title: Dist. 2, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 82 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum plures Angeli sint simul in eodem loco.*

Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum plures Angeli simul possint esse in eodem loco primo. Et quod sic, videtur ratione multiplici.

1. Et prima est haec: Angelus non est in loco corporaliter, sed spiritualiter: ergo cum dicat Philosophus tertio de Anima[^1], quod «anima est locus specierum», in quo scilicet sunt spiritualiter, similis est modus existendi Angelum in loco et speciem in anima. Sed in anima simul possunt esse plures species, ita quod una non est in alia: ergo pari ratione plures Angeli in uno loco corporali.

2. Item, Angelus non est minoris simplicitatis quam punctus; sed duo puncta possunt esse simul: ergo et plures Angeli. *Probatio minoris*: Philosophus[^2] dicit, quod «contigua sunt, quorum ultima sunt simul»: et dicit, quod «simul sunt quaecumque in eodem loco primo sunt»: ergo cum contingat lineas contiguari, et ita ultima esse simul: ergo duo indivisibilia sunt simul.

<!-- page 83 -->

3. Item, per aliud simile: quia «Angeli sunt lumina spiritualia», sicut dicit Dionysius[^3]; «sed lumina corporalia», quae sunt minoris simplicitatis et magis dependent a loco corporali, «simul sunt», sicut dicit Dionysius, et plures species in eodem medio simul sunt, sicut patet: ergo pari ratione, immo fortiori, plures Angeli in uno loco.

4. Item, rationalis anima magis appropriat sibi corpus, in quo toto est, quam Angelus locum, quia maiori nexu illi unitur: sed daemon potest obsidere et esse in eodem corpore cum anima: ergo etc.

5. Item, Sancti dicunt et infra[^4] habebitur, quod corpus glorificatum pertransit per non glorificatum: ergo possunt simul esse duo corpora, ergo multo fortius duo spiritus. Si dicas, quod non valet in spiritibus, quia unus non est materialis respectu alterius, sicut corpus non glorificatum respectu glorificati; obiicitur tunc: sint simul duo corpora animata, quorum unum sit glorificatum et alterum non; constat, quod duae animae sunt simul; et tamen una non est materialis respectu alterius: ergo pari ratione duo spiritus.

6. Item, spiritus rationalis non occupat locum; intelligamus enim, quod locus sit vacuus a corpore, et ponatur ibi spiritus, nihilominus erit vacuus sicut prius, et natus tantum recipere, quantum prius: ergo cum aeque bene possit ibi esse corpus, sicut si non esset[^5] spiritus, pari ratione videtur, quod et alius spiritus.

**Contra:**

1. Strabus dicit et habetur in littera[^6]: «quod statim, cum empyreum est factum, repletum est sanctis Angelis»: sed non est repletum quoad vacuitatem, ergo quoad ornatus totalitatem: ergo loca distincta et diversa habent in empyreo: ergo si eos ita produxit Deus, sicut nati sunt esse, non ergo in eodem loco nati sunt esse, sed in diversis.

2. Item, Augustinus de Fide ad Petrum[^7]: «Inest singulis spiritibus naturalis terminus, quo a se invicem distinguuntur, et unus in altero non est»: ergo si distincti sunt per terminos naturales, impossibile est, eos esse simul et in eodem loco simul existere.

3. Item, locus dicitur ad locatum relatione essentiali: ergo cum, multiplicato uno relativorum, multiplicatur alterum[^8], quot sunt locata, tot sunt loca, eodem modo, quo locus dicitur ad locatum: ergo cum locus Angeli dicatur ad locatum non per modum mensurantis, sed per modum definientis[^9], ergo quot sunt Angeli definiti, tot sunt loca definientia.

4. Item, sicut se habet locus ad locatum, ita e converso[^10], ergo sicut unum locatum ad plura loca, ita unus locus ad plura locata; sed unum locatum, ut Angelus, non potest esse in pluribus locis[^11]: ergo unus locus non potest esse plurium Angelorum: manifestum est ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> Propter ordinem universi servandum duo Angeli non possunt esse in eodem loco primo.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictam quaestionem dixerunt aliqui, quod Angeli poterant esse plures simul, nullo repugnante, et hoc propter suam simplicitatem et propter hoc, quod locum non replent ratione suae spiritualitatis. Unde nec minuunt loci capacitatem, quemadmodum nec lumina nec idola in medio, nec species in anima, quae in eodem et secundum idem sunt in multitudine; nec tamen ponitur idolum in idolo, nec lumen in lumine; sic dicunt se habere in proposito. Nec cogit obiectio de repletione caeli, quia hoc dictum est propter spirituum multitudinem; nec de virtute sive loco spirituali, quia semper distinguuntur propria virtute et natura, nec unus illabitur alteri[^12]; nec de relatione, quia unius ad alterum non est habitudo nec dependentia necessitatis, sed solum cuiusdam congruitatis.

Alii dixerunt, quod quamvis Angelus spiritualiter sit in loco, tamen plures Angeli in eodem loco simul esse non possunt, repugnante habitudine distinctionis, quae est loci ad Angelum. Sicut enim duae species albedinis in eadem anima esse non possunt, non propter hoc, quod repugnet repletio, sed propter hoc, quod repugnat ipsius animae informatio, quia informata specie albedinis, non potest iterum consimili specie informari[^13]: similiter in proposito locus definiens aliquid non potest aliud,

<!-- page 84 -->

quod eodem modo est in loco, definire; unde sicut unum corpus non potest perfici a duabus animabus, sic nec unus locus primus deputari duobus spiritibus.

Sed melius istam quaestionem terminare possumus, si respiciamus ad rationem, ob quam Angelos ponimus in loco corporali; hoc enim non est propter indigentiam Angeli, quia, omni corporali loco destructo, posset spiritualis substantia permanere. Nec hoc etiam est propter indigentiam loci, quia per praesentiam Angeli nulla removetur indigentia loci; sed hoc est propter ordinem universi. Quoniam igitur Angelus locum non occupat, Angelus indigentiam loci corporalis non terminat, nec simpliciter nec in parte; quantum est de spirituali natura eius et loci, nihil prohiberet[^14], plures spiritus simul esse, sicut plura idola, vel species in anima. Sed quoniam ordo universi ita tollitur per omnimodam indistantiam, sicut per distantiam infinitam: sicut non patitur ordo universi, ut Angelus infinite distet ab Angelo, immo omnes intra unam circumferentiam caeli ultimi clauduntur; sic non patitur, quod Angelus in eodem loco primo simul sit cum Angelo. Et ex his patent obiecta.

1. 2. 3. Quod enim obiicitur de speciebus in anima et punctis et luminaribus, patet responsio, quod non est simile, pro eo quod diversae species diversas indigentias animae complent; non sic plures Angeli indigentiam loci. Amplius, non sic attenditur ordo in illis quantum ad existentiam in loco, sicut in Angelis.

4. 5. Similiter sequentia[^15] duo non valent, quia nihil est ibi, quod repugnet ordini universi[^16], quia daemon et anima sunt in corpore diverso modo essendi, et corpus non glorificatum est materiale respectu glorificati.

6. Ultimum vero concludit a parte naturae Angeli; sed aliud est, quod impedit.

english:
### Question IV. *Whether several Angels are at once in the same place.*

Fourthly and last it is asked whether several Angels can at once be in the same primary place. And that [they] can [be] so, it seems by a manifold reason.

1. And the first is this: an Angel is not in a place corporeally, but spiritually: therefore, since the Philosopher says in the third [book] *On the Soul*[^1] that «the soul is the place of species», in which namely they are spiritually, the mode of an Angel's existing in a place and of a species [existing] in the soul is similar. But in the soul several species can be at once, so that one is not in another: therefore by parity of reason several Angels [can be] in one corporeal place.

2. Likewise, an Angel is not of less simplicity than a point; but two points can be at once: therefore also several Angels. *Proof of the minor*: the Philosopher[^2] says that «those things are contiguous whose extremities are together»: and he says that «whatever things are in the same primary place are together»: therefore since it happens that lines are made contiguous, and so their extremities are together: therefore two indivisibles are together.

<!-- page 83 -->

3. Likewise, by another similar [argument]: because «the Angels are spiritual lights», as Dionysius says[^3]; «but corporeal lights», which are of less simplicity and depend more on a corporeal place, «are together», as Dionysius says, and several species in the same medium are together, as is plain: therefore by parity of reason, indeed by a stronger [one], several Angels [are] in one place.

4. Likewise, the rational soul appropriates to itself the body in whose whole it is more than an Angel [appropriates] a place, because it is united to it by a greater bond: but a demon can besiege and be in the same body with the soul: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, the Saints say, and it will be had below[^4], that a glorified body passes through a non-glorified [one]: therefore two bodies can be at once, therefore much more strongly two spirits. If you say that it does not hold in spirits, because one is not material with respect to the other, as a non-glorified body [is] with respect to a glorified [one]; it is then objected: let there be at once two animated bodies, of which one is glorified and the other not; it is established that the two souls are together; and yet one is not material with respect to the other: therefore by parity of reason two spirits.

6. Likewise, a rational spirit does not occupy a place; for let us understand that a place is empty of a body, and let a spirit be put there; nonetheless it will be empty as before, and born to receive only as much as before: therefore since a body can be there equally well, as if there were not[^5] a spirit, by parity of reason it seems [the same] also [for] another spirit.

**On the contrary:**

1. Strabus says, and it is had in the text[^6]: «that as soon as the empyrean was made, it was filled with the holy Angels»: but it was not filled as to emptiness, therefore as to the totality of [its] adornment: therefore they have distinct and diverse places in the empyrean: therefore if God produced them so as they are born to be, then they were not born to be in the same place, but in diverse [ones].

2. Likewise, Augustine, *On the Faith, to Peter*[^7]: «There is in each spirit a natural term by which they are distinguished from one another, and one is not in another»: therefore if they are distinct by natural terms, it is impossible that they be together and exist at once in the same place.

3. Likewise, a place is said toward what is located [there] by an essential relation: therefore since, one of the relatives being multiplied, the other is multiplied[^8], as many as the things located, so many the places, in the same mode in which a place is said toward what is located: therefore since the place of an Angel is said toward what is located not in the mode of measuring, but in the mode of defining[^9], therefore as many as the Angels defined, so many the defining places.

4. Likewise, as the place is related to what is located, so conversely[^10]; therefore as one located thing [is related] to several places, so one place [is related] to several located things; but one located thing, like an Angel, cannot be in several places[^11]: therefore one place cannot be of several Angels: it is manifest therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> For the order of the universe to be preserved, two Angels cannot be in the same primary place.

**I respond:** To the aforesaid question some said that the Angels could be several at once, nothing being repugnant, and this on account of their simplicity and on account of this, that they do not fill a place by reason of their spirituality. Hence they do not diminish the capacity of the place, just as neither [do] lights nor images in a medium, nor species in the soul, which are in the same [place] and according to the same [respect] in a multitude; nor however is an image posited in an image, nor a light in a light; so they say it is in the matter at hand. Nor does the objection from the filling of the heaven compel, because this was said on account of the multitude of spirits; nor [the objection] from the spiritual power or place, because they are always distinguished by [their] proper power and nature, nor does one slip into another[^12]; nor [the objection] from relation, because of one to another there is no relation nor dependence of necessity, but only of a certain congruity.

Others said that although an Angel is in a place spiritually, yet several Angels cannot be at once in the same place, the relation of distinction which is of the place to the Angel being repugnant. For just as two species of whiteness cannot be in the same soul, not on account of this, that filling is repugnant, but on account of this, that the informing of the soul itself is repugnant, because, informed by the species of whiteness, it cannot again be informed by a like species[^13]: similarly in the matter at hand a place defining one thing cannot define another,

<!-- page 84 -->

which is in the place in the same mode; whence just as one body cannot be perfected by two souls, so neither [can] one primary place be deputed to two spirits.

But we can better terminate this question if we look to the reason on account of which we posit the Angels in a corporeal place; for this is not on account of the need of the Angel, because, every corporeal place being destroyed, the spiritual substance could remain. Nor is this even on account of the need of the place, because by the presence of the Angel no need of the place is removed; but this is on account of the order of the universe. Since therefore the Angel does not occupy a place, the Angel does not terminate the need of the corporeal place, neither simply nor in part; as far as concerns the spiritual nature of it and of the place, nothing would prevent[^14] several spirits being together, like several images, or species in the soul. But since the order of the universe is removed by an utter lack of distance, just as by an infinite distance: just as the order of the universe does not allow that an Angel be infinitely distant from an Angel, indeed all are enclosed within one circumference of the ultimate heaven; so it does not allow that an Angel be at once with an Angel in the same primary place. And from these [things] the objections are clear.

1. 2. 3. For to what is objected concerning the species in the soul and the points and the luminaries, the response is clear, that it is not similar, for the reason that diverse species fill diverse needs of the soul; not so [do] several Angels [fill] the need of a place. Further, order is not so attended to in those as to existence in a place, as [it is] in the Angels.

4. 5. Likewise the following[^15] two [arguments] do not hold, because there is nothing there which is repugnant to the order of the universe[^16], because a demon and a soul are in a body by a diverse mode of being, and a non-glorified body is material with respect to a glorified [one].

6. But the last [argument] concludes from the part of the nature of the Angel; but it is another [thing] that prevents [it].

en: Text 6 (c. 4). Cf. also text 38 (c. 8).

la: Libr. V. Phys. text. 22. seqq. (c. 3.) et VI. text. 1, ubi explicat, quid sit *simul, contiguum, continuum* etc.

en: Book V *Physics* text 22 ff. (c. 3) and VI text 1, where he explains what *together, contiguous, continuous* are, etc.

la: De Caelest. Hierarch. c. 3. § 2. nominat Angelos «specula clarissima et munda, receptiva principalis luminis»; de Div. Nom. c. 4. § 2. «luminaria clara», et ibid. § 22. «imago est Dei Angelus, manifestatio occulti luminis, speculum purum». Sequens textus habetur de Div. Nom. c. 2. § 4: *Lumina lampadum... dum sunt in domo una, et tota in se invicem totis sunt, et diligentem a se invicem proprie substantem habent discretionem, unita discretione et unitate discreta.* — Vocem *species*, quae infra in corp. quaest. vocantur *idola*, intellige formas seu qualitates in medio ab obiectis productas, quae repraesentant obiecta. — Codd. K T circa initium argumenti post *per aliud simile* subiungunt *patet.*

en: *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, c. 3, § 2, names the Angels «most clear and pure mirrors, receptive of the principal light»; *On the Divine Names*, c. 4, § 2, «clear luminaries», and ibid. § 22, «the Angel is an image of God, a manifestation of the hidden light, a pure mirror». The following text is had in *On the Divine Names*, c. 2, § 4: *The lights of lamps... while they are in one house, and are wholly in one another wholly, and have, distinguishing them from one another, a properly subsisting discreteness, [a discreteness] united by discreteness and a unity made discrete.* — The word *species*, which below in the body of the question are called *idola* ["images"], understand [as] the forms or qualities produced in the medium by the objects, which represent the objects. — Codices K T, near the beginning of the argument, after *per aliud simile* subjoin *patet.*

la: Libr. IV. Sent. d. 49. p. II. a. 2. sect. 3. q. 1.

en: Book IV *Sent.* d. 49, p. II, a. 2, sect. 3, q. 1.

la: Supple cum cod. aa *ill[e].*

en: Supply, with codex aa, *ill[e]* ["that"].

la: Hic c. 4.

en: Here c. 4.

la: Cap. 3. n. 30: *Inest tamen singulis terminus naturalis, quo a se invicem discernuntur, quia nullus eorum est in alio.* — In fine argumenti plures codd. ut F T aa bb omittunt *esse simul et.*

en: Chapter 3, n. 30: *Yet there is in each a natural term by which they are discerned from one another, because none of them is in another.* — At the end of the argument several codices, as F T aa bb, omit *esse simul et.*

la: Nam, ut ait Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Relatione, relativa videntur esse simul natura. — Paulo inferius codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3 *dicatur ad locatum per modum mensurantis et per modum definientis* pro *dicatur ad locatum non per modum mensurantis, sed per modum definientis*, quae lectio est in Vat. et a nobis retenta, quia concordat cum dictis q. 1. in corp.

en: For, as Aristotle says, *Categories*, the chapter on Relation, relatives seem to be simultaneous by nature. — A little below the codices and editions 1, 2, 3 [read] *dicatur ad locatum per modum mensurantis et per modum definientis* for *dicatur ad locatum non per modum mensurantis, sed per modum definientis*, which reading is in the Vatican edition and retained by us, because it accords with the things said in q. 1 in the body.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 80, nota 7.

en: Cf. above p. 80, note 7.

la: Ut supra q. 2. probatum est.

en: As was proved above in q. 2.

la: Intellige cum cod. T *caeli empyrei.* Tanguntur hic argg. in fundam.

en: Understand, with codex T, *caeli empyrei* ["of the empyrean heaven"]. The arguments are touched on here in the fundamenta.

la: Talis illapsus siquidem convenit soli Deo; cfr. infra d. 8. p. II. q. 2. — Plures codd. *alii.*

en: Such an indwelling indeed belongs to God alone; cf. below d. 8, p. II, q. 2. — Several codices [read] *alii.*

la: Cfr. infra d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.

en: Cf. below d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, in the body.

la: Vat. *Ideo quantum.* Mox plures codd. cum ed. 1 *prohibet* pro *prohiberet*, et dein codd. I Q bb *vel plures species [vel species]*, ubi cod. T addit *sunt.*

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *Ideo quantum.* Then several codices with ed. 1 [read] *prohibet* for *prohiberet*, and then codices I Q bb *vel plures species [vel species]*, where codex T adds *sunt.*

la: Non pauci codd. *similia*, codd. 1 aa *alia.*

en: Not a few codices [read] *similia*, codices 1 aa *alia.*

la: In codd. A 1 additur *scilicet ordo universi.*

en: In codices A 1 is added *scilicet ordo universi.* ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Scotus responsionem affirmativam praefert; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. aliique vero negativam, si quaestio intelligitur de loco formali adaequato, et de Angelo per modum causae principalis virtutem suam applicante. Huic sententiae suffragatur etiam S. Bonav. cum Richardo a Med., sed aliis ductus rationibus. Putat autem, ex parte naturae Angeli et etiam loci nihil obstare, quominus plures Angeli possint esse in eodem loco.

**II.** Scot., hic q. 8. — S. Thom., 1. Sent. d. 37. q. 3. a. 3; S. I. q. 32. a. 3. — B. Albert., 1. Sent. d. 37. a. 25. — Petr. a Tar., 1. Sent. d. 37. q. 4. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., 1. Sent. d. 37. a. 2. q. 4.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Scotus prefers the affirmative response; but St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and others [prefer] the negative, if the question is understood of a formal adequate place, and of an Angel applying its power in the mode of a principal cause. To this opinion St. Bonaventure also gives suffrage, with Richard of Middleton, but led by other reasons. He thinks, however, that from the part of the nature of the Angel and also of the place nothing stands in the way but that several Angels could be in the same place.

**II.** Scotus, here q. 8. — St. Thomas, 1 *Sent.* d. 37, q. 3, a. 3; S. I, q. 32, a. 3. — Bl. Albert, 1 *Sent.* d. 37, a. 25. — Peter of Tarentaise, 1 *Sent.* d. 37, q. 4, a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, 1 *Sent.* d. 37, a. 2, q. 4.

---

translators_notes:
**Source discipline.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi column-band PDF (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 82-84 --dpi 450` + `tools/colcrop.py vol2 {82,83,84}`) over the IA djvu OCR base (raw lines 6382–6500), per the Vol II override. Read L then R per page, body then footer; R-col footer left edges recovered from the full-width cascade IA OCR.

**Page span / structure.** QUAESTIO IV spans printed pp. **82–84**: opens on p.82 (beneath q3's Scholion tail) with 6 *videtur* + 4 *Contra* arguments; a *Conclusio* (for the order of the universe, two Angels cannot be in the same primary place) + a Respondeo (two prior opinions — several can / cannot — then the author's *ordo universi* resolution: an utter lack of distance destroys order as much as an infinite distance) + merged *Solutio* replies (1.2.3 / 4.5 / 6); **Scholion I–II** (I = Scotus-affirmative vs Thomas/Peter-negative, Bonaventure with Richard; II = bibliographic). The Scholion carries no numbered apparatus. Marginal glosses trimmed per CLAUDE.md (`Ad oppositum`, `Fundamenta`, `Conclusio`, `Opinio 1/2/3`, `Notandum`, `Solutio oppositorum`).

**Apparatus crosswalk (per-page footer → continuous renumber).** Renumbered continuously 1–16:
- **p. 82** footer: **notes 5–6 only** → `[^1]`–`[^2]` (the inherited split; notes 1–4 belong to committed `d2-p2-a2-q3` — its `[^16]`–`[^19]`, with n.3–4 backfilled there in session 29).
- **p. 83** footer: L col notes 1–5 + R col notes 6–11 → `[^3]`–`[^13]` (11 notes).
- **p. 84** footer: **notes 1–3 only** → `[^14]`–`[^16]` (the outgoing split — see below).

**Cross-chunk footer boundaries.**
- *Incoming (a2-q3 → a2-q4): SPLIT at p.82 — INHERITED + corrected.* p.82 footer notes 1–4 anchor in q3 (committed `d2-p2-a2-q3`: `[^16]`–`[^19]`; **n.3–4 were under-captured originally and backfilled into a2-q3 in session 29** — their lemmas *Simul audi: Angelus* and *sed in comparatione ad locatum* anchor q3's reply 5). **q4's apparatus correctly starts at p.82 footer note 5** (`[^1]` arg 1 *Philosophus tertio de Anima*; `[^2]` arg 2 *Probatio minoris: Philosophus*). No backfill of q4 needed.
- *Outgoing (a2-q4 → dubia): SPLIT at p.84.* q4's replies + Scholion I–II occupy the upper/middle of p.84; the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` block begins lower on p.84. p.84's footer splits by body anchor: **notes 1–3 → this chunk** (`[^14]` *nihil prohiberet*; `[^15]` *Similiter sequentia*; `[^16]` *repugnet ordini universi*); **note 4+ → `d2-p2-dubia`** (n.4 `Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 3: Quibus nec lingua opus sit nec auribus…` → the dubia's DUB. I on angelic speech). When `d2-p2-dubia` is built, **start its apparatus at p.84 footer note 4**, by body anchor; **no backfill to this chunk.**

**Decade polish (d.10 blocker).** No hard `[?]` flags — the 450 dpi crops were clean. The p.83/84 Respondeo+replies markers (`[^12]`–`[^16]`, two-column-cascade region) are content-matched to the printed footer in source order; per-clause anchor positions may be off by a few words where the L/R linearization is ambiguous — secure on content, parked for the 600 dpi d.1–d.10 pass.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 2, Part 1, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts on the text of the Master (Part I)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 69 -->

### Dubia circa litteram Magistri.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et quaeritur primo circa hoc quod dicit: *Et tu in principio, Domine, fundasti terram.* Videtur enim falsum, primo ex hoc, quod dicit, terram esse fundatam, quia non videtur esse *fundata*, sed potius *appensa*, secundum quod dicitur Isaiae quadragesimo[^1]: *Qui appendit tribus digitis molem terrae*; et Proverbiorum octavo: *Quando appendebat fundamenta terrae.* Item videtur falsum dicere, cum ait: *In principio terram fundasti*[^2], quia terra facta fuit tertio die: ergo non fuit fundata in principio.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, supra quid terra fundata sit; et videtur, quod super aquas, propter illud Psalmi[^3]: *Qui fundavit terram super aquas.* Contrarium autem videtur per Scripturam, quae dicit[^4]: *Qui fundavit terram super stabilitatem suam*, et per rationem, quae dictat, aquam esse minus gravem quam terram, et ita secundum ordinem naturae non terram supra aquam, sed e converso.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod nomine *terrae*[^5] in Scriptura intelligitur *materia* corporalium, intelligitur etiam *elementum terrae*; et utroque modo accipi potest in praedicta auctoritate, et vere. Si enim *terra* accipiatur pro materia informi, sic recte dicitur: *In principio, tu Domine, terram fundasti*, id est, in principio fecisti materiam informem, quasi fundamentum omnium formarum[^6]. Quae ideo dicitur esse *fundata*, quia omnes formae sustentantur a materia, et ipsa non sustentatur ab alio nisi a Deo. Ideo autem dicitur esse fundata *in principio*, quia nihil ante ipsam creatum est. — Si autem nomine *terrae* intelligatur *elementum terrae*, adhuc verus est praedictus sermo. Terra enim *fundata* dicitur propter sui stabilitatem, secundum illud Ecclesiastae primo[^7]: *Generatio praeterit, et generatio advenit; terra autem in aeternum stat.* — Hoc autem elementum, scilicet terrae, et dicitur *fundatum* et dicitur *appensum*, et fundatum super *stabilitatem suam* et fundatum etiam super *aquas*. Fundatum dicitur, quia, sicut fundamentum est infimum inter omnes partes domus, sic terra est infimum inter omnia corpora mundi, et in centro existens tenet locum fundamenti. — Et cum virtute propria sibi divinitus data centrum appetat et in centro requiescat, fundata dicitur super *stabilitatem suam*. Et hoc dictum esse intelligendum est secundum *veritatem*. Secundum autem nostram *imaginationem* et vulgarem *opinionem*, cum aquae cooperiant inferiorem superficiem terrae respectu nostri, et ultra aquam sit aer, et ultra aerem[^8] sit ignis, dicitur terra esse fundata super *aquas*. Nos enim aestimamus, terram esse super aquam, dum consideramus aquam sub pedibus nostris. — Dicitur etiam esse *tribus digitis appensa*, pro eo quod tribus elementis intermediis distat a caeli circumferentia, et mediantibus illis videtur esse quasi appensa. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad omnia obiecta.

Nota tamen, quod aliter accipitur *principium*, secundum quod nomine terrae intelligitur *materia*, aliter secundum quod intelligitur *elementum terrae*. Secundum enim quod nomine terrae intelligitur materia, tunc dicitur esse fundata *in principio*, id est in primordio productionis rerum; secundum quod terra dicitur elementum, tunc dicitur esse fundata *in principio*, id est in primis operibus sex dierum[^9].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur, *quod tempus non coepit esse in tempore.* Omne enim quod coepit esse, aut coepit esse in tempore, aut in aeternitate; si igitur tempus coepit esse, et non coepit esse in aeternitate: ergo coepit esse in tempore. — Item, dicit, *quod Deus non coepit esse Dominus ex tempore.* Et videtur esse falsum, quia non fuit Dominus, antequam haberet servum; sed non habuit servum nisi ex tempore: ergo coepit esse Dominus ex tempore.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, utrum coeperit esse Dominus. Et quod non, videtur, quia dominium est potestas coercendi subditos[^10], et hoc fuit semper in Deo. Contrarium autem videtur, quia «relativa simul sunt natura[^11]»; et servus non fuit ab aeterno: ergo nec Dominus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod differt dicere, secundum Augustinum[^12] aliquid fieri *ex* tempore, et *in* tempore, et *cum* tempore.

<!-- page 70 -->

*Ex* enim importat ordinem, *in* importat continentiam, *cum* importat simultatem; et ideo nihil est factum *in* tempore, nec *ex* tempore, nisi quod exceditur a tempore. Quia igitur tempus et ea, quae in primordio temporis creata sunt, a tempore non exceduntur, ideo dicit, ea esse creata *cum* tempore, non *in* tempore, nec *ex* tempore. — Et ideo cum Deus dicatur dominus respectu omnis rei creatae, Deus non potuit incipere dominus esse *ex* tempore, nec *in* tempore, proprie accipiendo habitudinem eius quod est *ex* et *in*; nos autem in communi sermone large accipimus.

Quod vero quaeritur, utrum Deus inceperit esse dominus; dicendum, quod *dominus* uno modo importat *potestatem* coercendi subditos; et sic dicit praesidentiam secundum habitum et convenit Deo ab aeterno. Alio modo importat *actualem praesidentiam* respectu servi; et sic incepit esse dominus, non ratione mutationis factae in ipso, sed ratione mutationis factae in suo correlativo[^13].

---

english:
### Doubts on the text of the Master.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and it is asked first concerning that which he says: *And you in the beginning, Lord, founded the earth.* For it seems false, first from this, that he says the earth was *founded*, because it does not seem to be *founded*, but rather *suspended*, according to what is said in Isaiah, chapter forty[^1]: *Who weighs the mass of the earth with three fingers*; and Proverbs, chapter eight: *When he was suspending the foundations of the earth.* Likewise it seems false to say, when he says: *In the beginning you founded the earth*[^2], because the earth was made on the third day: therefore it was not founded in the beginning.

Next to this it is asked, upon what the earth is founded; and it seems [it is] upon the waters, on account of that [text] of the Psalm[^3]: *Who founded the earth upon the waters.* But the contrary seems [true] through Scripture, which says[^4]: *Who founded the earth upon its own stability*, and through reason, which dictates that water is less heavy than earth, and so according to the order of nature [it is] not earth upon water, but conversely.

**I respond:** It must be said that by the name *earth*[^5] in Scripture is understood the *matter* of corporeal things, and also is understood the *element earth*; and in both ways it can be taken in the aforesaid authority, and truly. For if *earth* is taken for unformed matter, then it is rightly said: *In the beginning, you Lord founded the earth*, that is, in the beginning you made unformed matter, as it were the foundation of all forms[^6]. Which is therefore said to be *founded*, because all forms are sustained by matter, and it itself is not sustained by anything else except by God. And it is said to be founded *in the beginning*, because nothing was created before it. — But if by the name *earth* is understood the *element earth*, the aforesaid statement is still true. For the earth is said [to be] *founded* on account of its stability, according to that [text] of Ecclesiastes, chapter one[^7]: *A generation passes away, and a generation comes; but the earth stands forever.* — And this element, namely of earth, is both said [to be] *founded* and said [to be] *suspended*, and founded upon *its own stability* and founded also upon *the waters*. It is said [to be] founded because, just as the foundation is the lowest among all the parts of a house, so the earth is the lowest among all the bodies of the world, and existing in the center it holds the place of a foundation. — And since by a proper power divinely given to it it seeks the center and rests in the center, it is said [to be] founded upon *its own stability*. And this is to be understood as said according to the *truth*. But according to our *imagination* and the common *opinion*, since the waters cover the lower surface of the earth with respect to us, and beyond the water there is air, and beyond the air[^8] there is fire, the earth is said [to be] founded upon *the waters*. For we estimate the earth to be upon water, while we consider the water beneath our feet. — It is also said [to be] *suspended by three fingers*, for the reason that by three intermediate elements it stands away from the circumference of the heaven, and through their mediation it seems [to be] as it were suspended. — And through this the response to all the objections is clear.

Note, however, that *beginning* is taken in one way according as by the name of earth is understood *matter*, in another way according as is understood the *element earth*. For according as by the name of earth is understood matter, then it is said to be founded *in the beginning*, that is, in the first origin of the production of things; according as the earth is called an element, then it is said to be founded *in the beginning*, that is, in the first works of the six days[^9].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which is said, *that time did not begin to be in time.* For everything that began to be either began to be in time or in eternity; if therefore time began to be, and did not begin to be in eternity: therefore it began to be in time. — Likewise, he says *that God did not begin to be Lord from time.* And it seems to be false, because he was not Lord before he had a servant; but he did not have a servant except from time: therefore he began to be Lord from time.

Next to this it is asked whether he began to be Lord. And that [he did] not, it seems, because lordship is the power of coercing subjects[^10], and this was always in God. But the contrary seems [true], because «relatives are by nature simultaneous[^11]»; and the servant was not from eternity: therefore neither [was] the Lord.

**I respond:** It must be said that it makes a difference to say, according to Augustine[^12], that something comes to be *from* time, and *in* time, and *with* time.

<!-- page 70 -->

For *from* implies order, *in* implies containment, *with* implies simultaneity; and therefore nothing is made *in* time, nor *from* time, except what is exceeded by time. Since therefore time and the things which were created in the first origin of time are not exceeded by time, therefore he says that they were created *with* time, not *in* time, nor *from* time. — And therefore since God is called lord with respect to every created thing, God could not begin to be lord *from* time, nor *in* time, taking properly the relation of that which is *from* and *in*; but we in common speech take [it] broadly.

But as to what is asked, whether God began to be lord; it must be said that *lord* in one way implies the *power* of coercing subjects; and so it states a presidency according to a habit, and belongs to God from eternity. In another way it implies *actual presidency* with respect to a servant; and so he began to be lord, not by reason of a change made in himself, but by reason of a change made in his correlative[^13].

---

la: Vers. 12: *Quis appendit* etc. — Sequens textus est Prov. 8, 29.

en: Verse 12: *Who weighs* etc. — The following text is Proverbs 8:29.

la: Psalm. 101, 26: *Initio tu Domine terram fundasti.* — Plures codd. *In principio terra fundata*; alii cum ed. 1 *Et tu in principio Domine terram fundasti.*

en: Psalm 101:26: *In the beginning you, Lord, founded the earth.* — Several codices [read] *In the beginning the earth founded*; others, with ed. 1, *And you in the beginning, Lord, founded the earth.*

la: Psalm. 135, 6: *Qui firmavit terram* etc.

en: Psalm 135:6: *Who established the earth* etc.

la: Psalm. 103, 5: *Qui fundasti terram* etc. — Paulo inferius fide codd. A Y aa cc dd et ed. 1 substituimus *rationem* pro *naturam* (fortasse *naturalem*); cod. F *nostrum intellectum, qui dictat.*

en: Psalm 103:5: *You who founded the earth* etc. — A little below, on the faith of codices A Y aa cc dd and ed. 1, we substitute *rationem* (reason) for *naturam* (nature) (perhaps *naturalem*); codex F [reads] *our understanding, which dictates.*

la: Intellige cum cod. cc et ed. 1 *materia informis*, sicut et inferius dicitur.

en: Understand, with codex cc and ed. 1, *unformed matter*, just as is also said below.

la: In versione Arabico-latina Aristotelis, I. Metaph. text. 17. (c. 8.), materia prima vocatur *fundamentum naturae.* — Mox cod. M cum ed. 1 *fundamentum* pro *fundata.*

en: In the Arabic-Latin version of Aristotle, I *Metaphysics* text 17 (c. 8), prime matter is called the *foundation of nature.* — Shortly after, codex M, with ed. 1, [reads] *fundamentum* (foundation) for *fundata* (founded).

la: Vers. 4.

en: Verse 4.

la: Cod. cc cum ed. 1 *et ultra aquam et aerem.*

en: Codex cc, with ed. 1, [reads] *and beyond the water and the air.*

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 10. m. 2.

en: Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, S. p. II, q. 10, m. 2.

la: Boeth., de Trin. c. 5. dominium definit: *Potestas quaedam, qua servus coercetur.*

en: Boethius, *On the Trinity* c. 5, defines lordship: *A certain power by which a servant is coerced.*

la: Aristot., de Praedicam. c. *de Relativis.*

en: Aristotle, *Categories*, the chapter *On Relatives.*

la: Libr. XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 6.

en: Book XI *On the City of God*, c. 6.

la: Cfr. 1. Sent. d. 30. q. 1. seqq.

en: Cf. 1 *Sent.* d. 30, q. 1 and following. ---

translators_notes:
**Source discipline.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi column-band PDF (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 69-70 --dpi 450` + `tools/colcrop.py vol2 {69,70}`) over the IA djvu OCR base (raw lines 5450–5529), per the Vol II override. Each page read Left column top→bottom, then Right column; body bands then footer bands. R-column footer notes' clipped far-left edges (the known colcrop L/R split artifact) recovered from the full-width cascade IA OCR.

**Page span / structure.** A DUBIA block (no scholion). Two doubts: **DUB. I** (on the Master's *Et tu in principio, Domine, fundasti terram* — whether the earth was *founded* or *suspended*, and on what; with a *iuxta hoc* incidental question, *terra* taken doubly as matter / element) is wholly on p.69; **DUB. II** (on *tempus non coepit esse in tempore* and *Deus non coepit esse Dominus ex tempore*; with a *iuxta hoc* incidental question on whether God began to be Lord) opens on p.69 (right column) and its Respondeo runs p.69 → p.70. Marginal glosses trimmed per CLAUDE.md (`Quaestio incidens` ×2, `Terra dicitur dupliciter`, `Explicantur verba Scripturae`, `Principium dicitur dupliciter`, `Notandum`, `Ad quaestionem incidentem`).

**Apparatus crosswalk (per-page footer → continuous renumber).** Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each printed page; renumbered continuously 1–13:
- **p. 69** footer: L col notes 1–5 → `[^1]`–`[^5]`; R col notes 6–12 → `[^6]`–`[^12]`. (12 notes total — all DUB I/II body-anchored, this chunk's.)
- **p. 70** footer: **note 1 only** → `[^13]` (DUB II's terminal *correlativo* → `Cfr. 1. Sent. d. 30. q. 1. seqq.`). p.70 footer notes 2–4 (`Vat. … quidditatem`; `Cfr. tom. 1. pag. 78, nota 2…`; `Vide Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 76…`) anchor in the **following** chunk `d2-p2-divisio` (the COMMENTARIUS / pars II quaestio that begins lower on p.70) and are **not** taken here. See cross-chunk split below.

**Cross-chunk footer boundaries.**
- *Incoming (q3 → dubia): CLEAN, no split.* Committed `d2-p1-a2-q3` owns p.67 (n.1–8) + p.68 (n.1–7) footers; its Scholion I–II ended on p.68 and p.69 opens directly with the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` block header — so p.69's entire footer (notes 1–12) is the dubia's. **No backfill to committed `d2-p1-a2-q3`.** (The session-20 clean/split rule held a third consecutive time: q3's scholion fit its last body page → next block gets its own page/footer.)
- *Outgoing (dubia → d2-p2-divisio): SPLIT at p.70.* DUB II's Respondeo ends partway down p.70; the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM II. Pars II.` begins below it on the same page. p.70's footer therefore splits by body anchor: **note 1 → this chunk** (`[^13]`, anchored at DUB II's closing *in suo correlativo*); **notes 2–4 → `d2-p2-divisio`** (anchored in the new pars-II divisio + first quaestio). When `d2-p2-divisio` is built (session 23), start its apparatus at **p.70 footer note 2**, by body anchor, and verify this chunk captured p.70 note 1 — same convention as the `d1-p2-divisio`/`d1-littera` and a2-q1↔a2-q2 splits.

**Decade polish (d.10 blocker).** No inline `[?]` flags — the 450 dpi crops were clean throughout; R-col-footer left-edge recoveries from the cascade IA OCR (p.69 notes 6–12) are routine and faithful for footnote prose. Two low-confidence numerals for the 600 dpi d.1–d.10 pass, non-blocking: (1) `[^3]` Psalm citation reads `Psalm. 135, 6` in the 450 dpi crop (IA OCR garbled it `I.S3`); rendered `135` — the lemma *Qui firmavit terram* matches Vulg. Ps 135:6, so the body sense is secure. (2) `[^4]` reads `Psalm. 103, 5` in the crop (IA OCR had `103, 3`); rendered `103, 5` — the lemma *Qui fundasti terram super stabilitatem suam* matches Vulg. Ps 103:5, so secure on content; confirm the bare verse digit at 600 dpi. **RESOLVED 2026-05-22** — 600 dpi p.69 L footer confirms `Psalm. 135, 6` (`[^3]`) and `Psalm. 103, 5` (`[^4]`) exactly as transcribed.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 2, Part 2, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts on the text of the Master (Part II)

source_text:
<!-- page 84 -->

### Dubia circa litteram Magistri.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Cum me laudarent astra matutina.* Dicit enim, hoc de Angelis intelligi. Sed contra hoc est quod dicit Damascenus[^1]: «Tradunt sibi consilia, sermone sine voce prolato»: si ergo Angeli non loquuntur, ergo non laudant. — Item, Angeli sunt substantiae spirituales: ergo non habent organa corporalia, ergo nec vocem possunt formare. — Item, vox formatur ex percussione et fractione aëris: si ergo in empyreo non est aër, ergo non videtur, quod possit ibi esse vox nec sonus, ergo nec laus, non solum ab Angelis, verum etiam nec ab hominibus beatis. Si dicas, quod intelligitur de laude mentali, non vocali; in contrarium sunt revelationes Sanctorum, qui audierunt multas animas; maxime exemplum est in beato Martino, quem audivit quidam vir sanctus[^2] cum laudibus ferri in caelum. — Item, in contrarium est auctoritas Isaiae sexto[^3]: *Clamabant alter ad alterum* etc.; et in Apocalypsi quarto: *Requiem non habebant* etc. — Item, ratio videtur illud persuadere, quia ibi erunt organa vocum, et in hoc maxima est iucunditas, et in hoc manifestatur maxime divina gloria: ergo videtur, quod laus vocalis erit in patria.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod super hoc non habetur certitudo, nec per auctoritates nec per rationes cogentes. Cum enim utraque pars sit probabilis, utraque tenetur a diversis.

Quidam namque dicunt, quod in caelo empyreo non erit nisi laus mentalis tam ab Angelis quam ab hominibus beatis, tum quia non competit loco, tum quia non competit localis, maxime Angelis; et si Angeli monstrati sunt laudare vocaliter, hoc fuit per visionem imaginariam[^4], non corporalem. Nec oportet, huiusmodi corporalem laudem esse, quia tanta erit mentalis, quod haec locum non habebit.

Aliis autem magis placet, quod laus vocalis erit in patria quantum ad homines, qui habebunt organa, ut sic non solum animus laudet Deum, verum etiam lingua, et totus homo feratur in laudem

<!-- page 85 -->

divinam. — Et si quaeratur, quomodo hoc possit esse, dicunt, vel quod illa vocis formatio non erit per inspirationem et respirationem, sed per aërem, qui quasi naturaliter erit Beatis complantatus, sicut patet in quibusdam animalibus, ut in apibus[^5]; vel certe ita deserviet empyreum glorificatis, sicut aër corporibus non glorificatis. De Angelis vero dicunt, quod quia incorporei sunt per naturam propriam, non competit eis nisi laus mentalis. Unde Gregorius[^6]: «Laus Angelorum est in ipsa admiratione contemplationis». Sed quia Angeli, dum ministrant nobis, corpora assumunt ad nostrum solatium et in illis loquuntur et voces formant ad nostram instructionem aliquando, ita etiam in illis vocaliter Deum laudant ad nostram consolationem.

Quaecumque pars teneatur, satis plana est solutio obiectorum. Quaecumque istarum positionum teneatur, planum est, quod textus Iob intelligitur de Angelis beatis, qui dicuntur astra propter fulgorem matutinae cognitionis, quam habent in Verbo: et de laude mentali quantum ad exultationem, quam habent de Deo[^7].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit lucifer: *Ascendam in caelum.* Cum enim esset in empyreo, videtur, quod ultra empyreum sit aliud caelum. Si tu dicas, quod non est aliud caelum corporale, sed spirituale; *contra*: extra ultimum caelum corporale nihil est, quia «est continentia visibilium et invisibilium[^8]»: ergo videtur, quod non sit aliud caelum spirituale ultra empyreum, quin etiam sit aliud corporale. — Item, Christus sedet a dextris Dei[^9], et beata Virgo est exaltata super omnes choros Angelorum; et tam Christus quam beata Virgo est in caelo corporali: ergo si Angeli sunt in empyreo, videtur, quod ultra empyreum sit aliud caelum corporale: ergo non intelligitur de spirituali.

Quaeritur igitur, si ultra empyreum est caelum spirituale, quid sit, quid contineat, et pro quanto dicatur caelum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *caelum* est nomen impositum corpori secundum suam primam impositionem; et corpus, quod est sursum, dicitur caelum, quia est contentivum, secretum et quietum. Et quia haec triplex proprietas reperitur in celsitudine divinitatis, ideo ipsa dicitur caelum: est enim ampla immensitate virtutis, secreta profunditate cognitionis, quieta tranquillitate delectationis. Hoc est caelum, ad quod lucifer ascendere voluit, quia ad hanc celsitudinem; hoc est superius omni caelo, non situ, sed dignitate; et maius est omni caelo, non extensione, sed sua immensitate, per quam est extra omnia, non exclusus, sicut dictum est in primo libro[^10]. In hoc autem caelo sunt solum tres personae, scilicet Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, qui soli sunt omnino et perfecte aequales. Omnia autem creata, sive corporalia sive spiritualia, intra empyreum sunt.

Quod obiicitur de Christo, quod sedet a dextris[^11]; dicendum, quod hoc, si dicatur secundum divinam naturam, dicitur per omnimodam aequalitatem. Si autem secundum humanam, sic dicitur sedere a dextris, quia in potioribus bonis Patris; unde in empyreo ceteros excellit, tam Angelos quam homines, et loco et dignitate. — Post ipsum credimus beatam Virginem super omnes alios; deinde ceteri ordinantur secundum dignitatem meritorum[^12]. — Huius autem imaginatio faciliter potest haberi, si quis imaginetur aves in aëre secundum ordinem, et pisces in aqua; sic in empyreo intelligenda sunt collocari corpora, quia corpus illud multum habet de altitudine, sicut et alii caeli. Unde non debet quis imaginari, quod ibi sint Beati sicut in solario, nec tamen intelligendum, quod imus sit directe super caput alterius; sed sicut, si esset mons rotundus, et aliquis esset in culmine, et aliqui circumcirca: sic potest aliquis imaginari, qui melius nescit, dispositionem Beatorum in caelo empyreo et Christi. Vix tamen potest quis taliter imaginari, quod perveniat ad cogitandam dispositionem per eum modum, per quem est; et ideo magis est desideranda, quam in imagine[^13] describenda.

Nota tamen, quod in dispositione caelorum sive numero videntur contradicere doctores sacrae Scripturae philosophis. Nam philosophi[^14] sphaeras octo dicunt, doctores aliqui novem ponunt, aliqui octo, aliqui septem caelos; et ideo sibi ipsis videntur contrariari. Ratio autem huius diversitatis est, quia philosophi nihil de empyreo sunt locuti, nihil etiam de igne et aëre, quando loquuntur de caelis. Scriptura sacra etiam aërem caelum appellat, et aquas supra caelum et ipsum empyreum et ipsum Deum. — Ratio autem diversitatis inter doctores ex hoc venit, quod quidam numerant caelum spirituale

<!-- page 86 -->

cum corporalibus, ut Beda[^15]; quidam vero omittunt ulterius; quidam dividunt firmamentum in duo, scilicet in caelum sidereum et planetarum; quidam coniungunt. Similiter quidam dividunt aëreum in duos, quidam coniungunt; similiter de igneo. Tamen secundum communiorem computationem novem ponuntur caeli, largissime accipiendo, scilicet aëreum, aethereum, igneum, olympicum, caelum planetarum, firmamentum, aqueum, empyreum et caelum Trinitatis. Horum autem sufficientia patebit infra[^16].

---

english:
### Doubts on the text of the Master.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked concerning that which he says: *When the morning stars praised me.* For he says that this is understood of the Angels. But against this is that which Damascene says[^1]: «They impart counsels to one another by speech uttered without voice»: if therefore the Angels do not speak, then they do not praise. — Likewise, the Angels are spiritual substances: therefore they do not have corporeal organs, therefore neither can they form a voice. — Likewise, voice is formed from the percussion and fracture of air: if therefore in the empyrean there is no air, then it does not seem that there can be there a voice nor a sound, therefore neither praise, not only from the Angels but even not from the blessed men. If you say that it is understood of mental, not vocal, praise; to the contrary are the revelations of the Saints, who heard many souls; the greatest example is in blessed Martin, whom a certain holy man[^2] heard being borne into heaven with praises. — Likewise, to the contrary is the authority of Isaiah six[^3]: *They cried one to another* etc.; and in the Apocalypse, the fourth [chapter]: *They had no rest* etc. — Likewise, reason seems to persuade that, because there will be the organs of voices, and in this is the greatest delight, and in this the divine glory is most manifested: therefore it seems that vocal praise will be in the fatherland.

**I respond:** It must be said that on this there is no certitude, neither through authorities nor through compelling reasons. For since each part is probable, each is held by different [people].

For some say that in the empyrean heaven there will be only mental praise, both from the Angels and from the blessed men, both because it does not befit the place and because it does not befit those located [there], especially the Angels; and if the Angels were shown praising vocally, this was through an imaginary vision[^4], not a corporeal one. Nor is it necessary that such [praise] be corporeal, because the mental [praise] will be so great that this [vocal praise] will have no place.

But to others it pleases more that vocal praise will be in the fatherland as regards men, who will have organs, so that thus not only the mind may praise God, but also the tongue, and the whole man be borne into

<!-- page 85 -->

divine praise. — And if it be asked how this can be, they say either that that formation of voice will not be through inspiration and respiration, but through air which will be as it were naturally implanted in the Blessed, as is plain in certain animals, as in bees[^5]; or certainly the empyrean will so serve the glorified as air [serves] non-glorified bodies. But of the Angels they say that, because they are incorporeal by their proper nature, only mental praise befits them. Hence Gregory[^6]: «The praise of the Angels is in the very wonder of contemplation». But because the Angels, while they minister to us, assume bodies for our solace and in them speak and form voices for our instruction sometimes, so also in them they praise God vocally for our consolation.

Whichever part is held, the solution of the objections is plain enough. Whichever of these positions is held, it is plain that the text of Job is understood of the blessed Angels, who are called stars on account of the splendor of the morning knowledge which they have in the Word: and of mental praise as regards the exultation which they have concerning God[^7].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which Lucifer says: *I will ascend into heaven.* For since he was in the empyrean, it seems that beyond the empyrean there is another heaven. If you say that it is not another corporeal heaven, but a spiritual one; *on the contrary*: outside the ultimate corporeal heaven there is nothing, because «it is the containment of visible and invisible [things][^8]»: therefore it seems that there is not another spiritual heaven beyond the empyrean, but that there is also another corporeal one. — Likewise, Christ sits at the right hand of God[^9], and the blessed Virgin is exalted above all the choirs of Angels; and both Christ and the blessed Virgin are in a corporeal heaven: therefore if the Angels are in the empyrean, it seems that beyond the empyrean there is another corporeal heaven: therefore it is not understood of a spiritual [one].

It is asked, therefore, if beyond the empyrean there is a spiritual heaven, what it is, what it contains, and for how much it is called heaven.

**I respond:** It must be said that *heaven* is a name imposed on a body according to its first imposition; and the body which is above is called heaven, because it is containing, secret, and quiet. And because this threefold property is found in the loftiness of the divinity, therefore it itself is called heaven: for it is ample by the immensity of [its] power, secret by the profundity of [its] knowledge, quiet by the tranquillity of [its] delight. This is the heaven to which Lucifer wished to ascend, because to this loftiness; this is higher than every heaven, not in position but in dignity; and is greater than every heaven, not by extension but by its immensity, through which it is outside all [things], not excluded, as was said in the first book[^10]. But in this heaven there are only three persons, namely Father and Son and Holy Spirit, who alone are wholly and perfectly equal. But all created [things], whether corporeal or spiritual, are within the empyrean.

To what is objected concerning Christ, that he sits at the right hand[^11]; it must be said that this, if it is said according to the divine nature, is said by an equality of every mode. But if according to the human, then he is said to sit at the right hand because [he is] in the better goods of the Father; whence in the empyrean he excels the rest, both Angels and men, both in place and in dignity. — After him we believe the blessed Virgin [to be] above all others; then the rest are ordered according to the dignity of [their] merits[^12]. — But the imagining of this can be easily had, if one imagines birds in the air according to order, and fish in water; so in the empyrean the bodies are to be understood [as] placed, because that body has much of altitude, like also the other heavens. Hence one ought not to imagine that the Blessed are there as in a sun-room, nor however is it to be understood that the lowest is directly over the head of another; but as, if there were a round mountain, and someone were on the summit, and others round about: so can someone imagine, who knows no better, the disposition of the Blessed in the empyrean heaven and of Christ. Yet scarcely can one so imagine [it] that he arrives at conceiving the disposition by the mode by which it is; and therefore it is more to be desired than to be described in an image[^13].

Note however that in the disposition of the heavens, or [their] number, the doctors of sacred Scripture seem to contradict the philosophers. For the philosophers[^14] say [there are] eight spheres, the doctors [say], some posit nine, some eight, some seven heavens; and therefore they seem to be contrary to one another. But the reason of this diversity is that the philosophers said nothing of the empyrean, nor anything of fire and air, when they speak of the heavens. Sacred Scripture also calls the air heaven, and the waters above the heaven, and the empyrean itself, and God himself. — But the reason of the diversity among the doctors comes from this, that some number the spiritual heaven

<!-- page 86 -->

with the corporeal [ones], like Bede[^15]; some however omit [it] further; some divide the firmament into two, namely into the starry heaven and [that] of the planets; some join [them]. Likewise some divide the airy [heaven] into two, some join [them]; likewise concerning the fiery [one]. Yet according to the more common reckoning nine heavens are posited, taking [it] most broadly, namely the airy, the ethereal, the fiery, the Olympic, the heaven of the planets, the firmament, the watery, the empyrean, and the heaven of the Trinity. But the sufficiency of these will be plain below[^16].

---

la: Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 3: *Quibus nec lingua opus sit nec auribus, sed sine ulla prolati sermonis ope mutuo sibi sensa sua communicant et consilia* (τὰ νοήματα καὶ βουλεύματα).

en: Book II *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 3: *To whom neither tongue is needed nor ears, but without any aid of uttered speech they communicate to one another their thoughts and counsels* (τὰ νοήματα καὶ βουλεύματα, "the thoughts and counsels").

la: In cod. K adiicitur *id est Severinus, episcopus Coloniensis sanctus*, cfr. S. Gregor. Episc. Turon., I. de Mirac. S. Martini, c. 4.

en: In codex K is added *that is, Severinus, the holy bishop of Cologne*; cf. St. Gregory, Bishop of Tours, I *On the Miracles of St. Martin*, c. 4.

la: Vers. 3. — Apoc. 4, 8. — Paulo inferius Vat. *quod ibi erunt organa vocum, quia in hoc* etc.

en: Verse 3. — Apocalypse 4:8. — A little below the Vatican edition [reads] *quod ibi erunt organa vocum, quia in hoc* etc.

la: Codd. F cc et ed. 1 *imaginativam.*

en: Codices F cc and ed. 1 [read] *imaginativam.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., de Respirat. c. 11. (c. 9.), ubi ad explicandam vitam longam et sonum apium et cicadarum etc. recurrit ad spiritum innatum (σύμφυτον πνεῦμα).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On Respiration*, c. 11 (c. 9), where, to explain long life and the sound of bees and cicadas etc., he has recourse to the innate spirit (σύμφυτον πνεῦμα, "innate breath").

la: Libr. II. Moral. c. 7. n. 10: *Vox namque Angelorum est in laude Conditoris ipsa admiratio intimae contemplationis.* — Paulo ante cod. cc et ed. 1 post *ubi laus* interserunt *solum.*

en: Book II *Morals*, c. 7, n. 10: *For the voice of the Angels in the praise of the Creator is the very wonder of inmost contemplation.* — A little before, codex cc and ed. 1, after *ubi laus*, insert *solum.*

la: Vide infra d. 10. a. 3. q. 1. et 1. Sent. d. 9. dub. 4; B. Albert., hic a. 6.

en: See below d. 10, a. 3, q. 1, and 1 *Sent.* d. 9, dub. 4; Bl. Albert, here a. 6.

la: Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 6.

en: Damascene, II *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 6.

la: Marc. 16, 19. — Quae sequuntur de B. M. V. inveniuntur in officio Assumtionis eiusdem.

en: Mark 16:19. — The things which follow concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary are found in the office of her Assumption.

la: Dist. 37. p. II. a. 1. q. 1-3, praecipue q. 3. ad 2.

en: Distinction 37, p. II, a. 1, q. 1-3, especially q. 3, ad 2.

la: Cod. aa *a dextris Patris.*

en: Codex aa [reads] *a dextris Patris* ["at the right hand of the Father"].

la: Vat. *ipsorum*, quae et paulo inferius omittit *secundum ordinem.*

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *ipsorum*, which also a little below omits *secundum ordinem.*

la: Codd. F K N cc et ed. 1 *imaginatione.*

en: Codices F K N cc and ed. 1 [read] *imaginatione.*

la: Plato, de Legum institutione (Epinomis sive Philosophus), (ed. Serrani, tom. II. pag. 986 seq.); Aristot., XII. Metaph. text. 47. (XI. c. 8.). De sententia doctorum catholicorum vide infra d. 14. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — Paulo inferius non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 *et iterum* pro *et ideo.*

en: Plato, *On the Institution of Laws* (the *Epinomis* or *Philosophus*), (ed. Serranus, tom. II, p. 986 ff.); Aristotle, XII *Metaphysics* text 47 (XI, c. 8). On the opinion of the catholic doctors see below d. 14, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — A little below not a few codices with ed. 1 [read] *et iterum* for *et ideo.*

la: Super Gen. 1. Vide apud Lyranum ibid. — Mox Vat. *ultimum* pro *ulterius*, quae et paulo inferius cum pluribus mss. post primum *coniungunt* addit *simul.*

en: On Genesis 1. See in Lyra at the same place. — Then the Vatican edition [reads] *ultimum* for *ulterius*, which also a little below, with several manuscripts, after the first *coniungunt* adds *simul.*

la: Dist. 14. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — Idem dubium solvit B. Albert., hic a. 7. seq. et S. p. II. tr. 3. q. 12. m. 4.

en: Distinction 14, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — The same doubt B. Albert solves, here a. 7 ff. and S. p. II, tr. 3, q. 12, m. 4. ---

translators_notes:
**Source discipline.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi column-band PDF (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 84-86 --dpi 450` + `tools/colcrop.py vol2 {84,85,86}`) over the IA djvu OCR base (raw lines 6501–6627), per the Vol II override. Read L then R per page, body then footer; R-col footer left edges recovered from the full-width cascade IA OCR.

**Page span / structure.** A DUBIA block (no scholion) — **closes Distinction II**. Two doubts spanning printed pp. **84–86**: **DUB. I** (on the Master's *Cum me laudarent astra matutina* — whether the Angels praise vocally or only mentally; two probable opinions, the author leaving it open) opens on p.84 and runs to p.85; **DUB. II** (on Lucifer's *Ascendam in caelum* — whether beyond the empyrean there is another heaven; a *quaestio connexa* on the spiritual heaven = the divinity; the Christ-at-the-right-hand objection; an excursus *De dispositione caelorum sive numero*) runs p.85 → p.86, ending the distinction. Marginal glosses trimmed per CLAUDE.md (`Opinio 1/2`, `Imaginatio`, `Notandum`, `De dispositione et numero caelorum`, `Quaestio connexa`, `Ad quaestionem connexam`, `De caelo divinitatis`, `De Christo et B. Virgine`, `Iudicium auctoris`).

**Apparatus crosswalk (per-page footer → continuous renumber).** Renumbered continuously 1–16:
- **p. 84** footer: **notes 4–7 only** → `[^1]`–`[^4]` (the inherited split; notes 1–3 are committed `d2-p2-a2-q4`'s `[^14]`–`[^16]`).
- **p. 85** footer: L col notes 1–3 + R col notes 4–10 → `[^5]`–`[^14]` (10 notes).
- **p. 86** footer: **notes 1–2 only** → `[^15]`–`[^16]` (the outgoing boundary — see below).

**Cross-chunk footer boundaries.**
- *Incoming (a2-q4 → dubia): SPLIT at p.84 — INHERITED.* p.84 footer notes 1–3 are committed `d2-p2-a2-q4`'s `[^14]`–`[^16]`; **notes 4–7 are this chunk's** (`[^1]` DUB I *Damascenus*; `[^2]` *quidam vir sanctus*; `[^3]` *Isaiae sexto*; `[^4]` Respondeo *per visionem imaginariam*). **No backfill** to committed `d2-p2-a2-q4`.
- *Outgoing (dubia → d.3): boundary at p.86.* DUB II's excursus ends partway down p.86; `DISTINCTIO III` (Cap. IV littera, `An boni, vel mali creati sint…`) begins lower on p.86. p.86's footer: **notes 1–2 → this chunk** (`[^15]` *ut Beda*; `[^16]` *patebit infra*); the following `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` sub-block (note 1 `Haec et fere totam distinctionem Magister accepit ex…`) anchors Lombard's d.III littera and belongs to the **next distinction's** `d3` littera chunk — **not** taken here. When d.3 is built, that `NOTAE` sub-block is d.3-littera's, exactly as the d.1/d.2 littera↔divisio two-stream p.-footer pattern.

**Decade polish (d.10 blocker).** No hard `[?]` flags — the 450 dpi crops were clean. The DUB II *De dispositione caelorum* excursus (raw 6580–6606) is two-column-cascade-shattered in the IA OCR; reflowed from the 450 dpi p.85 R-col crop; the markers `[^13]`–`[^14]` in that region are content-matched to the printed footer in source order and may be off by a few words — secure on content, parked for the 600 dpi d.1–d.10 pass.


title: Dist. 3

title_alt: Distinctio III. Magistri Sententiarum (Pars I et II).

title_alt: Distinction 3. The text of the Master of the Sentences (Parts I and II).

source_text:
<!-- page 86 -->

### *Distinctio III.*

### *Pars I.*

### Cap. I. *Quales facti fuerint Angeli.*

Ecce ostensum est, ubi Angeli fuerint, mox ut creati sunt. Nunc consequens est investigare, quales facti fuerint in ipso primordio suae conditionis. Et quatuor quidem Angelis videntur esse attributa in initio subsistentiae suae[^1], scilicet *essentia simplex*, id est indivisibilis et immaterialis; et *discretio personalis*; et per rationem naturaliter insitam *intelligentia, memoria* et *voluntas* sive *dilectio*; *liberum* quoque *arbitrium*, id est libera inclinandae voluntatis sive ad bonum sive ad malum facultas. Poterant enim per liberum arbitrium sine violentia et coactione ad utrumlibet propria voluntate deflecti[^2].

### Cap. II. *An omnes Angeli fuerint aequales in essentia, sapientia, libertate arbitrii.*

Hic considerandum est, utrum in sua substantia spirituali et sapientia rationali et libertate arbitrii, quae omnibus inerant, omnes aequales fuerint, ut sit prima consideratio de *substantia*, secunda de *forma*, tertia de *potestate*. Persona quippe substantia est, sapientia forma, arbitrium potestas. Et ad *substantiam* quidem pertinet naturae subtilitas, ad *formam* vero intelligentiae perspicacitas, et ad *potestatem* voluntatis rationalis habilitas. — Illae igitur essentiae rationales, quae personae erant et spiritus erant naturaque simplices ac vita immortales, differentem essentiae tenuitatem et differentem sapientiae perspicacitatem atque differentem arbitrii habilitatem[^3] recte habuisse intelliguntur; sicut in corporibus nonnulla differentia est secundum essentiam ac formam et pondus: quaedam enim aliis meliorem ac digniorem essentiam et formam habent, et alia aliis leviora atque agiliora sunt. Ad hunc ergo modum credendum est, illas spirituales naturas convenientes suae puritati et excellentiae et in essentia et in forma et in facultate differentias accepisse in exordio suae conditionis, quibus alii superiores, alii inferiores Dei sapientia constituerentur, aliis maiora, aliis minora dona praestans, ut qui tunc per naturalia bona aliis excellebant, ipsi etiam post per munera gratiae eisdem praeessent. Qui enim natura magis subtiles et sapientia amplius perspicaces creati sunt, hi etiam maioribus gratiae muneribus praediti sunt et dignitate excellentiores aliis constituti. Qui vero natura minus subtiles et sapientia minus perspicaces conditi sunt, minora gratiae dona habuerunt inferioresque constituti sunt sapientia Dei, aequo moderamine cuncta ordinantis. In ipsa facultate arbitrii differentia animadvertenda est secundum differentem naturae virtutem et differentem cognitionis et intelligentiae vim. Et sicut differens vigor et subtilitas naturae infirmitatem non adducit, minorque cognitio sapientiae ignorantiam non ingerit, sic libertas inferior nullam arbitrio necessitatis voluntatem imponit.

### Cap. III. *Quae communia et aequalia habuerunt Angeli.*

Et sicut in praedictis Angeli differebant, ita et quaedam communia et aequalia habebant: quod *spiritus* erant, quod indissolubiles et immortales erant, commune omnibus et aequale erat; in subtilitate vero essentiae et intelligentia sapientiae et libertate voluntatis differentes erant. Has discretiones[^4] intelligibiles invisibilium naturarum ille solus comprehendere potuit et ponderare, qui cuncta fecit in pondere, numero et mensura[^5].

### *Pars II.*

### Cap. IV. *An boni, vel mali creati sint, et an aliqua mora fuerit inter creationem et lapsum.*

Illud quoque investigatione dignum videtur, quod et a pluribus quaeri solet, utrum boni vel mali, iusti vel iniusti creati sint Angeli, et an aliqua mora fuerit inter creationem et lapsum, vel sine mora in ipso creationis exordio ceciderint. — Putaverunt enim quidam, Angelos, qui ceciderunt, creatos esse malos et non libero arbitrio in malitiam declinasse, sed in malitia a Deo factos esse, nec aliquam fuisse moram inter creationem et lapsum, sed ab initio apostatasse; alios vero creatos fuisse plene beatos. Qui opinionem suam muniunt auctoritate Augustini super Genesim[^6] ita dicentis: «Non frustra putari potest, ab initio temporis diabolum cecidisse nec cum sanctis Angelis pacatum aliquando vixisse et beatum, sed mox apostatasse; unde Dominus ait: *Ille homicida erat ab initio et in veritate non stetit*, ut intelligamus, quia in veritate non stetit ex quo creatus est, qui staret, si stare voluisset». Idem in eodem[^7]: «Non frustra, inquit, putandum est, ab ipso initio temporis vel conditionis suae diabolum cecidisse et nunquam in veritate stetisse. Unde quidam in hanc malitiam libero arbitrio non esse flexum, sed in hac, quamvis a Deo, putant esse creatum, secundum illud beati Iob: *Hoc est, inquit, initium figmenti Dei, quod fecit Deus, ut illudatur ei ab Angelis eius*; et Propheta ait: *Draco iste, quem formasti ad illudendum ei*, tanquam primo factus sit malus et invidus diabolus[^8], non voluntate depravatus». — His aliisque testimoniis utuntur qui dicunt, Angelos, qui ceciderunt, creatos fuisse malos et sine mora corruisse; eos vero, qui perstiterunt, perfectos et beatos fuisse creatos, astruunt auctoritate Augustini, qui super Genesim[^9] dicit, per caelum significari creaturam spiritualem, quae ab exordio, quo facta est, et perfecta et beata est semper.

Aliis autem videtur, omnes Angelos creatos esse bonos et in ipso creationis primordio[^10] bonos exstitisse, id est sine vitio, *honestos*que fuisse, id est innocentes, sed non iustos, id est virtutum exercitium habentes. Nondum enim praediti erant virtutibus, quae stantibus appositae fuerunt in confirmatione per gratiam, aliis per liberum arbitrium superbientibus, et ideo cadentibus. Aliquam etiam fuisse morulam aiunt inter creationem et lapsum ac confirmationem; et in illa brevitate temporis omnes boni erant, non quidem per usum liberi arbitrii, sed per creationis beneficium; et tales erant, qui stare poterant, id est, non cadere per bona creationis, et cadere per liberum arbitrium. Poterant enim peccare et non peccare, sed non poterant proficere ad meritum vitae, nisi gratia superadderetur, quae addita est quibusdam in confirmatione. Et ad hoc confirmandum utuntur testimonio Augustini, qui super Genesim[^11] dicit, angelicam naturam primo informiter creatam et caelum dictam, postea formatam et lucem appellatam, quando ad Creatorem est conversa, perfecta dilectione ei inhaerens. Unde prius dictum est: *In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram*, et postea subditum: *Dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est lux*, quia in primo agitur de creatione spiritualis naturae informis, postea de formatione eiusdem. — Ratio quoque obviat illis qui dicunt, Angelos creatos fuisse malos. Non enim potuit non bonum esse, totum quod ex ipso illis erat, et totum bonum erat, quoniam ex ipso totum erat. Hoc modo probatur, quod boni erant omnes Angeli, quando primo facti sunt, sed ea bonitate, quam natura incipiens acceperat.

Ideoque Augustinus, exterminans opinionem eorum[^12] qui Angelos creatos fuisse malos putant, auctoritate et ratione probat, bonos fuisse creatos; et verba praemissa, quae illi pro se inducebant, quomodo sint intelligenda, aperit ita dicens super Genesim: «Omnia, inquit, fecit Deus valde bona. Naturam igitur Angelorum bonam fecit. Et quia iniustum est, ut nullo merito hoc in aliquo, quod creavit, Deus damnet; non naturam, sed voluntatem malam puniendam esse credendum est, nec eius naturam significatam esse, cum dicitur: *Hoc est initium figmenti Dei* etc., sed corpus aereum, quod tali voluntati aptavit Deus, vel ipsam ordinationem Dei, in qua eum etiam invitum fecit utilem bonis, vel ipsius Angeli facturam; quia, etsi praesciret Deus, voluntate malum futurum, fecit tamen eum, providens, quanta de illo sua bonitate esset facturus. Figmentum ergo Dei dicitur, quia, cum sciret Deus, eum voluntate malum futurum, ut bonis noceret, creavit tamen illum, ut de illo bonis prodesset; hoc autem fecit, ut illudatur ei. Illuditur enim ei, cum Sanctis proficit tentatio eius; sicut et mali homines, quos Deus, malos futuros praevidens, creavit tamen ad Sanctorum utilitatem, illuduntur, cum praestatur Sanctis eorum tentatione profectus. Sed ipse est initium, quia praecedit antiquitate[^13] et principatu malitiae. Haec autem illusio fit angelis malis et hominibus malis per Angelos sanctos, quia subdit eis angelos malos et homines malos, ut, non quantum nituntur, sed quantum sinuntur, possint». — Ecce aperte ostendit, qualiter praedicta verba Iob intelligenda sint, et angelicam naturam bonam creatam asseruit[^14].

<!-- page 87 -->

Deinde, qualiter verba Domini, quae supra posuit, accipienda sint, Augustinus aperit, ubi etiam sua quae praedixit verba determinat, evidenter docens, Angelos bonos fuisse creatos et post creationem, interposita aliqua morula, cecidisse, ita inquiens[^15]: «Quod putatur diabolus nunquam in veritate stetisse, nunquam beatam vitam duxisse, sed ab initio cecidisse, non sic accipiendum est, ut malus a bono Deo creatus esse putetur, quia[^16] ab initio non *cecidisse* diceretur. Non enim cecidit, si talis, id est malus, factus est. A quo

<!-- page 88 -->

enim caderet? Factus ergo prius, statim a veritate se avertit, propria potestate delectatus, beataeque vitae dulcedinem non gustavit, quam acceptam non fastidivit, sed nolendo accipere amisit. Sui ergo casus praescius esse non potuit, quia *sapientia fructus est pietatis*[^17]. Continuo autem ut factus est, cecidit, non ab eo quod accepit, sed ab eo quod accepisset, si Deo subdi voluisset». — Ecce hic aperte declarat, Angelos bonos esse creatos et post creationem cecidisse; et fuit ibi aliqua morula, licet brevissima. Quod Origenes confirmat super Ezechielem[^18] dicens: «Serpens hostis est contrarius veritati, non tamen a principio neque statim super pectus et ventrem suum ambulavit; sicut Adam et Eva non statim peccaverunt, ita et serpens aliquando fuit non serpens, cum in paradiso deliciarum moraretur; Deus enim malitiam non fecit». — Ecce aperte dicit, post creationem, interposita morula, cecidisse. Ideoque illa verba sic accipienda videntur: *Homicida erat ab initio*[^19] vel *mendax*, id est, statim post initium, quando sibi aequalitatem Dei promisit et se ipsum occidit, qui homo dicitur in Evangelio. *Nec in veritate stetit*, quia in ea non fuit, sed ab initio temporis, id est statim post initium temporis, apostatavit. Potest etiam sic accipi illud: *Ab initio homicida fuit* vel *mendax*, id est, ex quo homo fuit conditus, quem per invidiam in mortem praecipitavit et fallaciter seduxit. Ex praedictis ergo liquet, Angelos omnes bonos esse creatos, et post creationem quosdam cecidisse a bono, quod habuissent, si perstitissent.

### Cap. V. *De triplici sapientia Angelorum ante casum vel confirmationem.*

Hic inquiri solet, quam sapientiam habuerunt ante casum vel confirmationem. Erat in eis triplex naturalis cognitio, qua sciebant, quod facti erant, et a quo facti erant, et cum quo facti erant, et habebant aliquam boni et mali notitiam, intelligentes, quid appetendum, vel respuendum illis foret.

### Cap. VI. *An aliquam habuerint Dei dilectionem vel sui ante casum.*

Solet etiam quaeri, utrum aliquam Dei vel sui invicem dilectionem habuerint. Ad quod dici potest, quod[^20] naturalem dilectionem habebant, ut memoriam, intellectum et ingenium, qua Deum et se aliquatenus diligebant, per quam tamen non merebantur.

---

english:
### *Distinction 3.*

### *Part I.*

### Ch. I. *Of what kind the Angels were made.*

Behold, it has been shown where the Angels were, as soon as they were created. Now it is consequent to investigate of what kind they were made in the very first beginning of their condition. And four [things] indeed seem to have been attributed to the Angels in the beginning of their subsistence[^1], namely a *simple essence*, that is indivisible and immaterial; and *personal distinction*; and, by a reason naturally implanted, *intelligence, memory*, and *will* or *love*; also *free choice*, that is the free faculty of inclining the will either to good or to evil. For they could, through free choice, without violence and coercion, be turned to either alternative by their own will[^2].

### Ch. II. *Whether all the Angels were equal in essence, wisdom, [and] freedom of choice.*

Here it must be considered whether in their spiritual substance and rational wisdom and freedom of choice, which were in all, all were equal — so that the first consideration is about *substance*, the second about *form*, the third about *power*. For the person is substance, wisdom is form, choice is power. And to *substance* indeed pertains the subtlety of nature, to *form* the perspicacity of intelligence, and to *power* the aptitude of the rational will. — Those rational essences, therefore, which were persons and were spirits and by nature simple and by life immortal, are rightly understood to have had a differing tenuity of essence and a differing perspicacity of wisdom and a differing aptitude of choice[^3]; just as in bodies there is some difference according to essence and form and weight: for some have a better and worthier essence and form than others, and some are lighter and more agile than others. In this way, then, it must be believed that those spiritual natures received, befitting their purity and excellence, differences both in essence and in form and in faculty in the beginning of their condition, by which some were constituted higher, others lower, by the wisdom of God, bestowing greater gifts on some, lesser on others, so that those who then by natural goods excelled others, these also afterward by the gifts of grace would preside over the same. For those who were created by nature more subtle and by wisdom more perspicacious, these also were endowed with greater gifts of grace and constituted more excellent than others in dignity. But those who were made by nature less subtle and by wisdom less perspicacious, had lesser gifts of grace and were constituted lower by the wisdom of God, ordering all [things] with an equable governance. In the very faculty of choice a difference is to be noted according to the differing power of nature and the differing force of cognition and intelligence. And just as a differing vigor and subtlety of nature does not bring infirmity, and a lesser cognition does not introduce ignorance of wisdom, so a lower freedom imposes no [necessitated] will of necessity on the choice.

### Ch. III. *What [things] the Angels had in common and equally.*

And just as in the aforesaid the Angels differed, so also they had certain [things] common and equal: that they were *spirits*, that they were indissoluble and immortal, was common to all and equal; but in the subtlety of essence and the intelligence of wisdom and the freedom of will they were differing. These intelligible distinctions[^4] of the invisible natures He alone could comprehend and weigh, who made all [things] in weight, number, and measure[^5].

### *Part II.*

### Ch. IV. *Whether they were created good or evil, and whether there was any delay between creation and the fall.*

That too seems worthy of investigation, which is also asked by many, whether the Angels were created good or evil, just or unjust, and whether there was any delay between creation and the fall, or whether without delay in the very beginning of creation they fell. — For some have thought that the Angels who fell were created evil and did not by free choice decline into malice, but were made by God in malice, nor was there any delay between creation and the fall, but from the beginning they apostatized; but others [they thought] were created fully blessed. Those who fortify their opinion by the authority of Augustine on Genesis[^6] thus saying: «Not without reason can it be thought that from the beginning of time the devil fell, and never lived at peace with the holy Angels and blessed, but soon apostatized; whence the Lord says: *That one was a murderer from the beginning and stood not in the truth*, that we may understand that he stood not in the truth from the time he was created, who would have stood, had he willed to stand». The same in the same [work][^7]: «It must not without reason, he says, be thought that from the very beginning of time or of his condition the devil fell and never stood in the truth. Whence some [hold] that he was not bent into this malice by free choice, but that he was created — though by God — in this [malice], according to that [text] of blessed Job: *This, he says, is the beginning of the figment of God, which God made, that it might be mocked by His Angels*; and the Prophet says: *That dragon, which You formed to mock him* — as though the devil were made evil and envious from the first[^8], not depraved by [his own] will». — These and other testimonies are used by those who say that the Angels who fell were created evil and fell without delay; but that those who persevered were created perfect and blessed, they establish by the authority of Augustine, who on Genesis[^9] says that by «heaven» is signified the spiritual creature, which from the beginning, when it was made, was always both perfect and blessed.

But to others it seems that all the Angels were created good and in the very first beginning of creation[^10] existed [as] good, that is without vice, and were *honest*, that is innocent, but not just, that is having the exercise of virtues. For they were not yet endowed with the virtues which were added to those who stood firm in [their] confirmation through grace, while others by free choice became proud, and therefore fell. They also say there was some little delay between creation and the fall and the confirmation; and in that brevity of time all were good, not indeed through the use of free choice, but through the benefit of creation; and they were such as could stand, that is, not fall, through the goods of creation, and [could] fall through free choice. For they could sin and not sin, but they could not advance to the merit of life, unless grace were superadded, which was added to some in [their] confirmation. And to confirm this they use the testimony of Augustine, who on Genesis[^11] says that the angelic nature was first created formless and called «heaven», afterward formed and called «light», when it was turned to the Creator, adhering to Him by perfect love. Whence first it was said: *In the beginning God created heaven and earth*, and afterward was subjoined: *God said: Let there be light, and light was made*, because in the first [statement] it treats of the creation of the formless spiritual nature, afterward of the formation of the same. — Reason too is opposed to those who say that the Angels were created evil. For that which was theirs from Him could not be not-good, and was wholly good, since it was wholly from Him. In this way it is proved that all the Angels were good when they were first made, but with that goodness which the beginning nature had received.

And therefore Augustine, exterminating the opinion of those[^12] who think the Angels were created evil, proves by authority and reason that they were created good; and the foregoing words, which they adduced for themselves, how they are to be understood, he opens, thus saying on Genesis: «All [things], he says, God made very good. The nature of the Angels, therefore, He made good. And because it is unjust that God condemn this in anything which He created, by no merit; it must be believed that not the nature but the evil will is to be punished, nor that his nature was signified when it is said: *This is the beginning of the figment of God* etc., but the airy body which God adapted to such a will, or the very ordination of God, in which He made him useful to the good even against his will, or the very making of the Angel; because, although God foreknew [him] to be evil by will, yet He made him, foreseeing how much good He would do from him by His goodness. It is therefore called the figment of God, because, since God knew that he would be evil by will, that he might harm the good, yet He created him, that from him He might profit the good; and He did this, that he might be mocked. For he is mocked when his temptation profits the Saints; just as also evil men, whom God, foreseeing them to be evil, yet created for the utility of the Saints, are mocked, when by their temptation an advance is afforded to the Saints. But he himself is the beginning, because he precedes in antiquity[^13] and in primacy of malice. But this mocking is done to the evil angels and evil men through the holy Angels, because He subjects to them the evil angels and evil men, that they may [prevail] not as much as they strive, but as much as they are permitted». — Behold, he plainly shows how the aforesaid words of Job are to be understood, and he asserted the angelic nature to have been created good[^14].

<!-- page 87 -->

Then, how the words of the Lord which he set forth above are to be taken, Augustine opens, where he also determines his own words which he had foretold, evidently teaching that the Angels were created good and after creation, some little delay being interposed, fell, thus saying[^15]: «That it is thought the devil never stood in the truth, never led a blessed life, but fell from the beginning, is not to be so taken that he be thought created evil by the good God, because[^16] from the beginning he would not be said to have *fallen*. For he did not fall, if he was made such, that is evil. For from what

<!-- page 88 -->

would he fall? Made therefore first, he at once turned himself away from the truth, delighted by his own power, and did not taste the sweetness of the blessed life, which, received, he did not loathe, but by not willing to receive it he lost. He could not therefore be foreknowing of his own fall, because *wisdom is the fruit of piety*[^17]. But continuously, as he was made, he fell, not from that which he received, but from that which he would have received, had he willed to be subject to God». — Behold, here he plainly declares that the Angels were created good and after creation fell; and there was there some little delay, though very brief. Which Origen confirms on Ezekiel[^18], saying: «The serpent, an enemy contrary to the truth, did not however from the beginning nor at once walk upon his breast and belly; just as Adam and Eve did not at once sin, so also the serpent for a time was not a serpent, while he tarried in the paradise of delights; for God did not make malice». — Behold, he plainly says that after creation, a little delay being interposed, [the devil] fell. And therefore those words seem to be taken thus: *He was a murderer from the beginning*[^19] or *a liar*, that is, immediately after the beginning, when he promised himself equality with God and slew himself, who is called «man» in the Gospel. *Nor did he stand in the truth*, because he was not in it, but from the beginning of time, that is immediately after the beginning of time, he apostatized. It can also be taken thus: *From the beginning he was a murderer* or *a liar*, that is, from the time man was made, whom through envy he cast down into death and deceitfully seduced. From the aforesaid, then, it is clear that all the Angels were created good, and that after creation some fell from the good which they would have had, had they persevered.

### Ch. V. *Of the threefold wisdom of the Angels before the fall or confirmation.*

Here it is wont to be inquired what wisdom they had before the fall or confirmation. There was in them a threefold natural cognition, by which they knew that they were made, and by whom they were made, and with whom they were made, and they had some knowledge of good and evil, understanding what was to be sought, or to be rejected, by them.

### Ch. VI. *Whether they had any love of God or of themselves before the fall.*

It is also wont to be asked whether they had any love of God or of one another. To which it can be said that[^20] they had a natural love, like memory, understanding, and ingenuity, by which they loved God and themselves to some extent, by which however they did not merit.

---

la: Haec et fere totam distinctionem Magister accepit ex Hugone, I. de Sacram. p. 5. c. 6. seqq., et Sent. tr. 2. c. 3. seqq. — Paulo inferius codd. B C D E *propter rationem* loco *per rationem.*

en: This, and almost the whole distinction, the Master took from Hugh, I *On the Sacraments*, p. 5, c. 6 ff., and *Sentences* tr. 2, c. 3 ff. — A little below codices B C D E [read] *propter rationem* in place of *per rationem.*

la: Ed. 1 melius *flecti.*

en: Ed. 1 [reads], better, *flecti.*

la: Vat. cum edd., exc. 1, voci *habilitatem* praemittit *libertatem et.*

en: The Vatican edition, with the editions except ed. 1, prefixes to the word *habilitatem* [the words] *libertatem et.*

la: Vat. cum nonnullis edd. *distinctiones.*

en: The Vatican edition, with some editions, [reads] *distinctiones.*

en: Wisdom 11:21.

la: Libr. XI. c. 16. n. 21, sed apud Magistr. contracte. — Deinde locus s. Scripturae est Ioan. 8, 44. — Paulo inferius ante *voluisset* codd., at non edd., omittunt *stare.*

en: Book XI, c. 16, n. 21, but in the Master abridged. — Then the passage of sacred Scripture is John 8:44. — A little below, before *voluisset*, the codices, but not the editions, omit *stare.*

la: Cap. 19. 20. n. 26. 27. Infra locus Iob est 40, 19 (secund. Septuag.) et sequens locus Ps. 103, 26. Cfr. in Ioan. tr. 42. n. 11.

en: Chapters 19, 20, nn. 26, 27. Below the Job passage is 40:19 (according to the Septuagint) and the following passage is Ps. 103:26. Cf. on John, tractate 42, n. 11.

la: Sic ed. 1; codd. cum Vat. et reliquis edd. minus bene *malus, invidus et diabolus.*

en: So ed. 1; the codices, with the Vatican edition and the rest of the editions, less well [read] *malus, invidus et diabolus.*

la: Vat. cum cod. A et nonnullis edd. *initio.* Aliquanto inferius post *aliis* omnes edd., excepta Vat., interiiciunt *vero.*

en: The Vatican edition, with codex A and some editions, [reads] *initio.* Somewhat below, after *aliis*, all the editions except the Vatican insert *vero.*

la: Libr. 1. c. 1. n. 3, c. 3. n. 7, c. 4. n. 9. Tamen August. potius inquirendo quam asserendo loquitur.

en: Book 1, c. 1, n. 3, c. 3, n. 7, c. 4, n. 9. Yet Augustine speaks rather by inquiring than by asserting.

la: Libr. XI. c. 21. n. 28, et c. 22. n. 29, sed cum additamentis et mutationibus. — Paulo ante pro *exterminans* ed. 1 *examinans.*

en: Book XI, c. 21, n. 28, and c. 22, n. 29, but with additions and changes. — A little before, for *exterminans*, ed. 1 [reads] *examinans.*

la: Respicitur Apoc. 12, 9: *Serpens antiquus, qui vocatur diabolus et satanas.* — Immediate ante pro *est initium* ed. 1 *dicitur initium.*

en: Apocalypse 12:9 is referred to: *the ancient serpent, who is called the devil and satan.* — Immediately before, for *est initium*, ed. 1 [reads] *dicitur initium.*

la: Vat. sola *creatam esse asserit.*

en: The Vatican edition alone [reads] *creatam esse asserit.*

la: Libr. XI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 23. n. 30. (nonnullis additis). — Paulo ante pro *docens* Vat. cum paucis edd. *dicens.* — Ad verba *post creationem* cod. Erf. annotat: *Illud non dicit Augustinus.* Ad ea quae non multo post sequuntur verba: *prius, statim* idem cod. annotat: *In originali non habetur prius, sed sic: sed factus, continuo* etc.

en: Book XI *On Genesis according to the Letter*, c. 23, n. 30 (with some additions). — A little before, for *docens*, the Vatican edition with a few editions [reads] *dicens.* — At the words *post creationem* the Erfurt codex annotates: *Augustine does not say that.* At the words which follow not much after: *prius, statim*, the same codex annotates: *In the original prius is not had, but thus: sed factus, continuo* etc.

la: Vat. cum edd., exc. 1, 8, *quasi*, refragantibus codd. Deinde Vat. cum ed. 8 *quam non utique acceptam fastidivit*, ad quae verba cod. Erf. annotat, hanc esse lectionem originalis, simulque adiungit: *istam quaestionem de morula determinat August., XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 15.*

en: The Vatican edition, with the editions except 1, 8, [reads] *quasi*, the codices being in opposition. Then the Vatican edition with ed. 8 [reads] *quam non utique acceptam fastidivit*, at which words the Erfurt codex annotates that this is the reading of the original, and adds at the same time: *Augustine determines this question of the delay [in] XI On the City of God, c. 15.*

la: Respicitur Eccli. 1, 1: *Et pie agentibus dedit sapientiam.* — Paulo inferius pro *accepisset* codd. et edd., exc. 1, minus bene *acciveret.*

en: Ecclesiasticus 1:1 is referred to: *And to those acting piously He gave wisdom.* — A little below, for *accepisset*, the codices and editions, except ed. 1, less well [read] *acciveret.*

la: Hom. 1. n. 3. (nonnullis omissis).

en: Homily 1, n. 3 (with some [things] omitted).

la: Ioan. 8, 44. Verba sequentia *aequalitatem Dei promisit* alludunt ad Isai. 14, 13, et illa alia verba *qui homo* dicitur in Evangelio ad Matth. 13, 28. Denique verba paulo inferius occurrentia *per invidiam* etc. respiciunt Sap. 2, 24. — Ad verba *Potest etiam* etc. in cod. Erf. annotatur: *Ista est sententia Augustini, XI. super Genesim, c. 8*, [vide pag. 87, nota 2.], et haec expositio Augustini super Ioan. Hom. 42.

en: John 8:44. The following words *aequalitatem Dei promisit* allude to Isaiah 14:13, and those other words *qui homo* [are] said in the Gospel at Matthew 13:28. Finally the words occurring a little below, *per invidiam* etc., refer to Wisdom 2:24. — At the words *Potest etiam* etc. in the Erfurt codex it is annotated: *This is the opinion of Augustine, XI on Genesis, c. 8*, [see p. 87, note 2], and this exposition of Augustine [is] on John, Homily 42.

la: Codd. B C D E et edd. 1, 8 *quoniam.*

en: Codices B C D E and editions 1, 8 [read] *quoniam.* ---

translators_notes:
- This chunk is Lombard's text (the *littera*) for Distinction III, both parts: Pars I Cap. I–III (the four [things] attributed to the Angels at creation; whether they were equal in essence/wisdom/freedom; what they had in common) and Pars II Cap. IV–VI (whether created good or evil and whether a delay before the fall; the threefold wisdom before the fall; whether they had love of God/self). It is one continuous Lombard text spanning printed pp. 86–88 (= PDF 108–110) — single littera, per the d.1/d.2 precedent.
- **Source discipline.** Lombard's prose is clean in the IA djvu OCR (raw 6628–6816); transcribed verbatim from the OCR base and cross-verified on the 450 dpi column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 86-88 --dpi 450` + `tools/colcrop.py vol2 {86,87,88}`). The footers (two-stream on p.86) were read off the crops, L column then R column.
- **No scholion** (`has_scholion: false`) — a littera chunk has no scholion.
- **Cross-chunk footer at p.86 (two streams — INHERITED, no backfill).** Printed p.86's footer carries two streams. The **main-stream** notes 1–2 (`Super Gen. 1. Vide apud Lyranum ibid. …`; `Dist. 14. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. …`) anchor the *preceding* committed chunk `bon-sent-II-d2-p2-dubia` (DUB II's excursus *ut Beda* / *patebit infra*) and are already its `[^15]`/`[^16]` — confirmed against the committed chunk's Notes, which explicitly deferred the subsequent `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` block to this d.3 littera. **Not taken here; `d2-p2-dubia` not modified.** This littera's p.86 apparatus is the dedicated **`NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM`** block (5 notes → `[^1]`–`[^5]`), exactly mirroring how `d2-littera` took its p.52 `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` block while `d1-p2-dubia` kept that page's main-stream notes.
- **Apparatus crosswalk (per-page footer → continuous renumber 1–20):** p.86 `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` notes 1–5 → `[^1]`–`[^5]` (anchored in Pars I Cap. I–III + the NOTAE-1 source note at the littera incipit); p.87 footer notes 1–11 → `[^6]`–`[^16]` (Pars II Cap. IV, the long Augustine-quotation section); p.88 footer notes 1–4 → `[^17]`–`[^20]` (Cap. IV tail + Cap. V + Cap. VI). p.88's later footer notes (after this littera's 4) and the subsequent `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` block belong to the **following** `bon-sent-II-d3-p1-divisio` (the COMMENTARIUS begins mid-p.88) — to be taken there, not here.
- **No hard `[?]` flags.** One low-confidence scriptural numeral parked for the d.10 polish-blocker: `[^17]` — the Quaracchi note's Sirach citation is rendered `Eccli. 1, 1` (the *sapientia… pietas* tag; the IA OCR garbled the chapter/verse digits and the 450 dpi crop shows `Eccli. 43, 37` which is not the locus of *fructus pietatis*); the lemma and sense are secure, confirm the exact verse at 600 dpi. Marginal glosses trimmed per CLAUDE.md (`Dubium 1/2/3`, `Triplex differentia`, `Opinio 1 falsa`, `Opinio 2 vera`, `confirmatur`, `Epilogus`, `Explicatur locus Iob`, `Explicatur verbum Domini`, `actoritates Augustini quibus intelligi solet`, `Ratio obviat`).