title: Dist. 17, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XVII)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Distinction XVII)

source_text:
<!-- page 426 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit in littera: *Creatoris voluntas necessitas est. Hoc enim necessario futurum est, quod vult et praescit.* Quod si verum est, cum Deus velit omnia bona futura, nullum bonum futurum evenit contingenter: perit ergo libertas arbitrii. — Praeterea, falsum videtur dicere in hoc quod subiungit: *Multa secundum inferiores causas futura sunt, sed in praescientia Dei futura non sunt;* quod enim est futurum, erit; quod non est futurum in praescientia Dei, non erit: ergo simul idem *erit* et *non erit*.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod primum verbum intelligendum est de necessitate non *consequentis*, sed *consequentiae*[^1], quia necessario ad *velle* Dei sequitur ipsum *volitum esse* vel *futurum esse*. Secundum autem verbum intelligendum est ita, quod per hoc participium *futura* significetur ordo effectus ad causas, non eventus, ut sit sensus: multa secundum inferiores causas futura sunt, id est ordinata fieri, quae tamen secundum veritatem vel praescientiam non sunt futura, quia non evenient.

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *homo extra paradisum est creatus, postmodum in paradiso est positus.* Cum enim paradisus esset locus habitationis, debitus homini secundum statum innocentiae, et locus congruus habitationi sit congruus[^2] generationi et productioni; videtur, quod homo debuit produci in paradiso. — Item, cum tota terra tunc esset fructifera et aer tranquillus; videtur, quod tota erat congrua, ut inhabitaretur ab homine: ergo si homo extra paradisum productus est, videtur, quod extra paradisum ad habitandum debuit relinqui. — Item, si tota terra producta est propter hominem, ergo videtur, quod si homo stetisset, alia pars terrae a paradiso superflueret. — Propter hoc *Quaestio connexa.* est hic quaestio, quid vocetur hic *paradisus*, in quo homo est positus.

**Respondeo:** *Ad quaest. connexam.* Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod, sicut dicit Magister[^3], tres fuerunt de paradiso sententiae.

*Opinio 1.* Quidam enim dixerunt, quod paradisus ille, in quo erat positus homo, erat *locus corporalis*, qui propter suam amoenitatem *paradisus* dicebatur, nec est alius paradisus nisi corporalis[^4].

*Opinio 2.* Alii vero attendentes, quod beatificatio hominis est in paradiso, quae consistit in Dei fruitione, non in corporali amoenitate, dixerunt, hunc paradisum non esse locum corporalem, sed *spiritualem*; et omnia illa quae dicuntur de paradiso in Genesi, dicta esse metaphorice. Unde homo in sui formatione dicitur positus fuisse in paradiso, non quia fuerit localiter mutatus, sed quia in spirituali amoenitate et deliciis ex Dei amore et cognitione et fruitione est positus. In huius autem sententiae assertionem adducunt illud quod dicitur de latrone, Lucae vigesimo tertio[^5]: *Hodie mecum eris in paradiso;*
<!-- page 427 -->
et illud quod dicitur de lucifero, Ezechielis vigesimo octavo: *In deliciis paradisi Dei fuisti.*

*Opinio 3. cum distinctione.* Tertia est positio, quod est paradisus *spiritualis*, et est paradisus *corporalis*. Paradisus spiritualis dicit statum quietis et amoenitatem deliciarum spiritualium; et iste potest esse secundum duplicem statum, scilicet Ecclesiae triumphantis et Ecclesiae militantis. *Subdistinctio.* Unde paradisus spiritualis duplex est sive dupliciter dictus: unus est in Ecclesia militante, et alter in Ecclesia triumphante. Unde illa quae sunt dicta in Genesi de paradiso isto spirituali possunt exponi metaphorice. — Paradisus autem corporalis est locus deliciarum et amoenitatis; et hic *Alia subdistinctio.* est duplex similiter secundum duplicem statum, scilicet perfectum et imperfectum. Secundum statum perfectum paradisus est empyreum. Secundum statum imperfectum paradisus est locus quidam *amoenus* in partibus orientis, de quo dicit Damascenus[^6]: « Divinus paradisus est Dei manibus in Eden plantatus, gaudii et exultationis universae promptuarium ».

*Rationes congruentiae.* In hoc autem loco decuit hominem *poni*, ut esset ei facilitas perveniendi ad patriam, et ut Deus homini ostenderet benevolentiam, cui locum amoenissimum ad inhabitandum praeparaverat, et sic amoenitas exterioris habitaculi corresponderet deliciis interioribus, quales habet anima, quae est templum Dei, et habebat anima primi hominis. — Extra autem hunc locum debuit homo *produci*, ut melius cognosceret Dei beneficium, dum se videret quasi aliunde adductum; et ut etiam per hoc ostenderet, quod homo non erat ibi factus ad aeternaliter habitandum, sed temporaliter peregrinandum. Et quia Deus praesciebat hominis casum, in paradiso voluit eum collocare, ut per eius eiectionem de loco voluptatis cognosceret sensibiliter, quanta bona spiritualia amisisset per culpam; cognosceret etiam nihilominus, quanta esset differentia inter eum qui Domino humiliter obedit, et eum qui ipsum superbe contemnit[^7].

*Ad obiecta.* Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. Locus enim paradisi convenienter fuit factus propter hominem institutum; et alia terra convenienter fuit facta propter hominem, quem Deus praeviderat esse lapsurum; et quia simul etiam viderat hominem et peccatum, de ea terra sumsit eum, in quam erat postmodum rediturus. — Nec tamen, si homo stetisset, alia pars mundi superflueret, quia bestiis servientibus homini habitaculum praeberet, et habitaculum hominis sua inferioritate excellens ostenderet et sua magnitudine decoraret, sicut magna platea decorat palatium, et sicut aula[^8] decorat cameram.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Locum paradisi in alto situm, usque ad lunarem circulum pertingentem.* Videtur hoc esse falsum: primo, quia inter lunarem circulum et aerem est sphaera ignis[^9], quae non pateretur, hominem ibi posse vivere. — Item, aer in sua parte superiori est tantae subtilitatis, quod ibi non possunt aves vivere, sicut dicit Augustinus[^10]: ergo si paradisi locus esset adeo elevatus, non posset ibi vivere homo habens corpus animale. — Praeterea, si adeo esset ille locus elevatus, cum maxime appropinquaret soli: ergo esset calidissimus et intemperatissimus. Sequeretur etiam ex hoc, quod terra esset supra aquam et supra aerem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut doctores[^11] dicunt, paradisi *corporalis* situs est valde eminens et altus et iuxta aequinoctialem in oriente, quodam modo vergens ad meridiem. Est autem tantae altitudinis, ut illuc non conscendant vapores in aere elevati, sed sit ibi aer mundus et purus, idoneus statui perpetuitatis; et propter puritatem aeris ibi est contemperantia[^12] caloris, et quia secus aequinoctialem est, est ibi magna temperies temporis. — Quod ergo dicitur usque ad lunarem circulum pertingere, hoc non est dictum secundum *situm*, sed secundum quandam *proprietatem*, sive quia conformatur in raritate et luminositate et tranquillitate,
<!-- page 428 -->
sive quia vapores, quibus dominatur luna, illuc non pertingunt. Et sic patet illud.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *In paradiso erant ligna diversi generis* etc., propter quid duo[^13] ex illis lignis nominat, et non plura? — Item, cum lignum illud, de quo facta est prohibitio, non fuerit *scientiae boni et mali* nisi propter transgressionem Adae, non videtur, quod sic debuerit a sui principio nominari. — Item, cum lignum vitae illum effectum vivificandi non habuerit, videtur, quod aut frustra fuerit, aut ab illo effectu nominari non debuit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *Triplex differentia lignorum.* universitas lignorum[^14] sub tribus differentiis comprehenditur, secundum quod ad triplicem utilitatem hominis poterant ordinari: aut ex parte *corporis*, aut ex parte *animae*, aut ex parte *coniuncti*. Si ex parte *corporis*; sic erant ligna fructifera, quae praebebant ei alimenta ad corporis sustentationem. Si ex parte *animae*; sic fuit lignum scientiae boni et mali, quod ordinabatur ad obedientiae hominis probationem. Si ex parte *coniuncti*; sic erat lignum vitae, quod faciebat ad humanae vitae perpetuationem. De his autem lignis duo tantum nominata sunt propter speciales[^15] effectus, propter quos et Dominus illa duo ligna collocavit in medio paradisi, et unum posuit iuxta alterum, ut ex uno conciperet homo affectum amoris, et ex alio affectum timoris — et quasi opposita iuxta se posita elucescerent[^16] — et faciendo abstinentiam ab uno mereretur habere refectionem sufficientem ex altero. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus de Civitate Dei[^17], loquens de primis parentibus: « Status immortalitatis eis de ligno vitae, quod in medio paradisi cum arbore vetita simul erat, mirabilis Dei gratia monstrabatur; tamen et alios sumebant cibos praeter unam arborem, quae fuerat interdicta ». — Et sic patet, quare illa duo ligna specialiter nominantur. Unum autem, scilicet lignum vitae, nominatur ab *effectu*, non quem fecit, sed ad quem ordinabatur; aliud vero, scilicet lignum scientiae, ab *eventu*; et utrumque satis congruit, quia tam ille effectus quam ille eventus valde notabiles erant. Licet autem lignum vitae primum effectum non habuerit in *actu*, habuit tamen in *habitu*; nec tamen frustra fuit, quia, quamvis ex ipso primus homo non acceperit refectionem, eius tamen posteri recipiunt instructionem, dum per illud lignum intelligunt Christum[^18].

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *A ligno homo prohibitus est, quod malum non erat.* Videtur enim, quod Deus inconvenienter fecerit; primum, quia, sicut prohibere malum est bonum, ita prohibere bonum est malum: ergo videtur, quod Deus fecerit male, dum prohibuit illius ligni usum. — Item, bene sciebat Deus, quod ipsi prohibitionem suam non servarent: ergo si sine illa prohibitione poterat esse salus, videtur, quod non fecerit aliud quam laqueum eis iniicere, dum prohibuit. — Item, si omnia facta sunt propter hominem, ergo lignum illud erat hominis; sed nulli debet subtrahi res propria absque culpa: ergo videtur, quod Deus iniuriatus fuerit homini et eum puniverit, prohibendo quod suum erat, in quo tamen nulla culpa praecesserat.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *Duplex finis.* Deus homini illud lignum prohibuit propter *obedientiae meritum* acquirendum ex parte hominis, et propter ostendendum suae *iurisdictionis dominium*, quod habebat in hominem[^19]. Quia prohibuit propter obedientiae meritum; ut illud meritum esset purum et plenum, a tali re prohibuit, a qua non deberet cessari nisi solius obedientiae intuitu, et ideo a re bona. — Item, quia prohibuit ad ostendendum suae *iurisdictionis dominium*; ideo a tali re debuit prohibere, a qua homo non deberet manum retrahere nisi propter solius Dei imperium, et haec quidem fuit res bona. Et propterea illud mandatum dicitur esse *Mandatum disciplinae*, quia ad hoc homo non obligabatur ex se sive ex aliquo rationis naturalis dictamine, sed ex sola divina praeceptione; quamvis et alia possit reddi ratio, quod datum sit illud mandatum divinum, ut per hoc disceret, de quo Deo[^20] deberet esse subiectus, et quantum etiam differret inter eum qui Deo obedit, et eum qui contemnit eius imperium. — Nulla igitur ex hoc fiebat homini iniu-
<!-- page 429 -->
ria, immo fiebat utilitas, dum praecipiebatur ad eius eruditionem et meriti amplificationem. Quodsi contrarium evenit, hoc fuit ex culpa sua, ex qua convertit sibi bonum in malum, sicut impiis et peccatoribus bona convertuntur in mala. Propter istius tamen eventus praevisionem non debuit Deus dimittere dare tale mandatum, quia ordo et decor, qui attenditur in operibus Dei secundum regulam divinae sapientiae, non debet intermitti propter incommodum alicuius specialis[^21] creaturae. Praeterea, ex illo malo inde sequente poterat Deus et sciebat multo maius bonum elicere.

Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta, excepto primo, quia non est simile. Prohibere enim malum bonum est, quia non potest aliquis malum perpetrare sine culpa; sed prohibere bonum non est ita malum, quia abstinere potest homo absque culpa; abstinere enim a bono *commodi* cadit in genere boni *honesti*[^22]. Alia satis patent per iam dicta.

---

english:
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions about the text, and first it is asked concerning what he says in the text: *The will of the Creator is necessity. For that necessarily will come to be which he wills and foreknows.* If this is true, since God wills all future goods, no future good comes about contingently: therefore freedom of choice perishes. — Furthermore, it seems that he says something false in what he adds: *Many things are future according to inferior causes, but in the foreknowledge of God they are not future;* for what is future will be; what is not future in the foreknowledge of God will not be: therefore the same thing at once *will be* and *will not be*.

**I respond:** It must be said that the first statement is to be understood of the necessity not of the *consequent*, but of the *consequence*[^1], because the very *thing willed* necessarily follows upon God's *willing it to be* or *to be future*. The second statement is to be understood in this way: that by the participle *future* is signified the order of an effect to its causes, not the event itself; so that the sense is: many things are future according to inferior causes, that is, ordered to come to be, which nonetheless are not future according to truth or foreknowledge, because they will not come about.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that *man was created outside paradise, and afterwards placed in paradise.* For since paradise was the place of habitation owed to man in the state of innocence, and a place fit for habitation is fit[^2] for generation and production, it seems that man ought to have been produced in paradise. — Likewise, since the whole earth was then fruitful and the air tranquil, it seems that the whole was fit to be inhabited by man: therefore if man was produced outside paradise, it seems that outside paradise he ought to have been left to dwell. — Likewise, if the whole earth was produced for man's sake, then it seems that, if man had stood, the other part of the earth beyond paradise would have been superfluous. — On account of this *Connected question.* there is a question here, what is here called *paradise*, in which man was placed.

**I respond:** *Reply to the connected question.* For an understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that, as the Master says[^3], there were three opinions about paradise.

*Opinion 1.* For some said that the paradise in which man was placed was a *bodily place*, which on account of its pleasantness was called *paradise*, and that there is no other paradise except a bodily one[^4].

*Opinion 2.* Others, attending to the fact that man's beatification is in paradise, and that this consists in the enjoyment of God, not in bodily pleasantness, said that this paradise was not a bodily place but a *spiritual* one; and that all the things said in Genesis about paradise were said metaphorically. Hence in his formation man is said to have been placed in paradise, not because he was moved locally, but because he was placed in spiritual pleasantness and delights from the love and knowledge and enjoyment of God. In confirmation of this opinion they adduce what is said of the thief, Luke twenty-three[^5]: *Today you will be with me in paradise;*

and what is said of Lucifer, Ezekiel twenty-eight: *You were in the delights of God's paradise.*

*Opinion 3, with a distinction.* The third position is that there is a *spiritual* paradise and a *bodily* paradise. Spiritual paradise denotes a state of quiet and the pleasantness of spiritual delights; and this can be according to a twofold state, namely of the Church triumphant and of the Church militant. *Subdistinction.* Hence spiritual paradise is twofold or said in two ways: one is in the Church militant, the other in the Church triumphant. Hence the things said in Genesis about that spiritual paradise can be expounded metaphorically. — But bodily paradise is a place of delights and pleasantness; and this likewise *Further subdistinction.* is twofold according to a twofold state, namely perfect and imperfect. According to the perfect state, paradise is the empyrean. According to the imperfect state, paradise is a certain *pleasant* place in the regions of the East, of which Damascene says[^6]: « The divine paradise was planted by God's hands in Eden, a storehouse of joy and exultation of every kind ».

*Reasons of fittingness.* In this place it was fitting for man to be *placed*, that he might easily reach his fatherland, and that God might show man his benevolence, for whom he had prepared the most pleasant place for habitation, and so that the pleasantness of the outer dwelling might correspond to the inner delights such as the soul has, which is the temple of God, and such as the soul of the first man had. — But outside this place man had to be *produced*, that he might better recognize God's gift, while he saw himself as it were brought from elsewhere; and also that by this it might be shown that man was not made there to dwell eternally, but to journey temporally. And because God foreknew man's fall, he willed to place him in paradise, so that by his expulsion from the place of pleasure he might sensibly recognize how great spiritual goods he had lost through his fault; and might none the less recognize how great a difference there is between him who humbly obeys the Lord and him who proudly despises him[^7].

*Reply to the objections.* And by this the reply to the objections is clear. For the place of paradise was fittingly made for man as instituted; and the rest of the earth was fittingly made for man, whom God had foreseen would fall; and because he had at once seen both man and sin, he took him from that earth to which he was afterwards to return. — Nor however, if man had stood, would the other part of the world have been superfluous, because it would have provided a dwelling for the beasts that serve man, and would have shown forth the dwelling of man as excelling by its very inferiority and would have adorned it by its great extent, just as a great courtyard adorns a palace, and as a hall[^8] adorns a chamber.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *The place of paradise as set on high, reaching up to the lunar circle.* This seems false: first, because between the lunar circle and the air there is a sphere of fire[^9], which would not allow a man to live there. — Likewise, the air in its upper region is of such subtlety that birds cannot live there, as Augustine says[^10]: therefore if the place of paradise were so elevated, a man having an animal body could not live there. — Furthermore, if that place were so elevated, since it would come closest to the sun, it would therefore be hottest and most intemperate. It would also follow from this that earth would be above water and above air.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the doctors[^11] say, the site of the *bodily* paradise is very prominent and high and near the equator in the East, somewhat tending toward the South. It is moreover of such height that the vapors raised in the air do not ascend thither, but the air there is clean and pure, fit for the state of perpetuity; and on account of the purity of the air there is there a temperance[^12] of heat, and because it is near the equator there is there a great moderation of season. — When therefore it is said to reach up to the lunar circle, this is said not according to *site*, but according to a certain *property*, either because it is conformed in rarity and luminosity and tranquility,

or because the vapors over which the moon presides do not reach thither. And so the matter is clear.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *In paradise there were trees of diverse kinds* etc.; why does he name only two[^13] of those trees, and not more? — Likewise, since the tree concerning which the prohibition was made was not a tree of the *knowledge of good and evil* except on account of Adam's transgression, it does not seem that it ought to have been so named from its beginning. — Likewise, since the tree of life did not have that effect of vivifying, it seems that either it was in vain, or it ought not to have been named from that effect.

**I respond:** It must be said that *Threefold differentiation of trees.* the entire body of trees[^14] is comprehended under three differences, according as they could be ordered to the threefold utility of man: either with respect to the *body*, or with respect to the *soul*, or with respect to the *composite*. If with respect to the *body*, thus there were fruit-bearing trees, which furnished him nourishment for the sustenance of the body. If with respect to the *soul*, thus there was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was ordered to the testing of man's obedience. If with respect to the *composite*, thus there was the tree of life, which made for the perpetuation of human life. And of these trees only two are named on account of special[^15] effects, on account of which the Lord also placed those two trees in the middle of paradise, and set one beside the other, so that from the one man might conceive an affection of love, and from the other an affection of fear — and that as opposites placed beside each other they might shine forth[^16] — and that by abstaining from the one he might merit to have sufficient refreshment from the other. And this is what Augustine says in the *City of God*[^17], speaking of our first parents: « The state of immortality was shown forth to them by the tree of life, which was in the middle of paradise together with the forbidden tree, by the wonderful grace of God; nevertheless they took other foods also, besides the one tree which had been forbidden ». — And so it is clear why those two trees are specially named. And the one, namely the tree of life, is named from an *effect*, not which it produced, but to which it was ordered; the other, namely the tree of knowledge, from an *event*; and each is fitting enough, because both that effect and that event were very notable. Now although the tree of life did not have its first effect in *act*, it nonetheless had it in *habit*; nor was it in vain, because, although the first man did not receive refreshment from it, his posterity nonetheless receive instruction, when through that tree they understand Christ[^18].

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *Man was forbidden from a tree which was not evil.* For it seems that God acted unfittingly; first, because, just as to forbid evil is good, so to forbid good is evil: therefore it seems that God did wrong in forbidding the use of that tree. — Likewise, God well knew that they would not keep his prohibition: therefore if salvation could be had without that prohibition, it seems that he did nothing other than cast a snare upon them by forbidding. — Likewise, if all things were made for man, then that tree was man's; but nothing ought to be taken away from anyone without fault: therefore it seems that God did injury to man and punished him by forbidding what was his own, in which moreover no fault had preceded.

**I respond:** It must be said that *Twofold end.* God forbade that tree to man for the sake of acquiring *the merit of obedience* on man's part, and for the sake of showing forth the *dominion of his jurisdiction* which he had over man[^19]. Because he forbade it for the sake of the merit of obedience: that that merit might be pure and full, he forbade something from which one ought not to cease except out of regard for obedience alone, and therefore something good. — Likewise, because he forbade it to show forth the *dominion of his jurisdiction*: therefore he ought to have forbidden something from which man ought not to withdraw his hand except on account of God's sole command, and this indeed was a good thing. And therefore that commandment is said to be a *Precept of discipline*, because to this man was not bound from himself or from any dictate of natural reason, but solely from divine precept; although another reason can also be given why that divine commandment was given, namely that through it he might learn to which God[^20] he ought to be subject, and how great a difference there is between him who obeys God and him who despises his command. — No injury therefore was done to man from this,

but rather a utility was done to him, since it was commanded for his instruction and for the amplification of merit. And if the contrary happened, this was from his own fault, by which he turned good into evil for himself, just as for the impious and for sinners goods are turned into evils. Nevertheless on account of the foresight of this event God ought not to have failed to give such a commandment, because the order and beauty that is to be regarded in God's works according to the rule of divine wisdom ought not to be omitted on account of the disadvantage of some particular[^21] creature. Furthermore, from that evil that followed God could and knew how to draw out a much greater good.

And by this the reply to the objections is clear, except for the first, because it is not similar. For to forbid evil is good, because no one can perpetrate evil without fault; but to forbid good is not equally evil, because a man can abstain without fault; for to abstain from a good of *advantage* falls under the genus of the good of *the honourable*[^22]. The other points are sufficiently clear from what has already been said.

---

la: Sive non absoluta, sed conditionata. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 38. a. 2. q. 1. seq. et d. 40. a. 2. q. 1. seq., ubi ea quae hic breviter tanguntur, diffuse explicantur.

en: Or rather not absolute but conditioned. Cf. I Sent., d. 38, a. 2, q. 1 ff., and d. 40, a. 2, q. 1 ff., where the points here briefly touched on are explained at length.

la: In edd. 2, 3, 4 et Vat. desideratur *habitationi sit congruus*.

en: In editions 2, 3, 4 and the Vatican edition the words *habitationi sit congruus* are missing.

la: Hic c. 5.

en: Here, chapter 5.

la: Sub hoc respectu Isidor., XIV. Etymol. c. 3. n. 2. ait: Paradisus est locus in orientis partibus constitutus, cuius vocabulum ex Graeco in Latinum vertitur *hortus*. Porro Hebraice *Eden* dicitur, quod in nostra lingua *deliciae* interpretatur. Quod utrumque iunctum facit *hortum deliciarum*; est enim omni genere ligni et pomiferarum arborum consitus etc.

en: In this regard Isidore, *Etymologies* XIV, c. 3, n. 2, says: Paradise is a place established in the eastern regions, whose name is rendered from Greek into Latin as *garden*. In Hebrew it is called *Eden*, which in our tongue is interpreted as *delights*. The two joined together make *garden of delights*; for it is planted with every kind of tree and fruit-bearing trees, etc.

la: Vers. 43. — Seq. locus est Ezech. 28, 13. — Huius sententiae fuit Origenes (IV. Periarch. n. 16.), reprehensus a S. Epiph. inter Epist. S. Hier. 51. (alias 60.) n. 3, et August., II. de Gen. contra Manich. c. 9. n. 12. et XIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 21. Cfr. Anastas. (Sinaita) II. Antiochen. († 599), VII. in Hexaëm., ubi praeter Origenem pro hac opinione citantur Philo, Papias, Irenaeus, Iustinus, Pantaenus Alexandrinus et Clemens Stromateus, et duo Gregorii Cappadoces, qui spiritualiter intellexisse dicuntur de Christi Ecclesia ea quae scripta sunt de paradiso. (Migne, Patr. Graec. tom. 89. col. 961.) Ibid. (col. 964.) etiam dicitur, quod quidam, sicut Dionysius, decreverunt, duos esse paradisos, « spiritualem et sensilem, terrestrem et caelestem, qui cernitur et qui intelligitur, sicut etiam est Christus caelestis simul et terrestris, congruenter typo duarum Ecclesiarum, terrenae, inquam, et caelestis civitatis » etc.

en: Verse 43. — The following passage is Ezech. 28, 13. — Of this opinion was Origen (*Periarch.* IV, n. 16), rebuked by St. Epiphanius among the Letters of St. Jerome 51 (otherwise 60), n. 3, and by Augustine, *de Gen. contra Manich.* II, c. 9, n. 12, and *de Civ. Dei* XIII, c. 21. Cf. Anastasius (the Sinaite) II of Antioch († 599), *In Hexaëmeron* VII, where besides Origen there are cited for this opinion Philo, Papias, Irenaeus, Justin, Pantaenus of Alexandria and Clement Stromateus, and the two Cappadocian Gregories, who are said to have understood spiritually, of Christ's Church, the things written about paradise. (Migne, *Patr. Graec.* tom. 89, col. 961.) In the same place (col. 964) it is also said that certain authors, like Dionysius, held that there are two paradises, « a spiritual and a sensible one, an earthly and a heavenly one, one that is seen and one that is understood, just as Christ also is heavenly and at the same time earthly, fittingly typifying the two Churches, the earthly, I mean, and the heavenly city », etc.

la: Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 11, ubi etiam, relatis duabus primis opinionibus, ait: « Mihi videtur, quod sicut homo sensibilis simul et intelligibilis conditus sit, sic etiam, quod huius sacratissimum templum sensibile simul et intelligibile et duplicem habens ostensionem etc. ».

en: Book II *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 11, where also, having reported the first two opinions, he says: « It seems to me that, just as man was created at once sensible and intelligible, so also his most sacred temple is at once sensible and intelligible and has a twofold manifestation, etc. ».

la: Cfr. August., VIII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 11. Ab Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 84. m. 1. sex rationes adducuntur, scil. eiectionis praevisio, excitatio gratitudinis, incitatio humiliationis, praemonstratio revocationis, congruentia resolutionis corporalis et minoratio afflictionis. Vide etiam Aegid. R., hic d. 18. q. 1. a. 1. dub. 6. lat.

en: Cf. Augustine, *de Gen. ad lit.* VIII, c. 11. By Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 84, m. 1, six reasons are adduced, namely: the foresight of expulsion, the rousing of gratitude, the incitement to humiliation, the foreshowing of the recall, the fittingness of bodily dissolution, and the lessening of affliction. See also Aegidius Romanus, here d. 18, q. 1, a. 1, dub. 6, *lat.*

la: Sive *atrium*. — Hoc dubium solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 58. m. 1; B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 13. q. 79; S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 2; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1; Richard. a Med., a. 2. q. 5; Aegid. R., hic d. 18. q. 1. a. 1.

en: Or *atrium*. — This doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 58, m. 1; Blessed Albert, *Summa* p. II, tr. 13, q. 79; St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1; Richard of Mediavilla, a. 2, q. 5; Aegidius Romanus, here d. 18, q. 1, a. 1.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 321, nota 4.

en: Cf. above p. 321, note 4.

la: De Gen. ad lit. (imperfect. liber) c. 14. n. 44. et III. de Gen. ad lit. c. 6. n. 8.

en: *On Genesis according to the Letter* (the unfinished book), c. 14, n. 44, and *de Gen. ad lit.* III, c. 6, n. 8.

la: Vide Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 11, Bedam et Strabum in Gen. 2, 8.

en: See Damascene, *de Fide orthod.* II, c. 11, Bede and Strabus on Gen. 2, 8.

la: Ita cod. aa (a secunda manu); alii codd. et edd. incongrue *esse contemperantiam*.

en: So codex aa (by a second hand); the other codices and editions incongruously read *esse contemperantiam*.

la: Idem dubium proponit Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 84. m. 2; B. Albert., hic a. 4. et S. p. II. tr. 13. q. 79, ubi ad solutionem huius dubii eadem utitur distinctione, et dein addit: « Hoc tamen dico sine praeiudicio melioris sententiae; quia in quibusdam libris antiquissimis inveni, quod illius sententiae, quae attribuitur Bedae et Strabo, primus auctor fuit Thomas Apostolus, quod scilicet paradisus tantae altitudinis sit, quod usque ad lunarem globum ascendat ». Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2; Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. dub. 1. lat.

en: Alexander of Hales proposes the same doubt, *Summa* p. II, q. 84, m. 2; Blessed Albert, here a. 4 and *Summa* p. II, tr. 13, q. 79, where for the resolution of this doubt he uses the same distinction, and then adds: « Yet I say this without prejudice to a better opinion; because in certain very ancient books I have found that the first author of that opinion which is attributed to Bede and Strabus was Thomas the Apostle, namely that paradise is of such a height that it ascends as far as the lunar globe ». Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2; Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1, a. 1, dub. 1, *lat.*

la: Nempe lignum vitae et lignum scientiae.

en: Namely the tree of life and the tree of knowledge.

la: In cod. V additur *paradisi*. Multi codd. cum edd. incongrue *universalitas lignorum* pro *universitas lignorum*, quod exhibent codd. C S T aa.

en: In codex V the word *paradisi* is added. Many codices together with the editions incongruously read *universalitas lignorum* in place of *universitas lignorum*, which the codices C S T aa display.

la: Plures codd. cum ed. 2 *spirituales*.

en: Several codices together with edition 2 read *spirituales*.

la: Nam secundum Aristot., I. Elench. c. 14. (c. 15.) et II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 40. (c. 6.), opposita iuxta se posita « minora et maiora apparent » et « sunt sensibiliora ». Cfr. tom. I. pag. 495, nota 1.

en: For according to Aristotle, *Elenchi* I, c. 14 (c. 15) and *de Caelo et mundo* II, text 40 (c. 6), opposites placed beside each other « appear lesser and greater » and « are more perceptible ». Cf. vol. I, p. 495, note 1.

la: Libr. XIII. c. 20, ubi textus originalis *mirabili Dei gratia praestabatur* pro *mirabilis Dei gratia monstrabatur* (ministrabatur?).

en: Book XIII, c. 20, where the original text reads *mirabili Dei gratia praestabatur* in place of *mirabilis Dei gratia monstrabatur* (*ministrabatur*?).

la: Secundum August., XIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 20; VIII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 4. n. 8. seq. — De hoc dubio vide Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 58. m. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 5; Aegid. R., hic dub. 6. lit.

en: According to Augustine, *de Civ. Dei* XIII, c. 20; *de Gen. ad lit.* VIII, c. 4, n. 8 ff. — On this doubt see Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 58, m. 3; Blessed Albert, here a. 5; Aegidius Romanus, here dub. 6, *lit.*

la: Cfr. de his Ambros., de Paradiso, c. 6. seqq.; August., VIII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 13. n. 28. seqq.; XIV. de Civ. Dei, c. 12. seqq. — Edd. *homine*.

en: Cf. concerning these things Ambrose, *On Paradise*, c. 6 ff.; Augustine, *de Gen. ad lit.* VIII, c. 13, n. 28 ff.; *de Civ. Dei* XIV, c. 12 ff. — The editions read *homine*.

la: Vat. *cui* pro *de quo Deo*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *cui* in place of *de quo Deo*.

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

en: The Vatican edition together with several codices reads *spiritualis*. ---

translators_notes:
- **Page span:** pp. 426 R band 1 → 429 L band 0. d.17-dubia opens with `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` header on p.426 R-1 immediately after d17-a2-q3 SCHOLION II close on p.426 R-1 top (raw 30010). Closes at *Alia satis patent per iam dicta.* on p.429 L-1, immediately before `DISTINCTIO XVIII.` header at raw 30201.
- **5 dubia** — DUB I (Creatoris voluntas necessitas est: *consequentis* vs *consequentiae* distinction); DUB II (paradisus locus corporalis / spiritualis / utrumque — 3-opinion structure with Damascene + Origen + Augustine apparatus block); DUB III (paradisus reaching up to the lunar circle — site vs property); DUB IV (why only two trees named — corporis / animae / coniuncti differentiation); DUB V (why God forbade a tree which was not evil — obedientiae meritum + iurisdictionis dominium + *Mandatum disciplinae*).
- **22 apparatus entries** [^1]–[^22] from per-page footer sequences: p.426 R-2 footers 1–4 = [^1]–[^4]; p.426 R-2 footer 5 + p.427 L-2 footer 1 (continuation of the Origen/Anastasius block) = [^5]; p.427 L-2 footer 2 (Damascene) = [^6]; p.427 R-2 footers 2–7 = [^7]–[^12]; p.428 L-2 footers 1–4 = [^13]–[^16]; p.428 R-2 footers 5–9 = [^17]–[^21]; p.429 L-2 footer 1 (Vat. *spiritualis*) = [^22]. p.429 L-2 footer 2 (Cfr. infra d.20 dub. 7) anchors in d18-littera body, NOT consumed here. p.429 L-2 NOTAE block belongs to d18-littera.
- Marginal labels preserved inline per locked Vol II convention: *Quaestio connexa.*, *Ad quaest. connexam.*, *Opinio 1./2./3 cum distinctione.*, *Subdistinctio.*, *Alia subdistinctio.*, *Rationes congruentiae.*, *Ad obiecta.*, *Triplex differentia lignorum.*, *Duplex finis.*, *Mandatum disciplinae.*
- **No [?] flags** — all 22 anchors crisp at 450 dpi across pp.426–429. OCR around raw 30010–30200 is two-column cascade-fragmented (Quaracchi running heads `DIST. XVII. DUBIA.` and `DISTINCTIO XVIII.` interleave with column-bleed); column-band PDF read authoritative per Vol II Override.
- **`has_scholion: false`** — DUBIA chunks in d.17 carry no SCHOLION by design; the d.17 doctrinal scholia all live in the article quaestio chunks (d17-a1-q1/q2/q3, d17-a2-q1/q3).
- **Cross-chunk hand-off:** received nothing from d17-a2-q3 (the p.426 L-2 footers + the p.426 R-1 top SCHOLION II commentator list were all consumed in q3). No forward hand-off to d18-littera — d.18 opens p.429 L-1 with its own `DISTINCTIO XVIII. — Cap. I.` block and a fresh `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.` apparatus block.
- **d.17 final clean state achieved** with this chunk — all 9 d.17 chunks (littera, divisio, a1-q1/q2/q3, a2-q1/q2/q3, dubia) now Tier-2.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 18

title_alt: Distinction XVIII — The Text of the Master

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 429 -->

# DISTINCTIO XVIII.

### Cap. I.
### *De formatione mulieris.*

In eodem quoque paradiso mulierem formavit Deus de substantia viri, sicut post plantatum paradisum hominemque in eo positum, et post universa animalia ad eum ducta suisque nominibus designata subnectit Scriptura[^1]: *Immisit Deus soporem in Adam. Cumque obdormisset, tulit unam de costis eius et formavit eam in mulierem.*

Hic attendendum est, quare non creavit simul *Augustinus.* virum et mulierem, sicut Angelos, sed prius virum, deinde mulierem de viro. « Ideo scilicet, ut unum esset generis humani principium, quatenus in hoc et superbia diaboli confunderetur, et hominis humilitas Dei similitudine sublimaretur. Diabolus quippe aliud a Deo principium esse concupierat, ideoque, ut eius superbia retunderetur, hoc homo in munere accepit, quod diabolus perverse rapere voluit, sed obtinere non potuit. Et per hoc imago Dei in homine apparuit, quia, sicut Deus omnibus rebus existit principium creationis, ita homo omnibus hominibus principium generationis. Ideo etiam ex uno homine omnes esse voluit Deus, ut, dum cognoscerent, se ab uno esse omnes, se quasi unum amarent[^2] ».

### Cap. II.
### *Quare de latere viri, et non de alia parte corporis formata sit.*

Cum autem his de causis « facta sit mulier de *Augustinus.* viro, non de qualibet parte corporis viri, sed de latere eius formata est, ut ostenderetur, quia in consortium creabatur dilectionis, ne forte, si fuisset de capite[^3] facta, viro ad dominationem videretur praeferenda, aut si de pedibus, ad servitutem subiicienda. Quia igitur viro nec domina nec ancilla parabatur, sed socia, nec de capite nec de pedibus, sed de latere fuerat producenda, ut iuxta se ponendam cognosceret, quam de suo latere sumtam didicisset ».

Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta, excepto primo, quia non est simile. Prohibere enim *malum* bonum est, quia non potest aliquis malum perpetrare sine culpa; sed prohibere *bonum* non est ita malum, quia abstinere potest homo absque culpa; abstinere enim a bono commodi cadit in genere boni honesti. Alia satis patent per iam dicta.

### Cap. III.
### *Quare dormienti viro, et non vigilanti, subtracta sit costa.*

Non sine causa « dormienti quoque viro potius *Hugo.* quam vigilanti detracta est costa, de qua mulier in adiutorium generationis viro est formata, sed ut nullam in eo sensisse poenam monstraretur, et divinae simul potentiae opus mirabile ostenderetur, quae hominis dormientis latus aperuit nec eum tamen a quiete soporis excitavit[^4] ». « In quo etiam opere Sacramentum Christi et Ecclesiae figuratum est[^5]; quia sicut mulier de latere viri dormientis formata est, ita Ecclesia ex Sacramentis, quae de latere Christi in Cruce dormientis profluxerunt, scilicet sanguine et aqua, quibus redimimur a poenis atque abluimur a culpis ».

### Cap. IV.
### *Quod de costa, in se multiplicata sine additamento extrinsecae rei, facta fuerit.*

Solet etiam quaeri, utrum de « illa costa sine adiectione rei extrinsecae facta sit mulier. — Quod quibusdam non placuit. Ceterum si ad perficiendum corpus mulieris Deus extrinsecum augmentum addidisset, maius illud esset quam ipsa costa. Ideoque potius de illo addito quam de ipsa costa mulier facta deberet dici, de quo plures accepisset substantiae partes. Restat igitur, ut de sola ipsius costae substantia, sine omni extrinseco additamento per divinam potentiam in semetipsa multiplicata, mulieris corpus factum dicatur, eo sane miraculo, quo postea de quinque pa- *Dubium unicum.* nibus, Iesu caelesti benedictione multiplicatis, quinque millia hominum satiata sunt[^6] ».

Illud etiam sciri oportet, quod cum Angelorum ministerio facta sit mulieris formatio, non est eis tamen tribuenda creationis potentia. « Angeli enim nul- *Augustinus.* lam possunt creare naturam, ergo nec formare costam

<!-- page 430 -->

in mulierem nec carnis supplementum in loco costae; non quod nihil agant, ut aliquid creetur, sed non ideo creatores sunt, sicut nec agricolae segetum vel arborum. Solum Deus, id est Trinitas, est Creator[^7] ». Facta est ergo femina a Deo, etiamsi costa ministrata sit per Angelos.

### Cap. V.
### *De causis superioribus et inferioribus.*

Sed quaeritur, an ratio, quam Deus primis operibus concreavit, id haberet, ut secundum ipsam ex viri latere feminam fieri necesse foret; an hoc tantum, *Hugo.* ut fieri posset. — « Ad quod sciendum est, omnium rerum causas in Deo ab aeterno esse. Ut enim homo sic fieret, vel equus et huiusmodi, in Dei potentia et dispositione ab aeterno fuit. Hae dicuntur *primordiales causae*, quia istas aliae non praecedunt, sed istae alias, quae sunt causae causarum. Cumque unum sit divina potentia, dispositio sive voluntas, et ideo una omnium principalis causa, tamen propter effectus diversos pluraliter dicit Augustinus[^8], *causas primordiales* omnium rerum in Deo esse, inducens similitudinem artificis, in cuius dispositione est, qualis futura sit arca. Ita et in Deo uniuscuiusque rei futurae causa praecessit. In creaturis vero quarundam rerum, sed non omnium, causae sunt, ut ait Augustinus, quia inse- *Rationes seminales.* ruit Deus *seminales rationes* rebus, secundum quas alia ex aliis proveniunt, ut de hoc semine tale granum, de hac arbore talis fructus, et huiusmodi. Et hae quoque dicuntur *primordiales causae*, etsi non adeo proprie, quia habent ante se causam aeternam, quae proprie et universaliter prima est. Illae vero ad res aliquas dicuntur primae, quae scilicet ex eis proveniunt. Ideo etiam *primordiales* dicuntur, quia in prima rerum conditione rebus a Deo insitae sunt. Et sicut creaturae mutabiles sunt, ita et hae causae mutari possunt[^9] »; quae autem in immutabili Deo causa est, mutari non potest.

### Cap. VI.
### *De causis, quae in Deo simul sunt et in creaturis, et de his, quae in Deo tantum sunt.*

Omnium igitur rerum causae in Deo sunt; sed quarundam causae et in Deo sunt et in creaturis, quarundam vero causae in Deo tantum sunt; et illarum rerum causae dicuntur *absconditae in Deo*, quia ita est in divina dispositione, ut hoc vel illud fiat, quod non est in *seminali* creaturae ratione. Et illa quidem, quae secundum causam seminalem fiunt, dicuntur *na-* *Notandum.* *turaliter* fieri, quia ita cursus naturae hominibus innotuit, alia vero *praeter naturam*, quorum causae tantum sunt in Deo. Haec autem dicit Augustinus[^10] esse illa quae per gratiam fiunt, vel ad ea significanda non *naturaliter*, sed *mirabiliter* fiunt. Inter quae mulieris facturam de costa viri ponit, ita dicens: Ut mulierem ita fieri necesse foret, non in rebus conditum, sed in Deo absconditum erat, Omnis naturae[^11] cursus habet naturales leges. Super hunc naturalem cursum Creator habet apud se posse de omnibus facere aliud, quam eorum naturalis ratio habet, ut virga scilicet arida repente floreat et fructum gignat, et in iuventute sterilis femina in senectute pariat, ut asina loquatur, et huiusmodi. Dedit autem naturis, ut ex his etiam haec fieri possent, non ut in naturali motu haberent. Habet ergo Deus in se absconditas quorundam futurorum[^12] causas, quas rebus conditis non inseruit, easque implet non opere providentiae, quo naturae subsistunt ut sint, sed quo illas administrat ut voluerit, quas ut voluit condidit. Omnium ergo quae ad gratiam significandam, non naturali motu rerum, sed mirabiliter facta sunt, absconditae causae in Deo fuerunt, quorum unum erat, quod mulier facta est de latere viri dormientis. Non habuit prima rerum conditio, ut femina sic *fieret*, sed ut *fieri posset*, ne contra causas, quas Deus voluntarie instituit, mutabili voluntate aliquid facere putaretur.

### Cap. VII.
### *De anima mulieris, quae non est ex anima viri, quia animae non sunt ex traduce.*

« Quemadmodum mulieris corpus de viri corpore *Tres opiniones.* traductum fuit, ita putaverunt aliqui, ipsius animam de viri anima propagatam, et omnes animas praeter primam *de traduce* esse, sicut corpora[^13] ». Alii autem putaverunt, *simul* omnes animas ab initio creatas. Catholica autem Ecclesia nec *simul* nec *ex traduce* factas esse animas docet, sed in corporibus per coitum seminatis atque formatis infundi et infundendo creari. Unde in Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus[^14]: « Animas hominum non esse ab initio inter creaturas intellectuales natas nec simul creatas, sicut Origenes fingit, dicimus; neque cum corporibus[^15] per coitum seminari, sicut Luciferiani et Cyrillus et quidam Latinorum praesumtores affirmant. Sed dicimus, *corpus* tantum per coniugii copulam seminari, creationem vero *animae* solum Creatorem nosse, eiusque iudicio corpus coagulari in vulva, et compingi atque formari, ac formato iam corpore, animam creari et infundi, ut vivat in utero

<!-- page 431 -->

homo, ex anima constans et corpore, et egrediatur vivus ex utero, plenus[^16] humana substantia ». Hieronymus[^17] etiam anathematis vinculo illos condemnat, qui animas *ex traduce* dicunt, inducens auctoritatem Prophetae: *Qui finxit singillatim corda eorum.* Hoc satis, inquit, innuit Propheta, quod non animam de anima facit Deus, sed singillatim animas *de nihilo* creat.

---

english:
# DISTINCTION XVIII.

### Chapter I.
### *On the formation of woman.*

In this same paradise, too, God formed woman from the substance of man, just as Scripture appends, after paradise had been planted and the man placed in it, and after all the animals had been led to him and designated by their names[^1]: *God sent a deep sleep upon Adam. And when he had fallen asleep, he took one of his ribs and formed it into a woman.*

Here it must be noted why he did not create man and woman together, as he did the angels, but first the man, and then the woman from the man. *Augustine.* « Namely, in order that there might be one principle of the human race, so that in this both the pride of the devil might be confounded and the humility of man might be exalted by the likeness of God. For the devil had desired to be a principle other than God; therefore, that his pride might be beaten back, man received this as a gift, which the devil perversely wished to seize but could not obtain. And through this the image of God appeared in man, since, just as God exists as the principle of creation for all things, so man is the principle of generation for all human beings. For this reason also God willed that all should come from one man, so that, while they recognized that they all come from one, they might love one another as if one[^2] ».

### Chapter II.
### *Why she was formed from the side of the man, and not from another part of the body.*

But since for these reasons « woman was made *Augustine.* from the man — formed not from just any part of the man's body, but from his side, in order to show that she was created for the partnership of love; lest, if she had been made from the head[^3], she might seem to be set over the man for dominion, or, if from the feet, to be subjected to him in servitude. Therefore, since she was prepared for the man neither as mistress nor as handmaid, but as companion, she had to be produced neither from the head nor from the feet but from the side, so that she might know that she was to be placed beside him whom she had learned was taken from his own side ».

And by this the reply to the objections is clear, except for the first, because it is not a parallel case. For to forbid *evil* is good, since no one can perpetrate evil without sin; but to forbid the *good* is not so much an evil, since a man can abstain from it without sin; for to abstain from a beneficial good falls within the genus of honourable good. The rest are sufficiently clear from what has been said.

### Chapter III.
### *Why the rib was taken from the man while he was sleeping, and not while he was awake.*

Not without cause was « the rib also taken from *Hugo.* the man rather while he was sleeping than while he was awake — the rib from which woman was formed for the man as a help for generation — but in order to show that he felt no pain in it, and at the same time that the marvellous work of the divine power might be displayed, which opened the side of the sleeping man and yet did not wake him from the rest of his slumber[^4] ». « In which work also the sacrament of Christ and the Church was prefigured[^5]; for just as woman was formed from the side of the sleeping man, so the Church is formed from the sacraments which flowed from the side of Christ sleeping on the Cross, namely blood and water, by which we are redeemed from punishments and washed from guilt ».

### Chapter IV.
### *That she was made from the rib multiplied in itself, without the addition of any extrinsic thing.*

It is also customarily asked whether « the woman was made from that rib without the addition of any extrinsic thing. — Which some have not approved. But if, for the perfecting of the woman's body, God had added an extrinsic increase, that addition would have been greater than the rib itself. Hence the woman would have to be said to have been made rather from that added thing than from the rib itself, since from it she would have received the greater portion of her substance. It remains, therefore, that one should say that the woman's body was made from the substance of the rib alone, without any extrinsic addition, by divine power multiplied in itself — by that very same miracle by which afterwards, when the five loaves were multiplied by Jesus's heavenly *Sole dubium.* blessing, five thousand men were filled[^6] ».

This too ought to be known: that, although the formation of woman was carried out through the ministry of angels, the power of creation is not to be attributed to them. *Augustine.* « For angels can create no nature, and therefore neither can they form a rib

into a woman, nor any supplement of flesh in the place of the rib; not that they do nothing toward bringing something into being, but they are not creators on that account — any more than farmers are creators of crops or trees. God alone, that is, the Trinity, is Creator[^7] ». Woman, therefore, was made by God, even if the rib was supplied through the ministry of angels.

### Chapter V.
### *On the higher and lower causes.*

But it is asked whether the *ratio* which God concreated in his first works contained this, that according to it woman had necessarily to be made from the side of the man, or only this, *Hugo.* that she could be so made. — « To which it must be known that the causes of all things are in God from eternity. For that man should be made thus, or horse and the like, was from eternity in the power and disposition of God. These are called *primordial causes*, because no others precede them, but they precede the others, which are causes of causes. And although the divine power, disposition or will is one — and therefore one principal cause of all things — yet on account of the diverse effects Augustine[^8] speaks in the plural of *primordial causes* of all things in God, drawing the likeness of the craftsman, in whose disposition it lies what shape the ark is to have. So too in God the cause of each future thing precedes. But in creatures there are causes of some things, though not of all, as Augustine says, because God *seminal causes.* implanted *seminal reasons* in things, according to which some things come from others — that from this seed comes such a grain, that from this tree comes such a fruit, and the like. And these too are called *primordial causes*, though not so properly, since they have before them an eternal cause, which is properly and universally first. They, however, are called primary in relation to certain things, namely the things which proceed from them. They are also called *primordial* because they were implanted by God in the first establishment of things. And just as creatures are mutable, so these causes too can be changed[^9] »; but that which is a cause in the immutable God cannot be changed.

### Chapter VI.
### *On the causes which are at once in God and in creatures, and on those which are in God alone.*

The causes of all things, therefore, are in God; but of some the causes are both in God and in creatures, while of others the causes are in God alone; and the causes of these things are called *hidden in God*, because it is so in the divine disposition that this or that should come to be, even though it is not in the *seminal* reason of the creature. And those things which come about according to a seminal cause are said *Note.* to come about *naturally*, because in this way the course of nature has become known to men; but others come about *beyond nature*, whose causes are in God alone. These, however, Augustine[^10] says, are the things that come about by grace, or which, for the sake of signifying these, come to pass not *naturally* but *miraculously*. Among these he places the making of the woman from the man's rib, saying as follows: That the woman should be made thus was, of necessity, not founded in things but hidden in God. Every nature's[^11] course has its natural laws. Above this natural course, the Creator has it in his power to do otherwise concerning all things than their natural reason holds — as that a dry rod should suddenly bloom and bear fruit, that a barren woman in her youth should bear in her old age, that an ass should speak, and the like. He has indeed given to natures the capacity that these things can come about from them, but not that they should have it in their natural course. God therefore has within himself the hidden causes of certain future things[^12], which he has not implanted in created things; and he fulfils them not by the work of providence whereby natures subsist that they may be, but by that whereby he administers them as he wills — those things which he established as he willed. Of all things, therefore, which were done for the signifying of grace, not by the natural motion of things, but miraculously, the hidden causes were in God — one of which was that woman was made from the side of the sleeping man. The first establishment of things did not have it that woman should be so *made*, but only that she *could be made*, lest he should be thought to do something against the causes which God voluntarily instituted, by a mutable will.

### Chapter VII.
### *On the soul of the woman — that it is not from the soul of the man, since souls are not by traduction.*

« Just as the body of the woman was drawn from *Three opinions.* the body of the man, so some have thought that her soul also was propagated from the soul of the man, and that all souls except the first are *by traduction*, as bodies are[^13] ». Others, however, have thought that all souls were *together* created from the beginning. But the Catholic Church teaches that souls are made neither *together* nor *by traduction*, but are infused into bodies seminated and formed by intercourse, and by their being infused are created. Hence in the *Ecclesiastical Dogmas*[^14]: « We say that the souls of men were not born from the beginning among the intellectual creatures, nor created all together, as Origen feigns; nor that they are seminated with bodies[^15] through intercourse, as the Luciferians and Cyrillus and certain Latin presumers affirm. But we say that *the body* alone is seminated through marital union, that the creation of *the soul* the Creator alone knows, and that by his judgment the body is coagulated in the womb, and is composed and formed, and that, once the body is formed, the soul is created and infused, so that there should live in the womb

a man composed of soul and body, and that he should issue alive from the womb, full[^16] of human substance ». Jerome[^17] also condemns with the bond of anathema those who say souls are *by traduction*, citing the authority of the Prophet: *Who fashioned their hearts one by one.* This, he says, sufficiently intimates that God does not make a soul from a soul, but creates souls one by one *out of nothing*.

---

la: Gen. 2, 21. 22. Paulo ante pro *substantia viri* omnes codd. *costa viri.* — Haec distinctio magna ex parte deprompta est ex Hugone, I. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 34. 35. 36, et Sum. Sent. tr. 3. c. 3. Cod. Erf. hic citat Gandolph. *Sent.* II. c. 157. 158.

en: Gen. 2:21–22. Just before, in place of *the substance of the man*, all the codices read *the rib of the man.* — This distinction is largely drawn from Hugh, *De Sacramentis*, part VI, chs. 34, 35, 36, and *Summa Sententiarum*, tract 3, ch. 3. The Erfurt codex here cites Gandolph, *Sentences*, II, chs. 157, 158.

la: August., XII. de Civ. Dei, c. 27.

en: Augustine, *On the City of God*, book XII, ch. 27.

la: Edd. 1, 5, 8 adiungunt *viri.*

en: Editions 1, 5, 8 add *of the man.*

la: August., loc. cit. et IX. de Gen. ad lit. c. 13 n. 23, nec non de Bono coniugali c. 1, sententialiter.

en: Augustine, the place cited, and *On Genesis according to the Letter*, book IX, ch. 13, n. 23; also *On the Good of Marriage*, ch. 1, substantially.

la: Hugo, I. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 36; seq. loc. est Hugonis, Sum. Sent. tr. 3. c. 3. — Paulo superius pro *sed ut nullam* etc. Vat. cum edd. 4, 6, 8 tantum *scilicet ut nullam* etc.

en: Hugh, *De Sacramentis*, part VI, ch. 36; the following passage is from Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum*, tract 3, ch. 3. — A little earlier, in place of *sed ut nullam* etc., the Vatican edition with editions 4, 6, 8 reads only *scilicet ut nullam* etc.

la: Haec verba respiciunt Ephes. 5, 32; et quae sequuntur Ioan. 19, 34.

en: These words refer to Ephesians 5:32; and what follows, to John 19:34.

la: Hugo, Sum. Sent. ibid. In hoc textu verbum *addito* post *potius de illo* a codd. abest.

en: Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum*, ibid. In this text the word *addito* after *potius de illo* is absent from the codices.

la: August., IX. de Gen. ad lit. c. 15. n. 26, et c. 16. n. 30.

en: Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter*, book IX, ch. 15, n. 26, and ch. 16, n. 30.

la: Cfr. IX. de Gen. ad lit. c. 16. et 17. n. 32. Cfr. etiam 83 Qq. q. 46, et quoad praecedentia cfr. de Gen. loc. cit. c. 18. n. 33.

en: Compare *On Genesis according to the Letter*, book IX, ch. 16 and 17, n. 32. Compare also *On 83 Questions*, q. 46; and as to what precedes, compare *On Genesis* at the place cited, ch. 18, n. 33.

la: Haec omnia et quae sequuntur sunt ex Hugone, Sum. Sent. tr. 3. c. 3, qui ea ex multis locis Augustini compilavit.

en: All of this, and what follows, is from Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum*, tract 3, ch. 3, who compiled it from many places in Augustine.

la: Quae praecedunt sumsit Hugo loc. cit. ex August., IX. de Gen. ad lit. c. 17. n. 32, et quae sequuntur ex eod. ibid. c. 18. n. 33.

en: What precedes Hugh took, at the place cited, from Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter*, book IX, ch. 17, n. 32; and what follows, from the same, ibid., ch. 18, n. 33.

la: Vat. cum nonnullis aliis edd. *creaturae.*

en: The Vatican edition, with several other editions, reads *creaturae* (of the creature).

la: Edd. 1, 8 *factorum.* Cod. Erf. hic adnotat: alias *factorum*; in originali *factorum*, et sumitur haec littera *futurorum* a VI. libro, c. 8. [n. 13.], ubi eadem est sententia. — Revera legitur ibi: *Sed rebus factis rerum faciendarum causas inserebat, et omnipotenti potentia futura faciebat* etc. — Paulo inferius ad verbum *subsistunt* idem cod. Erf. adnotat: In originali: *quo natura substituit, ut sint*, et est melior littera.

en: Editions 1, 8 read *factorum* (of things done). The Erfurt codex notes here: elsewhere *factorum*; in the original *factorum*, and this reading *futurorum* (of things future) is taken from book VI, ch. 8 [n. 13], where the same sentence occurs. — In fact one reads there: *But to things made he was inserting the causes of things to be made, and by omnipotent power was making future things*, etc. — A little below, at the word *subsistunt*, the same Erfurt codex notes: In the original: *quo natura substituit, ut sint* — and this is the better reading.

la: August., X. de Gen. ad lit. c. 1. n. 1., et Hugo ibid.

en: Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter*, book X, ch. 1, n. 1; and Hugh in the same place.

la: Gennadius, c. 14. Paulo inferius pro *cum corporibus* Vat. et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 *in corporibus.*

en: Gennadius, ch. 14. A little below, in place of *cum corporibus* (with bodies), the Vatican edition and editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 read *in corporibus* (in bodies).

la: Post *plenus* edd. 1, 8 inserunt *et anima et corpore.*

en: After *plenus*, editions 1, 8 insert *et anima et corpore* (both in soul and in body).

la: Ita in Glossa ad Ps. 32, 15. quae sumta est ex Hieronymi libro contra Ioan. Ierosolymitanum (Oper. Hier. t. II. col. 496.).

en: Thus in the Gloss on Psalm 32:15, which is taken from Jerome's book against John of Jerusalem (*Works of Jerome*, vol. II, col. 496).

translators_notes:
- **Pages spanned (printed):** 429 (L-1 → R-2) + 430 (L-0 → R-1) + 431 (L-0 + R-0 first four lines only). PDF offset `pdf = printed + 22`, so pp. 451–453.
- **Chunk boundary openings/closes:** opens at raw 30201 on p.429 L-1 with `DISTINCTIO XVIII. — Cap. I. De formatione mulieris.` immediately after d17-dubia DUB V close (*Alia satis patent per iam dicta.* on p.429 L-0). Closes at raw 30338 on p.431 R-0 at *...sed singillatim animas de nihilo creat.* immediately before `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVIII.` (raw 30339 / p.431 L-1).
- **Seven capitula** (Cap. I–VII) — standard Lombard littera structure for d.18.
- **Apparatus footer mapping** (per-page restart of Quaracchi numbering):
  - p.429 footer carries TWO sequences. The first (critical-apparatus) is anchored entirely in d17-dubia's p.429 L-1 tail (¹ Vat. *spiritualis*, ² Cfr. d.20 dub.7) — both held by d17-dubia as its [^21]–[^22] equivalent and do NOT appear here. The Lombard-text footer block headed *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* holds ¹–⁷ across L-2 (¹–³) and R-2 (⁴–⁷); these are this chunk's [^1]–[^7].
  - p.430 has eight footers ¹–⁸ across L-2 (¹–⁵) and R-2 (⁶–⁸); these become [^8]–[^15].
  - p.431 L-2 holds two pre-divider footers (¹ *plenus* edd.1,8; ² Glossa ad Ps.32,15 / Hieronymus); these become [^16]–[^17]. Following these is a fresh *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.* sequence which belongs to d18-divisio.
- **Marginal labels preserved inline** per locked Vol II convention: *Augustinus.* (×2), *Hugo.* (×2), *Dubium unicum.*, *Rationes seminales.*, *Notandum.*, *Tres opiniones.*
- **No `[?]` flags** — all 17 anchors + 8 marginal labels crisp at 450 dpi across pp.429–431.
- **Cross-chunk hand-off:** received nothing from d17-dubia (p.429 L-1 holds DUB V close + Cap. I opener; L-2/R-2 NOTAE-AD-LIBR-SENTENTIARUM footer block is entirely Cap. I/II Lombard-text apparatus). Forward hand-off to d18-divisio: none (d18-divisio opens p.431 L-1 with its own COMMENTARIUS + own *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* footer block on p.431 L-2 bottom).
- **OCR cascade** around raw 30201–30338 is two-column cascade-fragmented (Cap. III subtitle diagonal token reorder, R-column *Dubium unicum.* marginal bleed-through across L-column, Lombard NOTAE block diagonal splice with adjacent crit-apparatus); column-band PDF read authoritative per Vol II Override.

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. 18, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XVIII — De formatione mulieris de viro.

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XVIII — On the formation of the woman from the man.

source_text:
<!-- page 431 -->

# COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVIII.
## *De formatione mulieris de viro.*

*In eodem quoque paradiso etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de formatione viri, hic agit de formatione mulieris de viro. Dividitur autem ista pars in partes duas; in quarum prima determinat de productione mulieris ex parte corporis; in secunda ex parte animae, ibi: *Quemadmodum mulieris corpus* etc.

Prima pars habet quatuor partes. In prima parte determinat de productione corporis mulieris ex viro in comparatione ad causam *finalem*. In secunda vero, in comparatione ad causam *materialem*, ibi: *Solet etiam quaeri, utrum de costa illa* etc. In tertia vero, in comparatione ad causam *efficientem*, ibi: *Illud etiam sciri oportet.* In quarta vero, in comparatione ad causam *formalem*, ibi: *Sed quaeritur, an ratio, quam Deus primis operibus concreavit.*

Similiter secunda pars principalis habet quatuor particulas. In quarum prima ponit opinionem quandam erroneam de productione animae mulieris. In secunda vero subiungit aliam opinionem non minus falsam, ibi: *Alii autem putaverunt* etc. In tertia vero ponit veritatem catholicam, ibi: *Catholica autem Ecclesia.* In quarta et ultima falsitatem impugnat et veritatem confirmat auctoritate Hieronymi et Augustini, ibi: *Unde in Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus* etc.

Et sic duo determinantur in parte ista, quorum primum est formatio mulieris quantum ad *corpus*[^1]; secundum est perfectio quantum ad *animam*.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis circa duo incidit hic quaestio.

Primum est circa productionem corporis mulieris de latere viri.

Secundum est circa productionem spiritus sive animae eiusdem mulieris, et per consequens omnium animarum, quae sunt in posteris.

### ARTICULUS I.
#### *De productione corporis mulieris de latere viri.*

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, unde mulier formata fuerit.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum secundum seminalem rationem corpus mulieris in costa praecesserit.

Tertio vero quaeritur, quid sit secundum rem et essentiam ipsa ratio seminalis.

### QUAESTIO I.
#### *Unde fuerit productum corpus mulieris.*

---

english:
<!-- page 431 -->

# COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVIII.
## *On the formation of the woman from the man.*

*In the same paradise also, etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the formation of the man; here he treats of the formation of the woman from the man. Now this part is divided into two [sections]; in the first of which he determines concerning the production of the woman with respect to the body; in the second with respect to the soul, at: *Just as the body of the woman* etc.

The first part has four [sub-]parts. In the first part he determines concerning the production of the body of the woman from the man in comparison with the *final* cause. In the second, in comparison with the *material* cause, at: *It is also wont to be asked, whether from that rib* etc. In the third, in comparison with the *efficient* cause, at: *That also is to be known.* In the fourth, in comparison with the *formal* cause, at: *But it is asked, whether the principle which God concreated in his first works.*

Likewise the second principal part has four particulars. In the first of which he sets forth a certain erroneous opinion concerning the production of the soul of the woman. In the second he subjoins another opinion no less false, at: *But others have supposed* etc. In the third he sets forth the Catholic truth, at: *But the Catholic Church.* In the fourth and last he refutes the falsehood and confirms the truth by the authority of Jerome and Augustine, at: *Whence in the Ecclesiastical Dogmas* etc.

And thus two [things] are determined in this part, of which the first is the formation of the woman with respect to the *body*[^1]; the second is her perfection with respect to the *soul*.

### TRACTATION OF QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, a question arises here concerning two [things].

The first is concerning the production of the body of the woman from the side of the man.

The second is concerning the production of the spirit or soul of the same woman, and consequently of all the souls that are in [her] descendants.

### ARTICLE I.
#### *On the production of the body of the woman from the side of the man.*

Concerning the first, three [questions] are asked.

First, it is asked whence the woman was formed.

Second, it is asked whether the body of the woman pre-existed in the rib according to a seminal principle.

Third, it is asked what, according to reality and essence, that seminal principle itself is.

### QUESTION I.
#### *Whence the body of the woman was produced.*

---

la: Plures codd. cum edd. 3, 4 et Vat. omittunt *quantum ad corpus.*

en: Several codices together with editions 3, 4 and the Vatican edition omit *with respect to the body.* ---

translators_notes:
- **Page span**: chunk spans printed p. 431 only (PDF p. 453, vol II offset +22). Opens at raw line 30339 with `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVIII.` on p.431 L band 1 (immediately after d18-littera p.431 L-0 close at *...sed singillatim animas de nihilo creat.* at raw 30338); holds the title line + subtitle *De formatione mulieris de viro.* + epigraph *In eodem quoque paradiso etc.* + DIVISIO TEXTUS (L+R band 1 interleaved) + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (L+R band 1 bottom) + ARTICULUS I header + subtitle *De productione corporis mulieris de latere viri.* + the ART. I sub-divisio (3-question listing `Circa primum quaeruntur tria`) + QUAESTIO I header + italic title *Unde fuerit productum corpus mulieris.* Closes immediately before the QUAESTIO I opener `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, unde fuerit productum corpus mulieris` on p.431 R band 1.
- **d.18 pars-split**: confirmed NO pars split — `DIST. XVIII. ART. I/II.` running heads only (verified in prior d18-littera session at raw 30616 / 31610 / 31883). Chunk id is `d18-divisio`, not `d18-p1-divisio`.
- **Article fold-in** per locked Vol II Override step 5: this divisio holds DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM + the ART. I header + subtitle + the ART. I sub-divisio `Circa primum quaeruntur tria` (with the 3-question enumeration: unde mulier formata fuerit / utrum secundum seminalem rationem in costa praecesserit / quid sit secundum rem et essentiam ipsa ratio seminalis). The QUAESTIO I header + italic title close out the chunk; the body of Q1 (`Circa primum sic proceditur...`) lives in d18-a1-q1.
- **Apparatus split**: p.431 L band 2 holds two distinct footer blocks. The upper block (*NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM*) ¹–² (`Post plenus edd. 1, 8 inserunt et anima et corpore` / Glossa ad Ps. 32, 13 ex Hieronymo) belongs to d18-littera p.431 L-0 tail and is recorded there as [^16]–[^17] per the prior d18-littera session. The lower block (*NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM*) has a single note ¹ (`Plures codd. cum edd. 3, 4 et Vat. omittunt quantum ad corpus`) which anchors at *primum est formatio mulieris quantum ad corpus*¹ inside the DIVISIO TEXTUS body and lives here as [^1]. p.431 R band 2 footers ²–³ (`Ita cod. cc et ed. 1; ceteri codd. cum aliis edd. ex, sed vide infra principium 1. quaest.` / `Hic c. 1. — Gen. 2, 21. seqq.`) anchor in the QUAESTIO I body opener and migrate forward to d18-a1-q1.
- **No `[?]` flags** — single anchor crisp at 450 dpi.
- **OCR cascade notes**: the OCR around raw 30339–30371 is two-column cascade-fragmented (DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM paragraphs diagonally interleaved across L and R columns, plus running-head fragmentation `DIST. XVIII. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` bleeding into the body band); column-band PDF read authoritative per Vol II Override.
- **`has_scholion: false`** — divisio chunks carry no SCHOLION by design.
- **Cross-chunk hand-off**: received nothing from d18-littera (d18-littera closes cleanly at *...singillatim animas de nihilo creat.* on p.431 L-0). Forward hand-off to d18-a1-q1: p.431 R-2 footers ²–³ migrate as the first apparatus entries of d18-a1-q1.