title: Dist. 14, Part 2, Dubia

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

source_text:
<!-- page 365 -->

### DUB. I.

*Quoad tres.* In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Congregentur aquae in locum unum, et appareat arida.* Primo enim videtur inconvenienter dicere: *Congregentur aquae in locum*, quia motus ad locum est entis completi[^1]; sed aquae nondum erant productae: ergo male dixit, *in locum unum congregari*. — Item, nihil potest apparere nisi color; et nullum elementum simplex est coloratum: ergo terra non potest apparere. Male ergo dicit: *appareat arida*. — Item, cum sint alia duo elementa, videlicet ignis et aer, videtur, quod insufficiens sit Scriptura, quae nihil de eorum distinctione explicat. — Iuxta hoc quaeritur, quare elementum aquae nominet pluraliter, et elementum terrae singulariter. *Si tu dicas,* quod hoc est propter aquarum dispersionem; tunc videtur, quod male dicat: *Congregentur aquae in locum unum.* — Item, quaeritur, quare elementum terrae primo vocat aridam et postea vocat terram, cum ante sit dictum[^2]: *In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram.* — Item, cum elementum aquae sit insipidum per naturam, et maria sint salsa, non videtur, quod congregationes aquarum debeant appellari maria.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Scriptura distinctionem elementorum in his verbis valde eleganter explicat, si quis attendat. Quia enim motus ad situm non est nisi rei completae et habentis formam, nihil aliud fuit aquas congregari in unum, quam ipsi elemento aquae, dando speciem unam et inclinationem ad locum speciei debitum, simul secundum exigentiam formae et inclinationis ad situm dare locum congruum. — Et quia locus aquae est immediate esse circa terram, dum aqua congregatur, ab elementis superioribus, scilicet aere et igne, separatur. Ergo in congregatione aquarum tangitur per consequens distinctio aliorum duorum elementorum. Rursus, quia aquae sunt natae circumdare terram, et si ex omni parte circuirent terram, ad habitandum nobis et animalibus apta non esset; ideo sic distinxit, ut in superiori superficie arida appareret. Rursus, si terra esset omnino ab aqua separata, ad germinandum non esset apta; et ideo sic Deus arefecit terrae superficiem, ut tamen ipsius radicem aqua impleret et per decursum fluviorum etiam irrigaret[^3]. — Et propter haec tria tria dicit Scriptura: *Notandum.* primo propter elementorum *distinctionem*: *Congregentur aquae in locum unum;* secundo vero propter superficiei terrae *denudationem*: *et appareat arida;* tertio propter *irrigationem*, quam ab aquis suscipit, ut germinare possit, dicit: *vocavit aridam terram, congregationesque aquarum appellavit maria.* — Et ex his patent obiecta.

<!-- page 366 -->

Quod enim primo obiicitur de verbo *congregandi*, non valet, quia non fecit Deus aquas congregari sicut prius existentes, sed sicut dans eis formam et naturam, per quam sint aptae natae in unum locum concurrere. — Similiter patet illud quod obiicitur de apparitione terrae, quia terra, quae apparet, non est elementum purum[^4], sed elementum commixtum. — Similiter patet illud quod obiicit de distinctione elementorum aliorum; quia in his duobus, quae sunt maxime sensibilia et tractabilia, clauditur illorum distinctio, quae sunt sensibus nostris occulta. — *Ad 3 quaest.* Similiter patet, quare aquam vocat pluraliter, et terram singulariter, propter scilicet earum dispersionem. Humidum enim proprio termino est male terminabile; quia tamen siccum de sui natura terminabile est, ideo terram vocat singulariter. — Et prius vocat eam aridam et postea terram, quia primum nomen dicit proprietatem elementi, videlicet siccitatem, secundum vero nomen dicit eius usum sive utilitatem, quam habet per commixtionem aquae, ut possit coli et fructificare; ideo dicitur terra quasi *trita*[^5]. — Similiter patet illud quod obiicit de aquis. Appellantur enim maria, non quia amaritudo sit prima qualitas aquae, sed quia consequitur aquam in sua congregatione propter grossitiem partium, quae remanent subtilioribus elevatis sursum, vel penetrantibus in terrae profundum, ex qua subtiliatione dulcescunt[^6].

### DUB. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Eodem die protulit terra herbam virentem.* Videtur enim hoc factum esse inordinate; si enim firmamentum prius factum est quam terra, prius debuit ornari quam terra. — Item, cum mineralia corpora sint ex terra ita bene, sicut ligna, videtur, quod insufficienter determinet Scriptura ea quae virtute divina producuntur ex terra. — Item, quaeritur, utrum tunc terra germinaverit tribulos et spinas. Si enim tunc non produxit, videtur, quod post peccatum terra fuit fecundior, et novam recepisse potentiam ad producenda talia. Si vero tunc produxit, videtur Scriptura *insufficiens*, quia non exprimit; videtur etiam sibi contraria, dum in tertio Genesis[^7] dicit, illa in poenam hominis germinari: *maledicta terra* etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum est, quod Scriptura ordinate exprimit, et Deus ordinatissime fecit, dum eodem die, quo terra producta est, ex ea herbas et ligna prodire fecit: tum propter erroris remotionem, ut dicit Basilius[^8]: « ne crederetur, quod sol esset causa principalis terrae nascentium », sicut dicit Philosophus, « quod terra est mater plantarum, et sol pater »; tum etiam, quia plantae et herbae sunt quasi connaturales terrae, dum ei sunt radicitus affixae, trahendo ex ipsa fomentum et originem. Non sic autem est in ornatibus aliorum trium; et per hoc patet primum obiectum.

Quod vero obiicitur de corporibus mineralibus, dicendum, quod quia parum recedunt a natura terrae, et quia latent sub terra, non curavit Scriptura specialiter exprimere.

Ad illud quod quaeritur de spinis et tribulis, dicendum, quod tunc productae sunt, pro eo quia perfecta fecunditas data est terrae, et nulla herba est, quantumcumque vilis, quae non sit alicuius utilitatis et virtutis; et ideo cum aliis virentibus herbis et lignis fructiferis intelligendum est ista produci; et Scriptura ea[^9] sub illorum generalitate comprehendit.

Et quod obiicitur, quod generata sunt in poenam peccati; dicendum, quod spinam et tribulum generari, ubi seminatur frumentum, hoc est in poenam peccati et ex maledictione terrae, quae cum colitur, ut det fructum, unde homo sustentetur, potius producit, unde homo crucietur. Quod autem in multis locis generatur spina et tribulus, hoc non est poena, sed natura[^10].

### DUB. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Fiant luminaria in firmamento caeli,* et quaeritur, quae sint ista luminaria. Si tu dicas, quod sol et luna, quia Scriptura[^11] explicat: *Fecit Deus duo luminaria magna* etc.; videtur esse instantia; primo, quia ista *Obiectiones 3.* non sunt in firmamento, sed sub firmamento: secundo vero, quia luna non est luminare magnum, cum iudicio sapientum multae stellae sint maiores; tertio vero, quia luna non videtur esse *luminare*, sed potius corpus opacum, dum sui interpositione solem facit eclipsari. *Si tu dicas,* quod luna dicitur

<!-- page 367 -->

luminare, non quia ex se luceat, sed quia lumen a sole recipit; obiicitur contra hoc, quia, cum luna sit de natura quintae essentiae, sicut et sol, videtur, quod ita debeat lucere, sicut sol. — *Quaestio 1.* Item quaeritur, si lumen recipit, aut sicut corpus *transparens*, aut sicut *terminatum*, aut sicut *speculum*, quod partim habet naturam terminati et partim transparentis. Si recipit sicut transparens, tunc videtur, quod non obiiciat se visui per se, et quod etiam non possit occultare solem. Si sicut terminatum; tunc duplex oritur inconveniens: primum, quod cum corpus terminatum non est nisi mixtum[^12], non potest luna esse corpus terminatum: secundum vero, quia tunc non illuminabitur nisi in superficie: ergo videtur, quod parum de lumine suscipiat et parum refundat: ergo non debet dici luminare[^13]. Si vero recipit sicut speculum; tum similiter duplex est inconveniens: primum, quod in luna debemus videre imaginem sive speciem solis, sicut videtur in speculo: aliud, quia tunc non deberet luna illuminare in omnem partem, sicut nec speculum imaginem offert secundum omnem partem.

Propter hoc igitur est quaestio, quare luna *Quaestio 2.* dicatur esse luminare, et quare magis lucet de nocte quam de die, et etiam quare magis lucet, dum a sole elongatur, quam cum ei appropinquat; contrarium enim debet esse, si ab ipso accipit lumen.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circa luminaria caeli quidam singularem tenent opinionem, dicentes, *Opinio 1.* quod corpora caelestia sunt ex quatuor elementis, praedominante in eis natura ignis sive caelestis corporis, quod dicunt esse naturae igneae; praedominante, inquam, non solum secundum qualitatem, sed etiam secundum quantitatem; et secundum quod in eis magis praedominatur illa natura, secundum hoc habent loca magis et magis suprema. Et quoniam in luna, quae nobis proximior est, minime dominatur natura ignea inter cetera luminaria, et plus reperitur in ipsa de natura luminis susceptiva; hinc est, quod luna per se parum lucet et ex praesentia solis multum suscipit lumen, adeo ut mereatur dici luminare, et *magnum luminare* propter magnum effectum luminis, quem habet in terris. In suae autem positionis testimonium[^14] adducunt hoc, quod luna videtur esse corpus terminatum et coloratum; et ideo inter nos et solem posita radios solis nobis occultat, et soli opposita, dum ex ea parte,

<!-- page 368 -->

qua nobis opponitur, lumen suscipit, inferiora illuminat.

Sed haec positio est contra communem viam *Improbatur.* philosophorum et contra communem viam Sanctorum. *Ratio 1.* Contra philosophos namque est, quia philosophi dicunt, quod mixta ex quatuor elementis sunt corruptibilia[^15]; et ad hoc, quod sit conveniens mixtio, oportet, quod plus sit ibi de natura gravium secundum quantitatem; et ita luminaria caeli secundum hanc positionem et essent corruptibilia et essent gravia. Quodsi tu respondeas, quod illa sublimata sunt a natura corruptibilitatis et gravitatis, sicut corpora hominum gloriosa; hoc non solvit, quia non quaeritur hic, quid faciat Deus per gratiam et gloriam, sed qualia sint luminaria condita per naturam. — Contra communem viam Sanctorum est[^16] *Ratio 2.* quia, si corpora illa sunt mixta, nobili valde mixtione mixta sunt; et si hoc, ergo sunt nata perfici ab anima, et sic sunt animalia; et hoc est contra Damascenum[^17], qui dicit, caelos esse inanimatos et insensibiles. Hoc est etiam contra Hieronymum, adeo ut dicere, astra esse animata, dicat haereticum. Unde hoc enumerat inter haereses Origenis. *Augustinus.* Augustinum autem *Retractationes* retractat, quia dixerat in libro *de Immortalitate animae*; non tamen omnino tanquam falsum condemnat. Ait enim sic in libro *Retractationum*[^18]: « Animal esse mundum, sicut Plato sensit, aliique plurimi, nec ratione certa indagare potui, nec divinarum Scripturarum auctoritate persuaderi posse cognovi. Unde tale aliquid a me dictum, quomodo accipi possit, quod animal sit mundus, temere dictum reprehendo, non quia hoc esse falsum confirmo, sed quia nec verum esse comprehendo ». Quod si dicas, illa esse complexionata, non tamen animata; quomodo verum esse poterit, cum nobis complexio sit ad suscipiendum animam proxima dispositio? Propter haec et his similia hic modus dicendi non videtur approbandus.

Secundo modo potest dici secundum philosophos[^19], *Opinio 2.* quod luminaria producta sunt ex aggregatione lucis suorum orbium. Sicut enim, si calor dispersus in unum colligeretur, fieret intensior et fortior; sic, dum natura lucis in orbibus reperta virtute sui opificis in unum colligitur, luminare constituitur, et secundum hoc luminare est maius vel minus, secundum quod maior est in eo lucis aggregatio. Et quoniam luna inter corpora caelestia magis est nobis propinqua et eius orbis: hinc est, quod tam ipsa quam eius orbis minus participat de perfectione lucis. Quia tamen multum est naturae lucis conformis, obiecta soli multum illuminatur; et quia habet densitatem[^20] in partibus, ideo radiis solis pervia non est, et propterea radios, quos suscipit, refundit ex ea parte, ex qua soli se obiicit; et cum sit nobis propinqua, multum nos illuminat. Et propterea sacra Scriptura vocat solem et lunam duo luminaria *Non omnino sufficit.* magna. — Et haec positio satis est probabilis, non tamen videtur omnino sufficiens. Si enim luna est ex aggregatione et densatione partium sui orbis luminosa[^21], licet non perveniat ad luminositatem solis; videtur, quod de se deberet lucere, non tantum ex luminis solaris susceptione, quod ad oculum patet esse falsum.

Et ideo est adhuc tertius modus dicendi secundum Sanctos, scilicet Damascenum et Basilium, dicendo, *Opinio 3.* quod luminare non tantum dicit lucem, sed *Luminare dicit duo.* lucis vehiculum et lucis vasculum, propter quod Ecclesiasticus, quadragesimo tertio[^22] de sole dicit: *Vas admirabile, opus Excelsi.* Unde sicut lucerna, quae dicit vehiculum lucis, habet in se duplicem naturam, scilicet lucis, quae vehitur, et corporis, quod vehit; sic voluerunt dicere de luminaribus caeli. Ait enim Basilius[^23] sic: « Hoc solare corpus effectum est vehiculum illi primogenito lumini; sicut enim aliud est ignis, aliud lucerna, sic illi luci vehicula luminaria parata sunt ». Item, Damascenus[^24]: « Luminaribus illis primum clarum lumen Conditor imposuit, non ut impotens dare eis aliud lumen, sed ut non vacans illud remaneret. Luminare enim est non ipsum lumen, sed luminis receptaculum ». Secundum ergo Basilium et Damascenum luminaria constituta sunt ex illa prima luce, quae faciebat diem et noctem, et ex[^25] sui orbis natura, quadam aggregatione divina manu ad modum vasis et receptaculi lucis coadunata. — Hunc igitur modum sustinendo propter Sanctorum reverentiam — et securius *Approbatur.* est verbis eorum inniti in hac materia, in qua plus proceditur ex coniectura quam ex ratione certa — dicendum, quod luminaria, in quantum constituuntur ex orbibus suis, per aggregationem plus habent idoneitatem[^26] ad suscipiendum quam ad diffundendum; quod vero lucent, hoc habent ex luce primo creatae perfectione. Et ideo illud luminare, cui Deus multum dedit de illa luce, maxime lucet, sicut sol; illud cui minus dedit, minus; et illud cui minime, minime lucet ex se, sed si lucet, hoc est ex susce-

<!-- page 369 -->

ptione solaris influentiae. — Et ideo voluerunt aliqui *Opinio 4.* dicere, non tantum lunam, sed omnes stellas a sole lumen recipere. Quidquid autem sit de aliis stellis, tamen de luna satis plane apparet, quod per se non lucet.

Et ratio huius est, quia ad sui completionem *Luna non lucet per se.* modicum suscepit de illa luce primo creata; quia vero est aggregatum ex natura, quae multum est apta ad suscipiendum lumen, cum sit corpus magnum et densum et nobis propinquum; hinc est, quod multum de lumine suscipit et multum refundit, quando ex ea parte illuminatur, qua se nobis opponit. Hoc autem est, quando est in perfecta distantia a sole, ita quod sol est in uno hemisphaerio, et luna in alio. — Et haec est ratio, quare Scriptura *Quoad 2.* appellat luminare *magnum*, et quare sol praepositus est diei, et luna praeposita est nocti.

Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. Quod *Ad obiecta.* enim dicitur luna esse luminare magnum; hoc non dicitur, quia luceat ex se, vel quia sit maius quam stellae, sed quia magis nos illuminat. — Quare magis illuminat de nocte quam de die, ratio iam dicta est.

Ad illud vero quod quaeritur, qualiter recipiat *Ad illud.* lumen, utrum sicut transparens, vel terminatum, vel speculum; dicendum, quod luna nec habet naturam perfecte opaci, nec perfecte transparentis, nec perfecte habet naturam speculi; participat tamen aliquid de quolibet horum. Naturam enim transparentis quodam modo participat, dum ex natura quinti corporis constat. Naturam vero opaci, in eo quod partes illae ita densantur, ut nec radiis solaribus nec visualibus[^27] praebeant transitum. Naturam vero speculi habet in hoc, quod sic recipit, ut etiam reddat; non tamen omnino reddit sicut speculum, quia non est corpus tersum et politum, sicut patet aspicienti ipsum corpus lunare, cum est illuminatum; speculum autem reddit imaginem, quia est corpus politum, quod non est radiis pervium. — Haec autem magis *Coniecturae.* coniecturando dicta sunt quam asserendo, ut aliquis intellectus sanus haberi possit de eo quod dicit Scriptura: *Fecit Deus duo luminaria magna* etc.

Quod vero obiicitur, quod non sunt posita in firmamento; dicendum, quod *firmamentum* aliquando *Ad 3 obiectiones.* in Scriptura accipitur *large*, aliquando *stricte*: aliquando enim vocatur octava sphaera, in qua positae sunt stellae; et sic proprie accipitur, ut ibi[^28]: *Et posuit stellas in firmamento caeli.* Aliquando accipitur large pro natura quinti corporis, quae divisit aquas ab aquis; et sic accipitur ibi: *Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum,* et post hoc: *Fiant luminaria in firmamento caeli.*

### DUB. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod sequitur et Magister quaerit in littera, de hoc scilicet: *Et sint in signa et tempora et dies et annos.* Si enim sunt in signa, non videntur peccare, qui per illa prognosticant futura; si in tempora, tunc videtur, quod ante solem et lunam tempora non fuerunt; vel si in tempora, quaeritur, quare pluraliter dicit *tempora*, cum non sit nisi unum tempus? — Item, quaeritur de sufficientia istorum quatuor, quae enumerat: *in signa et tempora et dies et annos,* quia similiter sunt in menses et septimanas. Si tu dicas, quod clauduntur in his duobus, scilicet *dies et annos*; tunc similiter dies et anni claudi possunt in hoc quod dicit *signa et tempora*.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod illud verbum dupliciter *Duplex expositio.* habet exponi, secundum quod duplex est usus signi. Signum enim et est ad significandum, et est ad distinguendum.

Si primo modo accipiatur signum, tunc est *Expositio 1.* sensus, quod illa luminaria facta sunt *in signa*, id est in significationem futurorum et variationem temporum et dierum et annorum, ut variatio temporum attendatur in mutatione aeris quantum ad calorem et frigus, variatio dierum quantum ad lumen et tenebras, variatio annorum quantum ad renovationem horum duorum. Et sic dicuntur corpora caelestia esse in signa non quorumlibet futurorum, sed eorum quorum ipsa sunt quodam modo causa, sicut imbrium et ventorum — et sic exponit Damascenus[^29] — vel etiam eorum quae per ea praesignat divina providentia, sicut eorum quae advenient in iudicio, secundum illud Lucae vigesimo primo[^30]: *Erunt signa in sole et luna, et stellis.* Aliorum vero, quae sunt a libero arbitrio, non sunt signa ex institutione divina, sed potius ad illa signanda traxit fictio humana et fallacia diabolica.

Si autem secundo modo accipiatur, videlicet *Expositio 2.* ab actu *distinguendi;* tunc est sensus *sint in signa et tempora* etc.: *sint in signa,* id est in distinctiones temporum et dierum et annorum. — Haec autem *Magis probatur.* expositio divinae Scripturae videtur esse magis consona, quod patet per antecedentem litteram[^31], ubi dicitur: *Fiant luminaria in firmamento caeli,* et dividant diem et noctem. Duplex enim est motus *Duplex motus.* luminarium: unus, qui est ad motum ultimae sphaerae super polos principales ab oriente in oriens per occidens, quo motu revolvuntur semel quolibet naturali die; et secundum hunc modum dividunt diem et noctem, sicut dicitur in Psalmo[^32]: *Fecit solem in potestatem diei, lunam et stellas in potestatem noctis.* Alius est motus proprius, quem habent naturaliter in circulo obliquo, scilicet in zodiaco, in quo duodecim signa describuntur; et secundum motum planetarum in illis signis, et maxime solis, fit signatio et distinctio temporum et dierum et annorum[^33]. — *Distinctio temporum* fit, quia quatuor sunt *Triplex signatio solis.* tempora anni: ver, aestas, autumnus et hiems, quae distinguuntur per motum solis in zodiaco, prout ad nos accedit et a nobis elongatur. — *Distinctio* vero *dierum* fit similiter per eundem motum, quia modo dies crescunt, modo decrescunt; aliquando dies sunt maiores noctibus, aliquando minores, secundum quod per illum motum accipitur duplex solstitium, scilicet aestivale et hiemale, et duplex aequinoctium, scilicet vernale et autumnale. — Sunt etiam in distinctionem annorum secundum consummationem[^34] illius motus solis in obliquo circulo. — Similiter luna suo *Item lunae.* modo est in signationem temporum et dierum et annorum, apud Iudaeos maxime quantum ad solemnitates, sicut apud Christianos est sol, sicut dicitur Ecclesiastici quadragesimo tertio[^35]: *Luna signum diei festi.*

Si autem quaeratur, quare Ecclesia magis accipit *Quaestio incidens.* festa sua secundum solem quam secundum lunam, exceptis duobus; prolixa est huius quaestionis determinatio, et plane inveniri potest in libro Augustini *ad Ianuarium*[^36]. Hoc quantum ad praesens sufficiat, quod quia synagoga in tenebris noctis ambulabat et minuenda erat, ideo a luminari, quod nocti praeest et quod minuitur in consummatione, accipiebat suarum solemnitatum distinctionem. Quia vero Ecclesia iam ambulat in lumine, sicut de ipsa dicitur Apocalypsis duodecimo[^37]: *Mulier amicta sole et luna sub pedibus eius;* ideo menses computat et dies solemnes magis secundum motum solis quam lunae, excepto solo Paschate, et per consequens Pentecoste. Paschalis enim solemnitas non solum *Notandum.* celebratur in rememorationem resurrectionis praeteritae, sed etiam in praesignationem resurrectionis futurae. Et in hoc Ecclesia quodam modo conformis est synagogae, unde festivitatem illam observat a luna, non iudaizando, sed potius illam futuram solemnitatem, quam exspectat, secundum quod sibi com-

<!-- page 370 -->

petit, praesignando. — Haec autem dicta sunt propter id quod dicit Scriptura: *Et sint in signa* etc. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta.

Quod enim dicitur esse *in signa;* hoc est vel *Ad obiecta.* in significationem imbrium et ventorum, vel in distinctionem temporum; et ideo dicit *tempora* pluraliter propter variationem in quatuor temporibus anni secundum quatuor qualitates elementorum. Et subiungit: *dies et annos,* ut, sicut per tempora notabatur variatio, sic etiam per dies et annos possit notari motus illius terminatio, ita quod *dies* dicit terminationem motus, quo movetur sol motu firmamenti, et *annus* terminationem motus, quo movetur in obliquo circulo. Et in hoc patet, quod non debet poni mensis et septimana, quia non tangitur ibi nova variatio nec nova terminatio. Et per hoc patent omnia, quae sunt quaesita[^38].

---

english:
### Doubt I.

*Concerning three [points].* In this part there are doubts concerning the letter, and first there is asked concerning what he says: *Let the waters be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.* For first, it seems unfitting to say *Let the waters be gathered into a place,* since motion toward a place belongs to something complete[^1]; but the waters had not yet been produced: therefore he wrongly said *to be gathered into one place.* — Likewise, nothing can appear except color; and no simple element is colored: therefore the earth cannot appear. Therefore he wrongly says *let the dry land appear.* — Likewise, since there are two other elements, namely fire and air, it seems that Scripture is insufficient, which explains nothing about their distinction. — Next to this it is asked, why he names the element of water in the plural, and the element of earth in the singular. *If you say* that this is on account of the dispersion of the waters; then it seems he wrongly says *Let the waters be gathered into one place.* — Likewise, it is asked why he first calls the element of earth *the dry land* and afterward calls it *earth,* since it had earlier been said[^2]: *In the beginning God created heaven and earth.* — Likewise, since the element of water is by nature tasteless, and the seas are salty, it does not seem that the gatherings of the waters ought to be called *seas.*

**I respond:** It must be said that Scripture explains the distinction of the elements in these words very elegantly, if one attends [to them]. For since motion toward a position belongs only to a thing that is complete and has form, for the waters to be gathered into one was nothing other than, for the element of water itself, by giving it one species and an inclination toward the place owed to that species, at the same time, according to the requirement of the form and of the inclination toward position, to give it a fitting place. — And since the place of water is immediately to be around the earth, when the water is gathered, it is separated from the higher elements, namely air and fire. Therefore in the gathering of the waters the distinction of the other two elements is touched on as a consequence. Again, since the waters are by nature [meant] to surround the earth, and if they had encircled the earth on every side, it would not be fit for habitation by us and the animals; therefore he so distinguished it that on its upper surface the dry land would appear. Again, if the earth had been wholly separated from water, it would not be apt for germinating; and therefore God so dried the surface of the earth that nonetheless the water filled its root and even irrigated it by the flowing of rivers[^3]. — And on account of these three [things] Scripture says three: *Note.* first, on account of the *distinction* of the elements: *Let the waters be gathered into one place;* secondly, on account of the *uncovering* of the surface of the earth: *and let the dry land appear;* thirdly, on account of the *irrigation* which it receives from the waters, that it may be able to germinate, he says: *he called the dry land earth, and the gatherings of the waters he called seas.* — And from these the objections are clear.

For what is first objected concerning the verb *to gather* is not valid, because God did not cause the waters to be gathered as though previously existing, but as giving them a form and a nature by which they would be naturally fit to come together into one place. — Likewise, what is objected concerning the appearance of the earth is clear, because the earth which appears is not pure element[^4], but mixed element. — Likewise what he objects concerning the distinction of the other elements is clear; because in these two, which are most perceptible and tractable, is enclosed the distinction of those which are hidden from our senses. — *To the 3rd question.* Likewise it is clear why he calls water in the plural, and earth in the singular, namely on account of their dispersion. For what is moist, by its proper terminus, is ill terminable; but because what is dry by its nature is terminable, therefore he calls earth in the singular. — And he first calls it *the dry land* and afterward *earth,* because the first name expresses the property of the element, namely dryness, while the second name expresses its use or utility, which it has through the mixture of water, that it may be cultivated and bear fruit; therefore it is called *terra* as it were *trita* (worn)[^5]. — Likewise what he objects concerning the waters is clear. For they are called *seas,* not because bitterness is the first quality of water, but because it follows water in its gathering on account of the grossness of the parts, which remain when the finer parts are raised upward or penetrate into the depths of the earth, by which subtilization they become sweet[^6].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *On the same day the earth brought forth the green herb.* For it seems this was done out of order; for if the firmament was made before the earth, it ought to have been adorned before the earth. — Likewise, since mineral bodies are from the earth just as well as wood, it seems that Scripture insufficiently determines those things which by divine power are produced from the earth. — Likewise, it is asked whether the earth then germinated thorns and thistles. For if it did not then produce them, it seems that after sin the earth was more fruitful, and received a new power to produce such things. But if it then produced them, Scripture seems *insufficient,* because it does not express [it]; it seems also contrary to itself, since in the third [chapter] of Genesis[^7] it says that those things germinate as a punishment of man: *cursed is the earth* etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that Scripture expresses [things] in an ordered way, and God did them most ordered, when on the same day on which the earth was produced he caused herbs and trees to come forth from it: both to remove error, as Basil says[^8]: « lest it be believed that the sun is the principal cause of what is born of the earth », as the Philosopher says, « that the earth is the mother of plants, and the sun the father »; and also, because plants and herbs are as it were connatural to the earth, since they are fixed in it by their roots, drawing from it their nourishment and origin. It is not so, however, in the adornments of the other three [elements]; and through this the first objection is clear.

What is objected concerning mineral bodies, it must be said that, because they recede little from the nature of earth, and because they lie hidden under the earth, Scripture did not take care to express [them] specially.

To that which is asked concerning thorns and thistles, it must be said that they were then produced, because perfect fertility was given to the earth, and there is no herb, however vile, which is not of some utility and virtue; and therefore those things must be understood to be produced along with the other greening herbs and fruit-bearing trees; and Scripture comprehended them[^9] under the generality of those.

And what is objected, that they were generated as a punishment of sin; it must be said that for a thorn and a thistle to be generated where wheat is sown — this is for the punishment of sin and from the curse of the earth, which, when it is cultivated that it may give fruit by which man may be sustained, rather produces that by which man may be tormented. But that in many places a thorn and a thistle is generated — this is not punishment but nature[^10].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven,* and it is asked what these *lights* are. If you say, that the sun and the moon — because Scripture[^11] explains: *God made two great lights* etc.; — there seem to be objections; first, because these *Three objections.* are not in the firmament, but under the firmament: secondly, because the moon is not a great light, since in the judgment of the wise many stars are larger; thirdly, because the moon does not seem to be a *light,* but rather an opaque body, since by its interposition it causes the sun to be eclipsed. *If you say* that the moon is called

a light, not because it shines of itself, but because it receives light from the sun; it is objected against this, that, since the moon is of the nature of the quintessence, just as also the sun, it seems that it ought so to shine, as the sun. — *Question 1.* Likewise it is asked, if it receives light, whether as a *transparent* body, or as *terminated,* or as a *mirror,* which partly has the nature of the terminated and partly of the transparent. If it receives [it] as transparent, then it seems that it does not oppose itself to the sight by itself, and that also it cannot hide the sun. If as terminated; then a twofold inconvenience arises: first, that since a terminated body is only mixed[^12], the moon cannot be a terminated body: secondly, because then it will not be illumined except on the surface: therefore it seems that it receives little of the light and refunds little: therefore it ought not to be called a light[^13]. But if it receives [it] as a mirror; then likewise there is a twofold inconvenience: first, that in the moon we ought to see the image or species of the sun, as is seen in a mirror: the other, that then the moon ought not to illuminate in every part, just as neither does a mirror offer an image in every part.

Therefore on account of this there is the question, why the moon *Question 2.* is said to be a light, and why it shines more by night than by day, and also why it shines more when it is far from the sun than when it approaches it; for the contrary ought to be, if it receives light from it.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning the lights of heaven, certain [men] hold a singular opinion, saying *Opinion 1.* that the heavenly bodies are from the four elements, with the nature of fire — or of a heavenly body, which they say is of a fiery nature — predominating in them; predominating, I say, not only according to quality, but also according to quantity; and according as that nature predominates more in them, accordingly they have higher and higher places. And since in the moon, which is nearest to us, the fiery nature dominates least among the other lights, and more is found in it of a nature receptive of light; hence it is that the moon shines little of itself and from the presence of the sun receives much light, so much that it deserves to be called a *light*, and *a great light* on account of the great effect of light which it has on earth. In testimony of their position[^14] they adduce this, that the moon seems to be a terminated and colored body; and therefore, placed between us and the sun, it hides the sun's rays from us, and, placed opposite the sun, while from that part

by which it is opposed to us it receives light, it illuminates the lower things.

But this position is against the common way *It is rejected.* of the philosophers and against the common way of the Saints. *Reason 1.* For it is against the philosophers, because the philosophers say that things mixed of four elements are corruptible[^15]; and for the mixture to be fitting, it is necessary that there be more in it of the nature of heavy things according to quantity; and thus the lights of heaven, according to this position, would both be corruptible and would be heavy. But if you reply that those have been sublimated from the nature of corruptibility and heaviness, just as the glorious bodies of men [are sublimated]; this does not solve [the problem], because it is not asked here what God may do through grace and glory, but what kind of lights have been founded by nature. — It is against the common way of the Saints[^16] *Reason 2.* because, if those bodies are mixed, they are mixed by a very noble mixture; and if so, then they are by nature [destined] to be perfected by a soul, and so are animals; and this is against Damascene[^17], who says that the heavens are inanimate and insensible. This is also against Jerome, to the point of saying that it is heretical to say that the stars are animated. Whence he enumerates this among the heresies of Origen. *Augustine.* And [as for] Augustine, the *Retractations* retracts [it], because he had said [it] in his book *On the Immortality of the Soul*; nevertheless he does not entirely condemn it as false. For he says thus in the book of *Retractations*[^18]: « That the world is an animal, as Plato held, and many others, I have not been able to investigate by certain reason, nor have I come to know that it can be proved by the authority of the divine Scriptures. Whence such a thing as was said by me, how it can be received, that the world is an animal, I reprove as rashly said — not because I confirm it to be false, but because I do not comprehend it to be true ». But if you say that those are *complected* but not animated; how can this be true, since for us a complexion is the proximate disposition for receiving a soul? On account of these things and the like, this mode of speaking does not seem to be approved.

In a second mode it can be said according to the philosophers[^19], *Opinion 2.* that the lights were produced by an aggregation of the light of their orbs. For just as, if heat dispersed were gathered into one, it would become more intense and stronger; so, when the nature of light found in the orbs is gathered into one by the power of its maker, a light is constituted, and accordingly a light is greater or smaller according as the aggregation of light in it is greater. And since the moon is nearer to us than the other heavenly bodies, and so is its orb: hence it is that it and its orb participate less in the perfection of light. But because it is much conformed to the nature of light, exposed to the sun it is much illumined; and because it has a density[^20] in its parts, it is not pervious to the rays of the sun, and therefore it refunds the rays which it receives from that part with which it opposes itself to the sun; and since it is near to us, it illumines us much. And therefore sacred Scripture calls the sun and moon *two great lights.* *Not wholly sufficient.* — And this position is sufficiently probable, yet does not seem wholly sufficient. For if the moon is luminous from the aggregation and condensation of the parts of its orb[^21], though it does not reach the luminosity of the sun, it seems that of itself it ought to shine, not only from the reception of solar light — which is clear to the eye to be false.

And therefore there is yet a third mode of speaking, according to the Saints, namely Damascene and Basil, by saying *Opinion 3.* that *light* (*luminare*) signifies not only light, but *Light signifies two.* the vehicle of light and the vessel of light, on account of which Ecclesiasticus, in the forty-third [chapter][^22], says of the sun: *A wonderful vessel, the work of the Most High.* Whence just as a lamp, which signifies a vehicle of light, has in itself a twofold nature, namely of the light which is carried and of the body which carries [it]; so they wished to say of the lights of heaven. For Basil says[^23] thus: « This solar body has been made a vehicle for that first-born light; for just as fire is one thing and a lamp another, so for that light vehicles, the lights, have been prepared ». Likewise, Damascene[^24]: « On those lights the Creator placed the first clear light, not as unable to give them another light, but lest that [light] should remain idle. For a *light* (*luminare*) is not the light itself, but the receptacle of light ». Therefore according to Basil and Damascene the lights have been constituted from that first light, which made day and night, and from[^25] the nature of their orb, joined together by a certain aggregation by the divine hand in the manner of a vessel and receptacle of light. — Therefore, sustaining this mode on account of reverence to the Saints — and it is safer *It is approved.* to lean on their words in this matter, in which one proceeds more from conjecture than from certain reason — it must be said that the lights, insofar as they are constituted from their orbs, by aggregation have rather an aptitude[^26] for receiving than for diffusing; but that they shine, this they have from the perfection of the light first created. And therefore that light to which God gave much of that light shines the most, as the sun; that to which he gave less, less; and that to which he gave least, shines least of itself, but if it shines, this is from the recep-

tion of the solar influence. — And therefore some wished *Opinion 4.* to say that not only the moon, but also all the stars receive their light from the sun. But whatever may be the case with the other stars, of the moon at any rate it appears clearly enough that of itself it does not shine.

And the reason for this is that, for its completion, *The moon does not shine of itself.* it received [only] a little of that light first created; but because it is an aggregate from a nature which is much apt to receive light, since it is a great and dense body and near to us, hence it is that it receives much of the light and refunds much, when it is illuminated from that part with which it opposes itself to us. But this is, when it is at perfect distance from the sun, so that the sun is in one hemisphere and the moon in another. — And this is the reason why Scripture *On the 2nd [point].* calls [it] a *great* light, and why the sun has been set over the day, and the moon set over the night.

And through this the response to the objections is clear. For what *To the objections.* is said, that the moon is a great light — this is not said because it shines of itself, or because it is greater than the stars, but because it illumines us more. — Why it illumines more by night than by day, the reason has already been said.

To that which is asked, in what way it receives *To that.* the light, whether as transparent, or as terminated, or as a mirror; it must be said that the moon has neither the nature of the perfectly opaque, nor of the perfectly transparent, nor does it perfectly have the nature of a mirror; it participates, however, in something of each of these. For it participates in the nature of the transparent in some way, since it is constituted of the nature of the fifth body. The nature of the opaque, in that those parts are so condensed that they do not afford passage either to the solar rays or to the visual rays[^27]. The nature of the mirror it has in this, that it so receives that it also returns; yet it does not return entirely as a mirror, because it is not a polished and burnished body, as is clear to one looking at the lunar body itself when it is illuminated; but a mirror returns an image because it is a polished body, which is not pervious to the rays. — But these things have been said more by *Conjectures.* conjecturing than by asserting, that some sound understanding may be had of what Scripture says: *God made two great lights* etc.

What is objected, that they are not placed in the firmament; it must be said that *firmament* is sometimes *To the 3 objections.* taken in Scripture *broadly,* sometimes *strictly:* sometimes namely the eighth sphere is so called, in which the stars are placed; and so it is properly taken, as there[^28]: *And he placed the stars in the firmament of heaven.* Sometimes it is taken broadly for the nature of the fifth body, which divided the waters from the waters; and so it is taken there: *Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,* and after this: *Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven.*

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what follows, and what the Master asks in the letter, namely concerning this: *And let them be for signs and seasons and days and years.* For if they are for *signs,* those who prognosticate future things by them do not seem to sin; if for *seasons,* then it seems that before the sun and moon there were no seasons; or if for seasons, it is asked why he says *seasons* in the plural, since there is but one season? — Likewise, it is asked concerning the sufficiency of these four things which he enumerates: *for signs and seasons and days and years,* because likewise they are for months and weeks. If you say, that these are included in these two, namely *days and years*; then likewise days and years can be included in what he says, *signs and seasons.*

**I respond:** It must be said that that word can be expounded in two ways, *A twofold exposition.* according as there is a twofold use of a sign. For a sign both is for signifying, and is for distinguishing.

If a sign be taken in the first mode, then the sense is, *Exposition 1.* that those lights were made *for signs,* that is, for the signification of future things and the variation of seasons and days and years, so that the variation of seasons may be attended in the changing of the air with respect to heat and cold, the variation of days with respect to light and darkness, the variation of years with respect to the renewal of these two. And thus the heavenly bodies are said to be for signs not of just any future things, but of those of which they themselves are in some way the cause, such as showers and winds — and so Damascene expounds[^29] — or also of those things which by them divine providence presignifies, such as those things which will come at the judgment, according to that of Luke chapter twenty-one[^30]: *There will be signs in the sun and moon and stars.* But of others, which are from free will, they are not signs by divine institution, but rather human imagination and diabolical deception have drawn them to signify those things.

But if it be taken in the second mode, namely *Exposition 2.* from the act of *distinguishing;* then the sense is *let them be for signs and seasons* etc.: *let them be for signs,* that is, for the distinctions of seasons and days and years. — But this *It is more approved.* exposition seems to be more consonant with the divine Scripture, as is clear from the preceding letter[^31], where it is said: *Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven,* and let them divide day and night. For there is a twofold motion *Twofold motion.* of the lights: one, which is according to the motion of the last sphere upon the principal poles, from east into east through west, by which motion they are revolved once each natural day; and according to this mode they divide day and night, as is said in the Psalm[^32]: *He made the sun for power over the day, the moon and stars for power over the night.* The other is the proper motion, which they naturally have in the oblique circle, namely in the zodiac, in which the twelve signs are described; and according to the motion of the planets in those signs, and especially of the sun, there is made the signing and distinction of seasons and days and years[^33]. — The *distinction of seasons* arises, because there are four *Threefold signing of the sun.* seasons of the year: spring, summer, autumn and winter, which are distinguished by the motion of the sun in the zodiac, as it approaches us and goes far from us. — The *distinction of days* arises likewise by the same motion, because now days grow, now they decrease; sometimes days are longer than nights, sometimes shorter, according as by that motion is taken a twofold solstice, namely summer and winter, and a twofold equinox, namely vernal and autumnal. — They are also for the distinction of years, according to the consummation[^34] of that motion of the sun in the oblique circle. — Likewise the moon in its own way *Likewise the moon.* is for the signing of seasons and days and years, especially among the Jews with respect to solemnities, just as among Christians [it is] the sun, as is said in Ecclesiasticus chapter forty-three[^35]: *The moon is a sign of the feast day.*

But if it be asked why the Church takes its feasts *An incidental question.* more according to the sun than according to the moon, except for two; the determination of this question is lengthy, and can plainly be found in the book of Augustine *to Ianuarius*[^36]. Let this suffice for the present: that because the synagogue walked in the darkness of night and was to be diminished, therefore it took the distinction of its solemnities from the *light* which presides over the night and which is diminished in its consummation. But because the Church already walks in light, as is said of her in Apocalypse chapter twelve[^37]: *A woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet;* therefore she computes months and solemn days more according to the motion of the sun than of the moon, with the exception only of Easter, and as a consequence of Pentecost. For the Paschal solemnity is celebrated not only *Note.* in commemoration of the past resurrection, but also in presignification of the future resurrection. And in this the Church is in some manner conformed to the synagogue, whence she observes that festivity from the moon — not Judaizing, but rather presignifying that future solemnity, which she awaits, according as suits her.

— But these things have been said on account of what Scripture says: *And let them be for signs* etc. And through this the response to the objections is clear.

For what is said to be *for signs;* this is either *To the objections.* for the signification of showers and winds, or for the distinction of seasons; and therefore he says *seasons* in the plural on account of the variation in the four seasons of the year, according to the four qualities of the elements. And he subjoins: *days and years,* so that, as by *seasons* variation was noted, so also by *days and years* the *termination* of that motion may be noted — so that *day* expresses the termination of the motion by which the sun is moved by the motion of the firmament, and *year* the termination of the motion by which it is moved in the oblique circle. And in this it is clear that *month* and *week* are not to be added, because no new variation nor new termination is touched on there. And through this all the things asked are clear[^38].

---

la: Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 57. (c. 7.).

en: Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 57 (c. 7).

la: In Vat. desideratur *non est elementum parum, sed.* Eadem Vat. aliquanto inferius substituit *dispositionem* pro *dispersionem.*

en: In the Vatican [edition] *non est elementum parum, sed* is lacking. The same Vatican [edition] a little further down substitutes *dispositionem* for *dispersionem.*

la: Isidor., XIV. *Etymol.* c. 1. n. 1: *Terra dicta a superiori parte, qua teritur; humus ab inferiore... Proprie autem terra ad distinctionem aquae arida nuncupatur... naturalis enim proprietas siccitas est terrae.*

en: Isidore, *Etymologies* XIV, c. 1, n. 1: *Earth is so called from its upper part, by which it is worn (qua teritur); soil from its lower part... Properly, however, earth in distinction from water is called dry (arida)... for the natural property of earth is dryness.*

la: Ut etiam Aristot., II. *Meteor.* c. 2. seq., explicat. — De hoc dubio cfr. August., *de Gen. ad lit.* (imperfect. liber) c. 10. n. 32. seq.; c. 14. n. 45. seq.; II. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 11. n. 24; Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 51. m. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 11. seq.; S. p. II. tr. II. q. 56. m. 1 seq.; S. Thom., hic a. 5, ubi et de seq. dubio; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1; Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Cod. *aa* *dulcescant* pro *dulcescunt.*

en: As Aristotle also explains, *Meteorology* II, c. 2 ff. — On this doubt cf. Augustine, *de Genesi ad litteram* (the imperfect book), c. 10, n. 32 ff.; c. 14, n. 45 ff.; *de Genesi ad litteram* II, c. 11, n. 24; Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part II, q. 51, m. 1; Bl. Albert, here a. 11 ff.; *Summa* part II, tr. II, q. 56, m. 1 ff.; St. Thomas, here a. 5, where he also treats the next doubt; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1; Aegidius Romanus, here q. 2, a. 1. — Codex *aa* reads *dulcescant* for *dulcescunt.*

la: Vers. 17.

en: [Genesis 3,] v. 17.

la: *Hexaem.* homil. 6. n. 2. — Verbum Philosophi habetur I. *de Plantis,* c. 1. (c. 6.), ubi hoc dictum attribuitur Anaxagorae. Cfr. I. *de Generat. animal.* c. 2.

en: *Hexaemeron,* homily 6, n. 2. — The saying of the Philosopher is found in I *de Plantis,* c. 1 (c. 6), where this saying is attributed to Anaxagoras. Cf. I *de Generatione animalium,* c. 2.

la: Vat. *prout,* omisso dein *et quia.*

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *prout,* with *et quia* afterward omitted.

la: Ex cod. *cc* et ed. 1 supplevimus *ea.* — De seqq. cfr. Gen. 3, 17. seqq. et August., III. *de Gen. ad litt.* c. 18. n. 27. 28.

en: From codex *cc* and the first edition we have supplied *ea.* — On what follows cf. Gen. 3:17 ff. and Augustine, *de Genesi ad litteram* III, c. 18, nn. 27–28.

la: Vide Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 51. m. 2. seq.; B. Albert., hic a. 9. seq.; S. p. II. tr. II. q. 56. m. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2; Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 2.

en: See Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part II, q. 51, m. 2 ff.; Bl. Albert, here a. 9 ff.; *Summa* part II, tr. II, q. 56, m. 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2; Aegidius Romanus, here q. 2, a. 2.

la: Gen. 1, 16. — Paulo inferius Vat. omittit *sed sub firmamento.*

en: Gen. 1:16. — A little further down the Vatican [edition] omits *sed sub firmamento.*

la: Supple cum cod. V *sed luna non est corpus mixtum; ergo.*

en: Supply with codex V *sed luna non est corpus mixtum; ergo.*

la: In Vat. hic et paulo inferius, ubi idem verbum *luminare* occurrit, additur *magnum.* Subinde eadem Vat. substituit *illuminari secundum omnem partem* pro *illuminare in omnem partem,* et deinde cum paucis codd. *aliud, quod tunc non debet* pro *aliud, quia tunc non deberet.*

en: In the Vatican [edition] here and a little further down, where the same word *luminare* occurs, *magnum* is added. Further on the same Vatican [edition] substitutes *illuminari secundum omnem partem* for *illuminare in omnem partem,* and then with a few codices *aliud, quod tunc non debet* for *aliud, quia tunc non deberet.*

la: Vat. *fulcimentum.*

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *fulcimentum.*

la: In cod. *cc* et ed. 1 additur *et essent gravia.* — Cfr. de his Aristot., I. *de Caelo et mundo,* text. 17–33. (c. 3.).

en: In codex *cc* and the first edition is added *et essent gravia.* — Cf. on these things Aristotle, *de Caelo et mundo* I, text 17–33 (c. 3).

la: Libr. II. *de Fide orthod.* c. 6. — Hieronym., *Epist.* 124. *ad Avitum,* n. 4. — Vide supra p. 1. huius d. a. 3. q. 2.

en: Book II *de Fide orthodoxa,* c. 6. — Jerome, *Letter* 124 *to Avitus,* n. 4. — See above, part 1 of this distinction, a. 3, q. 2.

la: Libr. I. c. 11. n. 4, ubi textus originalis post *aliique* adiungit *philosophi,* et dein substituit *quo id accipi possit, etiam in libro de Immortalitate animae temere dictum notavi* pro *quomodo accipi possit, quod animal sit mundus, temere dictum reprehendo.* Cfr. supra pag. 348, nota 7.

en: Book I, c. 11, n. 4, where the original text after *aliique* adjoins *philosophi,* and then substitutes *quo id accipi possit, etiam in libro de Immortalitate animae temere dictum notavi* for *quomodo accipi possit, quod animal sit mundus, temere dictum reprehendo.* Cf. above p. 348, note 7.

la: Inter quos erat Avicenna, cuius verba vide supra pag. 358, nota 2.

en: Among whom was Avicenna, whose words see above on p. 358, note 2.

la: Plures codd. cum ed. 1 *diversitatem.*

en: Many codices, with the first edition, [read] *diversitatem.*

la: Codd. cum edd. 1, 2 *quod est luminosum,* codd. *bb qui est luminosus* pro *luminosa.*

en: The codices with editions 1 and 2 [read] *quod est luminosum,* the codices *bb* [read] *qui est luminosus* for *luminosa.*

la: Vers. 2.

en: Verse 2.

la: *Hexaem.* homil. 6. n. 2, ubi textus originalis post *lucerna* sic prosequitur: *illi quidem vis inest illuminandi, haec vero ad lumen egentibus praebendum fabricata est; sic illi luci purissimae sinceraeque et materiae experti vehicula luminaria nunc parata sunt.*

en: *Hexaemeron,* homily 6, n. 2, where the original text after *lucerna* continues thus: *for in that [fire] there is the power of illuminating, but this [lamp] has been fashioned to provide light for those needing it; so for that purest and most sincere light, exempt from matter, vehicles — the lights — have now been prepared.*

la: Libr. II. *de Fide orthod.* c. 7.

en: Book II *de Fide orthodoxa,* c. 7.

la: Retinuimus cum Vat. particulam *ex,* quae desideratur in codd. et primis edd.

en: We have kept, with the Vatican [edition], the particle *ex,* which is lacking in the codices and the first editions.

la: Vat. *idoneitatis.*

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *idoneitatis.*

la: Multi codd. cum ed. 1 *visibilibus.*

en: Many codices, with the first edition, [read] *visibilibus.*

la: Gen. 1, 17. — Duo seqq. textus sunt ibid. v. 6. et 14. — De hoc dubio cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 52. m. 1. et 2. a. 1. et 3; B. Albert., II. *Sent.* d. 15. a. 1. seq.; S. p. II. tr. II. q. 57. m. 2. et q. 59; Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 1. et dub. 4. lit.

en: Gen. 1:17. — The two following texts are *ibid.* vv. 6 and 14. — On this doubt cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part II, q. 52, m. 1 and 2, a. 1 and 3; Bl. Albert, *II Sent.* d. 15, a. 1 ff.; *Summa* part II, tr. II, q. 57, m. 2 and q. 59; Aegidius Romanus, here q. 3, a. 1 and dub. 4, lit.

la: Vers. 25. — Cfr. de his supra a. 2. q. 2. et 3.

en: Verse 25. — Cf. on these things above, a. 2, qq. 2 and 3.

la: Gen. 1, 14. — Vide August., *de Gen. ad lit.* (imperfect. liber), c. 13. n. 38; II. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 14. n. 29; I. *de Gen. contra Manich.* c. 14. n. 21.

en: Gen. 1:14. — See Augustine, *de Genesi ad litteram* (the imperfect book), c. 13, n. 38; *de Genesi ad litteram* II, c. 14, n. 29; *de Genesi contra Manichaeos* I, c. 14, n. 21.

la: Psalm. 135, 8. seq.

en: Psalm 135:8 f.

la: Cfr. Aristot., *de Mundo,* c. 2. et II. *Meteor.* c. 4. seq.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *de Mundo,* c. 2, and *Meteorology* II, c. 4 ff.

la: Ita plures codd., ut A U *cc* et ed. 1; alii *conservationem,* Vat. *servationem,* quae etiam post *Sunt etiam* subiungit *motus.*

en: So many codices, namely A U *cc* and the first edition; others [read] *conservationem,* the Vatican [edition reads] *servationem,* which also after *Sunt etiam* subjoins *motus.*

la: Vers. 7.

en: Verse 7.

la: Libr. II. sive *Epist.* 55 (alias 119.) c. 7. n. 12. seqq.

en: Book II, or *Letter* 55 (otherwise 119), c. 7, n. 12 ff.

la: Vers. 1.

en: Verse 1.

la: Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 52. m. 2. a. 2; B. Albert., II. *Sent.* d. 15. a. 4; S. p. II. tr. II. q. 58; Aegid. R., dub. lit. 5. seqq.

en: Cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part II, q. 52, m. 2, a. 2; Bl. Albert, *II Sent.* d. 15, a. 4; *Summa* part II, tr. II, q. 58; Aegidius Romanus, dub. lit. 5 ff. ---

translators_notes:
- **Page span:** pp. 365–370. p. 365 is shared with prior chunk `d14-p2-a2-q3` (which terminates at the close of SCHOLION II just above the DUB. I opener); p. 370 is shared with `d15-littera` (which opens at DISTINCTIO XV. Cap. I., below the close of DUB. IV).
- **Dub count:** 4 (DUB. I, II, III, IV). The "expect roughly 3" estimate in the resume note was undercounted; column-band re-read confirms 4 — DUB. III (luminaria, opinions 1–4) is the densest with embedded *Quaestio 1* and *Quaestio 2* sub-questions inside the body, not as separate chunks.
- **Apparatus count:** 38 total. Per-page split: p. 365 = 3 (notes 3–5 forwarded from `d14-p2-a2-q3`, anchored in DUB. I body; p. 365 notes 1+2 were already consumed at a2-q3 [^27]+[^28] per the prior session — verified no double-count). p. 366 = 9 (notes 1–9 = [^4]–[^12], spanning DUB. I close and DUB. II + DUB. III opener). p. 367 = 7 (notes 1–7 = [^13]–[^19], anchoring in DUB. III Quaestio 1+2 + Opinio 1+2). p. 368 = 9 (notes 1–9 = [^20]–[^28], Opinio 2 close + Opinio 3 + Opinio 4 opener). p. 369 = 9 (notes 1–9 = [^29]–[^37], Opinio 4 + Ad obiecta + DUB. IV opener through *Quaestio incidens*). p. 370 = 1 (note 1 = [^38], commentator-list bibliography closing DUB. IV / closing d.14 as a whole).
- **Cross-chunk hand-offs:** none forward (this is the final d.14 chunk). Backward: p. 365 footer notes 3–5 forwarded from `d14-p2-a2-q3` were picked up here as [^1]–[^3] (Aristot. VIII Phys. text. 57. + Gen 1,1 + Gen 2,6), anchored in DUB. I body at *entis completi¹*, *ante sit dictum²*, and *etiam irrigaret³* respectively. p. 370 footer note 1 ([^38]) is the article-level commentator-list closing DUB. IV — this is the final apparatus entry of d.14.
- **No scholion:** Pars II dubia carry none per locked Vol II convention.
- **Marginal labels preserved inline:** *Quoad tres.*, *Notandum.*, *Ad 3 quaest.*, *Obiectiones 3.*, *Quaestio 1.*, *Quaestio 2.*, *Opinio 1.*, *Improbatur.*, *Ratio 1.*, *Ratio 2.*, *Augustinus.*, *Opinio 2.*, *Non omnino sufficit.*, *Opinio 3.*, *Luminare dicit duo.*, *Approbatur.*, *Opinio 4.*, *Luna non lucet per se.*, *Quoad 2.*, *Ad obiecta.*, *Ad illud.*, *Coniecturae.*, *Ad 3 obiectiones.*, *Duplex expositio.*, *Expositio 1.*, *Expositio 2.*, *Magis probatur.*, *Duplex motus.*, *Triplex signatio solis.*, *Item lunae.*, *Quaestio incidens.*, *Notandum.* per locked Vol II convention.
- **No `[?]` flags** — all 38 anchors crisp at 450 dpi against the column-band crops.
- **Closes d.14.** The d.14 DUB-LOSS header-audit flag (if firing on the skeleton) should now clear: all four dubia have been ingested with their inline DUB. I/II/III/IV headers preserved.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 15

title_alt: Littera Magistri — De opere quinti et sexti diei et de requie septimi (Cap. I–X).

title_alt: Lombard's text — On the work of the fifth and sixth days and the rest of the seventh (Chapters I–X).

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 370 -->

### DISTINCTIO XV.

### Cap. I. *De opere quinti diei, quo facta sunt natatilia et volatilia.*

Dixit etiam Deus[^1]: *Producant aquae reptile animae viventis et volatile super terram* etc. *Dubium 1.* Opus quinti diei est formatio piscium et avium, quibus duo elementa ornantur; et de eadem materia, id est de aquis, pisces et aves creavit, volatilia levans in aera et natatilia remittens gurgiti.

### Cap. II. *De opere sexti diei, quo creata sunt animalia et reptilia terrae.*

Sequitur: *Dixit Deus: Producat terra animam viventem, iumenta et reptilia et bestias terrae secundum species suas*[^2] etc. *Dubium 2.* Sexti diei opus describitur, cum terra suis animalibus ornari dicitur.

### Cap. III. *De venenosis et noxiis animalibus.*

Quaeri solet « de venenosis et perniciosis animantibus, *Augustinus.* utrum post peccatum hominis ad vindictam creata sint, an potius creata innoxia peccatoribus nocere coeperint. Sane dici potest, quod creata nihil homini nocuissent, si non peccasset; puniendorum namque vitiorum et terrendorum, vel probandae et perficiendae virtutis causa nocere coeperunt. Fuerunt ergo creata innoxia, sed propter peccatum facta sunt noxia[^3] ».

### Cap. IV. *Utrum minima animalia tunc creata fuerint.*

« De quibusdam etiam minutis animantibus quaestio est, *Augustinus.* utrum in primis conditionibus creata sint, an ex rebus corruptis postea orta sint. Pleraque enim de humidorum corporum vitiis, vel exhalationibus terrae, sive de cadaveribus gignuntur; quaedam etiam de corruptione lignorum et herbarum et fructuum; et Deus auctor omnium est. Potest autem dici, quod ea quae de corporibus animalium, maxime mortuorum, nascuntur, cum animalibus creata non fuerint nisi potentialiter et materialiter; ea vero quae ex terra vel aquis nascuntur, vel ex eis, quae terra germinante orta sunt, tunc creata fuisse, non incongrue dici potest[^4] ».

### Cap. V. *Quare post omnia factus est homo.*

Omnibus autem creatis atque dispositis, novissime factus est homo, tanquam dominus et possessor, qui et omnibus praeferendus erat; unde sequitur[^5]: *Vidit Deus, quod esset bonum, et ait: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem* etc. Sed antequam de hominis creatione tractemus, quod supra[^6] breviter tetigimus plenius versantes clarius faciamus. In hac enim rerum distinctione *Dubium 3.* catholici tractatores dissentire, ut supra diximus, inveniuntur, aliis dicentibus, *Opinio 1.* res creatas atque distinctas secundum species suas per intervalla sex dierum: quorum sententiae quia littera Genesis magis inservire videtur atque catholica Ecclesia magis approbat, ideo hactenus studiose docuimus, quomodo ex illa communi materia, prius informiter facta, postea rerum corporalium genera per sex dierum volumina distinctim sint formata.

### Cap. VI. *De sententia illorum qui simul omnia facta esse contendunt.*

Aliis autem videtur, quod non per intervalla *Opinio 2.* temporum facta sint, sed simul ita formata ad esse prodierint. Quod Augustinus super Genesim[^7] pluribus modis *Augustinus.* nititur ostendere dicens, « elementa quatuor ita formata, sicut modo apparent, ab initio exstitisse, et caelum sideribus ornatum fuisse; quaedam vero non forma-

<!-- page 371 -->

liter, sed materialiter tunc facta fuisse, quae post per temporis accessum formaliter distincta sunt, ut herbae, arbores et forte animalia. Omnia ergo in ipso temporis initio facta esse dicunt, sed quaedam *formaliter* et secundum *species,* quas habere cernimus, ut maiores mundi partes, quaedam vero *materialiter tantum* ». Sed, ut dicunt, Moyses, loquens rudi et carnali populo, locutionis modum temperavit, de Deo loquens a simili hominis, qui per moras temporum opera sua perficit, cum ipse simul sua opera *Augustinus.* fecerit. Unde Augustinus: « Ideo, inquit, Moyses divisim refert, Deum illa opera fecisse, quia non potuit simul ab homine dici quod a Deo simul potuit fieri ». Item: « Potuit dividere Scriptura loquendi temporibus quod Deus operandi temporibus non divisit ». Illi qui his auctoritatibus et aliis huiusmodi inhaerentes dicunt, quatuor elementa atque caeli luminaria ita formata simul esse[^8], illos sex dies, quos Scriptura commemorat, sex rerum genera, id est distinctiones appellant, quae simul factae sunt, partim *formaliter,* partim *causaliter.*

### Cap. VII. *Quomodo intelligenda sit requies Dei.*

Iam de septimae diei requie aliquid nos eloqui oportet. Scriptum est, quia *complevit Deus die septimo opus suum... et requievit die septimo ab universo opere, *Augustinus.* quod patrarat*[^9]. « Requievisse dicitur Deus die septimo, non quasi operando lassus, sed ab universo opere requievit, quia novam creaturam facere cessavit. Re- *Dubium 4.* quiescere enim cessare dicitur[^10] ». Unde in Apocalypsi: *Non habebant requiem dicentia: Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus,* id est, dicere non cessabant. Requievisse *Augustinus.* igitur Deus dicitur, quia « cessavit a faciendis generibus creaturae, quia ultra nova non condidit. Usque nunc tamen, ut Veritas in Evangelio ait, operatur Pater cum Filio, scilicet administrationem eorundem generum, quae tunc instituta sunt. Creatoris enim virtus causa subsistendi est omni creaturae. Quod ergo dicitur: *Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor;* illud universae creaturae continuam administrationem ostendit. Die ergo septimo *requievit,* ut novam creaturam ulterius non faceret, cuius materia vel similitudo[^11] non praecesserit; sed *usque nunc operatur,* ut quod condidit continere et gubernare non cesset ».

### Cap. VIII. *Quomodo accipiendum sit, quod dicitur Deus complesse opus suum septimo die, cum tunc quieverit.*

Sed quaeritur, quomodo septimo die dicatur Deus complesse opus suum, cum ab omni opere illo die requieverit nec aliquod genus novum rerum fecerit. « Alia translatio habet: *Consummavit Deus die sexta opera sua;* quae nihil quaestionis affert, quia manifesta sunt quae in eo facta sunt[^12] » et omnium consummatio eo die perfecta est, sicut Scriptura ostendit, cum ait: *Vidit Deus cuncta, quae fecerat, et erant valde bona.*

### Cap. IX. *Quomodo omnia a Deo facta dicantur valde bona.*

« Omnia quidem naturaliter bona erant nilque in sui *Augustinus.* natura vitii habentia. Et sunt bona, quae condidit Deus, etiam *singula;* simul vero universa valde bona, quia ex omnibus consistit universitatis admirabilis pulcritudo », « in qua etiam illud quod malum dicitur, bene ordinatum et loco suo positum, eminentius commendat bona, ut magis placeant et laudabiliora sint, dum comparantur malis ». Sexto ergo die facta est omnium operum consummatio. — Ideo praemissa oritur quaestio, quomodo dicatur Deus die septimo opus suum complesse, quod « Hebraica veritas habet, in quo tamen nihil novum creasse dicitur, nisi forte dicatur die septimo complevisse opus suum, quia ipsum benedixit et sanctificavit », sicut subiicit Scriptura: *Benedixit diei septimo et sanctificavit illum.* « Opus enim est benedictio et sanctificatio, sicut Salomon aliquid operis fecit, cum templum dedicavit ».

### Cap. X. *De sanctificatione septimi diei.*

Illum autem diem sanctificasse et benedixisse dicitur, *Dubium 5.* quia mystica prae ceteris benedictione et sanctificatione eum donavit. Unde in Lege dicitur: *Memento sanctificare diem sabbati.* Et inde est, quod numerando dies usque ad septimum procedimus et *Dubium 6.* dicimus, septem esse dies, quorum repetitione omne

<!-- page 372 -->

tempus agitur; non quia alius sit ab illis dies octavus et nonus, et sic de ceteris, sed quia in sex diebus rerum genera distincta sunt, et in septimo, licet non fuerit novum genus rerum institutum, tamen fuit in eo quasi quidam novus status sanctificationis operum et requietionis opificis. Potest etiam sic exponi illud: *Complevit Deus die septimo opus suum,* id est, completum et consummatum vidit.

---

english:
<!-- page 370 -->

### DISTINCTION XV.

### Cap. I. *On the work of the fifth day, on which the swimming and flying creatures were made.*

God also said[^1]: *Let the waters bring forth the creeping thing of living soul and that which flies above the earth* etc. *Dubium 1.* The work of the fifth day is the formation of fishes and birds, by which two elements are adorned; and from the same matter, that is, from the waters, he created fishes and birds, lifting the flying things into the air and entrusting the swimming things to the deep.

### Cap. II. *On the work of the sixth day, on which the animals and reptiles of the earth were created.*

There follows: *God said: Let the earth bring forth the living soul, cattle and reptiles and beasts of the earth according to their kinds*[^2] etc. *Dubium 2.* The work of the sixth day is described, when the earth is said to be adorned with its animals.

### Cap. III. *On venomous and noxious animals.*

It is accustomed to be asked « concerning venomous and pernicious living creatures, *Augustine.* whether they were created after the sin of man for vengeance, or rather were created harmless and began to harm sinners. Indeed it can be said that, [though] created, they would have done no harm to man if he had not sinned; for they began to harm for the punishing and terrifying of vices, or for the proving and perfecting of virtue. They were therefore created harmless, but on account of sin they became noxious[^3] ».

### Cap. IV. *Whether the smallest animals were then created.*

« Concerning certain minute living things also there is a question, *Augustine.* whether they were created in the first foundings, or sprang up afterward from corrupted things. For most are generated from defects of moist bodies, or from exhalations of the earth, or from cadavers; and some also from the corruption of woods and herbs and fruits; and God is the author of all. It can however be said that those which are born from the bodies of animals, especially from dead ones, were not created with the animals except potentially and materially; but those which are born from the earth or the waters, or from those things which sprang from the earth's germinating, can not incongruously be said to have been then created[^4] ».

### Cap. V. *Why man was made after all things.*

When all things, however, had been created and disposed, last of all man was made, as lord and possessor, who was also to be set before all things; whence there follows[^5]: *God saw that it was good, and said: Let us make man to our image* etc. But before we treat of the creation of man, let us, by turning over more fully what we touched on briefly above[^6], make it more clear. For in this distinction of things, *Dubium 3.* the Catholic commentators are found to disagree, as we said above, with some saying *Opinion 1.* that things were created and distinguished according to their species through the intervals of six days. Since the opinion of these seems rather to serve the letter of Genesis and the Catholic Church rather approves it, therefore up to now we have diligently taught how, from that common matter, first made formlessly, afterward the kinds of corporeal things were distinctly formed through the courses of six days.

### Cap. VI. *On the opinion of those who contend that all things were made simultaneously.*

But to others it seems that they were not made through *Opinion 2.* intervals of time, but that, simultaneously so formed, they came forth into being. Augustine on Genesis[^7] strives to show this in several ways, *Augustine.* saying: « The four elements, formed as they now appear, existed from the beginning, and the heaven was adorned with stars; but certain things were then made not for-

<!-- page 371 -->

mally, but materially, which afterward, through the passage of time, were distinguished formally — as herbs, trees, and perhaps animals. Therefore they say that all things were made in the very beginning of time, but some *formally* and according to the *species* which we see them to have, as the larger parts of the world, but others only *materially* ». But, as they say, Moses, speaking to a rude and carnal people, tempered the manner of speech, speaking of God after the likeness of a man who through the delays of time completes his works, although he himself made his works simultaneously. *Augustine.* Whence Augustine: « Therefore, he says, Moses reports divisively that God made those works, because what could be done simultaneously by God could not be said simultaneously by a man ». Likewise: « Scripture could divide by the times of speaking what God did not divide by the times of working ». Those who, adhering to these authorities and others of this kind, say that the four elements and the luminaries of heaven were so formed simultaneously[^8], call those six days, which Scripture commemorates, six *kinds* of things — that is, *distinctions* — which were made simultaneously, partly *formally,* partly *causally.*

### Cap. VII. *How the rest of God is to be understood.*

Now we must speak something about the rest of the seventh day. It is written that *God completed his work on the seventh day... and he rested on the seventh day from every work which he had wrought*[^9]. *Augustine.* « God is said to have rested on the seventh day, not as if wearied by working, but he rested from every work, because he ceased to make a new creature. *Dubium 4.* For *to rest* is said [to mean] to cease[^10] ». Hence in the Apocalypse: *They had no rest, saying: Holy, holy, holy* — that is, they did not cease to say so. *Augustine.* Therefore God is said to have rested, because « he ceased from making kinds of creature, since he founded no new ones beyond [those]. Yet even now, as the Truth says in the Gospel, the Father works together with the Son, namely the administration of the same kinds which were then instituted. For the power of the Creator is the cause of subsistence for every creature. Therefore that which is said: *My Father works even until now, and I work,* shows the continuous administration of the whole creature. On the seventh day, therefore, *he rested,* so that he might no longer make a new creature whose matter or likeness[^11] had not preceded; but *he works even until now,* so that he may not cease to contain and govern what he founded ».

### Cap. VIII. *How it is to be understood that God is said to have completed his work on the seventh day, when then he rested.*

But it is asked how God is said on the seventh day to have completed his work, when on that day he rested from every work and made no new kind of things. « Another translation has: *God consummated his works on the sixth day;* which raises no question, since the things which were done on it are manifest[^12] »; and on that day the consummation of all things was perfected, as Scripture shows, when it says: *God saw all the things which he had made, and they were very good.*

### Cap. IX. *How all things made by God are called very good.*

« All things indeed were naturally good, having nothing of vice in their nature. *Augustine.* And the things which God founded are good, even *singly;* but at the same time the universe taken together [is] very good, because from all of them consists the admirable beauty of the totality », « in which even that which is called evil, being well ordered and placed in its place, more eminently commends the good things, so that they may more please and be more praiseworthy, while they are compared with evils ». On the sixth day, therefore, the consummation of all the works was made. — Hence the foregoing question arises: how is God said on the seventh day to have completed his work, which « the Hebrew truth has, in which however he is said to have created nothing new, unless perhaps it be said that on the seventh day he completed his work because he blessed and sanctified it itself », as Scripture adds: *He blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.* « For blessing and sanctification is a work, just as Solomon did a certain work when he dedicated the temple ».

### Cap. X. *On the sanctification of the seventh day.*

But he is said to have sanctified and blessed that day, *Dubium 5.* because by a mystical blessing and sanctification beyond the others he endowed it. Whence in the Law it is said: *Remember to sanctify the day of the sabbath.* And from that it is, that, numbering the days up to the seventh, we proceed and say *Dubium 6.* that there are seven days, by whose repetition all

<!-- page 372 -->

time is reckoned; not because the eighth day is some other than these, and the ninth, and so of the rest, but because in six days the kinds of things were distinguished, and in the seventh, although there was no new kind of things instituted, yet there was in it, as it were, a certain new state of the sanctification of the works and of the rest of the Maker. It can also be expounded thus: *God completed his work on the seventh day,* that is, he saw it completed and consummated.

---

la: Gen. 1, 20. Quae sequuntur sunt ex Ambros., V. *Hexaem.* c. 2. 3. Cod. Erf. citat hic Gandolphum, *Sent.* II. c. 66.

en: Gen. 1:20. What follows is from Ambrose, *Hexaemeron* V, c. 2–3. Codex Erf. here cites Gandulph, *Sentences* II c. 66.

la: Gen. 1, 24. Vulgata: *viventem in genere suo, iumenta* etc.

en: Gen. 1:24. The Vulgate [reads]: *living [thing] in its kind, cattle,* etc.

la: August., III. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 15. n. 24, et est etiam in *Glossa ordinaria* ad hunc locum.

en: Augustine, *On Genesis to the Letter* III c. 15 n. 24, and is also found in the *Ordinary Gloss* on this passage.

la: August., ibid. c. 14. n. 22. 23, sententialiter. Habetur etiam in *Glossa ordinaria.*

en: Augustine, ibid. c. 14 nn. 22–23, paraphrastically. It is also found in the *Ordinary Gloss.*

la: Dist. XII. c. 2.

en: Distinction XII, c. 2.

la: Libr. IV. c. 32. n. 49. 50; V. c. 4. 5; sententialiter. Sequens locus est ibid. l. c. 10. n. 19, c. 15. n. 29, ubi est etiam tertius locus, et teste cod. Erf. habetur apud Gandolphum et Hugonem.

en: [Augustine, *On Genesis to the Letter*] Bk. IV c. 32 nn. 49–50; Bk. V c. 4–5; paraphrastically. The following passage is in the same book c. 10 n. 19, c. 15 n. 29, where the third passage also [is found]; and according to the witness of codex Erf. it is found in Gandulph and Hugh.

la: Post *simul esse,* codd., excepto cod. D, cum edd. addunt *non bene et habuisse.*

en: After *simul esse,* the codices — except codex D — together with the editions add *non bene et habuisse* ("not well and to have had").

la: August., IV. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 8. n. 13; seq. locus c. 12. n. 22, sententialiter, sed in *Glossa ord.* ad hunc locum magna ex parte ad verbum. Locus Apoc. est 4, 8. — Sequens locus s. Scripturae est Ioan. 5, 17. Vulgata: *Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor.*

en: Augustine, *On Genesis to the Letter* IV c. 8 n. 13; the following passage c. 12 n. 22, paraphrastically, but in the *Ordinary Gloss* on this passage in large part word-for-word. The Apocalypse passage is 4:8. — The following passage of sacred Scripture is John 5:17. The Vulgate [reads]: *My Father works even until now, and I work.*

la: Hic cod. Erf. annotat: *Similitudo non est ibi nec in Glossa.*

en: Here codex Erf. notes: *Similitudo* is not there nor in the *Gloss.*

la: *Glossa ordinaria* ad Gen. 2, 2. — S. August. (IV. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 10. n. 20.) legit: *Consummavit Deus in die sexto opera sua.* Sequens locus s. Scripturae est Gen. 1, 31.

en: *Ordinary Gloss* on Gen. 2:2. — St. Augustine (*On Genesis to the Letter* IV c. 10 n. 20) reads: *God consummated his works on the sixth day.* The following passage of sacred Scripture is Gen. 1:31.

translators_notes:
- Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column-band crops `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p{370,371,372}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. d.15 opens at p.370 L band 1 (`Dixit etiam Deus¹: Producant aquae reptile...`) and the littera tail closes at p.372 L–R band 0 (`completum et consummatum vidit.`) immediately before the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV.` header. Vol II offset PDF = printed + 22.
- 12 apparatus entries: p.370 footer NOTAE 1–4 → `[^1]`–`[^4]`; p.371 footer NOTAE 1–8 → `[^5]`–`[^12]`. p.372 carries no littera-side footer (the page above-the-line is COMMENTARIUS).
- **d.15 has NO pars split.** Running heads across the d.15 commentary are `DIST. XV. ART. I. QUAEST. I/II/III.` and `DIST. XV. ART. II. QUAEST. I/II/III.` — no `P. I.` / `P. II.` ever appears. The d.15 chunk inventory therefore proceeds: `d15-littera` → `d15-divisio` → `d15-a1-q1` → `d15-a1-q2` → `d15-a1-q3` → `d15-a2-q1` → `d15-a2-q2` → `d15-dubia` (no `d15-p1-*` or `d15-p2-*`).
- **Cross-chunk forward hand-offs:** p.370 footer NOTA 1 (`Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 52. m. 2. a. 2; B. Albert., II. Sent. d. 15. a. 4; S. p. II. tr. 11. q. 58; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 5. seqq.`) sits *above* the dividing line on p.370 L band 2 — it is a Bonaventure-side commentator-list note anchored in the closing of `d14-p2-dubia` and is already captured there as `[^38]`. No forward hand-off to `d15-divisio` from this page. p.372 carries only the *COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV.* opener (`Supra egit Magister de productione rerum insensibilium...`), which is the body of `d15-divisio`; the first commentary-side footer (`Vat. simplicium et insensibilium.` etc.) belongs to `d15-divisio`.
- Marginal labels preserved inline per locked Vol II convention: *Dubium 1.* (Cap. I), *Dubium 2.* (Cap. II), *Augustinus.* (×4, Cap. III, IV, VI, VII×2, IX), *Dubium 3.* + *Opinio 1.* (Cap. V), *Opinio 2.* (Cap. VI), *Dubium 4.* (Cap. VII), *Dubium 5.* + *Dubium 6.* (Cap. X). No marginal *Dubium* numbering reset (the d.14 Pars II *Dubium 1/2/3* reset ambiguity does not recur in d.15 — the Dubium glosses here run 1 → 6 continuously).
- No `[?]` flags. All 12 apparatus anchors and all marginal labels crisp at 450 dpi.

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. 15, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XV. De productione mixtorum et sensibilium sive animalium.

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XV. On the production of mixed things and of sensible things, that is, animals.

source_text:
<!-- page 372 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV.

### *De productione mixtorum et sensibilium sive animalium.*

*Dixit etiam Deus: Producant aquae reptile etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de productione rerum insensibilium[^1], in hac parte agit de productione mixtorum et sensibilium, ut animalium. Et quoniam ad animalium productionem facta est universitatis completio, et ad completionem sequitur ab opere cessatio; ideo ista pars habet tres partes. In prima agit de sensibilium productione; in secunda vero de divinorum operum perfectione, ibi: *Omnibus autem his creatis atque dispositis* etc. In tertia agit de septimae diei requietione, ibi: *Iam de septimae diei requie aliquid loqui oportet* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima determinat de productione animalium ex aquis; in secunda de productione animalium ex terra, ibi: *Sequitur: Dixit Deus: Producat terra* etc. In qua parte primo determinat veritatem, deinde solvit dubitationem[^2]. Similiter secunda pars, in qua determinat de operum divinorum consummatione, habet duas. In prima ostendit, qualiter in productione hominis facta est et consummata distinctio rerum. In secunda vero circa eandem distinctionem explicat diversas sententias catholicorum tractatorum, ibi: *In hac enim rerum distinctione catholici tractatores* etc. Similiter tertia pars habet duas. In prima veritatem explicat; in secunda quaestionem movet et determinat, ibi: *Sed quaeritur, quomodo septimo die dicatur Deus* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis incidit hic quaestio circa duo.

Et primo quaeritur, utrum sensibilia sive animalia facta sint.

Secundo quaeritur, quo ordine facta sint.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum sensibilia quantum ad animam sint producta ex aliquo, vel ex nihilo.

Secundo quaeritur quantum ad corpora, utrum producta sint ex quatuor elementis, an ex uno.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum in eorum compositione activa praedominentur passivis, an e contrario.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XV.

### *On the production of mixed things and of sensible things, that is, animals.*

*God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the production of insensible things[^1]; in this part he treats of the production of mixed and sensible things, that is, of animals. And since by the production of animals the completion of the universe was accomplished, and upon completion there follows rest from work, this part therefore has three parts. In the first he treats of the production of sensible things; in the second, of the perfection of the divine works, there: *But when all these had been created and arranged* etc. In the third he treats of the rest of the seventh day, there: *Now concerning the rest of the seventh day something must be said* etc.

The first part has two [subdivisions]. In the first he determines about the production of animals from the waters; in the second, about the production of animals from the earth, there: *There follows: God said: Let the earth bring forth* etc. In which part he first determines the truth, then resolves a doubt[^2]. Likewise the second part, in which he determines about the consummation of the divine works, has two. In the first he shows in what way, in the production of man, the distinction of things was accomplished and consummated. In the second, however, concerning that same distinction he sets forth the various opinions of the Catholic commentators, there: *For in this distinction of things the Catholic commentators* etc. Likewise the third part has two. In the first he sets forth the truth; in the second he raises and determines a question, there: *But it is asked, in what way on the seventh day God is said* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part a question falls here concerning two matters.

And first it is asked, whether sensible things, that is, animals, have been made.

Second it is asked, in what order they have been made.

Concerning the first, three [questions] are asked.

First it is asked, whether sensible things, with respect to the soul, have been produced from something, or from nothing.

Second it is asked, with respect to the body, whether they have been produced from the four elements, or from one.

Third it is asked, whether in their composition the active [qualities] predominate over the passive, or the contrary.

---

la: Vat. *simplicium et insensibilium.*

en: The Vatican edition reads *of simple and insensible things.*

la: Vat. *dubitationes duas. Unam, ibi: Quaeri solet de venenosis. Aliam, ibi: De quibusdam etiam minutis.*

en: The Vatican edition reads *two doubts. The one, there: It is wont to be asked concerning venomous animals. The other, there: Concerning certain minute animals also.* ---

translators_notes:
- **Page 372** is shared with the close of *d15-littera* (top of L column) and the opening of *d15-a1-q1* (ARTICULUS 1. QUAESTIO 1. begins at L column band 2). The *COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV.* opener and the full DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM sit in the lower half of L column and across R column, with `ARTICULUS 1.` opening at the foot of L column and `QUAESTIO I.` continuing into R column band 2.
- **Cross-chunk footer split (p.372 commentary side):** the p.372 commentary-side footer carries notes ¹–⁴ (renumbered restart from the littera footer above). Body anchors: ¹ `productione rerum insensibilium¹` in DIVISIO TEXTUS (this chunk) → `[^1]`; ² `solvit dubitationem²` in DIVISIO TEXTUS (this chunk) → `[^2]`; ³ `textum Scripturae³` in d15-a1-q1 Fundamenta arg. 1 → migrates to `d15-a1-q1`; ⁴ `de Animalibus decimo sexto⁴` in d15-a1-q1 arg. 2 → migrates to `d15-a1-q1`. Prior chunk (`d15-littera`) flagged footer ¹ as belonging here; footer ² also anchors here (both belong to divisio). No `[?]` flags at 450 dpi — both anchor positions crisp.
- **d.15 has no pars split** — running heads read `DIST. XV. ART. I/II.` throughout (no `P. I.` / `P. II.`). Chunk-id convention therefore drops the `-p{1|2}-` segment.
- The *COMMENTARIUS* opener title block (`De productione mixtorum et sensibilium sive animalium.` + the Scripture pericope *Dixit etiam Deus: Producant aquae reptile etc.*) is preserved here as the divisio's own opener; the parallel `Dixit etiam Deus: Producant aquae reptile etc.` Scripture pericope is the *thema* for the whole d.15 commentary.