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

source_text:
<!-- page 1012 -->

### Articulus I. *De corporis glorificatione.*

### Quaestio I. *Utrum gloria corporis sit de substantia beatitudinis.*

Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic, et ostenditur, quod gloria corporis sit de beatitudinis substantia sive augmentet gloriam animae:

1. Et primo per auctoritatem Magistri in littera[^p1012-1]: «Sine scrupulo, inquit, credendum est, eos habituros maiorem gloriam post iudicium quam ante, quia maius erit gaudium et amplior cognitio»; sed ista respiciunt essentiam beatitudinis: ergo etc.

2. Item, Bernardus de Diligendo Deo[^p1012-2]: «Anima exuta tamen corpori est coniuncta, etsi non vita vel sensu, tamen affectu, ut sine eo nec possit nec valeat consummari».

3. Item, Augustinus duodecimo super Genesim[^p1012-3] de anima exuta dicit: «Inest ei quidam naturalis appetitus administrandi corpus, quo retardatur, ne tota intentione feratur in illud summum caelum»: ergo si quantitas praemii substantialis consistit in adhaerentia et fruitione illius summi caeli, patet etc.

4. Item, perfecta beatitudo est quies omnium desideriorum[^p1012-4]: si ergo anima appetit naturaliter corpori uniri, et iste appetitus, cum sit naturalis, non possit terminari nisi per unionem; impossibile est, animam perfecte beatificari, quousque resumat corpus.

**Contra:** 1. Anima gaudet nunc de Deo, post iudicium vero non tantum gaudebit de Deo, sed etiam de bonis corporis; sed Deus est bonum infinitum, bonum corporis est bonum finitum; sed finitum additum super infinitum nihil auget[^p1012-5]: ergo bonum corporis non auget praemium: ergo etc.

2. Item, tanta gratia est in anima exuta, quantae gratiae capax est, cum est coniuncta: ergo similiter videtur de gloria.

3. Item, cum Deus se offerat modo animae in aperta visione, sicut post iudicium, quare non est ita modo perfecta gloria, sicut post iudicium? — *Si dicas*, quod propter appetitum administrandi corpus; *contra*: Bernardus, de Diligendo Deo[^p1012-6], de beatis animabus dicit, «quod ita inebriantur Deo, ut obliviscantur sui»: ergo si sui obliviscuntur, multo magis corporis.

4. Item, maiores motus absorbent minores: ergo cum motus amoris in Deum improportionaliter sit maior quam in corpus, ergo totaliter absorbet illum.

5. Item, appetitus administrandi corpus impedit, ergo multo fortius administratio: si enim amor alicuius potest retrahere a Deo, cum est absens, multo fortius, cum est praesens.

6. Item, corpus nunquam fiet spiritus, quamvis fiat spirituale[^p1012-7]: ergo liberior est spiritus a corpore absolutus quam alligatus: ergo melius dispositus ad suscipiendam beatitudinem perfectam.

### Conclusio

> *Glorificatio corporis facit ad maius gaudium quoad extensionem et etiam quoad intensionem, quatenus removetur impedimentum, quin tamen augeatur habitus.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *beatitudo* dicitur gaudium per essentiam; gaudium autem potest dici maius quadrupliciter: aut quia de *maiori obiecto*, aut quia ex *maiori habitu*, aut quia de *pluribus*, aut quia ex *eodem habitu intensius*. Primo modo maius gaudium, quia de maiori[^p1012-8], non reperitur nec respectu *eiusdem* nec respectu *diversorum*, quia quilibet gaudet de bono infinito. — Secundo modo maius invenitur respectu *diversorum*, quia maiori habitu gaudet Petrus quam Linus; sed non reperitur respectu *eiusdem* quantum ad *diversa tempora*, quia non habebit maiorem habitum Petrus post iudicium, quam habet nunc. — Tertio modo maius, quia latius et de pluribus, reperitur in *eodem* secundum *diversa tempora*, quia Petrus de pluribus gaudebit post iudicium quam nunc, quia de gloria animae et corporis et de gloria omnium salvatorum.

<!-- page 1013 -->

Sed non est maius hoc modo respectu *diversorum*, quia de tot et eisdem gaudebit unus Sanctus parvus, sicut et maximus Sanctus. — Quarto modo maius, quia intensius, reperitur et respectu *eiusdem* et respectu *diversorum*: respectu *diversorum*, quia unus intensius movetur quam alter; respectu *eiusdem*, quia ex eodem habitu intensius movebitur anima, resumto corpore[^p1013-1], quia nullum habebit retardans.

Concedendum est igitur, quod glorificatio corporis facit ad maius gaudium quantum ad *extensionem*; facit etiam quantum ad *intensionem*, non augendo habitum, sed removendo impedimentum. Unde non facit ad augmentum praemii essentialis *principaliter*, sed *ex consequenti*. — Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc.

*Ad 1. 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod non gaudet de maiori; dicendum, quod ratio[^p1013-2] tenet bene; sed quantum ad hoc non dicitur *maior*, sed *de eodem intensius*. — Similiter, quod secundo obiicit de gratia, patet: quoniam ipsa gratia dicit habitum, et idem etiam habitus gloriae est in anima exuta, et postquam est unita; sed per illum non ita intense movetur, et hoc retardante appetitu.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod obliviscitur[^p1013-3] sui; dicendum, quod hoc non intelligitur, quin amet se, sed quod omnis amor privatus, qui non referatur in Deum, ab anima auferetur; et certe anima non appetit corpus amore privato, sed ad gloriam Dei. — Vel dicendum, quod Bernardus loquitur de Beatis post resumtionem secundae stolae.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maiores motus absorbent minores; dicendum, quod verum est, quod absorbent, sed non ita, ut non *sint*, sed ut non ita *intense appareant*; sunt tamen et apparent aliquo modo; et ideo, quamvis parum, tamen aliquo modo minuunt motus minores ipsos maiores, licet vincantur[^p1013-4].

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si appetitus impedit, magis praesentia; dicendum, quod *appetitus* duo dicit, scilicet *amorem* alicuius rei et *carentiam* illius. Quando igitur impedit, aut ratione *amoris*, aut *carentiae*. Si ratione *amoris*, tunc magis impedit res praesens; si ratione *carentiae*, tunc non impedit, cum carentia[^p1013-5] per praesentiam removetur.

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod spiritus absolutus est liberior; dicendum, quod est spiritus a corpore absolutus *substantia et affectu*; et iste est liberrimus. Et est spiritus *alligatus affectu* et *solutus substantia*; et iste non est liber, quia aliquid vult quod non habet. Et est spiritus *alligatus substantia et affectu*; et tunc aut corpus est *inobediens*, et talis non est liber, quia non potest[^p1013-6] quod vult; aut per omnia *obediens*, et talis est liber libertate sibi conveniente, quia nihil vult, nisi quod potest, et habet omne quod vult.

> Numeri notarum infra positi respondent signis in textu Latino et in versione Anglica. Quaracchi numerationem in singulis paginis impressis a capite incohat; ideo notae paginae 1012 et notae paginae 1013 separatim signantur.

english:
<!-- page 1012 -->

### Article I. *On the glorification of the body.*

### Question I. *Whether the glory of the body belongs to the substance of beatitude.*

As regards the first, then, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that the glory of the body belongs to the substance of beatitude, or that it increases the glory of the soul:

1. And first through the authority of the Master in the text[^p1012-1]: "Without scruple," he says, "it must be believed that they will have a greater glory after the judgment than before, because the joy will be greater and the knowledge fuller"; but these things regard the essence of beatitude: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Bernard, *On Loving God*[^p1012-2]: "The soul, though stripped, is nevertheless joined to the body, if not by life or sense, still by affection, so that without it the soul can neither be nor be able to be consummated."

3. Likewise, Augustine, in the twelfth book *On Genesis*[^p1012-3], says of the stripped soul: "There is in it a certain natural appetite for administering the body, by which it is retarded, lest it be borne with its whole intention into that highest heaven": therefore, if the quantity of the substantial reward consists in adherence to and enjoyment of that highest heaven, it is evident etc.

4. Likewise, perfect beatitude is the rest of all desires[^p1012-4]: if therefore the soul naturally desires to be united to the body, and this appetite, since it is natural, cannot be terminated except through union; it is impossible that the soul be perfectly beatified until it takes up the body again.

**On the contrary:** 1. The soul now rejoices in God, but after the judgment it will rejoice not only in God, but also in the goods of the body; but God is an infinite good, the good of the body is a finite good; but the finite added upon the infinite adds nothing[^p1012-5]: therefore the good of the body does not increase the reward: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, there is as much grace in the stripped soul as it is capable of when it is joined [to the body]: therefore the same seems to hold of glory.

3. Likewise, since God offers himself to the soul now in open vision, just as after the judgment, why is the glory not now as perfect as after the judgment? — *If you say* that it is on account of the appetite for administering the body; *on the contrary*: Bernard, *On Loving God*[^p1012-6], says of the blessed souls "that they are so inebriated with God that they forget themselves": therefore, if they forget themselves, much more do they forget the body.

4. Likewise, greater motions absorb lesser ones: therefore, since the motion of love toward God is disproportionately greater than that toward the body, therefore it totally absorbs the latter.

5. Likewise, the appetite for administering the body impedes, therefore much more the administering itself: for if the love of something can draw one back from God when it is absent, much more so when it is present.

6. Likewise, the body will never become spirit, although it becomes spiritual[^p1012-7]: therefore a spirit released from the body is freer than one bound to it: therefore it is better disposed for receiving perfect beatitude.

### Conclusion

> *The glorification of the body makes for a greater joy as regards extension and also as regards intension, inasmuch as an impediment is removed, though the habit is not thereby increased.*

**I respond:** It must be said that *beatitude* is called joy by essence; but joy can be called greater in four ways: either because it is of *a greater object*, or because it is from *a greater habit*, or because it is of *more things*, or because it is *more intense from the same habit*. In the first way a greater joy, namely because of a greater object[^p1012-8], is found neither with respect to *the same person* nor with respect to *different persons*, because each one rejoices in the infinite good. — In the second way a greater joy is found with respect to *different persons*, because Peter rejoices with a greater habit than Linus; but it is not found with respect to *the same person* as regards *different times*, because Peter will not have a greater habit after the judgment than he has now. — In the third way greater, namely because more widely and of more things, it is found in *the same person* according to *different times*, because Peter will rejoice in more things after the judgment than now, since he will rejoice in the glory of soul and body and in the glory of all the saved.

<!-- page 1013 -->

But it is not greater in this way with respect to *different persons*, because a small Saint will rejoice in just as many and the same things as the greatest Saint. — In the fourth way greater, namely because more intense, it is found both with respect to *the same person* and with respect to *different persons*: with respect to *different persons*, because one is moved more intensely than another; with respect to *the same person*, because from the same habit the soul will be moved more intensely once the body has been taken up again[^p1013-1], since it will have nothing retarding it.

It must therefore be granted that the glorification of the body makes for a greater joy as regards *extension*; it makes for it also as regards *intension*, not by increasing the habit, but by removing the impediment. Hence it does not make for an increase of the essential reward *principally*, but *consequently*. — And the reasons for this are to be granted.

*To 1 and 2.* To that which is objected on the contrary side, that one does not rejoice in a greater [object]; it must be said that the reasoning[^p1013-2] holds well; but as regards this it is not called *greater*, but *more intense concerning the same*. — Similarly, what he objects in the second place about grace is evident: for grace itself denotes a habit, and the same habit of glory is in the soul stripped and after it has been united; but through it the soul is not moved so intensely, and this because the appetite retards it.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that it forgets[^p1013-3] itself; it must be said that this is not understood as though it did not love itself, but that every private love which is not referred to God will be taken away from the soul; and certainly the soul does not desire the body with a private love, but for the glory of God. — Or it must be said that Bernard is speaking of the Blessed after the resumption of the second robe.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that greater motions absorb lesser ones; it must be said that it is true that they absorb them, but not so that they do not *exist*, but so that they do not *appear so intensely*; yet they are and they appear in some way; and therefore, although but little, still in some way the lesser motions diminish the greater ones themselves, even though they are overcome[^p1013-4].

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that if the appetite impedes, the presence [of the body] does so still more; it must be said that *appetite* denotes two things, namely the *love* of some thing and the *lack* of it. When therefore it impedes, it does so either by reason of *love* or by reason of *lack*. If by reason of *love*, then the thing present impedes more; if by reason of *lack*, then it does not impede, since the lack[^p1013-5] is removed by the presence.

*To 6.* To that which is objected, that a released spirit is freer; it must be said that there is a spirit released from the body *in substance and in affection*; and this one is most free. And there is a spirit *bound in affection* and *loosed in substance*; and this one is not free, because it wills something which it does not have. And there is a spirit *bound in substance and in affection*; and then either the body is *disobedient*, and such a spirit is not free, because it cannot do[^p1013-6] what it wills; or the body is *obedient in all things*, and such a spirit is free with the freedom befitting it, because it wills nothing except what it can, and it has everything that it wills.

la: Hic c. 4. — Inferius ex codd. E I K L N U X Y substituimus *respiciunt* pro *respicit*.

en: Here c. 4. — Below, from codices E I K L N U X Y, we have substituted *respiciunt* for *respicit*.

la: Cap. 11. n. 30: Non possunt ex toto animae se ipsas exponere et transire in Deum, nimirum ligatae corporibus etiam tunc, etsi non vita vel sensu, certe affectu naturali, ita ut absque his nec velint nec valeant consummari.

en: Ch. 11, n. 30: Souls cannot wholly lay themselves aside and pass over into God, being indeed bound to their bodies even then, if not by life or sense, certainly by natural affection, so that without them they neither will nor are able to be consummated.

la: Boeth., III. de Consol. prosa 2, de beatitudine dicit, quod «est bonum, quo quis adepto, nihil ulterius desiderare queat».

en: Boethius, III. *On Consolation*, prose 2, says of beatitude that "it is the good which, once obtained, leaves one able to desire nothing further."

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 20, nota 7.

en: Cf. vol. II, p. 20, note 7.

la: Cap. 15. n. 39, ubi allato Ps. 35, 9: *Inebriabuntur ab ubertate domus Dei*, ait: Quasi enim miro quodam modo oblitus [servus bonus in gaudium Domini introductus] sui et a se penitus velut deficiens, totus perget in Deum» etc. — Superius post *administrandi*, pro quo cod. O *habendi* (multi codd. et ed. I *amittendi*, sed cfr. supra fundam. 3.), Vat. addit *vel regendi*.

en: Ch. 15, n. 39, where, having cited Ps. 35, 9: *They shall be inebriated with the plenty of the house of God*, he says: "For as though in some wondrous manner forgetful [the good servant, having been brought into the joy of his Lord] of himself and utterly failing, as it were, from himself, he will go wholly over into God" etc. — Above, after *administrandi*, for which cod. O reads *habendi* (many codices and ed. I *amittendi*, but cf. above, fundamentum 3), the Vatican edition adds *vel regendi*.

la: Cod. aa supplet *obiecto*.

en: Cod. aa supplies *obiecto*.

la: Cod. aa addit: *non quod habitus augeatur, sed*.

en: Cod. aa adds: *not that the habit is increased, but*.

la: Multi codd. pro *ratio* ponunt *non*; cod. L legit: *quod bene tenet, quod* [codd. G I M S U *quia*] *quantum ad hoc* etc.

en: Many codices put *non* for *ratio*; cod. L reads: *quod bene tenet, quod* [codd. G I M S U *quia*] *quantum ad hoc* etc.

la: Cod. aa *obliviscuntur*. Inferius pro *corpus* edd. cum pluribus codd. *corpora*.

en: Cod. aa reads *obliviscuntur*. Below, for *corpus*, the editions with several codices read *corpora*.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 14. a. 3. q. 1. ad 4.

la: Cod. W *cum carentiam... removet*.

en: Cod. W reads *cum carentiam... removet*.

la: Edd. hic et paulo inferius post *nihil vult* addunt *habere*, ac vocibus *et habet* interserunt *ideo*.

en: The editions here and a little below add *habere* after *nihil vult*, and insert *ideo* between the words *et habet*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quaestio I. a Magistro (hic c. 4.) sic ponitur: «Si maior est beatitudo Sanctorum post iudicium». — *Affirmativa* responsio est communis, si intelligitur, quod ipsa crescat *extensive*. Hoc in Concilio Florentino et Graeci et Latini se credere asseruerunt. Quod autem etiam *intensive* crescat, non quidem per *augmentum habitus*, sed per *remotionem impedimenti* retardantis; docuit S. August. (XII. super Gen. ad lit. c. 35.), non tamen (ut patet ex eiusdem II. Retract. c. 24.) ut omnino certum; quem secuti sunt S. Bernard., Haymo aliique antiqui cum ipso S. Bonav. Primitus etiam S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 4. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 93. a. 1.) eandem sententiam professus est, sed postea, mutata sententia, docuit (S. I. II. q. 4. a. 5. ad 5.), quod «corpore resumto, beatitudo crescit non *intensive*, sed *extensive*»; quod etiam Durand. (hic q. 7.) aliique posteriores propugnant. — Primam vero sententiam tenent Scot., de Rerum principio, q. 9. a. 2. sect. 2. n. 49, et, ut videtur, hic q. 3. n. 9. (aliqui tamen volunt, eum retractasse hanc opinionem), et Richard. (hic a. 2. q. 7.). — Propositio in principio resp. posita, quod per *essentiam* beatitudo sit gaudium sive delectatio, approbatur ab Alexandro Hal. (S. III. q. 23. m. 1. ad 1.) et tanquam probabilis defenditur a Richardo a Med. (hic a. 3. q. 6.). Sed Scot. (hic q. 7; I. Sent. d. 1. q. 3.) docet, quod «stricte accipiendo beatitudinem, delectatio non est de *essentia* eius, quia est *passio*, beatitudo autem consistit in *operatione*» (hic q. 7. n. 4.); prout tamen voluntas est *receptiva*, «perficitur delectatione et gaudio». Idem tenent S. Thom. (hic q. 3. a. 4. quaestiunc. 3; S. I. II. q. 4. a. 1. 2.) et Durand. (hic q. 4. n. 20.). Addit tamen Scotus (n. 6.), quod secundum absolutam potentiam Dei visio eius possit esse sine gaudio; de quo aliter loquitur S. Bonav. supra d. 48. a. 1. q. 2. in fine.

De 2. quaestione alii commentatores Lombardi non tractant specialiter, sed eam solvunt in 1. quaestione, vel potius in quaestionibus de singulis dotibus, ubi notavimus, quomodo Scotus a S. Bonav. et Thoma discedat.

De utraque quaestione praeter locos citt.: Petr. a Tar. rem breviter tangit hic q. 2. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 7.

**II.** De sequenti articulo, qui agit de quatuor dotibus corporis *in generali*, alii commentatores Lombardi, exceptis B. Alberto (d. 44. a. 32.) et Richardo (hic a. 4. q. 1.), specialiter non tractant, sed principia sua ponunt disputantes de eisdem in specie, de quo vide infra sect. 2. — De tribus dotibus *animae* plurima profert S. Thom., hic q. 4. a. 1-5; Suppl. q. 95. a. 1-5.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Question I is posed by the Master (here c. 4) thus: "Whether the beatitude of the Saints is greater after the judgment." — The *affirmative* answer is the common one, if it is understood that beatitude grows *extensively*. Both the Greeks and the Latins declared at the Council of Florence that they believed this. But that it grows also *intensively*, not indeed by an *increase of the habit*, but by the *removal of the retarding impediment*, St. Augustine taught (XII. *On Genesis, to the Letter*, c. 35), yet not (as is clear from his own II. *Retractions*, c. 24) as something altogether certain; and him St. Bernard, Haymo, and other ancients followed, together with St. Bonaventure himself. At first St. Thomas too (here q. 1. a. 4. quaestiuncula 1; *Suppl.* q. 93. a. 1) professed the same opinion, but afterwards, having changed his view, he taught (*S.* I. II. q. 4. a. 5. ad 5) that "once the body has been taken up again, beatitude grows not *intensively*, but *extensively*"; which Durandus also (here q. 7) and other later writers defend. — But the first opinion is held by Scotus, *On the Principle of Things*, q. 9. a. 2. sect. 2. n. 49, and, as it seems, here q. 3. n. 9 (some, however, hold that he retracted this opinion), and by Richard (here a. 2. q. 7). — The proposition laid down at the beginning of the response, that beatitude is by *essence* joy or delight, is approved by Alexander of Hales (*S.* III. q. 23. m. 1. ad 1) and is defended as probable by Richard of Middleton (here a. 3. q. 6). But Scotus (here q. 7; I. *Sent.* d. 1. q. 3) teaches that "strictly taking beatitude, delight does not belong to its *essence*, because it is a *passion*, whereas beatitude consists in *operation*" (here q. 7. n. 4); yet inasmuch as the will is *receptive*, "it is perfected by delight and joy." The same is held by St. Thomas (here q. 3. a. 4. quaestiuncula 3; *S.* I. II. q. 4. a. 1. 2) and by Durandus (here q. 4. n. 20). Scotus adds, however (n. 6), that according to the absolute power of God the vision of him could be without joy; concerning which St. Bonaventure speaks otherwise above, d. 48. a. 1. q. 2, at the end.

Concerning the second question the other commentators on Lombard do not treat specially, but solve it in the first question, or rather in the questions on the individual dowries, where we have noted how Scotus departs from St. Bonaventure and Thomas.

On both questions, besides the places cited: Peter of Tarantaise touches the matter briefly here, q. 2. a. 4. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 4. q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 7.

**II.** Concerning the following article, which treats of the four dowries of the body *in general*, the other commentators on Lombard, with the exception of B. Albert (d. 44. a. 32) and Richard (here a. 4. q. 1), do not treat of it specially, but lay down their principles while disputing about the same in particular, on which see below, section 2. — Concerning the three dowries *of the soul* St. Thomas offers much, here q. 4. a. 1-5; *Suppl.* q. 95. a. 1-5.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L107691–107896, verified line-by-line against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p101{2,3}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (gutters 1012:2077, 1013:1661 as given; **no bands regenerated**). Per the VOL II/IV override the band read is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo, solutiones, scholion and footers; the OCR served for clean running prose and marker spacing.

**Page span CORRECTED: [1011, 1012, 1013] → [1012, 1013]** (pdf [1032, 1033]). L107687 is the p.1012 running head and L107691 (`ARTICULUS I.`) is the first body line of p.1012, so this chunk holds **no** part of p.1011 — p.1011 belongs wholly to `d49-p1-a1-q6` and `d49-p2-divisio`. **I claim no share of p.1011's footer register.** At the other end, L107893 is the p.1014 running head; `QUAESTIO II.` (L107897) opens on p.1014, and the p.1013 running head reads `DIST. XLIX. P. II. SECT. I. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` — so **p.1013 is entirely mine and is NOT shared with `p2-s1-a1-q2`**.

**Apparatus — 14 entries, page→split map.**
- **p.1012 — 8 notes.** Left footer prints 1–4, right footer prints 5–8. Binding is straight numeric by content, but the footer *overflows*: anchors 1–6 all sit in the **LEFT** body column (5 = *nihil auget*, 6 = *de Diligendo Deo*, both in the Contra) while notes 5–6 print in the **RIGHT** footer. Anchors 7 (*fiat spirituale*) and 8 (*de maiori*) are in the right body column. Bound by content, never by position.
- **p.1013 — 6 notes.** Left footer 1–3, right footer 4–6; straight reading order, anchors 1–3 left body, 4–6 right body. The p.1013 register sits *below* the two-column SCHOLION.
- Latin `[^` anchors = 14; English `[^` anchors = 14.

**Structure.** The `ARTICULUS I. / De corporis glorificatione.` header prints centred full-width across the gutter at the head of p.1012 and is rendered here (the d.42 failure mode). There is **no** separate articulus opener or praenotata between the header and `QUAESTIO I.` — Sectio I's prologue sits back at L107664–107690 and belongs to `d49-p2-divisio`; it is not repeated here. The SCHOLION (two numbered parts, I–II) is placed **last** in both the Latin and English blocks per the parser rule, though it prints above the p.1013 footer register.

**Articulus I promises TWO questions.** The Sectio I prologue reads *Circa primum quaeruntur duo*, with ordinals *Primo quaeritur, utrum gloria corporis sit de substantia beatitudinis* and *Secundo quaeritur de origine beatitudinis corporis sive gloriae*. Both are accounted for: this chunk and `p2-s1-a1-q2` (L107897, `QUAESTIO II.`, p.1014). No hidden/lost question in this range; the `QUAESTIO I.` header at L107694 is centred full-width but OCR'd legibly. Opener alignment verified: *Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic* matches *Primo quaeritur* — no q-swap.

**Title verified** off the band: the line after `QUAESTIO I.` reads *Utrum gloria corporis sit de substantia beatitudinis* — matches the frontmatter `title_la` exactly. No change.

**Band-resolved OCR disagreements** (band authoritative, no `[?]` warranted): p.1012 n.2 raw `Cap. M. n. 30` → **Cap. 11. n. 30**; n.3 raw `Cap. 3-3. n. 68` → **Cap. 35. n. 68**; n.6 raw `Ps. 33, 9` → **Ps. 35, 9**; n.7 raw `I. Cor. 15, 4i.` → **1 Cor. 15, 44**; scholion raw `S. 1. 11. q. 4. a. 8. ad S.` → **S. I. II. q. 4. a. 5. ad 5**; raw `d. 48. a. I. q. 2.` confirmed. Marginal glosses (*Fundamenta*, *Ad oppositum*, *Quadrupliciter augetur gaudium*, *Conclusio 1–4*, *Conclusio generalis*, *Ratio oppositorum*, *Notandum*, *Aliter*, *Duo in appetitu*, *Distinctio*) are editorial marginalia and are trimmed per the OCR-cleanup rule.

**`[?]` flags: none.** Nothing in range is unmapped. No dubia section falls in pp.1012–1013 (the distinction's end is far downstream at p.1033); both page footers were read off the bands rather than trusted from the raw, and both registers are complete.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- To `d49-p2-divisio` and `d49-p1-a1-q6`: **p.1011 is entirely yours to divide between you — this chunk claims none of it.**
- To `d49-p2-s1-a1-q2`: **p.1013 is entirely mine (all 6 notes); your chunk begins on p.1014**, whose register I have not touched. Your `printed_pages` should start at 1014, not 1013.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 1021 -->

### SECTIO II.
#### *De gloria corporis in speciali.*

Consequenter quaeritur de secundo articulo principali, scilicet de gloria corporis in speciali, quae consistit in quatuor dotibus. Et circa hoc, secundum quod quatuor sunt dotes, quatuor principaliter quaeruntur.

*Primo* quaeritur de dote impassibilitatis.
*Secundo*, de dote claritatis.
*Tertio*, de dote subtilitatis.
*Quarto*, de dote agilitatis.

### ARTICULUS I.
#### *De dote impassibilitatis.*

Circa primum quaeruntur duo. *Primo* quaeritur, utrum corpus sit passibile ab intrinseco. *Secundo*, utrum sit passibile passione veniente ab extrinseco.

### QUAESTIO I.
#### *Utrum corpus gloriosum sit passibile ab intrinseco.*

Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic, et ostenditur, quod non sit passibile ab intrinseco.

1. Augustinus, vigesimo secundo *de Civitate Dei*[^p1021-4]: «Aberit a corporibus nostris omnis deformitas, omnis infirmitas, omnis corruptio».

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia passio corporis contristat animam; *corpus enim, quod corrumpitur, aggravat animam*[^p1021-5]; sed gaudium beatitudinis est impermixtum tristitiae: ergo etc.

3. Item, si interius pateretur, ergo aliquando corrumperetur; sed anima gaudet de unione sui ad corpus, sed gaudium beatitudinis est perpetuum et securum[^p1021-6]; hoc autem non esset, si esset dissolubile: ergo etc.

4. Item, anima gloriosa est perfectissima omnium formarum; sed sic est, quod aliqua forma est ita nobilis, quod omnino terminat appetitum suae materiae, ut forma corporis quinti[^p1021-7]: ergo multo fortius anima gloriosa appetitum sui corporis. Sed forma terminans appetitum materiae facit ipsam incorruptibilem: ergo etc.

<!-- page 1022 -->

**Contra:** 1. Omne compositum ex contrariis est corruptibile et passibile; sed corpus gloriosum est huiusmodi: ergo etc. — Si dicas, quod non manent contraria, quia contraria non sunt secundum substantiam, sed secundum qualitates, et manent secundum substantiam, non secundum qualitates; contra: «A corporibus gloriosis, ut dicit Augustinus[^p1022-1], vitia detrahentur, et natura servabitur»; sed qualitates elementares sunt eis naturales: ergo manebunt. — Si dicas, quod manent secundum essentiam, non secundum actum; contra: unumquodque nobilius est, quando est coniunctum actui, quam quando non: ergo etc. — Si dicas, quod actus ille est imperfectionis; contra: elementa plura impossibile est venire ad constitutionem corporis unius nisi per mixtionem, ergo necesse est, elementa misceri; sed ubi est mixtio, necessario est mutua actio et passio et qualitatum confractio; et ubi haec sunt, elementa sunt in suis actibus[^p1022-2]: ergo etc.

2. Item, corpus gloriosum[^p1022-3] erit nobilioris complexionis quam nunc; sed quanto aliquod corpus elementatum et animatum nobilioris est complexionis, tanto passibilius; quod patet, quia passibilius est corpus animalis quam plantae, et hominis quam bruti animalis: ergo corpus glorificatum magis quam nunc erit passibile.

3. Item, elementa miscentur in corpore illo: aut ergo aequaliter, aut inaequaliter. Si inaequaliter, sed inaequalis commixtio via est ad dissolutionem, ergo illud corpus erit dissolubile et passibile. Si aequaliter, aut adaequatione punctali, aut citra. Si adaequatione punctali: ergo omnia corpora essent eiusdem complexionis et nobilitatis; quod non est verum. Si non punctali: ergo unum aliquo modo excedit reliquum in virtute; sed excessus generat aliquo modo pugnam et litem, et haec dissolutionem[^p1022-4]: ergo etc.

4. Item, aut erit in corpore *calor*, aut *non*. Si *non*, nec operatio animae, cum operatio motus et sensus et vitae sit mediante calore[^p1022-5]. Quodsi *est ibi calor*, sed calor indiget pabulo, quia eius est consumere; sed omne quod indiget pabulo, est corruptibile et passibile: ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> *Corpora glorificata erunt incorruptibilia ab intrinseco; tamen elementa in eis manent secundum substantiam, qualitates et duas tantum operationes.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod omnes concordant in hoc, quod corpora illa sunt incorruptibilia et indefectibilia; sed rationem sumunt ex diversis causis.

Quidam enim dicunt, quod elementa sunt in corpore glorioso secundum *substantiam*, non secundum *qualitates*; et ideo, quia «substantiae nihil est contrarium[^p1022-6]», et ubi nulla contrarietas, non est pugna nec dissolutio; ideo etc. — Sed hoc improbatum est[^p1022-7], quia natura debet remanere.

Alii dicunt, quod sunt ibi secundum *qualitates*; sed qualitates non agunt nec patiuntur, et hoc divina virtute mirabiliter faciente. — Et hoc est iterum improbatum, quia, si miscentur, constat, quod franguntur et mutuo agunt et patiuntur.

Tertii dicunt, quod sunt secundum *substantiam* et *qualitates* et *actus*. Sed tamen *actus* nunc *sunt in ipsa mixtione*, sed post *non*, quia in eis dominatur natura caelestis, quae omnino reconciliat elementa[^p1022-8] et quasi naturam elementarem absorbet et transfert totum corpus in naturam caelestem; unde debetur ei locus caelestis et incorruptibilitas. — Sed illud est dubium, quomodo natura caelestis sit de compositione corporis nostri; non enim videtur componi nisi ex quatuor elementis[^p1022-9].

Et ideo aliter dicendum, quod elementa manent in corpore illo secundum *substantiam* et *qualitates* et *operationes*. Sed attendendum, quod quadruplex est operatio: una quantum ad *constitutionem*, et haec est mixtionis; alia quantum ad *conservationem*, et haec est ministerialis delatio caloris vitalis per corpus; tertia est pugnae *ordinans ad dissolutionem*; quarta exterioris impressionis, per quam alicuius elementi *operatio intenditur et pugna oritur*. Primae duae operationes manebunt; secundae duae non manebunt, quae[^p1022-10] ordinant ad dissolutionem; et ideo corpus erit indissolubile.

Ratio autem, quare non manent, est triplex. Prima est temperata mixtio, confringens contrarietatem; secunda est elementarium appetituum quietatio; tertia est animae influentis conservatio. Et ratione primi non pugnant, ratione secundi non possunt pugnare, ratione tertii necesse habent quiescere[^p1023-1].

<!-- page 1023 -->

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod compositum ex contrariis est dissolubile; dicendum, quod illud debet intelligi, quando contraria habent contrarios appetitus et interminatos[^p1023-2].

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpus nobilioris complexionis facilius patitur; dicendum, quod hoc non est verum, simpliciter loquendo, immo contrarium, quia est fortioris virtutis, nec habet locum in homine nisi ratione poenalitatum inflictarum.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, utrum in puncto; dicendum, quod non oportet; nec tamen mutuo pugnant, quia neutrum praevalet, licet aliquo modo excedat[^p1023-3]. Praeterea, non appetit se multiplicare nec ab illo dividi; et ideo, etiam si excedat, non corrumpit aliud.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de calore, dicendum, quod ex complexione inaequali nascitur calor elementaris consumens, ex complexione vero aequali calor caelestis conservans; et ideo, quia tunc elementa erunt perfecta et contemperata, calor vitalis erit assimilatus naturae caelesti; et ideo non consumet nec indigebit pabulo.

> **De numeratione notarum.** Quaracchi numerat notas suas per singulas paginas impressas; ideo hic notae adhibentur signis paginae adiunctis — notae 4–7 paginae 1021, notae 1–10 paginae 1022, notae 1–3 paginae 1023.

english:
<!-- page 1021 -->

### SECTION II.
#### *On the glory of the body in particular.*

Next there is inquiry concerning the second principal article, namely concerning the glory of the body in particular, which consists in four dowries. And concerning this, according as there are four dowries, four things are principally asked.

*First*, there is inquiry concerning the dowry of impassibility.
*Second*, concerning the dowry of clarity.
*Third*, concerning the dowry of subtlety.
*Fourth*, concerning the dowry of agility.

### ARTICLE I.
#### *On the dowry of impassibility.*

Concerning the first, two things are asked. *First* it is asked whether the body is passible from within. *Second*, whether it is passible by a passion coming from without.

### QUESTION I.
#### *Whether the glorified body is passible from within.*

As to the first, then, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that it is not passible from within.

1. Augustine, in the twenty-second book *On the City of God*[^p1021-4]: «There will be absent from our bodies every deformity, every infirmity, every corruption».

2. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because the passion of the body saddens the soul; for *the body which is corrupted weighs down the soul*[^p1021-5]; but the joy of beatitude is unmixed with sadness: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if it were to suffer inwardly, then at some time it would be corrupted; but the soul rejoices in its union to the body, and the joy of beatitude is perpetual and secure[^p1021-6]; but this would not be so, if it were dissoluble: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the glorified soul is the most perfect of all forms; but the case is such that some form is so noble that it wholly terminates the appetite of its matter, as the form of the fifth body[^p1021-7]: therefore much more strongly does the glorified soul terminate the appetite of its body. But a form terminating the appetite of matter makes it incorruptible: therefore etc.

<!-- page 1022 -->

**On the contrary:** 1. Everything composed of contraries is corruptible and passible; but the glorified body is of this sort: therefore etc. — If you say that the contraries do not remain, because contraries are not according to substance but according to qualities, and they remain according to substance, not according to qualities; on the contrary: «From glorified bodies, as Augustine says[^p1022-1], the vices will be taken away, and the nature will be preserved»; but the elemental qualities are natural to them: therefore they will remain. — If you say that they remain according to essence, not according to act; on the contrary: each thing is nobler when it is joined to act than when it is not: therefore etc. — If you say that that act belongs to imperfection; on the contrary: it is impossible for several elements to come to the constitution of one body except through mixture, therefore it is necessary that the elements be mixed; but where there is mixture, there is necessarily mutual action and passion and a breaking of the qualities; and where these are, the elements are in their acts[^p1022-2]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the glorified body[^p1022-3] will be of a nobler complexion than now; but the nobler the complexion of any elemented and animated body is, the more passible it is; which is plain, because the body of an animal is more passible than that of a plant, and that of a man than that of a brute animal: therefore the glorified body will be more passible than it is now.

3. Likewise, the elements are mixed in that body: therefore either equally or unequally. If unequally — but unequal commixture is a road to dissolution — therefore that body will be dissoluble and passible. If equally, then either by a punctual equalization or short of it. If by a punctual equalization: then all bodies would be of the same complexion and nobility; which is not true. If not punctually: then one exceeds the other in some way in power; but excess generates in some way conflict and strife, and this generates dissolution[^p1022-4]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, either there will be *heat* in the body, or *not*. If *not*, then neither will there be operation of the soul, since the operation of motion and of sense and of life is by means of heat[^p1022-5]. But if *there is heat there* — heat needs fuel, since it belongs to it to consume; but everything that needs fuel is corruptible and passible: therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> *Glorified bodies will be incorruptible from within; yet the elements remain in them according to substance, qualities, and two operations only.*

**I respond:** It must be said that all agree in this, that those bodies are incorruptible and indefectible; but they take the ground of it from different causes.

For some say that the elements are in the glorified body according to *substance*, not according to *qualities*; and therefore, because «nothing is contrary to substance[^p1022-6]», and where there is no contrariety there is neither conflict nor dissolution; therefore etc. — But this has been disproved[^p1022-7], because the nature ought to remain.

Others say that they are there according to *qualities*; but the qualities neither act nor are acted upon, and this by the divine power working marvellously. — And this too has been disproved, because, if they are mixed, it is established that they are broken and mutually act and are acted upon.

A third group say that they are there according to *substance* and *qualities* and *acts*. Yet nevertheless the *acts* now *are in the mixture itself*, but afterwards *not*, because in them the celestial nature dominates, which wholly reconciles the elements[^p1022-8] and as it were absorbs the elemental nature and transfers the whole body into a celestial nature; whence a celestial place and incorruptibility are due to it. — But that is doubtful, how the celestial nature should belong to the composition of our body; for it does not seem to be composed except out of the four elements[^p1022-9].

And therefore it must be said otherwise, that the elements remain in that body according to *substance* and *qualities* and *operations*. But it must be noted that operation is fourfold: one as regards *constitution*, and this is the operation of mixture; another as regards *conservation*, and this is the ministerial conveying of vital heat through the body; the third is that of conflict, *ordering toward dissolution*; the fourth is that of external impression, through which *the operation of some element is intensified and conflict arises*. The first two operations will remain; the second two will not remain, which[^p1022-10] order toward dissolution; and therefore the body will be indissoluble.

But the reason why they do not remain is threefold. The first is the tempered mixture, breaking contrariety; the second is the quieting of the elemental appetites; the third is the conservation of the soul flowing in. And by reason of the first they do not fight, by reason of the second they cannot fight, by reason of the third they must be at rest[^p1023-1].

<!-- page 1023 -->

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected, that what is composed of contraries is dissoluble; it must be said that this ought to be understood when the contraries have contrary and unbounded appetites[^p1023-2].

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that a body of nobler complexion suffers more easily; it must be said that this is not true, speaking simply, but rather the contrary, because it is of stronger power, and it has place in man only by reason of the penalties inflicted.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, whether [the equalization is] at a point; it must be said that this is not required; nor yet do they mutually fight, because neither prevails, although in some way it exceeds[^p1023-3]. Moreover, it does not seek to multiply itself nor to be divided from the other; and therefore, even if it exceeds, it does not corrupt the other.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning heat, it must be said that from an unequal complexion is born an elemental consuming heat, but from an equal complexion a celestial conserving heat; and therefore, because the elements will then be perfect and duly tempered, the vital heat will be assimilated to the celestial nature; and therefore it will neither consume nor need fuel.

la: Cap. 20. n. 3. — Codd. E L post *deformitas* addunt *omnis tarditas*, quod textus originalis addit post *infirmitas*.

en: Chapter 20, n. 3. — Codices E and L add after *deformitas* the words *omnis tarditas*, which the original text adds after *infirmitas*.

en: Wisdom 9:15.

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 449, nota 7. — Mox post *si* codd. L S supplent *corpus*.

en: Cf. vol. II, p. 449, note 7. — Shortly after, following *si*, codices L and S supply *corpus*.

la: Quod est secundum doctrinam Aristot. naturaliter incorruptibile; cfr. II. Sent. d. 12. a. 2. q. 1; d. 14. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2. in principio corp.; d. 17. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. (vide etiam ibid. d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq.). — Ex codd. E G K M O X (1 a secunda manu) posuimus *quinti* (alii codd. et ed. 1 *uniti*) pro *empyrei*.

en: Which, according to the doctrine of Aristotle, is naturally incorruptible; cf. II *Sent.* d. 12, a. 2, q. 1; d. 14, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2, at the beginning of the body; d. 17, a. 2, q. 2, in the body (see also ibid. d. 2, p. II, a. 1, q. 1 f.). — From codices E G K M O X (1 by a second hand) we have put *quinti* (other codices and edition 1, *uniti*) for *empyrei*.

la: Libr. XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 17. — De praecedentibus vide supra pag. 976, nota 8. et d. 48. a. 2. q. 3.

en: Book XXII *On the City of God*, c. 17. — On the preceding, see above p. 976, note 8, and d. 48, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 87. seqq. (c. 10.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, I *On Generation and Corruption*, text 87 ff. (c. 10).

la: Cod. G *glorificatum*.

en: Codex G reads *glorificatum*.

la: Respicitur Damasc., I. de Fide orthod. c. 4: *Compositio enim causa pugnae, pugna dissidii, dissidium solutionis.* Cfr. tom. II. pag. 464, nota 4.

en: Reference is made to Damascene, I *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 4: *For composition is the cause of conflict, conflict of dissension, dissension of dissolution.* Cf. vol. II, p. 464, note 4.

la: Vide supra pag. 907, nota 9, et Aristot., de Iuventute et senect. etc. c. 2. (c. 4.), ac II. de Anima, text. 50. (c. 4.).

en: See above p. 907, note 9, and Aristotle, *On Youth and Old Age* etc. c. 2 (c. 4), and II *On the Soul*, text 50 (c. 4).

la: Aristot., de Praedicam. c. *de Substantia*. — Superius post *sed* codd. addunt *vel quidem*, vel *quidam*.

en: Aristotle, *Categories*, the chapter *On Substance*. — Above, after *sed*, the codices add either *quidem* or *quidam*.

la: In arg. 1. ad oppos., in quo etiam seq. opinio improbata est.

en: In argument 1 to the opposite, in which the following opinion also has been disproved.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 14. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2. fundam. 6. et corp. — Pro *omnino* codd. E F *omnia*.

en: See II *Sent.* d. 14, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2, fundamentum 6, and the body. — For *omnino* codices E and F read *omnia*.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 17. a. 2. q. 1. seq. — Pro *non enim*, quod praebent codd. K O S (1 a secunda manu), cod. E *cum non*, codd. F Z *cum tantum*, alii codd. *non tantum*, edd. *quia sic non tantum*. Inferius post *operatio* edd. cum uno alteroque cod. addunt *elementorum*.

en: Cf. II *Sent.* d. 17, a. 2, q. 1 f. — For *non enim*, which codices K O S offer (1 by a second hand), codex E has *cum non*, codices F Z *cum tantum*, other codices *non tantum*, the editions *quia sic non tantum*. Below, after *operatio*, the editions with one or another codex add *elementorum*.

la: Cod. F *quia*. Pro *ordinant* cod. S *ordinantur*, et pro *dissolutionem* cod. F *corruptionem*.

en: Codex F reads *quia*. For *ordinant* codex S reads *ordinantur*, and for *dissolutionem* codex F reads *corruptionem*.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 19. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — Superius pro *confringens* cod. A *constringens*.

en: See II *Sent.* d. 19, a. 3, q. 1 f. — Above, for *confringens*, codex A reads *constringens*.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 17. a. 2. q. 3.

latin_scholion:
**I.** De *impassibilitatis* dote plures Lombardi commentatores tractant supra d. 44. Cfr. etiam Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 21. et 22, ubi, agens de transfiguratione et resurrectione Christi, plura ad rem propositam profert. — S. Thom. (d. 44. q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 82. a. 1.) easdem primas tres opiniones circa *rationem* huius dotis recenset et improbat; sed pro *causa* impassibilitatis horum corporum hic tantum affert *perfectum dominium animae super corpus*, quo ligatae maneant qualitates elementorum, ut nunquam exeant in actum. Alibi (S. III. q. 45. a. 2.) videtur docere, hanc dotem esse *qualitatem immanentem*. Similia docet Richardus a Med. (hic a. 4. q. 2.). Scotus autem (hic q. 13.) vult, quod ex parte susceptivi non potest inveniri aliqua causa *intrinseca* huius impassibilitatis (n. 4.), nec ex dominio animae super corpus, vel aliqua dote in corpore (n. 6. 7.), sed quod causa est voluntas divina, non coagens causae secundae corruptivae (n. 9.). Idem sentit Durand. (d. 44. q. 4. n. 14.). S. Bonav. quadam via media incedit, etiam ex parte corporis dispositiones ponens; de quo cfr. etiam supra sect. I. a. 1. q. 2. — Hic docetur pluralitas formarum substantialium in corpore. — De seq. q. alii non tractant specialiter.

De toto hoc articulo praeter citatos: B. Albert., d. 44. a. 13. 14. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 7.

**II.** Quoad dotem *claritatis* (a. 2.) S. Thom. (d. 44. q. 2. a. 4. quaestiunc. 1-3; Suppl. q. 85. a. 1-3.) ob auctoritatem Gregorii (arg. 1.) putat, probabilius esse, quod corpora gloriosa simul forent clara et pervia. Hoc non placet Scoto (hic q. 15.) nec Richardo a Med. (hic a. 4. q. 6.) nec Durando (d. 44. q. 8.). — Iterum controvertitur, utrum haec claritas fiat *effective* ab anima per quandam in corpus redundantiam, an vero tantum immediate a Deo. Primum docet S. Thomas (locis citt. et IV. c. Gent. c. 86.), et problematice favet Richardus; secundum praefert Scotus cum Durando et non paucis aliis.

Quoad seq. (2.) quaestionem communiter posteriores cum Praepositivo docent, Beatum posse et ostendere et occultare claritatem suam, et hoc, secundum S. Thomam, propter perfectum dominium animae super suum corpus; secundum Scotum, propter cooperantem actionem Dei.

De utraque huius articuli quaestione praeter locos citt. B. Albert., d. 44. a. 27-31.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the dowry of *impassibility* many commentators on Lombard treat above at d. 44. Cf. also Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. III, q. 21 and 22, where, treating of the transfiguration and resurrection of Christ, he brings forward much bearing on the matter proposed. — St. Thomas (d. 44, q. 2, a. 1, quaestiuncula 1; *Suppl.* q. 82, a. 1) reviews and rejects these same first three opinions concerning the *ground* of this dowry; but for the *cause* of the impassibility of these bodies he here adduces only the *perfect dominion of the soul over the body*, by which the qualities of the elements remain bound, so that they never issue into act. Elsewhere (*Summa* III, q. 45, a. 2) he seems to teach that this dowry is an *immanent quality*. Richard of Middleton teaches the like (here a. 4, q. 2). Scotus, however (here q. 13), holds that on the part of the recipient no *intrinsic* cause of this impassibility can be found (n. 4), nor from the dominion of the soul over the body, nor from any dowry in the body (nn. 6, 7), but that the cause is the divine will, not co-acting with the second corruptive cause (n. 9). Durandus thinks the same (d. 44, q. 4, n. 14). St. Bonaventure proceeds by a certain middle way, positing dispositions also on the part of the body; on which cf. also above, sect. I, a. 1, q. 2. — Here the plurality of substantial forms in the body is taught. — On the following question the others do not treat specially.

On this whole article, besides those cited: Bl. Albert, d. 44, a. 13, 14. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 1, quaestiunculae 1, 2. — Denis the Carthusian, here q. 7.

**II.** As to the dowry of *clarity* (a. 2), St. Thomas (d. 44, q. 2, a. 4, quaestiunculae 1–3; *Suppl.* q. 85, a. 1–3), on the authority of Gregory (arg. 1), thinks it more probable that glorified bodies would be at once bright and pervious. This does not please Scotus (here q. 15), nor Richard of Middleton (here a. 4, q. 6), nor Durandus (d. 44, q. 8). — Again it is disputed whether this clarity comes about *effectively* from the soul by a certain redundance into the body, or rather only immediately from God. St. Thomas teaches the former (in the places cited and *Contra Gentiles* IV, c. 86), and Richard favours it problematically; Scotus, with Durandus and not a few others, prefers the latter.

As to the following (second) question, later writers commonly, with Praepositivus, teach that the Blessed can both display and conceal his clarity, and this, according to St. Thomas, on account of the perfect dominion of the soul over its own body; according to Scotus, on account of the co-operating action of God.

On both questions of this article, besides the places cited: Bl. Albert, d. 44, a. 27–31.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L108777–109014, with every page footer and the cascade-shattered Conclusio/Respondeo re-read off the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{1021,1022,1023}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (bands used as given — gutters 1021:1616, 1022:2138, 1023:1616; none regenerated). English translated literally, paragraph-for-paragraph.

**Composite opener.** This chunk carries three layers, all rendered: (1) the **SECTIO II** header + prologue (*De gloria corporis in speciali*, the four dotes, four articles), which sits ~1,100 lines downstream of `p2-divisio` and folds here per CLAUDE.md §5a; (2) **ARTICULUS I**'s own opener (*De dote impassibilitatis* — *Circa primum quaeruntur duo*, i.e. **Art. I promises two questions**, matching q1 + q2); (3) Quaestio I proper.

**Page → apparatus split map.**
- **p.1021 — 7 notes on the page; this chunk claims 4 (notes 4–7).** Notes 1–3 anchor above the SECTIO II header, in the last question of Sectio I (`d49-p2-s1-a3-q2`), and are **forwarded to that chunk**. Note 3 overflows from the left footer column into the right. Binding is straight reading order.
- **p.1022 — 10 notes, all 10 claimed.** Reading order, with one wrinkle: **note 6 prints in the LEFT footer column but anchors in the RIGHT body column** (*«substantiae nihil est contrarium»* in the Respondeo). The register splits exactly at the footer-column boundary (1–6 left, 7–10 right) while anchors run 1–5 left body, 6–10 right body.
- **p.1023 — 8 notes on the page; this chunk claims 3 (notes 1–3).** Notes 1–2 anchor in the left body column (*quiescere*, *interminatos*), note 3 in the right (*excedat*). **Notes 4–8 anchor in Quaestio II** (Anselm *Proslog.* c. 25 etc.) and are **forwarded to `d49-p2-s2-a1-q2`**.
- Total for this chunk: **17 entries.** Latin `[^` anchors = English `[^` anchors = 17.

**p.1023 page layout** (verified off bands, since it is unusual): the top of the page is two-column (q1 *Ad 1–2* left, *Ad 3–4* right); then the **SCHOLION** prints full-width in two columns of small type; then the full-width centred **QUAESTIO II** header and q2's body. The scholion therefore falls inside this chunk's range and is rendered here — placed **last** in each `## Latin` / `## English` block per the parser rule, though the page prints it before q2. Its section **II** looks forward to Article II (*claritas*); that is what is printed and it is transcribed as such.

**Near-abutting columns.** pp.1021 and 1023 both have very narrow blank runs between columns. Both bands read **clean** at 450 dpi — no first-character clipping on either side of the split on either page, and the footer rules and marginal glosses are fully captured. No re-crop needed.

**Seams.** Opening is a fresh full-width SECTIO header (no grammatical continuity required with the prior chunk, which closes at *…ut perspicui a luminoso*). Closing sentence (*De utraque huius articuli quaestione…*) parses. The p.1021 and p.1023 splits above were derived independently from the bands, not from a neighbour hand-off.

**`[?]` flags.** None. Every disputed OCR reading (e.g. raw `d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. .|.` → band `q. 1. seq.`; raw `pag. iiQ` → band `pag. 449`; raw `tom. 11. pag. 464` confirmed) was resolved at band time.

**Dubia.** Not applicable — this chunk is mid-distinction and does not touch the foot of p.1032/1033.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


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

source_text:
<!-- page 1014 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum gloria corporis sit a gloria animae originaliter.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page, so the labels here are page-qualified: notes 1–7 of page 1014, and note 1 of page 1015. Notes 2 and following of page 1015 anchor in the following chunk and are rendered there.

Secundo quaeritur de origine beatitudinis sive gloriae corporis, utrum sit a gloria animae originaliter. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Dionysius ad Dioscorum[^p1014-1]: « Beatitudo non est corporum, sed ab animabus redundat in corpora ».

2. Item, gloria inest corpori per resurrectionem, et resurrectio per unionem animae: ergo ab anima inest corpori gloria.

3. Item, specialius videtur quoad *impassibilitatem*: quia, ut dicit Philosophus[^p1014-2], « egrediente anima, exspirat et marcescit corpus »: ergo quod sit incorruptibile, hoc non habet nisi ab anima. — *Si dicas*, quod loquitur secundum statum istum; hoc non solvit, quia, sicut anima nunc continet corpus, ita et tunc; unde Augustinus de Vera Religione: « Corpus non habebit stabilitatem nisi per animam, et haec per Deum ».

4. Item, de *spiritualitate* videtur: quia super illud primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto[^p1014-3]: *Novissimus Adam in spiritum vivificantem*; Glossa: « Quia spiritus perfecte adhaeret Deo, sic vivificat, ut corpus spirituale efficiat »: ergo manifestum etc.

**Contra:** 1. Quandocumque aliquid est alicuius origo per redundantiam, similitudo est utrobique et univocatio; sed claritas corporis et spiritus sunt claritates aequivoce[^p1014-4]: ergo haec non redundat in illam.

2. Item, omne quod est ab alio per redundantiam, illo separato, iam non inest: ergo si anima separaretur a corpore, corpus fieret obscurum; quod videtur inconveniens dicere[^p1014-5].

3. Item, quod habet totaliter *esse* per redundantiam ab aliquo, illi coniunctum, participat proprietates illas sine aliqua immutatione ex parte sui: ergo si anima gloriosa uniretur modo corpori passibili, ipsum faceret impassibile; sed hoc non potest stare: quia, quod de passibili per naturam fiat impassibile, est a virtute infinita: ergo non ab anima.

4. Item, anima Christi summe erat gloriosa, et corpus summe passibile, ergo et habens alios defectus: ergo et huiusmodi defectus non privantur per gloriam animae, sed per qualitatem absolutam corporis: ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> *Gloria corporis quoad dispositiones, quae sunt qualitates absolutae ipsius corporis, est a Deo corpus reformante, quoad consummationem est per influentiam animae gloriosae.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est loqui de dotibus corporis, in quibus eius glorificatio consistit, vel quantum ad *dispositionem*, vel quantum ad *consummationem*. Si quantum ad *dispositionem*; sic dico, quod dicunt dispositiones, quae sunt qualitates absolutae ipsius corporis, quae dantur sibi a Deo in eius reformatione. — Si quantum ad *consummationem*, sic dico, quod sunt a gloria animae sive ab anima gloriosa. Unde sicut in praesenti anima in corpus influit, et per illam influentiam corpus est coloratius, corpus est durabilius, corpus est virtuosius et agilius, quam cum anima separatur: similiter dico in proposito suo modo, quod anima gloriosa influens in corpus omnes dotes istas, ad quas *dispositiones* habebat, per sui reformationem *perficit et consummat*. Unde credo, quodsi corpus separaretur, quod etsi esset clarum et impassibile, non tamen ita ut nunc[^p1014-6].

**Ad argumenta:** Ex his patent obiecta ad utramque partem. Nam primae rationes ostendunt, quod sunt in corpore per influentiam; quod quidem verum est quantum ad *consummationem*. Secundae rationes ostendunt, quod non sunt *totaliter* in corpore per redundantiam a gloria animae; et hoc quidem verum est[^p1014-7]; praeexigitur enim, quod a Deo reformetur habile, et per influentiam animae illa habilitas consummetur.

<!-- page 1015 -->

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de spiritualitate, dicendum, quod verum est, ubi agens et patiens communicant in materia; sed non est ita in anima et corpore; unde anima, immobilis existens, per influentiam causat motum in corpore; sic et in aliis proprietatibus, sicut dicitur calor animalis sive[^p1015-1] ab anima.

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the glory of the body derives originally from the glory of the soul.*

Secondly it is asked concerning the origin of the beatitude or glory of the body, whether it derives originally from the glory of the soul. And that it does, is shown thus.

1. Dionysius to Dioscorus[^p1014-1]: « Beatitude does not belong to bodies, but overflows into bodies from souls ».

2. Likewise, glory is in the body through the resurrection, and the resurrection is through the union of the soul: therefore glory is in the body from the soul.

3. Likewise, it seems so more particularly as regards *impassibility*: because, as the Philosopher says[^p1014-2], « when the soul departs, the body breathes out its last and withers »: therefore that it should be incorruptible, this it has only from the soul. — *If you say* that he is speaking according to the present state, this does not resolve the matter, because, just as the soul now holds the body together, so it will then also; whence Augustine, *On True Religion*: « The body will not have stability except through the soul, and this through God ».

4. Likewise, it seems so with regard to *spirituality*: because upon that text of the first letter to the Corinthians, chapter fifteen[^p1014-3]: *The last Adam into a life-giving spirit*; the Gloss: « Because the spirit adheres perfectly to God, it so gives life that it makes the body spiritual »: therefore it is manifest, etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Whenever something is the origin of something else by overflow, there is in both a likeness and univocity; but the brightness of a body and that of a spirit are brightnesses equivocally[^p1014-4]: therefore the one does not overflow into the other.

2. Likewise, everything that is from another by overflow, once that other is separated, is no longer present: therefore if the soul were separated from the body, the body would become dark; which it seems unfitting to say[^p1014-5].

3. Likewise, that which has its *being* wholly by overflow from something, when joined to it, shares in those properties without any change on its own part: therefore if a glorious soul were united in the ordinary way to a passible body, it would make it impassible; but this cannot stand: because that a thing passible by nature should become impassible is from an infinite power: therefore not from the soul.

4. Likewise, the soul of Christ was glorious in the highest degree, and his body passible in the highest degree, and therefore also having the other defects: therefore defects of this kind are not removed through the glory of the soul, but through an absolute quality of the body: therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> *The glory of the body, as regards the dispositions which are absolute qualities of the body itself, is from God reforming the body; as regards its consummation, it is through the influence of the glorious soul.*

**I respond:** It must be said that one may speak of the dowries of the body, in which its glorification consists, either as regards *disposition*, or as regards *consummation*. If as regards *disposition*, then I say that they name dispositions which are absolute qualities of the body itself, which are given to it by God in its reformation. — If as regards *consummation*, then I say that they are from the glory of the soul, or from the glorious soul. Whence, just as at present the soul flows into the body, and through that influence the body has more colour, the body is more lasting, the body is stronger and more agile, than when the soul is separated: likewise I say in the case at hand, in its own manner, that the glorious soul, flowing into the body, *perfects and consummates* through its own reformation all those dowries for which it had the *dispositions*. Whence I believe that, if the body were separated, then even though it were bright and impassible, it would nevertheless not be so as it is now[^p1014-6].

**To the arguments:** From these things the objections on either side are plain. For the first set of reasons show that they are in the body through influence; which indeed is true as regards *consummation*. The second set of reasons show that they are not *wholly* in the body by overflow from the glory of the soul; and this indeed is true[^p1014-7]; for it is presupposed that it be reformed by God so as to be capable, and that through the influence of the soul that capacity be consummated.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning spirituality, it must be said that it is true where the agent and the patient share in matter; but it is not so in the case of the soul and the body; whence the soul, while remaining itself immobile, causes motion in the body through influence; and so too in the other properties, as heat is called animal heat, that is[^p1015-1] from the soul.

---

la: Ita quidem codd. et edd.; error tamen in ipsos irrepsisse videtur, cum inter epistolas Dionysii nulla ad Dioscorum habeatur. Inter epistolas *Augustini* haec epist. invenitur sub n. 118. (alias 56.), in eaque c. 3. n. 14. haec sententia continetur; verba vide supra pag. 1005, nota 4.

en: So indeed the codices and editions; nevertheless an error seems to have crept into them, since among the letters of Dionysius none to Dioscorus is found. Among the letters of *Augustine* this letter is found under n. 118 (elsewhere 56), and in it, c. 3, n. 14, this statement is contained; for the words see above, page 1005, note 4.

la: Libr. I. de Anima, text. 90. (c. 5.), ubi etiam insinuatur quod *anima continet corpus*. — Verba August., de Vera Relig. c. 12. n. 25, sunt: Inde iam erit consequens, ut post mortem corporalem... hoc corpus restituatur pristinae stabilitati, quam non per se habebit, sed per animam stabilitam in Deo; quae rursus non per se stabilitur, sed per Deum, quo fruitur etc.

en: Book I *On the Soul*, text 90 (c. 5), where it is also intimated that *the soul holds the body together*. — The words of Augustine, *On True Religion*, c. 12, n. 25, are: Thence it will now follow that after bodily death... this body be restored to its former stability, which it will not have of itself, but through the soul made stable in God; which soul again is not made stable of itself, but through God, whom it enjoys, etc.

la: Vers. 45. — Glossam exhibet Petr. Lombard. (in hunc loc.); sumta est ex August., Epist. 205. (alias 246.) c. 2. n. 11: Anima quippe in corpore *animali* vivit quidem, sed non vivificat usque ad auferendam corruptionem; in corpore vero *spirituali*, quoniam perfecte *adhaerens Domino unus spiritus est* [I. Cor. 6, 17.], sic vivificat, ut spirituale corpus efficiat etc.

en: Verse 45. — Peter Lombard sets out the Gloss (on this passage); it is taken from Augustine, *Letter* 205 (elsewhere 246) c. 2, n. 11: For the soul in an *animal* body indeed lives, but does not give life to the point of taking away corruption; but in a *spiritual* body, since *one who adheres perfectly to the Lord is one spirit* [1 Cor. 6:17], it so gives life that it makes the body spiritual, etc.

la: Aristot., de Praedicam. c. 1: *Aequivoca* dicuntur quorum nomen solum commune est, secundum nomen vero substantiae ratio diversa... *Univoca* vero dicuntur quorum et nomen commune est, et secundum nomen eadem substantiae ratio, ut animal et homo etc.

en: Aristotle, *Categories* c. 1: Things are called *equivocal* whose name alone is common, but the account of the substance answering to the name is diverse... But things are called *univocal* whose name is common and the account of the substance answering to the name is the same, as animal and man, etc.

la: Cfr. art. seq. q. 1. et sectio 2. a. 2. q. 1. — Superius pro *est ab alio* cod. F *est in aliquo*.

en: Compare the following article, q. 1, and section 2, a. 2, q. 1. — Above, for *is from another*, codex F reads *is in something*.

la: Edd., post *clarum* addito *subtile, agile*, hic legunt: *ut tunc, quando anima beata erit sibi coniuncta*. Superius pro *ad quas dispositiones* plures codd. *ad quas dispositionem*.

en: The editions, having added *subtle, agile* after *bright*, read here: *as then, when the beatified soul will be joined to it*. Above, for *for which dispositions*, several codices read *for which disposition*.

la: Cod. A addit *quantum ad dispositionem*.

en: Codex A adds *as regards disposition*.

la: Cod. K (1 a secunda manu) *esse*, edd. *esse vel exire*. Superius pro *spiritualitate* permulti codd. *subtilitate*. — Cfr. Fulgent., de Fide ad Petr. c. 29. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Codex K (1, by a second hand) *to be*, the editions *to be or to go forth*. Above, for *spirituality*, very many codices read *subtlety*. — Compare Fulgentius, *On Faith, to Peter*, c. 29. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR, raw lines 107897–108069, verified throughout against 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p101{3,4,5}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (bands used as given; **none regenerated**). Read left column top→bottom, then right column, body bands then footer bands. The OCR's cascade-shattered Respondeo, *Ad argumenta*, and both page footers were re-set from the bands, which are authoritative there per the VOL II/IV override.

**Page-span correction (narrowing).** The skeleton carried `printed_pages: [1013, 1014, 1015]`. p.1013 was read in full off its bands: it ends with the close of `a1-q1`'s body (*« …et habet omne quod vult »*) followed by q1's SCHOLION (sections I–II, ending *…hic q. 4. a. 1-5; Suppl. q. 95. a. 1-5*), and its footer register (notes 4–6) is entirely q1's. **No part of this question is printed on p.1013**; the `QUAESTIO II.` header stands at the head of p.1014. Corrected to `[1014, 1015]` / `pdf_pages: [1034, 1035]`.

**Apparatus split map (8 entries).**
- **p.1014 — 7 notes, all mine.** Binding is straight **document order**: anchors 1–5 fall in the left body column, 6–7 in the right; the footer prints notes 1–3 in the left footer column and 4–7 in the right, so column order and reading order coincide on this page. No overflow, no inversion.
- **p.1015 — note 1 only is mine.** It anchors at *calor animalis sive¹ ab anima*, the last words of this question. Its content confirms the binding (*Superius pro* spiritualitate *permulti codd.* subtilitate). Notes 2 and 3 of p.1015 anchor in `ARTICULUS II. QUAESTIO I.` and are **not** rendered here.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- To `d49-p2-s1-a2-q1`: p.1015 footer notes **2** (*Cfr. I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 3.*) and **3** (*Cfr. Avicenna, l. Canon. Fen 1. doctr. 6. c. 4…*) belong to it, as does everything from the full-width `ARTICULUS II. / De dotium distinctione.` heading onward (its opener *Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de dotium distinctione. Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur* + the two ordinal promises + `QUAESTIO I. / De numero et sufficientia dotium.`). Verified off the p.1015 bands that **none** of that opener is trapped in this chunk: this question closes cleanly at *…sicut dicitur calor animalis sive ab anima.*, a sentence that parses, and the article heading is printed below it.
- Backward to `d49-p2-s1-a1-q1`: p.1013's footer register (notes 4–6) and q1's scholion are wholly q1's; I claim nothing on p.1013.

**Scholion.** None for this question, and that is correct, not a dropout: p.1015 note 1 ends *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*, and q1's scholion on p.1013 explicitly treats *De 2. quaestione*. `has_scholion: false`.

**Band-vs-OCR disagreements resolved at band time** (band authoritative, all legible):
- p.1014 n. 1: OCR *alias 36* → **alias 56**; *n. U* → **n. 14**; *supra pag. 1003* → **supra pag. 1005** (the OCR's 1003 is wrong — this matters given d.49's known loss of p.1003's footer register).
- p.1014 n. 2: OCR *c. 12. n. 23* → **n. 25**; *text. 90. (c. S.)* → **(c. 5.)**.
- p.1014 n. 3: OCR *Vers. 43* → **Vers. 45**; *Epist. 20.3.* → **205.**; *n. M* → **n. 11**.
- p.1014 n. 5: OCR *cod. 1'* → **cod. F**.
- Body: the OCR shows a stray marker after *quae dantur sibi a Deo* in the right column; the band shows **no marker** there — it is OCR noise, not an eighth note.

**Column split.** p.1015's near-abutting columns (6 px blank run) read **clean** at the given split of 1601: no first-character clipping in either column, in body or footer bands; the running head, the page number `1015`, and the marginalia (*Ad arg. 4. pro parte affirmativa.*) are all fully captured. No re-crop needed or performed.

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


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

source_text:
<!-- page 1023 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum corpus gloriosum sit passibile passione veniente ab extrinseco.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum corpus gloriosum sit passibile passione veniente ab extrinseco, sicut igne, vel cultello. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia dicit Anselmus[^p1023-4], quod « erunt omnipotentes suae voluntatis, sicut Deus suae » : ergo si voluntas animarum est in conservatione corporis: ergo nihil poterit corpus animae laedere.

2. Item, « omnis passio magis facta abiicit a substantia[^p1023-5] » : ergo si est passibile ab exteriori, ergo potest fieri abiectio a substantia, ergo et corruptio. Sed supra probatum est, quod est incorruptibile et immortale: ergo etc.

3. Item, nihil compositum potest pati exterius, quod non possit pati interius; sed corpus gloriosum non potest pati interius[^p1023-6]: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Corpus gloriosum constat materialiter ex terra; sed terra non potest, manente forma, quam habet, tantum sublimari, quod sit igne superior: ergo manet infra ignem: ergo si inferius patitur a superiori[^p1023-7]; sed tale corpus est inferius igne, videtur etc.

2. Item, corpus nobilissimum est inferius infimo spiritu quantumcumque peccatore[^p1023-8]; sed spiritus peccatorum positus in igne patitur: ergo corpus humanum quantumcumque nobilitatum potest ab igne pati.

<!-- page 1024 -->

3. Item, omne continuum divisibile, omne divisibile partibile[^p1024-1], et omne partibile est passibile ab exteriori: ergo etc.

4. Item, quandocumque corpus durum obviat molli, necesse est illud dividere, si sit impellentia vehemens; esto igitur, quod cultellus obviet corpori glorioso, aut ergo est durius cultello, aut cultellus penetrat; sed non est durius, cum sit carneum: ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> *Corpus gloriosum est impassibile ab extrinseco omni genere passionis corrumpentis.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod corpus gloriosum est impassibile ab extrinseco omni genere passionis[^p1024-2] corrumpentis. Haec autem est duplex, scilicet per *influentiam*, sicut ignis comburit corpus; et per *violentiam*, sicut cultellus dividit. — Prima non est in corpore glorioso, quia *talis influentia* aut est secundum *ordinem iustitiae*; et haec est in daemonibus et peccatricibus animabus secundum ordinem iustitiae; in corpore glorioso non est talis passio, quia non meruit puniri. Alia est secundum *ordinem naturae*; et ista est solum, quando patiens est talis naturae, quod materia illa appetit esse sub alio actu, privatio enim est principium patiendi[^p1024-3]. Quoniam autem in corpore glorificato iam terminati sunt appetitus; ideo, si gloriosum corpus poneretur in igne inferni, non laederetur.

*Ad 1. 2.* Et per hoc patet solutio ad duo prima, quia daemon patitur secundum ordinem iustitiae, licet sit superior per naturam. — Patet etiam secundum[^p1024-4], quod terra patitur, quia materia est rationem habens privationis.

Alia est actio per violentiam, et de hac dicunt aliqui, quod non patitur, quia nemo est qui inferat; et si esset qui vellet inferre, corpus posset declinare. — Sed tunc secundum istam viam corpus Adam ante lapsum habuisset dotem impassibilitatis[^p1024-5]. Ponatur etiam per impossibile, quod cultellus applicetur ventri, aut venter resistit, aut non. Si non: ergo patitur, et cultellus subintrat, et ita est passibile; si resistit, quaero: per quam naturam? Et dicunt aliqui, quod habet naturam quintae essentiae, quae non est secabilis nec divisibilis; unde si[^p1024-6] quis iuxta solem esset et impingeret cultellum, non pertransiret; et non resisteret per *naturam duri et mollis*, sed quia *caret duritie et mollitie et passibilitate*.

Sed quia hoc difficile est intelligere, ideo dicendum, quod corpus gloriosum non potest pati *per violentiam* corporis obviantis, quia omne corpus est pervium ei, et illud pertransit, sicut videbitur[^p1024-7]. Unde sicut si aliquis haberet cultellum crystallinum, non expelleret radium per eius ictum, immo radius penetraret, unde non pateretur ab ipso; sic in proposito intelligendum, corpus gloriosum penetrare cultellum.

*Ad 3.* Quod ergo dicitur: omne continuum divisibile; intelligendum est de divisione mathematica, non de divisione naturali[^p1024-8], de qua hic opponitur. Sic enim exponit Anselmus, quod illud intelligitur secundum intellectum, non secundum actum[^p1024-9].

> **De numeratione notarum.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page. The apparatus below is therefore labelled by page: notes 4–8 of page 1023 and notes 1–9 of page 1024. Notes 1–3 of page 1023 anchor in the preceding quaestio, and note 10 of page 1024 anchors in the following article; they are rendered in those chunks, not here.

---

english:
<!-- page 1023 -->

### Question II. *Whether the glorified body is passible by a passion coming from without.*

Secondly it is asked whether the glorified body is passible by a passion coming from without, as by fire or by a knife. And that it is not, seems to be so:

1. Because Anselm says[^p1023-4] that "they will be omnipotent over their own will, as God is over his": therefore if the will of the souls is set upon the conservation of the body: therefore nothing will be able to harm the body of the soul.

2. Likewise, "every passion, the more it is done, casts away from substance[^p1023-5]": therefore if it is passible from without, therefore a casting-away from substance can come about, therefore corruption also. But it was proved above that it is incorruptible and immortal: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, nothing composite can suffer from without which cannot suffer from within; but the glorified body cannot suffer from within[^p1023-6]: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. The glorified body is constituted materially out of earth; but earth cannot, while the form which it has remains, be so far raised up that it should be higher than fire: therefore it remains below fire: therefore if the lower suffers from the higher[^p1023-7]; but such a body is lower than fire, it seems etc.

2. Likewise, the noblest body is lower than the lowest spirit, however sinful[^p1023-8]; but the spirit of sinners, when placed in fire, suffers: therefore the human body, however ennobled, can suffer from fire.

<!-- page 1024 -->

3. Likewise, every continuum is divisible, everything divisible is partible[^p1024-1], and everything partible is passible from without: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, whenever a hard body meets a soft one, it must needs divide it, if the impulse be vehement; suppose therefore that a knife meets a glorified body: either then it is harder than the knife, or the knife penetrates; but it is not harder, since it is fleshly: therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> *The glorified body is impassible from without by every kind of corrupting passion.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the glorified body is impassible from without by every kind of corrupting passion[^p1024-2]. Now this is twofold, namely by *influence*, as fire burns a body; and by *violence*, as a knife divides. — The first is not in the glorified body, because *such influence* is either according to the *order of justice*; and this is in demons and in sinful souls according to the order of justice; in the glorified body there is no such passion, because it has not deserved to be punished. The other is according to the *order of nature*; and this occurs only when the patient is of such a nature that that matter desires to be under another act, for privation is the principle of suffering[^p1024-3]. But since in the glorified body the appetites are already terminated, therefore, if a glorified body were placed in the fire of hell, it would not be harmed.

*To 1 and 2.* And by this the solution to the first two is clear, because the demon suffers according to the order of justice, although it is superior by nature. — The second is likewise clear[^p1024-4], namely that earth suffers, because matter is that which has the account of privation.

The other is action by violence, and concerning this some say that it does not suffer, because there is no one who would inflict it; and if there were one who wished to inflict it, the body could turn aside. — But then, according to that way, Adam's body before the fall would have had the dowry of impassibility[^p1024-5]. Let it also be supposed, by an impossibility, that a knife is applied to the belly: either the belly resists, or it does not. If it does not: therefore it suffers, and the knife enters in, and so it is passible; if it resists, I ask: by what nature? And some say that it has the nature of a fifth essence, which is neither cuttable nor divisible; whence if[^p1024-6] someone were beside the sun and were to drive a knife against it, it would not pass through; and it would not resist by the *nature of the hard and the soft*, but because it *lacks hardness and softness and passibility*.

But because this is difficult to understand, it must therefore be said that the glorified body cannot suffer *by the violence* of a body meeting it, because every body is pervious to it, and it passes through that body, as will be seen[^p1024-7]. Whence, just as if someone had a crystal knife, he would not drive out a ray by its stroke, but rather the ray would penetrate it, whence it would not suffer from it; so in the case at hand it must be understood that the glorified body penetrates the knife.

*To 3.* As for what is said, then — that every continuum is divisible — this must be understood of mathematical division, not of the natural division[^p1024-8] about which the objection is here made. For Anselm so expounds it, that it is understood according to intellect, not according to act[^p1024-9].

---

la: Proslog. c. 25. — Superius pro *passibile* plures codd. *impassibile*. Inferius pro *est* cod. L *erit*.

en: *Proslogion* c. 25. — Above, for *passibile* several codices read *impassibile*. Below, for *est* codex L reads *erit*.

la: Aristot., VI. Topic. c. 3. (c. 6.). — Quod corpus gloriosum sit *incorruptibile*, ostensum est quaest. praeced.

en: Aristotle, *Topics* VI, c. 3 (c. 6). — That the glorified body is *incorruptible* was shown in the preceding question.

la: Vide quaest. praeced.

en: See the preceding question.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 932, nota 9. — Mox pro *sed*, quod habent codd. A F Z aa, alii codd. *si*, edd. *et*. Superius pro *materialiter* codd. C E F *naturaliter*.

en: Compare above, p. 932, note 9. — Shortly after, for *sed*, which codices A F Z aa have, other codices read *si*, and the editions *et*. Above, for *materialiter* codices C E F read *naturaliter*.

la: Ut insinuat August. supra pag. 932, nota 10. relatus in oppositum eius, quod ignis infernalis non affligat spiritum. — Cod. G *corpus humanum quantumcumque nobilitatum est inferius... peccante* (etiam cod. aa *peccante*).

en: As Augustine intimates, cited above on p. 932, note 10, against the view that infernal fire does not afflict a spirit. — Codex G reads *corpus humanum quantumcumque nobilitatum est inferius... peccante* (codex aa also reads *peccante*).

la: Vide Aristot., VI. Phys. text. 1. seqq. (c. 1.).

en: See Aristotle, *Physics* VI, text 1 and following (c. 1).

la: Edd. *actionis*. Paulo ante pro *impassibile* cod. aa *passibile*.

en: The editions read *actionis*. A little before, for *impassibile* codex aa reads *passibile*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. Phys. text. 55. seq. et 80. seq. (c. 6. et 9.). — Cod. K (I a secunda manu) *quando patiens est sub aliquo actu et appetit* etc. Superius pro *Alia est* Vat. *aut est*, quod melius respondet praecedenti *aut est* nec non distinguit ab infra sequente propositione *Alia est actio per violentiam*.

en: Compare Aristotle, *Physics* I, text 55 f. and 80 f. (c. 6 and 9). — Codex K (I, by a second hand) reads *quando patiens est sub aliquo actu et appetit* etc. Above, for *Alia est* the Vatican edition reads *aut est*, which corresponds better to the preceding *aut est* and also distinguishes it from the proposition following below, *Alia est actio per violentiam*.

la: Quoad ordinem argumentorum est primum.

en: As regards the order of the arguments, it is the first.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 19. a. 2. q. 1.

en: See II *Sentences*, d. 19, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Cum codd. P aa supplevimus *quis*.

en: With codices P and aa we have supplied *quis*.

en: Article 3, question 1.

la: Ut insinuat Aristot., I. Phys. text. 38. (c. 4.), docendo, in divisione carnis deveniri oportere ad minimam carnem, quae si ultra dividatur, non manere eandem speciem carnis; et III. Phys. text. 69. (c. 7.): *Etenim dividitur in infinita continuum*. Anselm., Proslog. c. 18, et de Fide Trinitatis, c. 3. seq. profert, quod omne compositum necesse est aut actu, aut intellectu posse disiungi. — In fine solut. fide codd. B C G N P Q U Y substituimus *actum* pro *habitum*.

en: As Aristotle intimates, *Physics* I, text 38 (c. 4), in teaching that in the division of flesh one must come down to a least flesh, which, if it be divided further, does not remain the same species of flesh; and *Physics* III, text 69 (c. 7): *For a continuum is divided into infinites*. Anselm, *Proslogion* c. 18, and *On Faith in the Trinity* c. 3 f., puts forward that every composite must necessarily be able to be disjoined either in act or in intellect. — At the end of the solution, on the faith of codices B C G N P Q U Y, we have substituted *actum* for *habitum*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L109015–L109110, verified throughout against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{1023,1024}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (bands used as given at the measured splits 1023:1616, 1024:2108 — **not regenerated**). The Respondeo and both page footers are cascade-shattered in the OCR; per the VOL II/IV override the band read is authoritative there. Notably the raw's rendering of p.1024 note 8 is truncated garbage (`Ut insinunt Arislot., 1. Phys. text. .38. (e. L), docendo,` and nothing further) — the full entry was recovered from the band.

**Band quality.** Neither page's bands are clipped, despite both being on the near-abutting-column list (10 px on p.1023, 12 px on p.1024). Left columns read full-width with no first- or last-character loss; marginalia (`Ad oppositum.`, `Conclusio.`, `Distinctio.`, `Subdistinctio 1. membri.`, `Opinio doctorum`, `Fundamenta.`) are captured in the outer margins and have been trimmed as editorial furniture per the OCR-cleanup rule.

**Page→apparatus split map.**

| Page | Notes on page | This chunk | Elsewhere |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1023 | 8 (L footer 1–5, R footer 6–8) | **4–8** | 1–3 → `p2-s2-a1-q1` |
| 1024 | 10 (L footer 1–7, R footer 8–10) | **1–9** | 10 → `p2-s2-a2-q1` |

Total rendered here: **14 entries**. Latin `[^` anchors = English `[^` anchors = 14.

**Seam, p.1023 (shared with `p2-s2-a1-q1`).** Derived independently, not from a hand-off. p.1023's upper half is q1's tail (`Ad 1.`/`Ad 2.`) plus the article-level scholion; my chunk begins at the full-width centred `QUAESTIO II.` heading. p.1023 notes 1–3 anchor in q1: note 1 records the variant `confringens`/`constringens`, which occurs at raw L108937 — inside q1's body, not mine; notes 2 and 3 likewise anchor at q1's `interminatos²` and earlier. My first anchor is note 4 at `Anselmus⁴`. The footer registers split exactly at the footer-column boundary here (L footer carries 1–5, R footer 6–8) and anchors run in straight reading order.

**Seam, p.1024 (shared with `p2-s2-a2-q1`).** My chunk closes at `...secundum intellectum, non secundum actum⁹.` — a complete, parsing sentence; `ARTICULUS II. / De dote claritatis.` with its opener (`Consequenter quaeritur de dote claritatis. De qua duo quaeruntur. / Primo... Secundo...`) and the following `QUAESTIO I.` all fall **outside** my range (raw L109111+) and belong to `p2-s2-a2-q1`. Nothing of Article II's opener or praenotata is trapped here. Note 10 (Gregory on Job 28) anchors in Art. II q. 1's first argument and is forwarded there.

**Binding-order behaviour on p.1024 — a seventh variant.** The footer registers do **not** split at the body-column boundary. The left footer column carries notes 1–7, but only notes 1–3 anchor in the left body column; notes **4, 5, 6 and 7 anchor in the right body column while printing in the left footer column**. The right footer column carries 8–10. Bound by content, not by position, throughout.

**Page break.** The printed break falls mid-word inside Contra 2 (`ergo cor-` | `pus humanum`). The `<!-- page 1024 -->` marker is placed at the next paragraph boundary (before argument 3), per the paragraph-boundary convention; the sentence itself is rendered whole.

**Scholion.** None of its own, and this is expected rather than a dropout: p.1024 note 9 reads *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* — the editors explicitly refer the reader back to the scholion of q1, which is the article-level scholion printed at the head of p.1023. `has_scholion: false` retained.

**`printed_pages`.** Verified against the bands as [1023, 1024]; no correction needed in either direction.

**`[?]` flags.** None. Every band read was legible; no guesses.