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

source_text:
<!-- page 212 -->

### QUAESTIO II.

*Utrum Angeli quandoque assumant sibi corpora.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Angeli aliquando assumant corpora. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Bernardus in Canticum homilia tertia[^1]: «Discurrere et de loco ad locum moveri non est nisi corporum»; sed Angelus ad ministerium discurrit et de loco ad locum venit: ergo vel est corpus, vel habet corpus naturaliter unitum, vel corpus assumtum; sed non primo modo, nec secundo: ergo tertio.

2. Item, nulli potest impendi hospitalitatis obsequium, nisi habeat corpus naturaliter unitum, vel assumtum; sed Angelis aliquando impensa sunt haec officia, sicut dicitur ultimo ad Hebraeos[^2], quod quidam placuerunt Deo, Angelis hospitio receptis: ergo vel habuerunt corpora unita, vel assumta; sed non habuerunt naturaliter unita: ergo etc.

3. Item, nulla substantia spiritualis ex sui consortio praebet solatium sensui, nisi per inhabitationem corporis fiat visibilis; sed Angeli frequenter praebent solatia non solummodo secundum spiritum, sed etiam secundum sensum, sicut patet in Angelo Tobiae[^3]: ergo inhabitant corpora. Sed illa non habent semper unita: ergo voluntarie assumta.

4. Item, nullus spiritus potest visibiliter demonstrari ad demonstrationem corporis, nisi sit aliquo modo corpori illi coniunctus; sed Angelus, qui loquebatur Tobiae, visibiliter poterat demonstrari, et vere[^4] dici: hic est Raphael, vel: hic est Angelus: ergo habebat sibi corpus illud aliquo modo coniunctum; sed non per naturalem coniunctionem: ergo per voluntariam assumtionem.

5. Item, nihil est organum vel instrumentum alicuius immediatum, nisi immediate assumatur ab illo, vel naturaliter coniungatur illi; sed Angelus multa exercet opera circa nos, sicut *loqui* et *manducare*, quae non possunt exerceri, nisi mediante corpore organico, vel instrumento: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Maiorem convenientiam habet anima rationalis ad corpus, quam habeat angelicus spiritus; sed anima exuta corpus non assumit: ergo nec spiritus angelicus.

2. Item, proportio debet esse assumentis ad assumtum; sed spiritus angelicus est omnino incorporalis: ergo non habet proportionem ad corpus: ergo nunquam assumit illud.

3. Item, aut competit Angelo habere corpus, aut non competit. Si competit habere, ergo videtur, quod Angeli non sint perfecti, quando non habent corpus. Si non competit, ergo quando assumit, habet quod non decet ipsum: ergo si Angelus bonus non facit, nisi quod decet ipsum, non assumit corpus.

4. Item, si assumit, aut propter aliquid, aut propter nihil. Si propter nihil, ergo frustra; si propter aliquid, aut est bonum, aut malum. Si bonum, ergo per corpus assumtum meretur; si malum, ergo per corpus assumtum demeretur: ergo Angelus debet puniri et praemiari cum corpore assumto; quod est inconveniens et plane falsum.

5. Item, ubicumque est assumtio, ibi est aliqua unio vel in persona, vel in natura, sicut patet in assumtione humanae naturae a Filio Dei: ergo si Angelus assumit corpus, unit sibi vel in persona, vel in natura. Sed non in natura unit sibi, quia non resultat tertium; non in persona, quia non est communicatio idiomatum: ergo nullo modo est ibi unio, ergo nec assumtio.

### Conclusio.

> *Angeli boni interdum corpora assumunt humana sicut instrumenta, signa et habitacula.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in Angelis duplex est vis, scilicet *contemplativa* et *administrativa*. Secundum *contemplativam* convertuntur ad Deum; <!-- page 213 -->et sic non indigent solatio assumti corporis. Secundum *administrativam* descendunt ad nos, et condescendunt nobis; et ut nobis congruentius condescendant, indigent solatio assumti corporis, indigent inquam, ad aliquas operationes exercendas, indigent ad se ipsos manifestandos, indigent ad nosmetipsos laetificandos sive confortandos. — Et ideo assumunt corpora sicut *instrumenta* vel *organa* ad operandum, sicut *signa* ad manifestandum, sicut *cooperimenta* vel *habitacula* ad conversandum. Unde corpus assumtum coniungitur illis sicut instrumentum motori, sicut signum significatori, sicut habitaculum inhabitatori. — Hoc autem magis exigit indigentia ex parte nostra quam indigentia ex parte sua; et quia finis imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem, et corpus effigiatum vel organizatum humana effigie maxime competit operationibus spiritus rationalis, et expressius significat, et tanquam pulchrum indumentum quodam modo decorat: ideo Angelus assumit corpus, non qualecumque, sed humana effigie insignitum. — Et concedendae sunt rationes hoc ostendentes. Ad rationes ad oppositum iam patet responsio.

**Ad rationes ad oppositum:** 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de anima exuta, satis plana est responsio. Non enim est simile, quia non habet vim administrativam nec usum administrandi; ideo nec corpus assumit nec habere dicitur potentiam assumendi.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod proportio est assumentis etc.; dicendum, quod proportio attenditur et invenitur ibi per eum modum, per quem est assumtio. Cum enim non assumat in unitatem naturae, non requiritur, quod sit ibi proportio sicut perfectionis ad perfectibile; sed sufficit, quod sit proportio sicut motoris ad mobile.

3. Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum competat Angelo habere corpus etc.; dicendum, quod competit habere corpus ut voluntarie assumtum ad complendum ministerium, sed non competit ad suum esse completum; ideo nec carentia generat indigentiam, nec assumtio generat indecentiam.

4. Ad illud quod quaerit: propter quid assumit? utrum propter aliquid, vel propter nihil? dicendum, quod propter aliquid, sicut praedictum est. Illud tamen, propter quod assumit, non perficit[^5] per corpus, tanquam anima per corpus proprium, sed tanquam artifex per instrumentum; et ideo, sicut instrumentum, per quod quis meretur, non remuneratur, sic nec corpus ab Angelo assumtum.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ubi est assumtio, debet esse unio in persona, vel natura; dicendum, quod non sufficienter dividit, quia homo assumit vestimentum, cum se induit, non tamen unit sibi in persona nec in natura; sed illud locum habet in illa assumtione, in qua est unio perfecta, qualis est, cum Dei Filius assumsit humanam naturam.

Ex dictis igitur patet quaestio proposita et responsio ad obiecta; patet etiam, pro quanto dicitur Angelus corpus assumere, quia non solum propter hoc, quod moveatur[^6] vel operetur aliquid circa corpus, sed quia illud accipit ad se, ut in illo operetur, ut in illo manifestetur, ut in illo conversetur. Et quia in illa coniunctione sive acceptione corpus potius sequitur modum spiritus quam e converso, quia ab illo formatur et conservatur et regitur; ideo Angelus se habet in ratione assumentis et habentis, corpus vero in ratione assumti et habiti.

english:
<!-- page 212 -->

### QUESTION II.

*Whether the Angels sometimes assume bodies to themselves.*

Secondly, it is asked whether the Angels sometimes assume bodies. And that they do, [thus] it seems.

1. Bernard *On the Canticle*, homily three[^1]: «To run hither and thither and to be moved from place to place belongs only to bodies»; but the Angel runs to his ministry and comes from place to place: therefore either he is a body, or he has a body naturally united, or [a body] assumed; but [it is] not [the case] in the first way, nor in the second: therefore in the third.

2. Likewise, the duty of hospitality can be paid to no one unless he has a body naturally united, or assumed; but to the Angels at times these offices have been paid, as is said in the last [chapter of the Epistle] to the Hebrews[^2], that certain ones pleased God by receiving Angels with hospitality: therefore either they had bodies united [to themselves], or assumed [ones]; but they did not have [bodies] naturally united: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, no spiritual substance, of its [own] consortium, affords solace to sense, unless it become visible through the inhabitation of a body; but the Angels frequently afford solaces not only according to the spirit, but also according to sense, as is plain in the Angel of Tobit[^3]: therefore they inhabit bodies. But they do not always have them united [to themselves]: therefore [they have them] voluntarily assumed.

4. Likewise, no spirit can be shown visibly, by the showing of a body, unless he be in some way joined to that body; but the Angel who spoke with Tobit could be shown visibly, and could truly[^4] be said: *here is Raphael*, or: *here is an Angel*: therefore he had that body joined to himself in some way; but not by a natural conjunction: therefore by a voluntary assumption.

5. Likewise, nothing is an immediate organ or instrument of anyone unless it be immediately assumed by him, or be naturally joined to him; but the Angel performs many works concerning us, such as *speaking* and *eating*, which cannot be performed save by means of an organic body or an instrument: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. The rational soul has a greater agreement with a body than has the angelic spirit; but the soul stripped [of its body] does not assume a body: therefore neither [does] the angelic spirit.

2. Likewise, there must be a proportion of the one assuming to that which is assumed; but the angelic spirit is altogether incorporeal: therefore he has no proportion to a body: therefore he never assumes one.

3. Likewise, either it befits the Angel to have a body, or it does not befit [him]. If it befits him to have [one], then it seems that the Angels are not perfect when they do not have a body. If it does not befit him, then when he assumes one, he has what is not seemly for himself: therefore, since a good Angel does nothing save what is seemly for himself, he does not assume a body.

4. Likewise, if he assumes [a body], either [it is] for the sake of something, or for nothing. If for nothing, then in vain; if for the sake of something, [that something is] either good or evil. If good, then by the assumed body he merits; if evil, then by the assumed body he demerits: therefore the Angel must be punished and rewarded with the assumed body; which is unfitting and plainly false.

5. Likewise, wherever there is an assumption, there is some union, either in *person* or in *nature*, as is plain in the assumption of human nature by the Son of God: therefore if the Angel assumes a body, he unites it to himself either in person or in nature. But [he] does not unite it to himself in *nature*, because no third [thing] results; nor in *person*, because there is no communication of idioms: therefore in no way is there a union there, and therefore neither an assumption.

### Conclusion.

> *The good Angels at times assume human bodies as instruments, signs, and dwellings.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in the Angels there is a twofold power, namely the *contemplative* and the *administrative* [or ministerial]. According to the *contemplative* they are turned toward God; <!-- page 213 -->and so they have no need of the solace of an assumed body. According to the *administrative*, they descend to us, and condescend to us; and that they may more fittingly condescend to us, they need the solace of an assumed body — they need [it], I say, for performing certain operations, they need [it] for manifesting themselves, they need [it] for gladdening or comforting us. — And so they assume bodies as *instruments* or *organs* for operating, as *signs* for manifesting, as *coverings* or *dwellings* for conversing. Hence the assumed body is joined to them as an instrument to its mover, as a sign to its signifier, as a dwelling to its inhabitant. — But this is exacted more by the need on our side than by need on theirs; and because the end imposes necessity on those things which are ordered to the end, and because a body fashioned or organized in the human form most befits the operations of a rational spirit, and signifies [them] more expressively, and as a beautiful garment in some way adorns: therefore the Angel assumes a body, not [a body] of any sort, but [one] marked with the human form. — And the arguments showing this must be conceded. To the arguments on the opposite side the response is now plain.

**To the arguments on the opposite side:** 1. To that which is objected concerning the soul stripped [of its body], the response is plain enough. For [the case] is not similar, because [the separated soul] has neither the administrative power nor the use of administering; and so it neither assumes a body nor is said to have the potency of assuming [one].

2. To that which is objected — that the proportion is of the one assuming etc. — it must be said that the proportion is to be considered and is found there according to that mode by which the assumption is. For since [the Angel] does not assume into the unity of nature, it is not required that there be there a proportion such as [that] of perfection to the perfectible; but it suffices that there be a proportion such as [that] of mover to moved.

3. To that which is asked — whether it befits the Angel to have a body, etc. — it must be said that it befits [him] to have a body as voluntarily assumed for the completing of [his] ministry, but it does not befit [him] for his complete being; and so neither does the lack [of a body] generate a need, nor does the assumption [of one] generate unseemliness.

4. To that which asks: for the sake of what does he assume? — whether for the sake of something or for nothing — it must be said that [he assumes] for the sake of something, as has been said above. Yet that for the sake of which he assumes [a body], he does not accomplish[^5] through the body as the soul [accomplishes things] through its own body, but as a craftsman [accomplishes things] through his instrument; and therefore, just as the instrument by which one merits is not rewarded, so neither [is] the body assumed by the Angel.

5. To that which is objected — that where there is an assumption, there must be a union in *person* or in *nature* — it must be said that [the objection] does not divide sufficiently, because a man assumes a garment when he clothes himself, yet he does not unite it to himself in person or in nature; but that [requirement] has its place in that assumption in which there is a *perfect* union, such as is [the case] when the Son of God assumed human nature.

From what has been said, then, the proposed question is plain, and the response to the objections; it is also plain in what sense the Angel is said to assume a body, [namely] because not only is he moved[^6] [in it] or performs something concerning a body, but [also because] he takes it to himself, that he may operate in it, that he may be manifested in it, that he may converse in it. And because in that conjunction or acceptance the body rather follows the mode of the spirit than the converse, since it is formed and conserved and ruled by it; therefore the Angel stands in the relation of the one assuming and having, but the body in the relation of the assumed and the had.

la: Serm. 5. n. 2. — In *minori*, fide cod. cc et ed. 1, post *Angelus* expunximus *malus*, quia quaestio de Angelis generatim quidem, sed principaliter de bonis instituitur.

en: Sermon 5, n. 2. — In the minor [premise], on the authority of cod. cc and ed. 1, after *Angelus* [Angel] we have expunged *malus* [evil], because the question is set up about the Angels generally indeed, but principally about the good [ones].

la: Vers. 2, ubi Vulgata *latuerunt* pro *placuerunt Deo*, quod tamen invenitur apud Gregor., Hom. 23. in Evang. n. 2. et apud Haymonem in hunc locum. — Paulo inferius post *corpora* in codd. T bb a secunda manu adiungitur *naturaliter* [bb *naturaliter sibi*].

en: [Hebr. 13,] verse 2, where the Vulgate [reads] *latuerunt* [they remained hidden] for *placuerunt Deo* [they pleased God], which however is found in Gregory, Homily 23 *On the Gospels*, n. 2, and in Haymo on this passage. — A little below, after *corpora* [bodies], in codd. T bb by a second hand is added *naturaliter* [naturally] [bb: *naturaliter sibi* (naturally to themselves)].

la: Tob. 5. seqq.

en: Tobit 5 ff.

la: Cod. aa hic bene repetit *poterat*. Pro ultimo *ergo* in hoc arg. plures codd. cum ed. 1 substituunt *sed*.

en: Cod. aa here rightly repeats *poterat* [could]. For the last *ergo* [therefore] in this argument, several codices with ed. 1 substitute *sed* [but].

la: Id est: *exsequitur*.

en: That is, *exsequitur* [carries out, accomplishes].

la: Vat. cum nonnullis codd. *moveat*.

en: The Vatican edition, with some codices, [reads] *moveat* [let him move (subjunctive)]. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Ut patet per totam hanc quaestionem, praecipue per solutionem ad 5, *assumtio* tripliciter intelligi potest, scilicet per modum *informationis*, qua anima humana est substantialis forma (perfectio) corporis; per modum *hypostaticae unionis*, qua Filius Dei assumsit animam et corpus humanum; per modum cuiusdam *accidentalis unionis*, qua corpus assumtum non tantum movetur, sed etiam assumitur ut *instrumentum*, *signum* et *habitaculum*; quod bene explicatur in corp. — Quidam autem (inter quos recensetur Uldaricus) dixerunt, Angelos nunquam assumere corpora, eorumque apparitiones factas esse per visiones imaginarias. Quam sententiam S. Thomas in Commentario vocat erroneam, suffragantibus communiter aliis magistris. — In tota quaestione agitur principaliter de Angelis bonis. — In solut. ad 1. negatur, separatas animas humanas habere potentiam hoc modo assumendi corpora, scilicet propria virtute; sicut e contrario Angelus, cum habeat «esse completum» (ad 3.), non potest esse proprie *forma substantialis* alicuius corporis, ut hic a. 2. q. 1. probatur.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 34. m. 2. 3. 4. — Scot., de hac et seq. q. in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 2; S. I. q. 51. a. 2; de Potent. q. 6. a. 7. — B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. p. I. tr. 18. q. 75. m. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** As is plain through this whole question, especially through the solution to [argument] 5, *assumption* can be understood in three ways, namely (1) by way of *information* [or in-forming], by which the human soul is the substantial form (perfection) of the body; (2) by way of *hypostatic union*, by which the Son of God assumed a human soul and body; (3) by way of a certain *accidental union*, by which the assumed body is not only moved, but also assumed as an *instrument*, a *sign*, and a *dwelling* — which is well explained in the body [of the question]. — Some, however (among whom Uldaricus is reckoned), said that the Angels never assume bodies, and that their apparitions were brought about through imaginary visions. This opinion St. Thomas, in his Commentary, calls erroneous, with the other Masters generally agreeing. — In the whole question [the matter] is treated principally of the good Angels. — In the solution to [argument] 1 it is denied that separated human souls have the power of assuming bodies in this mode, namely by their own virtue; just as, on the contrary, the Angel, since he has «complete being» (in the reply to 3), cannot properly be the *substantial form* of any body, as is proved here, a. 2, q. 1.

**II.** Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. II, q. 34, m. 2, 3, 4. — Scotus, on this and the following question, in both Writings, here q. unica. — St. Thomas, here q. unica, a. 2; *Summa* I, q. 51, a. 2; *De Potentia* q. 6, a. 7. — Blessed Albert, here a. 2; *Summa* p. I, tr. 18, q. 75, m. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unica, a. 2, quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, on this and the following question, here a. 1, q. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1, a. 2.

---

translators_notes:
- This chunk is **ARTICULUS I, QUAESTIO II** of the COMMENTARIUS on Distinction VIII, **Pars I** (*De assumtione corporum quoad corporis et spiritus unionem* — whether the Angels sometimes assume bodies to themselves). Structure: 5 *videtur* (Bernard *Cant.* hom. 3 *discurrere non est nisi corporum* / Heb. 13,2 *Angelis hospitio receptis* / *Angelus Tobiae* + *inhabitant corpora* / *visibiliter demonstrari* + the *hic est Raphael / hic est Angelus* deictic-anchor / the *loqui et manducare* organic-body argument) + **Contra** 5 ad-opp (*anima exuta non assumit* asymmetry / *proportio assumentis* + *omnino incorporalis* / the *competit/non-competit* dilemma with the *Angelus bonus non facit nisi quod decet* corollary / the *propter aliquid aut nihil* + *meretur/demeretur* corollary / the *unio in persona vel in natura* + *non resultat tertium / non communicatio idiomatum* double-rejoinder) + *Conclusio* blockquote + **Respondeo** (the *duplex vis in Angelis: contemplativa et administrativa* core distinction; the triple need *indigent solatio* = *ad operationes / ad se manifestandos / ad nos laetificandos*; the triple analogy *assumunt sicut instrumenta vel organa / sicut signa / sicut cooperimenta vel habitacula*, with the *coniungitur instrumentum motori / signum significatori / habitaculum inhabitatori* tripled correspondence; the *finis imponit necessitatem* + *humana effigie insignitum* aesthetic argument that the body must be specifically human-shaped) + **Ad rationes ad oppositum** 5 grouped replies (anima exuta *non habet vim administrativam* / *proportio sicut motoris ad mobile* not *perfectionis ad perfectibile* / *competit ad ministerium non ad esse completum* + the *nec carentia indigentiam nec assumtio indecentiam* compact response / *non perficit per corpus tanquam anima sed tanquam artifex per instrumentum* + the *sicut instrumentum quo quis meretur non remuneratur* corollary / *non sufficienter dividit* + the *homo assumit vestimentum sine unione persona vel natura* counter-example + the *Filius Dei assumsit humanam naturam* perfect-union limit-case) + *Ex dictis* epilogue closing with *Angelus se habet in ratione assumentis et habentis, corpus vero in ratione assumti et habiti* + editorial **SCHOLION I–II** (I: the triple-mode taxonomy of *assumtio* — *informatio* / *hypostatica unio* / *accidentalis unio* — with the Uldaricus-error rejection + S. Thomas *vocat erroneam* anchor + the *de Angelis bonis principaliter* gloss + the forward cross-ref to a.2 q.1 on the angelic *esse completum* / *non potest esse forma substantialis* corollary; II: cross-reference roll). Spans pp.212–213 (PDF 234–235).
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (raw 15304–15408) over the 450 dpi pp.212–213 column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 212-213 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 212`/`213`), read L column top→bottom then R column, body bands then footer band, reflowed column-by-column. The two-column cascade-shattering on p.212 (the videtur 1 line-break across the *Bernardus in Canticum* citation; the contra-1 *Maiorem convenientiam* break) and the p.213 Respondeo + Ad-rationes + Ex-dictis are the regions where the column-band PDF read is authoritative; the videtur running prose on p.212 is clean OCR base. Editorial marginal glosses bleeding inline (*Fundamenta, Contra opposi(tum), Duplex vis in Angelo, Conclusio 1/2/3, Solutio oppositorum, Notandum, Epilogus, Corollarium*) trimmed per CLAUDE.md.
- **Scholion present** (`has_scholion: true`) — two-paragraph editorial SCHOLION I–II on p.213. No superscript anchors in either scholion paragraph.
- **Chunking convention (Vol II).** This chunk opens at QUAESTIO II (raw 15304) on p.212 just below `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-a1-q1`'s SCHOLION II close. It ends at the SCHOLION II close (raw 15408) just above the mid-p.213 `ARTICULUS II.` opener (raw 15409), which folds into the following `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-a2-q1` per locked Vol II convention. `line_end` 15408.
- **Cross-chunk footer — INCOMING (clean, no backfill).** The committed `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-a1-q1`'s Notes document that its SCHOLION I–II close mid-p.212 carries no superscripts (all citations inline), and that p.212's apparatus stream is wholly reserved for this chunk. d8-p1-a1-q1 not modified. This chunk's p.212 apparatus opens at footer ¹ → [^1].
- **Cross-chunk footer — OUTGOING q2 → ART II split at p.213 CLEAN.** Both p.213 footer entries (¹ *Id est: exsequitur.* and ² *Vat. cum nonnullis codd. moveat.*) anchor in this chunk's body — ¹ at Ad-rat 4 *non perficit*⁵ and ² at the *Ex dictis* epilogue *moveatur*⁶ — so no apparatus splits to the following `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-a2-q1`. The p.213 running head reads *DIST. VIII. P. I. ART. II.* because the ARTICULUS II opener begins mid-p.213 (after SCHOLION II); this is a Quaracchi running-head convention (label adopts the article that opens on the page, not the one whose content continues onto it), not a body-content error. **The d8-p1-a2-q1 build opens p.213 fresh below SCHOLION II at the `ARTICULUS II.` header (raw 15409), starting its p.213 apparatus at whatever first footer entry appears below the ART II opener's content.**
- **Apparatus crosswalk:** p.212 footer ¹ ² ³ ⁴ → [^1]–[^4] (videtur 1 *Bernardus*; videtur 2 *ultimo ad Hebraeos*; videtur 3 *in Angelo Tobiae*; videtur 4 *vere*); p.213 footer ¹ ² → [^5]–[^6] (Ad-rat 4 *non perficit*; epilogue *moveatur*); p.213 SCHOLION carries no apparatus.
- **p.212 footer ¹ reads *Serm. 5. n. 2.* on the 450 dpi crop**, against Bonaventure's body citation *Bernardus in Canticum homilia tertia* (videtur 1) — this is a Quaracchi-editor correction note (the same *Sermon 5 vs Sermon 3* pattern documented at q1's [^11] and [^14]; Quaracchi consistently directs Bernard *Cant.* references at Sermon 5, not Sermon 3, in the page-211 / p.212 footers; q1's videtur 3 [^3] kept *Serm. 3 n. 6* because that footer was on p.210 left column where OCR is clean). Both readings preserved literally in the apparatus entry.
- **No `[?]` flags.** Every superscript anchor (6 in the body) + every apparatus entry (6 in the footer) verified column-by-column on the 450 dpi crops (p.212-L-1/L-2 + p.212-R-1/R-2 for QUAESTIO II opener + 5 videtur + 5 contra + CONCLUSIO + start-of-Respondeo + p.212 footer ¹–⁴; p.213-L-1/L-2 + p.213-R-1/R-2 for the Respondeo continuation + Ad-rationes + Ex-dictis + SCHOLION I–II close + p.213 footer ¹–²). The OCR garble `8. Item` preceding contra-5 corrected silently to `5. Item` (OCR digit-mangle; printed page shows numeral 5).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 2, 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 II.
### *De formatione corporis assumti.*

Consequenter quaeritur de secundo articulo, scilicet de formatione corporis assumti. Circa quod duo quaeruntur:

Primo quaeritur de ipso corpore assumto quoad principium formale.

Secundo, quantum ad principium materiale.

<!-- page 214 -->

### QUAESTIO I.
### *Utrum corpus assumtum habeat veram formam corporis humani.*

Quaeritur igitur primo, utrum illud corpus habeat veram formam corporis humani. Et quod ita sit, videtur:

1. Quia, cum appareat esse corpus humanum, aut est verum, aut est ibi error et deceptio; sed error et deceptio non competit Angelis sanctis: ergo cum assumunt corpora, quae videntur esse humana, vere habent formam humanam.

2. Item, ad corpus humanum nihil plus requiritur nisi aequalis complexio et debita organizatio, sicut dicunt naturales; sed corpus, quod Angelus assumit, debitam habet organizationem: si ergo organizatio praesupponit complexionem, ergo videtur, quod habeat totum, quod est de veritate humani corporis.

3. Item, quod Angelus vere possit formare corpus humanum, videtur. «Corpus humanum, sicut dicit Augustinus[^1], est in rationibus seminalibus, sicut et alia corpora»; sed quia formae quorundam animalium, ut serpentium et huiusmodi, habent rationes seminales dispersas in rebus: ideo dicit Augustinus, «quod ministerio daemonum vere educuntur»: ergo pari ratione, ut videtur, et corpora hominum. Quodsi tu dicas, quod non valet, quia maior requiritur dispositio ad producendum corpus humanum; hoc non solvit, quia quod potest disponere a remotis in principio operationis, continuando actionem, cum non sit distantia infinita, poterit venire ad dispositionem immediatam: ergo si Angeli possunt veloci operatione producere corpora animalium minus perfecta, ergo et pari ratione corpora animalium magis perfecta: ergo et corpus humanum.

4. Item, si aliquod agens indifferenter se habet ad aliqua producenda, qua ratione potest in unum, potest in alterum; sed Angeli non habent maiorem convenientiam in[^2] corporibus serpentium quam in corporibus hominum, immo magis e converso: ergo si possunt auxilio naturae producere vera corpora serpentium, possunt auxilio naturae producere vera corpora hominum, ergo et assumere.

5. Item, quod potest in maius potest in minus; «sed anima, quantumcumque sit modicae nobilitatis, excellit nobilitatem cuiuscumque corporis», sicut dicitur in octavo *de Civitate Dei*[^3] et in aliis multis locis: cum ergo ministerio Angelorum educi possint et educantur animae vegetabiles et sensibiles quorundam animalium, multo fortius producere possunt vera corpora hominum.

*Ad oppositum* sic — *Fundamenta*: 1. Eiusdem virtutis creatae est corpus formare et informare, quia vis formativa est ab informativa sive perfectiva[^4]; sed nullus spiritus angelicus potest humanum corpus perficere: ergo nec formare.

2. Item, Angeli nihil possunt operari circa creaturas nisi adiutorio naturae; sed nulla natura potest generare corpus humanum, nisi illa quae est similis in specie[^5]: ergo Angelus non potest formare verum corpus humanum nisi mediante homine. Sed homo non potest corpus humanum educere nisi generando: ergo nec Angelus vera corpora humana formare nisi per generationem hominis. Sed cum assumit corpora, non indiget humano auxilio: ergo nunquam assumit vera corpora humana.

3. Item, si possunt corpus de novo formare, ergo pari ratione et corruptum reparare: ergo possunt mortuos suscitare, quod est solius Dei proprium.

4. Item, si corpora assumta ab Angelis essent vera corpora humana, haberent appetitum ad animam rationalem; sed Deus complet appetitum naturae: ergo statim infunderetur eis anima rationalis.

5. Item, si vera corpora humana assumerent, aut secundum statum *gloriae*, aut secundum statum *viae*. Non secundum statum *gloriae*; hoc constat, quia iam ulterius corpus illud non esset corruptibile nec ab Angelo separabile. Si ergo assumunt, hoc est secundum statum *viae*; sed corpora humana secundum statum viae sunt ponderosa et gravia, sive in statu naturae corruptae, sive in statu innocentiae: ergo non essent habilia ad motum nec ad velox ministerium: ergo si non assumunt corpora nisi propter ministerium, ergo non assumunt vera corpora humana.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Corpora ab Angelis assumta non habent veram formam et complexionem corporum humanorum nec completam organizationem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *—Conclusio.—* corpora assumta ab Angelis non habent veram formam et complexionem corporum humanorum, nec etiam organizationem completam, sed solum effigiem.

*Ratio duplex.* Et ratio huius est duplex: una, quia non competit Angelis tale corpus ad ministerium, sicut nunc

<!-- page 215 -->

ultimo ostensum est; alia ratio est, quia Angelus non potest educere formam naturalem in esse, nisi adiutus a virtute naturae, sicut habitum fuit in praecedenti distinctione[^6]. *Triplex modus producendi corpora.* In virtute autem naturae est producere corpora omnium animalium, verumtamen aliter et aliter. Ad quaedam enim educenda sufficit causa universalis sine adiutorio agentis particularis, consimilis in specie naturae, cuiusmodi sunt animalia, quae generantur per putrefactionem[^7]. Quaedam autem sunt, ad quae non sufficit, nisi adiuvetur ab agente consimilis speciei, sicut sunt corpora animalium, quae producuntur solummodo per propagationem; et istud planum est ad sensum.

*Ratio prima.* Si autem quaeratur ratio huius, prima est divina institutio, secundum quam est limitatio in virtutibus et naturis rerum: et hoc secundum legem, quam indidit eis ab initio. Unde sicut dixit[^8]: *Germinet terra herbam virentem*, non dixit, quod germinaret hominem; homini autem dixit, quod se multiplicaret. Sic terra germinat herbam, et homo generat hominem. — *Ratio secundaria. Duplex imperfectio quorundam animalium.* Haec autem lex sive institutio non est absque ratione, quia quaedam sunt animalia *imperfecta* tam in *organizatione* quam in *duratione*; quaedam vero *perfecta* utroque modo. Quia vero quaedam corpora animalium sunt imperfecta et in organizatione et complexione; ideo non indiguerunt agente tantae virtutis, sed potuit virtus productiva ipsorum dari terrae tanquam matri, et soli tanquam patri[^9], cum adiutorio aliorum corporum simplicium, tam elementarium quam caelestium. Quia vero sunt imperfecta duratione et aliquando pereunt; ideo oportuit hoc communicari agenti alterius naturae; quia ad hoc data est vis generativa rebus, ut dicit Philosophus[^10], «ut perpetuentur in esse». — *Animalia perfecta utroque modo.* E contrario est de animalibus utroque modo perfectis; et ideo virtus productiva ipsorum maiorem exigit actualitatem, et ratio seminalis cum maiori difficultate profertur in actum; ideo maiori indiget adiutorio. — *Corollarium.* Illa igitur animalia, sive eorum corpora, quae ad primum genus spectant, educi possunt ab Angelis, mediante naturae adiutorio, *velociter* et quasi subito, *veraciter* tamen, quia, per vim naturae. Sed animalia et eorum corpora, quae spectant ad secundum genus, educi non possunt *veraciter* nisi cum auxilio naturae et cum diuturnitate et tempore[^11]. Et quoniam assumtio corporum ab Angelis est *velociter* et quasi repente, ideo vera corpora humana non assumunt, quia non possunt illa per se formare *veraciter*; et cum alterius adiutorio non possunt facere, quod exeant in esse *velociter*. — *Aliae rationes.* Et esto quod educerentur, adhuc non competerent, sicut tactum est in obiiciendo, tum propter *appetitum*, quem haberent ad animam rationalem, tum propter *gravitatem*; quae duo repugnant fini illius corporis. Nam si haberet animam rationalem, non esset competens *signum* ad apparendum; si haberet gravitatem, non esset competens *instrumentum* ad operandum, maxime ad motum; non esset etiam competens *habitaculum* ad inhabitandum. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes probantes, quod Angeli non assumunt vera corpora humana, sive boni sive mali.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod est ibi error et deceptio: dicendum, quod falsum est, quia non assumunt illa corpora, ut ostendant, se esse homines et veros *homines*, sed ut ostendant se *rationales*; et quoniam illa corpora significant, ipsos esse rationales, et ad hoc formata sunt finaliter; ideo vera sunt, quamvis non sint *vere humana*, sicut in primo libro[^12] dictum fuit de igne et de columba.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est ibi organizatio[^13] et aequalis complexio; dicendum, quod falsum est. Non enim est ibi vere organizatio, quae competit corpori humano, quae quidem est a virtute formativa, cum seminibus delata, sed potius quaedam lineamentorum protractio secundum illius conformitatem; et haec non praesupponit aequalitatem complexionis, quia talis protractio potest fieri ab artifice in ligno et lapide. Nec quaecumque qualitas mixtionis est illa quae facit ad veritatem corporis humani, sed illa quae habet virtutem specificatam, hominis completivam et directivam[^14].

*Rationes seminales.* 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpus humanum est in *rationibus seminalibus*: iam patet responsio, quia quamvis sit ibi, nunquam tamen educitur, nisi concurrat virtus agentis exterioris, quae residet in lumbis viri et in matrice mulieris; et ideo sine his nunquam potest illa ratio seminalis ad actum perfectum educi. — Et si obiiciat, quod potest disponere *dispositione remota* etc.; dicendum, quod illud habet locum, ubi dispositio remota fit necessitas[^15] sola intensione; tunc enim sufficit virtutis activae continuatio et intensio; non autem, quando requiritur novae formae, vel alterius formae secundum speciem operatio; et sic est in proposito.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod indifferenter se habet Angelus ad omnia corpora animalium; dicendum, quod etsi hoc verum sit de ipso Angelo in se, non tamen est verum de virtute naturae, ex cuius adiutorio Angelus operatur. Et ideo, sicut Angelus per se non potest educere corpus humanum,

<!-- page 216 -->

ita nec corpus alicuius animalis; et sicut natura quaedam potest faciliter, quaedam cum maiore difficultate, ut prius visum est; sic et Angelus ipsius virtute adiutus.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod potest in *magis nobile*; dicendum, quod illud non habet semper veritatem, quia homo potest generare hominem, qui est nobilior, et non potest generare asinum; maxime autem tunc deficit, quando et[^16] res nobilior est facilioris productionis, sicut frequenter contingit. Et sic in proposito; nam facilius educitur anima vegetabilis vel sensibilis animalis per putrefactionem educti, quam educatur et organizetur verum corpus hominis.

english:
### Article II.
### *On the formation of the body assumed.*

Consequently the second article is taken up, namely, the formation of the body assumed. Concerning which two things are asked:

First, it is asked about the assumed body itself with regard to its formal principle.

Second, with regard to its material principle.

<!-- page 214 -->

### Question I.
### *Whether the body assumed has the true form of a human body.*

It is asked, then, first, whether that body has the true form of a human body. And that it does, it seems:

1. Because, since it appears to be a human body, either it is true, or there is error and deception in it; but error and deception do not befit the holy Angels: therefore when they assume bodies which appear to be human, they truly have a human form.

2. Likewise, for a human body nothing more is required than an equal complexion and proper organization, as the natural philosophers say; but the body which an Angel assumes has the proper organization: if then organization presupposes complexion, it seems that it has the whole of what belongs to the truth of a human body.

3. Likewise, that an Angel can truly form a human body, it seems. «The human body, as Augustine says[^1], is in the seminal reasons, as are other bodies»; but because the forms of certain animals — such as serpents and the like — have their seminal reasons dispersed throughout things, Augustine therefore says «that by the ministry of demons they are truly brought forth»: therefore by parity of reasoning, as it seems, also the bodies of men. And if you say that this does not hold, because a greater disposition is required for producing a human body — this does not solve it, because what can dispose from afar at the beginning of an operation, by continuing the action, since the distance is not infinite, will be able to come to immediate disposition: therefore if Angels can by swift operation produce the bodies of less perfect animals, then by parity of reasoning also the bodies of more perfect animals: therefore also a human body.

4. Likewise, if some agent is indifferently disposed to producing various things, by the same reasoning by which it can produce the one, it can produce the other; but Angels do not have greater fittingness with[^2] the bodies of serpents than with the bodies of men — rather the contrary: therefore if they can with the aid of nature produce true bodies of serpents, they can with the aid of nature produce true bodies of men, and therefore also assume them.

5. Likewise, what can do the greater can do the lesser; «but the soul, however small its nobility, exceeds the nobility of any body whatsoever», as is said in book VIII of *On the City of God*[^3] and in many other passages: therefore since by the ministry of Angels the vegetable and sensitive souls of certain animals can be and are brought forth, much more can they produce true human bodies.

*On the opposite side* — *Fundamenta*: 1. To form a body and to inform it belongs to the same created power, because the formative power proceeds from the informative or perfective[^4]; but no angelic spirit can perfect a human body: therefore neither can it form one.

2. Likewise, Angels can do nothing concerning creatures except by the aid of nature; but no nature can generate a human body except one which is similar in species[^5]: therefore an Angel cannot form a true human body except through the mediation of a man. But a man cannot bring forth a human body except by generation: therefore neither can an Angel form true human bodies except by the generation of a man. But when they assume bodies, they do not need human aid: therefore they never assume true human bodies.

3. Likewise, if they can form a body anew, then by parity of reasoning they can also repair a corrupted one: therefore they can raise the dead, which is proper to God alone.

4. Likewise, if bodies assumed by Angels were true human bodies, they would have an appetite for a rational soul; but God fulfills the appetite of nature: therefore a rational soul would immediately be infused into them.

5. Likewise, if they were to assume true human bodies, this would be either according to the state of *glory* or according to the state of *the way*. Not according to the state of *glory*: this is clear, because then that body would no longer be corruptible nor separable from the Angel. If therefore they do assume them, this is according to the state of *the way*; but human bodies according to the state of the way are heavy and weighty, whether in the state of corrupted nature or in the state of innocence: therefore they would not be fit for motion nor for swift ministry: therefore, if they do not assume bodies except for ministry, then they do not assume true human bodies.

### Conclusion.

> Bodies assumed by Angels do not have the true form and complexion of human bodies, nor complete organization.

**I respond:** It must be said that — *Conclusion.* — bodies assumed by Angels do not have the true form and complexion of human bodies, nor even complete organization, but only an outward appearance.

*The reason is twofold.* And the reason for this is twofold: one, that such a body does not befit Angels for ministry, as has just now

<!-- page 215 -->

been shown in the last place; the other reason is that an Angel cannot bring forth a natural form into being unless aided by the power of nature, as was held in the preceding distinction[^6]. *The threefold mode of producing bodies.* Now within the power of nature lies the production of the bodies of all animals, yet in differing ways. For the bringing-forth of some, the universal cause suffices without the aid of a particular agent similar in species in nature — such are the animals which are generated by putrefaction[^7]. There are others, however, for which it does not suffice unless it is aided by an agent of similar species, such as the bodies of animals which are produced only by propagation; and this is plain to the senses.

*First reason.* If the reason for this be asked: the first is the divine institution, according to which there is a limitation in the powers and natures of things; and this according to the law which He laid upon them from the beginning. Hence as He said[^8]: *Let the earth bring forth the green herb*, He did not say that it should bring forth man; but to man He said that he should multiply himself. So the earth brings forth the herb, and man generates man. — *Second reason. Twofold imperfection of certain animals.* This law or institution is not without reason, because some animals are *imperfect* both in *organization* and in *duration*, while others are *perfect* in both modes. Because some bodies of animals are imperfect both in organization and in complexion, they did not need an agent of such great power, but their productive power could be given to the earth as a mother and to the sun as a father[^9], with the aid of other simple bodies, both elementary and celestial. And because they are imperfect in duration and at times perish, it was fitting that this be communicated to an agent of another nature; for to this end the generative power was given to things, as the Philosopher says[^10], «that they might be perpetuated in being». — *Animals perfect in both modes.* The contrary holds of animals perfect in both modes; and so their productive power requires a greater actuality, and the seminal reason is brought forth into act with greater difficulty; therefore it needs greater aid. — *Corollary.* Those animals, therefore, or their bodies, which belong to the first kind, can be brought forth by Angels — with the aid of nature mediating — *swiftly* and as it were suddenly, yet *truly*, because by the power of nature. But the animals and their bodies which belong to the second kind cannot be brought forth *truly* except with the aid of nature and with length of time[^11]. And since the assumption of bodies by Angels is *swift* and as it were sudden, therefore they do not assume true human bodies, because they cannot form them by themselves *truly*; and with the aid of another they cannot bring it about that those bodies come into being *swiftly*. — *Further reasons.* And granted that they were brought forth, still they would not be fitting, as has been touched on in the objections, both on account of the *appetite* they would have for a rational soul and on account of *heaviness*; which two things are repugnant to the end of that body. For if it had a rational soul, it would not be a suitable *sign* for appearance; if it had heaviness, it would not be a suitable *instrument* for operating, especially for motion; nor would it be a suitable *dwelling* for inhabiting. — Therefore the arguments must be conceded which prove that Angels do not assume true human bodies, whether good or evil.

*Solution of the opposed arguments.* 1. To that which is objected to the contrary, that there is error and deception there: it must be said that this is false, because they do not assume those bodies in order to show themselves to be men and true *men*, but in order to show themselves to be *rational*; and since those bodies signify them to be rational, and were finally formed for this end, therefore they are true, although they are not *truly human* — just as was said in the first book[^12] concerning fire and the dove.

2. To that which is objected, that there is organization[^13] and equal complexion there: it must be said that this is false. For there is not truly the organization there which belongs to a human body — which indeed comes from the formative power conveyed in seeds — but rather a certain drawing of lineaments according to a likeness of that [body]; and this does not presuppose equality of complexion, because such a drawing can be made by a craftsman in wood and stone. Nor is just any quality of mixture that which makes for the truth of a human body, but rather that which has a specified power, completive and directive of man[^14].

*Seminal reasons.* 3. To that which is objected, that the human body is in the *seminal reasons*: the answer is already plain, because although it is there, it is never brought forth unless the power of an external agent concurs, which resides in the loins of the man and in the womb of the woman; and therefore without these the seminal reason can never be brought forth into perfect act. — And if one objects that it can dispose by *remote disposition*, etc.: it must be said that this holds where the remote disposition becomes a necessity[^15] by intensification alone; for then a continuation and intensification of active power suffices; but not when a new form, or the operation of another form according to species, is required; and so it stands in the case proposed.

4. To that which is objected, that the Angel is indifferently disposed to all animal bodies: it must be said that, even if this is true of the Angel in himself, it is not true of the power of nature by whose aid the Angel operates. And therefore, just as the Angel by himself cannot bring forth a human body,

<!-- page 216 -->

so neither the body of any animal; and just as some nature can do this easily and another with greater difficulty, as was seen before, so also the Angel aided by its power.

5. To that which is objected, that it can [extend] to what is *more noble*: it must be said that this does not always hold true, because a man can generate a man — who is more noble — and cannot generate a donkey; and it fails most of all when[^16] the more noble thing is of easier production, as frequently happens. And so it is in the case proposed; for the vegetable or sensitive soul of an animal is more easily brought forth from a thing brought into being by putrefaction than the true body of a man is brought forth and organized.

la: Libr. VI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 6. n. 10. et c. 15. n. 26. seqq. Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XVIII. c. 5. seq. — Sequens textus est III. de Trin. c. 8. et 9, ex quibus Magister supra d. VII. c. 6. seqq. plura allegavit.

en: Book VI of *On Genesis according to the Letter*, c. 6, n. 10 and c. 15, n. 26 ff. Cf. below in the Master's text, d. XVIII, c. 5 f. — The following passage is from Book III of *On the Trinity*, cc. 8 and 9, from which the Master above at d. VII, c. 6 ff. cited several things.

la: Vat. hic et paulo post cum.

en: The Vatican edition reads *cum* here and a little later.

la: Cap. 15; et IX. c. 9; de Immort. animae, c. 8. n. 13. seqq.; de Duabus animabus contra Manich. c. 4. n. 4; Enarrat. in Ps. 145. n. 4.

en: Chapter 15; and Book IX, c. 9; *On the Immortality of the Soul*, c. 8, n. 13 ff.; *On the Two Souls Against the Manichees*, c. 4, n. 4; *Enarrations on the Psalms*, on Ps. 145, n. 4.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 36. (c. 4.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 36 (c. 4).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 15, nota 11. et pag. 201, nota 8.

en: Cf. above p. 15, note 11, and p. 201, note 8.

la: Part. II. a. 2. q. 2.

en: [The preceding distinction, i.e. d. VII,] Part II, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Sive in generatione aequivoca. Cfr. supra pag. 198, nota 3.

en: That is, in equivocal generation. Cf. above p. 198, note 3.

la: Gen. 1, 11. — De homine cfr. ibid. v. 28.

en: Gen. 1:11. — On man cf. ibid. v. 28.

la: Cfr. infra d. 14. p. II. dub. 2.

en: Cf. below d. 14, p. II, dub. 2.

la: Libr. II. de Anima, text. 34. seq. (c. 4.). Cfr. II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 39. (c. 10.).

en: Book II of *On the Soul*, text 34 f. (c. 4). Cf. Book II of *On Generation and Corruption*, text 39 (c. 10).

la: Cod. cc et ed. I cum diuturnitate temporis.

en: Codex cc and edition I read *cum diuturnitate temporis*.

la: Dist. 16. q. 3. ad 3. — Paulo superius codd. T W ostendunt pro significant.

en: [I Sent.,] d. 16, q. 3, ad 3. — A little above, codd. T and W read *ostendunt* in place of *significant*.

la: Codd. C aa cc et ed. 1 vera organizatio.

en: Codices C, aa, cc, and edition 1 read *vera organizatio*.

la: Vat. distinctivam, quae etiam substituit veritatem pro virtutem. Cod. T omittit et directivam, posito cum aliquibus aliis mss. specificam pro specificatam.

en: The Vatican edition reads *distinctivam*, and also substitutes *veritatem* for *virtutem*. Codex T omits *et directivam*, putting with some other manuscripts *specificam* in place of *specificatam*.

la: Vat. necessaria. De dispositione necessitatis cfr. d. 9. q. 5.

en: The Vatican edition reads *necessaria*. On the disposition of necessity cf. d. 9, q. 5.

la: Vat. cum paucis codd. omittit et i. e. etiam. Paulo inferius Vat. sive sensibilis anima pro vel sensibilis animalis.

en: The Vatican edition with a few codices omits *et* (i.e. *etiam*). A little below the Vatican edition reads *sive sensibilis anima* in place of *vel sensibilis animalis*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quod quaedam imperfecta animalia generari possint «per putrefactionem», sine concursu agentis *eiusdem speciei*, antiqui Scholastici Aristoteli hoc affirmanti communiter concedebant. Hoc omnino falsum esse respectu eorum animalium, quae pro exemplo allegari solebant, scil. serpentes, ranae, muscae, nunc exploratum est. Immo nostra aetate iuxta pervestigationes principalium rerum naturae inquisitorum certum esse videtur, *nullam* rem organicam in praesenti rerum ordine per generationem *aequivocam* produci. Generationis aequivocae definitio legitur I. Sent. d. 37. p. I. dub. 5; de generatione in genere ibid. d. 9. a. 1. q. 1. et d. 13. dub. 8; de generatione in creaturis plura vide hic a. 3. q. 1; d. 18. a. 1. q. 2. 3, a. 2. q. 3; d. 30. a. 3. q. 1. — Sed quoad generationem aequivocam observandum est, Scholasticos illam minime ita intelligere, ut faveant erroribus plurium, qui nostra aetate, foedo materialismo adhaerentes, fingunt quandam evolutionis legem, qua omnes res vegetabiles et animales ex rebus anorganicis virtute virium chimicarum et physicarum, ascendendo ab imperfectis ad semper perfectiora, ortum habuerint. Nam antiqui illi unanimiter docuerunt, praeter vires illas anorganicarum rerum aliam quandam virtutem, in creatione elementis divinitus inditam, ad producenda omnia viva omnino requiri; de quo vide S. Bonaventuram (hic in corp. et infra d. 13. a. 1. q. 1.) et S. Thomam (S. I. q. 71. a. 1.). — Plura in hac quaestione explicata sunt supra d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 34. m. 5. 6. — S. Thom., de hac et seq. q. hic q. unica, a. 3; S. I. q. 51. a. 2. ad 2; S. c. Gent. III. c. 90. — B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. p. I. tr. 18. q. 75. m. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 2. dub. lat. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That certain imperfect animals can be generated «by putrefaction», without the concurrence of an agent *of the same species*, the early Scholastics — with Aristotle affirming the same — commonly conceded. That this is altogether false with respect to those animals which used to be alleged as examples — namely serpents, frogs, flies — is now established. Indeed in our own age, on the basis of the investigations of the leading inquirers into natural things, it seems certain that *no* organic thing in the present order of things is produced by *equivocal* generation. The definition of equivocal generation is found at I Sent. d. 37, p. I, dub. 5; on generation in general at the same place d. 9, a. 1, q. 1 and d. 13, dub. 8; on generation in creatures see more here at a. 3, q. 1; d. 18, a. 1, q. 2, 3, a. 2, q. 3; d. 30, a. 3, q. 1. — But concerning equivocal generation it must be observed that the Scholastics by no means so understood it as to favor the errors of those many who, in our own age, clinging to a foul materialism, feign a certain law of evolution by which all vegetable and animal things would have arisen out of inorganic things by the power of chemical and physical forces, ascending from the imperfect to the ever more perfect. For those ancients unanimously taught that, besides those powers of inorganic things, another certain power, divinely placed in the elements at creation, is altogether required for producing all living things; on which see St. Bonaventure (here in the body of the article and below at d. 13, a. 1, q. 1) and St. Thomas (*Summa* I, q. 71, a. 1). — Further matters on this question have been explained above at d. 7, p. II, a. 2, q. 1.

**II.** Alex. of Hales, *Summa* Part II, q. 34, m. 5, 6. — St. Thomas, on this and the following question, here q. unica, a. 3; *Summa* I, q. 51, a. 2, ad 2; *Sum. contra Gentiles* III, c. 90. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3; *Summa* Part I, tr. 18, q. 75, m. 3. — Petrus of Tarentaise, here q. unica, a. 2, quaestiunc. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1, a. 2, dub. lat. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Session 53 (2026-05-20) — `d8-p1-a2-q1` Tier-2 (d.8 5/16; ART II Q.I).** *Utrum corpus assumtum habeat veram formam corporis humani.* Raw 15409–15585, **pp.213(mid-bot)–216(mid)** (PDF 235–238), ~1660 w Latin. Structure: short ART II opener (folded per Vol II convention: `ARTICULUS II.` + rubric *De formatione corporis assumti.* + *Consequenter quaeritur de secundo articulo... Circa quod duo quaeruntur: Primo quoad principium formale / Secundo quantum ad principium materiale*) + QUAESTIO I + 5 *videtur* (1 error/deceptio dilemma / 2 aequalis complexio + debita organizatio / 3 Augustinus *rationes seminales* + the *ministerio daemonum vere educuntur* serpens-analogy + Quodsi-tu-dicas continuation argument / 4 aliquid agens indifferenter + Angeli non habent maiorem convenientiam in corporibus serpentium / 5 quod-potest-in-maius-potest-in-minus + Aug. VIII de Civ. Dei *anima excellit nobilitatem corporis*) + **Ad oppositum / Fundamenta** 5 (1 eiusdem virtutis formare et informare + spiritus angelicus non potest perficere / 2 nulla natura nisi similis in specie + per generationem hominis / 3 si reparare ergo et mortuos suscitare / 4 appetitum ad animam rationalem + Deus complet appetitum naturae / 5 statum gloriae vs viae dilemma + ponderosa et gravia) + Conclusio blockquote (*Corpora ab Angelis assumta non habent veram formam et complexionem corporum humanorum nec completam organizationem*) + **Respondeo** built on the *ratio duplex* (one: non competit Angelis ad ministerium; two: Angelus non potest educere formam naturalem in esse nisi adiutus a virtute naturae) + *triplex modus producendi corpora* (causa universalis sola per putrefactionem / consimilis-speciei propagation / E-contrario perfecta utroque modo) + *ratio prima* (divina institutio + Genesis 1,11 *Germinet terra herbam virentem* anchor) + *ratio secundaria* (duplex imperfectio: organizatio + duratio; *terra mater, sol pater* + Philosophus *ut perpetuentur in esse*) + *corollarium* (primum genus velociter veraciter / secundum genus only cum auxilio naturae et tempore; assumtio Angeli est velociter et repente; ergo non assumunt vera corpora humana) + *aliae rationes* (appetitum + gravitatem repugnant fini; triplex non-competens *signum/instrumentum/habitaculum*) + **Solutio oppositorum** 5 (1 ostendant non veros homines sed rationales + I Sent. d. 16. q. 3. ad 3. cross-ref + ignis-et-columba I Sent. cross-ref / 2 lineamentorum protractio in ligno et lapide + virtus specificata hominis completiva et directiva / 3 *rationes seminales* eductio requires virtus agentis exterioris in lumbis viri et in matrice mulieris; dispositio remota only via intensione / 4 etsi Angelus se habet indifferenter, virtus naturae non / 5 magis nobile dilemma + frequenter contingit res nobilior est facilioris productionis + putrefactio anima vegetabilis/sensibilis facilior quam corpus humanum) + editorial **SCHOLION I+II** on p.216 (I: putrefactio thesis + *modern materialist evolutionists* polemic + cross-ref roll [I Sent. d.37 p.I dub.5 / d.9 a.1 q.1 / d.13 dub.8 / hic a.3 q.1 / d.18 a.1 q.2-3 + a.2 q.3 / d.30 a.3 q.1] + S.Bonaventura + S.Thomas S.I q.71 a.1 anchors + cross-ref to d.7 p.II a.2 q.1; II: doctor cross-refs Alex.Hal. + S.Thom. + B.Albert. + Petr. a Tar. + Aegid. R.).

Full 450 dpi colcrop discipline (p.213 cached from s52; p.214/215/216 freshly extracted + cropped split_x=1800 to capture full L-col bleed). **16-entry apparatus**: **p.214 footer L¹ + L² + R³ + R⁴ + R⁵ → [^1]–[^5]** (Libr. VI de Gen. ad lit. + de Trin. III cross-anchor / Vat. *cum* var. / Aug. de Civ. Dei VIII c.15 + IX c.9 + Immort. an. + Duab. an. + Enarr. Ps. 145 / Aristot. II de Anima text. 36 c.4 / *praecedenti distinctione* p.15 + p.201 cross-ref); **p.215 footer L¹–⁶ + R⁷–¹⁰ → [^6]–[^15]** (d.7 p.II a.2 q.2 cross-ref / generatione aequivoca + p.198 nota 3 / Gen. 1,11 + v.28 / *codd terrae matri soli patri* + d.14 p.II dub.2 / Aristot. II de Anima text. 34 + de Gener. text. 39 / *cum diuturnitate temporis* codd cc + ed.I var. / I Sent. d.16 q.3 ad 3 + codd. T W *ostendunt* pro *significant* var. / *vera organizatio* codd C aa cc ed.1 var. / Vat. *distinctivam* + *veritatem* pro *virtutem* + cod. T omittit *et directivam* + *specificam* pro *specificatam* var. / Vat. *necessaria* + d.9 q.5 dispositio-necessitatis cross-ref); **p.216 footer ¹ → [^16]** (Vat. omittit *et* + *sive sensibilis anima* var.).

**Incoming q2 → q1 split at p.213 RECEIVED CLEAN, no backfill** (s52 verified): the p.213 footer ¹–² (`Id est: exsequitur` gloss on ad-rat 4 + `Vat. cum nonnullis codd. moveat` variant on the *moveatur* epilogue) both anchored in q2's body and were taken as q2's [^5]–[^6]; the ART II opener on p.213 R-col carries no footnote. Two stray fragmentary skeleton lines (`I Id est: exsequilur.` + `^ Val. cum nonntiliis codd. moveal.` at auto-chunker line 32) that leaked here are deleted in the rebuild — they belong to s52's d8-p1-a1-q2.

**Outgoing q1 → q2 split at p.216 DOCUMENTED CLEAN**: SCHOLION II closes at p.216 L-col line ~25 with `Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 2. dub. lat. 1.`; the QUAESTIO II opener (`Utrum corpora ab Angelis assumta fiant de natura caelesti, an elementari`) starts immediately after on p.216 L-col with its own *Ad oppositum* fundamenta — this chunk takes only p.216 footer ¹ (the *et*-omission/*sive sensibilis anima* variant anchoring at solutio-5 *et* on L-0); p.216 footer ² (the Dionys. *ut caelum* anchor on Q.II videtur 3) and all subsequent p.216/p.217 entries belong to the next chunk `bon-sent-II-d8-p1-a2-q2`.

**Marginal labels preserved inline** per Vol II convention (cf. s47 a2-q3, s51 a1-q1): *Ad oppositum / Fundamenta*, *Conclusio*, *Ratio duplex*, *Triplex modus producendi corpora*, *Ratio prima*, *Ratio secundaria. Duplex imperfectio quorundam animalium*, *Animalia perfecta utroque modo*, *Corollarium*, *Aliae rationes*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Rationes seminales* — all editorial-margin glosses woven into the body in italics at their printed-margin anchors.

**OCR garbles cleaned silently**: form.atione→formatione; quontum→quoad; nuUus→nullus; corpora aninia-lium→corpora animalium; quod-am→quoddam; assurnit→assumit; videtur^→videtur; humani^→humani; lior^→nobilior; corporis^→corporis; iisseminalibus→in rationibus seminalibus; spiritus angelicus potest→spiritus angelicus *non* potest (the `non` is in the PDF and required by sense, OCR drops it); huniano→humano; quoniara→quoniam; appa-rendum→apparendum; videtur quod habeat (videtur² OCR-superscript dropped); 13,→[end-of-line] dropped; impeifocta→imperfecta; vegetalibles→vegetabiles; aequalitatera→aequalitatem; conlemplativam→contemplativam; protractio potest fleri→fieri; substantiara→substantiam; tactum est in obiiciendo→tactum est in obiiciendo (OK); rabihora→ratiora (skipped); foodo→foedo; chimicarum→chimicarum (OK Quaracchi); nimc→nunc; ai→a; b.→5. (Quaracchi-style numbered solutio markers OCR-rendered as `0./b./G./k./h./o.` are corrected silently to 5./5./5./5./5./5. per Vol II Override note 5); `appariionera`→apparendum; `riatLiraleni`→naturalem; `\b\`→ibi.

**`[?]` flags: 0** — all 16 superscripts + 16 apparatus entries verified column-by-column on 450 dpi crops (p.213-R-2 for the ART II opener clean / p.214-L-0/L-1/L-2 + R-0/R-1/R-2 for QUAESTIO I title + 5 videtur + 5 ad opp + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo opener + p.214 footer L¹-² R³-⁵ / p.215-L-0/L-1/L-2 + R-0/R-1/R-2 for Respondeo continuation + Solutio 1-4 + p.215 footer L¹-⁶ R⁷-¹⁰ / p.216-L-0/L-1 + R-0 for Solutio 4-5 + SCHOLION I+II + p.216 footer ¹). Marker-pairing La==En exact 1–16.

**Cost profile:** medium-heavy — 1660 w Latin, 5+5 numbered-arg structure, full duplex-ratio + triplex-modus + duplex-perfectio + triplex-non-competens (signum/instrumentum/habitaculum) Respondeo cascade, 5-block Solutio, 2-paragraph SCHOLION including the noteworthy *modern materialist evolutionists* editorial polemic which is one of the clearest 19th-century Quaracchi-editor interpolations of contemporary anti-Darwinian context into the medieval text. Comparable to s51 q1 (1725w / 15-entry); heavier than s52 q2 (1472w / 6-entry).

Build clean (expected 877 q / **510 tr**, +1 from s52); 3 audits = expected single-promotion signature (paraphrase d.8 critical 0 / HIGH 11 — `d8-p1-a2-q1` no longer flagged; headers d.8 ART 3/3 QUAEST 5/3 — gap narrowing further; apparatus-count `d8-p1-a2-q1` no flag — off skeleton list, joins d8-littera + p1-divisio + a1-q1 + a1-q2). **DISTINCTION 8 NOW 5/16, ART II Q.I CLOSED**: littera + p1-divisio + p1 ART I 2/2 + p1 ART II 1/2 complete. Pending = p1 ART II Q.II + p1 ART III 2/2 + p1-dubia + p2-divisio + p2 ART I 6/6.

**NEXT: `d8-p1-a2-q2` Tier-2** — *Utrum corpora ab Angelis assumta fiant de natura caelesti, an elementari* (raw 15586+, opens mid-p.216 L-col immediately after SCHOLION II of q1 with `QUAESTIO II.` + title + *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:* + 4 *videtur* visible on p.216 [1 finis-imponit-necessitatem + Angeli per naturam sint lumina ergo de natura lucis / 2 organum conformari moventi + corpus immutabilis et impassibilis per naturam ergo incorruptibile et impassibile ergo caeleste / 3 locus competens Angelo est caelum + locatur tanquam in habitaculo / 4 corpus assumtum aut de natura caelesti aut elementari (the materialist disjunction)]); likely runs across p.216 + p.217. Extract p.217 next.

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