title: Dist. 13

title_alt: Littera Magistri: De generali informatione materiae per formam communem lucis

title_alt: Lombard's text: On the general informing of matter through the common form of light

source_text:
<!-- page 308 -->

### DISTINCTIO XIII.

### Cap. I.

*De primo distinctionis opere.*

Prima autem distinctionis operatio fuit formatio lucis, sicut ostendit Scriptura[^1], quae, commemorata rerum informitate, earum dispositionem a luce inchoavit subdens: *Dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est lux; et divisit lucem a tenebris, appellavitque lucem diem, et tenebras noctem. Et factum est vespere et mane, dies unus.* « Congrue mundi ornatus a luce incepit, unde cetera, quae creanda erant, viderentur ».

### Cap. II.

*De luce facta primo die, si spiritualis, an corporalis fuerit.*

Si quaeritur, qualis illa lux fuerit, *corporalis* scilicet, an *spiritualis*; id respondemus quod a Sanctis legimus traditum. — *Opinio 1.* Dicit enim Augustinus[^2], quia lux

<!-- page 309 -->

illa *corporalis*, vel *spiritualis* intelligi potest. Si *spiritualis* accipitur, angelica natura intelligitur, quae prius informis fuit, sed postea formata est, cum ad Creatorem suum conversa, ei caritate adhaesit, cuius informitatis creatio superius[^3] significata est, ubi dictum est: *In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram.* Hic vero eiusdem formatio ostenditur, cum ait: *Fiat lux, et facta est lux.* Haec ergo angelica natura prius tenebrae et postea lux fuit, quia prius habuit informitatem et imperfectionem, deinde formationis perfectionem; et ita divisit Deus lucem a tenebris. Nam, ut ait Augustinus super Genesim[^4]: « *Huius creaturae informitas et imperfectio fuit, antequam formaretur in amore Conditoris. Formata vero est, quando conversa est ad incommutabile lumen Verbi* ». — *Opinio 2.* Si vero *corporalis* fuit lux illa, quod utique probabile est, corpus lucidum fuisse intelligitur, velut lucida nubes, quod non de nihilo, sed de praeiacenti materia formaliter factum est, ut lux esset et vim lucendi haberet; cum qua dies prima exorta est, quia ante lucem nec dies fuit nec nox, licet tempus fuerit.

### Cap. III.

*Ubi facta fuerit.*

Si autem quaeritur: ubi facta est lux illa, cum abyssus omnem terrae altitudinem tegeret? dici potest in illis partibus facta, quas nunc illustrat solis diurna lux. Nec mirum, lucem in aquis posse lucere, cum etiam nautarum operatione saepius illustrentur, qui in profundum mersi, misso ex ore oleo[^5] aquas sibi illustrant; quae multo rariores fuerunt in principio, quam modo sunt, quia nondum congregatae fuerant in uno loco. Facta ergo lux illa vicem[^6] et locum solis tenebat, quae motu suo circumagitata, noctem diemque discernebat. Ibi ergo primum lucem apparuisse verisimile est, ubi sol quotidiano cursu circumvectus apparet, ut eodem tramite lux circumcurrens ac primo ad occasum descendens, vesperam faceret, deinde revocata ad ortum, auroram, id est mane illustraret; et ita divisit Deus lucem et tenebras et appellavit *lucem diem*, et *tenebras noctem*.

### Cap. IV.

*Quibus modis accipitur dies.*

Hic notandum est, quod *dies* diversis modis accipitur in Scriptura. Dicitur[^7] enim *dies* lux illa, quae illo triduo tenebras illuminabat, et dicitur *dies* illuminatio ipsa aëris. Dicitur etiam *dies* spatium viginti quatuor horarum, qualiter accipitur, cum ait: *Factum est vespere et mane, dies unus.* Quod ita distinguendum est: factum est vespere prius, et postea mane, et ita fuit dies unus expletus viginti quatuor horarum, dies scilicet *naturalis*, qui habuit vesperam, sed non *mane*. Mane enim dicitur finis praecedentis et initium sequentis diei, quod est aurora, quae nec plenam lucem nec omnino tenebras habet. Mane ergo primus dies non habuit, quia nec dies praecesserat, qui sequentis diei initio terminaretur, et eo praecipue, quia luce apparente, mox super terram plenus atque praeclarus dies exstitit, qui non ab aurora, sed a plena luce inchoavit et mane sequentis diei consummatus est. Unde Beda super Genesim[^8]: « *Decebat, ut dies a luce inciperet et in mane sequentis diei tenderet, ut opera Dei a luce inchoasse et in lucem completa esse significarentur* ». Reliqui autem dies *mane* habuerunt et *vesperam*, quorum quisque, a suo *mane* incipiens, usque ad alterius diei *mane* tendebatur.

### Cap. V.

*De naturali ordine computationis dierum, et de illo qui pro mysterio introductus est.*

Hic est naturalis ordo distinctionis dierum, ut distinguantur atque computentur dies a mane usque ad mane. Postea vero *in mysterio* factum est[^9], ut dies computentur a vespera in vesperam, et adiungatur dies praecedenti nocti in computatione, cum iuxta naturalem ordinem praecedens dies sequenti nocti adiungi debeat, quia homo a luce per peccatum corruit in tenebras ignorantiae et peccatorum, deinde per Christum a tenebris ad lucem rediit. Unde Apostolus: *Eramus aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in Domino.* Primus itaque dies non ab aurora, sed a plena luce incipiens, et post paulatim vesperam, occidente luce, excipiens, mane sequentis diei expletus est. Unde Beda[^10]: « *Occidente luce paulatim et post spatium divinae longitudinis inferiores partes subeunte, factum est vespere, sicut nunc usitato cursu solis fieri solet. Factum est autem mane, eadem super terram redeunte et alium diem inchoante; et dies expletus est unus viginti quatuor horarum. Fuitque nox illo triduo omnino tenebrosa, quae post creata sidera aliqua luce claruit* ».

*Quaestio incidens.* Solet autem quaeri, quare factus est sol, si lux illa diei sufficiebat. Ad quod dici potest, quod illa lux forte superiores partes illustrabat, et ad illuminationem inferiorum solem fieri oportebat; vel potius ideo, quia, facto sole, diei fulgor auctus est. Amplior enim multo luce radiavit dies postea quam ante. — *Dubium 2.* Si vero quaeritur, quid de illa luce factum sit, cum modo non appareat; potest dici, aut de ea corpus solis formatum, aut in ea parte caeli esse, in qua sol est, non quod ipsa sit sol, sed sic ei unita, ut discerni non valeat[^11].

### Cap. VI.

*De intelligentia horum verborum: Dixit Deus.*

Praeterea investigandum est, quomodo accipiendum sit quod ait: *Dixit Deus*, utrum *temporaliter* vel *sono vocis* illud dixerit, an *alio modo*. *Dubium 3.* Augustinus super Genesim[^12] tradit, nec *temporaliter* nec *sono vocis* Deum fuisse locutum; quia si *temporaliter*, et mutabiliter; et si *corporaliter* dicatur sonuisse vox Dei, nec lingua erat, qua loqueretur, nec erat quem oporteret audire et intelligere. Bene ergo vox Dei ad naturam Verbi, per quod omnia facta sunt, refertur. Dixit ergo Deus: *Fiat* etc. non *temporaliter*, non *sono vocis*, sed in Verbo sibi coaeterno, id est, Verbum genuit intemporaliter, in quo erat et disposuit ab aeterno, ut fieret in tempore, et in eo factum est.

<!-- page 310 -->

### Cap. VII.

*Ex quo sensu Pater dicitur operari in Filio, vel per Filium, vel in Spiritu sancto.*

Hic quaeri solet, quomodo accipiendum sit quod dicitur *Pater operari in Filio*, vel *per Filium*, vel *in Spiritu sancto*. Haec enim Scriptura frequenter nobis proponit, ut illud: « *Omnia in sapientia fecisti, Domine* »[^13], id est « *in Filio*[^14] ». Et: « *In principio*, id est *in Filio*, *creavit Deus caelum et terram* ». Et illud: *Per quem fecit et saecula.* Super illum quoque Psalmi locum: *Verbo Domini caeli firmati sunt* etc. dicit Augustinus, quod « Pater operatur per *Verbum* suum et *Spiritum sanctum* ». Quomodo ergo hoc accipiendum est? — *Opinio haeretica.* Putaverunt quidam haeretici, quod Pater velut auctor et artifex Filio et Spiritu sancto in rerum operatione quasi instrumento uteretur, ex praedictis verbis errandi occasionem sumentes; quod velut blasphemum atque sanae doctrinae adversum abiicit pia fides. — *Expositio 1 catholica.* Non est itaque intelligendum, ideo Scripturam frequenter commemorare *Patrem operari in Filio*, vel *per Filium*, tanquam Filius non posset facere, si ei non porrexisset Pater dexteram, vel tanquam aliquod instrumentum fuerit Patris operantis; sed potius illis verbis Patrem intelligi voluit cum Filio et Spiritu sancto operari et sine eis nihil facere.

*Obiicitur.* Sed dicit haereticus, hac ratione posset dixisse Filium *operari per Patrem* vel *in Patre*, et Spiritum sanctum cum utroque vel per utrumque, quia Filius cum Patre, et Spiritus sanctus cum utroque operatur. — *Solutio.* Cui breviter respondetur, ideo illud dictum esse et non istud, ut in Patre monstraretur auctoritas[^15]. Non enim Pater a Filio, sed Filius a Patre operatur, et Spiritus sanctus ab utroque. Ideoque Filius etiam per Spiritum sanctum legitur operari, quia cum Spiritu sancto operatur, hoc ipsum a Filio habente, ut operetur. — *Expositio 2.* Potest et aliter illud accipi, ut dicatur *Pater in Filio* vel *per Filium operari*, quia eum genuit omnium opificem, sicut dicitur *per eum iudicare*, quia genuit iudicem; ita et per Spiritum sanctum dicitur operari, sive Pater, sive Filius, quia ab utroque procedit Spiritus sanctus, factor omnium. Unde Ioannes *Chrysostomus* in expositione Epistolae ad Hebraeos[^16] sic ait: « *Non ut haereticus inaniter suspicatur, tanquam aliquod instrumentum Patris exstiterit Filius; neque per eum Pater dicitur fecisse, tanquam ipse facere non posset; sed sicut dicitur Pater iudicare per Filium, quia iudicem genuit, sic etiam dicitur operari per Filium, quia eum constat opificem genuisse. Si enim causa eius Pater est, secundum quod Pater est, multo amplius eorum causa est, quae per Filium facta sunt* ». — Haec de opere primae diei dicta sunt.

---

english:
## *Distinction XIII. Lombard's text.*

### DISTINCTION XIII.

### Cap. I.

*On the first work of distinction.*

Now the first operation of distinction was the formation of light, as Scripture shows[^1], which, after recalling the unformedness of things, began their arrangement from light, subjoining: *God said: Let there be light, and there was light; and He divided the light from the darknesses, and called the light Day, and the darknesses Night. And evening and morning were made, one day.* «Fittingly the adornment of the world began from light, whence the other things which were to be created might be seen».

### Cap. II.

*On the light made on the first day — whether it was spiritual or corporeal.*

If it is asked of what kind that light was, namely *corporeal* or *spiritual*: we answer what we read handed down by the Saints. — *Opinion 1.* For Augustine says[^2] that that light can be understood [either as] *corporeal* or [as] *spiritual*. If it is taken as *spiritual*, the angelic nature is understood, which was previously unformed but afterwards formed, when, turned to its Creator, it clung to Him by charity — the creation of which unformedness was signified above[^3], where it was said: *In the beginning God created heaven and earth.* And here the formation of the same is shown, when He says: *Let there be light, and there was light.* So therefore the angelic nature was first darkness and afterwards light, because it first had unformedness and imperfection, then the perfection of formation; and so God divided the light from the darknesses. For, as Augustine says on Genesis[^4]: «*This creature's unformedness and imperfection was before it was formed in the love of its Maker. But it has been formed, when it has been turned to the immutable light of the Word*». — *Opinion 2.* But if that light was *corporeal* — which is indeed probable — it is understood to have been a luminous body, like a bright cloud, which was made formally not from nothing but from preexistent matter, so that it might be light and have the power of giving light; with which the first day arose, since before light there was neither day nor night, although there was time.

### Cap. III.

*Where it was made.*

But if it is asked where that light was made, since the deep covered the whole height of the earth: it can be said to have been made in those parts which the daily light of the sun now illumines. Nor is it any wonder that light can shine in waters, since [waters] are often even illumined by the work of sailors, who, plunged in the deep, illumine the waters about themselves with oil[^5] sent out from the mouth; which [waters] were much rarer in the beginning than they now are, because they had not yet been gathered into one place. Therefore that light was made and held the office[^6] and place of the sun, which, agitated by its motion, distinguished night and day. There, therefore, it is likely that light first appeared, where the sun, carried round by its daily course, appears — so that the light, running round by the same track, and first descending to the setting, made evening; then, recalled to its rising, illumined the dawn, that is the morning; and thus God divided light and darknesses and called the *light Day* and the *darknesses Night*.

### Cap. IV.

*In what modes "day" is taken.*

Here it must be noted that *day* is taken in diverse modes in Scripture. For *day* is said[^7] of that light which during that three-day span illumined the darknesses, and *day* is said of the very illumination of the air. *Day* is also said of the space of twenty-four hours, in which sense it is taken when it says: *Evening and morning were made, one day.* Which must be distinguished thus: evening was made first, and afterwards morning, and so one day, completed in twenty-four hours, was made — namely a *natural* day, which had evening but not *morning*. For *morning* is said of the end of the preceding day and the beginning of the following one, which is dawn, which has neither full light nor entire darkness. Therefore the first day did not have morning, because no day had preceded which would have been terminated at the beginning of the following day; and especially because, with light appearing, then full and most bright day stood over the earth — [a day] which began not from dawn but from full light and was consummated at the morning of the following day. Hence Bede on Genesis[^8]: «*It was fitting that the day should begin from light and tend to the morning of the next day, so that the works of God might be signified as having begun from light and as being completed in light*». But the remaining days had *morning* and *evening*, each of which, beginning from its own *morning*, was extended up to the morning of another day.

### Cap. V.

*On the natural order of the computation of days, and on the [order] which was introduced for the mystery.*

This is the natural order of the distinction of days, that days be distinguished and computed from morning to morning. But afterwards it was done *in mystery*[^9], that days be computed from evening to evening, and that the day be joined to the preceding night in the computation — although, according to the natural order, the preceding day ought to be joined to the following night — because man fell from light by sin into the darknesses of ignorance and of sins, and then through Christ returned from the darknesses to the light. Hence the Apostle: *We were once darkness, but now [we are] light in the Lord.* Thus the first day, beginning not from dawn but from full light, and then gradually receiving evening as the light went down, was completed at the morning of the next day. Hence Bede[^10]: «*With the light going down gradually and after a space of divine length passing under the lower parts, evening was made, just as it is now wont to be done by the customary course of the sun. But morning was made when the same [light] was returning over the earth and inaugurating another day; and the day was completed as one of twenty-four hours. And the night for that three-day span was wholly tenebrous, which afterwards, with the stars created, shone with some light*».

*An incidental question.* But it is wont to be asked why the sun was made, if that light of the day sufficed. To which it can be said that perhaps that light illumined the upper parts, and the sun had to be made for the illumination of the lower; or rather for this reason: because, with the sun made, the brightness of the day was increased. For with a much greater light did the day shine afterwards than before. — *A second doubt.* But if it is asked what became of that light, since it does not now appear: it can be said either that the body of the sun was formed from it, or that it is in that part of the heaven in which the sun is — not as if it were itself the sun, but so united to it that it cannot be discerned[^11].

### Cap. VI.

*On the understanding of these words: God said.*

Furthermore it must be investigated how it is to be taken when He says: *God said* — whether He spoke that *temporally* or *with the sound of a voice*, or *in some other mode*. *A third doubt.* Augustine on Genesis[^12] hands down that God spoke neither *temporally* nor *with the sound of a voice*; because if [He had spoken] *temporally*, [He would have spoken] also *mutably*; and if the voice of God is said to have sounded *corporeally*, neither was there a tongue with which to speak, nor was there anyone whom it behooved to hear and understand. Well therefore is the voice of God referred to the nature of the Word, through which all things are made. Therefore God said: *Let there be* etc., not *temporally*, not *with the sound of a voice*, but in the Word coeternal to Himself — that is, He begot the Word intemporally, in whom He was and from eternity disposed that it should come to be in time, and in Him [the Word] it was done.

### Cap. VII.

*In what sense the Father is said to operate in the Son, or through the Son, or in the Holy Spirit.*

It is wont here to be asked how it is to be taken when it is said that *the Father operates in the Son*, or *through the Son*, or *in the Holy Spirit*. For Scripture frequently proposes this to us, as that: «*Thou hast made all things in wisdom, O Lord*»[^13], that is «*in the Son*[^14]». And: «*In the beginning*, that is *in the Son*, *God created heaven and earth*». And that: *Through whom He also made the ages.* Likewise on that locus of the Psalm: *By the word of the Lord the heavens were established* etc., Augustine says that «the Father operates through His *Word* and *Holy Spirit*». How then is this to be taken? — *A heretical opinion.* Certain heretics have supposed that the Father, as it were as author and craftsman, used the Son and the Holy Spirit in the operation of things as it were as an instrument, taking from the aforesaid words an occasion of error — which pious faith rejects as blasphemous and contrary to sound doctrine. — *Catholic exposition 1.* Therefore it is not to be understood that Scripture so frequently mentions *the Father operating in the Son* or *through the Son* as if the Son could not act unless the Father stretched out His right hand to Him, or as if [the Son] were a sort of instrument of the operating Father; but rather that by those words it willed that the Father be understood as operating *with* the Son and Holy Spirit and as doing nothing without them.

*An objection.* But the heretic says: on this account it could have been said that the Son *operates through the Father* or *in the Father*, and the Holy Spirit with each or through each, because the Son operates with the Father, and the Holy Spirit with each. — *Solution.* To which it is briefly replied: that [the former] was said and not the latter, so that the principle [of action] might be shown in the Father[^15]. For the Father does not [operate] from the Son, but the Son operates from the Father, and the Holy Spirit from both. And thus the Son is also read to operate through the Holy Spirit, because He operates with the Holy Spirit, [the Holy Spirit] having this very thing from the Son, that he should operate. — *Exposition 2.* That [phrase] can also be taken otherwise, so that the Father is said to *operate in the Son* or *through the Son*, because He begot Him as the maker of all — as one is said to *judge through Him*, because [the Father] begot the judge; so also [the Father] is said, or the Son, to operate through the Holy Spirit, because from both proceeds the Holy Spirit, the maker of all. Hence John *Chrysostom* in his exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews[^16] thus says: «*Not as the heretic vainly suspects, as though the Son had stood forth as some instrument of the Father; nor is the Father said to have made [things] through Him as though He Himself could not have made [them]; but, as the Father is said to judge through the Son, because He begot the judge, so also He is said to operate through the Son, because He is known to have begotten Him as maker. For if the Father is the cause of Him, according as He is Father, much more is He the cause of those things which have been made through the Son*». — These things have been said concerning the work of the first day.

---

la: Gen. 1, 3. seqq. — Teste cod. Erf., haec et seqq. usque ad cap. 7. sumta sunt ex Gandolpho, II. Sent. c. 54. 56. Propositio sequens: *Congrue mundi* etc. est ex Glossa interlin. ad v. 3.

en: Gen. 1, 3 and following. — On the testimony of codex Erf., these and the following [chapters] down to c. 7 are taken from Gandulph, *Sentences* II, c. 54 and 56. The following proposition: *Congrue mundi* etc., is from the interlinear Gloss at v. 3.

la: Libr. I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 3. n. 7, secundum sensum; et XXII. contra Faustum, c. 10. — Paulo inferius post *Creatorem* Vat. cum codd. A C et plurimis edd. omittit *suum*.

en: [Augustine,] *On Genesis according to the Letter*, book I, c. 3, n. 7, according to the sense; and *Against Faustus*, [book] XXII, c. 10. — A little below, after *Creatorem* the Vatican [edition] with codices A and C and most editions omits *suum*.

la: Cfr. dist. II. c. 5.

en: Cf. d. II, c. 5.

la: Libr. I. c. 8. n. 10, sed non ad verbum.

en: [Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter,*] book I, c. 8, n. 10, but not verbatim.

la: Ad haec verba cod. Erf. annotat: *Illud exemplum ponitur in Hexaëm. Ambrosii, hom. 1. libr. I. c. 9. n. 33, et Basilii, hom. 2. n. 7.* — Hoc totum cap. in Hugone invenitur, I. de Sacram. p. I. c. 9.

en: At these words codex Erf. notes: *This example is put in Ambrose's Hexaemeron, hom. 1, book I, c. 9, n. 33, and in Basil's [Hexaemeron], hom. 2, n. 7.* — This whole chapter is found in Hugh, *On the Sacraments* I, p. I, c. 9.

la: Vat. cum paucis edd. *Facta est ergo lux illa, quae vicem*.

en: The Vatican [edition] with a few editions [reads] *Facta est ergo lux illa, quae vicem*.

la: Cfr. August., I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 10. n. 18. seqq.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter*, book I, c. 10, n. 18 and following.

la: Libr. I. Hexaëm., et habetur in Glossa ord. ad v. 5. — In fine cap. pro *tendebatur* edd. 1, 8 *extendebatur*.

en: [Bede,] *Hexaemeron* book I, and it is held in the ordinary Gloss at v. 5. — At the end of the chapter, for *tendebatur* editions 1 and 8 [read] *extendebatur*.

la: Teste cod. Erf., haec sententia sumta est ex August., IV. de Trin. c. 6. n. 10. Paulo inferius loc. Apostoli est Eph. 5, 8.

en: On the testimony of codex Erf., this opinion is taken from Augustine, *On the Trinity* IV, c. 6, n. 10. A little below, the locus of the Apostle is Eph. 5, 8.

la: Loc. cit., et in Glossa ord. ad Gen. 1, 5.

en: At the place cited, and in the ordinary Gloss at Gen. 1, 5.

la: Haec sumta sunt ex August., I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 10. n. 22. 23.

en: These [things] are taken from Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter*, book I, c. 10, n. 22–23.

la: Libr. I. c. 11. n. 23. Plurima in hac distinctione dicta iam a Beda collecta sunt et ab Hugone repetita. — Circa finem cap. pro *intemporaliter* edd. 1, 8 *non temporaliter*.

en: [Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter,*] book I, c. 11, n. 23. Most of the things said in this distinction have already been collected by Bede and repeated by Hugh. — Near the end of the chapter, for *intemporaliter* editions 1 and 8 [read] *non temporaliter*.

la: Psalm. 103, 24. Deinde Gen. 1, 1; Hebr. 1, 2, et Ps. 32, 6. Explicatio interiecta habetur in Glossa. Verba August. ad ult. locum inveniuntur in Enarrat. 3. in Ps. 32. n. 5, sententialiter.

en: Ps. 103, 24. Then Gen. 1, 1; Heb. 1, 2; and Ps. 32, 6. The interjected explanation is held in the Gloss. Augustine's words at the last locus are found in *Enarrationes* 3 on Psalm 32, n. 5, according to the sense.

la: Cod. C addit *principii*. Paulo inferius ad verba *cum Spiritu sancto* cod. Erf. annotat: *Alias: quia, cum Spiritus sanctus operatur, hoc ipsum habet a Filio, ut operetur.*

en: Codex C adds *principii*. A little below, at the words *with the Holy Spirit* codex Erf. notes: *Otherwise: because, when the Holy Spirit operates, He has this very thing from the Son, that He should operate.*

la: Vat. cum codd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 adiicit *Pater*. — Verba immediate sequentia *per eum iudicare* respiciunt Ioan. 5, 22.

en: The Vatican [edition] with codices 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 adds *Pater*. — The immediately following words *to judge through Him* look to John 5, 22.

la: Homil. 2. n. 2, et est in Glossa ad Hebr. 1, 3, scil. ad verba *figura substantiae eius*.

en: [Chrysostom,] *Homily* 2, n. 2, and it is in the Gloss on Heb. 1, 3, namely at the words *the figure of His substance*.

translators_notes:
- **Page span**: d.13 Lombard littera opens on **p.308 R lower** (centered "DISTINCTIO XIII." banner + "Cap. I. De primo distinctionis opere." immediately below the d12-dubia tail). Cap. I (very brief) occupies p.308 R lower; Cap. II opens at the foot of p.308 R and continues at the top of p.309 L. Capp. III–VI run across p.309 L→R (Cap. III, Cap. IV mid-page; Cap. V on p.309 R upper with *Quaestio incidens* + *Dubium 2*; Cap. VI on p.309 R lower with *Dubium 3*). Cap. VII runs across **p.310 L→R upper**, closing with "*Haec de opere primae diei dicta sunt.*" The "COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIII." banner opens immediately below on p.310 R (owned by `d13-divisio`).
- **Apparatus structure (16 entries across three pages)**: NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM block per page, per-page numbering restarts; renumbered continuously [^1]–[^16] in the chunk.
  - **p.308** notes 1–4 → [^1]–[^4]. Anchored at *Scriptura* (Cap. I), *Dicit enim Augustinus* (Cap. II opinio 1 opening), *superius significata est* (Cap. II prior signification), and *Augustinus super Genesim* (the *Huius creaturae informitas* quote in Cap. II).
  - **p.309** notes 1–8 → [^5]–[^12]. Anchored at *misso ex ore oleo* (Cap. III sailors' oil), *vicem* (Cap. III variant), *Dicitur enim dies* (Cap. IV opener), *Beda super Genesim* (Cap. IV close), *in mysterio factum est* (Cap. V opener), *Beda* (Cap. V second Bede quote), *discerni non valeat* (Cap. V close, *Dubium 2*), and *Augustinus super Genesim* (Cap. VI *Dubium 3*).
  - **p.310** notes 1–4 → [^13]–[^16]. Anchored at the scripture cluster opening Cap. VII (*Omnia in sapientia fecisti* etc.), *in Filio* (the first parenthetical gloss in Cap. VII), *ut in Patre monstraretur auctoritas* (Cap. VII *Solutio*), and *expositione Epistolae ad Hebraeos* (Cap. VII *Expositio 2*, the Chrysostom quotation).
  - The p.310 R column also bears a second footer block headed **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM** with its own notes 1–2 (*Plures codd. … in corporalibus* / *Vat. facta*). Those belong to `d13-divisio`, NOT to this chunk.
- **Boundary integrity (per CLAUDE.md polish-cadence pass 3)**: backward boundary with `d12-dubia` at p.308 R is clean — d12-dubia ends "*operari dixit.*" and the centred "DISTINCTIO XIII." banner opens immediately below; the p.308 R "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" footer block belongs entirely to this chunk (footers 1–4 anchor in d.13 Cap. I + Cap. II body). p.308 R footer 6 (*Cfr. I. Sent. d. 6 q. 3 …*) is owned by `d12-dubia` (it sits in d12-dubia's apparatus block above the NOTAE separator). Forward boundary at p.310 R is clean — d.13 littera ends "*Haec de opere primae diei dicta sunt.*"; "COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIII." opens immediately below and is owned by `d13-divisio`.
- **Frontmatter line-range**: `line_start: 21842, line_end: 21990` matches the semantic range (DISTINCTIO XIII. → *Haec de opere primae diei dicta sunt.*) — no correction needed.
- **No `[?]` flags raised.** Body reconciled against p.308 R (cached) + p.309 L-0/L-1/L-2 + R-0/R-1/R-2 + p.310 L-0/L-1/L-2 + R-0 column bands; footers reconciled against p.308 R-2 (NOTAE block) + p.309 L-2/R-2 + p.310 L-2/R-2. Marginal labels (*Opinio 1.*, *Opinio 2.*, *Quaestio incidens.*, *Dubium 2.*, *Dubium 3.*, *Opinio haeretica.*, *Expositio 1 catholica.*, *Obiicitur.*, *Solutio.*, *Expositio 2.*) preserved inline per Vol II convention.
- **Seven capituli** in d.13 Lombard verified by raw OCR walk + PDF column bands on pp.308–310: Cap. I (intro — first work of distinction is light), Cap. II (corporeal vs. spiritual light), Cap. III (where the light was made), Cap. IV (modes in which *dies* is taken), Cap. V (natural vs. mysterion order of day-computation), Cap. VI (mode in which *Dixit Deus* is to be taken), Cap. VII (sense of "Father operates in/through Son and Holy Spirit").


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 13, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XIII: De generali informatione materiae per formam communem lucis — Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XIII: On the general informing of matter through the common form of light — Division of the text and treatment of the questions

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 310 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIII

### *De generali informatione materiae per formam communem lucis.*

> *Prima autem distinctionis operatio etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de productione naturae quantum ad *principium materiale*; in hac vero parte intendit agere de eius *completione* sive *formatione* quantum ad *principium formale*. Et quoniam duplex est informatio materiae corporalis, quaedam *generalis*, quaedam *specialis* — generalis per formam communem omnibus corporalibus, et haec est forma lucis; specialis vero per alias formas, sive elementares sive mixtionis — ideo Magister primo agit de formatione sive productione lucis, in hac scilicet distinctione. Secundo vero agit de productione cuiuslibet alterius formae corporalis, infra distinctione decima quarta: *Dixit quoque Deus, fiat firmamentum* etc. Vel aliter, ut primo agat de eo quod est generale principium distinguendi in corporibus[^1], hoc est de luce; secundo vero de specialibus formis distinguentibus. Primum spectat ad opus primae diei, secundum vero ad opera dierum consequentium.

Dividitur autem pars ista in tres. In *prima* determinat de lucis productione *in se*. In *secunda*, in comparatione ad eius *effectum*, scilicet *diem*, quem faciebat, ibi: *Hic notandum est, quod dies diversimode accipitur.* In *tertia*, in comparatione ad eius *principium*, scilicet ad Verbum, per quod fiebat, ibi: *Praeterea investigandum est, quomodo accipiendum sit* etc.

*Prima pars* habet tres particulas. In prima determinat, quando sit lux illa facta, quia ante omnia alia. In secunda, qualis fuerit, ibi: *Si quaeritur, qualis illa lux.* In tertia vero, ubi posita[^2] fuerit, ibi: *Si autem quaeritur, ubi facta est lux.*

<!-- page 311 -->

Similiter *secunda pars principalis* tres habet particulas. In prima determinat de ipso effectu lucis, sive de die quantum ad *spatium*. In secunda, quantum ad *distinguendi modum*, ibi: *Hic est naturalis ordo distinctionis dierum.* In tertia, quantum ad *complementum*, ibi: *Solet autem quaeri, quare factus est sol.*

Similiter *tertia pars*, in qua determinat de lucis formatione per comparationem ad suum *principium*, quod quidem est Pater operans per Verbum, habet tres partes. In prima parte explanat, qualiter intelligendum sit, quod Deus *dicendo* fecit, ibi: *Praeterea investigandum est* etc. In secunda explanat illud quod dicit Scriptura, scilicet Patrem *in Filio* et *per Filium* operari, ibi: *Hic quaeri solet, quomodo accipiendum sit.* In tertia vero removet opinionem haeretici, insinuans, aliam etiam esse expositionem verbi praedicti: et hoc facit ibi: *Sed dicit haereticus, hac ratione posse* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis, in qua agitur de formatione lucis, quae est opus primae diei, quaeruntur tria.

Primum est de ipsa lucis *productione*.

Secundum est de ipsius lucis *essentia et natura in se*.

Tertium est de ipsius lucis *effectu et illustratione*.

Circa primum duo quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum per illam lucem, quae dicitur esse opus primae diei, intelligat Scriptura *lucem corporalem*, vel *spiritualem*.

Secundo, dato quod intelligat *corporalem*, est quaestio, qualiter faciebat *diem* et *noctem*.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XIII

### *On the general informing of matter through the common form of light.*

> *Now the first operation of distinction etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the production of nature as regards its *material principle*; but in this part he intends to treat of its *completion* or *formation* as regards the *formal principle*. And since the informing of corporeal matter is twofold — one *general*, the other *special* (general through a form common to all corporeal things, and this is the form of light; but special through other forms, whether elementary or [forms] of mixture) — therefore the Master first treats of the formation or production of light, namely in this distinction. But secondly he treats of the production of any other corporeal form, below in the fourteenth distinction: *God also said, Let there be a firmament,* etc. Or, alternatively, [the order is] that he treats first of that which is the general principle of distinguishing in bodies[^1], that is, of light; but secondly of the special forms which distinguish [them]. The first looks to the work of the first day, but the second to the works of the following days.

Now this part is divided into three. In the *first* he determines concerning the production of light *in itself*. In the *second*, in comparison with its *effect*, namely the *day*, which it was making, there: *Here it must be noted that "day" is taken in diverse modes.* In the *third*, in comparison with its *principle*, namely with the Word, through which it was being made, there: *Furthermore it must be investigated, how it is to be taken,* etc.

The *first part* has three particulae. In the first he determines *when* that light was made — namely before all other things. In the second, *of what sort* it was, there: *If it is asked, of what sort that light [was].* In the third, *where* it was placed[^2], there: *But if it is asked, where the light was made.*

Likewise the *second principal part* has three particulae. In the first he determines about the very effect of light, or about the day as regards its *extent*. In the second, as regards the *mode of distinguishing*, there: *This is the natural order of the distinction of days.* In the third, as regards its *completion*, there: *It is wont, however, to be asked why the sun was made.*

Likewise the *third part*, in which he determines about the formation of light by comparison with its *principle*, which indeed is the Father operating through the Word, has three parts. In the first part he explains how it is to be understood that God made [things] *by speaking*, there: *Furthermore it must be investigated,* etc. In the second he explains what Scripture says, namely [that] the Father [operates] *in the Son* and *through the Son*, there: *Here it is wont to be asked, how it is to be taken.* In the third he removes the heretic's opinion, intimating that there is also another exposition of the aforesaid word: and this he does there: *But the heretic says, on this account it could,* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, in which the formation of light — which is the work of the first day — is treated, three [matters] are asked.

The first is about the very *production* of light.

The second is about the light's *essence and nature in itself*.

The third is about the light's *effect and illumination*.

Concerning the first, two [questions] are asked.

First it is asked whether by that light, which is said to be the work of the first day, Scripture understands *corporeal* or *spiritual* light.

Secondly, granted that it understands [the *corporeal* light], the question is, how it was making *day* and *night*.

---

la: Plures codd. cum ed. 1 *in corporalibus*.

en: Several codices with edition 1 [read] *in corporalibus*.

la: Vat. *facta*.

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

translators_notes:
- **Page span**: COMMENTARIUS divisio opens on **p.310 R lower** (centered "COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIII. — De generali informatione materiae per formam communem lucis. — *Prima autem distinctionis operatio etc.* — DIVISIO TEXTUS." banner immediately after d13-littera's "*Haec de opere primae diei dicta sunt.*"). DIVISIO TEXTUS body runs from p.310 R lower to p.311 L–R upper; TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM runs across p.311 R from "Ad intelligentiam huius partis…" through "*qualiter faciebat diem et noctem.*" The "ARTICULUS I. — De ipsa lucis productione. — QUAESTIO I. — *Utrum lux primo die facta fuerit corporalis, an spiritualis.*" banner opens immediately below on p.311 R lower (owned by `d13-a1-q1`).
- **Apparatus count**: 2 entries — NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM block on **p.310 R** has only two footers (1: *Plures codd. … in corporalibus* anchored at "*in corporibus*" inside the DIVISIO TEXTUS opening paragraph; 2: *Vat. facta* anchored at "*ubi posita fuerit*" in the *prima pars* breakdown). p.311's NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM block (footers 1–3, *Dist. 2. p. I. a. 2. q. 3*, *Libr. IV. c. 28*, *Aristot. de Caelo et mundo*) anchors entirely in d13-a1-q1's body, not here, and is owned by that chunk.
- **Boundary integrity (per CLAUDE.md polish-cadence pass 3)**: backward boundary with `d13-littera` at p.310 R is clean — littera ends "*Haec de opere primae diei dicta sunt.*" and the centred COMMENTARIUS banner opens immediately below; p.310 R NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM footers (1–4) belong to d13-littera, and the separate NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM block (footers 1–2) below them belongs to this chunk. Forward boundary at p.311 R lower is clean — divisio closes with "*qualiter faciebat diem et noctem.*"; "ARTICULUS I." banner opens immediately below and is owned by `d13-a1-q1`.
- **Frontmatter line-range**: `line_start: 21996, line_end: 22048` matches the semantic range (DIVISIO TEXTUS opener → end of TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM listing). Note: the COMMENTARIUS banner + lemma actually begin at raw ~21991 (saved-OCR line 247–252); the chunker's line_start (21996) starts at the first line of DIVISIO TEXTUS body, but the chunk's Latin body block restores the COMMENTARIUS heading + lemma + DIVISIO TEXTUS header so the page composes the full divisio title block.
- **No `[?]` flags raised.** Body reconciled against p.310 R-0/R-1/R-2 + p.311 L-0/L-1/L-2 + R-0/R-1/R-2 column bands; footers reconciled against p.310 R-2. The divisio body is a logical-division of d.13 Lombard's three principal parts (lucis productio in se / in comp. ad effectum diem / in comp. ad principium Verbum), each subdivided into three particulae; the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM lists the three Articuli (productio / essentia et natura / effectus et illustratio) and the two questions of the first Articulus.

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. 13, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 311 -->

## ARTICULUS I.

### *De ipsa lucis productione.*

### Quaestio I. *Utrum lux primo die facta fuerit corporalis, an spiritualis.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod illa lux, quae dicitur primo die fuisse creata, non erat lux corporalis.

*Fundamenta ad oppositum.*

1. Lux enim corporalis est ad decorem et complementum caeli siderei sive firmamenti: si ergo quod ornat et decorat aliquod corpus non potest nec debet ante ipsum fieri, cum productio firmamenti spectet ad opus secundae diei; videtur, quod primo die lux corporalis nec potuit nec debuit fieri. Et fuit facta lux corporalis, vel lux spiritualis: ergo etc.

2. Item, in enumeratione operum sex dierum intendit Scriptura explicare productionem illorum quae constituunt universum, sicut manifestum est: ergo vel creatura spiritualis, utpote Angelus, non est de constitutione universi, vel Scriptura rerum productionem insufficienter explicat et tradit, vel oportet per aliquid ibi positum exprimi. Sed primi duo modi sunt inconvenientes: restat ergo, quod Scriptura explicat productionem creaturae angelicae; sed creatura angelica fuit in principio creata, sicut ostensum est supra[^1], quia *prior omnium creata est sapientia*: ergo eius productio exprimitur per opus primae diei, vel saltem formatio. Sed opus primae diei non fuit nisi productio lucis: ergo per *lucem* intelligit Scriptura naturam spiritualem.

3. Item, *lux* de spiritualibus et corporalibus dicitur proprie, magis tamen proprie de spiritualibus quam de corporalibus, sicut dicit Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram[^2]. Propriissime enim *Deus lux est*, et quae ad ipsum magis accedunt plus habent de natura lucis. Ergo in productione lucis illa creatura debet principaliter intelligi, cui principalius convenit; sed haec est creatura spiritualis: ergo etc.

4. Item, lux ista corporalis est ad fomentum plantarum et animalium, et etiam ad solatium hominum: si ergo primo et secundo die non erant plantae, quae foverentur, nec animalia nec homines, quibus ista lux aliquod ferret obsequium, videtur, quod Deus frustra fecisset eam in primo dierum. Quodsi Deus nihil frustra facit, restat, quod per illam lucem non intelligitur lux corporalis; sed intelligitur corporalis, vel spiritualis: ergo etc.

5. Item, si lux illa, quae primo die creata est, erat lux corporalis, ergo diem et noctem corporaliter faciebat: ergo videtur ex hoc, quod productio solis fuerit superflua[^3].

6. Item, si lux illa fuit corporalis[^4], cum esset bona, debuit a divina bonitate in suo esse conservari. Sic enim exponit Augustinus[^5]: *Vidit Deus, quod esset bonum*, « *id est, quod placuit, ut fieret, placuit etiam, ut in suo genere permaneret* ». Ergo videtur, quodsi lux illa facta esset in principio, quod adhuc maneret: ergo si magnae claritatis esset illa, impossibile esset, quod sensum nostrum lateret. Si igitur lumen eius non percipimus sensu, et usum eius non capimus intellectu, ipsa non est: ergo nunquam fuit.

<!-- page 312 -->

*Sed contra hoc obiicitur et ostenditur, quod lux illa corporalis fuerit:*

*Fundamenta.*

1. Per textum[^6] primo, quia ante formationem lucis praemittitur, quod *tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi*: ergo si per *abyssum* intelligitur materia corporalis, lux, quae facta est ad expulsionem illarum tenebrarum, erat corporalis.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per multos expositores, et primo per Bedam[^7]: « *Occidente luce paulatim et post spatium diurnae lucis inferiores partes subeunte, factum est vespere, sicut nunc usitato cursu solis fieri solet* ». Ergo si hoc non potest intelligi nisi de luce corporali, patet etc.

3. Item, quod de luce corporali intelligatur, videtur. Scriptura numerat senarium dierum, et constat, quod dies isti omnes sunt eiusdem naturae, alioquin non essent insimul connumerabiles: sed post formationem solis a quarto die in antea fuerunt dies corporales: ergo in tribus diebus antecedentibus fuerunt dies corporales. Sed tales dies non possunt esse nisi a luce corporali: ergo etc.

4. Item, quod non possit intelligi de luce spirituali, videtur, quia *divisio lucis spiritualis a tenebris* est *separatio bonorum a malis*: ergo si simul est divisio lucis a tenebris et formatio lucis, et hoc fuit totum in primae diei initio, videtur, quod lapsus malorum angelorum fuerit absque aliquo spatio temporis interiecto; si ergo hoc est impossibile, sicut supra[^8] probatum est, patet etc.

### Conclusio.

> *Probabilius est, lucem primo die creatam esse corporalem, licet Augustinus aliter senserit.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in hac quaestione differenter senserunt Augustinus et alii doctores, sicut et in quaestione de informis materiae productione.

*Expositio Augustini.* Augustinus[^9] enim voluit, quod per *caelum* intelligeretur natura spiritualis informis; et quia lux respondebat caelo, per consequens per ipsam *lucem* spiritualem angelicam naturam formatam dixit intelligi ad litteram; per *diem* vero dixit intelligi ipsam considerationem angelicam; per *septenarium dierum*, septemplicem considerationem; et per *vesperam diei*, considerationem creaturae in se ipsam, quia creatura est sicut tenebra; per *mane* vero, reductionem ipsius cognitionis creaturae in genere proprio ad cognitionem, quae est in summa luce, et ad laudem ipsius Dei. Et quia post perfectam conversionem a laude Dei non cessat, ideo *septimum diem*, in quo est requies contemplationis, dixit non habere vesperam.

*Rationes eiusdem.* Ad hanc autem positionem manifestandam, satis Scripturam conformat super Genesim ad litteram[^10], ubi ostendit, quod multa dicuntur de illa sex dierum enumeratione, quae magis competunt diebus spiritualibus et luci spirituali quam luci materiali. Propter quod in productione omnium rerum corporalium dicitur *fiat*, *fecit*, et *factum est*; in productione vero lucis non dicitur nisi *fiat*, et *factum est*. — Et huius ratio est, quia omnes aliae res a creatura spirituali habent triplicem modum essendi, videlicet in *sua causa producente*, et in *mente rationali*, et in *corporali materia sustinente*. Creatura autem rationalis non habet nisi duplicem modum essendi, videlicet in *Verbo*, et in *se*. — Multa etiam ad hoc adducit, quae ostendunt, ipsam positionem esse consonam tam fidei quam Scripturae quam etiam rationi; et per hoc veritatem fidei et Scripturae a recto rationis tramite nullatenus etiam deviare ostendit. Unde idem super Genesim ad litteram libro primo[^11]: « *Habemus quod secundum fidem respondendum est omnibus, qui calumniari libris nostrae salutis affectant, ut quidquid ipsi de rerum natura veracibus documentis demonstrare potuerint, ostendamus, litteris nostris non esse contrarium; quidquid autem de quibuslibet suis voluminibus his nostris litteris, id est catholicae fidei, contrarium protulerint, aut aliqua facultate ostendamus, aut nulla dubitatione credamus ipsum esse falsissimum* ».

*Opinio aliorum.* Quantumcumque autem haec positio probabilis esset et rationabilis, catholici tamen tractatores, qui Augustinum secuti sunt[^12], viam aliam magis appro-

<!-- page 313 -->

baverunt, scilicet quod dierum distinctio esset materialis sive sensibilis, et primae diei operatio esset formatio lucis corporalis, quae tres dies fecit ante productionem solis. — Et quia istam positionem magis insinuat textus Scripturae, et magis sequuntur expositores, etiam illi qui Augustinum libenter secuti sunt; ideo positio ista securius et utilius est sustinenda.

*Conclusio.* Secundum hanc igitur positionem dicendum est, quod Scriptura per *lucem* illam, quam dicit primo esse factam, corporalem lucem insinuat; et concedendae sunt rationes, quae illud probant.

*Solutio oppositorum.*

1. *Ratio opposita.* Ad illud vero quod obiicitur primo, quod lux est ad decorem et ornatum caeli; dicendum, quod non qualitercumque, sed prout est in distinctione completa secundum numerum et proprietatem corporum caelestium, stellarum scilicet et planetarum; et hoc non fuit ante diem quartum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod conditio angelicae naturae debet in sex diebus explicari: dicendum, quod illud non oportet explicite dici, sicut etiam nec de lapsu naturae angelicae in Scriptura legitur historialiter, sed magis allegorice. Et ratio huius est, quia Scriptura principaliter intendit agere de operibus reparationis, sicut dicit Hugo[^13]; et propterea, ut illa melius explicentur, agit de lapsu et conditione, et ratione huius determinat de his quae faciunt ad hominis conditionem et conservationem. Et quia in Scriptura non agitur de reparatione angeli lapsi, ideo nec explicite agitur de lapsu nec de conditione instituti.

*Alia solutio.* Aliter etiam posset dici, quod quia Scriptura tradebatur genti rudi, quae versabatur[^14] circa sensibilia; ideo primo in operibus sex dierum conditionem sensibilium insinuat, nihilominus tamen praebens viam per haec sensibilia ad intelligenda spiritualia; hoc enim fecit ad illa insinuanda. Unde non indocte per *formationem lucis* intelligi potest *formatio naturae spiritualis*, principalius tamen insinuatur formatio corporalis. Et sic patet, qualiter processus Scripturae, quamvis videatur esse vulgaris, tamen est sufficiens et rationalis.

3. *Notandum.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lux principalius convenit naturae spirituali; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad *proprietatem vocabuli*, non est tamen verum quantum ad *usum communem*. Nominata enim luce, nisi determinetur per antecedentia et subsequentia, lucem intelligimus corporalem, per quam tamen perducimur ad intelligendum etiam spiritualem, quia « *cognitio nostra incipit a sensu* ». Et sic docet Dionysius in libro *de Divinis Nominibus*[^15].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lux corporalis est ad fomentum viventium et solatium animalium; dicendum, quod lux non solummodo habet istam utilitatem, immo etiam alias multas, quae fortasse nos latent, quarum etiam usum potuit tunc habere; sicut multae creaturae habent virtutes et utilitates, quas nos ignoramus, et tamen eas habere non dubitamus. — *Aliter.* Posset tamen dici, quod usus eius fuit diem et noctem facere, non ad animalium illustrationem, sed ad divinorum operum distinctionem; unde, etsi tunc non faceret ad illustrationem humani sensus, facit tamen *nunc* ex ipsa distinctione ad illustrationem intellectus, dum ex illa intellectus capit distinctionem divinorum operum.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod superfluum fuit facere solem; dicendum, quod falsum est; quia, etsi lux illa perfecte illuminaret et diem faceret, secundum quod sufficiebat pro illo tempore ad dierum distinctionem; placuit tamen Deo, rebus ad maiorem perfectionem deductis, utpote ad *ornatum*, lucem facere pleniorem, quae etiam diem faceret clariorem. Et propter hoc ex ipsa etiam luce sive nube lucida solem fecit in maiori lumine, sicut dicetur postea[^16].

6. Et per hoc patet illud quod obiiciebatur ultimo, scilicet quod lux illa debuit manere. Dicendum enim, quod verum est, quod manet secundum *formam* et *naturam*, sed non oportet, quod maneat secundum illum *statum*, secundum quem primo formata erat; manet autem in sole, qui ex ipsa formatus est, sicut innuunt expositores, et melius patebit super litteram[^17].

<!-- page 314 -->

english:
## ARTICLE I.

### *On the very production of light.*

### Question I. *Whether the light made on the first day was corporeal or spiritual.*

Concerning the first [matter] one proceeds thus, and it is shown that that light, which is said to have been created on the first day, was not corporeal light.

*Foundations to the opposite.*

1. For corporeal light is for the beauty and completion of the starry heaven or firmament: if therefore that which adorns and decorates some body neither can nor ought to be made before that body itself — since the production of the firmament belongs to the work of the second day — it appears that on the first day corporeal light neither could nor ought to have been made. And [the light] made was either corporeal light or spiritual light: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in the enumeration of the works of the six days Scripture intends to set forth the production of those things which constitute the universe, as is manifest: therefore either spiritual creation (namely the Angel) is not among the constituents of the universe; or Scripture sets forth and hands down the production of things insufficiently; or it must be expressed by something there posited. But the first two modes are unfitting: there remains therefore that Scripture sets forth the production of angelic creation. But angelic creation was created in the beginning, as has been shown above[^1], because *wisdom was created prior to all things*: therefore its production is expressed by the work of the first day, or at least its formation. But the work of the first day was nothing other than the production of light: therefore by *light* Scripture understands spiritual nature.

3. Likewise, *light* is said properly of both spiritual and corporeal [things], yet more properly of spiritual than of corporeal, as Augustine says on Genesis according to the letter[^2]. For most properly *God is light*, and the things that approach more nearly to Him have more of the nature of light. Therefore in the production of light that creature must principally be understood to which [light] more principally belongs; but this is spiritual creation: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that corporeal light is for the fostering of plants and animals, and also for the comfort of humans: if therefore on the first and second day there were not plants which might be fostered, nor animals nor humans to whom that light might offer any service, it appears that God would have made it in vain on the first of the days. But if God makes nothing in vain, there remains that by that light corporeal light is not understood; but it is understood [as either] corporeal or spiritual: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, if that light which was created on the first day was corporeal light, then it was corporeally making day and night: therefore from this it appears that the production of the sun would have been superfluous[^3].

6. Likewise, if that light was corporeal[^4], since it was good, it ought to have been preserved in its being by the divine goodness. For thus Augustine[^5] expounds: *God saw that it was good*, «*that is, [that] which He was pleased should be made, He was also pleased that it should remain in its kind*». Therefore it appears that if that light had been made in the beginning, it would still remain. Therefore if it was of great brightness, it would be impossible that it should escape our sense. If therefore we do not perceive its light by sense, and do not grasp its use by the intellect, it does not exist: therefore it never was.

*But against this it is objected and shown, that that light was corporeal:*

*Foundations.*

1. By the text[^6] first: because before the formation of light it is laid down that *the darknesses were upon the face of the deep*: therefore if by *the deep* corporeal matter is understood, the light which was made for the expulsion of those darknesses was corporeal.

2. Likewise, this same is shown by many expositors, and first by Bede[^7]: «*With the light going down gradually and after the space of daily light passing under the lower parts, evening was made, just as it is now wont to be done by the customary course of the sun*». Therefore if this cannot be understood except of corporeal light, it is clear etc.

3. Likewise, that it is understood of corporeal light appears [thus]: Scripture numbers six days, and it is established that all those days are of the same nature, otherwise they would not be jointly numerable: but after the formation of the sun, from the fourth day onward, they were corporeal days: therefore in the three preceding days also there were corporeal days. But such days cannot exist except from corporeal light: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that it cannot be understood of spiritual light appears, because *the division of spiritual light from darknesses* is *the separation of the good from the evil*: therefore if the division of light from darknesses and the formation of light are simultaneous, and this was wholly at the beginning of the first day, it appears that the fall of the evil angels would have been without any interval of time interposed; but if this is impossible, as has been proved above[^8], it is clear etc.

### Conclusion.

> *It is more probable that the light created on the first day was corporeal, although Augustine thought otherwise.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in this question Augustine and the other doctors thought differently, just as also in the question concerning the production of unformed matter.

*Augustine's exposition.* For Augustine[^9] wished that by *heaven* be understood unformed spiritual nature; and because light corresponded to heaven, consequently by *light* itself he said the angelic nature *formed* was to be understood according to the letter; but by *day* he said is understood the angelic consideration itself; by the *seven days*, sevenfold consideration; and by the *evening of the day*, consideration of the creature in itself, because the creature is as it were a darkness; but by *morning*, the reduction of that knowledge of the creature in its proper genus to the knowledge which is in the supreme light, and to the praise of God Himself. And because, after perfect conversion, it does not cease from the praise of God, therefore he said that the *seventh day*, in which is the rest of contemplation, does not have evening.

*Reasons of the same [Augustine].* For the manifesting of this position, he sufficiently conforms Scripture [to it] in *On Genesis according to the Letter*[^10], where he shows that many things are said in that enumeration of the six days which more befit spiritual days and spiritual light than material light. On account of which, in the production of all corporeal things it is said *let it be*, *He made*, and *it was done*; but in the production of light it is not said except *let it be*, and *it was done*. — And the reason of this is, that all other things, [as distinguished] from spiritual creation, have a threefold mode of being, namely in *the cause producing them*, and in *the rational mind*, and in *the corporeal matter sustaining them*. But rational creation has only a twofold mode of being, namely in *the Word*, and in *itself*. — He also adduces many [things] to this [point] which show that the position itself is consonant both with faith and with Scripture and also with reason; and through this he shows that the truth of faith and Scripture in no way deviates from the straight path of reason. Hence the same [Augustine] *On Genesis according to the Letter*, book one[^11]: «*We have what is to be answered, according to faith, to all who attempt to slander the books of our salvation — that whatever they themselves shall have been able to demonstrate concerning the nature of things by true documents, we should show is not contrary to our letters; but whatever they shall bring forward from any of their volumes contrary to these our letters, that is, to the Catholic faith, either we should show [it false] by some faculty, or with no doubt should believe it to be most false*».

*Opinion of others.* But however probable and reasonable this position was, nevertheless the Catholic treatise-writers who have followed Augustine[^12] have approved another way more —

namely that the distinction of days was *material* or *sensible*, and the operation of the first day was the formation of corporeal light, which made three days before the production of the sun. — And because this position the text of Scripture more intimates, and the expositors more follow, even those who have willingly followed Augustine, on this account this position is more safely and usefully to be maintained.

*Conclusion.* According to this position, then, it must be said that Scripture by that *light* which it says was first made intimates corporeal light; and the reasons which prove it are to be conceded.

*Solution of the opposing arguments.*

1. *The opposing reason.* To that which is objected first, that light is for the beauty and adornment of the heaven: it must be said that [it is so] not in any way whatsoever, but as it is in distinction completed according to the number and propriety of celestial bodies, namely of the stars and planets; and this was not before the fourth day.

2. To that which is objected, that the condition of angelic nature ought to be set forth in the six days: it must be said that this need not be expressly said, just as neither concerning the fall of angelic nature is it read historically in Scripture, but rather allegorically. And the reason of this is that Scripture principally intends to treat of the works of reparation, as Hugh says[^13]; and on this account, that those [works] may be better set forth, it treats of fall and condition, and by reason of this it determines about those things which contribute to the condition and conservation of man. And because in Scripture it is not treated about the reparation of the fallen angel, on this account it is not treated about [his] fall expressly either, nor about the condition of the established [angel].

*Another solution.* It could also be said otherwise: because Scripture was handed down to a rough people, which was occupied[^14] about sensible things, on this account first in the works of the six days it intimates the condition of sensibles, yet nonetheless providing a way through these sensibles to the understanding of the spirituals; for it did this for the intimating of those [spirituals]. Hence not un-learnedly by *the formation of light* can be understood *the formation of spiritual nature*, yet more principally is intimated the corporeal formation. And thus it is clear how the procedure of Scripture, although it appears to be common, is nevertheless sufficient and rational.

3. *Note.* To that which is objected, that light belongs more principally to spiritual nature: it must be said that this is true as regards the *propriety of the term*, but is not true as regards the *common use*. For when light is named, unless it is determined by what precedes and follows, by *light* we understand the corporeal; through which, however, we are led to the understanding also of the spiritual, because «*our knowledge begins from sense*». And thus Dionysius teaches in his book *On the Divine Names*[^15].

4. To that which is objected, that corporeal light is for the fostering of the living and the comfort of animals: it must be said that light has not only this usefulness, but indeed also many others, which perhaps lie hidden from us, of which it could also have had use then — just as many creatures have powers and uses which we are ignorant of, and yet we do not doubt that they have them. — *Otherwise.* It could be said, however, that its use was to make day and night, not for the illumination of animals, but for the distinction of the divine works; hence, even if then it did not act for the illumination of the human sense, yet *now* by that very distinction it acts for the illumination of the intellect, when from that the intellect grasps the distinction of the divine works.

5. To that which is objected, that it was superfluous to make the sun: it must be said that this is false; because, although that light perfectly illumined and made day, in accordance with what sufficed for that time for the distinction of days; yet it pleased God, with things brought to greater perfection — namely to *adornment* — to make light fuller, which would make the day brighter also. And on this account from that very light, or luminous cloud, He made the sun with greater brightness, as will be said afterwards[^16].

6. And by this is clear that which was last objected, namely that that light ought to have remained. For it must be said that it is true that it remains as regards *form* and *nature*, but it is not necessary that it remain in that *state* in which it was first formed; but it remains in the sun, which has been formed from it, as the expositors intimate, and as will more clearly be evident upon the text [of Lombard][^17].

la: Dist. 2. p. I. a. 2. q. 3. Cfr. ibid. lit. Magistri, c. 1. et 4. — Sequens textus est Eccli. 1, 4.

en: D. 2, p. I, a. 2, q. 3. Cf. ibid., the Master's text, c. 1 and 4. — The following text is Ecclesiasticus 1, 4.

la: Libr. IV. c. 28. n. 45. — Sequens textus est I. Ioan. 1, 5.

en: [*On Genesis according to the Letter,*] book IV, c. 28, n. 45. — The following text is 1 John 1, 5.

la: Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 32. (c. 4.). — Hoc arg. insinuatur ab Augustino, I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 16. n. 31.

en: Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* I, text 32 (c. 4). — This argument is intimated by Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* I, c. 16, n. 31.

la: De hoc et seq. arg. cfr. hic litt. Magistri c. 5.

en: On this and the following argument cf. here the Master's text, c. 5.

la: Libr. I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 8. n. 12: *Placuit enim quod factum est in ea benignitate, qua placuit, ut fieret. Duo quippe sunt, propter quae amat Deus creaturam suam, ut sit et ut maneat.* Cfr. ibid. II. c. 6. n. 14.

en: [Augustine,] *On Genesis according to the Letter* I, c. 8, n. 12: *For that which was done pleased [Him] in that goodness in which it pleased [Him] that it should be made. For there are two [things] on account of which God loves His creature: that it should be, and that it should remain.* Cf. ibid., book II, c. 6, n. 14.

la: Libr. I. Hexaem.: « *Factum est vespere, occidente paulatim luce post expletum spatium diurnae longitudinis atque inferiores mundi partes subeunte, quod nunc usitato solis circuitu noctibus agi solet* ». Alios expositores vide in seq. quaest. — Aliqui codd. post *Bedam* adiungunt *vel qui ait* vel *dicentem*.

en: [Bede,] *Hexaemeron* book I: «*Evening was made, with the light gradually going down after the space of daily length had been completed and passing under the lower parts of the world — which is now wont to be done at night by the customary circuit of the sun*». See the other expositors in the following question. — Some codices after *Bedam* add *vel qui ait* or *dicentem*.

la: Dist. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 4. — Paulo superius post *bonorum* supple cum Vat. *Angelorum*.

en: D. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 4. — A little above, after *bonorum* supply with the Vatican [edition] *Angelorum*.

en: Cf. [Augustine,] *On Genesis according to the Letter* I, c. 1, n. 2 and following, c. 4, n. 9 and following; ibid. c. 9, n. 17, c. 17, n. 32; II, c. 8, n. 16; — IV, c. 22, n. 39; — IV, c. 26, n. 43, c. 34, n. 53; — IV, c. 18, n. 31 and following.

la: Libr. II. c. 8. n. 16. seqq., ubi illa ratio affertur, cuius mox mentio fit, scil. quod in productione lucis non additur: *Et fecit Deus*. Cfr. I. c. 10. n. 18. seqq. et IV. c. 21. n. 38, ubi alia ratio affertur, petita ex illa difficultate, quae proponitur in seq. quaest., quomodo nempe illa lux facere posset noctem et diem. — Vat. *sacra Scriptura confirmatur* pro *satis Scripturam conformat*.

en: [Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter,*] book II, c. 8, n. 16 and following, where that reason is adduced of which mention is presently made — namely that in the production of light there is not added: *And God made [it]*. Cf. I, c. 10, n. 18 and following, and IV, c. 21, n. 38, where another reason is adduced, drawn from that difficulty which is proposed in the following question, namely how that light could make night and day. — The Vatican [edition reads] *sacra Scriptura confirmatur* for *satis Scripturam conformat*.

la: Cap. 21. n. 41; in quibus verbis textus originalis substituit *hominibus* pro *omnibus*, et multi codd. cum ed. 1 in fine omittunt *ostendamus*.

en: [*On Genesis according to the Letter* I,] c. 21, n. 41; in which words the original text substitutes *hominibus* for *omnibus*, and many codices with edition 1 at the end omit *ostendamus*.

la: Cfr. d. 12. a. 1. q. 2. fundam. 2. — Codd. Q cc et ed. 1 *secuti non sunt*, scil. in sua opinione.

en: Cf. d. 12, a. 1, q. 2, fundamentum 2. — Codices Q and cc and edition 1 [read] *secuti non sunt*, namely in his opinion.

la: De Sacram. Prolog. c. 2. — Vat. post *reparationis* addit *humanae*. Deinde post *agit de lapsu* prosequitur: *hominis et conditione naturae humanae institutae et ratione huius… Et quia in Scriptura non agitur de lapsu naturae angelicae, nec etiam in ea agitur de conditione Angeli instituti.* Quae lectio quoad primam partem est contra omnes codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3; quoad secundam partem vero contra plures codd. ut FIPQ bb cum ed. 1, licet unus alterque eorum omittat vel *lapsi* vel *ideo* vel *expresse*; alii codd. hanc propositionem vel incomplete exhibent, vel ipsam cum sequente connectunt, quod etiam faciunt edd. 2, 3: *Et quia in Scriptura non agitur de lapsu nec de conditione instituti, aliter etiam posset* etc. Subinde autem plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 4 *et propter illa* [cod. bb *hoc*] *ut melius explicentur* pro *et propterea, ut illa melius explicentur*.

en: [Hugh of St. Victor,] *On the Sacraments*, Prologue c. 2. — The Vatican [edition] after *reparationis* adds *humanae*. Then after *agit de lapsu* it continues: *of man and of the condition of human nature instituted, and by reason of this… And because in Scripture it is not treated about the fall of angelic nature, nor is it treated in it about the condition of the angel instituted.* This reading as to the first part is against all codices and editions 1, 2, 3; as to the second part it is against several codices such as FIPQ bb with edition 1, although one or another of them omits *lapsi* or *ideo* or *expresse*; other codices either present this proposition incompletely or connect it with what follows — which editions 2, 3 also do: *And because in Scripture it is not treated about fall nor about the condition of [the angel] instituted, it could also otherwise* etc. Then most codices with editions 1, 2, 3, 4 [read] *et propter illa* [cod. bb *hoc*] *ut melius explicentur* for *et propterea, ut illa melius explicentur*.

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

en: Many codices with edition 1 [read] *versatur*.

la: Cap. 4. § 4, ubi docet, Deum dici *lumen*, quia similitudo eius maxime resultat in radio solari quantum ad causalitatem. S. Thomas (hic q. 1. a. 2.), opinionem Augustini (quod lux in spiritualibus verius invenitur, quam in corporalibus) deserens, sequitur illam sententiam, quam attribuit Ambrosio et Dionysio, secundum quam lux non nisi metaphorice in spiritualibus invenitur. — De eo, quod *cognitio nostra incipit a sensu*, cfr. Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 30. et 39. (c. 7. et 8.) et de Sensu et sens. c. 6. Vide infra d. 39. a. 1. q. 2, ubi doctrina Philosophi exponitur.

en: [*On the Divine Names*,] c. 4, § 4, where he teaches that God is called *light* because His likeness most fully shines back in the solar ray as regards causality. St. Thomas (here q. 1, a. 2), abandoning Augustine's opinion (that light is more truly found in spirituals than in corporeals), follows that opinion which he attributes to Ambrose and Dionysius, according to which light is not found in spirituals except metaphorically. — On the [thesis] that *our knowledge begins from sense*, cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* III, text 30 and 39 (c. 7 and 8) and *On Sense and the Sensed*, c. 6. See below d. 39, a. 1, q. 2, where the Philosopher's teaching is set forth.

la: Hic dub. 2.

en: Here, *dubium* 2.

la: *Dub.* 2. — Aliquanto superius aliqui codd. cum ed. 1 *quia manet* pro *quod manet*.

en: *Dubium* 2. — A little above, some codices with edition 1 [read] *quia manet* for *quod manet*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Praeter creationem, ante omnem diem factam, Scholastici in verbis Genesis communiter insinuatam esse dicebant etiam distinctionem rerum et ornatum, hoc ordine, ut distinctio in primis tribus diebus, ornatus in tribus sequentibus diebus evenerit, et primo die distinctio cum lucis formatione, quarto die ornatus cum formatione luminarium sive corporum luminosorum inceperit. — De interpretatione capituli I. et 2. Genesis, quae placuit Augustino, iam supra d. 12. a. I. q. 2. mentio facta est. Licet autem Seraphicus interpretationem Augustini, quod per *lucem* intelligatur *angelica natura*, qualitenus per gratiam fuit formata, non recipiat ut principalem sensum s. Scripturae, sed potius aliam, quae magis litterae Genesis est consona, tamen, ut patet ex solut. ad 2, eam ut minus principalem admittit. — Quoad solutionem ad 3, S. Thom. (cfr. pag. 313, nota 3.) magis approbat sententiam, quam ipse dicit esse Dionysii, qui docet, terminum *lucis* in spiritualibus tantum metaphorice dici. Dionys. autem Carth., (hic q. 2. in fine) se demonstrasse asserit, Dionysium cum Augustino docere, istum terminum aliosque similes magis proprie Deo et rebus spiritualibus competere quam temporalibus. Opinamur autem, per distinctionem hic a S. Bonaventura et a S. Thoma (S. I. q. 67. a. 1.) factam, hanc differentiam componi posse.

**II.** Sequentem quaest., quae agit de modo, quo lux illa ante formationem solis distinguebat diem et noctem, et de diversa Graecorum Patrum et Latinorum huius rei explicatione, plerumque ab aliis magistris vel omittitur, vel paucis verbis absolvitur, excepto Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 16. m. 3. a. 2. — Eam tangunt S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 4. ad 3; S. I. q. 67. a. 4. ad 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. I. ad 2.

**III.** De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 49. m. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 4; S. I. q. 67. a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 1. — Aegid. R., II. Sent. d. 12. q. 1. a. 2. — Dionys. Carth., II. Sent. d. 12. q. 1. a. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Besides the creation made *before any day*, the Scholastics commonly said that the distinction of things and [their] adornment were also intimated in the words of Genesis, in this order: that distinction occurred in the first three days, and adornment in the three following days — and on the first day, distinction with the formation of light; on the fourth day, adornment with the formation of luminaries or luminous bodies began. — Concerning the interpretation of chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis which pleased Augustine, mention has already been made above at d. 12, a. I, q. 2. But although the Seraphic [Doctor] does not receive Augustine's interpretation — that by *light* is understood the *angelic nature*, inasmuch as it was formed through grace — as the principal sense of holy Scripture, but rather another which is more consonant with the letter of Genesis, nevertheless, as is clear from the solution to [argument] 2, he admits it as a less-principal [sense]. — As regards the solution to [argument] 3, St. Thomas (cf. p. 313, note 3) more approves the opinion which he himself says is Dionysius's — who teaches that the term *light* is said of spirituals only metaphorically. But Dionysius the Carthusian, (here q. 2 at the end), asserts that he has demonstrated that Dionysius along with Augustine teach that that term and others similar belong more properly to God and to spiritual things than to temporal. We are of the opinion, however, that by the distinction here made by St. Bonaventure and by St. Thomas (S. I, q. 67, a. 1) this difference can be reconciled.

**II.** The following question, which treats of the mode by which that light, before the formation of the sun, distinguished day and night, and of the diverse explanation of this matter by the Greek Fathers and the Latins, is for the most part omitted by other masters, or dispatched in a few words, except [in] Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 16, membrum 3, a. 2. — It is touched on by St. Thomas, here q. unica, a. 4 ad 3; S. I, q. 67, a. 4 ad 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. I, ad 2.

**III.** On the first question: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 49, membrum 1. — St. Thomas, here q. unica, a. 4; S. I, q. 67, a. 4. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. I, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, II *Sentences*, d. 12, q. 1, a. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, II *Sentences*, d. 12, q. 1, a. 2.

---

translators_notes:
- **Page span**: q1 opens on **p.311 R lower** (centered "ARTICULUS I. — De ipsa lucis productione. — QUAESTIO I." banner immediately below the d13-divisio tail). *Fundamenta ad oppositum* 1–6 run from p.311 R bottom across p.311 L→R bleed into p.312 L; *Sed contra* (*Fundamenta*) 1–4 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (*Expositio Augustini* + *Rationes eiusdem* + *Opinio aliorum*) fill p.312 L→R; Respondeo continuation + *Conclusio* + Solutio oppositorum (1, 2 + *Alia solutio*, 3 + *Notandum*, 4 + *Aliter*, 5, 6) run across p.313 L→R. SCHOLION (items I–III) opens on p.314 L upper. Q. II ("Qualiter illa lux fecerit diem et noctem") opens immediately below the scholion on p.314 — owned by `d13-a1-q2`.
- **Apparatus count**: 17 entries — 5 on p.311 + 7 on p.312 + 5 on p.313 — renumbered sequentially [^1]–[^17] in body-order of appearance (which matches printed-footer order). The scholion items I–III on p.314 are prose paragraphs not footer-numbered.
- **Scholion**: three items on p.314 L upper, preserved verbatim. **I.** glosses the *distinctio + ornatus* scheme and reconciles Bonaventure's solution to arg. 3 with Thomas's; **II.** is a brief "see-also" for the following quaestio's diem-noctem topic; **III.** is the standard "*De 1. quaestione*" parallel-treatments back-reference (Alex. Hal., S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Aegid. R., Dionys. Carth.). No additional p.314 footer apparatus is owned by this chunk (p.314 footers for the scholion are absorbed into the scholion prose itself per Quaracchi convention).
- **Boundary integrity (per CLAUDE.md polish-cadence pass 3)**: backward boundary with `d13-divisio` at p.311 R is clean — divisio ends "*qualiter faciebat diem et noctem.*" and the centred "ARTICULUS I. … QUAESTIO I." banner opens immediately below. Forward boundary at p.314 L (mid-column) is clean — q1 closes with the scholion item III's Dionys. Carth. reference; "QUAESTIO II. — *Qualiter illa lux fecerit diem et noctem.*" opens immediately below and is owned by `d13-a1-q2`.
- **Frontmatter line-range**: `line_start: 22053, line_end: 22247` matches the semantic range (ARTICULUS I. opener → end of scholion III). Skeleton note that the chunk was re-split 2026-05-23 (removing an erroneously-bundled QUAESTIO II body) was honoured by leaving the line range as set and not adjusting it; the previous re-split was correct.
- **No `[?]` flags raised.** Body reconciled against p.311 R (cached) + p.312 L-0/L-1/L-2 + R-0/R-1/R-2 + p.313 L-0/L-1/L-2 + R-0/R-1/R-2 column bands; footers reconciled against p.311 L-2/R-2 + p.312 L-2/R-2 + p.313 L-2/R-2. Marginal labels (*Fundamenta ad oppositum.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Expositio Augustini.*, *Rationes eiusdem.*, *Opinio aliorum.*, *Conclusio.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Ratio opposita.*, *Alia solutio.*, *Notandum.*, *Aliter.*) preserved inline per Vol II convention.