title: Dist. 49, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 1015 -->

### Articulus II. *De dotium distinctione.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de dotium distinctione. Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur.

*Primo* quaeritur de numero et sufficientia dotium.

*Secundo* quaeritur de aequalitate ipsarum.

### Quaestio I. *De numero et sufficientia dotium.*

Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic. Dotes corporis consueverunt quatuor assignari, scilicet claritas, impassibilitas, subtilitas et agilitas. Sed quod debeant esse *pauciores*, videtur:

1. Quia dotes sunt in corpore, secundum quod comparatur ad animam; sed anima tantum dupliciter comparatur, scilicet ut *motor* et ut *perfectio*[^p1015-2]: ergo videtur, quod tantum sint *duae* dotes.

2. Item, tantum tres dicuntur esse vires, secundum quas anima regit corpus et perficiendo et movendo, scilicet *naturalis, vitalis* et *animalis;* et secundum hoc dicuntur tres spiritus in corpore[^p1015-3]: ergo videtur, quod sint *tantum tres.*

3. Item, dotes animae sunt tres[^p1015-4]: ergo si anima pluribus dotibus dotanda est quam corpus, si anima non habet *nisi tres*, nec corpus.

**Contra:** Quod sint *plures*, videtur:

4. Quoniam, sicut claritas facit ad pulcritudinem, ita et partium congruentia; unde Augustinus de Civitate Dei[^p1015-5]: « Pulcritudo est quaedam partium congruentia cum quadam coloris suavitate »: ergo sicut claritas est dos corporis, sic et congruentia, et sic etc.

5. Item, sicut corpus ad hoc, quod sit animae congruum organum, requirit debitam qualitatem, ita etiam debitam quantitatem: ergo sicut assignantur dotes a parte qualitatis, ita etiam a parte quantitatis: ergo *plures* sunt quam quatuor dictae.

6. Item, Anselmus in libro de Similitudinibus[^p1015-6] ponit, septem esse conditiones, quibus anima glorificatur in corpore: agilitatem, fortitudinem, libertatem, salutem, voluptatem, longaevitatem, pulcritudinem: ergo videtur, quod sint *multo plures* quam praedictae quatuor.

### Conclusio

> *Dotes corporis erunt quatuor: claritas, impassibilitas, subtilitas et agilitas; quarum sufficientia quadruplici via insinuatur.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod numerus istarum dotium sive qualitatum perficientium corpus accipitur ex Sapientiae tertio[^p1015-7]: *Fulgebunt iusti et tanquam scintillae in arundineto discurrent:* in *fulgore* claritas; in *iustitia* impassibilitas, quia *iustitia est perpetua et immortalis;* in *scintillae* nomine subtilitas; in *discursu* agilitas.

Ratio autem istius numeri accipitur multipliciter a diversis. — Et primo modo secundum causam *finalem* hoc modo. Dicunt enim, quod corpus[^p1015-8] resurgit, disponitur et dotatur propter gloriam animae, quae consistit in perfecta *cognitione* cognitivae et *unione* affectivae. Ad *cognitionem* autem duo requiruntur, scilicet spiritualitas et luminositas, quia cognoscens debet esse spirituale et debet habere lumen; et ideo propter cognitionem animae est in corpore *subtilitas* et *claritas.* — *Unio* autem amoris est liberalis et fortis: *Fortis enim est ut mors dilectio*[^p1016-1]. Propter libertatem debet esse corpus *agile*, propter fortitudinem et indissolubilitatem debet corpus esse *impassibile.* Et sic patet, quod quatuor sunt dotes.

<!-- page 1016 -->

Secundo modo accipitur secundum causam *efficientem.* Dotes enim huiusmodi in corpore, ut supra[^p1016-2] ostensum est, consummatum et perfectum *esse* habent ab influentia animae in corpus. Anima autem in corpus influit dupliciter, scilicet ut *perfectio* et ut *motor.* Ut *perfectio* anima gloriosa influit vivificando *vita immortali*, ut *motor* movendo *motu infatigabili;* alioquin non esset gloriosa, nisi excluderet *mortem* et *poenam.* — Quia ergo vivificat *vita*, ideo necesse est, in corpore esse dispositionem ad vitam, et haec est lucis abundantia et *claritas*[^p1016-3]; quia vero vita *immortali*, necesse est, corpus habere dispositionem ad immortalitatem, et ita est *impassibilitas.* — Quia vero *motu infatigabili* movet, ideo oportet, quod nihil *resistat*, et ideo *subtilitas* est in corpore; oportet etiam, quod nihil *retardet*, et sic *agilitas.* Et sic patet similiter, quod quatuor sunt.

Tertio modo accipitur secundum causam *formalem.* Dicunt enim aliqui, quod in corpore nostro, cum sit natura *caelestis concilians* et *elementaris*[^p1016-4], modo dominatur *elementaris*, sed post dominabitur natura *caelestis*, quae est natura lucis; haec erit sicut *formalis* et completiva corporis. Et quia lux habet quatuor istas proprietates, sicut patet in radio, scilicet *claritatem*, quia illuminat; *impassibilitatem*, quia nihil ipsum corrumpit; *agilitatem*, quia subito vadit; *penetrabilitatem*, quia corpora diaphana sine eorum corruptione pertransit: sic etiam corpus gloriosum, in quo dominatur natura lucis, quatuor habet dotes.

Quarto modo accipitur secundum causam *materialem* sic. Corpus nostrum est compositum ex quatuor elementis. Et quia elementa sunt imperfecta, quadruplicem habet ab eis *defectibilitatem.* Ab *aqua*, quae est elementum humidum et passibile[^p1016-5], habet *passibilitatem* et *corruptionem;* unde humidum aqueum corpus corrumpit. A *terra* vero habet *obscuritatem*, quia est elementum opacum. Ab *igne animalitatem*, quia calor consumit continue; ideo continua indiget alimonia ciborum. Ab *aëre* vero habet *infirmitatem;* aër enim facillime immutatur et cedit cuilibet impellenti. Quoniam igitur quatuor isti defectus debent per bona opposita removeri ad hoc, quod corpus sit perfectum perfectione completa; ideo quatuor sunt dotes: contra corruptionem *impassibilitas*, contra obscuritatem *claritas*, contra animalitatem *spiritualitas*[^p1016-6], contra infirmitatem *virtus* sive penetrabilitas.

Et haec ultima sumtio convenientior est inter omnes, quoniam concordat *auctoritati* et *rationi:* *auctoritati* Apostoli, primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto[^p1016-7]: *Seminatur in corruptione, resurget in incorruptione;* ecce impassibilitas. *Seminatur in ignobilitate, surget in gloria;* ecce claritas. *Seminatur in infirmitate, surget in virtute;* ecce penetrabilitas. *Seminatur animale, surget spirituale;* ecce agilitas. Unde Apostolus sumit dotes per comparationem ad illos quatuor defectus, quos removent. Similiter Augustinus, de Civitate Dei vigesimo secundo[^p1016-8]: « Aberit a corporibus nostris omnis deformitas, omnis tarditas, omnis infirmitas, omnis corruptio ». Omnis deformitas per *claritatem*, omnis tarditas per *agilitatem*, omnis infirmitas per *spiritualitatem*, omnis corruptio per *impassibilitatem.* — Concordat etiam haec sumtio[^p1016-9] *rationi.* Dotes enim corporis dicunt non omnes qualitates, sed qualitates *nobiles* et *principales*, de novo superadditas naturae. Et quia de novo superadditae debent accipi secundum *naturales defectus*, et hi secundum *causas principales*, quae sunt quatuor elementa: patet, quod ista via inter omnes est magis congrua. Ex his patent obiecta.

*Ad 1. 2.* Quod enim obiicit, quod anima comparatur dupliciter vel tripliciter tantum; dicendum, quod anima secundum illas duas comparationes ad corpus, ut *motor* et *perfectio* requirit in corpore quatuor dispositiones, ut ostensum est prius.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod plures debent esse dotes animae quam corporis; dicendum, quod dotes *animae* attenduntur secundum potentias, sed dotes *corporis* secundum qualitates respicientes elementa; et ideo patet, quare illae tres, istae plures.

*Ad 4. 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de congruentia partium et quantitate, dicendum, quod illa erit, quae nunc est, in quibus convenienter est; ideo non est aliqua de novo dos penes ipsam[^p1016-10].

> **Nota de numeratione.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page. The apparatus below is therefore labelled by page: notes 2–9 of page 1015 (note 1 of page 1015 anchors in the preceding question, art. I, q. 2) and notes 1–10 of page 1016.

---

english:
<!-- page 1015 -->

### Article II. *On the distinction of the dowries.*

Next, as to the second article, inquiry is made concerning the distinction of the dowries. And concerning this two questions are asked.

*First* it is asked concerning the number and sufficiency of the dowries.

*Second* it is asked concerning their equality.

### Question I. *On the number and sufficiency of the dowries.*

As to the first, then, one proceeds thus. Four dowries of the body have customarily been assigned, namely clarity, impassibility, subtlety and agility. But that they ought to be *fewer*, it seems:

1. Because the dowries are in the body according as it is related to the soul; but the soul is related only in a twofold way, namely as *mover* and as *perfection*[^p1015-2]: therefore it seems that there are only *two* dowries.

2. Likewise, only three powers are said to exist according to which the soul rules the body both by perfecting and by moving, namely the *natural*, the *vital* and the *animal;* and according to this three spirits are said to be in the body[^p1015-3]: therefore it seems that they are *only three.*

3. Likewise, the dowries of the soul are three[^p1015-4]: therefore if the soul is to be endowed with more dowries than the body, if the soul has *only three*, neither does the body.

**On the contrary:** That they are *more*, it seems:

4. Since, just as clarity contributes to beauty, so also does the congruity of the parts; whence Augustine in *On the City of God*[^p1015-5]: « Beauty is a certain congruity of the parts together with a certain sweetness of color »: therefore just as clarity is a dowry of the body, so also is congruity, and so forth.

5. Likewise, just as the body, in order that it be a fitting organ for the soul, requires a due quality, so also a due quantity: therefore just as dowries are assigned on the side of quality, so also on the side of quantity: therefore they are *more* than the four stated.

6. Likewise, Anselm in the book *On Likenesses*[^p1015-6] lays down that there are seven conditions by which the soul is glorified in the body: agility, strength, liberty, health, pleasure, longevity, beauty: therefore it seems that they are *far more* than the aforesaid four.

### Conclusion

> *The dowries of the body will be four: clarity, impassibility, subtlety and agility; the sufficiency of which is intimated by a fourfold way.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the number of these dowries, or of the qualities perfecting the body, is taken from the third chapter of Wisdom[^p1015-7]: *The just shall shine forth, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds:* in the *shining forth*, clarity; in *justice*, impassibility, because *justice is perpetual and immortal;* in the name of *sparks*, subtlety; in the *running to and fro*, agility.

But the ground of this number is taken in many ways by different authors. — And in the first way, according to the *final* cause, in this manner. For they say that the body[^p1015-8] rises, is disposed and is endowed for the sake of the glory of the soul, which consists in the perfect *knowledge* of the cognitive power and the *union* of the affective. Now for *knowledge* two things are required, namely spirituality and luminosity, because the knower must be spiritual and must have light; and therefore, for the sake of the soul's knowledge, there is in the body *subtlety* and *clarity.* — But the *union* of love is generous and strong: *For love is strong as death*[^p1016-1]. On account of liberty the body must be *agile*, on account of strength and indissolubility the body must be *impassible.* And so it is clear that the dowries are four.

<!-- page 1016 -->

In the second way it is taken according to the *efficient* cause. For dowries of this kind in the body, as was shown above[^p1016-2], have their consummate and perfect *being* from the soul's inflowing into the body. But the soul flows into the body in a twofold manner, namely as *perfection* and as *mover.* As *perfection* the glorious soul flows in by vivifying with *immortal life*, as *mover* by moving with an *untiring motion;* otherwise it would not be glorious, unless it excluded *death* and *punishment.* — Since therefore it vivifies with *life*, it is therefore necessary that there be in the body a disposition to life, and this is abundance of light and *clarity*[^p1016-3]; but since with *immortal* life, it is necessary that the body have a disposition to immortality, and thus there is *impassibility.* — But since it moves with an *untiring motion*, it is therefore required that nothing *resist*, and therefore *subtlety* is in the body; it is also required that nothing *retard*, and so *agility.* And so likewise it is clear that they are four.

In the third way it is taken according to the *formal* cause. For some say that in our body, since it is a nature *celestial-conciliating* and *elemental*[^p1016-4], now the *elemental* dominates, but afterwards the *celestial* nature will dominate, which is the nature of light; this will be as it were the *formal* and completive element of the body. And because light has these four properties, as is clear in a ray, namely *clarity*, because it illuminates; *impassibility*, because nothing corrupts it; *agility*, because it goes instantly; *penetrability*, because it passes through transparent bodies without their corruption: so too the glorious body, in which the nature of light dominates, has four dowries.

In the fourth way it is taken according to the *material* cause, thus. Our body is composed of four elements. And because the elements are imperfect, it has from them a fourfold *defectibility.* From *water*, which is a moist and passible element[^p1016-5], it has *passibility* and *corruption;* whence a moist watery humor corrupts the body. From *earth* it has *obscurity*, because it is an opaque element. From *fire*, *animality*, because heat consumes continually; therefore it needs the continual nourishment of food. From *air* it has *infirmity;* for air is most easily altered and yields to whatever impels it. Since therefore these four defects must be removed by opposite goods, in order that the body be perfect with a complete perfection; therefore the dowries are four: against corruption *impassibility*, against obscurity *clarity*, against animality *spirituality*[^p1016-6], against infirmity *strength* or penetrability.

And this last reckoning is the more fitting among them all, since it accords with *authority* and with *reason:* with the *authority* of the Apostle, in the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians[^p1016-7]: *It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption;* behold impassibility. *It is sown in ignobility, it shall rise in glory;* behold clarity. *It is sown in infirmity, it shall rise in strength;* behold penetrability. *It is sown an animal body, it shall rise a spiritual body;* behold agility. Whence the Apostle takes the dowries by comparison to those four defects which they remove. Likewise Augustine, in the twenty-second book *On the City of God*[^p1016-8]: « There will be absent from our bodies every deformity, every slowness, every infirmity, every corruption ». Every deformity by *clarity*, every slowness by *agility*, every infirmity by *spirituality*, every corruption by *impassibility.* — This reckoning[^p1016-9] also accords with *reason.* For the dowries of the body do not name all qualities, but qualities *noble* and *principal*, newly superadded to nature. And because things newly superadded must be taken according to the *natural defects*, and these according to the *principal causes*, which are the four elements: it is clear that this way is the more fitting among them all. From these things the objections are clear.

*To 1 and 2.* As to what is objected, that the soul is related only in a twofold or threefold way; it must be said that the soul, according to those two relations to the body, as *mover* and *perfection*, requires in the body four dispositions, as was shown above.

*To 3.* As to what is objected, that the dowries of the soul must be more than those of the body; it must be said that the dowries *of the soul* are reckoned according to the powers, but the dowries *of the body* according to the qualities regarding the elements; and therefore it is clear why those are three and these more.

*To 4 and 5.* As to what is objected concerning the congruity of the parts and quantity, it must be said that it will be the same as it now is, in those in whom it is fittingly present; therefore there is no dowry newly added in respect of it[^p1016-10].

---

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 3.

en: Cf. I *Sentences*, d. 8, p. II, q. 3.

la: Cfr. Avicenna, l. Canon. Fen 1. doctr. 6. c. 4; de Viribus cordis, tr. I. c. I. seq.; Cantic. p. I. tr. I. n. 81. seqq., et de Anima (sive Sextus naturalium), p. V. c. 8. — Superius cod. aa legit: *scilicet naturalis, quae est in hepate; vitalis, quae est in corde, et animalis, quae est in cerebro secundum medicos* (conveniunt Avicenna et auctor lib. de Spiritu et anima alias August. tributi, c. 20-23.).

en: Cf. Avicenna, *Canon*, bk. I, Fen 1, doctr. 6, c. 4; *On the Powers of the Heart*, tr. I, c. I ff.; *Canticum*, p. I, tr. I, n. 81 ff., and *On the Soul* (or the *Sixth of the Natural Things*), p. V, c. 8. — Above, codex aa reads: *namely the natural, which is in the liver; the vital, which is in the heart, and the animal, which is in the brain, according to the physicians* (Avicenna agrees, as does the author of the book *On the Spirit and the Soul*, otherwise attributed to Augustine, c. 20–23).

la: Vide supra p. I. q. 5.

en: See above, p. I, q. 5.

la: Libr. XXII. c. 19. n. 2: Omnis enim corporis pulcritudo est partium etc.

en: Bk. XXII, c. 19, n. 2: For all beauty of the body is of the parts, etc.

la: Cap. 48. (inter opera Anselmi, liber est Eadmeri). Textus originalis *sanitatem* pro *salutem*.

en: C. 48 (among the works of Anselm, the book is Eadmer's). The original text has *sanitatem* for *salutem*.

la: Vers. 7. — Seq. locus est ibid. 1, 15.

en: V. 7. — The following passage is at the same place, 1, 15.

la: Codd. K O R S (I a secunda manu) addunt *cum*, cod. E (a secunda manu) *quod*. Pro *dotatur* cod. L *ditatur*.

en: Codices K O R S (I by a second hand) add *cum*, codex E (by a second hand) *quod*. For *dotatur* codex L has *ditatur*.

la: Cantic. 8, 6: Quia fortis est etc. — Mox pro *libertatem* cod. V *liberalitatem*.

en: Canticle 8:6: For love is strong, etc. — Shortly after, for *libertatem* codex V has *liberalitatem*.

la: Art. praeced. q. 2.

en: The preceding article, q. 2.

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 319, nota 8. — De subnexis cfr. Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 3. (c. I.), ubi de caelo ait: Amplius autem impassibile omnis mortalis difficultatis est; amplius autem sine labore, propterea quod nulla indiget violenta necessitate, quae prohibens detineat ipsum etc. Vide supra pag. 990, nota 3.

en: See vol. II, p. 319, note 8. — On what follows cf. Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* II, text 3 (c. I), where he says of the heaven: Moreover it is impassible to every mortal difficulty; moreover it is without labor, because it needs no violent necessity that should hinder and detain it, etc. See above, p. 990, note 3.

en: Cf. II *Sentences*, d. 17, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Vide Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 7. seqq. (c. 2. seq.). — Post pauca pro *corpus corrumpit* cod. F *corpora corrumpit*.

en: See Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 7 ff. (c. 2 f.). — A little after, for *corpus corrumpit* codex F has *corpora corrumpit*.

la: Vat. cum cod. I (a secunda manu) *id est* (pro quo cod. I *sive*) *agilitas*. Post *penetrabilitas* Vat. addit *id est subtilitas*.

en: The Vatican edition, with codex I (by a second hand), has *id est* (for which codex I has *sive*) *agilitas*. After *penetrabilitas* the Vatican edition adds *id est subtilitas*.

la: Vers. 42-44: *Seminatur in corruptione, surget... Seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spiritale.*

en: Vv. 42–44: *It is sown in corruption, it shall rise... It is sown an animal body, it shall rise a spiritual body.*

la: Cap. 20. n. 3. — Inferius pro *per spiritualitatem* Vat. *per subtilitatem vel penetrabilitatem*.

en: C. 20, n. 3. — Below, for *per spiritualitatem* the Vatican edition has *per subtilitatem vel penetrabilitatem*.

la: Codd. E F I L M P Y *sumtio*, edd. *positio*. Subinde pro *omnes* codd. I K *tantum*.

en: Codices E F I L M P Y have *sumtio*, the editions *positio*. Thereafter, for *omnes* codices I K have *tantum*.

en: See the scholion on q. I of the preceding article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L108070–108295 (IA djvu OCR), with every heading, footer register and marker position verified against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{1015,1016,1017}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. No bands were regenerated — the pre-measured gutters (1015:1601, 1016:2118, 1017:1608) were used as given. p.1015 is one of the eight near-abutting-column pages; both its body and footer bands read clean, with no first-character clipping and the marginal glosses fully captured.

**Page-span correction.** Skeleton `printed_pages` was `[1015, 1016, 1017]`; corrected to **`[1015, 1016]`** (`pdf_pages` `[1035, 1036]`). The raw range's last content line, L108292, is the p.1017 *running head* (`DIST. XLIX. P. II. SECT. I. ART. III.` — a stale/erroneous running head; the page in fact carries Sect. I, Art. II, q. 2). Band `vol4-p1017-L-0.png` confirms p.1017 opens directly with `QUAESTIO II. / Utrum dotes corporis aequaliter sint in omnibus.` This chunk has **no body text on p.1017** and therefore anchors none of its footnotes.

**ARTICULUS II opener.** Rendered in full at the head of both language blocks, per the frozen convention that an article's opener/praenotata folds into that article's q1. It prints full-width across the gutter on p.1015 (verified on bands `p1015-L-0` / `p1015-R-0`) and promises **two** questions: *Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur — Primo … de numero et sufficientia dotium; Secundo … de aequalitate ipsarum.* Both exist as chunks (`a2-q1`, `a2-q2`); no lost question.

**Page → apparatus split map** (17 entries rendered here):

- **p.1015** — 8 notes printed (register split: notes 1–3 in the left footer column, note 3's tail + notes 4–8 in the right). **Note 1** (`Cod. K … esse vel exire` / `Superius pro spiritualitate…`) anchors in the *preceding* chunk `d49-p2-s1-a1-q2`, at `calor animalis sive¹ ab anima` in the p.1015 right-column tail — **not claimed here**. **Notes 2–8 (7 entries) are mine.** Binding is straight reading order; each anchor was matched by content.
- **p.1016** — 10 notes printed, **all 10 mine**. Register splits at the footer-column boundary: notes 1–5 in the left footer column, note 5's continuation (`(c. 2. seq.) — Post pauca…`) opening the right footer column, then notes 6–10. Straight reading order; no overflow or inversion.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- To `d49-p2-s1-a1-q2` (backward): p.1015 **note 1** is yours; this chunk does not render it.
- To `d49-p2-s1-a2-q2` (forward): this chunk claims **nothing on p.1017** — all of p.1017's body and its entire footer register belong to you. Verify off the bands yourself; do not rely on this count.

**Scholion.** None in this range, and none expected: p.1016 note 10 explicitly redirects — *Vide scholion ad I. praecedentis art. quaest.* — i.e. the governing scholion sits on art. I, q. 1. `has_scholion: false` retained.

**Dubia.** Not applicable — this chunk is mid-distinction and its pages are far from the foot of pp.1032–1033.

**`[?]` flags.** None. Every OCR garble in the range (`numcro`, `dicnnlur`, `iteni`, `qnatuor`, `sumlio`, `positoii`, `Aposloius`, `corrnptio`, `impassibitilalem`, `alTeclivae`, `co^9i«7io?je`, `mulliplici-ter`, `daritos`, `hilitas`, `Terlio`, `WiS.malem`, `conlinua`, `irapellenti`) resolved unambiguously against the bands. Marginal glosses (`Arg. 4. a parte affirmativa`, `ad oppositum`, `Conclusio 1.`, `Via 1–4`, `Pro via 4. citer.`, `Quid si dotes.`, `Solutio oppositorum`, `De dotibus animae`) trimmed as editorial furniture, as were the running heads.

**Marker parity.** 17 `[^` anchors in the Latin body, 17 in the English, 17 definitions in `## Apparatus`.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 49, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 1024 -->

### Articulus II. *De dote claritatis.*

Consequenter quaeritur de dote claritatis. De qua duo quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de ipsa in se.

Secundo, in comparatione.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum corpora gloriosa sint pervia, an colorata, an luminosa.*

Quantum ergo ad primum quaeritur, utrum corpora illa sint *pervia*, an *colorata*, an *luminosa*. Quod autem sint *pervia*, videtur.

1. Gregorius super illud Iob vigesimo octavo[^p1024-10]: *Non comparabitur* etc.: «Uniuscuiusque mentem ab alterius oculis membrorum corpulentia non abscondet»: ergo membrorum corpulentia visui non obsistet; sed hoc non esset, nisi essent *pervia*: ergo etc.

<!-- page 1025 -->

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia plus subtiliatur corpus per gloriam, quam possit[^p1025-1] per naturam, aut artem; sed natura et ars de obscuro facit pervium subtiliando, utpote de cinere vitrum: ergo multo fortius illa.

3. Item, in visceribus corporis gloriosi est pulcherrima harmonia[^p1025-2]; sed haec nata est delectare visum: ergo si corpora resurgent in eadem dispositione, in qua possunt perfecte delectare, ergo intus et extra; et hoc non possunt, nisi sint pervia: ergo etc.

Sed quod sint *colorata*, videtur:

1. Quia Augustinus, vigesimo secundo de Civitate Dei, capitulo decimo nono[^p1025-3]: «Omnis pulcritudo est partium convenientia cum quadam coloris suavitate»; sed corpora gloriosa erunt pulcherrima: ergo habebunt suavitatem coloris.

2. Item, Philosophus[^p1025-4] dicit, quod «color est extremitas perspicui in corpore terminato»; sed corpora gloriosa sunt corpora terminata, cum sint eadem, quae nunc, et habent naturam perspicui: ergo etc.

3. Item, ad hoc est *ratio*: quia ad colorem duo concurrunt, scilicet lux et quatuor qualitates[^p1025-5]; sed ista sunt in corpore glorioso: ergo etc.

4. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia corpora gloriosa erunt obiecta visus, non media videndi: ergo non erunt transparentia[^p1025-6].

Sed quod sint penitus *luminosa*, videtur.

5. Matthaei decimo tertio[^p1025-7]: *Fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris* etc.: si ergo sol nec *pervius* est nec *coloratus*: ergo etc.

6. Item, se ipsis videbuntur[^p1025-8]: ergo erunt luminosa, non colorata.

7. Item, nobilior qualitas est pervietas quam color, et lux quam pervietas[^p1025-9]; sed corpora illa erunt perfectissima inter corpora: ergo erunt potius luminosa.

### Conclusio

> Corpora gloriosa sunt simul colorata et luminosa.

**Respondeo:** Oportet, omnes concedere, quod corpora illa sunt *luminosa*; sed volunt aliqui, quod *simul* sint *luminosa* et *pervia* secundum aliam et aliam rationem: *pervia* propter subtilitatem, *luminosa* vero ratione claritatis et fulgoris superadditi. — Sed ista positio non est conveniens, quia, si *pervia* essent, non terminarent visum nec haberent distinctionem in partibus, et ita oculi non possent discerni a naso. Et *iterum*, magnitudo luminis non patitur, corpus esse transparens, ut patet in sole, in quo est luminis aggregatio, et in candela.

Alii voluerunt dicere, quod essent *simul luminosa et colorata: colorata* per naturam quatuor elementorum et eorum qualitatum, ex quibus constat corpus humanum; sed *luminosa* ratione luminis superadditi. Nec hoc est inconveniens, ut dicunt, sicut patet in noctiluca[^p1025-10], quae est corpus coloratum, ut patet in die, sed lucens in nocte. — Et ista positio est convenientior: quia constat, quod homines recognoscentur in patria; unde habebunt effigies, quas habuerunt, et aspectus oculorum gloriosorum pervenient usque ad superficiem corporis illius splendentis, sicut ensis per multam tersionem non amittit colorem, sed eius colori additur splendor; sic in proposito. Sicut etiam carbo per sui naturam alicuius coloris est, adveniente autem igne, efficitur *luminosus*; et tamen nihilominus est *coloratus*, quia est ibi lux materiae terrestri incorporata: sic in proposito intelligendum, quod corpus resurgens per naturam suam habebit colorem, et claritas luminis superinduet[^p1025-11] ipsum sicut ignis carbonem.

Concedendae igitur sunt rationes, quod corpora gloriosa sunt colorata et luminosa secundum duplicem naturam, ut visum est.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpulentia non abscondet mentem; dicendum, quod ex hoc non sequitur, quod sint *pervia*, quia non magis videtur mens per corpus pervium quam per solidum; sed hoc vult dicere, quod ita cogitationes et affectiones habebunt intus in corpore, ut sint patentes.

<!-- page 1026 -->

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magis subtiliatur quam[^p1026-1] per naturam vel artem; dicendum, quod non quaelibet subtiliatio facit pervietatem. Nam ubi est subtiliatio cum aggregatione luminis, non manet pervietas, ut patet in lumine candelae sive in flamma; et quia sic est in proposito, ideo etc.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod harmonia visum debet delectare; dicendum, quod harmonia illa nata est delectare visum, non corporalem, sed spiritualem; et hunc delectat et delectare potest, etiam si corpus non sit pervium; ideo patet, quod illud non valet[^p1026-2].

> **De numeratione notarum.** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on every printed page. The apparatus below is therefore labelled by page: note 10 of page 1024, notes 1–11 of page 1025, and notes 1–2 of page 1026. Notes 1–9 of page 1024 belong to the preceding question (a1-q2), and notes 3–9 of page 1026 to the following question (a2-q2).

---

english:
### Article II. *On the dowry of brightness.*

Next there is inquiry concerning the dowry of brightness. Concerning which two things are asked.

First, there is inquiry concerning it in itself.

Second, in comparison.

### Question I. *Whether glorified bodies are transparent, or coloured, or luminous.*

As regards the first, then, it is asked whether those bodies are *transparent*, or *coloured*, or *luminous*. That they are *transparent*, it seems.

1. Gregory, on that passage of Job the twenty-eighth[^p1024-10]: *It shall not be compared* etc.: «The bulk of the members shall not hide the mind of any one from the eyes of another»: therefore the bulk of the members will not obstruct sight; but this would not be so unless they were *transparent*: therefore etc.

<!-- page 1025 -->

2. Likewise, it seems by *reason*: because a body is more refined through glory than it could be[^p1025-1] through nature or art; but nature and art make what is opaque transparent by refining it, as glass from ash: therefore much more strongly those bodies.

3. Likewise, in the inward parts of the glorified body there is a most beautiful harmony[^p1025-2]; but this is of a nature to delight sight: therefore if bodies rise in the same disposition in which they can perfectly delight, then within and without; and this they cannot do unless they are transparent: therefore etc.

But that they are *coloured*, it seems:

1. Because Augustine, in the twenty-second book of the City of God, chapter nineteen[^p1025-3]: «All beauty is a fitting-together of parts with a certain sweetness of colour»; but glorified bodies will be most beautiful: therefore they will have sweetness of colour.

2. Likewise, the Philosopher[^p1025-4] says that «colour is the extremity of the transparent in a bounded body»; but glorified bodies are bounded bodies, since they are the same as now, and have the nature of the transparent: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, there is a *reason* for this: because two things come together for colour, namely light and the four qualities[^p1025-5]; but these are in the glorified body: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, it seems by *reason*: because glorified bodies will be objects of sight, not media of seeing: therefore they will not be transparent[^p1025-6].

But that they are wholly *luminous*, it seems.

5. Matthew the thirteenth[^p1025-7]: *They shall shine as the sun in the kingdom of the Father* etc.: if therefore the sun is neither *transparent* nor *coloured*: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, they will be seen by themselves[^p1025-8]: therefore they will be luminous, not coloured.

7. Likewise, transparency is a nobler quality than colour, and light than transparency[^p1025-9]; but those bodies will be the most perfect among bodies: therefore they will rather be luminous.

### Conclusion

> Glorified bodies are at once coloured and luminous.

**I respond:** It must be said that all must concede that those bodies are *luminous*; but some hold that they are *at once luminous* and *transparent* according to one and another account: *transparent* on account of subtlety, but *luminous* by reason of the brightness and splendour superadded. — But that position is not fitting, because, if they were *transparent*, they would not terminate sight nor have distinction in their parts, and so the eyes could not be distinguished from the nose. And *again*, a magnitude of light does not allow a body to be transparent, as is plain in the sun, in which there is an aggregation of light, and in a candle.

Others have wished to say that they would be *at once luminous and coloured: coloured* through the nature of the four elements and their qualities, of which the human body consists; but *luminous* by reason of the light superadded. Nor is this unfitting, as they say, as is plain in the glow-worm[^p1025-10], which is a coloured body, as appears by day, but shining by night. — And this position is more fitting: because it is agreed that men will be recognized in the fatherland; whence they will have the features which they had, and the looks of glorified eyes will reach as far as the surface of that shining body, just as a sword through much polishing does not lose its colour, but splendour is added to its colour; so in the case proposed. Just as also coal is by its own nature of some colour, but when fire comes upon it, it is made *luminous*; and yet nonetheless it is *coloured*, because there is there light incorporated into earthy matter: so in the case proposed it must be understood that the rising body will have colour through its own nature, and the brightness of light will clothe it over[^p1025-11] as fire does the coal.

The reasons are therefore to be conceded, that glorified bodies are coloured and luminous according to a twofold nature, as has been seen.

1. To that which is objected, that bulk will not hide the mind; it must be said that from this it does not follow that they are *transparent*, because the mind is not seen more through a transparent body than through a solid one; but he means to say this, that they will so have their thoughts and affections within the body that these are open to view.

<!-- page 1026 -->

2. To that which is objected, that it is refined more[^p1026-1] than through nature or art; it must be said that not every refining produces transparency. For where there is refining together with an aggregation of light, transparency does not remain, as is plain in the light of a candle or in a flame; and because it is so in the case proposed, therefore etc.

3. To that which is objected, that harmony ought to delight sight; it must be said that that harmony is of a nature to delight sight — not the bodily but the spiritual; and this it does delight and can delight, even if the body is not transparent; therefore it is plain that that argument does not hold[^p1026-2].

---

la: Vers. 17: *Non adaequabitur ei aurum* etc. — Verba Gregorii sunt ex XVIII. Moral. c. 48. n. 78.

en: Verse 17: *Gold shall not be made equal to it* etc. — Gregory's words are from the eighteenth book of the *Morals*, c. 48, n. 78.

la: Cod. P supplet *fieri*.

en: Codex P supplies *fieri* ["to be made"].

la: Respiciuntur hic et infra in solut. huius arg. verba August. superius pag. 910, nota 1. allata.

en: Here and below, in the solution of this argument, reference is made to the words of Augustine cited above, p. 910, note 1.

la: Num. 2: *Omnis enim corporis pulcritudo est partium congruentia cum* etc.

en: N. 2: *For all beauty of body is a congruence of parts with* etc.

la: Libr. de Sensu et sens. c. 3. Vide tom. II. pag. 320, nota 5.

en: The book *On Sense and the Sensible*, c. 3. See vol. II, p. 320, note 5.

la: Vide supra pag. 927, n. 10.

en: See above, p. 927, n. 10.

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 68. (c. 7.): *Perspicuum autem dico quod est quidem visibile, non autem secundum se visibile... sed propter externum colorem.*

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 68 (c. 7): *But I call transparent that which is indeed visible, yet not visible in itself... but on account of an external colour.*

la: Vers. 43. — Haec 3 fundam. non valent quoad *exclusionem*.

en: Verse 43. — These three grounds are not valid as regards *exclusion*.

la: Multi codd. *videbunt*, cod. Z *se ipsos videbunt*. — Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 67. (c. 7.): *Non est [color] visibilis sine lumine.* Ibid. text. 162. (III. c. 3.): *Sine lumine non est videre.*

en: Many codices read *videbunt* ["they will see"], codex Z *se ipsos videbunt* ["they will see themselves"]. — Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 67 (c. 7): *[Colour] is not visible without light.* Ibid., text 162 (III, c. 3): *Without light there is no seeing.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 68. seq. (c. 7.), et de Sensu et sens. c. 3, ubi docet, perspicuitatem esse quandam naturam corporis, caelestibus et terrestribus (v. g. aëri, aquae etc.) communem, quae facit, ipsa secundum plus et minus participare coloribus; lumen vero esse actum perspicui. Vide II. Sent. d. 13. a. 2. et 3.

en: Compare Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 68 f. (c. 7), and *On Sense and the Sensible* c. 3, where he teaches that transparency is a certain nature of body, common to celestial and terrestrial things (e.g. air, water, etc.), which makes them share in colours according to more and less; but light is the act of the transparent. See II *Sent.*, d. 13, a. 2 and 3.

la: Du Cange, Glossarium etc., sub voce *Noctianus* haec refert: *Nocticula* in Glossis antiquis... *luna* exponitur, ubi legendum forte *noctiluca*, quod nocte luceat. Ugutio *noctilucam* vermem esse ait, sic dictum, *quod noctu luceat*. — Superius pro *qualitatum* edd. *qualitatem* (sed cfr. fundam. 3.).

en: Du Cange, *Glossarium* etc., under the word *Noctianus*, reports this: *Nocticula* in the ancient Glosses... is explained as *luna* ["moon"], where perhaps *noctiluca* is to be read, because it shines by night. Ugutio says that the *noctiluca* is a worm, so called *because it shines by night*. — Above, for *qualitatum* the editions read *qualitatem* (but compare ground 3).

la: Epist. II. Cor. 5, 2: *Superindui cupientes* etc.

en: Second Epistle to the Corinthians 5, 2: *Desiring to be clothed over* etc.

la: In cod. E secunda manus addidit *quam*, quod recepimus; edd. supplent *per gloriam, quam*.

en: In codex E a second hand added *quam*, which we have adopted; the editions supply *per gloriam, quam* ["through glory, than"].

en: See the scholion to question 1 of the preceding article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L109111–L109282, verified column-by-column against the 450 dpi bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{1024,1025,1026}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (gutters 1024:2108, 1025:1648, 1026:2136 — used as given, not regenerated). English is a fresh literal translation. Apparatus read entirely off the footer bands.

**ARTICULUS II opener.** The full-width centred `ARTICULUS II. / De dote claritatis.` heading, its praenotata (*Consequenter quaeritur de dote claritatis. De qua duo quaeruntur.*) and the two ordinal lines (*Primo… Secundo…*) print at the foot of p.1024 across both columns and are rendered here per the frozen convention. **Art. II promises two questions**, matching `a2-q1` + `a2-q2` — no lost-question signal.

**Page → apparatus split map (14 entries).**
- **p.1024** — 10 notes printed. Notes 1–9 anchor in `d49-p2-s2-a1-q2` (note 9, *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*, closes that question). **Note 10 only is mine** (Gregory on Job, anchored at fundamentum 1). → 1 entry here.
- **p.1025** — 11 notes printed, **all mine** (the whole page is inside this question). Note 8 **overflows the gutter**: it opens in the left footer column and finishes at the head of the right footer column (`sine lumine. Ibid. text. 162.…`); bound by content, not position. → 11 entries.
- **p.1026** — 9 notes printed. **Notes 1–2 are mine** (n. 1 at *subtiliatur quam*, n. 2 at *non valet*, the last words of this question). Notes 3–9 anchor in `d49-p2-s2-a2-q2`, which begins at the `QUAESTIO II.` header lower on the same page. → 2 entries.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- To `d49-p2-s2-a1-q2`: p.1024 footer notes **1–9** are yours; I claim only note 10.
- To `d49-p2-s2-a2-q2`: p.1026 footer notes **3–9** are yours (3 and 4 print in the left footer column, 5–9 in the right — the register splits at the footer-column boundary mid-run, so read both columns); I claim only notes 1–2. Your body opens at `QUAESTIO II. / Utrum corpora gloriosa possint claritatem suam secundum imperium animae oculis nostris occultare`, with the opener *Secundo quaeritur de claritate in comparatione…* in the left column of p.1026.

**Seams.** Opening is a clean article boundary (no grammatical continuity required with `a1-q2`, which closes at *…secundum intellectum, non secundum actum*). Closing sentence *…ideo patet, quod illud non valet* parses and is the printed end of the question.

**Band clipping.** p.1024's columns near-abut (12 px blank run). The bands are **not** clipped: `L-2` carries the full left column plus the leading `QUAEST…` of the centred head, and `R-2` opens cleanly at `AESTIO I.` with no lost characters. Used as given; no bands regenerated.

**Scholion.** None for this question — confirmed by p.1026 note 2, *Vide scholion ad 1. praecedentis articuli quaest.*, which redirects to the previous article's q1 scholion. `has_scholion: false`.

**`[?]` flags.** None. **Unmapped material.** None — every printed line of pp.1024 (from `ARTICULUS II.`) through 1026 (to `non valet`) is rendered.

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. 49, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 1017 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum dotes corporis aequaliter sint in omnibus.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on every printed page; these are notes 1–9 of page 1017. Note 10 of page 1017 anchors in Articulus III's opener and is rendered in the following chunk.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum dotes corporis aequaliter sint in omnibus, vel secundum magis et minus. Et quod *aequaliter*, videtur:

1. Quia magis et minus dicitur per admixtionem contrarii minorem et maiorem, quoniam ibi tantum summum est, ubi nihil admixtum de contrario[^p1017-1]; sed omnes dotes in omnibus Beatis nihil habent admixtum de contrario: ergo in omnibus sunt aequaliter.

2. Item, de *impassibilitate* videtur: quia primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto[^p1017-2] super illud: *Alia claritas* etc.; Glossa: «In differenti gloria resurgent; sed hoc *communiter* habebunt, quod incorrupti erunt»: hoc ergo *commune* aut dicitur commune secundum *aequalitatem*, aut secundum *magis et minus*. Si secundum *magis et minus*, similiter et gloria; sed non dicitur gloria secundum *magis et minus*: ergo secundum *aequalitatem*.

3. Item, unum corpus non dicitur altero *subtilius*, nisi quia aliquid potest penetrare, quod non alterum; sed quodlibet corpus glorificatum poterit omne corpus penetrare: ergo etc.

4. Item, *agilius* est quod potest citius moveri; sed «quam cito volet spiritus, ibi *protinus* erit et corpus», ut dicit Augustinus *de Civitate Dei* vigesimo secundo[^p1017-3]: ergo quodlibet est agile in summo. A simili ergo arguatur de *claritate* et aliis.

**Contra:** 1. Primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto[^p1017-4]: *Alia claritas solis* etc.: si ergo differens claritas, pari ratione et aliae dotes.

2. Item, dotes animae sunt secundum plus et minus, ut supra[^p1017-5] ostensum est, quia liberius videt unus quam alter: ergo et dotes corporis.

3. Item, anima, quae plus servivit[^p1017-6] et meruit, excellentiores habet dotes: ergo et corpus, per quod anima plus servivit Deo et meruit, debet similiter.

### Conclusio

> *Corporis dotes erunt in diversis secundum plus et minus, et perfectius et minus perfectum.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod dotes in corporibus Beatorum sunt secundum plus et minus, et perfectius et minus perfectum in diversis.

Ad cuius intelligentiam notandum, quod quaedam recipiunt magis et minus per *contrarii impermixtionem*, ut puta quando utrumque contrariorum est aliqua natura, ut album et nigrum[^p1017-7]. Quaedam recipiunt magis et minus per *accessum ad complementum*, ut sunt illa quorum opposita sunt privationes, ut bonum et lucidum. Dico ergo, quod dotes corporis recipiunt magis et minus per *accessum ad terminum*, non per immixtionem contrarii. — Et per hoc patet solutio ad primum.

Rursus, notandum est, quod in recipientibus magis et minus quaedam sunt, quae dicunt *privationem* simul et *positionem*, sicut *impassibile*, quod dicit virtutem ad non patiendum, et dicit privationem passionis; similiter *subtile* et *agile*. Et dico, quod quantum ad *privationem*, quia totum et universaliter privat, non recipit magis et minus[^p1017-8]; sed quantum ad *positionem*, quae non est in summo, recipit magis et minus. — Et per hoc patent argumenta sequentia.

Quod vero dicitur *protinus* etc., intelligendum est *sine retardatione*, non quia subito, sed repente[^p1017-9].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the dowries of the body are equally in all.*

Secondly it is asked whether the dowries of the body are equally in all, or according to more and less. And that they are *equally*, it seems:

1. Because more and less is said by a lesser and greater admixture of the contrary, since there alone is the highest degree, where nothing is admixed of the contrary[^p1017-1]; but all the dowries in all the Blessed have nothing admixed of the contrary: therefore in all they are equally.

2. Likewise, it seems concerning *impassibility*: because on First Corinthians fifteen[^p1017-2], on that text: *One glory* etc.; the Gloss: «They will rise in differing glory; but this they will have *in common*, that they will be incorrupt»: this *common* thing, therefore, is either called common according to *equality*, or according to *more and less*. If according to *more and less*, then likewise also the glory; but glory is not said according to *more and less*: therefore according to *equality*.

3. Likewise, one body is not called *more subtle* than another, except because it can penetrate something which the other cannot; but any glorified body whatever will be able to penetrate every body: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that is *more agile* which can be moved more swiftly; but «as swiftly as the spirit shall will, there *forthwith* will the body also be», as Augustine says in *On the City of God* twenty-two[^p1017-3]: therefore each one is agile in the highest degree. From a like argument, then, let it be argued concerning *brightness* and the others.

**On the contrary:** 1. First Corinthians fifteen[^p1017-4]: *One is the brightness of the sun* etc.: if therefore the brightness differs, by parity of reasoning the other dowries also.

2. Likewise, the dowries of the soul are according to more and less, as was shown above[^p1017-5], because one sees more freely than another: therefore the dowries of the body also.

3. Likewise, the soul which has served[^p1017-6] and merited more has more excellent dowries: therefore also the body, through which the soul served God and merited more, ought likewise.

### Conclusion

> *The dowries of the body will be in different persons according to more and less, and as more perfect and less perfect.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the dowries in the bodies of the Blessed are according to more and less, and more perfect and less perfect in different persons.

For the understanding of this it must be noted that certain things receive more and less through the *non-admixture of the contrary*, as for instance when each of the contraries is some nature, as white and black[^p1017-7]. Certain things receive more and less through *approach toward completion*, as are those things whose opposites are privations, as good and luminous. I say therefore that the dowries of the body receive more and less through *approach toward the terminus*, not through the admixture of a contrary. — And through this the solution to the first is clear.

Again, it must be noted that among things receiving more and less there are certain ones which state a *privation* together with a *position*, as *impassible*, which states a power for not suffering, and states the privation of suffering; likewise *subtle* and *agile*. And I say that as regards the *privation*, since it deprives wholly and universally, it does not receive more and less[^p1017-8]; but as regards the *position*, which is not in the highest degree, it does receive more and less. — And through this the following arguments are clear.

But as to what is said, *forthwith* etc., it must be understood as *without delay*, not because suddenly, but on a sudden[^p1017-9].

---

la: Secundum Aristot. supra pag. 394, nota 6. allegatum; cfr. ibid. nota 4.

en: According to Aristotle, cited above at page 394, note 6; compare ibid., note 4.

la: Vers. 41. — Glossam exhibet Petr. Lombard. (in hunc loc.), post *sed hoc* addito *omnes*. — Circa finem arg. in codd. et ed. 1 omittitur *sed non dicitur gloria secundum magis et minus*.

en: Verse 41. — Peter Lombard sets out the Gloss (on this passage), with *omnes* added after *sed hoc*. — Near the end of the argument, in the codices and edition 1, *sed non dicitur gloria secundum magis et minus* is omitted.

la: Cap. 30. n. 1: Certe, ubi volet spiritus, ibi protinus erit corpus. — Mox pro *est* Vat. *erit*.

en: Chapter 30, n. 1: "Assuredly, where the spirit shall will, there forthwith will the body be." — Just after, for *est* the Vatican edition reads *erit*.

la: Vers. 41.

en: Verse 41.

la: Partis I. q. 6.

en: Part I, question 6.

la: Edd. supplent *Deo*.

en: The editions supply *Deo*.

la: Ut docet Aristot. supra pag. 394, nota 6. — De hoc et seq. modo vide II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. — Superius pro *impermixtionem* Vat. *permixtionem*.

en: As Aristotle teaches, above at page 394, note 6. — On this and the following mode see II Sent., d. 27, a. 2, q. 2, in the body. — Above, for *impermixtionem* the Vatican edition reads *permixtionem*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 99, nota 1. et d. 18. p. II. q. 4. ad 5.

en: Compare above, page 99, note 1, and d. 18, p. II, q. 4, ad 5.

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 324, nota 6. definitionem de *repente* ex Aristot. — Cod. aa addit exemplum *sicut lux ad orientem in occidentem*. — Vide scholion ad I. praecedentis art. quaest.

en: See volume II, page 324, note 6, for the definition of *repente* ("on a sudden") from Aristotle. — Codex aa adds the example *sicut lux ad orientem in occidentem* ("as light from the east to the west"). — See the scholion on question I of the preceding article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L108296–108358, verified line-by-line against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p1017-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (band split 1017:1608, as given — **not** re-cropped). The whole chunk sits on printed p. 1017 (pdf 1037); `printed_pages: [1017]` verified correct, no change.

**Page span / seams.** Printed p. 1017 opens at raw L108292 (running head `DIST. XLIX. P. II. SECT. I. ART. III. 1017`) — i.e. **this chunk's `QUAESTIO II.` is the first body text on p. 1017**. The preceding chunk `p2-s1-a2-q1` (L108070–108295) holds only blank lines and the running head above L108296, so its body ends on p. 1016; p. 1017 is body-shared between this chunk and `p2-s1-a3-q1` only. The closing sentence (`…non quia subito, sed repente.`) parses complete; `ARTICULUS III. / De sensuum remuneratione.` begins at L108359 with its own opener + praenotata (`Consequenter quantum ad tertium articulum… hoc duo quaeruntur. Primo… Secundo…`), none of which is trapped in this range — it folds into `p2-s1-a3-q1`. No cascade-merge signature.

**Apparatus split map — p. 1017.** The raw carries **no** footer register for p. 1017 at all; the whole register was read off the footer bands. Printed register = **10 notes**, bound by content, not position: left footer column carries 1–5, right footer column carries 6–10 (a clean split at the footer-column boundary, no overflow in either direction).

| note | anchor | chunk |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | arg. 1, *nihil admixtum de contrario* | **this chunk** |
| 2 | arg. 2, *primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto* | **this chunk** |
| 3 | arg. 4, *de Civitate Dei vigesimo secundo* | **this chunk** |
| 4 | Contra 1, *decimo quinto* | **this chunk** |
| 5 | Contra 2, *ut supra* | **this chunk** |
| 6 | Contra 3, *quae plus servivit* | **this chunk** |
| 7 | Respondeo, *ut album et nigrum* | **this chunk** |
| 8 | Respondeo, *non recipit magis et minus* | **this chunk** |
| 9 | Respondeo, *sed repente* | **this chunk** |
| 10 | Art. III opener, *quod erunt* in patria | `p2-s1-a3-q1` |

So: **this chunk claims notes 1–9 of p. 1017 (9 entries); `p2-s1-a3-q1` claims note 10 only; `p2-s1-a2-q1` claims nothing on p. 1017.** Derived independently off the bands; not taken from any neighbour's hand-off.

**Scholion.** None. The page runs straight from *sed repente* to `ARTICULUS III.` with no scholion block; `has_scholion: false` confirmed.

**Marginalia** (editorial side-notes, not rendered as body text): *ad oppositum.* (arg. 1), *Fundamenta.* (Contra), *Conclusio.*, *Explicatur 1. distinctione.*, *De 1. ad oppos.*, *Item 2. distinctione.*, *De 2. 3. ad oppos.*, *De 4. ad oppos.*

**`[?]` flags.** None. One near-call resolved at band time rather than flagged: note 3's `Cap. 30. n. 1` — the numeral is a small worn glyph, read as `1` from its serif form and consistent with Augustine *De civ. Dei* XXII.30.1.

**Bands.** No bands regenerated; the existing p. 1017 crops are clean (no first-character clipping in either column, footer register fully captured, marginalia captured).


title: Dist. 49, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 1026 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum corpora gloriosa possint claritatem suam secundum imperium animae oculis nostris occultare.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page, so the labels are page-qualified: notes 3–9 of page 1026 and notes 1–4 of page 1027. Notes 1–2 of page 1026 anchor in the preceding question, and notes 5–10 of page 1027 anchor in the following article.

Secundo quaeritur de claritate in comparatione; et quaeritur, utrum corpora gloriosa possint claritatem suam secundum imperium animae oculis nostris occultare. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia Christus post resurrectionem apparuit discipulis in eadem effigie et colore, in quo prius; sed, sicut dicit Augustinus *de Civitate Dei*[^p1026-3], « Christus sua resurrectione ostendit, quale sit futurum corpus nostrum »: ergo alia corpora similiter poterunt.

2. Item, corpus illud est in perfecta obedientia respectu animae: ergo apparet et resplendet secundum plus et minus, ut animae placet.

3. Item, claritas illa oculis non clarificatis est improportionalis: ergo quod ab eis videatur, est condescensionis: ergo occultatio ipsius a nostris oculis est de natura ipsius gloriosae lucis.

**Contra:** 1. Quanto aliquid luminosius est, tanto minus potest visum latere; sed corpus gloriosum est magis luminosum quam non gloriosum[^p1026-4]; sed hoc non potest latere: ergo nec illud.

2. Item, lux se manifestat illuminando; sed illuminare est actus lucis naturalis et essentialis: ergo cum nihil possit privari actu essentiali, ipso salvato in *esse*; impossibile est, quin corpus gloriosum irradiet, ergo[^p1026-5] quin illuminet et se visui manifestet.

3. Item, sicut se habet *pati* ad *impassibile*, ita *occultari* ad *lucem*; sed corpus gloriosum non potest pati, quia est impassibile[^p1026-6]: ergo nec occultari, cum sit luminosum.

> **Conclusio.** Corpora gloriosa possunt claritatem suam secundum imperium animae oculis nostris occultare, sed etiam ostendere.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc dicunt aliqui, quod claritas corporis gloriosi *visui glorioso* est manifesta et ei occultari non potest, *oculo non glorificato* est occulta et ei non potest manifestari, quia est ei improportionalis; unde quia *occultare* est de manifesto occultum facere: ideo dicunt simpliciter, quod non potest. Nec est trahendum ad consequentiam de Christo, quia Deus erat[^p1026-7]. — Sed istud est mirum dicere, quod claritas corporalis omnino sit improportionalis et occulta; et quia, si non in se, saltem posset videri in irradiatione. Et *praeterea* videtur Christus non mirabilia fecisse, sed argumenta resurrectionis ostendisse[^p1026-8].

Et ideo aliter dicendum, quod corporis qualitas secundum exigentiam eius, in quo est, agit. Corpus autem gloriosum est subtile et per subtilitatem suam potest omne non gloriosum *penetrare*, ut infra[^p1026-9] patebit; potest etiam *resistere*. Et ideo dico, quod quia corpus gloriosum per effectum spiritualis potentiae potest omne corpus *penetrare*, potest et penetrare oculum; et tunc non erit obiectum eius et ideo potest *latere*. — *Rursus*, quia potest corpori se *obiicere*, potest et claritatem suam omnino ostendere, licet oculus obtundatur et non comprehendat. Et quia potest *omnino latere* penetrando subtiliter, et *omnino patere* se obiiciendo visibiliter; potest et *medio modo* plus et minus se ostendere. Unde si hic esset anima gloriosa cum corpore glorificato, plus et minus posset de sui corporis claritate oculis nostris claudere[^p1027-1], et hoc per naturam illam, qua non tantum *clarum* est, sed *penetrativum* et *spirituale*. — Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hanc partem.

<!-- page 1027 -->

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod quanto luminosius, tanto minus potest visum[^p1027-2] latere; dicendum, quod verum est per naturam *luminis*; potest tamen per naturam *spiritualitatis* et *subtilitatis*.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lux se manifestat illuminando; dico, quod non tantum *illuminando*, sed etiam oculis intuentium *se obiiciendo*; et quia potest esse, quod corpora gloriosa radios penetrent visibiles corporis non gloriosi; ideo etc.

3. Ad aliud dicendum, quod *occultari* est dupliciter: vel propter obscuritatem a parte *obiecti*, et de hac verum est, quod lux non potest occultari; alia est per impotentiam a parte *oculi*, quia non potest ibi figi[^p1027-3] propter excellentem subtilitatem, et haec luci non repugnat, sicut passibilitas impassibilitati. Et primo modo impossibile est, lucem occultari, secundo modo est verum et possibile[^p1027-4].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether glorified bodies can hide their brightness from our eyes at the command of the soul.*

Secondly, inquiry is made concerning brightness in comparison; and it is asked whether glorified bodies can hide their brightness from our eyes at the command of the soul. And that they can, seems to follow:

1. Because Christ after the resurrection appeared to the disciples in the same shape and colour in which he was before; but, as Augustine says in *The City of God*[^p1026-3], "Christ by his resurrection showed what our body is to be": therefore other bodies likewise will be able to.

2. Likewise, that body is in perfect obedience with respect to the soul: therefore it appears and shines forth according to more and less, as it pleases the soul.

3. Likewise, that brightness is disproportionate to eyes that are not glorified: therefore that it be seen by them is a matter of condescension: therefore the hiding of it from our eyes belongs to the nature of that glorious light itself.

**On the contrary:** 1. The more luminous a thing is, the less it can lie hidden from sight; but a glorified body is more luminous than one not glorified[^p1026-4]; but the latter cannot lie hidden: therefore neither can the former.

2. Likewise, light manifests itself by illuminating; but to illuminate is the natural and essential act of light: therefore, since nothing can be deprived of its essential act while it itself is preserved in *being*, it is impossible that a glorified body should not irradiate, and therefore[^p1026-5] that it should not illuminate and manifest itself to sight.

3. Likewise, as *to suffer* stands to *the impassible*, so *to be hidden* stands to *light*; but a glorified body cannot suffer, because it is impassible[^p1026-6]: therefore neither can it be hidden, since it is luminous.

> **Conclusion.** Glorified bodies can, at the command of the soul, hide their brightness from our eyes, but also display it.

**I respond:** To this some say that the brightness of a glorified body is manifest *to glorified sight* and cannot be hidden from it, whereas *to an eye not glorified* it is hidden and cannot be manifested to it, because it is disproportionate to it; whence, since *to hide* is to make hidden what is manifest, they say without qualification that it cannot. Nor is any consequence to be drawn from Christ, because he was God[^p1026-7]. — But it is astonishing to say that bodily brightness is altogether disproportionate and hidden; and because, if not in itself, at least it could be seen in its irradiation. And *besides*, it seems that Christ did not work marvels, but displayed proofs of the resurrection[^p1026-8].

And therefore it must be said otherwise, that the quality of a body acts according to the requirement of that in which it is. Now a glorified body is subtle, and by its subtlety it can *penetrate* everything not glorified, as will appear below[^p1026-9]; it can also *resist*. And therefore I say that, because a glorified body through the effect of a spiritual power can *penetrate* every body, it can also penetrate the eye; and then it will not be the eye's object, and therefore it can *lie hidden*. — *Again*, because it can *present itself* to a body, it can also display its brightness entirely, although the eye be dulled and not comprehend it. And because it can *lie wholly hidden* by penetrating subtly, and *lie wholly open* by presenting itself visibly, it can also display itself *in a middle way*, more and less. Whence, if a glorified soul were here with a glorified body, it could close off from our eyes more and less of its body's brightness[^p1027-1], and this by that nature whereby it is not only *bright*, but *penetrative* and *spiritual*. — And the reasons for this side are to be granted.

1. To that which is objected, that the more luminous a thing is the less it can lie hidden from sight[^p1027-2], it must be said that this is true by the nature of *light*; nevertheless it can, by the nature of *spirituality* and *subtlety*.

2. To that which is objected, that light manifests itself by illuminating, I say that it does so not only *by illuminating*, but also *by presenting itself* to the eyes of those beholding; and because it can happen that glorified bodies penetrate the visible rays of a body not glorified, therefore etc.

3. To the other it must be said that *to be hidden* is twofold: either on account of obscurity on the side of the *object*, and of this it is true that light cannot be hidden; the other is by an incapacity on the side of the *eye*, because it cannot be fixed upon it[^p1027-3] on account of its surpassing subtlety, and this is not repugnant to light, as passibility is to impassibility. And in the first way it is impossible for light to be hidden, in the second way it is true and possible[^p1027-4].

---

la: Libr. X. c. 29. n. 2. Vide supra pag. 895, nota 6. — De *maiori* cfr. Luc. 24, 39. et Ioan. 20, 20.

en: Book X, c. 29, n. 2. See above, p. 895, note 6. — On the major premiss cf. Luke 24:39 and John 20:20.

la: Vide quaest. praeced.

en: See the preceding question.

la: Edd. *ergo impossibile est.*

en: The editions read *ergo impossibile est*.

la: Ut ostensum est art. praeced.

en: As was shown in the preceding article.

la: Respicitur regula iuris supra pag. 825, nota 3. allegata.

en: Reference is made to the rule of law cited above, p. 825, note 3.

la: Sicut insinuatur Act. 1, 3. Cfr. I. Cor. 15, 4. seqq. — Pro *mirabilia* Vat. *miracula*.

en: As is intimated in Acts 1:3. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:4ff. — For *mirabilia* the Vatican edition reads *miracula*.

la: Art. seq.

en: The following article.

la: Cod. L et ed. 1 *ostendere*, Vat. *claudere et ostendere*. Subinde ex codd. E L Z (A a secunda manu) substituimus *qua* pro *quia*; post *spirituale* Vat. addit *id est agile* (cfr. infra a. 4.).

en: Codex L and the first edition read *ostendere*, the Vatican edition *claudere et ostendere*. Thereafter, from codices E L Z (A by a second hand), we have substituted *qua* for *quia*; after *spirituale* the Vatican edition adds *id est agile* (cf. below, a. 4).

la: Permulti codd. omittunt *minus* et *visum*.

en: Very many codices omit *minus* and *visum*.

la: Respiciuntur verba August. in lit. Magistri I. Sent. d. II. c. 1. proposita et ibid. Comment. dub. 2. explicata. — Pro *per impotentiam* non pauci codd. et ed. 1 *per* (cod. Z *propter*) *-potentiam*.

en: Reference is made to the words of Augustine set out in the Master's text, I Sent., d. II, c. 1, and explained in the Commentary on the same place, dub. 2. — For *per impotentiam* not a few codices and the first edition read *per* (codex Z *propter*) *-potentiam*.

en: See the scholion on question 1 of the preceding article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L109283–109391, verified line-by-line against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{1026,1027}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (bands used as given at the coordinator's measured gutters 1026:2136, 1027:1642; **no bands regenerated**). Marginal glosses (*Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Opinio aliorum*, *Non probatur*, *Opinio propria*, *Conclusio*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Distinctio.*) are editorial marginalia and were trimmed.

**Page span.** Confirmed [1026, 1027] — no correction needed.

**Apparatus split map (derived independently from the bands, not from a neighbour's hand-off).**
- **p.1026 — 9 notes total.** Left footer column holds notes 1–4, right footer column holds notes 5–9. Notes **1–2 belong to `s2-a2-q1`** (note 1 anchors at *magis subtiliatur quam¹*, note 2 at *ideo patet, quod illud non valet²*, both in q1's tail at the top of p.1026). Notes **3–9 are this chunk's** (7 entries).
  Binding is **document order**, but the footer register overflows the gutter: notes **5 and 6 print in the right footer column while their anchors (*irradiet, ergo⁵*, *impassibile⁶*) are in the left body column.** Bound by content, not position.
- **p.1027 — 10 notes total.** Left footer column holds notes 1–5, right footer column holds 6–10; **note 5 splits mid-note at the footer-column boundary** (`… Quid ergo mirum, si clau-` / `sis ianuis post resurrectionem …`). Notes **1–4 are this chunk's** (4 entries); notes **5–10 belong to `s2-a3-q1`**.
- **Total for this chunk: 11 apparatus entries.** Latin `[^` anchors = 11, English `[^` anchors = 11.

**Band-vs-OCR resolutions (band authoritative).** p.1026 note 7: the raw reads *supra pag. 823*; the band reads **825**. p.1026 note 3: raw `Uhv. X.` → **Libr. X.** p.1026 note 8: raw `I. Cor. lo, 4.` → **I. Cor. 15, 4.** p.1027 note 1: raw `Cod. L et ed. 1` confirmed off the band.

**Scholion.** None rendered here, and none is missing: p.1027 **note 4 — the closing marker of this very question — is the pointer** *"Vide scholion ad 1. praecedentis articuli quaest."* The scholion covering Articulus II lives at Art. I q.1, not in this chunk and not in `s2-a2-q1` (whose closing note, p.1026 note 2, is the identical pointer). `has_scholion: false` is correct.

**Seams.**
- *Opening.* This chunk opens at the printed `QUAESTIO II.` header (centred full-width across the gutter on p.1026 — verified off both bands, title reads *Utrum corpora gloriosa possint claritatem suam secundum imperium animae oculis nostris occultare*, matching the frontmatter). The preceding chunk `s2-a2-q1` closes cleanly at *ideo patet, quod illud non valet²* at the top of p.1026-R. No content trapped.
- *Close.* This chunk closes at *…secundo modo est verum et possibile⁴* — a complete, parsing sentence. **`ARTICULUS III. / De dote subtilitatis.` and its opener (*Consequenter quaeritur de dote subtilitatis, de qua duo quaeruntur. Primo… Secundo…*) begin at L109392, entirely outside this range** and fold into `s2-a3-q1`. No cascade-merge signature; nothing of Art. III is trapped here.
- *Articulus II opener/praenotata* belongs to `s2-a2-q1` and is not repeated here.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- → `s2-a2-q1`: p.1026 carries **9** notes, not fewer; notes **1–2 are yours** (anchors *quam¹*, *non valet²*).
- → `s2-a3-q1`: p.1027 carries **10** notes; notes **5–10 are yours**, and **note 5 continues across the gutter into the right footer column** — do not render only the left-column half.

**Band-clipping check (p.1027, near-abutting columns, 8px blank run).** Requested specifically. Both p.1027 bands read **clean — no clipping**: left-column lines show their full first characters (*omnino*, *medio modo*, *esset*, *stris claudere*), the right-column lines likewise (*festat*, *nando*, *pliciter*), and the running head reads whole across the two bands as `DIST. XLIX. P. II. SECT. II. ART. III. QUAEST. I.` with the folio `1027`. No re-crop needed or performed.

**`[?]` flags.** None.

**Unmapped material.** None in this range. (No dubium, no ordinal opener, and no scholion without a home.)
</content>
</invoke>