title: Dist. 13, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the letter of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 330 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit, quod *in mysterio factum est, quod dies computatur a vespera in vesperam*. Contra hoc enim videtur, quod ad ieiunii observantiam oportet ieiunare diem praecedentem cum nocte sequenti. — Item, videtur, quod non congrue significetur mysterium redemptionis, computando diem a vespera in vesperam, immo potius in prima computatione dierum, quia *Christus a tenebris nos produxit ad lucem*[^1].

**Respondeo:** *Duplex modus computandi diem iuxta Scripturam.* Dicendum, quod duplicem modum computandi diem accipimus in Scriptura. Primus, in quo dies praecedens copulatur nocti sequenti, et hoc quidem fuit in prima dierum enumeratione, in quo, ut dicit Magister[^2], praefigurabatur lapsus hominis futurus a luce gratiae in tenebras culpae. Alius modus computandi dies attenditur in solemnitatum custoditione, in quo nox praecedens connumeratur diei sequenti: et hoc vult dicere *a vespera in vesperam*, ut praecedat nox, et sequatur dies, quia *eramus aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in Domino*[^3]. — Et quod obiicitur de observantia ieiuniorum, dicendum, quod tempus ieiunii competit tempori miseriae; et ideo computatio diei in observatione ieiunii debet fieri secundum conformitatem ad distinctionem temporis primi, in quo erat praefiguratio lapsus humani. — Et quod obiicitur, quod non debet terminari a vespera in vesperam; dicendum, quod prima vespera ponitur ibi, in quantum est *principium noctis*, et secunda, in quantum est *finis diei*; et ita pro nocte et die.

*Quatuor modi diei computandi.* Licet autem hae duae distinctiones in Scriptura maxime exprimantur, quatuor tamen modis secundum diversorum computationes dies consueverunt distingui. Graeci enim computant diem a mane in mane, quia tunc primo apparet sol; Hebraei vero a vespera in vesperam, quia tunc incipiunt solemnizare; astronomi vero a meridie in meridiem, quia tunc est sol in maiori virtute; sancta Ecclesia a media nocte usque ad mediam noctem, quia tunc natus est Christus. Unde versus:

> *Mane diem Graeca gens incipit; astra sequentes*
> *In medio lucis; Iudaei vespere; sancta*
> *Inchoat Ecclesia medio sub tempore noctis*[^4].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit de illa luce: *Aut de ea corpus solis formatum, aut in ea parte caeli esse, in qua sol est*. Nam primum videtur esse falsum, quia non est ordo de perfecto ad imperfectum; sed lux illa perfectissima erat, sicut dicit Damascenus[^5], quod opera primae diei perfectiora sunt. — Item, textus[^6] videtur esse contrarius; dicitur enim ibi: *Vidit Deus lucem, quod esset bona*; et Augustinus explanat: «*Vidit, id est placuit voluntati Dei, ut pro modo sui generis maneret quod placuit, ut fieret*»: ergo adhuc manet in se ipsa lux illa. — Item, si sol factus est de illa luce, unde facta sunt alia luminaria? Si tu dicas, quod de illa luce; tunc videtur, quod una pars illius lucis corporalis[^7] cessit in corpora luminosa, quae sunt supra solem, et in corpora luminosa, quae sunt infra solem: ergo, si nullum corpus habet mo-

<!-- page 331 -->

veri oppositis motibus, nullum etiam est corpus caeleste, quod per naturam habeat moveri motu recto, sed orbiculari, videtur, quod prima luminarium productio fuerit per violentiam et praeter naturam[^8]. — Item, quod non possit esse in ea parte, in qua est sol, videtur primo, quia duo corpora non possunt esse simul; secundo vero, quia sol sufficienter illuminat: ergo videtur, quod lux illa sit ibi frustra.

**Respondeo:** *Quatuor solutiones.* Dicendum, quod cum quaeritur, quid de illa luce factum sit, quatuor modis ad hoc consuevit responderi, quorum duos Magister tangit in littera[^9].

*Prima.* Primus est, quod luminaribus caeli factis, lux illa rediit in praeiacentem materiam, quia non erat facta nisi ad faciendam quandam distinctionem dierum semiplenam, qua perfecta inde rediit, unde sumta est. — *Improbatur.* Sed haec positio est contra rationem et contra litteram[^10], quod Deus destrueret opera sex dierum principalia, vel quod sineret perire.

*Secunda, improbabilis.* Secundus modus dicendi est, quod illa lux simpliciter manet[^11] in forma sua non mutata, nec discernitur quantum ad sensum, propter coniunctionem sui ad solem, nec tamen est frustra, quia ipsius solis auget effectum.

*Tertia, non sufficiens.* Sed quia difficile est assignare, quem effectum habeat cum sole; ideo est tertius modus dicendi, quod ex ipsa factus sit sol, et in eo salvatur tanquam in re eiusdem generis.

*Quarta.* Sed quoniam non videtur Scriptura[^12] exprimere, quod Deus post primum diem produxerit novam lucem, sed solummodo luminaria distinxit; ideo est quarta opinio, quod ex illa luce facta sunt corpora luminosa, inter quae principatum tenet sol; nec fuit ibi aliqua violentia, quia unaquaeque creatura eum locum accipiebat, quem sibi Dominus per naturam deputabat[^13]. — Et sic patent obiecta, quia nec fuit illius lucis corruptio, nec etiam violentia, sed quaedam maior et perfectior distinctio. — Quod autem dicit Damascenus, opus primae diei fuisse perfectissimum; hoc dicit per comparationem ad alia corpora, quae a luce habent recipere influentiam, non per comparationem ad luminaria, quae ex ipsa luce sunt formata.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Dixit Deus: Fiat etc. non temporaliter nec sono vocis, sed in Verbo sibi coaeterno*. Videtur enim hoc esse falsum; statim enim cum *dixit* Deus, res factae sunt, sicut dicitur in Psalmo[^14]: *Dixit, et facta sunt*: ergo cum productio rerum sit temporalis, dictio non fuit aeterna. — Item, in dictione aeterna non *dicit* Deus nisi semel, sicut dicitur in Psalmo[^15]: *Semel locutus est Deus*; sed cum produxit opera sex dierum, in productione cuiuslibet operis *dixit*: ergo illud *dicere* non est aeternum, sive generare Filium. Si tu dicas, quod illud *dicere* non fuit nisi unum solum, iteratur tamen propter multos effectus; tunc videtur, quod si ad *dicere* sequitur *facere*, et *simul dixit*, ergo *simul* omnia *fecit*; sed *non simul fecit*, sicut dicit Scriptura, et supra[^16] probatum est: ergo non *simul dixit*.

*Quaestiones.* Propter hoc quaeritur, utrum *dicere* accipiatur hic *temporaliter*, vel *aeternaliter*; et si aeternaliter, quomodo *dictum* possit esse *temporale*? et si *temporaliter*, quomodo *dicere* temporale potuit omnem creaturam praecedere? — Item, quaestio est, utrum accipiatur *notionaliter* vel *essentialiter*. Si enim accipiatur *notionaliter*, quomodo poneret effectum? aut quomodo effectus creationis, quem Deus *dicendo* produxit, competat toti Trinitati? Si vero *essentialiter*, quomodo poterit dici, illud referri ad naturam Verbi, *per quod facta sunt omnia*[^17]? cum Verbum dicatur personaliter, sicut in primo libro ostensum est.

**Respondeo:** *Triplex connotatio in termino dicere.* Dicendum, quod *dicere* uno modo connotat effectum *in actu*, alio modo connotat effectum *in habitu*, tertio modo nec in habitu nec in actu. Dicit enim uno modo quasi actum ad *exterius*, et sic *dicere* est aliquem effectum efficere, in quo dicens exprimit se; et hoc modo dicitur Deus *dicere* sive creaturam producendo, in qua se declarat, sive aliquid animae inspirando, in quo voluntatem suam demonstrat; et sic pluries accipitur in Scriptura[^18] et connotat effectum actualiter. — Alio modo *dicere* dicit actum quasi *interius*, nihilominus tamen *relatum*; et hoc modo dicit compa-

<!-- page 332 -->

rationem ad Verbum conceptum, per quod dicens se et omnia loquitur. Per quem modum accipitur in Psalmo[^19]: *Semel locutus est Deus*, Glossa: id est, Filium genuit, in quo omnia disposuit; et sic *dicere* connotat effectum *in habitu*, quia *dicere* importat dispositionem, et ad dispositionem sequitur opus. — Tertio modo *dicere* dicit actum *intrinsecum* et *absolutum*; et hoc modo dicit Anselmus[^20], quod «*dicere non est aliud quam videndo intueri*», et sic quaelibet persona dicit se et alia; et huic *dicere* non respondet verbum conceptum, quia secundum hunc modum idem potest esse *dicens* et *dictum* et *quo dicitur*. Quaelibet enim persona se ipsam videt et intuetur se ipsam; et sic non connotat effectum, nec actu nec habitu.

*Resp. 1.* Si ergo quaeritur, quomodo accipiatur *dicere* in rerum productione; dicendum, quod potest accipi primo modo, scilicet prout connotat effectum *in actu*; et tunc *dicere* idem est quod *producere*, nec est ibi nugatio, cum dicitur[^21]: *Dixit Deus: Fiat*, quia non tantum importat ipsam actionem in se, sed etiam prout est ad ipsius manifestationem; et praemittit Scriptura verbum *dicendi* verbo *faciendi*, ut in hoc ostendat, quod Deus maxima facilitate producit singula, non quia aliqua vox creata rerum productionem antecedat. Et sic *dicere* in diversis diebus potest plurificari non ratione principalis significati, sed *connotati*; sicut patet, quia plurium productorum plures sunt productiones *passivae*, et ratione connotati *activa*[^22] *dici* potest plurificari.

*Resp. 2.* Potest etiam nihilominus accipi secundo modo, et sic est sensus: *Dixit*, id est *Filium genuit*, in quo omnia disposuit et per quem omnia produxit; et sic exponit beatus Augustinus[^23], cum dicit, quod vox Dei ad naturam Verbi, *per quod omnia facta sunt*, refertur. Et ad illud *dicere* sequitur creaturam fieri, sicut ad *dispositionem* sequitur opus, non immediate, ut tunc sit, quando quis primo disponit, sed pro loco et tempore, scilicet sicut dicentis dispositio ordinavit; et sic est in proposito. Nam Deus produxit non tunc, cum Filium genuit, in quo disposuit; sed sicut generando Filium ab aeterno disposuit, se producturum in tempore, sic produxit in tempore. In ipsa enim dispositione Dei aeterna non solum erat, quod res producerentur, sed etiam *quando* producerentur. Et hoc modo *dicere* in diversis diebus dictum eandem importat dispositionem et aeternam, in qua simul disponuntur aeternaliter, quae successive producuntur ex tempore.

*De tertio modo notandi.* Sic igitur primo et secundo modo potest hic accipi *dicere*, sed secundo modo magis proprie. Tertio autem modo non videtur hic accipi, quia non connotatur ibi aliquis effectus, nec actu nec habitu. Nec videtur etiam illo tertio modo proprie accipi actus *dicendi*. Nam, sicut dictum fuit in primo libro distinctione vigesima septima[^24], *dicere* proprie non est sine *verbo*, sicut nec proprie ibi dicitur esse *locutio*, ubi nullus est *sermo*. *Notandum.* Nihilominus tamen tertius modus accipiendi *dicere* non videtur esse omnino improbandus, pro eo quod satis rationabiliter videtur posse concedi, quod quaelibet persona loquatur se alteri. Si enim iste actus, qui est *dicere*, convenit cuilibet personae creatae, potest convenire cuilibet personae increatae vel vere, vel modo transumtivo[^25]. Iste tamen modus accipiendi non competit proposito. Et per hoc patent quae obiecta sunt.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *In principio, id est in Filio, creavit Deus caelum et terram*. Si enim creatio mutatio est[^26], et in Filio nihil mutatur: ergo in Filio nihil creatur. — Item quaeritur, quare ista accipitur: *Pater est in Filio* et *creat in Filio*, ita quod haec praepositio *in* refertur et ad verbum *essendi* et ad verbum *operandi*; haec autem non recipitur: *Pater est per Filium*, quamvis ista recipiatur: *Pater operatur per Filium*[^27]. — Quaeritur etiam, quam habitudinem importat haec praepositio *per*, cum dicitur: *Deus Pater creat per Filium*.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod haec praepositio *in* potest importare *causalitatem* et potest importare *identitatem*; *causalitatem*, ut cum dicitur:

<!-- page 333 -->

*Omnia sunt in Deo*; *identitatem*, ut cum dicitur: *Pater est in Filio*. Haec autem praepositio *per*, quantum est de se, importat *causalitatem*. — Dico igitur, quod convenienter dicitur Deus operari *in Filio*, et ratione *identitatis*, quia Pater operans est in Filio; et ratione *causalitatis*, quia Filius est causa effectus producti a Patre. Et ideo haec praepositio *in* cum suo casuali accipitur in divinis cum verbis absolutis et cum transitivis ratione duplicis habitudinis, scilicet *causalitatis* et *identitatis*. Haec autem praepositio *per*, quoniam[^28] importat habitudinem causae et principii, non recipitur nisi in illis verbis, quae important aliquem effectum, respectu cuius Filius habet causalitatem. Et ideo recipitur, quod Pater *operatur per Filium*, sed tamen non recipitur, quod Pater *sit per Filium*. Sed haec planius dicta sunt in primo libro, distinctione trigesima secunda[^29], et ideo ad praesens sufficiant haec[^30].

---

english:
<!-- page 330 -->

## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE LETTER OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the letter, and first it is doubted concerning what he says, that *in the mystery it was brought about that the day is reckoned from evening to evening*. For against this it seems that for the observance of a fast it is fitting to fast the preceding day with the following night. — Likewise, it seems that the mystery of redemption is not fittingly signified by reckoning the day from evening to evening; rather [it should be] in the first reckoning of days, because *Christ brought us forth from darkness to light*[^1].

**I respond:** *A twofold mode of reckoning the day according to Scripture.* It must be said that we receive a twofold mode of reckoning the day in Scripture. The first, in which the preceding day is coupled to the following night, and this indeed was [used] in the first enumeration of days, in which, as the Master[^2] says, was prefigured the fall of man to come, from the light of grace into the darkness of fault. Another mode of reckoning days is observed in the keeping of solemnities, in which the preceding night is numbered with the following day: and this is what is meant by *from evening to evening*, so that the night precede and the day follow, because *we were once darkness, but now light in the Lord*[^3]. — As for the objection about the observance of fasts, it must be said that the time of fasting befits the time of misery; and therefore the reckoning of the day in the observance of a fast ought to be made in conformity to the distinction of the first time, in which was the prefiguration of the human fall. — And as for the objection that [the day] ought not to be terminated from evening to evening, it must be said that the first *vespera* is placed there insofar as it is the *beginning of the night*, and the second insofar as it is the *end of the day*; and so it stands for night and for day.

*Four modes of reckoning the day.* But although these two distinctions are most especially expressed in Scripture, nevertheless the day has been wont to be distinguished in four modes according to the reckonings of various peoples. For the Greeks reckon the day from morning to morning, because then the sun first appears; the Hebrews from evening to evening, because then they begin to solemnize; the astronomers from noon to noon, because then the sun is at greater power; the holy Church from midnight to midnight, because then Christ was born. Hence the verses:

> *The Greek race begins the day at morning; those who follow the stars*
> *[begin it] in the middle of light; the Jews at evening; the holy*
> *Church begins [it] in the middle of the time of night*[^4].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says about that lux: *Either the body of the sun was formed from it, or it is in that part of the heaven in which the sun is*. For the first seems to be false, because there is no order from the perfect to the imperfect; but that lux was most perfect, as Damascene[^5] says, that the works of the first day are most perfect. — Likewise, the text[^6] seems to be contrary; for it is said there: *God saw the light, that it was good*; and Augustine explains: «*He saw, i.e. it pleased the will of God that what pleased Him to be made should remain according to the mode of its kind*»: therefore that lux still remains in itself. — Likewise, if the sun was made from that lux, whence were the other luminaries made? If you say, from that lux; then it seems that one part of that corporeal lux[^7] passed over into the luminous bodies which are above the sun, and into the luminous bodies which are below the sun: therefore, since no body has to be moved by opposite motions, and since likewise there is no celestial body which by nature has to be moved by rectilinear motion, but [only] by circular,

<!-- page 331 -->

it seems that the first production of luminaries was by violence and against nature[^8]. — Likewise, that [the lux] cannot be in that part in which the sun is seems [true] first because two bodies cannot be in the same place at the same time; and secondly because the sun illumines sufficiently: therefore it seems that that lux is there in vain.

**I respond:** *Four solutions.* It must be said that when it is asked what was made of that lux, the response is wont to be made in four modes, two of which the Master touches in the letter[^9].

*First.* The first is that, when the luminaries of the heaven were made, that lux returned into the underlying matter, because it had been made only for the making of a certain half-full distinction of days, which being perfected, it then returned to whence it had been taken. — *Improbatur.* But this position is against reason and against the letter[^10], in that God should destroy the principal works of the six days, or should let them perish.

*Second, improbable.* The second mode of speaking is that that lux simply remains[^11] in its form unchanged, nor is it discernible to sense because of its conjunction with the sun, yet is not in vain, because it augments the effect of the sun itself.

*Third, not sufficient.* But because it is difficult to assign what effect it has with the sun, there is the third mode of speaking, that the sun was made from it, and is preserved in it as in a thing of the same genus.

*Fourth.* But since Scripture[^12] does not seem to express that God after the first day produced a new lux but only distinguished the luminaries; there is the fourth opinion, that from that lux were made the luminous bodies, among which the sun holds the principal place; nor was there any violence there, because each creature received that place which the Lord by nature allotted to it[^13]. — And thus the objections are clear, because there was neither corruption of that lux nor violence, but a certain greater and more perfect distinction. — As for what Damascene says, that the work of the first day was most perfect, this is said by comparison to other bodies which have to receive influence from the lux, not by comparison to the luminaries, which were formed from that lux itself.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *God said: Let it be made, etc. not temporally, nor by the sound of a voice, but in the Word coeternal with Himself*. For this seems to be false; for as soon as God *said*, things were made, as is said in the Psalm[^14]: *He spoke, and they were made*: therefore since the production of things is temporal, the saying was not eternal. — Likewise, in an eternal saying God *says* only once, as is said in the Psalm[^15]: *Once has God spoken*; but when He produced the works of the six days, in the production of each work He *said*: therefore that *saying* is not eternal, or [is not] the begetting of the Son. If you say that the *saying* was only one, yet it is repeated on account of the many effects; then it seems that if *to make* follows on *to say*, and He *said simultaneously*, then He *made* all things *simultaneously*; but He did *not make simultaneously*, as Scripture says and as has been proved above[^16]: therefore He did *not say simultaneously*.

*Questions.* On this account it is asked whether *to say* is here taken *temporally* or *eternally*; and if eternally, how can the *thing said* be *temporal*? and if *temporally*, how could the temporal *saying* precede every creature? — Likewise, there is the question whether it is taken *notionally* or *essentially*. For if it is taken *notionally*, how would it posit an effect? or how would the effect of creation, which God produced by *saying*, befit the whole Trinity? But if [taken] *essentially*, how can it be said that this is referred to the nature of the Word, *through which all things were made*[^17]? since the Word is said personally, as was shown in the first book.

**I respond:** *Threefold connotation in the term* dicere. It must be said that *to say* in one mode connotes an effect *in act*, in another mode connotes an effect *in habit*, in a third mode neither in habit nor in act. For it speaks in one mode as it were of an act toward the *exterior*, and thus *to say* is to effect some effect in which the one saying expresses himself; and in this mode God is said *to say* either by producing a creature in which He declares Himself, or by inspiring something to the soul in which He shows His will; and thus it is taken many times in Scripture[^18] and connotes effect actually. — In another mode *to say* signifies an act as it were *interior*, but nonetheless *related*; and in this mode it signifies the com-

<!-- page 332 -->

parison to the Word conceived, through which the one saying speaks himself and all things. In which mode it is taken in the Psalm[^19]: *Once has God spoken*, Gloss: that is, He begot the Son, in whom He disposed all things; and thus *to say* connotes an effect *in habit*, because *to say* implies a disposition, and to disposition follows the work. — In a third mode *to say* signifies an act *intrinsic* and *absolute*; and in this mode Anselm[^20] says that «*to say is nothing other than to behold by seeing*»; and thus each person says Himself and other [persons]; and to this *saying* no conceived word corresponds, because according to this mode the same can be the *one saying* and the *thing said* and *that by which it is said*. For each person sees Himself and beholds Himself; and thus it does not connote an effect, neither in act nor in habit.

*Resp. 1.* If, then, it is asked how *to say* is taken in the production of things, it must be said that it can be taken in the first mode, namely insofar as it connotes an effect *in act*; and then *to say* is the same as *to produce*, nor is there any otiose [repetition] there when it is said[^21]: *God said: Let it be made*, because [the verb] does not import only the action itself, but also as it is unto its manifestation; and Scripture puts the verb of *saying* before the verb of *making*, that in this it may show that God produces individual things with maximum ease — not because some created voice precedes the production of things. And thus *to say* on different days can be pluralized not by reason of the principal signified but of the *connoted*; just as is clear, because of many things produced there are many *passive* productions, and by reason of the connoted the *active* [productions] *to say*[^22] can be pluralized.

*Resp. 2.* It can nonetheless be taken in the second mode, and thus the sense is: *He said*, i.e. *He begot the Son*, in whom He disposed all things and through whom He produced all things; and so blessed Augustine[^23] expounds when he says that the voice of God is referred to the nature of the Word *through which all things were made*. And to that *saying* follows the becoming of the creature, just as to *disposition* follows the work — not immediately, so that it should be then when one first disposes, but according to place and time, namely as the disposition of the one saying ordered; and so it is in the matter at hand. For God produced not then when He begot the Son, in whom He disposed; but as by begetting the Son from eternity He disposed Himself to produce in time, so He produced in time. For in the eternal disposition of God Himself there was not only that things should be produced, but also *when* they should be produced. And in this mode *to say*, [predicated] on different days, implies the same eternal disposition, in which the things which are successively produced from time are simultaneously disposed eternally.

*On the third mode, of note.* Thus, therefore, *to say* can be taken here in the first and second mode, but more properly in the second. But in the third mode it does not seem to be taken here, because no effect is connoted there, neither in act nor in habit. Nor does the act of *saying* seem to be properly taken in that third mode either. For, as was said in the first book, distinction twenty-seventh[^24], *to say* is properly not without a *word*, just as *speech* is not properly said to be there where there is no *discourse*. *Notandum.* Nevertheless, the third mode of taking *to say* does not seem altogether to be rejected, because it seems sufficiently reasonably able to be conceded that each person speaks to another. For if this act, which is *to say*, befits each created person, it can befit each uncreated person either truly, or in a transumed mode[^25]. Yet this mode of taking does not pertain to the matter at hand. And by this what was objected is clear.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *In the beginning, i.e. in the Son, God created heaven and earth*. For if creation is a change[^26], and in the Son nothing is changed: therefore in the Son nothing is created. — Likewise it is asked, why is this received: *The Father is in the Son* and *creates in the Son*, so that this preposition *in* is referred both to the verb *to be* and to the verb *to operate*; but this is not received: *The Father is through the Son*, although this is received: *The Father operates through the Son*[^27]. — It is also asked what relation this preposition *per* imports, when it is said: *God the Father creates through the Son*.

**I respond:** It must be said that this preposition *in* can import *causality* and can import *identity*; *causality*, as when it is said:

<!-- page 333 -->

*All things are in God*; *identity*, as when it is said: *The Father is in the Son*. But this preposition *per*, as of itself, imports *causality*. — I say therefore that God is fittingly said to operate *in the Son*, both by reason of *identity*, because the Father operating is in the Son; and by reason of *causality*, because the Son is the cause of the effect produced by the Father. And therefore this preposition *in* with its [oblique] case is taken in divine matters with absolute verbs and with transitive [verbs] by reason of a twofold relation, namely of *causality* and of *identity*. But this preposition *per*, since[^28] it imports the relation of cause and principle, is not received except in those verbs which import some effect with respect to which the Son has causality. And therefore it is received that the Father *operates through the Son*, but yet it is not received that the Father *is through the Son*. But these things are spoken of more plainly in the first book, distinction thirty-second[^29], and therefore for the present let these things suffice[^30].

---

la: Iob. 12, 22: *Qui revelat profunda de tenebris et producit in lucem umbram mortis*. Cfr. I. Petr. 2, 9.

en: Job 12, 22: *Who reveals deep things from darkness and brings forth into light the shadow of death*. Cf. 1 Peter 2, 9.

la: Hic in lit. c. 5. — Dein ex codd. W Y aa bb cc supplevimus *hominis*.

en: [Lombard,] here in the letter, c. 5. — Then from codd. W, Y, aa, bb, cc we supplied *hominis*.

la: Epist. ad Eph. 5, 8: *Eratis enim aliquando* etc.

en: Letter to the Ephesians 5, 8: *For you were once* etc.

la: Cfr. Isidor., *de Natura rerum*, c. 1. n. 2, et V. *Etymol.* c. 30. n. 4. — Idem dubium solvit B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. p. II. tract. 11. q. 51. m. 3. a. 2; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 6.

en: Cf. Isidore, *On the Nature of Things*, c. 1, n. 2, and *Etymologies* V, c. 30, n. 4. — The same doubt is solved by B. Albert, here a. 3; *Summa* p. II, tract. 11, q. 51, m. 3, a. 2; Aegidius R., here *dub. lit.* 6.

la: Libr. II. *de Fide orthod.* c. 7: *In principio igitur, hoc est die primo, creavit Deus lucem, quae visibilium omnium creaturarum decus et ornamentum est. Etenim si lucem sustuleris, omnia in tenebris iacebunt ignota* etc. — De maiori cfr. Aristot., VIII. *Phys.* text. 58. (c. 7.), IX. *Metaph.* text. 15. (VIII. c. 8.) et II. *de Partib. animal.* c. 1, ubi docet, in generatione prius esse imperfectum perfecto.

en: [Damascene,] *On the Orthodox Faith* II, c. 7: *In the beginning, therefore, that is on the first day, God created the light, which is the grace and ornament of all visible creatures. For if you take away light, all things will lie in darkness, unknown,* etc. — On the major [premise] cf. Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 58 (c. 7); *Metaphysics* IX, text 15 (VIII, c. 8); and *On the Parts of Animals* II, c. 1, where he teaches that in generation the imperfect is prior to the perfect.

la: Gen. 1, 4. — Verba Augustini, quae sunt ex I. *Gen. ad lit.* c. 8. n. 14, vide supra pag. 311, nota 5.

en: Genesis 1, 4. — The words of Augustine, which are from *Gen. ad lit.* I, c. 8, n. 14, see above p. 311, note 5.

la: Nonnulli codd. omittunt *corporalis*, pro quo plures alii cum edd. 1, 3 substituunt *corporis*.

en: Some codices omit *corporalis*, for which several others with editions 1, 3 substitute *corporis*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 5. seqq. (c. 2.). — Vat. prosequitur *Secundum etiam videtur falsum: quia non potest esse in ea parte, in qua est sol primo* etc. — De eo, quod duo corpora non possunt esse simul, vide supra pag. 324, nota 9.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* I, text 5 and following (c. 2). — The Vatican [edition] continues *Secundum etiam videtur falsum: quia non potest esse in ea parte, in qua est sol primo* etc. — On the [point] that two bodies cannot be [in the same place] at the same time, see above p. 324, note 9.

la: Hic c. 5. — Augustinus hos modos proponit I. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 10. n. 22 seqq.

en: [Lombard,] here c. 5. — Augustine proposes these modes in I *Gen. ad lit.* c. 10, n. 22 and following.

la: Intellige s. Scripturam, Gen. 1, 4. seqq.

en: Understand sacred Scripture, Gen. 1, 4 and following.

la: Multi codd. addunt *et*, cod. bb *etiam*.

en: Many codices add *et*; cod. bb [reads] *etiam*.

la: Gen. 1, 14. seqq.

en: Genesis 1, 14 and following.

la: August., XXVI. *contra Faustum*, c. 3: *Deus autem, creator et conditor omnium naturarum, nihil contra naturam facit; id enim erit cuique rei naturale, quod ille fecerit, a quo est omnis modus, numerus, ordo naturae*.

en: Augustine, XXVI *Against Faustus*, c. 3: *But God, the creator and founder of all natures, does nothing against nature; for that will be natural to each thing which He made, from whom is every measure, number, [and] order of nature*.

la: Hoc dubium solvitur ab Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 46. m. 5. a. 3; B. Albert., S. p. II. tract. 11. q. 51. m. 2. q. 2. incid.; S. Thom., hic a. 4. ad 4.

en: This doubt is solved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 46, m. 5, a. 3; B. Albert, *Summa* p. II, tract. 11, q. 51, m. 2, q. 2, *incid.*; S. Thomas, here a. 4, ad 4.

la: Psalm. 61, 12. Paulo superius post *item* non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt *in*.

en: Psalm 61, 12. A little above, after *item*, not a few codices with edition 1 omit *in*.

la: Dist. 12. a. 1. q. 2, ubi etiam idem ex Scriptura, Gen. 1, 2. seqq., deducitur.

en: [II *Sent.*] d. 12, a. 1, q. 2, where also the same is deduced from Scripture, Gen. 1, 2 and following.

la: Ioan. 1, 3: *Omnia per ipsum facta sunt*. — Libr. I. *Sent.* d. 27. p. II. q. 1, probatur, *Verbum dici personaliter*, ubi etiam ea tanguntur, quae mox in responsione dicuntur.

en: John 1, 3: *All things were made through Him*. — I *Sent.* d. 27, p. II, q. 1, it is proved that the Word *is said personally*, where also those things are touched on which are soon said in the response.

la: Psalm. 148, 5: *Dixit, et facta sunt*. — Paulo inferius Vat. *quasi exterius* pro *quasi interius*.

en: Psalm 148, 5: *He spoke, and they were made*. — A little later the Vatican [edition reads] *quasi exterius* for *quasi interius*.

la: Psalm. 61, 12. — Glossa mox allegata sumta est ex Augustini Enarratione in hunc Psalmum, n. 18. Cfr. etiam tom. I. pag. 482, nota 4, et pag. 484, nota 5. — Paulo superius post *per quod* in cod. Y additur *Pater*. Aliquanto inferius post *ad dispositionem* plures codd. subnectunt *aliquando*.

en: Psalm 61, 12. — The Gloss just adduced is taken from Augustine's *Enarratio* on this Psalm, n. 18. Cf. also volume I, p. 482, note 4, and p. 484, note 5. — A little above, after *per quod*, in cod. Y is added *Pater*. Somewhat lower, after *ad dispositionem*, many codices append *aliquando*.

la: *Monol.* c. 63, ubi textus originalis *quam quasi cogitando intueri*; codd. T V *quam in dicendo intueri*. Vide tom. I. pag. 482, nota 1. — Mox Vat. *et aliam* pro *et alia*, et dein omittit *et quo dicitur*. Paulo post aliqui codd. cum ed. 1 *se ipsa videt* pro *se ipsam videt*.

en: [Anselm,] *Monologion* c. 63, where the original text [reads] *quam quasi cogitando intueri*; codd. T, V [read] *quam in dicendo intueri*. See volume I, p. 482, note 1. — Then the Vatican [edition reads] *et aliam* for *et alia*, and then omits *et quo dicitur*. A little after, some codices with edition 1 [read] *se ipsa videt* for *se ipsam videt*.

la: Gen. 1, 3: *Dixitque Deus: Fiat lux. Et facta est lux*.

en: Genesis 1, 3: *And God said: Let there be light. And there was light*.

la: Scil. *productio active sumta*.

en: Namely, *production taken actively*.

la: Libr. I. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 2. n. 6: *An id quod intelligitur in sono vocis, cum dicitur: Fiat lux, non autem ipse corporeus sonos hic bene accipitur esse vox Dei? Et utrum hoc ipsum ad naturam pertineat Verbi eius, de quo dicitur: In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum*. Cum enim de illo dicitur: *Omnia per ipsum facta sunt*, satis ostenditur et lux per ipsum facta, cum dixit Deus: *Fiat lux*. Quod si ita est, aeternum est quod dixit Deus: *Fiat lux*; quia Verbum Dei Deus apud Deum, Filius unicus Dei, Patri coaeternus est; quamvis, Deo hoc in aeterno Verbo dicente, creatura temporalis facta sit. Cum enim verba sint temporis, cum dicimus *quando* et *aliquando*, aeternum tamen est in Verbo Dei, *quando* fieri aliquid debeat; et tunc fit, quando fieri debuisse in illo Verbo est etc.

en: [Augustine,] I *On Genesis according to the Letter*, c. 2, n. 6: *Whether that which is understood in the sound of the voice, when it is said: Let there be light, is here well taken to be the voice of God — not the bodily sound itself? And whether this itself pertains to the nature of His Word, of which it is said: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word*. For when it is said of Him: *All things were made through Him*, it is sufficiently shown that the light too was made through Him when God said: *Let there be light*. And if it is so, eternal is what God said: *Let there be light*; because the Word of God [is] God with God, the only Son of God, coeternal with the Father — although, while God says this in the eternal Word, a temporal creature is made. For although [the] words *when* and *sometime*, which we speak, are of time, yet in the Word of God it is eternal *when* something ought to come to be; and then it comes to be, when it had to come to be is in that Word, etc.

la: Parte II. q. 1.

en: [I *Sent.* d. 27,] part II, q. 1.

la: Plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 *transsumto*. — De hoc dubio cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 62. m. 1. art. 3. seq.; B. Albert., I. *Sent.* d. 27. a. 5. seqq., in qua dist. etiam S. Thomas et Richard. a Med. hoc dubium tangunt; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1.

en: Very many codices with edition 1 [read] *transsumto*. — On this doubt cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. I, q. 62, m. 1, art. 3 and following; B. Albert, I *Sent.* d. 27, a. 5 and following, in which distinction S. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla also touch on this doubt; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1.

la: De quo vide supra d. 1. p. I. a. 3. q. 1.

en: On which see above d. 1, p. I, a. 3, q. 1.

la: Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. *quando*.

en: The Vatican [edition] with one or another codex [reads] *quando*.

la: Art. 2. q. 2. — Cfr. etiam supra d. 1. p. I. dub. 4. et I *Sent.* d. 10. dub. 3; d. 12. dub. 1, et 19. p. I. q. 5; S. Thom., hic a. 5; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2; Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 1.

en: [Lombard,] a. 2, q. 2. — Cf. also above d. 1, p. I, dub. 4 and I *Sent.* d. 10, dub. 3; d. 12, dub. 1, and 19, p. I, q. 5; S. Thomas, here a. 5; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2; Aegidius R., here q. 3, a. 1.

translators_notes:
- **Page span**: DUBIA opens at **p.330 R-0 mid** (immediately below d13-a3-q2's scholion-closing line "*Auctores non citatos vide a. 2. q. 1, scholion.*") with the centred banner "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI." + "DUB. I." rubric. DUB I body + Respondeo + four-modi versus on p.330 L-1/L-2/R-1. DUB II opens at p.330 R-1 mid; videtur close ("…nullum corpus habet mo-") at p.330 R-2 bottom. DUB II continues onto p.331 L-0 ("veri oppositis motibus…"), then Respondeo + four solutions through p.331 L-1. DUB III opens at p.331 R-0; videtur + Quaestiones + Respondeo's triplex connotatio on p.331 R-0/R-1/R-2. DUB III Respondeo continues onto p.332 L-0/L-1 (Resp. 1, Resp. 2) and L-1→R-0 ("De tertio modo notandi" + "Notandum"). DUB IV opens at p.332 R-1 ("Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: In principio…"); Respondeo opener at p.332 R-2; closing portion on p.333 L-0 ending with "*et ideo ad praesens sufficiant haec.*" mid-page. Below that on p.333 the "DISTINCTIO XIV. P. I." banner opens d.14 (out of scope).
- **Apparatus count**: 30 entries — 7 on p.330 + 12 on p.331 + 9 on p.332 + 2 on p.333 — renumbered sequentially [^1]–[^30] in body-order of appearance. The p.333 L-2 "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" block (Gen 1, 6, 7 / Hexaëm. ad v. 6 / Omissa inscriptione capituli) belongs to d14-littera (cap. IV/V/VII / Hexaëm. cross-refs), NOT to d13-dubia, and is excluded.
- **No scholion in this chunk**: Quaracchi did not add a SCHOLION block to the d.13 DUBIA — the editorial work is done entirely through the apparatus (notably footers carrying B. Albert / Aegid. R. / S. Thomas / Petr. a Tar. cross-references at the close of each Dubium).
- **Boundary integrity (per CLAUDE.md polish-cadence pass 3)**: backward boundary with `d13-a3-q2` at p.330 R-0 mid is clean — q2 scholion ends "*Auctores non citatos vide a. 2. q. 1, scholion.*" and the centred "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI." banner opens immediately below. Forward boundary at p.333 L-0 mid is clean — d13-dubia closes "*et ideo ad praesens sufficiant haec.*" and the centred "DISTINCTIO XIV." banner opens below (in fact still in the L column with "PARS I." + "CAP. I." rubrics following).
- **Frontmatter line-range**: `line_start: 23352, line_end: 23549` matches the semantic range ("DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI" banner → "*et ideo ad praesens sufficiant haec.*"). The auto-chunker boundary is correct.
- **No `[?]` flags raised.** Body and apparatus reconciled against p.330 L-1/L-2/R-1/R-2, p.331 L-0/L-1/L-2/R-0/R-1/R-2, p.332 L-0/L-1/L-2/R-0/R-1/R-2, p.333 L-0/L-2. Marginal labels (*Duplex modus computandi diem iuxta Scripturam.*, *Quatuor modi diei computandi.*, *Quatuor solutiones.*, *Prima.*, *Improbatur.*, *Secunda, improbabilis.*, *Tertia, non sufficiens.*, *Quarta.*, *Quaestiones.*, *Triplex connotatio in termino dicere.*, *Resp. 1.*, *Resp. 2.*, *De tertio modo notandi.*, *Notandum.*) preserved inline per Vol II convention, not promoted to headings.
- **Closes d.13.** With this chunk, all nine d.13 chunks (`d13-littera`, `d13-divisio`, `d13-a1-q1`, `d13-a1-q2`, `d13-a2-q1`, `d13-a2-q2`, `d13-a3-q1`, `d13-a3-q2`, `d13-dubia`) are Tier-2 complete. d.14 gate opens next.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 14, Part 1

title_alt: Littera Magistri — De opere secundae, tertiae et quartae diei (Cap. I–X).

title_alt: Lombard's text — On the work of the second, third, and fourth days (Chapters I–X).

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 333 -->

### DISTINCTIO XIV.
#### Pars I.

### Cap. I. *De opere secundae diei, qua factum est firmamentum.*

Dixit quoque Deus: *Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum, et dividat aquas ab aquis... Divisitque aquas, quae erant sub firmamento, ab his quae erant super firmamentum*[^1].

### Cap. II. *Quod caelum tunc factum debet intelligi.*

« Sciendum est, quod illius caeli describitur hic creatio, sicut ait Beda super Genesim[^2], in quo fixa sunt sidera, cui suppositae sunt aquae in aere et in terra, et superpositae aliae, de quibus dicitur: *Qui tegis aquis superiora eius.* In medio ergo firmamentum est, id est sidereum caelum ».

### Cap. III. *De qua materia factum sit.*

« Quod de aquis factum esse, credi potest[^3] ». Crystallinus enim lapis, cui magna est firmitas et perspicuitas, de aquis factus est.

### Cap. IV. *Quomodo aquae possint esse super caelum, et quales sint.*

« Si quem vero movet, quomodo aquae natura fluidae et in ima labiles super caelum possint consistere; de Deo scriptum[^4] esse meminerit: *Qui ligat aquas in nubibus suis.* Qui enim infra caelum ligat aquas ad tempus vaporibus nubium retentas, potest etiam super caeli sphaeram non vaporali tenuitate, *Dubium 1.* sed glaciali soliditate aquas suspendere, ne labantur. Quales autem et ad quid conditae sint, ipse novit qui condidit ». — Ecce ostensum est his verbis, quod caelum factum sit, scilicet illud in quo fixa sunt sidera, id est, quod excedit aerem, et de qua materia, scilicet de *aquis,* et quales sint aquae, quae super illud caelum sunt, scilicet ut glacies solidatae.

Quidam vero caelum, quod excedit aëris spatia, *Alia opinio.* igneae naturae dicunt asserentes, super aerem purum ignem esse, qui dicitur esse *caelum,* de quo igne sidera et luminaria facta esse coniectant; quibus Augustinus[^5] consentire videtur. Utrum vero nomine *firmamenti* caelum, quod excedit aerem, an ipse aer hic intelligatur, idem Augustinus quaerit nec solvit. Magis tamen approbare videtur, caelum illud hic accipi, quod spatia aëris excedit. Aquas autem, quae super illud caelum sunt, dicit vaporaliter trahi et levissimis suspendi guttis, sicut aër iste nubilosus exhalatione terrae aquas vaporaliter trahit et per subtiles minutias suspendit, et post corpulentius conglobatas pluvialiter refundit. Si ergo « potest aqua, sicut videmus, ad tantas minutias pervenire, ut feratur vaporaliter super aerem aquis naturaliter leviorem; cur non credamus, etiam super illud levius caelum minutioribus guttis et *Dubium 2.* levioribus immanare vaporibus[^6] »? Sed quoquo modo ibi sint, ibi esse non dubitamus.

<!-- page 334 -->

### Cap. V. *De figura firmamenti.*

« Quaeri etiam solet, cuius figurae sit caelum. Sed Spiritus sanctus, quamvis auctores nostri sciverint, per eos dicere noluit, nisi quod prosit saluti[^7] ». — « *Quaeritur de motu caeli.* Quaeritur etiam, si *stet,* an *moveatur* caelum. Si movetur, inquiunt, quomodo est firmamentum? Si *stat,* quomodo in eo fixa sidera circumeunt? Sed firmamentum dici potest non propter stationem, sed propter firmitatem vel terminum aquarum intransgressibilem. Si autem stat, nihil impedit moveri et circuire sidera ».

### Cap. VI. *Quare tacuit Scriptura de benedictione operis huius diei.*

Post haec quaeri solet, quare hic non est dictum, sicut in aliorum dierum operibus: *Vidit Deus, quod esset bonum.* Sacramentum aliquod hic commendatur. Ideo enim fortassis non est hic[^8] dictum, quod tamen *Dubium 3.* sicut in aliis factum est, quia *binarius* principium est alteritatis et signum divisionis.

#### Pars II.

### Cap. VII. *De opere tertii diei, quando aquae congregatae sunt in unum.*

Sequitur: *Dixit Deus: Congregentur aquae in locum unum,* *Dubium 1.* *et appareat arida*[^9]. Tertii diei opus est congregatio aquarum in unum locum. « Congregatae sunt enim omnes aquae caelo inferiores in unam matricem, ut lux, quae praeterito biduo aquas clara luce lustraverat, in puro aere clarior fulgeat, et appareat terra, quae cooperta latebat, et quae aquis limosa *Dubium 2.* erat fieret arida et germinibus apta. Eodem enim die protulit terra herbam virentem, lignumque faciens fructum[^10] ».

### Cap. VIII. *Quomodo omnes aquae congregatae sunt in unum locum, cum multa sint maria et flumina.*

« Si autem quaeratur, ubi congregatae sunt aquae, quae totum texerant spatium usque ad caelum; potuit fieri, ut terra subsidens concavas partes praeberet, ubi fluctuantes aquas reciperet. Potest etiam credi, primarias aquas rariores fuisse, quae sicut nebula tegerent terras, sed congregatione esse spissatas, et ideo facile in unum posse redigi locum. Cumque multa constet esse maria et flumina, in unum tamen locum dicit aquas congregatas propter continuationem omnium aquarum, quae in terris sunt, quia cuncta flumina et maria magno mari iunguntur. Ideoque cum dixerit aquas congregatas in unum locum, deinde dicit pluraliter, *congregationesque aquarum,* propter multifidos sinus earum, quibus omnibus ex magno mari principium est ».

### Cap. IX. *De opere quartae diei, qua facta sunt luminaria.*

Sequitur: *Dixit Deus: Fiant luminaria in firmamento caeli, et dividant diem ac noctem*[^11]. *Dubium 3.* In praecedenti triduo disposita est universitatis huius mundi machina, et partibus suis distributa. Formata enim luce prima die, quae universa illustraret, duo sequentes dies attributi sunt supremae et infimae parti mundi, firmamento scilicet, aëri, terrae et aquae. Nam secunda die firmamentum desuper expansum est. Tertia vero aquarum molibus intra receptacula sua collectis, terra est revelata atque aer serenatus. Quatuor igitur mundi elementa illis diebus suis locis distincta sunt et ordinata. — Tribus autem sequentibus diebus ornata sunt illa quatuor elementa. Quarta enim die ornatum est firmamentum sole et luna et stellis; quinta aër in volatilibus, et aquae in piscibus ornamenta acceperunt; sexta accepit terra iumenta et reptilia et bestias, post quae omnia factus est homo de terra et in terra, non tamen ad terram nec propter terram, sed ad caelum et propter caelum. Quia igitur caelum ceteris elementis speciem praestat, priusquam aliis factum est, « ideo ante alia ornatur in quarto die, quo fiunt sidera, quae ideo facta sunt, ut per ea illustretur inferior pars, ne esset habitantibus tenebrosa. Infirmitatique hominum provisum est, ut, circumeunte sole, potirentur homines diei noctisque vicissitudine propter dormiendi vigilandique necessitatem; et etiam ideo, ne nox indecora remaneret, sed luna ac sideribus consolarentur homines, quibus in nocte operandi necessitas incumberet; et quia quaedam animalia sunt, quae lucem ferre non possunt[^12] ».

<!-- page 335 -->

### Cap. X. *Quomodo accipiendum sit illud: Sint in signa et tempora.*

Quod autem subditur: *Et sint in signa et tempora,* *Dubium 4.* *et dies et annos,* quomodo accipiendum sit, quaeri solet. Ita enim « dictum videtur, quasi quarto die coepissent *tempora,* cum prius triduum sine tempore non fuerit. Ideoque *tempora,* quae fiunt per sidera, non spatia morarum, sed vicissitudinem aëreae qualitatis debemus accipere, quia talia motibus siderum fiunt, sicut dies et anni, quos usitate novimus. Sunt enim *in signa* serenitatis et tempestatis, et *in tempora,* quia per ea distinguimus quatuor tempora anni, scilicet ver, aestatem, autumnum, hiemem[^13] ». Vel *sunt in signa et tempora,* id est, « in distinctionem horarum, quia, priusquam fierent, ordo temporum nullis notabatur indiciis, vel meridiana hora, vel qualibet hora ». Haec quarta die facta sunt.

---

english:
<!-- page 333 -->

### DISTINCTION XIV.
#### Part I.

### Cap. I. *On the work of the second day, on which the firmament was made.*

God also said: *Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters... And he divided the waters that were under the firmament from those that were above the firmament*[^1].

### Cap. II. *That it must be understood that the heaven was then made.*

« It must be known that the creation of that heaven is here described, as Bede on Genesis says[^2], in which the stars are fixed, beneath which are placed the waters in the air and on the earth, and above which others are placed, of which it is said: *Thou who coverest the higher [parts] of it with waters.* In the middle, therefore, is the firmament, that is, the starry heaven. »

### Cap. III. *Of what matter it was made.*

« That it was made of waters can be believed[^3] ». For the crystalline stone, which has great firmness and transparency, was made of waters.

### Cap. IV. *How the waters can be above the heaven, and of what sort they are.*

« If it troubles anyone how waters, fluid by nature and prone to slip downward, can stand above the heaven, let him remember that it is written of God[^4]: *He who binds the waters in his clouds.* For he who below the heaven binds the waters, retained for a time by the vapors of the clouds, can also above the sphere of the heaven suspend the waters, not by a vaporous thinness, *Dubium 1.* but by a glacial solidity, lest they slip away. Of what sort, however, they are and for what they were established, he himself knows who established them. » — Behold, it is shown by these words that the heaven was made, namely that in which the stars are fixed, that is, [the heaven] which exceeds the air; and of what matter, namely of *waters;* and of what sort the waters are which are above that heaven, namely solidified as ice.

But some, *Another opinion.* asserting that the heaven which exceeds the spaces of the air is of fiery nature, say that above the pure air there is fire, which is called the *heaven,* and they conjecture that from this fire the stars and luminaries were made; and Augustine[^5] seems to consent to them. But whether by the name *firmament* the heaven that exceeds the air, or the air itself, is here to be understood, the same Augustine asks but does not solve. Yet he seems rather to approve that that heaven is here taken which exceeds the spaces of the air. The waters, however, which are above that heaven, he says are drawn up as vapor and suspended in the lightest droplets, just as this cloudy air draws up by the earth's exhalation waters as vapor and suspends them in subtle minute particles, and afterward, when they are more densely massed together, pours them down as rain. If therefore « water can, as we see, attain to such minute particles that it is carried as vapor above air which is by nature lighter than waters, why should we not believe that even above that lighter heaven [waters] flow in by smaller droplets and *Dubium 2.* lighter vapors[^6] »? But in whatever way they are there, we do not doubt that they are there.

<!-- page 334 -->

### Cap. V. *On the figure of the firmament.*

« It is also accustomed to be asked, of what figure the heaven is. But the Holy Spirit, although our authors knew, did not wish to say through them anything except what is profitable to salvation[^7] ». — « *It is asked about the motion of the heaven.* It is also asked whether the heaven *stands* or *is moved.* If it is moved, they say, how is it a firmament? If it *stands,* how do the stars fixed in it go round? But it can be called a firmament not on account of standing still, but on account of firmness, or as an impassable boundary for the waters. But if it stands still, nothing prevents the stars from being moved and going round. »

### Cap. VI. *Why Scripture is silent about the blessing of the work of this day.*

After this it is wont to be asked, why it is not here said, as in the works of the other days: *God saw that it was good.* Some sacrament is here commended. For perhaps therefore it is not here[^8] said, what nevertheless *Dubium 3.* was done as in the others, because the *binary* is a principle of otherness and a sign of division.

#### Part II.

### Cap. VII. *On the work of the third day, when the waters were gathered into one.*

There follows: *God said: Let the waters be gathered into one place,* *Dubium 1.* *and let the dry land appear*[^9]. The work of the third day is the gathering of the waters into one place. « For all the waters below the heaven were gathered into one matrix, so that the light, which in the past two days had bathed the waters with its clear brightness, might shine more brightly in the pure air; and that the earth, which lay covered and hidden, and which was muddy with waters, *Dubium 2.* might become dry and fit for shoots. For on the same day the earth brought forth the green herb and the tree bearing fruit[^10] ».

### Cap. VIII. *How all the waters were gathered into one place, since there are many seas and rivers.*

« But if it is asked where the waters were gathered which had covered the whole space up to the heaven, it could happen that the earth, sinking down, offered hollow parts where it would receive the flowing waters. It can also be believed that the primary waters were thinner, which like a mist were covering the lands, but by gathering were thickened, and so could easily be brought into one place. And although it is established that there are many seas and rivers, nevertheless [Scripture] says that the waters were gathered into one place, on account of the continuity of all the waters which are on the earth — because all rivers and seas are joined to the great sea. And therefore, when it had said that the waters were gathered into one place, it then says in the plural, *and the gatherings of the waters,* on account of their many-cleft bays, for which all the beginning is from the great sea. »

### Cap. IX. *On the work of the fourth day, on which the luminaries were made.*

There follows: *God said: Let there be luminaries in the firmament of heaven, and let them divide the day and the night*[^11]. *Dubium 3.* In the preceding three days the machine of this whole world was disposed and distributed into its parts. For when light had been formed on the first day, to illumine all things, the two following days were assigned to the highest and lowest parts of the world, namely the firmament, the air, the earth and the water. For on the second day the firmament was stretched out above. On the third, when the masses of waters had been gathered within their receptacles, the earth was revealed and the air made clear. Therefore the four elements of the world were on those days distinguished in their places and ordered. — But on the three following days those four elements were adorned. For on the fourth day the firmament was adorned with the sun and the moon and the stars; on the fifth the air received its ornaments in birds, and the waters in fishes; on the sixth the earth received the cattle and reptiles and beasts, and after all these man was made from the earth and on the earth, yet not for the earth nor on account of the earth, but for heaven and on account of heaven. Since therefore the heaven excels the other elements in splendor, having been made before the others, « therefore it is adorned before the others on the fourth day, on which the stars are made, which were made for this purpose, that through them the lower part might be illumined, lest it be dark for its inhabitants. And provision was made for the weakness of men, that, with the sun going round, men might enjoy the alternation of day and night on account of the necessity of sleeping and waking; and also for this, that the night might not remain unseemly, but that men, on whom the necessity of working at night fell, might be consoled by the moon and the stars; and because there are certain animals which cannot bear the light[^12] ».

<!-- page 335 -->

### Cap. X. *How that is to be understood: Let them be for signs and seasons.*

That which is added: *And let them be for signs and seasons,* *Dubium 4.* *and days and years,* how it is to be understood, is accustomed to be asked. For thus it « seems to be said, as if the *seasons* had begun on the fourth day, although the previous three days were not without time. Therefore by *seasons,* which are made through the stars, we must understand not spaces of duration, but the alternation of the airy quality, because such things are made by the motions of the stars, just as the days and years which we customarily know. For they are *for signs* of fair weather and of storm, and *for seasons,* because by them we distinguish the four seasons of the year, namely spring, summer, autumn, winter[^13] ». Or *they are for signs and seasons,* that is, « for the distinguishing of hours, because, before they were made, the order of the times was marked by no signs, neither the noon hour nor any other hour ». These things were made on the fourth day.

---

la: Gen. 1, 6. 7. — Teste cod. Erf., haec et sequentia usque ad cap. VII. sumpta sunt ex Gandolpho, *Sent.* II. c. 37.

en: Gen. 1:6–7. — According to the witness of codex Erf., these [words] and what follows up to cap. VII are taken from Gandulph, *Sentences* II c. 37.

la: *Hexaëm.* ad v. 6. Hic textus, qui excurrit usque in cap. IV, habetur in *Glossa ordinaria* fere ad verbum. — Locus sequens s. Scripturae est Ps. 103, 3.

en: *Hexaëmeron* on v. 6. This text, which runs through cap. IV, is found in the *Ordinary Gloss* almost word-for-word. — The following passage of sacred Scripture is Ps. 103:3.

la: Omissa inscriptione capituli, codd. et edd. vocem *quod* (i. e. *caelum*) coniungunt cum praecedente propositione, quae coniunctio ex eo explicari potest, quod in antiquis manuscriptis tituli capitulorum non raro ad marginem scribebantur. — Verba, quae sequuntur: *Crystallinus... de aquis factus est* alludere videntur ad Eccli. 43, 22: *et gelavit crystallus ab aqua.* — In initio cap. IV. pro *natura,* quod edd. 1, 5, 8 exhibent, codd. cum Vat. et ceteris edd. incongrue *naturae.*

en: With the chapter inscription omitted, the codices and editions join the word *quod* (i.e., *caelum*) to the preceding proposition; this conjunction can be explained from the fact that in ancient manuscripts chapter titles were not infrequently written in the margin. — The words which follow, *Crystallinus... de aquis factus est,* seem to allude to Ecclesiasticus 43:22: *et gelavit crystallus ab aqua* ("and the crystal froze out of water"). — At the beginning of cap. IV, for *natura,* which edd. 1, 5, 8 give, the codices together with the Vatican and the other editions incongruously read *naturae.*

la: Libr. II. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 3. n. 6, et quod sequitur ibid. c. 4. n. 7. — Paulo post pro *solvit* ed. 1 et cod. Erf. *absolvit.*

en: Bk. II *On Genesis to the Letter* c. 3 n. 6, and what follows ibid. c. 4 n. 7. — A little later, for *solvit,* ed. 1 and cod. Erf. read *absolvit.*

la: August., loc. cit. c. 4. n. 8, fere ad verbum, in quo textu pro *immanare* Vat. cum nonnullis aliis edd. *emanare,* de qua lectione *Lexicon Forcellini* annotat: *Est qui legit immanare, sed minus recte (pro immanere, ut habet ed. August.).*

en: Augustine, loc. cit. c. 4 n. 8, almost word-for-word, in which text for *immanare* the Vatican [edition] together with several other editions reads *emanare;* concerning this reading the *Lexicon Forcellini* notes: *There is one who reads* immanare, *but less correctly (for* immanere, *as the edition of Augustine has).*

la: August., ibid. c. 9. n. 20; sequens locus ibid. c. 10. n. 23; in utroque loco multa sunt omissa.

en: Augustine, ibid. c. 9 n. 20; the following passage ibid. c. 10 n. 23; in each passage many things have been omitted.

la: Cod. Erf. bene adnotat: *Non est hic secundum nostram translationem, tamen Septuag. habent, ut patet per August., super Gen. l. c. 1.* — Idem ad sequens notat: *Secundum Hieron., super Zachariam* 4, 7 *est binarius numerus infamis,* et *Contra Iovin.* I. n. 16, *binarius est numerus infaustus,* et tangit rationem, quae hic ponitur.

en: Cod. Erf. notes well: *It is not [said] here according to our translation, yet the Septuagint has [it], as is clear from Augustine,* On Genesis *bk. 1 c. 1.* — The same [codex] notes on the following: *According to Jerome,* On Zechariah *4:7, the binary is an infamous number,* and *Against Jovinian* I n. 16, *the binary is an inauspicious number,* and [Lombard] touches on the reasoning which is here set down.

la: Beda, *Hexaëm.* ad v. 9. 10. Etiam quod sequitur est Bedae et habetur in *Glossa ord.* (ibid.). Cfr. August., I. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 12. n. 26.

en: Bede, *Hexaëmeron* on vv. 9–10. What follows also is Bede's, and is found in the *Ordinary Gloss* (ibid.). Cf. Augustine, *On Genesis to the Letter* I c. 12 n. 26.

la: August., II. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 13. n. 27, et est in *Glossa ord.* ad Gen. 1, 14.

en: Augustine, *On Genesis to the Letter* II c. 13 n. 27, and is found in the *Ordinary Gloss* on Gen. 1:14.

la: August., ibid. c. 14. n. 29, ubi et sequens locus, sed multis omissis. Habetur etiam in *Glossa ord.* Cfr. I. *de Gen. contra Manich.* c. 14.

en: Augustine, ibid. c. 14 n. 29, where also the following passage [is found], but with many things omitted. It is also found in the *Ordinary Gloss.* Cf. Augustine, *On Genesis against the Manichees* I c. 14.

translators_notes:
- Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column-band crops `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p{333,334,335}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (text endpoint at p.335 L just above the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIV.` header). Vol II offset PDF = printed + 22.
- 13 apparatus entries: p.333 footer NOTAE 1–6 → `[^1]`–`[^6]`; p.334 footer NOTAE 1–6 (split L/R) → `[^7]`–`[^12]`; p.335 footer NOTA 1 → `[^13]`.
- The two p.333 Bonaventure-side variant notes above the dividing line (*Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. quando.* and *Art. 2. q. 2. — Cfr. etiam supra d. I. p. I. dub. 1...*) are body-anchored on the *Commentarius* side of p.333 and therefore belong to the adjacent `d14-p1-divisio` / `d14-p1-a1-q1` chunks (Vol II cross-chunk footer-split convention). Verify capture when those chunks are promoted.
- **Polish-blocker resolution 2026-05-25 (600 dpi).** All three Dubium-label `[?]` flags resolved against `raw/vision/vol2/r600/p-{333,334,335}-r600.png`. Pars II numbering is continuous (NOT reset): Cap. VII = *Dubium 1.* + *Dubium 2.*; Cap. IX = *Dubium 3.* (RESOLVED — real label, both Lat. + Eng.); Cap. X = *Dubium 4.* (the prior `Dubium 1.` reading was a column-gutter mis-read at 450 dpi — corrected to *Dubium 4.* both Lat. + Eng.). Pars I separately runs Cap. IV *Dubium 1./2.*, Cap. VI *Dubium 3.*

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. 14, Part 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XIV — Divisio textus.

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction 14 — Division of the text and treatment of the questions.

source_text:
<!-- page 335 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIV.

#### Pars I.

#### *De productione insensibilium continentium.*

*Dixit quoque Deus: Fiat firmamentum* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de productione illius formae, quae est quasi generale principium distinguendi ceteras corporales formas. In hac parte agit de productione rerum quantum ad formas speciales. Et quoniam quaedam res sunt simplices, quaedam mixtae, sive quaedam sunt insensibiles, quaedam sensibiles; ideo pars ista habet duas. In prima agit Magister de productione simplicium et insensibilium. In secunda vero de productione mixtorum et sensibilium, infra distinctione decima quinta: *Dixit quoque Deus: Producant aquae reptile* etc.

Et quoniam corpora simplicia sive insensibilia sunt in duplici differentia: quaedam enim sunt continentia, quaedam contenta; ideo pars prima duas habet. In prima agit de productione et distinctione corporalium quantum ad res continentes. In secunda vero quantum ad res contentas, ibi: *Sequitur: Dixit Deus: Congregentur aquae* etc. Prima pars, in qua scilicet agitur de rebus continentibus, utpote de caelis et caelorum distinctione, habet quatuor partes. In prima determinat caelorum naturam. In secunda tangit quaestionem de figura, ibi: *Quaeri etiam solet, cuius figurae* etc. In tertia quaerit de motu, ibi: *Quaeritur etiam, si stet, aut moveatur.* In quarta vero removet quoddam dubium, ibi: *Post haec quaeri solet, quare* etc. Omnes hae partes remanent indivisae praeter primam, quae dividitur in duas. In prima determinat naturam caelorum secundum veritatem. In secunda secundum quorundam opinionem, ibi: *Quidam vero caelum* etc. Et sic breviter tria inquirit Magister in hac parte: caelorum *naturam* et *figuram* et *motum.*

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit hic quaestio de caelis. Et quaeruntur hic tria.

Primo quaeritur de caelis quantum ad naturam.

Secunda quaestio est de eis quantum ad figuram.

Tertia quaestio est quantum ad motoris influentiam.

---

english:
<!-- page 335 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XIV.

#### Part I.

#### *On the production of insensible continent [bodies].*

*God also said: Let there be a firmament,* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the production of that form which is, as it were, the general principle for distinguishing the other corporeal forms. In this part he treats of the production of things with respect to their special forms. And since some things are simple and some are mixed — that is, some are insensible and some sensible — therefore this part has two [parts]. In the first the Master treats of the production of simple and insensible [bodies]. In the second of the production of mixed and sensible [bodies], below in Distinction XV: *God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping thing,* etc.

And since simple or insensible bodies fall under a twofold difference — for some are containing and some are contained — therefore the first part has two [subdivisions]. In the first he treats of the production and distinction of corporeal [bodies] with respect to containing things. In the second with respect to contained things, at: *There follows: God said: Let the waters be gathered,* etc. The first part, in which, namely, [the Master] treats of containing things — that is, of the heavens and the distinction of the heavens — has four parts. In the first he determines the nature of the heavens. In the second he touches the question about [their] figure, at: *It is also accustomed to be asked, of what figure,* etc. In the third he asks about [their] motion, at: *It is also asked, whether [the heaven] stands or is moved.* In the fourth he removes a certain doubt, at: *After this it is wont to be asked, why,* etc. All these parts remain undivided except the first, which is divided into two. In the first he determines the nature of the heavens according to the truth. In the second according to the opinion of certain [others], at: *But some [say] that the heaven,* etc. And thus the Master briefly inquires into three things in this part: the *nature,* the *figure,* and the *motion* of the heavens.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part there here arises a question about the heavens. And three things are asked here.

First, it is asked about the heavens with respect to [their] nature.

The second question is about them with respect to [their] figure.

The third question is with respect to the influence of [their] mover.

translators_notes:
- Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column-band crops `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p335-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. Two-column body below the centered COMMENTARIUS / Pars I / De productione / lemma / DIVISIO TEXTUS headers; reading order L (Supra egit Magister… continues with In hac parte… first subdivision) → R (continuation with *Sequitur: Dixit Deus: Congregentur aquae* etc. and the four-part subdivision of the *prima pars*). TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM heading is centered between the columns; reading order under it is again L (Ad intelligentiam autem… Primo quaeritur de caelis quantum ad naturam. Secunda quaestio est de eis quantum ad figuram.) → R (Tertia quaestio est quantum ad motoris influentiam.). Vol II offset PDF = printed + 22.
- **No apparatus entries** for this chunk. The single p.335 R-footer NOTA AD COMMENTARIUM (`¹ Vers. 6. — Paulo inferius non pauci codd. ergo ea pro ergo aquae.`) is body-anchored at q1's *1. Per auctoritatem Scripturae. Genesis primo[¹]: Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum, et dividat aquas ab aquis; quae autem sola divisione…* — that is, at the FIRST proof of the q1 affirmative arguments. It belongs to `d14-p1-a1-q1` and will be captured there as [^1] (`Vers. 6` cites Gen 1:6, and *Paulo inferius… ergo ea pro ergo aquae* flags the variant on the text *ergo aquae* a few lines further down within q1).
- Per the locked Vol II convention, the ARTICULUS I + QUAESTIO I headers and the ARTICULUS I opener (`Circa primum quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur de natura caeli crystallini. Secundo de natura caeli firmamenti.`) — visible at the bottom of the p.335 L column and continuing into the R column — are folded into `d14-p1-a1-q1` rather than included here.
- The two p.333 Bonaventure-side variant footers above the NOTAE divider (*Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. quando.* and *Art. 2. q. 2. — Cfr. etiam supra d. I. p. I. dub. 1; d. 10. dub. 1; d. 12. dub. 1; d. 16. p. … Thom. hic, Petr. Tar., hic q. 3; Aegid. li. … hic q. 3. a. 1.*) flagged in the `d14-p1-littera` Notes are NOT body-anchored in this divisio either — the first ("Vat. … quando") has no anchor in the divisio body (no "quando" appears), and the second is a cross-reference list for `d14-p1-a2-q2` (Art. 2. q. 2.). Both remain parked until the relevant downstream chunks promote.
- No `[?]` flags.


title: Dist. 14, Part 2, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XIV, Pars II — Divisio textus.

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction 14, Part II — Division of the text and treatment of the questions.

source_text:
<!-- page 350 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIV.

#### Pars II.

#### *De productione insensibilium contentorum.*

*Sequitur: Dixit Deus: congregentur aquae in locum unum.*

TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 334.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de productione insensibilium continentium, in hac parte agit de productione insensibilium contentorum. Et quoniam haec sunt in duplici differentia: quaedam enim intra caelos continentur ut materialia respectu generandarum rerum, sicut sunt elementa; quaedam vero ut activa, sicut sunt caelestia luminaria; ideo pars ista habet duas. In prima agit de distinctione elementorum; in secunda de productione luminarium, ibi: *Sequitur: Dixit Deus: Fiant luminaria.*

<!-- page 351 -->

Prima pars habet duas. In prima determinat veritatem. In secunda solvit dubitationem, ibi: *Si autem quaeratur, ubi congregatae sunt aquae.*

Similiter secunda pars principalis habet duas. In prima comparat productionem luminarium operibus aliorum dierum. In secunda vero determinat, propter quid sint facta, ibi: *Quae ideo facta sunt, ut per illa illustretur* etc. — Et sic duo continentur in parte ista, videlicet distinctio elementorum, et haec satis plana est, quantum ad praesentem materiam pertinet: secundum autem est formatio luminarium, circa quod plura occurrunt dubitabilia, ut textus sacrae Scripturae plane intelligatur.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis, omissa distinctione elementorum, circa productionem luminarium quaeruntur duo.

Primum est de ipsis luminaribus per comparationem ad corpus, in quo locantur.

Secundum est de ipsis in comparatione ad ea, in quae operantur.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum luminaria posita sint in eodem corpore continuo, an in diversis.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum moveantur motu corporis continentis, an motibus propriis.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum motus competat alicui caelo sine stellis.

---

english:
<!-- page 350 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XIV.

#### Part II.

#### *On the production of insensible contained [bodies].*

*There follows: God said: Let the waters be gathered into one place.*

FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER SEE ABOVE, P. 334.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the production of insensible containing [bodies]; in this part he treats of the production of insensible contained [bodies]. And since these fall under a twofold difference — for some are contained within the heavens as material with respect to things to be generated, as are the elements; others as active [principles], as are the celestial luminaries — therefore this part has two [subdivisions]. In the first he treats of the distinction of the elements; in the second of the production of the luminaries, at: *There follows: God said: Let there be luminaries.*

<!-- page 351 -->

The first part has two [subdivisions]. In the first he determines the truth. In the second he resolves a doubt, at: *But if it be asked, where the waters were gathered.*

Likewise the second principal part has two [subdivisions]. In the first he compares the production of the luminaries with the works of the other days. In the second he determines for what reason they were made, at: *Which were therefore made, that through them [the world] might be illuminated,* etc. — And thus two things are contained in this part, namely the distinction of the elements, and this is sufficiently plain as far as concerns the present matter; the second, however, is the formation of the luminaries, concerning which many doubtable points arise, so that the text of sacred Scripture may be plainly understood.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, omitting the distinction of the elements, concerning the production of the luminaries two things are asked.

The first is about the luminaries themselves by comparison with the body in which they are placed.

The second is about them in comparison with the things upon which they act.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First, it is asked whether the luminaries are placed in one and the same continuous body, or in diverse [bodies].

Second, it is asked whether they are moved by the motion of the containing body, or by their own motions.

Third, it is asked whether motion belongs to any heaven without stars.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column-band crops `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p350-R-{1,2}.png` (Pars II opener + lemma + first paragraph of DIVISIO TEXTUS, p. 350 R bottom, immediately after the p1-dubia DUB. III close) and `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p351-{L,R}-{0,1}.png` (remainder of DIVISIO TEXTUS body across both columns + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM + sub-divisio of ARTICULUS I). Vol II offset PDF = printed + 22; running head on p. 351 reads `DIST. XIV. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` confirming the pars and the running anticipation of the first article + question.
- **Page-split map.**
  - p. 350 R bottom: centered COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIV. + Pars II. + *De productione insensibilium contentorum.* + lemma *Sequitur: Dixit Deus: congregentur aquae in locum unum.* + cross-reference pointer *TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 334.* + DIVISIO TEXTUS heading + first paragraph (*Supra egit Magister… ibi: Sequitur: Dixit Deus: Fiant luminaria.*).
  - p. 351 L: continuation of DIVISIO TEXTUS body (*Prima pars habet duas… Similiter secunda pars principalis habet duas. In prima comparat productionem luminarium operibus…*) + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM heading + sub-divisio block (*Ad intelligentiam huius partis… Primum est… Secundum est…*) + ARTICULUS I header (which folds forward into `d14-p2-a1-q1` per Vol II convention).
  - p. 351 R: tail of DIVISIO TEXTUS body (*…aliorum dierum. In secunda vero determinat, propter quid sint facta… plane intelligatur.*) + tail of TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (*Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primo… Secundo… Tertio quaeritur, utrum motus competat alicui caelo sine stellis.*) + (forward-handed) rubric *De luminaribus in comparatione ad corpus, in quo locantur.* + QUAESTIO I header.
- **Apparatus split.** 0 apparatus entries in this chunk.
  - p. 350 L footer note 1 (`In Vat. desiderantur verba et per hoc etiam… litteram. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) consumed at `d14-p1-a3-q2` [^25].
  - p. 350 L footer notes 2–5 consumed at `d14-p1-dubia` [^1]–[^4] (DUB. II + DUB. III body anchors). Verified no double-count; the Pars II lemma word *in locum unum* on p. 350 R bottom is NOT an apparatus anchor (note ⁵'s anchor — *Congregentur aquae in locum unum⁵* — is in DUB. III body on p. 350 R top, where the dubium quotes Gen 1, 9 to support its solutio, not in the Pars II opener lemma below).
  - p. 351 L+R footer notes 1–6 all hand FORWARD to `d14-p2-a1-q1` — they are body-anchored within QUAESTIO I (Vers. 14 at Genesis primo¹: *Fiant, inquit, luminaria*; Aristot. II de Caelo text. 41. 49. 51. 59. at *non est corpus habens terminatam superficiem²*; Aristot. text. 60 seqq. at *ab oriente in occidens³*; Aristot. II de Caelo text. 70 at *ex divisione continui⁴*; Aristot. de Praedicam. de Quantitate at *terminatam superficiem*; etc.) — none anchor in the divisio body, which carries only the Master's textual subdivision and the question listing.
- **Hand-offs forward.** No apparatus notes hand forward from this chunk. The Pars II commentary opens its own footer sequence at p. 351 with q1's body, picked up entirely by `d14-p2-a1-q1`.
- **Pars II boundary note.** The COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIV. + Pars II. opener appears mid-page on p. 350 R bottom, after DUB. III of Pars I closes — i.e., the chunk boundary `d14-p1-dubia` → `d14-p2-divisio` falls inside printed page 350. Per the cross-chunk split convention (Vol II Override step 4), the p. 350 footer was read in printed order once and its 5 notes were split by body anchor between a3-q2 + p1-dubia, with no anchor falling inside Pars II's opening paragraph on p. 350 R bottom. Confirmed against column-band re-read.
- **ARTICULUS I sub-divisio convention.** The block *Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur… Secundo quaeritur… Tertio quaeritur…* on p. 351 L+R IS the sub-divisio of ARTICULUS I (the part of TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM that itemizes the three questions of the first article, parallel to "circa productionem luminarium quaeruntur duo… Primum est… Secundum est…" for the pars itself). It is folded into this pars-level divisio chunk per the locked Vol II convention (CLAUDE.md Vol II Override step 5: "the pars-level divisio chunk holds the pars DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (+ the first article's sub-divisio)"). The ARTICULUS I header + rubric *De luminaribus in comparatione ad corpus, in quo locantur.* + QUAESTIO I header + q1 body all fold forward into `d14-p2-a1-q1`, with no standalone `d14-p2-a1-divisio` chunk created.
- No `[?]` flags. OCR garbles (`prodnctione`, `huius`/`hiiius`, `iiiiorum`, `dubitationeni`, `siciit`, `raelestia`, `tluas`, `distinclione`, `luminarinm`, `Sequiiur`, `inteiligatur`, `prinia`, `prinium`, `ctjone`, `elemenlorum`, `quaeruntor`, `Primuni`, `luminaribns`) silently corrected against the 450 dpi crops; all readings unambiguous.