title: Scholion

title_alt: Scholion Scholion

source_text:
<!-- page 450 -->

### SCHOLION

Opusculum hoc ultimum S. Doctoris hucusque fere neglectum est. Ratio principalis fuit corruptio textus imperfecte ex ore dicentis excepti et ex parte mutati, ac postea inordinate atque incomposite in praecedentibus editionibus impressi. Unde opus videbatur esse quasi silva inculta, errorum spinis repleta ac pene inaccessibilis. Diligenti collatione codicum et improbo labore hoc, ni fallimur, assecuti sumus, ut legens has collationes, exceptis paucissimis locis, inoffenso pede possit percurrere et flores et fructus salubres ex copiosissima S. Doctoris doctrina colligere. Sed praeter profundarum sententiarum et utilium documentorum copiam alia etiam ratione idem opus attentione videtur nobis esse dignissimum. Auctor enim suis auditoribus in studiis theologicis Parisiis versantibus consulto aperit suam de perfecta res divinas tractandi et discendi ratione sententiam, eosque monet de defectibus et periculis in hoc studio cavendis, non sine quadam censura corruptionum, quae praecipue in studiis *artium*, ut tunc dicebatur, late serpere incipiebant. Hoc luculenter testantur noti illi 249 errores, plerumque horrendi et ab artistis traditi, qui iam an. 1277 a Stephano, Parisiensi episcopo, condemnati et correctissime denuo editi sunt a cl. P. Denifle Ord. Praed. in suo praeclaro Chartulario Universitatis Parisiensis pag. 543-555. Nec alienum est a veritate, si quis asserat, scholam vulgo dictam scholasticam a summo suo et admirabili fastigio non tam cito delapsuram fuisse, si sancti nostri Doctoris documenta in toto hoc opere tradita et in collat. 19. sub uno conspectu proposita non fuissent, non dico ab omnibus magistris, sed a plurimis neglecta. Quid igitur dicendum de nostra aetate, cum deploremus, et ipsas scientias et instituta scholarum fere ubique esse saecularizata, non raro penitus antichristiana et enormium errorum et tenebrarum perpetua propugnacula? Experiendo evidens habemus argumentum, quod spiritus humanus, reiecto Christo, magistro veritatis, servus fiat gravissimorum errorum, et quod, ubi non *vivificat Spiritus Domini, littera occidat*, et *scientia inflet* (II. Cor. 3, 6. et I. Cor. 8, 1.).

Cum autem immensa sententiarum copia, cum multis divisionibus et subdivisionibus, omissis multis docentis auctoris verbis, ab excipientibus librariis nobis tradita sit in forma nimis coarctata, ita ut mentem sua plenitudine quasi opprimat; non tam facile est legenti intimum rerum et verborum ordinem[^p450-1] et cohaerentiam, revera ad finem suum bene adaptatum mente perspicere, licet iam per adiecta a nobis summaria et notas marginales vias faciliores aperuerimus. Hinc non esse inopportunum visum est pauca dicere de rebus sententiisque hic traditis, et primo quidem de *proposito et fine* ab auctore intento; secundo de *ordine et processu* operis secundum partes principales, ita ut etiam sententiae magis notabiles et quaedam difficultates tangantur.

I. Finem et consilium suum auctor expressis verbis in principio et fine collationum dicit esse, ut auditores doctrinae studiis dediti « a sapientia mundana trahantur ad sapientiam christianam » (collat. 1. n. 9.); et loquens de Christo, ligno vitae, ait (23. n. 31.): « Ad hoc lignum vitae volui vos adducere »; quibus verbis simul cum fine suo indicat principale *medium*. Christo enim ut *ligno vitae* (1. n. 15. et 17.) et verae sapientiae doctori passim opponitur *lignum scientiae boni et mali* (Gen. 2, 9.), quod est figura scientiae profanae (cfr. 16. n. 22; 17. n. 27.). Ut autem haec sententia sincere intelligatur, haec notamus.

1. Communiter distinguitur scientia naturali via comparata a sapientia christiana, quae non comparatur nisi in schola Christi mediante lumine supernaturali tum fidei tum donorum Spiritus S. Illam auctor vocat *scientiam exteriorem* (17. n. 26. 27.), vel « notitiam rerum *in experientia* » (1. n. 17.), quae bona quidem est in se, immo quodam respectu necessaria; tamen valde inferior est quam sapientia christiana (1. n. 10. seqq.; 3. n. 2. seqq.; 6. n. 2-6; 7. n. 13. seqq.; 19. n. 3. 4. et passim). Illa est etiam insufficiens ad salutem (7. n. 5-12; 19. n. 7.), immo per accidens non raro est *occasio mortis* ut *littera occidens*, nec sine quodam periculo (1. n. 17; 6. n. 19; 17. n. 25; 19. n. 3. 4, et 18. n. 1, ubi referuntur verba Gregorii: « Qui ad hoc tantum laborat, ut sciat, quid et quomodo loquatur, interius vacuus manet ab interna devotione »). De talibus, qui nihil habent nisi « splendores scientiarum », apte dicitur (1. n. 8.): « Faciunt casas vesparum, quae non habent favum mellis, sicut apes, quae mellificant ». Haec distinctio et doctrina, cum manifeste doceatur in sacra Scriptura (cfr. Iac. 3, 17. et I. Cor. 13.) est extra controversiam et egregie inculcatur ab auctore aurei libelli *Imitatio Christi* I, 3. et III, 2. Cfr. infra de Dono scientiae.

<!-- page 451 -->
2. Quantum autem alienus sit S. Doctor ab opposito et erroneo extremo eorum qui penitus contemnunt studium scientiarum profanarum et in specie studium philosophicarum disciplinarum et improbant earundem applicationem ad res theologicas tradendas; satis ipse hoc opusculo demonstrat, cum toties easdem (sicut iam fecerat per totum suum Commentarium in Sententias) ad suum propositum adhibeat et disertis verbis dicat, convenire theologis eisdem uti tanquam spoliis ex Aegypto sibi vindicandis (cfr. 1. 11. seqq. et passim collationes 4-7; item 9. n. 23. seqq.; 17. n. 20. seqq.). Quod ipso facto et proprio exemplo docuit, hoc secundum sana principia ita exponit (I. Sent. Prooem q. 2. in corp.), loquens de modo theologiam ad promotionem fidei tractandi: « Modus enim *ratiocinativus* sive inquisitivus valet primo ad confundendum adversarios... ad fovendum infirmos... ad delectandum perfectos ». Ibid. ad 5. de relatione inter fidem et scientiam theologicam dicitur: « Fides elevat ad assentiendum, scientia et intellectus elevant ad ea quae credita sunt intelligenda ». Commendat igitur seraphicus Doctor theologis sanum usum philosophiae et aliarum scientiarum non sacrarum; sed in usurpandis et adhibendis eisdem tria docet esse cavenda: *primo*, ut non derogetur *charismatibus melioribus* (I. Cor. 12, 31.), praecipue fini ultimo theologiae, qui non est, ut, contenti abstracta divinarum rerum notitia, in sola scientia acquirenda quasi pedem figamus (cfr. 5. n. 33; 6. n. 19; 17. n. 27; 19. n. 3. 4; 20. n. 2.), sed potius, ut « boni flamus » sive ut « extendatur intellectus ad *affectum* ». Tunc enim intellectus « perficitur ab habitu medio inter pure speculativum et practicum, qui complectitur utrumque; et hic habitus dicitur *sapientia*, quae simul dicit cognitionem et affectum... Unde hic est contemplationis gratia, et ut boni flamus, principaliter tamen ut boni flamus » (I. Sent. Prooem. q. 3. et cfr. scholion). — *Secundo* cavendus est excessus in mensura huius usus. « Non igitur tantum miscendum est de aqua philosophiae in vinum sacrae Scripturae, quod de vino fiat aqua; hoc pessimum miraculum esset; et legimus, quod Christus de aqua fecit vinum, non e converso » (19. n. 14.). Et 19. n. 12. monetur: « Non nimis commendent magistri dicta philosophorum » etc. — *Tertio* cavendum, ne quis ignoret vel parum intelligat periculum, quod incautae animae afferre potest *arbor scientiae boni et mali*, de quo graviter loquitur auctor 17. n. 26; 18. n. 3; 19. n. 10-15.

3. Haec principia sana esse et media quadam inter extrema via incedere, nemo, qui vera fide illuminatus est, in dubium vocare poterit. Cum officium gravissimum theologi sit tueri veritatem fidei contra falsas eiusdem interpretationes et defendere contra quasi infinitas obiectiones, quas ex omnibus scientiis petunt et inani labore accumulant Iudaei, haeretici et increduli; absurdum esset interdicere usum armorum ex eisdem scientiis in favorem fidei adhibitorum, praesertim cum hoc studium cedat tum in exaltationem fidei tum triplici modo in favorem fidelium, ut supra verbis S. Doctoris diximus. Ex altera parte non facile aliquis contenderit, nihil aliud spectare ad partes theologi nisi munus apologeticum et bellum contra errores. Laboremus strenue, defendentes fidei thesaurum et terrestrem Ierusalem, matrem nostram, sinistra manu gladium portantes contra hostes (II. Esdr. 4, 17.) et veritatem explanantes in favorem *errantium*; sed simul etiam quasi manum dexteram adhibeamus in *aedificanda civitate Dei*, ita ut etiam *fideles* ius suum habeant, ipsisque via paretur ad gustandam divinam veritatem et eam acquirendam sapientiam, quam Paulus, ut ipse testatur (I. Cor. 2, 6.), loquebatur *inter perfectos, sapientiam vero non huius saeculi*.

4. Quod autem in hac parte, quae verae sapientiae christianae fovendae et divinae maiestati glorificandae intendit, S. Bonaventura praecipuo quodam charismate a Deo exornatus sit, manifestissime comprobatur ipsius operibus et summorum virorum testimoniis confirmatur (cfr. Bened. Bonelli, Prodromus ad opera omnia S. Bonav. lib. II. col. 84-147.). Unum audiamus testem S. Antoninum, magnum Ordinis Praedicatorum decus (Chronic. p. III. tit. 24. c. 4.): « Bonaventura, sicut in luminibus scientiarum et maxime in Scripturis sanctis videbatur mira capacitate proficere, ita in devotionis gratia continuum sumebat gratiae incrementum. Siquidem omnem veritatem, quam percipiebat intellectu, ad formam orationis et laudationis divinae reducens, continuo ruminabat affectu... Intellectus eius perspicacitatem omnia opuscula eius redolent iis, qui divinam scientiam requirentes, hanc libentius quam vanitatem Aristotelicam venerantur ».

5. Haec sapientia christiana sola industria hominis naturali minime comparari potest (22. n. 24. seqq.). Supponit enim non tantum fidem, quae est « omnium supernaturalium illuminationum, quamdiu *peregrinamur a Domino*, et *fundamentum* stabiliens et *lucerna* dirigens et *ianua* introducens » (Breviloq. Prolog. in princ.), sed etiam statum gratiae cum donis Spiritus S. Immo S. Bonav. docet (19. n. 3.): « Non est securus transitus a *scientia* ad *sapientiam*; oportet ergo medium ponere, scilicet *sanctitatem*. Transitus autem est exercitium: exercitatio a studio scientiae ad studium sanctitatis, et a studio sanctitatis ad studium sapientiae » etc.; quod diffusius exponitur ibid. n. 20. seqq. — Insuper requirit *contemplationem*. Anima, « quae non habet contemplationis gratiam, est sicut firmamentum sine luminaribus, sed quae habet est firmamentum ornatum luminibus. Et sicut differt caelum non habens haec luminaria a caelo habente, sic anima non habens ab anima disposita ad hoc; unde differt sicut Angelus a bestia. Bestialis est homo carens his et habens faciem inclinatam ad terram sicut animal; sed plenus luminibus est totus angelicus » (20. n. 2.). De hoc contemplationis lumine cfr. II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3. in fine corp. et ad 5; de dispositione ad eam Itiner. mentis in Deum, Prologus et c. 1, et infra Collat. de Donis Spiritus S. — Licet autem fides ut virtus theologica dignitate antecedat dona Spiritus S., quatenus considerantur praecise secundum se, ut docet etiam S. Thomas (S. I. II. q. 68. a. 1; II. II. q. 4. a. 8.); tamen idem asserit, quod donum *intellectus* fidei adiicit « quoddam lumen superadditum ad ea quae nobis supernaturaliter innotescunt » (S. II. II. q. 8. a. 1. ad 2.), quia « nominat quandam excellentiam cognitionis penetrantis ad intima » (ibid. ad 3.). Non quod dona Spiritus S. per se dicant quandam novam revelationem, ita ut obiectis fidei revelatis aliquid adiiciant; sed hoc tantum sensu S. Bonav. lumen contemplationis commendat, quod res, quae fidei innotescunt, quadam superna illustratione magis et intelligantur et gustentur. Lumen enim hoc contemplationis omnino supponit fidem, cuius notitia aliqua ratione quasi extenditur donis Spiritus S.; haec autem inseparabilia sunt a statu gratiae et caritatis.

6. Compendiose et modo ad usum vitae accommodato S. Doctor explanat sententiam suam de via ac ratione assequendi perfectam rerum divinarum cognitionem in tota collatione 19, quae quasi clavem praebet totius opusculi. Primo ibi agitur de quatuor conditionibus in modo studendi requisitis, tum de sanctitate tanquam immediata dispositione ad sapientiam, nec non de ipsa sapientia, quatenus est fructus scientiae et sanctitatis. — Sed transeamus ad singulas partes recensendas.

II. Primae tres collationes per modum introductionis primo agunt de tribus dispositionibus, quae in auditoribus verbi Dei requiruntur, ne lucis radiis potius excaecentur, quam illuminentur (1. n. 1-9.); deinde quasi fundamentum ponit Christum totius sapientiae principalem magistrum, qui declaratur esse modo eminenti *medium* septem scientiarum (ibid. 10-39.). Cum autem finis et fructus harum collationum sit, ut auditores « adimpleantur spiritu sapientiae et intellectus »; in collat. 2. et 3. agitur de his duobus donis Spiritus S., ita tamen, ut auctor se referat supplendo ad ea quae antea de his dixerat in Collationibus de septem donis, quae in nostra editione immediate sequuntur. Specialem attentionem merentur tum descriptio *formae* sapientiae, quod scilicet sit *uniformis, multiformis, omniformis, nulliformis* (2. n. 8-33.), tum reductio doctrinarum moralium et scientialium ad Verbum increatum, incarnatum et inspiratum tanquam ad *clavem* contemplationis (3. n. 2. seqq.), tum brevis et luculenta solutio principalium difficultatum contra theoriam creationis allatarum (3. n. 4-9.), tum praeclara laus praerogativarum Verbi incarnati, quod solum est *lignum vitae* (3. n. 12-21.). — Denique ipsum *argumentum* harum collationum proponitur et breviter explicatur, videlicet sex sive septem distinctae visiones, quas per quandam Scripturae applicationem coaptat sex diebus creationis cum septima die quietis, quae Gen. c. 1. enumerantur. Attamen non sunt expositae nisi quatuor visiones propter auctoris promotionem et discessum a Parisiis.

<!-- page 452 -->
III. Incipit tractatio argumenti ab expositione primae visionis (collat. 4-7.), quae est intelligentiae *per naturam inditae*, ubi agitur de scientiis naturalis ordinis, prout illa aetate tradi consueverunt. Quodsi haec de profanis scientiis documenta S. Doctoris suo tempore fuerunt opportuna et salutaria, eo fortius hoc valet nostra aetate, cum pleraeque in mundo cathedrae scientiarum subserviant potius errori quam Christo. Tot enim scholarum rectores respuunt *lignum vitae*, manducantes de *lignis scientiae boni et mali*. Unde videmus et deploramus, ingenia quam plurima per profanam *huius saeculi sapientiam* (I. Cor. 2, 6.) ita mente esse *excaecata, ut non fulgeat illis illuminatio Evangelii gloriae Christi, qui est imago Dei* (II. Cor. 4. 4.); potius tot populi magistri quoad suprema principia religiosa, moralia et etiam socialia in densiores quam praestantiores philosophi pagani tenebras inciderunt.

1. Dicit igitur auctor: « Philosophi dederunt novem scientias et promiserunt dare decimam, scilicet contemplationem. Sed multi philosophi, dum se voluerunt dividere a tenebris erroris, magnis erroribus se insinuaverunt » (4. n. 1.). Facta igitur harum novem scientiarum divisione et descriptione, simul cum elencho principalium errorum et brevi expositione modi, quo theologus eis uti possit (4. n. 2-25; 5. n. 1-22.); transitur (5. n. 23-33.) ad illam decimam scientiam a quibusdam philosophis *promissam*, quam vocabant *sapientiam* sive *contemplationem* sive *intellectum adeptum*. Haec autem versatur circa tria obiecta, dum « anima convertat se primo super *se*, secundo super *Intelligentias spirituales*, tertio super *rationes aeternas* » (ibid. n. 23.). Circa hanc contemplationem observandum est, quod similiter tria illa obiecta (adiuncta tamen Ecclesia militante), ast ordine inverso infra in quarta visione (collat. 20-23; vide 20. n. 3.) contemplanda proponuntur *intelligentiae per contemplationem suspensae*, scilicet per fidem et dona Spiritus S. elevatae. Si quis utramque contemplationem, id est *naturalem* et proprie *christianam*, confert; videbit immensam utriusque differentiam quoad excellentiam et modum contemplandi.

2. Subinde observanda est *ultima ratio* ab auctore assignata, quare etiam inter philosophos, ut inter Angelos, facta sit divisio lucis a tenebris, quae praefigurata est per illam quam Deus fecit prima die creationis (Gen. 1, 4.). Hanc rationem dicit esse defectum in hac *decima* scientia, et praecise circa *rationes vel ideas aeternas*. « Unde, inquit, aliqui tenebras secuti sunt? Ex hoc, quod licet omnes viderint primam causam omnium *principium*, omnium *finem*; in *medio* tamen [scilicet in ratione exemplari] diversificati sunt. Nam aliqui negaverunt, in ipso esse exemplaria rerum, quorum princeps fuisse videtur Aristoteles, qui et in principio Metaphysicae et in fine et in multis aliis locis exsecratur ideas Platonis » (6. n. 2.). Ex hoc defectu et errore fluxisse docet alios graves errores cum triplici caecitate, nempe circa aeternitatem mundi, unitatem intellectus (ita Averroes) et negationem gloriae et poenae post hanc vitam (6. n. 3. 4.). Inferius tamen (7. n. 2.) afferuntur rationes ab aliis probatae, quibus Aristoteles aliquo modo excusari possit.

3. Contra istos philosophos asserit, quod « illa lux aeterna est *exemplar omnium*, et quod mens elevata, ut mens aliorum nobilium philosophorum antiquorum, ad hoc pervenit » (6. n. 6.). Insistit igitur seraphicus Doctor vestigiis illuminatissimi Augustini (83 Quaestion. q. 46. n. 1.) docentis: « Siquidem tanta in eis [divinis ideis] vis constituitur, ut, nisi his intellectis, sapiens esse nemo possit ». Hinc est, quod S. Doctor in omnibus operibus suis, et praecipue in Breviloquio, Itinerario mentis in Deum et in his Collationibus summo studio incumbit contemplandis illis rationibus et reducendis omnibus rebus, virtutibus et veritatibus ad Deum. Ipsam autem *doctrinam* de ideis diligentissime tractavit et excoluit, praecipue I. Sent. d. 35. et 39; Quaestion. disp. de scientia Christi q. 1-4; Breviloq. p. I. c. 8; Itinerar. m. in Deum c. 1-3; eandem rem hic exponit integra collatione 12. Insuper cfr. 1. n. 13; 2. n. 9. 10. (ubi inter alia dicit, quod regulae infallibiles mentis humanae « radicantur in luce aeterna et ducunt in eam, sed non propter hoc ipsa videtur »); 4. n. 1. 9. et 16. Ad has rationes sive ad *virtutes exemplares* reducitur doctrina de *moribus* et speciatim de *virtutibus cardinalibus* (6. n. 6. seqq.: « Absurdum enim est, ut dicit Plotinus, quod exemplaria aliarum rerum sint in Deo, sed non exemplaria virtutum » ibid. n. 6.). Idem fit respectu *legum et decem praeceptorum* (21. n. 7-8.), et in ultima visione (collat. 22. et 23.), adhibita doctrina de appropriationibus divinis, ostendit, quomodo in hierarchiis Angelorum ac Beatorum, militantis Ecclesiae et animae hierarchizatae multipliciter resplendeat Deus unus et trinus. — Concludit hanc primam visionem (collat. 7.) demonstrando (ibid. n. 3-12.) defectus doctrinae moralis, qualis tradita est etiam ab illis « nobilibus » philosophis, qui virtutes *exemplares* cognoverunt; deinde mirifice exaltat revelatam de moribus doctrinam, cum sola fides lucem et tenebras dividere possit *sanans, rectificans, ordinans* (n. 13-20.).

4. Superius (6. n. 5.), postquam auctor reprobavit « errores pessimos », ex ignorantia rationum aeternarum exortos, addit: « Nec adhuc clausi sunt clave putei abyssales. Hae sunt tenebrae Aegypti; licet enim magna lux videretur in eis ex praecedentibus scientiis, tamen omnis exstinguitur per errores praedictos ». Loquitur de philosophis antiquis et suae aetatis. Sed post sex saecula maius malum deplorandum nobis est iisdem verbis: Nec adhuc clausi sunt clave putei abyssales; quantumcumque magna lux videatur esse in eis, omnis exstinguitur per tenebras errorum! Postquam enim invaluit ille subiectivismus, ut aiunt, quo philosophi ex proprio *ego*, quasi ex fonte et centro veritatis, tentarunt haurire et pro suo quisque arbitrio de novo fabricare vel saltem fulcire doctrinam veritatis; vix meliores inter tales assurgere potuerunt ad primam causam *efficientem*, ante et supra mundum existentem; causam vero primam *finalem* et multo magis *exemplarem* vel ignorant, vel praefracte respuunt. Hinc, neglecta suprema totius *esse, veri* et *boni* causa et ratione, orta est perpetua illa ab uno erroris extremo ad alterum oppositum circulatio; et tandem post incredibiles labores et conatus frustra tentatos nihil his remansit, nisi ut, desperantes de veritate assequenda, animum ad imaginem primae Veritatis factum demergant in paludem turpis scepticismi sive positivismi.

<!-- page 453 -->
IV. Secunda visio (collat. 8-12.), quae est intelligentiae *per fidem illustratae*, comparatur secundae creationis diei, quando *vocavit Deus firmamentum caelum* (Gen. 1, 8.). Exponitur primo (collat. 8.) duplex *altitudo* fidei (sive mysteria Trinitatis et incarnationis); secundo (collat. 9.) triplex *firmitas* fidei, quam auctor primo pro more suo reducit ad Trinitatem, et deinde ex parte humanorum testimoniorum ingeniose demonstrat. Tertio, celebratur *speciositas* fidei (collat. 10-12.); quae pars mira documenta continet ad theologiam speculativam illustrandam, praesertim circa *essentiam metaphysicam* Dei, cum omnia attributa Dei reducantur ad *esse* (10. n. 6. seqq.), ubi satis apparet verus sensus, saepe male intellecti capituli 5. Itinerarii mentis in Deum; et deinde circa *Trinitatem* ex duobus speculis consideratam (collat. 11.). Hic occurrit valde notabilis expositio duodecim generationum atque analogiae et differentiae inter has et aeternam Filii generationem. Ultima eiusdem visionis collatio (12.) tota est, ut iam diximus, in probando et magnificando divino omnium rerum exemplari.

V. 1. Tertiam visionem, quae est intelligentiae *per Scripturam eruditae* ac respondet tertiae diei creationis, S. Doctor pro suo singulari erga S. Scripturam amore ac studio diffusius quam ceteras tractat (collat. 13-20.), ita ut res in ea traditas consideret sub triplici respectu. Primo agit (collat. 13.) de *spiritualibus* ipsius *intelligentiis* secundum communem sensum SS. Patrum iam exhibitum in suo Breviloq. (Prolog. § 4.) et hic diffusius et quodam modo auctori proprio expositum. Multum quidem ipse occupatur in triplici sensu mystico exponendo, sed praerequirit, ut prius per assiduam lectionem *littera* textus commendetur memoriae, nec ubique vult esse quaerendam mysticam expositionem; nihil tamen vult in Scriptura esse contemnendum tanquam *inutile*, nihil respuendum tanquam *falsum*, nihil repudiandum tanquam *iniquum* (loc. cit. § 6. 5, et de sensu litterali hic n. 10. 11. 16. 17.). Observatione digna est *ratio*, quam affert (n. 12.), ut probet, post lapsum generis humani primo libro creaturarum alium librum a Deo convenienter adiungendum fuisse. Cum enim primi libri finis *principalis* fuerit, ut hominem per contemplationem reduceret in Deum, et idem « liber quasi emortuus et deletus esset; necessarius fuit *alius* liber, per quem *iste* illuminaretur, ut acciperet metaphoras rerum... Liber ergo Scripturae reparativus est totius mundi ad Deum cognoscendum, laudandum, amandum ». Quatuor alias speciales rationes afferuntur 14. n. 7-11. (cfr. II. Tim. 3, 16.). His additur specialissima ratio exposita in Breviloquio (Prolog. § 2. in fine) et hic passim supposita, quod scilicet sit data, ut pulcritudo ordinis et regiminis in decursu mundi, quae nisi ea *tota* videatur, perspici non possit, manifestetur nobis per « librum Scripturae, cuius longitudo commetitur se decursui regiminis universi ». — Cum hoc principio cohaeret assertio, quod in fine temporum magis manifestabitur *intelligentia* s. Scripturae, cuius plura mysteria nondum reserata sunt, praesertim quaedam prophetiae in Prophetis et in Apocalypsi contentae (cfr. 13. n. 7. 8; 16. n. 19; 20. n. 15.). Nam, ut pluries repetit, qui « ignorat haec tempora non potest venire ad mysterium Scripturarum » (15. n. 20.).

2. Secundo exponuntur *mysteria et figurae* Scripturae, quae referuntur ad Christum secundum caput eiusque membra mystica, et ex opposito etiam ad antichristum (collat. 14. per totam et 15. n. 1-9.). Observatione digna sunt dicta de singulari et distincto *ordine*, quem habent Scripturae, quem vocare possumus *organicum* (14. n. 5.); item, verba de quadruplici earum *fine* (n. 7-11.); item reductio earum ad duodecim principalia mysteria, quorum unumquodque habet quatuor Christi figuras (n. 12-30.), quibus 48 figuris Christi opponuntur duodecim figurae antichristi (15. n. 1-9.).

3. Tertia pars agit de *theoriis* ex s. Scriptura per considerationem humanam eliciendis, quae incipit in II. parte collationis 15. (n. 12.). Hae distinguuntur dupliciter secundum duplicem productionem, scilicet *seminum* et *fructuum*, quae in Genesi assignantur tertiae diei. De primis tractatur collat. 15. n. 10. seqq. et 16. per totam, et simul proponitur conspectus cuiusdam *philosophiae historiae*, ut nunc aiunt, quae ratione illius aetatis est satis singularis et notabilis et explicat, confirmat et applicat ea quae dicta sunt de mundi aetatibus in Breviloq. Prolog. § 2. et II. Sent. d. 12. a. 1. q. 2. Comparantur enim tempora secundum eorum tum *successionem* tum mutuam *correspondentiam*, ut secundum diversas coaptationes temporum diversae eliciantur *theoriae*, quarum numerus, ut in *seminibus*, dicitur esse indefinitus. « Qui tempora ignorat, inquit, ista scire non potest. Nam scire non potest futura qui praeterita ignorat. Si enim non cognosco, cuius arboris semen est; non possum cognoscere, quae arbor debet inde esse. Unde cognitio futurorum dependet ex cognitione praeteritorum ». — Primo ponitur triplex temporum divisio (15. n. 12-21.), scilicet secundum *septem aetates*, ut vult Augustinus, secundum *quinque vocationes* (ita Gregorius) et secundum *triplicem legem* communiter distinctam. His positis, comparantur duo testamenta sex modis (15. n. 22-28 et 16. per totam) et praecipue secundum *sex* respective *septem* aetates (16. n. 7. seqq.). Septenarius enim praevalet in mundo maiori, in minori, in decursu temporum et Scripturarum et « ortum habet a mundo archetypo » (16. n. 10.). Trium temporum, quae inter se respondent, unumquodque habet suum septenarium (n. 14-20.). Deinde specialiter conferuntur septem periodi temporum figuralium cum septem periodis temporum post Christum decurrentium,

<!-- page 454 -->
ita quidem, ut auctor nitatur ostendere, quomodo tria mysteria in unaquaque periodo duorum temporum (sive 21 in summa) sibi mutuo respondeant. Verisimile est, S. Doctorem, si nostra aetate scriberet post elapsa sex saecula, adhibita horum notitia, in nonnullis aliam ordinationem periodorum et mysteriorum adhibiturum esse.

4. Bene observat cl. Dr. Hipler in suo egregio opusculo: *Die christliche Geschichtsauffassung*, edita 1884 a societate, quae denominatur a celeberrimo I. Görres (pag. 55), satis apparere ex his collationibus, licet textus earum sit mancus, depravatus et etiam interpolatus, quod S. Doctor sibi proposuerit, in descriptione historicae evolutionis opinionibus abbatis Ioachim et sectatorum opponere speculationes S. Augustini et indirecte confutare pseudopropheticas temporum distinctiones et conformationes, quas exhibet *Evangelium aeternum*. Idem addit, nihil pro illo tempore et loco (Parisiis) opportunius a Generali ordinis Minorum fieri potuisse. Verissimum hoc iudicium esse, magis etiam ex reformato nostro textu apparet. De abbate Ioachim S. Bonav. (I. Sent. d. 5. dub. 4.), reprobans eius de Trinitate opinionem, scripsit sic: « Et ideo ignoranter Ioachim reprehendit Magistrum, et quia, cum esset simplex, non est reveritus Magistrum; ideo iusto Dei iudicio damnatus fuit libellus eius in Lateranensi Concilio et positio Magistri approbata ».

Pro confirmatione praedicti iudicii inter plurima alia attendatur, quod auctor noster, neglecta divisione temporum secundum tres divinas personas, revertitur ad distinctionem Augustini secundum septem aetates; item, quod docet: « Post novum testamentum non erit aliud » etc. (16. n. 2.); contra millenarismum asserit, septimam aetatem ratione temporis coincidere cum sexta (16. n. 2; 15. n. 18.), atque *civitatem* septima aetate de caelo descendentem non esse illam « quae desursum est, sed quae deorsum, scilicet *Ecclesia militans*, quando erit conformis triumphanti, secundum quod possibile est in via... Et tunc *pax* erit. Quantum autem durabit illa pax, Deus novit » (16. n. 30.). Commemorat quidem auctor *vitam*, vel *Ecclesiam* contemplativam, vel *ordinem* contemplativum inter maximas tribulationes antichristo resistentem (16. n. 29; 20. n. 29. 30. 23. n. 4.); sed nullibi dicit, maiorem tunc futuram esse effusionem Spiritus S., quam fuit illa quae venerit super Apostolos; quoad intelligentiam Scripturae relinquit iniudicatum, utrum daretur haec, « vel revelatio, vel clavis David *personae*, vel *multitudini* », et magis credo, quod *multitudini* (16. n. 29; cfr. 20 n. 15. in fine). Et quoad *ordinem* illum *propheticum* seu *seraphicum* alium eum esse explicite docet ab ordine S. Francisci et Praedicatorum, quos respondere vult *Cherubim* (22. n. 21.); deinde (n. 22.): « Quis autem, ait, iste futurus sit, non est facile scire »; item: « Iste ordo non florebit, nisi Christus appareat et patiatur in corpore suo mystico » (22. n. 23.). Immo videtur nomen *ordinis* accipere largiore sensu, ut se extendat a primitiva Ecclesia usque ad ultimam. Nam de Ioanne Ev. dicit (13. n. 14.): « Iste est istius ordinis specialiter » (cfr. 20. n. 29.) et de S. Francisco (22. n. 22): « De isto [seraphico ordine] videtur fuisse Franciscus ». — Generatim de particularibus ultimorum temporum rebus semper caute loquitur. Ceterum mirum videtur, auditores verba de his loquentis litteris mandantes raro ea referre *integra*, sed tantum *sensum* principalem; quod indicant adiungentes formulam: « Et dicebat », vel similia verba.

5. Haec de theoriis, quae respondent *seminibus*; de aliis, quae comparantur *fructibus* reficientibus tum intellectum tum affectum, qui oriuntur a Christo et ducunt ad ipsum, sermo est in collat. 17. et 18. In his ex s. Scriptura colliguntur sub uno conspectu plurima et salutaria documenta ad doctrinam asceticam et mysticam spectantia. Non exigua horum pars, alia tamen proposita ratione, repetitur in sermone de Plantatione paradisi infra impresso. — Concluditur autem visio tertia illa iam laudata collatione 19, quae perspicue tradit methodum et rationem in studiis observandam, ut per scientiam et sanctitatem perveniatur ad veram sapientiam.

VI. In quatuor ultimis collationibus agitur de quarta visione, scilicet intelligentiae *per contemplationem suspensae*, et explicantur tria eiusdem obiecta, comparata *soli, lunae* et *stellis*. De his fit sermo primo in *genere et communiter* (collat. 20.), deinde specialiter de singulis. In unoquoque autem obiecto ponuntur *tria novenaria luminum*, ad quae contemplativa anima se convertere possit (cfr. 23. n. 1. in fine). Primum obiectum est duplex, nempe ipse *sol aeternus* et *curia caelestis*. In ipso sole divino ratione *circumincessionis* distinguuntur novem illuminationes (21. n. 2. 3.), similiter, secundum appropriationes quoad opera *ad extra* (n. 4-11.), nec non quoad novem proprietates in ipso summo monarcha resplendentes (n. 12-15.). — Sequitur alterum obiectum, scilicet *hierarchia angelica*, cuius novem sunt ordines; huius numeri sufficientia triplici adhibito principio ostenditur (n. 16-33.). — Quoad secundum obiectum, id est *Ecclesiam militantem*, quae comparatur lunae, eadem novenariorum distinctio ostenditur secundum triplicem aspectum (22. n. 1-23.). — Denique tertium obiectum sive ipsa *anima hierarchizata*, id est per gratiam et illuminationem caelesti hierarchiae conformata, iterum habet novem gradus, quae iterum distinguuntur secundum triplicem rationem (22. n. 24-42.). — Mira praeconia de tali anima ex Scriptura afferuntur in ultima collatione; ut autem sit *civitas Dei* descripta in Apocalypsi, habere debet triplicem caelestis Ierusalem *visionem* (n. 5-14.) et triplicem *vitae perfectionem*; ita exornata respondet signatis in Apocalypsi.

Tota haec visio altissimis speculationibus et sententiis referta est, et magna ex parte fundata est in sublimi doctrina Dionysii, vulgo dicti Areopagitae. — Sane dolendum est, quod S. Doctor, tanta doctrinae et luminis copia conspicuus, tres ultimas visiones non potuerit exponere nec gravissimum hoc opusculum perficere. Non raro orator supponit ea quae in Collationibus de septem donis Spiritus S. antea eodem loco dixerat, praesertim de dono scientiae et de donis intellectus et sapientiae.

english:
<!-- page 450 -->

### SCHOLION

This last little work of the Holy Doctor has until now been almost entirely neglected. The chief reason was the corruption of the text, imperfectly taken down from the mouth of the speaker and in part altered, and then printed in earlier editions in disordered and disarranged form. Hence the work seemed to be, as it were, an untended forest, thick with the thorns of errors and almost inaccessible. By a diligent collation of the manuscripts and by hard labor we have, unless we are mistaken, achieved this: that one reading these collations can, with very few exceptions, make his way through them without stumbling and gather flowers and wholesome fruits from the most abundant teaching of the Holy Doctor. But besides its abundance of profound sentences and useful teachings, this same work seems to us most worthy of attention for another reason as well. For the author, addressing his hearers who were engaged in theological studies at Paris, deliberately lays open his own opinion concerning the perfect way of treating and learning divine matters, and warns them of the faults and dangers to be guarded against in this study — not without a certain censure of the corruptions which, especially in the studies of the *arts*, as they were then called, were beginning to spread widely. This is vividly attested by those well-known 249 errors, for the most part dreadful and handed down by the artists, which were already condemned in the year 1277 by Stephen, bishop of Paris, and have been most correctly re-edited by the celebrated Fr. Denifle, O.P., in his splendid *Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis*, pp. 543–555. Nor is it far from the truth to assert that the school commonly called scholastic would not have fallen so quickly from its highest and admirable summit, if the teachings of our holy Doctor, handed down throughout this whole work and set forth under a single view in Collation 19, had not been neglected — I do not say by all masters, but by very many. What then must be said of our own age, when we must lament that the sciences themselves and the institutions of the schools are almost everywhere secularized, not seldom thoroughly anti-Christian, and perpetual strongholds of monstrous errors and darkness? By experience we have clear proof that the human spirit, once it has rejected Christ, the master of truth, becomes the slave of the gravest errors, and that where *the Spirit of the Lord does not give life, the letter kills*, and *knowledge puffs up* (II Cor. 3:6 and I Cor. 8:1).

But since this immense wealth of thoughts, with its many divisions and subdivisions — many of the teaching author's own words being omitted — has come down to us from the copying scribes in a form too tightly compressed, so that it all but overwhelms the mind by its very fullness, it is not altogether easy for the reader to perceive with his mind the innermost order[^p450-1] and coherence of the matter and the words, truly well fitted to its end, even though we have already opened easier paths by the summaries and marginal notes we have added. For this reason it has seemed not out of place to say a few things about the matters and thoughts here handed down — first, indeed, about the *purpose and end* intended by the author; second, about the *order and progress* of the work according to its principal parts, so that the more notable sentences and certain difficulties may also be touched upon.

I. The author states in express words, at the beginning and at the end of the collations, that his end and purpose is that hearers devoted to the studies of learning should be « drawn from worldly wisdom to Christian wisdom » (Collation 1, n. 9); and speaking of Christ, the tree of life, he says (23, n. 31): « To this tree of life I wished to bring you »; by which words, together with his end, he indicates the chief *means*. For to Christ as the *tree of life* (1, n. 15 and 17) and teacher of true wisdom is repeatedly opposed the *tree of the knowledge of good and evil* (Gen. 2:9), which is the figure of profane knowledge (cf. 16, n. 22; 17, n. 27). That this statement may be rightly understood, we note the following.

1. Natural knowledge acquired by the way of comparison is commonly distinguished from Christian wisdom, which is compared only in the school of Christ, by means of the supernatural light both of faith and of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This the author calls *external knowledge* (17, n. 26–27), or « acquaintance with things *by experience* » (1, n. 17), which is indeed good in itself, even in a certain respect necessary; yet it is far inferior to Christian wisdom (1, n. 10 ff.; 3, n. 2 ff.; 6, n. 2–6; 7, n. 13 ff.; 19, n. 3–4 and passim). It is also insufficient for salvation (7, n. 5–12; 19, n. 7) — indeed, by accident it is not rarely an *occasion of death*, as *the letter that kills*, nor is it without a certain danger (1, n. 17; 6, n. 19; 17, n. 25; 19, n. 3–4, and 18, n. 1, where the words of Gregory are cited: « He who labors only to know what and how he should speak remains within emptied of interior devotion »). Of such men, who have nothing but « splendors of the sciences », it is fittingly said (1, n. 8): « They build wasps' nests, which have no honeycomb of honey, as do the bees, which make honey ». This distinction and teaching, since it is plainly taught in holy Scripture (cf. James 3:17 and I Cor. 13), is beyond controversy and is excellently impressed upon us by the author of that golden little book, the *Imitation of Christ*, I, 3 and III, 2. Cf. below, on the Gift of Knowledge.

<!-- page 451 -->
2. How far, moreover, the Holy Doctor is removed from the opposite and erroneous extreme of those who utterly despise the study of profane sciences, and especially the study of philosophical disciplines, and disapprove of their application to the handing on of theological matters, he himself sufficiently shows by this very little work, since he so often — as he had already done throughout his whole *Commentary on the Sentences* — brings these same disciplines to bear upon his purpose and says in express words that it is fitting for theologians to make use of them as spoils to be claimed for themselves out of Egypt (cf. 1, n. 11 ff. and passim in Collations 4–7; also 9, n. 23 ff.; 17, n. 20 ff.). What he taught by this very deed and by his own example, he sets forth according to sound principles thus (I Sent., Prooem., q. 2, in corp.), speaking of the manner of treating theology for the advancement of faith: « For the *ratiocinative* or inquiring manner avails, first, to confound adversaries... to strengthen the weak... to delight the perfect ». There, in the reply to the fifth objection, concerning the relation between faith and theological knowledge, it is said: « Faith raises to assent; knowledge and understanding raise to the understanding of what has been believed ». The Seraphic Doctor accordingly commends to theologians the sound use of philosophy and of the other, non-sacred sciences; but in taking up and applying them he teaches that three things must be guarded against: *first*, that nothing be taken away from the *better charisms* (I Cor. 12:31), especially from the last end of theology — which is not that we should, content with an abstract acquaintance with divine things, plant our foot, as it were, in the mere acquiring of knowledge (cf. 5, n. 33; 6, n. 19; 17, n. 27; 19, n. 3–4; 20, n. 2), but rather that we should « be set aflame with good » or that « the understanding be extended to *affection* ». For then the understanding « is perfected by a habit midway between the purely speculative and the practical, which embraces both; and this habit is called *wisdom*, which expresses at once knowledge and affection... Whence this is for the grace of contemplation, and that we may be set aflame with good — yet chiefly that we may be set aflame with good » (I Sent., Prooem., q. 3, and cf. the scholion). — *Second*, excess in the measure of this use must be guarded against. « One must not, then, mix so much of the water of philosophy into the wine of sacred Scripture that the wine becomes water; that would be the worst kind of miracle; and we read that Christ made wine out of water, not the reverse » (19, n. 14). And at 19, n. 12, we are warned: « Let the masters not commend too much the sayings of the philosophers », etc. — *Third*, one must guard against anyone's being ignorant, or scarcely understanding, the danger which the *tree of the knowledge of good and evil* can bring to an incautious soul, of which the author speaks gravely at 17, n. 26; 18, n. 3; 19, n. 10–15.

3. That these principles are sound, and that they proceed by a middle way between extremes, no one enlightened by true faith will be able to call into doubt. Since it is the gravest office of the theologian to guard the truth of the faith against its false interpretations, and to defend it against well-nigh infinite objections which Jews, heretics, and unbelievers gather from all the sciences with vain labor, it would be absurd to forbid the use of weapons drawn from those same sciences when employed in favor of the faith — especially since this pursuit serves both to exalt the faith and, in a threefold way, to benefit the faithful, as we have said above in the Holy Doctor's own words. On the other hand, no one could easily maintain that nothing else belongs to the theologian's office but the apologetic task and warfare against errors. Let us labor strenuously, defending the treasury of the faith and the earthly Jerusalem, our mother, carrying a sword in the left hand against enemies (II Esdras 4:17) and explaining the truth for the benefit of *those in error*; but let us at the same time also employ, as it were, the right hand in *building up the city of God*, so that *the faithful* too may have their due, and a way be prepared for them to taste divine truth and to acquire that wisdom which Paul, as he himself testifies (I Cor. 2:6), spoke *among the perfect — a wisdom, however, not of this age*.

4. That in this part of his work — which is directed to the fostering of true Christian wisdom and to the glorifying of the divine majesty — St. Bonaventure was adorned by God with a certain special charism is most plainly proved by his own works and confirmed by the testimonies of the greatest men (cf. Benedict Bonelli, *Prodromus ad opera omnia S. Bonaventurae*, book II, cols. 84–147). Let us hear one witness, St. Antoninus, the great glory of the Order of Preachers (*Chronicon*, p. III, tit. 24, c. 4): « As Bonaventure seemed to advance with wondrous capacity in the lights of the sciences, and above all in the holy Scriptures, so in the grace of devotion he took continual increase of grace. For every truth that he grasped by his understanding he referred to the form of prayer and divine praise, and continually ruminated upon it with affection... The perspicacity of his understanding all his little works exhale, for those who, seeking divine knowledge, venerate it more gladly than the vanity of Aristotle ».

5. This Christian wisdom can in no way be acquired by man's natural industry alone (22, n. 24 ff.). For it presupposes not only faith, which is « the foundation of all supernatural illuminations, so long as *we are pilgrims from the Lord*, both a *foundation* that steadies and a *lamp* that guides and a *door* that leads in » (Breviloquium, Prologue, at the beginning), but also the state of grace together with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Indeed St. Bonaventure teaches (19, n. 3): « There is no safe passage from *knowledge* to *wisdom*; a middle term must therefore be set down, namely *holiness*. But the passage is an exercise: an exercise from the pursuit of knowledge to the pursuit of holiness, and from the pursuit of holiness to the pursuit of wisdom », etc.; which is more fully set forth there at n. 20 ff. — Moreover it requires *contemplation*. The soul « which does not have the grace of contemplation is like a firmament without lights, but that which has it is a firmament adorned with lights. And as heaven lacking these lights differs from heaven possessing them, so a soul lacking [this grace] differs from a soul disposed to it; whence it differs as an Angel differs from a beast. Beast-like is the man who lacks these things and has his face bent down to the earth like an animal; but he who is full of lights is wholly angelic » (20, n. 2). On this light of contemplation cf. II Sent., d. 23, a. 2, q. 3, at the end of the body and to the fifth [objection]; on the disposition toward it, the *Itinerarium mentis in Deum*, Prologue and c. 1, and below, the Collations on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. — Now although faith, as a theological virtue, precedes the gifts of the Holy Spirit in dignity, so far as they are considered precisely in themselves, as St. Thomas also teaches (Summa I-II, q. 68, a. 1; II-II, q. 4, a. 8), yet the same author asserts that the gift of *understanding* adds to faith « a certain light superadded to those things which become supernaturally known to us » (Summa II-II, q. 8, a. 1, ad 2), because it « denotes a certain excellence of knowledge penetrating to what is innermost » (ibid., ad 3). Not that the gifts of the Holy Spirit of themselves imply some new revelation, as though they added something to the objects of faith already revealed; but St. Bonaventure commends the light of contemplation only in this sense, that the things which become known through faith are, by a certain supernal illumination, the more understood and the more tasted. For this light of contemplation wholly presupposes faith, whose knowledge is, in some measure, as it were extended by the gifts of the Holy Spirit; and these, moreover, are inseparable from the state of grace and charity.

6. Concisely, and in a manner suited to the use of life, the Holy Doctor explains his own view concerning the way and method of attaining the perfect knowledge of divine things in the whole of Collation 19, which offers, as it were, the key to the entire little work. There, first, treatment is given to the four conditions required in the manner of studying, then to holiness as the immediate disposition toward wisdom, and also to wisdom itself, inasmuch as it is the fruit of knowledge and holiness. — But let us pass to a review of the individual parts.

II. The first three collations, by way of introduction, treat first of the three dispositions required in hearers of the word of God, lest they be blinded rather than illumined by the rays of light (1, n. 1–9); then they lay down, as it were, a foundation, Christ, the principal teacher of all wisdom, who is shown to be, in an eminent manner, the *mean* of the seven sciences (ibid., 10–39). Now since the end and fruit of these collations is that the hearers should « be filled with the spirit of wisdom and understanding », Collations 2 and 3 treat of these two gifts of the Holy Spirit, yet in such a way that the author refers back, by way of supplement, to what he had already said of them in the *Collations on the Seven Gifts*, which follow immediately in our edition. Special attention is deserved both by the description of the *form* of wisdom — namely, that it is *uniform, multiform, omniform, nulliform* (2, n. 8–33) — and by the reduction of moral and scientific teachings to the uncreated, incarnate, and inspired Word as to the *key* of contemplation (3, n. 2 ff.), and by the brief and lucid solution of the principal difficulties brought against the theory of creation (3, n. 4–9), and by the splendid praise of the prerogatives of the incarnate Word, who alone is the *tree of life* (3, n. 12–21). — Finally, the *theme* itself of these collations is proposed and briefly explained — namely, six or seven distinct visions, which, by a certain application of Scripture, he fits to the six days of creation together with the seventh day of rest, as they are enumerated in Genesis, chapter 1. Yet only four visions are expounded, on account of the author's promotion and his departure from Paris.

<!-- page 452 -->
III. The treatment of the theme begins with the exposition of the first vision (Collations 4–7), which is that of understanding *implanted by nature*, where treatment is given to the sciences of the natural order, as they were customarily handed on in that age. But if these teachings of the Holy Doctor concerning the profane sciences were opportune and salutary in his own time, this holds all the more strongly in our own age, when very many of the chairs of the sciences in the world serve error rather than Christ. For so many rulers of the schools reject the *tree of life*, eating of the *trees of the knowledge of good and evil*. Whence we see and lament how very many minds are so blinded by the profane *wisdom of this age* (I Cor. 2:6) *that the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, does not shine upon them* (II Cor. 4:4); and how so many teachers of peoples have, with respect to the highest religious, moral, and even social principles, fallen into thicker darkness than the more distinguished pagan philosophers.

1. The author accordingly says: « The philosophers gave nine sciences and promised to give a tenth, namely contemplation. But many philosophers, in wishing to separate themselves from the darkness of error, entangled themselves in great errors » (4, n. 1). Having made the division and description of these nine sciences, together with a list of the principal errors and a brief exposition of the manner in which the theologian may use them (4, n. 2–25; 5, n. 1–22), he passes (5, n. 23–33) to that tenth science *promised* by certain philosophers, which they called *wisdom*, or *contemplation*, or *understanding attained*. This is concerned with three objects, in that « the soul turns itself, first, upon *itself*; second, upon the *spiritual Intelligences*; third, upon the *eternal reasons* » (ibid., n. 23). Regarding this contemplation it should be observed that similarly these same three objects (with the Church militant added, however), though in reverse order, are proposed below, in the fourth vision (Collations 20–23; see 20, n. 3), for contemplation by the *understanding suspended in contemplation* — namely, [the understanding] raised up by faith and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Whoever compares the two contemplations, that is, the *natural* and the properly *Christian*, will see the immense difference between them as regards excellence and manner of contemplating.

2. Next it should be observed what *ultimate reason* is assigned by the author for why, even among the philosophers, as among the Angels, a division of light from darkness was made, prefigured by that division which God made on the first day of creation (Gen. 1:4). He says this reason lies in a defect in this *tenth* science, and precisely concerning the *eternal reasons or ideas*. « Whence, he says, did some follow darkness? From this, that although all of them saw the first cause as *the beginning* of all things, and *the end* of all things, yet in the *middle* [that is, in the exemplary reason] they were divided. For some denied that in it are the exemplars of things — of whom the chief seems to have been Aristotle, who both at the beginning of the *Metaphysics* and at its end, and in many other places, execrates the ideas of Plato » (6, n. 2). From this defect and error, he teaches, other grave errors have flowed, with a threefold blindness — namely, concerning the eternity of the world, the unity of the intellect (so Averroes), and the denial of glory and punishment after this life (6, n. 3–4). Lower down, however (7, n. 2), reasons approved by others are adduced by which Aristotle may in some way be excused.

3. Against these philosophers he asserts that « that eternal light is the *exemplar of all things*, and that a mind raised up, as the mind of other noble philosophers of antiquity was raised up, arrived at this » (6, n. 6). The Seraphic Doctor accordingly follows in the footsteps of the most illumined Augustine (*83 Questions*, q. 46, n. 1), who teaches: « So great indeed is the force established in them [the divine ideas], that unless these are understood, no one can be wise ». Hence it is that the Holy Doctor, in all his works, and especially in the *Breviloquium*, the *Itinerarium mentis in Deum*, and in these Collations, applies himself with the utmost diligence to the contemplation of these reasons and to the reduction of all things, virtues, and truths to God. This very *teaching* concerning the ideas he treated and cultivated most diligently, especially in I Sent., d. 35 and 39; the *Disputed Question on the Knowledge of Christ*, q. 1–4; *Breviloquium*, p. I, c. 8; *Itinerarium mentis in Deum*, c. 1–3; and here he expounds the same matter in the whole of Collation 12. See further 1, n. 13; 2, n. 9–10 (where among other things he says that the infallible rules of the human mind « are rooted in the eternal light and lead into it, but it is not on this account itself seen »); 4, n. 1, 9, and 16. To these reasons, or to the *exemplary virtues*, is reduced the teaching on *morals* and especially on the *cardinal virtues* (6, n. 6 ff.: « For it is absurd, as Plotinus says, that the exemplars of other things should be in God, but not the exemplars of the virtues », ibid., n. 6). The same is done with respect to the *laws and the ten commandments* (21, n. 7–8), and in the last vision (Collations 22 and 23), employing the teaching on the divine appropriations, he shows how, in the hierarchies of the Angels and of the Blessed, of the Church militant, and of the soul made hierarchic, the one and triune God shines forth in manifold ways. — He concludes this first vision (Collation 7) by demonstrating (ibid., n. 3–12) the defects of the moral teaching handed down even by those « noble » philosophers who knew the *exemplary virtues*; then he wondrously exalts the revealed teaching on morals, since faith alone can divide light from darkness, *healing, rectifying, ordering* (n. 13–20).

4. Above (6, n. 5), after the author has reproved the « worst errors » that arose from ignorance of the eternal reasons, he adds: « Nor yet are the abyssal wells shut with a key. These are the darknesses of Egypt; for although a great light seemed to be in them from the preceding sciences, yet all of it is extinguished through the aforesaid errors ». He speaks of the philosophers of antiquity and of his own age. But after six centuries a greater evil must be lamented by us in these same words: Nor yet are the abyssal wells shut with a key; however great the light that seems to be in them, all of it is extinguished by the darkness of errors! For after that subjectivism, as it is called, gained ground, by which philosophers tried to draw from their own *ego*, as though from the source and center of truth, and each according to his own judgment to fabricate anew, or at least to prop up, the doctrine of truth, scarcely could the better among them rise even to the first *efficient* cause, existing before and above the world; but the first *final* cause, and much more the *exemplary* cause, they either do not know, or stubbornly reject. Hence, the supreme cause and reason of all *being*, of *truth*, and of *good* being neglected, that perpetual circling arose from one extreme of error to the opposite; and at last, after incredible labors and attempts vainly undertaken, nothing was left to them but that, despairing of attaining truth, they should plunge the mind — made in the image of the first Truth — into the foul swamp of skepticism or positivism.

<!-- page 453 -->
IV. The second vision (Collations 8–12), which is that of understanding *illuminated by faith*, is compared to the second day of creation, when *God called the firmament heaven* (Gen. 1:8). There is expounded first (Collation 8) the twofold *height* of faith (namely, the mysteries of the Trinity and of the Incarnation); second (Collation 9), the threefold *firmness* of faith, which the author, first according to his custom, refers to the Trinity, and then ingeniously demonstrates from the side of human testimonies. Third, the *comeliness* of faith is celebrated (Collations 10–12); which part contains wondrous teachings for the illustration of speculative theology, especially concerning the *metaphysical essence* of God, since all the attributes of God are reduced to *being* (10, n. 6 ff.), where the true meaning — often ill-understood — of chapter 5 of the *Itinerarium mentis in Deum* sufficiently appears; and then concerning the *Trinity*, considered from two mirrors (Collation 11). Here occurs a most remarkable exposition of the twelve generations, and of the analogy and difference between these and the eternal generation of the Son. The last collation of this same vision (12) is wholly, as we have already said, devoted to proving and magnifying the divine exemplar of all things.

V. 1. The third vision, which is that of understanding *instructed by Scripture* and corresponds to the third day of creation, the Holy Doctor, out of his singular love and zeal for holy Scripture, treats at greater length than the others (Collations 13–20), so that he considers the matters handed down in it under a threefold aspect. First he treats (Collation 13) of the *spiritual understandings* of Scripture itself, according to the common sense of the holy Fathers, already set forth in his *Breviloquium* (Prologue, §4) and here more fully expounded and in a certain manner as his own. He himself, indeed, is much occupied in expounding the threefold mystical sense, but he requires beforehand that, through assiduous reading, the *letter* of the text first be committed to memory, nor does he wish a mystical exposition to be sought everywhere; yet he does not wish anything in Scripture to be despised as *useless*, nothing rejected as *false*, nothing repudiated as *unjust* (loc. cit., §6, 5, and on the literal sense here, n. 10, 11, 16, 17). Worthy of note is the *reason* which he brings forward (n. 12) to prove that, after the fall of the human race, it was fitting that God should add another book to the first book of creatures. For since the *chief* end of the first book was that it should lead man back to God through contemplation, and that same « book was, as it were, dead and blotted out », a second book was necessary, *another* one, by which *this* one might be illumined, so that it might receive the metaphors of things... The book of Scripture, therefore, is the restorative book of the whole world for the knowing, praising, and loving of God ». Four other special reasons are given at 14, n. 7–11 (cf. II Tim. 3:16). To these is added a most special reason, set forth in the *Breviloquium* (Prologue, §2, at the end) and here supposed throughout — namely, that it was given so that the beauty of the order and government running through the course of the world, which, unless it be seen *whole*, cannot be perceived, might be made manifest to us through « the book of Scripture, whose length is measured out to match the course of the government of the universe ». — With this principle agrees the assertion that at the end of time the *understanding* of holy Scripture will be more fully manifested, many of whose mysteries have not yet been unsealed, especially certain prophecies contained in the Prophets and in the Apocalypse (cf. 13, n. 7–8; 16, n. 19; 20, n. 15). For, as he repeats many times, he « who is ignorant of these times cannot come to the mystery of the Scriptures » (15, n. 20).

2. Second, the *mysteries and figures* of Scripture are expounded, which are referred to Christ according to the head and his mystical members, and, on the opposite side, also to antichrist (Collation 14 throughout, and 15, n. 1–9). Worthy of note are the words on the singular and distinct *order* which the Scriptures have, which we may call *organic* (14, n. 5); likewise the words on their fourfold *end* (n. 7–11); likewise the reduction of them to twelve principal mysteries, each of which has four figures of Christ (n. 12–30), to which forty-eight figures of Christ are opposed twelve figures of antichrist (15, n. 1–9).

3. The third part treats of the *theories* to be drawn from holy Scripture by human consideration, which begins in the second part of Collation 15 (n. 12). These are distinguished in two ways, according to the twofold production, namely of *seeds* and of *fruits*, which in Genesis are assigned to the third day. Of the first he treats at Collation 15, n. 10 ff., and throughout Collation 16, and at the same time he sets forth an outline of a certain *philosophy of history*, as it is now called, which, considering the age in which he lived, is remarkably distinctive and noteworthy, and explains, confirms, and applies what has been said about the ages of the world in the *Breviloquium*, Prologue §2, and in II Sent., d. 12, a. 1, q. 2. For times are compared according to both their *succession* and their mutual *correspondence*, so that according to the various fittings-together of times various *theories* are elicited, whose number, as with *seeds*, is said to be indefinite. « He who is ignorant of times, he says, cannot know these things. For he who is ignorant of the past cannot know the future. For if I do not know of what tree a seed is, I cannot know what tree ought to come from it. Hence the knowledge of future things depends on the knowledge of past things ». — First a threefold division of times is set down (15, n. 12–21), namely according to *seven ages*, as Augustine holds, according to *five callings* (so Gregory), and according to a *threefold law* commonly distinguished. These being laid down, the two testaments are compared in six ways (15, n. 22–28, and throughout 16), and especially according to *six*, respectively *seven*, ages (16, n. 7 ff.). For the number seven prevails in the greater world, in the lesser, in the course of times and of the Scriptures, and « has its origin from the archetypal world » (16, n. 10). Of the three times, which correspond to one another, each has its own sevenfold pattern (n. 14–20). Then the seven periods of figural times are specially compared with the seven periods of times running their course after Christ,

<!-- page 454 -->
in such a way, indeed, that the author endeavors to show how three mysteries in each period of the two times (twenty-one in all) correspond to one another. It is likely that the Holy Doctor, if he were writing in our own age, after six centuries had elapsed, would, with knowledge of these things at hand, have adopted in some respects a different arrangement of the periods and mysteries.

4. The distinguished Dr. Hipler rightly observes, in his excellent little work *Die christliche Geschichtsauffassung* [The Christian conception of history], published in 1884 by the society named after the celebrated I. Görres (p. 55), that it appears sufficiently from these collations — although their text is mutilated, corrupted, and even interpolated — that the Holy Doctor's intention, in his description of the historical development, was to oppose the speculations of St. Augustine to the opinions of Abbot Joachim and his followers, and indirectly to refute the pseudo-prophetic distinctions and configurations of times set forth in the *Everlasting Gospel*. He adds that nothing could have been more fitting, for that time and place (Paris), for the Minister General of the Order of Minors to do. That this judgment is entirely correct appears even more clearly from our restored text. Of Abbot Joachim, St. Bonaventure, rejecting his opinion on the Trinity, wrote thus (I Sent., d. 5, dub. 4): « And therefore Joachim, out of ignorance, reproved the Master; and because, though a simple man, he did not revere the Master, his little book was, by the just judgment of God, condemned at the Lateran Council, and the Master's position was approved ».

In confirmation of the aforesaid judgment, among many other things it should be noted that our author, setting aside the division of times according to the three divine Persons, returns to Augustine's distinction according to seven ages; likewise, that he teaches: « After the New Testament there will be no other », etc. (16, n. 2); against millenarianism he asserts that the seventh age coincides, as regards time, with the sixth (16, n. 2; 15, n. 18), and that the *city* descending from heaven in the seventh age is not that « which is from above, but that which is from below — namely, the *Church militant*, when it will be conformed to the Church triumphant, so far as is possible in this life... And then there will be *peace*. How long that peace will last, God knows » (16, n. 30). The author does indeed mention a *life*, or a contemplative *Church*, or a contemplative *order*, resisting antichrist amid the greatest tribulations (16, n. 29; 20, n. 29–30; 23, n. 4); but nowhere does he say that there will then be a greater outpouring of the Holy Spirit than that which came upon the Apostles; and as regards the understanding of Scripture he leaves it undecided whether this will be given, « either as a revelation, or as the key of David, to a *person*, or to a *multitude* » — and I am rather inclined to believe, to a *multitude* (16, n. 29; cf. 20, n. 15 at the end). And as to that *prophetic* or *seraphic order*, he explicitly teaches that it is other than the order of St. Francis and of the Preachers, which he holds to correspond to the *Cherubim* (22, n. 21); then (n. 22): « But who, he says, this is to be, it is not easy to know »; likewise: « This order will not flourish unless Christ appear and suffer in his mystical body » (22, n. 23). Indeed he seems to take the name *order* in a broader sense, so that it extends from the primitive Church even to the last. For of John the Evangelist he says (13, n. 14): « This man belongs specially to that order » (cf. 20, n. 29), and of St. Francis (22, n. 22): « Francis seems to have belonged to that [seraphic order] ». — In general he always speaks cautiously of the particular things belonging to the last times. It is, moreover, remarkable that the hearers, in committing to writing his words as he spoke of these matters, rarely report them *whole*, but only the chief *sense*; which they indicate by adding the formula: « And he was saying », or similar words.

5. So much for the theories which correspond to *seeds*; of the others, which are compared to *fruits* refreshing both the understanding and the affection, which arise from Christ and lead back to him, discourse is given in Collations 17 and 18. In these, from holy Scripture, very many salutary teachings bearing on ascetical and mystical doctrine are gathered together under a single view. No small part of these — proposed, however, on a different plan — is repeated in the sermon *On the Planting of Paradise*, printed below. — This third vision is concluded in that already-praised Collation 19, which clearly hands down the method and the way to be observed in one's studies, so that through knowledge and holiness one may arrive at true wisdom.

VI. In the last four collations treatment is given of the fourth vision, namely, of the understanding *suspended in contemplation*, and its three objects are explained, compared to the *sun*, the *moon*, and the *stars*. Of these a discourse is given first in *general and in common* (Collation 20), and then specifically of each. In each object, moreover, *three sets of nine lights* are set down, to which the contemplative soul may turn itself (cf. 23, n. 1, at the end). The first object is twofold, namely, the *eternal sun* itself and the *heavenly court*. In the divine sun itself, by reason of *circumincession*, nine illuminations are distinguished (21, n. 2–3); likewise, according to the appropriations as regards works *ad extra* (n. 4–11), as well as as regards the nine properties shining forth in the supreme monarch himself (n. 12–15). — There follows the second object, namely the *angelic hierarchy*, whose orders are nine; the sufficiency of this number is shown by a threefold principle applied (n. 16–33). — As to the second object, that is, the *Church militant*, which is compared to the moon, the same distinction of the sets of nine is shown according to a threefold aspect (22, n. 1–23). — Finally, the third object, or the *soul made hierarchic* itself — that is, conformed by grace and illumination to the heavenly hierarchy — likewise has nine degrees, which are again distinguished according to a threefold reason (22, n. 24–42). — Wondrous praises of such a soul, drawn from Scripture, are brought forward in the last collation; but that it may be the *city of God* described in the Apocalypse, it must possess a threefold *vision* of the heavenly Jerusalem (n. 5–14) and a threefold *perfection of life*; thus adorned it corresponds to those who are sealed in the Apocalypse.

This whole vision is replete with the loftiest speculations and sentences, and is, for the greater part, founded on the sublime teaching of Dionysius, commonly called the Areopagite. — It is indeed to be lamented that the Holy Doctor, conspicuous for so great a wealth of teaching and of light, was not able to expound the three last visions, nor to bring this most weighty little work to completion. Not seldom the speaker presupposes what he had already said in the same place, earlier, in the *Collations on the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit*, especially concerning the gift of knowledge and the gifts of understanding and wisdom.

la: Quanto sibi Dominus huius incerta et occulta divinae sapientiae dignabitur communicare, sicut multis sibi carissimis aperire dignatus est, ut patet de multis tam in novo quam in veteri testamento. Nam et haec visio non minima pars est vitae spiritualis. — Superest etiam visio *sexta* in principio proposita, scilicet visio intelligentiae *per raptum mentis in Deum absorptae*, videlicet quibus exercitiis et donis anima contemplantis appropinquat ad mentis excessum ecstaticum, quae etiam revelationes fiunt animae raptae et dulcedines, quantum sacrae Scripturae auctoritas et mysteria innuunt. Et haec est ultima pars vitae spiritualis in via. Et fit hac sexta visione homo formatus *in animam viventem* [Gen. 2, 7.], post quam ultimate quiescit Deus in anima contemplantis, cessans a novorum donorum collatione; ipsaque anima, prout status viae patitur, in Deo quiescit, cessans a novis vitae humanae exercitiis in statu viae. — Superest etiam ultima visio, scilicet visio intelligentiae *per statum gloriae consummatae*, quando fit reversio animae ad corpus, quae et qualiter in illo statu gloriae videbit. Et haec visio est post hanc vitam. Istae autem tres ultimae visiones adhuc plus continerent quam quatuor praedictae. — Sed heu, heu, heu! superveniente statu excelsiori et vitae excessu domini et magistri huius operis, prosecutionem prosecuturi non acceperunt. Haec autem, quae de quatuor visionibus notavi, talia sunt, qualia de ore loquentis rapere poteram in quaternum. Alii quidem duo socii mecum notabant, sed eorum notulae prae nimia confusione et illegibilitate nulli fuerunt utiles nisi forte sibi. Correcto autem meo exemplari, quod legi poterat ab auditorum aliquibus, ipse doctor operis de ipso meo exemplari et quamplures alii rescripserunt, qui pro eo mihi debent grates. — Elapsis autem diebus multis, concedente mihi copiam temporis et libri reverendo patre fratre Thoma, ministro Alemanniae superioris, rursum respexi quae scripseram veloci manu; et visus sum recolligere ordinate, cooperante mihi memoria, quo loquentis vocem audieram, auditu et visu, quo recordabar gestuum loquentis, quae solent memoriae cooperari, secundum Philosophum, in libro de Memoria et reminiscentia [c. 1.]. Nec tamen apposui quidquam quod ipse non dixerat, nisi ubi distinctionem librorum Aristotelis localiter amplius, quam ipse dixerat, distinxi. Alia autem non apposui, nisi quod etiam loca auctoritatum aliquarum assignavi. — Legebatur et componebatur hoc opusculum Parisiis, anno Domini MCCLXXIII, a Pascha usque ad Pentecosten, praesentibus aliquibus magistris et baccalaureis theologiae et aliis fratribus, centum sexaginta.

en: As much as the Lord shall deign to communicate to him the uncertain and hidden things of this divine wisdom, just as he has deigned to disclose them to many who are most dear to him, as is evident from many instances both in the New and in the Old Testament. For this vision too is no small part of the spiritual life. — There remains also the *sixth* vision, proposed at the beginning — namely, the vision of the understanding *absorbed by the rapture of the mind into God* — that is, by what exercises and gifts the soul of the one contemplating draws near to the ecstatic transport of the mind, by which also revelations come to the soul that is rapt, and sweetnesses, so far as the authority and mysteries of sacred Scripture suggest. And this is the last part of the spiritual life in this present way. And by this sixth vision man is made *a living soul* [Gen. 2:7], after which God at last comes to rest in the soul of the one contemplating, ceasing from the conferring of new gifts; and the soul itself, so far as the state of this present way allows, comes to rest in God, ceasing from the new exercises of human life proper to the state of this present way. — There remains also the last vision — namely, the vision of the understanding *through the state of glory consummated* — when the soul returns to the body, and it will see what, and in what manner, in that state of glory. And this vision comes after this present life. These three last visions, moreover, would still contain more than the four aforesaid. — But alas, alas, alas! with a more exalted state supervening, and by the departure from life of the lord and master of this work, they did not receive the continuation they were to have pursued. Now these things which I have noted concerning the four visions are such as I was able to snatch down from the mouth of the speaker into my notebook. Two other companions, indeed, were taking notes along with me, but their notes, on account of too great confusion and illegibility, proved useful to no one, save perhaps to themselves. But when my own copy had been corrected — which some of the hearers were able to read — the master of the work himself, from this same copy of mine, and very many others besides, made copies for themselves, who for that owe me their thanks. — But after many days had passed, the reverend father Brother Thomas, Minister of Upper Germany, having granted me leisure of time and of books, I looked over again what I had written in a rapid hand; and I found I could gather it together in order, my memory cooperating with me — the memory by which I had heard the speaker's voice, and, by hearing and sight, by which I recalled the speaker's gestures, which are wont to assist the memory, according to the Philosopher, in the book *On Memory and Recollection* [c. 1]. Nor, however, did I add anything that he himself had not said, except that in one place I distinguished the division of Aristotle's books more fully, in that particular, than he himself had said. Other things I did not add, except that I also supplied the references for certain authorities. — This little work was read and composed at Paris, in the year of the Lord 1273, from Easter to Pentecost, in the presence of certain masters and bachelors of theology and other friars, one hundred and sixty in number.

translators_notes:
- **The reportator's colophon (apparatus entry p450-1) is the single most important documentary passage in the whole Hexaemeron.** It fixes the collations' date (Paris, Easter–Pentecost 1273), explains why only four of the six or seven planned visions were delivered (Bonaventure's "more exalted state" — his elevation to Cardinal Bishop of Albano in 1273 — and "excessus vitae", his death in 1274), and gives the reportator's own account of how the text was assembled (rapid notes taken "de ore loquentis", corrected against the master's own review of the reportator's copy, then revised at leisure with Brother Thomas of Eschenbach, Minister of Upper Germany, aided by memory of "the speaker's voice... and gestures", per Aristotle's *De memoria et reminiscentia* c. 1). The audience count, 160, closes the passage.
- **This quotation occupies the apparatus (page-foot) position on p. 450, not the main body flow, and is unanchored in print.** The physical evidence: the L-column's main text ends mid-sentence at "...ordinem" (continuing into R's "et cohaerentiam..." — the two halves belong to one sentence, "the innermost order **and coherence** of the matter and the words"), which rules out the footer quotation being inserted between them as continuous prose. The footer's own L→R split confirms it is a second, independent stream: L ends "...vitae ex-" and R resumes "cessu domini..." — a single word, *excessu*, split exactly at the column break, the same way an ordinary footnote runs over. Main text and footer text must therefore be read as two separate strands, each L-then-R, exactly as elsewhere in this corpus main body and apparatus are read separately. Anchored here on "ordinem" (the last word of the main text before the rule) for lack of any true anchor in print — the same expedient used for c23's Additamentum.
- **This essay's structure is the editors' own, not Bonaventure's.** Six roman-numeral sections (I–VI) with arabic-numbered sub-points are the Quaracchi editors' analytical apparatus for the whole work, distinct from the collatio-and-paragraph numbering used throughout the rest of the Hexaemeron; both are transcribed inline exactly as printed, with no added markdown headers beyond the top-level `### SCHOLION`.
- **No apparatus other than p450-1 anywhere in pp. 450–454.** Checked every page's footer band directly on the plate; pp. 451–454 are genuinely blank below the main text (confirmed by the visible blank space at the foot of every column crop), and the Scholion — and the whole Hexaemeron — closes on p. 454 with a plain decorative rule roughly 40% down the right column, no colophon text. p. 455 is the half-title for the next work, *Collationes de septem donis Spiritus Sancti* (confirming nothing is forwarded past the close), matching the standing scouting note that work opens at p. 457 (p. 456 presumably its blank verso, not extracted).
- **★ The editors' own citations throughout use bare collatio/paragraph-number form** (e.g. "collat. 1. n. 9", "6. n. 2", "19. n. 3. 4") which is Quaracchi's own citation unit for this work (`Hexaem. coll. N. n. M`) — these are the editors citing their own edition, not apparatus anchors, and are rendered inline as printed, not converted to footnotes.
- **The Görres-Gesellschaft reference (§ III.4) is transcribed as printed**, including the German title *Die christliche Geschichtsauffassung* left untranslated per corpus convention for titles of secondary literature, with an English gloss supplied in brackets at first occurrence only.