title: Dist. 14, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 361 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum ex impressionibus luminarium causetur in hominibus diversitas morum.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum ex impressionibus illorum luminarium causetur in hominibus diversitas morum. Et quod sic, videtur.

***Ad oppositum.***
1. Boethius in libro de Consolatione[^1]: « Fatum est rebus mobilibus inhaerens dispositio, per quam providentia suis quaeque nectit ordinibus ». Sed

<!-- page 362 -->

etiam Augustinus in quinto de Civitate Dei[^2] dicit, quod fatum est « vis positionis siderum, qua existente, quando quis concipitur vel nascitur, cognoscitur, qualis futurus sit ». Ex prima auctoritate habetur, quod fatum *vere est;* ex secunda habetur, quod fatum est *vis stellarum:* ergo si totum regimen vitae consistit in fato, sicut dicit Boethius[^3], et fatum est vis siderum, sicut dicit Augustinus, tunc regimen vitae et diversitas morum pendet ex virtute siderum.

2. Item, Philosophus in libro de Proprietatibus elementorum[^4] dicit, quod « regna vacua facta sunt, et terrae depopulatae apud coniunctionem duarum magnarum stellarum, scilicet Iovis et Saturni »: sed hoc non esset, nisi bella et lites hominum ex astris penderent: ergo etc.

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur per sacram Scripturam, Matthaei secundo[^5]: *Magi cognoverunt ortum regis* per apparitionem stellae. Et Ioannis secundo dicit Dominus: *Nondum venit hora mea;* similiter Ioannis octavo: *Nemo apprehendit eum, quia nondum venerat hora eius.* Si ergo Christus homo natus fuit sub constellatione et horam temporis exspectavit in sua passione, videtur, quod multo fortius omnes alii homines regi et gubernari habeant et disponi secundum stellarum virtutem.

4. Item, hoc ipsum videtur sensibili experientia. In mortibus enim regum, ut dicunt astronomi, apparet stella cometa[^6], et astronomi et mathematici, de multis requisiti, secundum astrologiae indicium multa praedicunt vera; hoc autem non esset, nisi mores et affectus hominum disponerentur secundum virtutem stellarum: ergo etc.

5. Item, hoc ipsum videtur *ratione certa.* Ad universitatis ordinem spectat et ad perfectionem regiminis, ut nihil casu fiat respectu divinae providentiae[^7]: ergo si Deus regit ignobilia per nobilia, inferiora per superiora et corruptibilia per incorruptibilia; videtur, quod nihil in his inferioribus fiat, quod a stellarum virtute et influentia non procedat. Et si hoc verum est: ergo diversitas morum causatur a diversitate constellationum.

**Contra:**
1. *Deuteronomii* quarto[^8]: *Solem et lunam et omnia astra caeli creavit Dominus Deus in ministerium cunctis gentibus, quae sub caelo sunt;* sed quod est creatum in ministerium hominis non praedominatur ei in regimine et virtute; aliter enim esset creatum in dominium, non in ministerium. Si igitur astra caeli sunt creata in ministerium: ergo ex eis non pendent principaliter mores hominum.

2. Item, hoc videtur *auctoritate* ipsius Ptolemaei[^9], maximi astronomi, qui dicit, quod « sapiens homo dominabitur astris »; sed hoc non esset, si mores hominum causarentur ex impressionibus stellarum: ergo etc.

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur *ratione ostensiva.* Quod recte ordinatum est, secundum quod huiusmodi, non tendit nisi ad rectum; sed caelum cum suis sideribus a primo Conditore rectissime ordinatum est: ergo nunquam tendit nisi ad bonos mores et rectos: ergo aut omnes homines habent bonos mores, aut bonitas morum non causatur ex positione siderum.

4. Item, hoc videtur per *rationem ducentem ad impossibile.* Si enim diversitas morum causatur a positionibus et impressionibus siderum, cum motus eorum sit naturalis et necessarius, diversitas morum in hominibus erit naturaliter et necessario: ergo nec erit liberum arbitrium, nec valebit consilium, nec meritum erit nec demeritum, nec laus nec vituperium. Si igitur hoc est maximum impossibile, quia dehonestat et deturpat totum universum, maximum impossibile est, quod diversitas morum causetur a positionibus siderum[^10].

### Conclusio.

> *Haereticum est dicere, luminaria causare mores hominum et eventus necessario et sufficienter; concedi autem potest, quod remote et contingenter disponant ad varietatem morum.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod mores hominum et eventus futurorum a sideribus causari dupliciter ***Distinctio.*** potest intelligi: aut *necessario et sufficienter,* aut *dispositive et contingenter.* Si primo modo dicatur, sic non tantum est falsum, immo est haereticum et diabolicum figmentum, quia repugnat ***Conclusio quoad 1. membrum distinctionis.*** *christianae religioni,* repugnat *sensui* et repugnat etiam *rationi.*

<!-- page 363 -->

***Ratio 1.*** *Christianae religioni* repugnat, dum est contra *veritatem fidei* et *honestatem morum. Veritas* enim *fidei* in hoc errore salvari non potest; dum enim ponit, omnia a sideribus necessario evenire, tollit meritum, et per consequens praemium, tollit etiam gratiam, et per consequens gloriam. — *Honestas* etiam *morum* per hunc errorem praeiudicium patitur, dum culpa peccantis in sidera refunditur, et licentia malefaciendi sine reprehensione conceditur, et homo ad adorandum et colendum sidera incurvatur. Et iste est finis huius erroris pessimi, quia ad idololatriam perducit. Et in hoc patet, hoc esse commentum diaboli, qui maxime ad hoc intendit hominem pertrahere[^11], ut faciat se adorari et coli.

***Ratio 2.*** *Sensui* etiam repugnat, quia sensibili experientia in eadem constellatione conceptos et natos videmus diversificari in moribus et exercitiis et eventibus et naturalibus proprietatibus; et istud manifeste apparet in Iacob et Esau, qui simul fuerunt concepti et nati, et tamen in omnibus his sunt diversificati[^12]. Apparet etiam, quia in eadem constellatione nascitur filius regis et filius rustici, nascitur etiam homo et asinus, nascitur femina et masculus, qui nec communicant in moribus nec in eventibus nec in naturalibus proprietatibus. Et hoc ipsum probat Gregorius in Homilia Epiphaniae[^13] sic: « Fateri mathematici solent, quod quisquis sub signo *aquarii* nascitur, in hac vita piscatoris ministerium sortiatur; piscatores vero, ut fertur, Getulia non habet. Quis ergo dicat, quod nemo hic sub stella aquarii nascitur, ubi piscator omnimode non habetur? Dicunt etiam, quod qui sub signo *librae* nascuntur, trapezetae futuri sunt: in multis autem locis sub libra multi nascuntur, ubi trapezetae penitus ignorantur ».

***Ratio 3.*** Repugnat nihilominus *rectae rationi,* dum *superioribus praeponit inferiora,* et in se *implicat contraria. Superioribus* namque *praeponit inferiora,* dum homini praeponit astra, qui est creatura dignissima, sicut Philosophus[^14] testatur et recta ratio, hominem esse finem omnium quae sunt. Et ideo dicit Gregorius: « Vitam quippe hominum solus qui creavit Conditor administrat; non enim propter stellas homo, sed stellae propter hominem factae sunt ». Dum igitur hic error mores hominum astris subiicit, inferiora suo superiori, et ignobiliora nobiliori praeponit. — Non solum autem ex hoc rationi repugnat, sed etiam, quia in se *opposita implicat.* Dicit enim, quod quia mores hominum pendent ex astris et constellationibus, ideo astra sunt veneranda et constellationes observandae; et hoc est ponere duo opposita[^15]. Aut enim necesse est, *evenire* homini secundum constellationes siderum, aut *non.* Si *non:* ergo non sunt fata metuenda; si *sic:* ergo non sunt astra veneranda. Dum ergo ponit, fata esse metuenda, et astra veneranda, ponit duo contraria. Item, aut *evenit* homini, secundum quod constellatio in suo ortu exigit, aut *non.* Si *sic:* ergo frustra sunt constellationes observandae in actibus suis, cum secundum primam constellationem necessarium sit, ei bona vel mala evenire. Si *non* in prima constellatione: ergo pari ratione nec in sequentibus: ergo nullae sunt observandae. Dum igitur hic error ponit, constellationes effectum habere, et ponit, constellationes observandas esse post hominis nativitatem; aperte videtur sibi ipsi contraire. Et sic iste error repugnat *sensui* et *fidei* et *rationi.*

***Epilogus.*** Hoc autem triplex inconveniens quod dictum est, colligitur ex verbis Damasceni[^16] et Gregorii et Augustini. Secundum igitur hunc modum dicendi, scilicet mores hominum et eventus futurorum a stellis necessario et sufficienter causari, falsitas incurritur et haeresis periculosa.

***Quoad 2. membrum distinctionis.*** Si autem dicatur, mores hominum a dispositionibus siderum variari *dispositive* et *contingenter,* sic potest habere veritatem, quia nec rationi nec fidei repugnat. Planum est enim, quod dispositio corporis varia multum facit ad variationem affectionum et morum animae. Ut plurimum enim anima complexiones corporis imitatur; unde cholerici sunt iracundi, et sanguinei sunt benigni, et melancholici sunt lividi, flegmatici pigri[^17]. Hoc autem non est *necessario;* anima enim dominatur suo corpori, maxime quando est adiuta per gratiam. Multos enim videmus cholericos mansuetos, et melancholicos benignos. Quoniam igitur virtus corporum caelestium operatur ad mixtionem et qualitatem complexionum; hinc est, quod per consequens operatur quodam modo ad qualitatem morum, valde tamen *de longinquo;* ***Notandum.***

<!-- page 364 -->

plus enim facit ad qualitatem complexionis virtus naturae inferioris quam virtus sideris. Unde Augustinus in quinto de Civitate Dei[^18], in solutione cuiusdam quaestionis de duobus fratribus, qui simul infirmabantur et curabantur, unde hoc esset, magis commendat responsionem Hippocratis physici quam astronomi. Hippocrates enim respondit, quod hoc erat propter similitudinem complexionis, et astronomus respondit, quod erat propter identitatem constellationis. Melius enim respondit physicus, quia causam reddit magis propriam et magis propinquam. — Si igitur hoc modo quaereretur, utrum impressiones siderum aliquo modo disponant ad varietatem morum; respondendum esset, quod sic, verumtamen non *dispositione necessaria* et *proxima* et *sufficiente,* sed *dispositione remota* et *contingente.* Si autem quaeratur, utrum sint causa *sufficiens;* respondendum est simpliciter, quod non, quia contrarium dicere est haereticum, sicut prius ostensum est. ***Conclusio 2.***

***Solutio oppositorum.***
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de fato, dicendum, quod de fato aliter loquitur Boethius, et aliter Augustinus. ***Fatum sec. Boethium.*** Boethius enim loquitur de fato, prout est aliquid secundum *veritatem;* et sic fatum nominat *ordinem in rebus mobilibus,* ad divinam providentiam relatum, ordinem, inquam, non solummodo secundum naturam et secundum causam necessariam, sed etiam secundum libertatem voluntatis et contingentiam. Dicit enim sic in libro de Consolatione[^19]: « *Providentia* cuncta pariter, quamvis diversa, quamvis infinita, complectitur; *fatum* vero singula dirigit in motu, locis, formis et temporibus distributa. Et haec temporalis ordinis explicatio, in divinae mentis adunata prospectu, *providentia* est; eadem vero adunatio digesta atque explicata temporibus, *fatum* vocatur ». Et sic patet, quod Boethius fatum accipit generaliter ad egressum et decursum omnium rerum, sive voluntariarum, sive naturalium, sive necessariarum, sive contingentium. — ***Fatum sec. August.*** Augustinus vero in quinto de Civitate Dei[^20] accipit fatum secundum *aestimationem* philosophorum, qui vocant fatum vim positionis siderum et constellationum, secundum quam cuncta necessario eveniunt in his inferioribus; et sic fatum nihil est; et ostendit ipse, quod nihil sit. — Et ita *aequivoce* accipit fatum Boethius et Augustinus, et propter hoc non fit assumtio sub medio, sed magis aequivocationis deceptio, propter quam tollendam de medio dicit Augustinus quinto de Civitate Dei[^21], quod si quis fatum vocat *ordinem causarum, quem Deus instituit,* cum hoc sit verum, sententiam teneat et linguam corrigat, quia secundum communem usum sic accipitur, sicut mathematici accipere consueverunt.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod bella causantur ex positione siderum; dicendum, quod illud verbum Philosophi non tribuit aliud sideribus quam quandam dispositionem ad tales affectus[^22], ex quibus bella generantur. Ex commotione enim alicuius humoris potest aliqua affectio in anima excitari, quam tamen non necesse est ponere, quia anima potest eam reprimere. Sed quia multi sunt insecutores passionum, et eis quibus possunt dominari, ***Notandum.*** se ipsos subiiciunt; hinc est, quod multi se subiiciunt impressionibus astrorum. Et ideo frequenter astrologi vera praedicunt, maxime circa homines animaliter viventes; circa vero spiritualiter sapientes, qui dominantur passionibus, pauca possunt vera praedicere, immo, sicut dicit magnus astronomus Ptolemaeus: « Sapiens homo dominabitur astris ».

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Dominus natus fuit sub constellatione; dicendum, quod falsum est; nec apparuit stella, sub cuius *regimine*[^23] nasceretur, nec in patiendo exspectavit horam fatalem; sed in nativitate stella apparuit ut *signum,* in passione vero tempus exspectavit sibi a Deo praedefinitum et figuris legalibus praesignatum. — ***Quaestio incidens.*** Et si quaeras, unde hoc est, quod Magi per illam stellam cognoverunt regem; dicendum, quod hoc non fuit solum humana inventione, sed suae mentis attentione et divina revelatione. Praeterea, illa stella non fuit cum aliis stellis creata, sed in nativitate Domini fuit producta, nec motum habuit aliarum stellarum, sicut dicit Chrysostomus[^24], nec fuisse creditur in orbibus aliarum stellarum, sed longe inferius, adeo ut directe appareret super domum.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod multa vera praedicunt, et maxime hoc apparet in stella cometa, quae apparet in morte regum; dicendum, quod in ***Notandum.*** his quae considerantur circa *motum caelestium corporum,* infallibiliter possunt vera praedicere et per artem, sicut de eclipsi solis et lunae. In his vero, quae considerantur circa *effectum rerum inferiorum,* quae eis subsunt, probabiliter et per artem possunt vera praedicere, non tamen semper, sicut circa tempestates et serenitates et huiusmodi. In his vero, quae subsunt *libero arbitrio,* frequenter ita dicunt falsa, sicut et vera; et si aliquando vera videantur dicere, hoc est vel casu, vel diabolico instinctu. Nam diabolus, sicut dicit Augustinus[^25], se libenter immiscet in huiusmodi divinationibus. — Nec valet illud quod obiicitur de stella cometa, quia, prout significat mortem regis, non fit natura, sed divino iussu, ut dicit Damascenus[^26]. Si enim naturaliter fit, non videtur magis ratio, quare ap-

<!-- page 365 -->

pareat in morte principis quam in morte rustici; nisi forte tu dicas, sicut volunt aliqui astrologi dicere, quod stella aliqua praeest principi, quae in eius morte divino iussu ad se trahit partes caelestes, quae erant in eius corpore, quibus abstractis a corpore, generatur dissolutio in eo quod remanet; et dum sursum trahuntur et stellae approximant, faciunt comam[^27]. — ***Ratio non probata.*** Sed tunc remanet quaestio: quare similiter non fit circa rusticum? Et ideo securius dici potest, quod cometa aut non significat mortem principis, sed solum hoc accidit, quod moriatur in eius apparitione; aut si significat, hoc fit divino iussu, qui[^28] magis eius mortem praenuntiat, tum quia est persona communis, tum quia ex hoc potest frequenter oriri perturbatio regni, in cuius custodia magis sollicitantur Angeli, dum bonum commune praeponunt bono speciali.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod de perfectione ordinis est, quod illud quod regitur perfecte subiiciatur regenti; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, ubi regens aliquid regit per modum *dominantis,* non per modum *ministrantis.* Unde quia humani actus reguntur a divina providentia sicut a *dominante,* nihil potest evenire praeter ipsius providentiae intentionem et cognitionem, et ita nihil casu. Quia vero ab astris diriguntur solummodo per modum *ministerii;* ideo non oportet, quod per omnia subdantur eis, nec hoc exigit perfectio universi.

english:
### Question III. *Whether from the impressions of the heavenly bodies there is caused in human beings a diversity of moral character.*

In the third place it is asked whether from the impressions of those luminaries a diversity of moral character is caused in human beings. And that it is so, is shown as follows.

***On the affirmative side.***
1. Boethius in the book *On Consolation*[^1]: "Fate is a disposition inhering in mobile things, through which providence binds each thing in its own order." But

also Augustine in the fifth book *On the City of God*[^2] says that fate is "the force of the position of the stars, the existence of which, when someone is conceived or born, makes known what sort of person he will be." From the first authority it is established that fate *truly is;* from the second it is established that fate is *the force of the stars:* therefore if the whole governance of life consists in fate, as Boethius says[^3], and fate is the force of the stars, as Augustine says, then the governance of life and the diversity of moral character depend on the power of the stars.

2. Likewise, the Philosopher in the book *On the Properties of the Elements*[^4] says that "kingdoms have been emptied, and lands depopulated, at the conjunction of the two great stars, namely Jupiter and Saturn": but this would not be so unless the wars and conflicts of men depended on the stars: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this same thing seems to follow from sacred Scripture, in Matthew 2[^5]: *The Magi knew the birth of the King* through the appearance of a star. And in John 2 the Lord says: *My hour has not yet come;* likewise in John 8: *No one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come.* If therefore Christ, as a man, was born under a constellation and awaited the hour of time in his Passion, it seems that much more all other human beings must be ruled and governed and disposed according to the power of the stars.

4. Likewise, this same thing seems established by sensible experience. For at the deaths of kings, as the astronomers say, a comet-star appears[^6], and the astronomers and mathematicians, when consulted on many matters, predict many true things according to the judgement of astrology; this however would not be so unless the moral character and affections of human beings were disposed according to the power of the stars: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, this same thing seems clear by *certain reason.* It belongs to the order of the universe and to the perfection of governance that nothing happens by chance with respect to divine providence[^7]: therefore if God rules the ignoble through the noble, the lower things through the higher, and the corruptible things through the incorruptible; it seems that nothing in these lower things happens that does not proceed from the power and influence of the stars. And if this is true: therefore the diversity of moral character is caused by the diversity of constellations.

**On the contrary:**
1. *Deuteronomy* 4[^8]: *The Lord God created the sun and the moon and all the stars of heaven for the service of all the peoples that are under heaven;* but what has been created for the service of man does not dominate him in governance and power; otherwise it would have been created for dominion, not for service. If therefore the stars of heaven were created for service: therefore from them the moral character of men does not principally depend.

2. Likewise, this is shown by the *authority* of Ptolemy himself[^9], the greatest of astronomers, who says that "the wise man will rule the stars"; but this would not be the case if the moral character of men were caused from the impressions of the stars: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this same thing seems clear by *demonstrative reason.* What is rightly ordered, insofar as it is such, tends only to what is right; but heaven with its stars was most rightly ordered by the first Founder: therefore it never tends except to good and right moral character: therefore either all human beings have good moral character, or the goodness of moral character is not caused by the position of the stars.

4. Likewise, this is shown by *a reasoning leading to the impossible.* For if the diversity of moral character were caused by the positions and impressions of the stars, since their motion is natural and necessary, the diversity of moral character in human beings will be naturally and necessarily so: therefore there will be no free choice, nor counsel of any avail, nor merit nor demerit, nor praise nor blame. If therefore this is a maximum impossibility, because it dishonors and disfigures the whole universe, it is a maximum impossibility that the diversity of moral character should be caused by the positions of the stars[^10].

### Conclusion.

> *It is heretical to say that the luminaries cause the moral character and events of men necessarily and sufficiently; but it can be granted that remotely and contingently they dispose to a variety of moral character.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the causing of the moral character of human beings and the events of future things by the heavenly bodies can be understood in two ways: ***A distinction.*** either *necessarily and sufficiently,* or *dispositively and contingently.* If it is said in the first way, then it is not only false but also heretical and a diabolical fabrication, since it is repugnant ***Conclusion as to the first member of the distinction.*** to *the Christian religion,* repugnant to *the senses,* and repugnant also to *reason.*

***Reason 1.*** It is repugnant to *the Christian religion,* inasmuch as it is against *the truth of faith* and *the integrity of moral character.* For *the truth of faith* cannot be preserved in this error; for when it posits that all things come about from the stars necessarily, it takes away merit and consequently reward, it takes away also grace and consequently glory. — *The integrity of moral character,* too, suffers prejudice through this error, since the fault of the sinner is referred to the stars, and licence to do evil without reprehension is granted, and man is bent down to adore and worship the stars. And this is the end of this most evil error, that it leads to idolatry. And in this it is clear that this is a contrivance of the devil, who above all aims to draw man[^11] to this, that he may have himself adored and worshipped.

***Reason 2.*** It is repugnant also to *the senses,* because by sensible experience we see those conceived and born under the same constellation diversified in moral character and pursuits and events and natural properties; and this manifestly appears in Jacob and Esau, who were conceived and born at the same time, and yet in all these respects are diversified[^12]. It is also clear because under the same constellation a king's son and a peasant's son are born, a man and an ass are born, a woman and a male are born, who have nothing in common in moral character nor in events nor in natural properties. And this very thing Gregory proves in the *Homily on the Epiphany*[^13] thus: "Mathematicians are accustomed to confess that whoever is born under the sign of Aquarius receives in this life the office of fisherman; yet, as it is reported, Getulia has no fishermen. Who then can say that no one is born here under the star of Aquarius, where fishermen are by no means to be found? They also say that those who are born under the sign of Libra will be money-changers: but in many places under Libra many are born where money-changers are entirely unknown."

***Reason 3.*** Nevertheless it is repugnant to *right reason,* in that *it sets the lower things above the higher,* and *implicates contraries in itself.* For *it sets the lower above the higher,* when it sets the stars above man, who is the most worthy of creatures, as the Philosopher[^14] testifies and right reason that man is the end of all things that are. And therefore Gregory says: "The life of human beings is administered solely by the Founder who created them; for not for the stars was man made, but the stars for man." When therefore this error subjects the moral character of men to the stars, it sets the lower under its higher, and the more ignoble above the more noble. — Not only on this account is it repugnant to reason, but also because *it implicates opposites in itself.* For it says that, since the moral character of men depends on the stars and constellations, therefore the stars are to be venerated and the constellations observed; and this is to posit two opposites[^15]. For either it is necessary that things *happen* to a human being according to the constellations of the stars, or *not.* If *not:* therefore fates are not to be feared; if *so:* therefore the stars are not to be venerated. When therefore he posits that the fates are to be feared, and the stars to be venerated, he posits two contraries. Likewise, either it *happens* to a human being according to what his constellation at his rising required, or *not.* If *so:* therefore it is in vain that the constellations are to be observed in his acts, since by the first constellation it is necessary that good or evil happen to him. If *not* in the first constellation: therefore by parity of reason neither in the subsequent ones: therefore none are to be observed. When therefore this error posits that the constellations have an effect, and posits that the constellations are to be observed after a man's birth; it openly appears to contradict itself. And so this error is repugnant to *sense* and to *faith* and to *reason.*

***Epilogue.*** This threefold inconvenience which has been stated is gathered from the words of Damascene[^16] and Gregory and Augustine. According to this manner of speaking, then, namely, that the moral character of men and the events of future things are caused necessarily and sufficiently by the stars, falsehood is incurred and dangerous heresy.

***As to the second member of the distinction.*** But if it is said that the moral character of men is varied by the dispositions of the stars *dispositively* and *contingently,* then it can have truth, because it is repugnant neither to reason nor to faith. For it is plain that the varied disposition of the body greatly contributes to the variation of the affections and moral character of the soul. For the soul for the most part imitates the complexions of the body; whence the choleric are irascible, the sanguine are kindly, the melancholic are livid, the phlegmatic sluggish[^17]. This however is not *necessary;* for the soul has dominion over its body, especially when it is aided by grace. For we see many choleric persons gentle, and many melancholic persons kindly. Since therefore the power of the heavenly bodies works upon the mixture and quality of the complexions; hence it is that in consequence it works in a certain way upon the quality of moral character, but very much *from a distance;* ***Note well.***

for the power of lower nature contributes more to the quality of the complexion than the power of the star. Whence Augustine in the fifth book *On the City of God*[^18], in the solution of a certain question about two brothers who were taken ill and recovered at the same time, as to whence this came about, commends more the reply of Hippocrates the physician than that of the astronomer. For Hippocrates replied that this was because of the likeness of the complexion, and the astronomer replied that it was because of the identity of the constellation. The physician answered better, because he assigned a cause more proper and more proximate. — If therefore it should be asked in this way, whether the impressions of the stars in any way dispose to a variety of moral character; it would have to be answered that they do, yet not by a *necessary* and *proximate* and *sufficient disposition,* but by a *remote* and *contingent disposition.* But if it is asked whether they are a *sufficient* cause; it must be answered simply that they are not, since to say the contrary is heretical, as was shown before. ***Conclusion 2.***

***Solution of the opposing arguments.***
1. To that, then, which is objected concerning fate, it must be said that Boethius speaks of fate in one way, and Augustine in another. ***Fate according to Boethius.*** For Boethius speaks of fate insofar as it is something according to *truth;* and so he names fate *the order in mobile things,* referred to divine providence: an order, I say, not only according to nature and according to necessary cause, but also according to the freedom of the will and contingency. For he says thus in the book *On Consolation*[^19]: "*Providence* embraces all things together, however diverse, however infinite; but *fate* directs single things, distributed in motion, places, forms, and times. And this unfolding of temporal order, gathered together in the contemplation of the divine mind, is *providence;* but the very same unification, when arranged and unfolded in times, is called *fate.*" And so it is clear that Boethius takes fate generally for the going-forth and unfolding of all things, whether voluntary, or natural, or necessary, or contingent. — ***Fate according to Augustine.*** But Augustine in the fifth book *On the City of God*[^20] takes fate according to the *estimation* of the philosophers, who call fate the force of the position of the stars and constellations, according to which all things happen necessarily in these lower things; and so fate is nothing; and he himself shows that it is nothing. — And thus Boethius and Augustine take fate *equivocally,* and on this account no assumption is made under a middle term, but rather a deception of equivocation; for the removal of which Augustine says in the fifth book *On the City of God*[^21] that if anyone calls fate *the order of causes which God established,* since this is true, let him hold the opinion and correct his speech, since according to common usage it is taken in the way that the mathematicians have been accustomed to take it.

2. To that which is objected, that wars are caused by the position of the stars; it must be said that that saying of the Philosopher does not attribute anything else to the stars than a certain disposition to such affects[^22], from which wars are generated. For from the disturbance of some humor an affect can be excited in the soul, which however need not be admitted as necessary, since the soul can repress it. But because many are pursuers of the passions, and subject themselves to those whom they are able to dominate, ***Note well.*** they subject themselves; hence it is that many subject themselves to the impressions of the stars. And therefore astrologers frequently predict true things, especially concerning men who live in an animal way; but concerning those who live spiritually wise, who dominate the passions, they can predict few true things; rather, as the great astronomer Ptolemy says: "The wise man will rule the stars."

3. To that which is objected, that the Lord was born under a constellation; it must be said that this is false; for no star appeared under whose *governance*[^23] he might be born, nor in suffering did he await a fated hour; but at his nativity the star appeared as a *sign,* and in his Passion he awaited the time predefined to him by God and prefigured by the legal figures. — ***Incidental question.*** And if you ask whence it is, that the Magi by that star knew the King; it must be said that this was not by human ingenuity alone, but by the attention of their own mind and by divine revelation. Moreover, that star was not created with the other stars, but was produced at the nativity of the Lord, nor did it have the motion of the other stars, as Chrysostom[^24] says, nor is it believed to have been in the orbits of the other stars, but far below, so that it appeared directly over the house.

4. To that which is objected, that they predict many true things, and that this is most apparent in the comet-star which appears at the death of kings; it must be said that in those things ***Note well.*** which are considered concerning *the motion of the heavenly bodies,* they can predict true things infallibly and by art, as in the case of an eclipse of the sun and moon. But in those things which are considered concerning *the effects of the lower things* which are subject to them, they can predict true things probably and by art, yet not always, as in the case of storms and clear weather and the like. But in those things which are subject to *free choice,* they often speak as much falsehood as truth; and if they sometimes seem to speak the truth, this is either by chance, or by diabolical instinct. For the devil, as Augustine[^25] says, willingly mixes himself into divinations of this sort. — Nor is what is objected about the comet-star of any force, since, insofar as it signifies the death of a king, it does not come about by nature, but by divine command, as Damascene[^26] says. For if it comes about naturally, there does not seem to be greater reason why it should appear

at the death of a prince than at the death of a peasant; unless perhaps you say, as certain astrologers wish to say, that some star presides over a prince, which at his death by divine command draws to itself the celestial parts that were in his body; which, having been drawn from the body, a dissolution is generated in what remains; and while they are drawn upward and the stars approach, they make a coma[^27]. — ***Reason not proven.*** But then a question remains: why does the same not happen with the peasant? And therefore it can more safely be said that the comet either does not signify the death of a prince, but only this happens, that he should die at its appearance; or, if it does signify, this comes about by divine command, who[^28] rather foretells his death, both because he is a public person, and because from this there can frequently arise a disturbance of the kingdom, in whose guard the Angels are more solicitous, since they prefer the common good to the special good.

5. To that which is objected, that it belongs to the perfection of order that what is ruled be perfectly subjected to the ruler; it must be said that this is true where the ruler rules something through the mode of one *dominating,* not through the mode of one *ministering.* Whence, because human acts are ruled by divine providence as by one *dominating,* nothing can happen apart from the intention and cognition of providence itself, and thus nothing by chance. But because by the stars they are directed only through the mode of *ministry;* therefore it is not necessary that they be subjected to them in all things, nor does the perfection of the universe require this.

la: Libr. IV. prosa 6.

en: Book IV, prose 6.

la: Cap. 1. Haec definitio *fati* collecta est ex duabus propositionibus, quae ibi occurrunt. — Vat. *Similiter etiam* pro *Sed etiam.*

en: Chapter 1. This definition of *fate* is gathered from two propositions which occur there. — The Vatican edition reads *Similiter etiam* for *Sed etiam.*

la: Libr. IV. prosa 6. docet, quod fatum « actus etiam fortunasque hominum indissolubili causarum connexione constringit ». — Paulo inferius post *vis* in Vat. additur *positionis.*

en: Book IV, prose 6, teaches that fate "binds the acts and fortunes of men also by an indissoluble connection of causes." — A little below, after *vis*, the Vatican edition adds *positionis.*

la: Cap. 1: *Immortalitas gentium praeteritarum et regna vacua fiunt apud coniunctionem stellarum duarum etc.* — Hoc opusculum in recentioribus edd. operum Aristotelis non invenitur, quia spurium est. — Cfr. Isidor., III. Etymol. c. 70. et de Natura rerum, c. 26, ubi idem de cometis dicit.

en: Chapter 1: *The immortality of past peoples and the empty kingdoms come about at the conjunction of two stars,* etc. — This little work is not found in more recent editions of the works of Aristotle, since it is spurious. — Cf. Isidore, III *Etymologies* c. 70, and *On the Nature of Things* c. 26, where he says the same thing about comets.

la: Vers. 2. — Seq. textus est loc. cit. v. 4; tertius loc. cit. v. 20, ubi Vulgata *necdum* pro *nondum.*

en: Verse 2. — The following text is from the cited place, v. 4; the third from the cited place, v. 20, where the Vulgate reads *necdum* for *nondum.*

la: Idem refert Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 7. his verbis: *Constituuntur autem et multoties cometae signa quaedam significantia mortem regum.* — Multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 hic et in solut. obiectionis scribunt *comata.*

en: Damascene reports the same, II *On the Orthodox Faith* c. 7, in these words: *Comets are also often appointed as certain signs signifying the death of kings.* — Many codices with editions 1 and 2 here and in the solution of the objection write *comata.*

la: Cfr. Boeth., III. de Consol. prosa 12. et IV. prosa 5. seq. De *minori* vide supra pag. 360, nota 3.

en: Cf. Boethius, III *On Consolation* prose 12, and IV prose 5 ff. For the *minor*, see above p. 360, note 3.

la: Vers. 19: *Ne forte, elevatis oculis ad caelum, videas solem et lunam et omnia astra caeli, et errore deceptus, adores ea et colas, quae creavit Dominus Deus tuus in ministerium* etc.

en: Verse 19: *Lest perchance, lifting up your eyes to heaven, you see the sun and the moon and all the stars of heaven, and being deceived by error, you adore and worship them, which the Lord your God created for service,* etc.

la: Guido Bonati Forolivensis, Astronomiae p. I, haec Ptolomaei in Almegisto verba ita exponit: *Astrologus, licet non dominet omnes stellas, quia valde prolixum esset, tamen utitur eis omnibus, quoniam ipse utitur duodecim signis, sub quibus fere omnes stellae comprehenduntur.*

en: Guido Bonatti of Forlì, *Astronomy* p. I, expounds these words of Ptolemy in the *Almagest* thus: *The astrologer, although he does not rule all the stars, since that would be exceedingly long, nevertheless makes use of them all, since he himself uses the twelve signs, under which nearly all the stars are comprehended.*

la: August., V. de Civ. Dei, c. 1. contra eos qui putant, talem influendi potestatem traditam fuisse stellis a voluntate Dei, ait: *Magnam caelo faciunt iniuriam, in cuius velut clarissimo senatu ac splendidissima curia opinantur scelera facienda decerni; qualia si aliqua terrena civitas decrevisset, genere humano decernente, fuerat evertenda.*

en: Augustine, V *On the City of God* c. 1, against those who think that such a power of influence was given to the stars by the will of God, says: *They do a great injury to heaven, in whose, as it were, most illustrious senate and most splendid court they suppose that crimes to be committed are decreed; if any earthly city had decreed such things, the human race itself decreeing, it would have to have been overthrown.*

la: Cfr. Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 7. et August., V. de Civ. Dei, c. 9. n. 4. et c. 10. n. 2. — In Vat. desiderantur verba *quia dehonestat et deturpat totum universum, maximum impossibile.*

en: Cf. Damascene, II *On the Orthodox Faith* c. 7, and Augustine, V *On the City of God* c. 9, n. 4, and c. 10, n. 2. — In the Vatican edition the words *quia dehonestat et deturpat totum universum, maximum impossibile* are missing.

la: Nonnulli codd. cum ed. I. *protrahere.*

en: Several codices with edition I read *protrahere.*

la: Gen. 25, 23. seqq. — August., V. de Civ. Dei, c. 4. idem arg. proponit; cfr. ibid. c. 2. 3. et 6.

en: Genesis 25, 23 ff. — Augustine, V *On the City of God* c. 4, proposes the same argument; cf. ibid. c. 2, 3, and 6.

la: In Evang. homil. 10. n. 5.

en: *On the Gospels,* homily 10, n. 5.

la: Libr. II. Phys. text. 24. (c. 2.). — Verba Gregorii habentur loc. paulo superius cit. n. 4.

en: Book II *Physics,* text 24 (c. 2). — The words of Gregory are found in the place cited a little above, n. 4.

la: Cod. T subiungit *in eodem,* et post *necesse est* addit *ponere.* Subinde multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 *sideris* pro *siderum.* Paulo inferius post *contraria* in cod. A additur: *Unde Leo in sermone Octavae Nativitatis Domini (Serm. 26. c. 3.): Illi qui totam humanae vitae conditionem de stellarum pendere effectibus mentiuntur, et quod est [aut] divinae voluntatis aut nostrae indeclinabilium dicunt esse fatorum. Qui [ed. quae] tamen, ut cumulatius noceant, respondent [spondent], se posse mutari, si illis quae adversantur sideribus supplicetur. Unde commentum impium sua ratione destruitur; quia si praedicta non permanent, non sunt fata metuenda, si permanent, non sunt astra veneranda.*

en: Codex T appends *in eodem,* and after *necesse est* adds *ponere.* Subsequently many codices with editions 1, 2 read *sideris* for *siderum.* A little below, after *contraria,* in codex A is added: *Whence Leo, in his sermon on the Octave of the Nativity of the Lord (Serm. 26, c. 3): "Those who lie that the whole condition of human life depends on the effects of the stars, and say that what is [either] of the divine will or of our own is of unalterable fates. Who [ed.: which] however, that they may harm the more abundantly, respond [pledge themselves] that they can be changed if those stars which are adverse be supplicated. Whence the impious contrivance is destroyed by its own reasoning; for if the predictions do not stand, the fates are not to be feared; if they do stand, the stars are not to be venerated."*

la: Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 7; — Greg., in Evang. homil. 10; — August., V. de Civ. Dei, c. 1. seqq. — Paulo post plures codd. cum ed. I *dicendo* pro *dicendi.*

en: Book II *On the Orthodox Faith* c. 7; — Gregory, *On the Gospels,* homily 10; — Augustine, V *On the City of God* c. 1 ff. — A little after, several codices with edition I read *dicendo* for *dicendi.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., Problem. Sect. 30. n. 1.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Problems* Section 30, n. 1.

la: Cap. 2. et 3.

en: Chapters 2 and 3.

la: Libr. IV. prosa 6, ubi textus originalis cum Vat. *in motum* pro *in motu,* et dein textus originalis *ut haec... providentia sit... fatum vocetur.* Plurimi codd. cum ed. I post *explicatio* incongrue inserunt *et.*

en: Book IV, prose 6, where the original text with the Vatican edition reads *in motum* for *in motu,* and then the original text reads *ut haec... providentia sit... fatum vocetur.* Most codices with edition I after *explicatio* incongruously insert *et.*

la: Cap. 1.

en: Chapter 1.

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

en: The Vatican edition with several codices reads *effectus.*

la: Plures codd. *regione.*

en: Several codices read *regione.*

la: In Matth. homil. 6. n. 2.

en: *On Matthew,* homily 6, n. 2.

la: Libr. V. de Civ. Dei, c. 7. et XXI. c. 8. n. 3.

en: Book V *On the City of God* c. 7, and Book XXI c. 8, n. 3.

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

en: Book II *On the Orthodox Faith* c. 7.

la: Vat. *cometam.*

en: The Vatican edition reads *cometam.*

la: Referatur vel ad *divino iussu,* vel ad *cometa (cometes).* Aliqui codd. *quod,* Vat. *quo.*

en: It is to be referred either to *divino iussu* (divine command), or to *cometa (cometes)* (the comet). Some codices read *quod;* the Vatican edition reads *quo.* ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Non tantum apud antiquos populos, praesertim Chaldaeos, qui corpora caelestia adorabant, sed etiam inter nationes christianas anteactis saeculis propagatus est pessimus error, quod ab impressionibus et constellationibus stellarum affectus hominum et eventus humani *certa* quadam lege procederent. Hinc multorum etiam gravium virorum mentes ita infatuatae erant, ut iudiciis nativitatum aliisque superstitionibus astrologicis firmiter adhaererent, multique principes nullum grave negotium incipere auderent, nisi exploratis per suos astrologos astrorum constellationibus. S. Bonav. egregie falsas istas opiniones refutat, consentientibus aliis Scholasticis.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 52. m. 2. a. 2. — Scot., hic q. 3. n. 6; de Anima q. 14. — S. Thom., II. Sent. d. 15. q. 1. a. 3; S. I. q. 115. a. 4; II. II. q. 95. a. 5; S. c. Gent. III. c. 84. 85. 87. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 3. — Durand., II. Sent. d. 15. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., II. Sent. d. 15. q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Not only among ancient peoples, especially the Chaldeans, who adored the heavenly bodies, but even among Christian nations in past centuries there was propagated a most evil error, that from the impressions and constellations of the stars the affections of men and human events proceeded according to a certain fixed law. Hence the minds even of many serious men were so infatuated that they firmly adhered to natal-judgements and other astrological superstitions, and many princes did not dare to begin any serious business unless the constellations of the stars had been investigated through their own astrologers. St. Bonaventure splendidly refutes these false opinions, the other Scholastics agreeing.

**II.** Alex. Hal., *Summa*, p. II, q. 52, m. 2, a. 2. — Scotus, here q. 3, n. 6; *de Anima* q. 14. — St. Thomas, II *Sent.* d. 15, q. 1, a. 3; *Summa* I, q. 115, a. 4; II–II, q. 95, a. 5; *Summa contra Gentiles* III, c. 84, 85, 87. — Bl. Albert, here a. 5. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. 3, a. 3, *quaestiuncula* 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 3, a. 3. — Durandus, II *Sent.* d. 15, q. 2. — Dionysius Carthusianus, II *Sent.* d. 15, q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Cross-chunk hand-off picked up.** p. 361 footer note 6 (*Libr. IV. prosa 6.* — Boethius *de Consolatione*) was forwarded from `d14-p2-a2-q2`. It anchors here at the *Ad oppositum* arg 1 *Boethius in libro de Consolatione* citation (raw line 25540, p. 361 R mid). Captured as [^1] at the head of the apparatus per Vol II continuous-renumbering convention.

**Page span and footer split.** Body runs p. 361 R mid (QUAESTIO III opener) → p. 362 L+R (Fundamenta args 2–5 on L; *Contra* args 1–4 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo opener on R) → p. 363 L+R (Ratio 1–3 + Epilogus + *Quoad 2 membrum* opener) → p. 364 L+R (Notandum continuation + Solutio op. args 1–4) → p. 365 L+R (Sol 4 cometa close + Sol 5 + 2-section SCHOLION I+II terminating immediately before DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI opener at raw line 25804).

**Apparatus accounting (28 entries):** p. 361 footer note 6 forwarded from a2-q2 = [^1]; p. 362 L+R footer notes 1–10 = [^2]–[^10] (note 10 = the Vat.-omission textual-variant on the Conclusio); p. 363 footer notes 1–7 = [^11]–[^17]; p. 364 footer notes 1–9 = [^18]–[^26] (the *Solutio op.* discussion runs across L+R columns of p. 364 with footer notes 1–3 on L and 4–9 on R); p. 365 footer notes 1–2 = [^27]–[^28]. p. 365 footer notes 3–5 hand forward to `d14-p2-dubia` (anchors at DUB. I body — *Cfr. Aristot. VIII Phys. text. 57.* + Gen 1,1 + Gen 2,6). No double-counting verified against the column-band crops.

**Scholion.** 2-section SCHOLION preserved + translated; SCHOLION II is the article-closing commentator-list bibliography per locked Vol II convention (Alex. Hal., Scot., S. Thom., B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Aegid. R., Durand., Dionys. Carth.). Compatible with the rule that an article's final question carries the closing scholion.

**No `[?]` flags.** All 28 anchors crisp at 450 dpi; all body text recovered column-by-column. The marginal labels (*Ad oppositum.*, *Distinctio.*, *Conclusio quoad 1. membrum distinctionis.*, *Ratio 1/2/3.*, *Epilogus.*, *Quoad 2. membrum distinctionis.*, *Notandum.*, *Conclusio 2.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Fatum sec. Boethium.*, *Fatum sec. August.*, *Quaestio incidens.*, *Ratio non probata.*) preserved inline per locked Vol II convention.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 14, Part 1, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the letter of the Master (Part I)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 350 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

Posset tamen aliquis dubitare de eo quod dicit in littera: *Deum glaciali soliditate aquas suspendere.* Ex hoc enim videtur supponere, quod aquae illae sint de se ponderosae, et quod ibi teneantur per violentiam soliditatis; quod est contra ordinem universitatis.

*Resp.* Sed dicendum ad hoc, quod aquas illas comparat glaciali soliditati non propter gravitatem, sed propter continuitatem et stabilitatem, quia non fluunt nec refluunt nec deorsum descendunt.

### Dub. II.

Item posset aliquis dubitare de hoc quod dicit: *Aquas super illud caelum minutioribus guttis et levioribus emanare vaporibus.* Si enim hoc verum est, videtur tunc firmamentum *porosum* esse, ut per illud possint guttae aquae emanare. Videtur etiam illud caelum *alterabile* esse, si suscipit peregrinas impressiones[^1].

*Resp.* Sed dicendum ad hoc, quod non vult dicere, quod aquae modo per subtiliationem caloris pertranseant caelum sidereum, quia nunquam illuc ascendunt; sed per operationem naturae, quae modo usque super aerem elevat aquas, vult quasi *a minori* insinuare, quod divina virtus aquas super firmamentum sine naturae praeiudicio potuit constituere, cum in sua potestate esset, magis et magis corpus subtiliare[^2].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de ista ratione, quam reddit: *Non est hic dictum… Vidit Deus, quod esset bonum… quia binarius principium est alteritatis et signum divisionis. Contra:* Videtur enim ista ratio ita bene esse ad oppositum, sicut ad propositum. *Binarius* enim plus accedit ad unitatem quam aliquis alius numerus.

*Resp.* Sed respondendum est ad hoc, quod ista ratio Magistri est *allegorica,* vera tamen est. Quamvis enim *binarius* inter numeros minus ab unitate recedat, *primo* tamen habet rationem recessus in se, et propter hoc per ipsum intelligitur divisio magis, quam per alios numeros, et recessus ab unitate virtutis et perfectionis. Alia tamen ratio est *litteralis,* quam tangit magister in Historiis[^3], quia secundo die notatur facta esse distinctio aquarum ab aquis, quae distinctio, etsi inchoata fuit in secundo die, fuit tamen consummata in tertio, cum dicitur: *Congregentur aquae in locum unum*[^4]. Et quia divina visio significat approbationem post perfectionem, hinc est, quod Scriptura tacuit secundo die verbum videndi.

---

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

### Doubt I.

Yet someone could doubt concerning what he says in the letter: *That God by a glacial solidity suspended the waters.* For from this he seems to suppose that those waters are of themselves heavy, and that they are held there by the violence of solidity; which is contrary to the order of the universe.

*Reply.* But it must be said to this that he compares those waters to glacial solidity not on account of weight, but on account of continuity and stability, because they neither flow nor flow back nor descend downward.

### Doubt II.

Likewise someone could doubt concerning this which he says: *That the waters above that heaven emanate in tinier drops and lighter vapors.* For if this is true, then the firmament seems to be *porous,* so that through it drops of water can emanate. That heaven also seems to be *alterable,* if it receives foreign impressions[^1].

*Reply.* But it must be said to this that he does not mean that waters now, through the subtilization of heat, pass through the starry heaven, since they never ascend there; but, through the operation of nature, which now raises waters up above the air, he wishes as it were *from the lesser* to intimate that the divine power was able, without prejudice to nature, to place waters above the firmament, since it was in his power to make a body more and more subtle[^2].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about that reason which he gives: *It is not said here… God saw that it was good… because the binary is the principle of otherness and the sign of division. On the contrary:* This reason seems to be just as good for the opposite as for the proposition. For the *binary* approaches unity more than any other number.

*Reply.* But it must be answered to this that this reason of the Master is *allegorical,* yet it is true. For although the *binary,* among numbers, departs least from unity, it nevertheless *first* has in itself the character of departure, and on account of this through it division is understood more than through other numbers, and the departure from the unity of virtue and perfection. There is, however, another reason, a *literal* one, which the Master touches in the *Histories*[^3], namely that on the second day a distinction of waters from waters is noted to have been made, which distinction, although it was begun on the second day, was nevertheless consummated on the third, when it is said: *Let the waters be gathered into one place*[^4]. And because the divine seeing signifies approbation after perfection, hence it is that Scripture passed over the word "seeing" on the second day.

---

la: Scil. mutationes inferiorum corporum, quae secundum Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 20. seqq. (c. 3.) et I. Meteor. c. 4. (c. 3.) excluduntur a caelestibus corporibus.

en: Namely the changes of inferior bodies, which according to Aristotle, *de Caelo et mundo* I, text 20 ff. (c. 3) and *Meteorologica* I, c. 4 (c. 3), are excluded from celestial bodies.

la: Cfr. a. 1. q. 1. huius dist.

en: Cf. art. 1, q. 1 of this distinction.

la: Magister Petrus Comestor († 1178), qui in sua Historia Scholastica, quae est compendium historiarum N. et V. T., c. 4. historiae Genesis dicit: *Possumus tamen dicere, quia opus tertiae diei quasi adhuc est de opere secundae diei… Unde non commendatur, nisi in tertia die, quasi post sui consummationem.*

en: Master Peter Comestor († 1178), who in his *Historia Scholastica,* which is a compendium of the histories of the N. and O. T., c. 4 of the History of Genesis says: *We can however say that the work of the third day is as it were still of the work of the second day… Whence it is not commended except on the third day, as it were after its consummation.*

la: Gen. 1, 9. — De hoc dubio cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 50. m. 6. a. 2; B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 11. q. 55; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Gen. 1:9. — On this doubt cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 50, m. 6, a. 2; Bl. Albert, *Summa* p. II, tr. 11, q. 55; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the letter. ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 24756–24787 cross-checked against 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p350-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. The dubia occupies one printed page only (p. 350): DUB. I + opening of DUB. II run in column L mid-to-bottom; DUB. II resp tail + DUB. III run across the top of column R. The COMMENTARIUS for Pars II begins on the same page (p. 350 R bottom) but belongs to `d14-p2-divisio`.
- **Page-split map.** All four apparatus entries are p. 350 footer notes:
  - p. 350 footer note ¹ (`In Vat. desiderantur verba et per hoc etiam… littera. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) was already consumed at `d14-p1-a3-q2` [^25] (the *in littera¹* anchor closing *Ad 6*). Verified no double-count.
  - p. 350 footer note ² → [^1] (DUB. II body anchor at *peregrinas impressiones*).
  - p. 350 footer note ³ → [^2] (DUB. II resp tail anchor at *corpus subtiliare*).
  - p. 350 footer note ⁴ → [^3] (DUB. III resp anchor at *in Historiis*).
  - p. 350 footer note ⁵ → [^4] (DUB. III resp anchor at *in locum unum*, closing the dubia).
- **Hand-off picked up.** The resume noted "p. 350 L footer notes 2–4" as the hand-off; on column-band re-read the footer carries **5** numbered entries, of which **4** (notes 2–5) belong to the dubia. This chunk lands all four. No notes hand forward — the COMMENTARIUS for Pars II opens its own footer sequence.
- **Dub numbering.** Three dubia: DUB. I, DUB. II, DUB. III. All three numerals crisp at 450 dpi. No Vol II "Pars II reset" ambiguity here (this is the Pars I dubia block; the Pars II dubia will be `d14-p2-dubia`).
- **No scholion.** Pars I dubia carry no scholion — the chunk's `## Latin` ends at the close of DUB. III. Verified against the Quaracchi convention for short-form dubia blocks.
- **`[?]` flags.** None new in this chunk.
- **Convention.** Marginal labels *Resp.* are preserved inline (italicized) per locked Vol II convention, not promoted to headings.

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