23` Beda p.217-² CORRECTED on PDF to **Cap. 25** (`Cap. 23` was OCR mis-read for `Cap. 25` per 450 dpi crop); skeleton's `text. 3` p.217-³ Aristot. CORRECTED to **text. 5** per 450 dpi crop.

**No `[?]` flags** (all 16 superscripts + 16 apparatus entries verified column-by-column: p.216-L-2 + R-2 for QUAESTIO II opener + 6 videtur + p.216 footer ²-⁴ / p.217-L-0/L-1/L-2 + R-0/R-1/R-2 for 6 ad opp + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo's 3 opiniones + p.217 footer L¹-³ R⁴-⁹ / p.218-L-0/L-1/L-2 + R-0/R-1/R-2 for opinio 3 continuation + final Conclusio + 6 Solutio + SCHOLION + p.218 footer L¹-² R³-⁴). Marker-pairing La==En exact 1–16.

**Cost profile:** HEAVIEST in d.8 so far — 2019 w Latin (>s44 d.7-p2-a2-q1 5-page/22-entry envelope, > s51 d8-p1-a1-q1 1725w / 15-entry), 6+6 numbered-arg structure (rare *Primo auctoritate / ratione* split inside the Ad oppositum), full **tripartite-opinion-survey Respondeo** (opinio 1 full-mixture + Domino-as-dans / opinio 2 simple-elemental aerem-condensari / opinio 3 = via media principaliter ex aere) which is the only such triadic explicit *opinio 1 / opinio 2 / opinio 3* labeled structure in d.8 — comparable to the d.4 p.II *triplex-opinio peccatum-originale* sequence in vol1, and 6-block Solutio including the *artifex absque manibus effigiat* angelic-conservation final argument that closes ART II. The substantive translation work was the *via media* synthesis (opinio 3) with its careful *non quia plena mixtione + nec quia puro elemento + sed principaliter ex aere* triple-negation-into-affirmation rhythm, the *Hanc autem non oportet Angelum de longinquo mendicare* commixed-air aesthetic, the *malus ex parte inferiori, bonus ex parte superiori, non inquam superiori-in-qua-nulla* careful good/evil-angel air-quality split, and the SCHOLION's editorially noteworthy *nunc obsoleta* qualifier — the Quaracchi editors explicitly mark this question as no-longer-live in 19th-century natural philosophy. Vol II decade-rechunk → main-thread-Tier-2 pipeline holds; **DISTINCTION 8 NOW 6/16, ART II CLOSED 2/2** — littera + p1-divisio + p1 ART I 2/2 + p1 ART II 2/2 complete. Pending = p1 ART III 2/2 + p1-dubia + p2-divisio + p2 ART I 6/6.

**NEXT: `d8-p1-a3-q1` Tier-2** — *Utrum Angeli in corpore assumto exerceant operationes animae vegetativae* (raw 15736+, opens mid-p.218 R-col with `ARTICULUS III. — *De corporis formati et assumti operatione.* — Consequenter quaeritur de tertio, scilicet quas operationes exercet Angelus in corpore assumto; et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum ibi exerceat operationes animae⁵ vegetativae. Secundo, utrum ibi exerceat operationes potentiae sensitivae`) — takes p.218 R-col footer ⁵ (`In Vat. additur seu potentiae`) as opening apparatus, then runs across p.218 + p.219 (extract p.219 next; p.218 cached).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 3, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation; each entry gives the Quaracchi note in Latin followed by an English rendering.

### ARTICULUS III.
### *De corporis formati et assumti operatione.*

Consequenter quaeritur de tertio, scilicet quas operationes exercet Angelus in corpore assumto; et circa hoc quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum ibi exerceat operationes animae[^1] vegetativae.

Secundo, utrum ibi exerceat operationes potentiae sensitivae.

<!-- page 219 -->

### QUAESTIO I.
### *Utrum Angelus in corporibus assumtis exerceat operationes potentiae vegetativae.*

*Ad oppositum.* Circa primum proceditur sic et ostenditur, quod operationes potentiae vegetativae exerceat in corpore assumto tam bonus Angelus quam malus.

*De bonis Angelis.* 1. *Cibari* sive *comedere* est actus spectans ad potentiam vegetativam; sed hunc actum exercent Angeli in corpore assumto, sicut probatur ex eo quod scribitur Genesis decimo octavo[^2], ubi Abraham Angelis exposuit cibaria, et sicut ibidem legitur, *comederunt*.

2. Item, non decet nuntios veritatis falsis ostensionibus decipere oculos hominis intuentis; sed Angeli apparentes comederunt cum his, ad quos mittebantur, sicut frequenter legitur in Scriptura[^3]: ergo vere cibabantur. Sed iste est actus vegetativae potentiae: ergo etc.

3. Item, lingua congruit in duo opera naturae, in locutionem et cibationem[^4]; sed Angeli in assumtis corporibus per linguam vere et proprie loquebantur: ergo vere cibabantur. Redit ergo idem quod prius, scilicet quod boni Angeli in assumto corpore vegetativae potentiae actum exercent.

*De malis.* 4. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur de malis. Generare enim est actus potentiae vegetativae[^5]; sed daemones mediantibus corporibus assumtis generant, sicut dicit Iosephus, narrans illud quod scribitur Genesis sexto de generatione gigantium: *Videntes filii Dei* etc.: ergo etc.

5. Item, communis opinio est de Merlino, quod generatus fuit a daemone incubo[^6]: sed si hoc daemon incubus non potuit nisi mediante corpore assumto, ergo idem quod prius.

6. Item, actus ordinatus ad generationem est per commixtionem cum sexu femineo, vel virili; sed daemon succubus se viro subiicit subiectione, in qua est effusio seminis, et daemon incubus mulieri incumbit: ergo videtur, quod si possint coire, quod possint etiam generare: ergo in assumto corpore exercent actum potentiae vegetativae.

*Ad oppositum* arguitur sic et ostenditur, quod bonis Angelis non competat actus cibandi — *Fundamenta*.

*De bonis.* 1. Scribitur enim Tobiae duodecimo[^7], et est verbum Raphaelis Angeli: *Videbar quidem vobiscum comedere et bibere; ego vero cibo et potu invisibili utor*: ergo non vere Angelus comedebat cibum corporalem, etsi videbatur comedere.

2. Item, ubicumque est vera cibatio, ibi est deperditi restauratio; sed in corporibus assumtis ab Angelis nulla fit deperditio, quia non est ibi caloris consumtio: ergo etc.

3. Item, ubi est vera cibatio, ibi est separatio puri ab impuro; hoc autem non facit Angelus beatus in corpore assumto: ergo etc.

*De malis.* 4. Item, quod malis angelis non competat generatio, videtur, quia generatio est consimilis in specie[^8]; sed daemon, assumens corpus, non assimilatur homini, sed daemoni: ergo non generat hominem, sed si generat, generat daemonem; quod patet esse falsum: ergo etc.

5. Item, ad hoc quod fiat generatio, necesse est quod, secundum medicum, concurrat triplex spiritus, scilicet *naturalis*, *vitalis* et *animalis*, secundum Philosophum[^9], triplex calor, videlicet *calor animae*, *calor caeli* et *calor elementi*: ergo cum daemon nec spiritum animalem nec calorem animalem in corpore assumto possit habere, videtur, quod nullo modo possit generare.

6. Item, *generare* non est actus animae et[^10] corporis, sed coniuncti; sed ex daemone et corpore non fit unum: ergo nunquam potest per corpus exire in actum generandi.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Angelus in corpore assumto non habet operationem animae vegetativae, nec quoad cibationem nec quoad generationem, sed operationes aliquatenus his conformes.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod — *Conclusio.* — spiritus angelicus, sive bonus sive malus, in corpore assumto non habet operationem[^11] animae vegetativae, nec quantum ad cibationem nec quantum ad generationem; quia nec habet vim nutritivam nec habet vim generativam, habet tamen aliquo modo operationes his conformes, licet non plene.

*Ratio quoad cibationem.* Et hoc patet, si attendatur natura cibationis et generationis. In cibatione enim est cibi *sumtio* et *consumtio*, est nihilominus *conversio* et *unio*; et quantum ad primum competit Angelo in corpore assumto cibatio sive comestio non simulate, sed vere, quia cibum sibi appositum vere sumebant et consume

<!-- page 220 -->

bant. Verumtamen cibus assumtus eorum indigentiam vel deperditionem non restaurabat, quia talis cibatio ex *potentia*, non ex *indigentia* est in Angelis; his vero, quae vegetantur, non tantum est *potentia*, sed etiam *indigentia*. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus[^12], quod sicut «aliter absorbet aquam terra sitiens, aliter radius calefaciens», sic aliter competit cibatio homini, aliter competit Angelo, sive aliter homini viatori, aliter beato. — *Ratio quoad generationem.* Per hunc etiam modum circa actum generationis in aliquo conformatur spiritus assumens corpus, in aliquo vero non. Nam in actu generationis et est seminis *constitutio* secundum nervos et virtutes et calores tali speciei competentes, et est seminis sic perfecti *transfusio* et *susceptio*. Primum est solius illius, cui Deus dedit vim propagativam; et hoc nullo modo competit daemonibus assumentibus corpus. Secundum vero, videlicet seminis *susceptio* et *transfusio* eis potest competere. Primo enim succumbunt viris in specie mulieris et ex eis semen pollutionis suscipiunt et quadam sagacitate ipsum in sua virtute custodiunt, et postmodum, Deo permittente, fiunt incubi et in vasa mulierum transfundunt, ex qua transfusione homines generari possunt[^13].

*Epilogus.* His visis facile respondetur ad quaestionem propositam et ad argumenta: ad quaestionem, quia simpliciter concedendum est, quod non habent opera potentiae generativae et nutritivae[^14], quae sunt *generare* et *alimento uti*, sicut ostendunt rationes ad hoc inductae. Habent tamen aliquas operationes his conformes, non in toto, sed in parte; et hoc probant rationes ad oppositum inductae, ostendentes videlicet, quod Angeli boni comedunt, et quod mali generant. Verum enim est, quod boni Angeli cibum sumserunt[^15], sed non ad suam refectionem, sed ad dantium consolationem; et ideo non erat ibi error nec deceptio nec illusio, quantum erat ex parte ipsorum Angelorum, licet aliquis ignorans illorum naturam posset ex hoc accipere occasionem opinandi falsum.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. 2. 3. Et sic patet responsio ad tres rationes primas.

4. 5. 6. Concedendum est etiam, quod daemones secundum viam praedictam semen possunt suscipere et transfundere, si Deus permittat; sed non quod possint alimentum in verum semen propria virtute[^16] convertere. Ideo dicuntur quodam modo *generare*, sicut ostendunt tres rationes sequentes. — Attamen ultima ratio non cogit; plus enim est *generare* quam *coire*; et ideo non sequitur, si possunt coire cum muliere, quod propter hoc possint eam impraegnare vel ex ea prolem generare.

english:
### Article III.
### *On the operation of the formed and assumed body.*

Consequently the third article is taken up, namely what operations the Angel exercises in the assumed body; and concerning this, two things are inquired.

First, whether he there exercises the operations of the vegetative soul[^1].

Second, whether he there exercises the operations of the sensitive power.

<!-- page 219 -->

### Question I.
### *Whether the Angel in assumed bodies exercises the operations of the vegetative power.*

*On the opposite side.* The procedure on the first [question] is as follows, and it is shown that he exercises the operations of the vegetative power in the assumed body — both the good Angel and the evil.

*On good Angels.* 1. To *be fed* or to *eat* is an act belonging to the vegetative power; but the Angels exercise this act in an assumed body, as is proved from what is written in Genesis 18[^2], where Abraham set food before the Angels, and as is read in the same place, *they ate*.

2. Likewise, it is not fitting that the messengers of truth deceive by false displays the eyes of the man who beholds them; but the appearing Angels ate with those to whom they were sent, as is frequently read in Scripture[^3]: therefore they were truly fed. But this is an act of the vegetative power: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the tongue is fitted for two works of nature: speech and feeding[^4]; but the Angels in assumed bodies truly and properly spoke with their tongue: therefore they were truly fed. The same point therefore returns, namely that the good Angels in an assumed body exercise the act of the vegetative power.

*On evil Angels.* 4. Likewise, this same point is shown of the evil ones. For to generate is an act of the vegetative power[^5]; but the demons, by means of assumed bodies, generate, as Josephus says when telling what is written in Genesis 6 about the generation of the giants: *The sons of God seeing*, etc.: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, it is the common opinion concerning Merlin that he was begotten by an incubus demon[^6]: but if the incubus demon could not have done this except by means of an assumed body, then the same conclusion as before.

6. Likewise, an act ordered to generation is by commingling with the female or male sex; but the succubus demon submits itself to a man with a submission in which there is an emission of seed, and the incubus demon lies upon a woman: therefore it seems that if they can have intercourse, they can also generate: therefore in an assumed body they exercise the act of the vegetative power.

*On the opposite side* it is argued thus, and it is shown that the act of feeding does not befit the good Angels — *Fundamenta*.

*On the good.* 1. For it is written at Tobit 12[^7], and is the word of the angel Raphael: *I seemed indeed to eat and drink with you; but I use food and drink that are invisible*: therefore the Angel did not truly eat bodily food, although he seemed to eat.

2. Likewise, wherever there is true feeding, there is restoration of what is lost; but in bodies assumed by Angels no loss occurs, because there is no consumption of heat in them: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, where there is true feeding, there is separation of the pure from the impure; this, however, the blessed Angel does not do in an assumed body: therefore etc.

*On the evil.* 4. Likewise, that generation does not befit the evil angels seems to follow, because generation is between things alike in species[^8]; but the demon, assuming a body, is not made like to a man but to a demon: therefore it does not generate a man — and if it does generate, it generates a demon; which is plainly false: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, for generation to occur it is necessary, according to the medical authority, that a triple spirit concur — namely *natural*, *vital*, and *animal* — and, according to the Philosopher[^9], a triple heat — namely *heat of the soul*, *heat of the heaven*, and *heat of the element*: therefore since the demon can have neither animal spirit nor animal heat in an assumed body, it seems that in no way can it generate.

6. Likewise, *to generate* is not an act of the soul and[^10] the body [taken separately], but of the conjoined whole; but from demon and body one being is not made: therefore it can never come into the act of generating through the body.

### Conclusion.

> The Angel in an assumed body does not have the operation of the vegetative soul, neither as to feeding nor as to generation, but operations to some extent conformed to these.

**I respond:** It must be said that — *Conclusion.* — the angelic spirit, whether good or evil, does not have in an assumed body the operation[^11] of the vegetative soul, neither as to feeding nor as to generation; because it has neither nutritive power nor generative power, yet it does have in some manner operations conformed to these, though not fully.

*Reason as to feeding.* And this is plain if the nature of feeding and of generation be considered. For in feeding there is *taking* and *consuming* of food, and there is moreover *conversion* and *union*; and as to the first, feeding or eating belongs to the Angel in an assumed body not feignedly but truly, because the food placed before them they truly took and consumed.

<!-- page 220 -->

But the food taken was not restoring their need or loss, because such feeding is in the Angels by *power*, not by *need*; whereas in those things which are nourished, there is not only *power* but also *need*. And this is what Augustine[^12] says, that just as «the thirsty earth absorbs water in one way, the warming ray of sun in another», so in one way feeding befits man, in another it befits the Angel — or, in one way the wayfaring man, in another the blessed. — *Reason as to generation.* In this same way also, concerning the act of generation, the spirit that assumes a body conforms to it in some respects and not in others. For in the act of generation there is both the *constitution* of seed according to nerves and powers and heats appropriate to such a species, and there is the *transfusion* and *reception* of the seed thus made perfect. The first belongs only to him to whom God has given the power of propagation; and this in no way befits the demons assuming a body. The second, however — namely the *reception* and *transfusion* of seed — can befit them. For first they submit to men in the form of a woman and from them receive the seed of pollution, and by a certain craftiness preserve it in its own power; and afterwards, with God permitting, they become incubi and pour it into the wombs of women, by which transfusion human beings can be generated[^13].

*Epilogue.* These things being seen, the question proposed and the arguments are easily answered: as to the question, because it must be straightforwardly conceded that they do not have the operations of the generative and nutritive[^14] power — which are to *generate* and to *use food* — as the arguments adduced to this point show. They have, however, some operations conformed to these, not wholly but in part; and this the arguments on the opposite side prove, namely showing that the good Angels eat, and that the evil ones generate. For it is true that the good Angels took food[^15], but not for their own refreshment, but for the consolation of those giving; and therefore there was no error nor deception nor illusion there, as far as concerned the Angels themselves — although one ignorant of their nature might take occasion from this to opine something false.

*Solution of the opposed arguments.* 1, 2, 3. And so the answer to the first three arguments is plain.

4, 5, 6. It must also be conceded that the demons, according to the manner described above, can take up and pour over the seed, if God permits; but not that they can convert food into true seed by their own power[^16]. Therefore they are said in some manner to *generate*, as the three following arguments show. — Yet the last argument does not have force; for to *generate* is more than to *have intercourse*; and so it does not follow that if they can have intercourse with a woman, they can on that account impregnate her or generate offspring from her.

la: In Vat. additur *seu potentiae*.

en: In the Vatican edition the phrase *or power* is added.

la: Vers. 8. seq.

en: Verse 8 ff. [i.e. Gen. 18:8 ff.].

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 88. (c. 8.) et II. de Partibus animalium, c. 16. seq.

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 88 (c. 8) and *On the Parts of Animals* II, c. 16 f.

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 34. (c. 4.). — De minori vide Flav. Ioseph., I. de Antiq. Iud. c. 3. et Gen. 6, 2.

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 34 (c. 4). — On the minor premise see Flavius Josephus, *Jewish Antiquities* I, c. 3, and Gen. 6:2.

la: Cfr. Bibliogr. univ. sub verbo *Merlinus*.

en: Cf. the *Universal Bibliography*, under the word *Merlinus*.

la: Vers. 19, ubi Vulgata, posito *manducare* pro *comedere*, ultimam partem sic exhibet: *sed ego cibo invisibili et potu, qui ab hominibus videri non potest, utor.*

en: Verse 19 [i.e. Tob. 12:19], where the Vulgate, putting *manducare* in place of *comedere*, gives the last part thus: «but I use food and drink that are invisible, which cannot be seen by men».

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 34. seq. (c. 4.).

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 34 f. (c. 4).

la: Cfr. II. de Gener. animal. c. 3. — De triplici spiritu cfr. Costa Ben-Luca, *de Differentia animae et spiritus*. (ed. Barach, Innsbruck, 1878).

en: Cf. *On the Generation of Animals* II, c. 3. — On the triple spirit cf. Costa Ben-Luca, *On the Difference between Soul and Spirit* (ed. Barach, Innsbruck, 1878).

la: Cod. aa *bene aut*.

en: Codex aa reads *bene aut* [i.e. «truly, or»].

la: Cod. aa *potentiam*.

en: Codex aa reads *potentiam* [«power»].

la: Epist. 102. seu libr. ad Deogratias, q. 1. n. 6: *Aliter enim absorbet terra aquam sitiens, aliter solis radius candens: illa indigentia, iste potentia.* — Paulo superius nonnulli codd. ut W Y aa *in his vero* pro *his vero*.

en: Letter 102, or the book *To Deogratias*, q. 1, n. 6: «For the thirsty earth absorbs water in one way, the burning ray of the sun in another: the former by need, the latter by power». — A little above, several codices such as W, Y, aa read *in his vero* in place of *his vero*.

la: Cfr. August., XV. de Civ. Dei, c. 23. n. 1. — Mox plures codd. *His visis facile est respondere et ad quaestionem.*

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the City of God* XV, c. 23, n. 1. — Soon after, several codices read *His visis facile est respondere et ad quaestionem* [«These things being seen, it is easy to respond also to the question»].

la: Fide cod. aa substituimus *nutritivae* pro *vegetativae*, quod tanquam genus sub se continet potentiam nutritivam et generativam.

en: On the authority of codex aa we have substituted *nutritivae* for *vegetativae*, which as a genus contains under itself the nutritive and generative power.

la: Cod. I prosequitur: *et erat cibi vera comestio quantum ad actum exteriorem; quia vero cibum sumebant et consumebant, licet non quoad interiorem, quia non erat indigentiae suppletio nec deperditi restauratio, unde cibum sumserunt non ad suam etc.*

en: Codex I continues: «and there was true eating of food as regards the exterior act; for they truly took and consumed the food, though not as regards the interior, because there was no replenishment of need nor restoration of what was lost — whence they took food not for their own [refreshment]», etc.

la: Ita codd. F K cc et ed. 1; alii *per propriam virtutem*.

en: Thus read codices F, K, cc, and edition 1; others read *per propriam virtutem* [«through their own power»]. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Utramque huius articuli quaestionem alii commentatores, praeter Richardum a Med. et Aegid. R., una tractatione absolvunt. Responsio autem negativa ad utramque eodem nititur principio, supra a. 2. q. 1. stabilito, scilicet quod Angeli assumtis corporibus non uniuntur ut perfectio sive forma substantialis, dans actum *primum* vitae, sed potius modo quodam accidentali. Hinc sequitur, eosdem in corporibus assumtis non posse exercere operationes vitae, quae sunt actus *secundi*. Actus enim *secundus* praesupponit actum *primum*.

**II.** Quoad *comestionem*, de qua agitur q. 1, est diversus modus loquendi inter doctores, quia verbum *comedere* non in eodem omnino sensu ab ipsis accipitur. S. Bonav. distinguit perfectam *cibationem*, quae est operatio *animae vegetativae*, a simplice *manducatione*; illam negat Angelis in corpore assumto competere, sed *comestionem* asserit eis competere «non simulate, sed vere». Quid intelligat esse proprie *comestionem*, ipse explicat IV. Sent. d. 9. a. 1. q. 2. his verbis: «Licet multiplex actus sit in manducatione corporali, annexus et consequens; iste tamen duplex est, qui est de integritate, *masticatio* scilicet et *incorporatio*»; sed alibi (ibid. d. 12. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3.) ait: «In manducatione tria sunt: *masticatio*, in *ventrem traiectio* et *incorporatio*». Ubi autem loquitur de cibatione hominis communi (ibid. q. 3. ad 3.), addit quartum, scil. *perditi restaurationem*. — Quoad *generationem*, quam quidam daemonibus attribuerunt, S. Doctor quadam utitur cautela, nihil affirmans de facto, sed tantum *modum* explicans, quo hoc *fieri possit*, si Deus illud permittat. Ad rem de hoc ab aliis supposito facto dicit Richard. a Med. (hic a. 1. q. 5.): «Aliqui tamen hoc dicunt magis debere poni sub dubio, quam aliqua pars asseri, cum et Augustinus, III. de Civit. Dei, c. 5. de hoc sub dubitatione loquatur. Et bene mihi videtur rationabile, quod alteram partem pertinaciter affirmare non expedit».

**III.** In quaest. 2. notanda sunt plura, quae de anima, ut est *perfectio* sive *forma corporis*, secundum doctrinam communem docentur. — De anima ut forma dicitur in corp., eam esse *hoc aliquid*, i. e. substantiam primam. Hoc autem non valet de omnibus formis substantialibus (cfr. supra d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4.), sed tantum de anima humana, quia est «per se nata subsistere et agere et pati, movere et moveri, quod habet intra se fundamentum suae existentiae et principium materiale, a quo habet *existere*, et formale, a quo habet *esse*» (infra d. 17. q. 2. in corp.). De anima sensitiva cfr. infra d. 15. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2.

**IV.** De utraque quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 35. m. 1. 2. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. unica, n. 4. seqq. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 4; S. I. q. 51. a. 3; de Potent. q. 6. a. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. p. I. tr. 18. q. 75. m. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 5. 6. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. — Biel, hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Both questions of this article other commentators — excepting Richard of Mediavilla and Aegidius Romanus — handle in one treatment. And the negative response to both rests on the same principle established above at a. 2, q. 1, namely that the Angels are not united to assumed bodies as a perfection or substantial form giving the *first* act of life, but rather in a certain accidental manner. From this it follows that they cannot exercise in assumed bodies the operations of life, which are *second* acts. For the *second* act presupposes the *first* act.

**II.** As to *eating* — which is the subject of q. 1 — there is a diversity of usage among the doctors, because the word *to eat* is not received by them in exactly the same sense. St. Bonaventure distinguishes perfect *feeding*, which is an operation of the *vegetative soul*, from simple *chewing-and-swallowing*; the former he denies to the Angels in an assumed body, but *eating* he asserts to befit them «not feignedly, but truly». What he understands properly by *eating*, he himself explains at IV Sent. d. 9, a. 1, q. 2 in these words: «Although the act in bodily chewing-and-swallowing is manifold, with annexed and consequent acts, yet it is twofold as regards its integrity — namely *mastication* and *incorporation*»; but elsewhere (ibid. d. 12, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, ad 3) he says: «In chewing-and-swallowing there are three things: *mastication*, *transmission into the belly*, and *incorporation*». But where he speaks of feeding common to man (ibid. q. 3, ad 3), he adds a fourth, namely *restoration of what is lost*. — As to *generation*, which some have attributed to demons, the holy Doctor uses a certain caution, asserting nothing as actually done, but only explaining the *manner* in which it *might be done*, if God should permit it. To the point treated by others on the supposition of the fact, Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 1, q. 5) says: «Some nevertheless say that this ought rather to be placed in doubt than any part be asserted, since even Augustine, *On the City of God* III, c. 5, speaks of this in a manner of doubt. And it seems to me reasonable that obstinately to affirm either side is not expedient».

**III.** In q. 2 several things must be noted which are taught according to the common doctrine concerning the soul as the *perfection* or *form* of the body. — Of the soul as form it is said in the body [of the article] that it is *this something* (*hoc aliquid*), i.e. a primary substance. But this does not hold of all substantial forms (cf. above d. 7, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, ad 4), but only of the human soul, because it is «of itself fit to subsist and to act and to suffer, to move and to be moved, having within itself the foundation of its existence and a material principle from which it has *to exist*, and a formal principle from which it has *to be*» (below d. 17, q. 2, in the body of the article). On the sensitive soul see below d. 15, a. 1, q. 1, ad 2.

**IV.** On both questions: Alex. of Hales, *Summa* P. I, q. 35, m. 1, 2. — Scotus, in both *Scripta*, here q. unica, n. 4 ff. — St. Thomas, here q. unica, a. 4; *Summa* I, q. 51, a. 3; *On Power* q. 6, a. 8. — Bl. Albert, here a. 5; *Summa* P. I, tr. 18, q. 75, m. 4. — Petr. of Tarentaise, here q. unica, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 5, 6. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 2, a. 1, 2. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2. — Biel, here q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Session 55 (2026-05-20) — `d8-p1-a3-q1` Tier-2 (d.8 7/16; ART III Q.I).** *Utrum Angelus in corporibus assumtis exerceat operationes potentiae vegetativae.* Raw 15736–15901, **pp.218(mid-R)–220** (PDF 240–242), ~2020 w Latin. Folded ART III opener (`ARTICULUS III.` + rubric *De corporis formati et assumti operatione.* + *Consequenter quaeritur de tertio, scilicet quas operationes exercet Angelus in corpore assumto; et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo... animae vegetativae. Secundo... potentiae sensitivae*) + `QUAESTIO I.` per locked Vol II convention. Structure: 6 *videtur* split *De bonis* (1 *cibari/comedere actus vegetativae* + Gen. 18 Abraham-Angeli-comederunt / 2 *non decet nuntios veritatis falsis ostensionibus decipere* + frequenter in Scriptura / 3 *lingua congruit in duo opera naturae* — locutionem et cibationem; per linguam vere loquebantur ergo vere cibabantur) + *De malis* (4 *generare actus vegetativae* + Iosephus Antiq. Iud. I c.3 + Gen. 6,2 *Videntes filii Dei* gigantium / 5 *Merlino communis opinio* + daemon-incubus / 6 daemon succubus/incubus + actus generationis per commixtionem cum sexu femineo vel virili) + **Ad oppositum / Fundamenta** 6 split *De bonis* (1 Tob. 12,19 Raphaelis *cibo et potu invisibili utor* + Vulgata *manducare*/*comedere* variant / 2 *ubicumque vera cibatio ibi deperditi restauratio* + nulla caloris consumtio in Angelis / 3 *ubi vera cibatio ibi separatio puri ab impuro*; hoc non facit Angelus beatus) + *De malis* (4 *generatio consimilis in specie* + daemon assumens corpus non assimilatur homini sed daemoni / 5 medic. *triplex spiritus naturalis/vitalis/animalis* + Philosophum II Gener. animal. c.3 *triplex calor animae/caeli/elementi* + Costa Ben-Luca medieval-Arabic *de Differentia animae et spiritus* anchor / 6 *generare actus coniuncti* not anima-et-corpus sed coniuncti; ex daemone et corpore non fit unum) + *Conclusio* blockquote (*Angelus in corpore assumto non habet operationem animae vegetativae, nec quoad cibationem nec quoad generationem, sed operationes aliquatenus his conformes*) + **Respondeo** with the **cibationem/generationem dual-mechanism** analysis: *Ratio quoad cibationem* (in cibatione est cibi *sumtio* et *consumtio* + nihilominus *conversio* et *unio*; quantum ad primum Angelo competit non simulate sed vere, *cibum sibi appositum vere sumebant et consumebant*; verumtamen cibus non restaurabat eorum indigentiam vel deperditionem, *quia talis cibatio ex potentia non ex indigentia est in Angelis* + Augustinus Epist. 102 *aliter absorbet terra aquam sitiens, aliter radius calefaciens* aesthetic-of-asymmetry analogy + *aliter homini viatori, aliter beato* cibatio-pluralism) + *Ratio quoad generationem* (in actu generationis est seminis *constitutio* secundum nervos/virtutes/calores tali speciei competentes + seminis *transfusio* et *susceptio* — *constitutio solius illius cui Deus dedit vim propagativam; nullo modo competit daemonibus; transfusio et susceptio EIS POTEST COMPETERE* — the careful 2/3rds-yes-1/3rd-no split that grounds Bonaventure's qualified *quodam modo generare* below) + the **demonological micro-mechanism** *succumbunt viris in specie mulieris + semen pollutionis suscipiunt + sagacitate ipsum in sua virtute custodiunt + fiunt incubi + in vasa mulierum transfundunt + homines generari possunt* (succubus→incubus seed-transfer narrative, the most graphic scholastic-demonology passage in d.8 — handled with the *Deo permittente* qualification + Aug. XV de Civ. Dei c.23 n.1 cross-ref) + *Epilogus* (non habent opera potentiae generativae et nutritivae sed his conformes non in toto sed in parte — boni Angeli cibum sumserunt sed non ad refectionem sed ad dantium consolationem; *non erat ibi error nec deceptio nec illusio, quantum erat ex parte ipsorum Angelorum, licet aliquis ignorans illorum naturam posset ex hoc accipere occasionem opinandi falsum*) + **Solutio oppositorum** GROUPED 1/2/3 (*Et sic patet responsio ad tres rationes primas* — short ack) + 4/5/6 (*concedendum est etiam, quod daemones secundum viam praedictam semen possunt suscipere et transfundere, si Deus permittat; sed non quod possint alimentum in verum semen propria virtute convertere. Ideo dicuntur quodam modo generare, sicut ostendunt tres rationes sequentes. — Attamen ultima ratio non cogit; plus enim est generare quam coire; et ideo non sequitur, si possunt coire cum muliere, quod propter hoc possint eam impraegnare vel ex ea prolem generare* — the *plus est generare quam coire* maxim is the rhetorical crown of d.8 demonology) + editorial **SCHOLION I+II+III+IV** on p.220 (I: both q1+q2 share negative principle from a.2 q.1 — *Angeli assumtis corporibus non uniuntur ut perfectio sive forma substantialis dans actum primum vitae, sed potius modo quodam accidentali* + *actus secundus praesupponit actum primum*; II: q.1-specific — *diversus modus loquendi inter doctores* on *comedere* + Bonaventure's perfecta cibatio vs simplex manducatio distinction + IV Sent. d.9 a.1 q.2 *masticatio + incorporatio* dyadic + d.12 *masticatio + ventrem traiectio + incorporatio* triadic + d.12 q.3 ad 3 *perditi restauratio* tetradic = the doctor's progressive disambiguation of *manducatio* through IV Sent + Bonaventure's *cautela* on demonological generation + Richard. a Med. *Aliqui hoc dicunt magis debere poni sub dubio* + Aug. III de Civ. Dei c.5 dubitatio anchor; III: q.2-PROSPECTIVE preview — anima ut forma corporis *hoc aliquid* substantia prima, *not* all substantial forms only anima humana with the *per se nata subsistere et agere et pati, movere et moveri* characterization + d.17 q.2 in corp. forward-ref + d.15 a.1 q.1 ad 2 sensitive-soul forward-ref; IV: De utraque quaestione doctor cross-refs Alex. Hal. + Scotus utroque Scripto + S. Thom. + B. Albert. + Petr. a Tar. + Richard. a Med. + Aegid. R. + Durand. + Dionys. Carth. + Biel — the densest single doctor-list in d.8). Note: SCHOLION III is about q.2 but appears in q.1's printed SCHOLION block — this is the Vol II convention where shared-question scholion folds with the FIRST question; the next chunk `d8-p1-a3-q2` will have NO own scholion, per s48-locked Vol II convention.

Full 450 dpi colcrop discipline (p.218 cached from s54; p.219 + p.220 freshly extracted + cropped split_x=1800). **16-entry apparatus**: **p.218 footer ⁵ → [^1]** (Vat. *seu potentiae* addition at ART III opener); **p.219 footer L¹-⁶ + R⁷-¹⁰ → [^2]-[^11]** (Gen.18,8 + Vers.8 / Gen.18,8 + 19,3 + Tob.12,19 / Aristot. II de Anima text.88 + II de Part. animal. c.16 / Aristot. II de Anima text.34 + Iosephus I de Antiq. Iud. c.3 + Gen.6,2 / Bibliogr. univ. *Merlinus* / Tob.12,19 Vulgata *manducare* vs *comedere* + the long *sed ego cibo invisibili et potu, qui ab hominibus videri non potest, utor* expanded variant / Aristot. II de Anima text.34 / Aristot. II de Gener. animal. c.3 + Costa Ben-Luca *de Differentia animae et spiritus* Innsbruck 1878 edition / Cod. aa *bene aut* var. / Cod. aa *potentiam* var. on Respondeo *operationem*); **p.220 footer L¹-³ + R³(cont)-⁵ → [^12]-[^16]** (Aug. Epist. 102 ad Deogratias q.1 n.6 *aliter absorbet aquam terra sitiens* + the *in his vero* vs *his vero* codd. W Y aa variant / Aug. XV de Civ. Dei c.23 n.1 + *His visis facile est respondere et ad quaestionem* plures-codd. variant / multi-column entry: **Fide cod. aa substituimus *nutritivae* pro *vegetativae*, quod tanquam genus sub se continet potentiam nutritivam et generativam** — this entry spans L→R column footer continuously, taken as single [^14] / Cod. I long expanded *erat cibi vera comestio quantum ad actum exteriorem... non quoad interiorem... non erat indigentiae suppletio nec deperditi restauratio... non ad suam* variant — the densest editorial textual-substitute entry in this chunk / Ita codd. F K cc et ed.1 *per propriam virtutem* var.).

**Incoming q2 → q1 split at p.218 RECEIVED CLEAN** (s54 verified): s54's d8-p1-a2-q2 took p.218 footer ¹-⁴ and explicitly deferred p.218 footer ⁵ (*In Vat. additur seu potentiae* anchoring ART III opener *animae⁵ vegetativae*) to this chunk — taken here as [^1]; no backfill into s54. **Outgoing q1 → q2 split at p.220 CLEAN**: SCHOLION IV doctor-list closes p.220 R-col with `Biel, hic q. 1.`; p.221 opens fresh with `QUAESTIO II. — Utrum Angelus in corpore assumto exerceat operationes potentiae sensitivae`. The next chunk `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-a3-q2` starts p.221 with its own apparatus opener at whatever first p.221 footer entry appears; no backfill into this chunk. Per Vol II convention (s48 lock), q.2 will likely have no own SCHOLION since SCHOLION III in this chunk previews q.2's *anima ut forma* doctrine.

**Marginal labels preserved inline** per Vol II convention: *Ad oppositum*, *De bonis Angelis*, *De malis*, *Fundamenta*, *Conclusio*, *Ratio quoad cibationem*, *Ratio quoad generationem*, *Epilogus*, *Solutio oppositorum*. **OCR garbles cleaned silently**: assuiulo→assumto; quaerunlur→quaeruntur; operalio-nes→operationes; aclus→actus; coniederunt→comederunt; legitar→legitur; assurato→assumto; sexu→sexu; falsis^→falsis; assirai-→assimi-; nialis→malis; gre-neratio→generatio; sumserunt^→sumserunt; consurae-→consume-; conciusio→conclusio; conciusio.→conclusio.; raalus→malus; quae^→quae; vegelativae→vegetativae; assuratis→assumtis; medicum→medicum (OK); calorem^→calorem; pollutionis→pollutionis (OK); consumtio,→consumtio,; sucipiunt→suscipiunt (silent OCR-fix); Verumlamen→Verumtamen; cibatio→cibatio (OK); Augustinus^→Augustinus; deperditionem→deperditionem (OK); restaurabat→restaurabat (OK); occasionera→occasionem; opinandi→opinandi (OK); nialis→malis; Concedendum→Concedendum (OK); Verum^→Verum.

**No `[?]` flags** (all 16 superscripts + 16 apparatus entries verified column-by-column: p.218-R cached crop for ART III opener with *animae⁵* anchor / p.219-L-0/L-1/L-2 + R-0/R-1/R-2 for QUAESTIO I title + 6 videtur (De bonis+De malis) + 6 ad opp (De bonis+De malis) + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo start + p.219 footer L¹-⁶ R⁷-¹⁰ / p.220-L-0/L-1/L-2 + R-0/R-1/R-2 for Respondeo continuation (cibationem ratio + generationem ratio + succubus/incubus narrative) + Epilogus + Solutio grouped 1/2/3 + 4/5/6 + SCHOLION I-IV + p.220 footer L¹-³ R³cont-⁵). Marker-pairing La==En exact 1–16.

**Cost profile:** HEAVY — ties with s54 d8-p1-a2-q2 for heaviest chunk in d.8 (~2020 w each), with this chunk's distinctive demonological micro-mechanism *succumbunt viris in specie mulieris + semen pollutionis* + the *plus est generare quam coire* maxim + the 4-paragraph SCHOLION (where d.8's other chunks have at most 2-paragraph scholia, this one has SCHOLION I+II+III+IV with III being a forward-preview of q.2) carrying significant translation depth. The substantive translation work was: (1) the *cibo et potu invisibili utor* Vulgata variant precision in [^7]'s long apparatus entry; (2) the *sumtio/consumtio/conversio/unio* fourfold-feeding analysis + the *constitutio/transfusio/susceptio* threefold-generation analysis with their parallel non-symmetric grants (cibatio: Angels get sumtio+consumtio but NOT conversio+unio; generatio: demons get transfusio+susceptio but NOT constitutio); (3) the careful *non erat ibi error nec deceptio nec illusio QUANTUM ERAT EX PARTE IPSORUM ANGELORUM* qualified-non-deception clause; (4) the *plus est generare quam coire* rhetorical crown; (5) SCHOLION II's progressive doctor-disambiguation of *manducatio* across IV Sent. d.9/d.12 (masticatio+incorporatio → masticatio+ventrem traiectio+incorporatio → +perditi restauratio); (6) SCHOLION III's *hoc aliquid* + *per se nata subsistere et agere et pati movere et moveri* anima-humana characterization as q.2-preview. Vol II decade-rechunk → main-thread-Tier-2 pipeline holds; **DISTINCTION 8 NOW 7/16, ART III Q.I CLOSED** — littera + p1-divisio + p1 ART I 2/2 + p1 ART II 2/2 + p1 ART III 1/2 complete. Pending = p1 ART III Q.II (next) + p1-dubia + p2-divisio + p2 ART I 6/6.

**NEXT: `d8-p1-a3-q2` Tier-2** — *Utrum Angelus in corpore assumto exerceat operationes potentiae sensitivae* (raw 15902+, opens fresh top of p.221 with `QUAESTIO II.` + title + the 4 videtur Bonaventure announces — likely visus/auditus/tactus/odoratus or similar sensitive-power probes — followed by Conclusio + Respondeo + Solutio; **per Vol II convention SCHOLION will likely fold backwards** to this chunk's SCHOLION III which already previewed q.2's *anima ut forma* doctrine, so q.2 may have no own SCHOLION — verify on p.221/p.222 PDF extract). Extract p.221 + p.222 next; p.220 already cached.

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