title: Dist. 15, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 379 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum corpora animalium magis constent ex elementis passivis quam activis.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum corpora animalium magis constent ex elementis passivis quam activis[^1], vel e converso. Et quod magis ex elementis passivis, videtur:

*Pro 1. opinione.*

1. Per Scripturam[^2], quae dicit ea facta ex terra et aqua; hoc autem non est dictum, quod quodlibet illorum elementorum sit animalium sensibilium tota materia: ergo dictum est per praedominantiam.

2. Item, sicut vult Philosophus[^3], « ex eisdem constant animalia, ex quibus nutriuntur »; sed animalia maxime nutriuntur ex aqua et terra per cibum et potum: ergo etc.

3. Item, ex eis maxime constituuntur corpora, in quibus magis requiescunt, quia quies attenditur penes appetitum, et appetitus intentio penes quantitatem praedominantis: si ergo omnia animalia maxime requiescunt in aqua vel in terra, videtur, quod ex eis sint maxime constituta[^4].

4. Item, in compositione corporis animalis membra officialia fiunt ex consimilibus, et consimilia ex humoribus; sed in humoribus maxime dominatur natura aquea, et in membris solidis maxime dominatur terrea: ergo si elementa non veniunt ad constitutionem corporis animalis nisi per humores et membra, videtur, quod omnia animalia ex his duobus elementis maxime sint constituta[^5].

*Ad oppositum arguitur sic.*

*Pro 2. opinione.*

1. Sicut vult Philosophus[^6], « vita maxime est per calidum et humidum »: ergo si omnia animalia vivunt, in eis abundat et praedominatur calidum et humidum, ergo et illud elementum, cui haec principaliter insunt; hoc autem elementum est activum, scilicet aër: ergo etc.

2. Item, sicut vult Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram, libro tertio[^7], et de Anima et spiritu, lux est illud quo mediante corpus unitur animae, et anima regit corpus: ergo si lux praecipue reperitur in igne, videtur, quod in corpore cuiuslibet animalis natura ignis debeat praedominari.

3. Item, anima sensitiva, sicut est principium sensus, ita est principium *motus*[^8]: ergo animalium

<!-- page 380 -->

corpora non tantum ad *sensum*, sed etiam ad *motum* debent esse habilia; sed elementa gravia sunt minime ad *motum* habilia, et haec sunt elementa passiva: ergo videtur, quod animalium corpora magis constent ex activis quam passivis.

4. Item, nobili perfectioni debet respondere nobile perfectibile[^9]; sed anima sensibilis est perfectio valde nobilis: ergo corpus illius ex his elementis maxime debet constitui, quae sunt nobiliora inter corpora simplicia; haec autem sunt elementa activa, non passiva: ergo etc. *Replicatur.* Si tu dicas ad hoc, quod animalium corpora plus constituuntur ex elementis activis quam passivis secundum quantitatem *virtutis*, non *molis*; obiicitur contra hoc, quia motus sequitur naturam praedominantis secundum quantitatem[^10]; sed aves moventur sursum: ergo videtur, quod in eis secundum quantitatem praedominentur elementa, quae sunt nata ferri sursum. Haec autem sunt activa, et non passiva, ut ignis et aër: ergo etc.

5. Item, volatilia sunt ad ornatum aëris; sed ornatus proprie et debite collocatur in eo quod ornatur, nullum autem corpus proprie et debite ordinatur in aëre, nisi in quo dominantur elementa activa: ergo si avium corpora ibi ordinantur ut ipsum ornantia, videtur, quod in eis praedominentur elementa activa. Quodsi non proprie ibi locantur, quia ibi non requiescunt, sed magis in terra; videtur, quod potius debeant dici volatilia ad ornatum terrae quam aëris, cui Scriptura contradicit[^11].

### Conclusio.

> In animalium corporibus elementa passiva praedominantur quoad quantitatem molis, activa autem quoad quantitatem virtutis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod secundum quod *Duplex quantitas et praedominantia.* duplex est quantitas, videlicet *molis* et *virtutis*, secundum hoc dupliciter potest attendi elementorum praedominantia, videlicet quantum ad molem et quantum ad virtutem. Si enim loquamur de praedominantia quantum ad *molem*, sic in corporibus animalium praedominantur elementa passiva, et ideo *Conclusio 1.* ex eis maxime dicuntur esse facta. Si autem loquamur quantum ad quantitatem *virtutis*, cum corpus complexionatum sit natum regi ab anima mediantibus elementis activis, sic praedominantur in eis elementa *activa*. *Conclusio 2.*

*Ratio ex fine, tripliciter.* Ratio autem huius, quare elementa activa et passiva secundum hanc duplicem quantitatem virtutis et molis vicissim praedominantur, sumitur ex parte *finis*. Finis enim imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem; finis autem corporis complexionati anima est, in quantum dat ei *vitam* et *sensum* et *motum*[^12]. — *Idoneitas ad vitam.* Ad vitam autem corpus illud non esset habile, si praedominarentur ibi elementa passiva quantum ad quantitatem et virtutem, propter sui grossitiem et soliditatem, sicut sunt corpora mineralia. Similiter nec esset habile, si praedominarentur ei elementa activa quantum ad virtutem et quantitatem[^13], quia statim consumerentur elementa passiva, nec esset quod posset vegetari ab anima. Et ita oportuit, quod ex quadam mutua praedominantia consurgeret quaedam mutua concordia et proportio, ex qua corpus illud esset aptum ad vitam suscipiendam et animam, quae est quasi quaedam *harmonia*[^14].

*Item ad sensum.* Ad sensum similiter idoneum non esset, nisi praedominaretur natura passivi elementi quantum ad molem, quia tactus est primus inter omnes sensus animalis, in quo sensu praedominatur terra; et ita, si non praedominaretur terra in corpore, non esset idoneum ad tactum: ergo nec ad aliquem *sensum*. Similiter oportet ad hoc, quod sit idoneum ad sensum, quod praedominetur in eo *ignis* quantum ad virtutem sive calorem. Calor enim et spiritus sunt instrumenta virtutis sensitivae, et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram libro tertio[^15]: « Tactus, qui est quintus in sensibus, terreno elemento magis congruit; proinde per totum corpus animantis, quod maxime ex terra est, tacta sentiuntur ». Et post: « Anima, cui sentiendi vis est, cum corporea non sit, per subtilius corpus agitat vigorem sentiendi; inchoat namque motum in omnibus sensibus per subtilitatem ignis ». Et ita ex hoc patet, quod ad hoc, quod corpus sit idoneum ad *sensum*, necesse est, elementorum activorum et passivorum esse mutuum praedominium.

*Item ad motum.* Similiter ad hoc, quod sit idoneum ad *motum*, necesse est, quod elementa *activa* virtualiter praedominentur, mediantibus quibus animae vis motiva ad membra pertingat; necesse est etiam, quod dominentur passiva, secundum quantitatem molis, ex quibus constituantur membra solida ad movendum idonea. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus tertio[^16] super Genesim ad litteram: « Ignis omnia penetrat, ut mo-

<!-- page 381 -->

tum in eis faciat ». Et post: « Ideo autem caloris privatione, cum corpus nimie frigescit, obtunditur sensus, quia motus pigrescit, qui ex calore inest corpori ». Sic igitur propter motum necesse est, esse mutuam activorum et passivorum elementorum in corpore animalis praedominantiam, ut membra sint mobilia, ita quod vigorem et agilitatem habeant ex aëre et igne, *soliditatem* vero habeant ex praedominio aquae et terrae secundum quantitatem.

Aqua igitur et terra in omnibus animalibus secundum quantitatem *molis* praedominantur. Sicut enim aliquis artifex, miscendo terram cum aqua, facit lutum et ex illo componit statuam; sic, dum liquor aqueus terrae miscetur, fit humor; et dum ille coagulatur per naturam, fit corpus organicum. — *Duplex commixtio.* Dupliciter autem potest intelligi haec commixtio: aut ita, quod aquae praeexistenti fluxibili immisceatur terra; aut econtra, ut terra primum sit quasi arida, et ad suarum partium continuationem commisceatur aqua. *Duplex modus producendi.* Et his duobus modis producta sunt animalium corpora, et ideo quaedam dicuntur esse ex *aquis*, quaedam ex *terra* facta. Hoc autem non est dictum, quia illa quae facta sunt ex aquis, plus habeant de aqua quantum ad *substantiam*, quam de terra — cum omne corpus animantis ad sui constitutionem plus recipiat de terra quantum ad *substantiam*, tum propter hoc, quod[^17] ipsa est, quae praebet aliis soliditatem et stabilitatem, tum etiam quia ipsa habet parum de specie et multum de materia — sed quod dictum est, aliqua ex aqua esse facta, hoc est, quia magis in eis quam in aliis dominatur natura aquea. Hoc autem dico non quantum ad praedominium qualitatis activae, vel passivae, sed quantum ad aliquam conformitatem naturae, per quam illa quae ex aquis producta sunt, in aquis magis delectantur esse.

*Corollarium.* Et quoniam humor aqueus est in duplici differentia, videlicet in ratione *humoris fluitantis*[^18] et in ratione *vaporis exhalantis*; ideo aqua est principium duplicis generis animalium, scilicet *natatilium* et *volatilium*: natatilium secundum rationem humoris, et ideo illa remanserunt in aquis; volatilium ratione vaporis, et ideo, cum ille vapor sit commixtus aëri et feratur sursum, volatilia in aëra[^19] sublevantur et eousque possunt ascendere, quousque inveniant aërem humidis exhalationibus pinguescentem. Et hoc est, quod dicit Augustinus tertio[^20] super Genesim ad litteram: « Iste inferior aër, qui excipit exhalationes humidas maris et terrae et ad sustinendas aves quodam modo crassatur, non nisi ex aquis accipit animalia. Quod enim eius humidum est, hoc portat *alitum* corpora, quae ita utuntur pennis volantes, quemadmodum *pisces* quibusdam suis alis natantes; proinde scienter Spiritus Dei *ex aquis* dicit esse producta volatilia. Aquarum enim natura bipartitum locum sortita est, *inferiorem* scilicet in unda labili, *superiorem* vero in aura stabili, illum deputatum *natantibus*, istum *volantibus*; sicut huic elemento congruos etiam duos sensus animalibus datos videmus, olfactum explorandis vaporibus, gustum explorandis liquoribus ».

Ex praedictis igitur patet responsio ad quaestionem propositam; patet etiam responsio ad obiecta, quia in corporibus animalium praedominantur elementa *passiva* quantum ad quantitatem *molis*, sicut ostendunt rationes ad primam partem inductae; praedominantur nihilominus et *activa* quantum ad quantitatem *virtutis*, sicut ostendunt quatuor rationes in contrarium adductae.

*Ad replic. in 5. pro 2. opinione.* 4. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur quinto, quod in volatilibus praedominetur aer secundum quantitatem, quia aër movetur sursum[^21]; dicendum, quod cum dicitur, quod motus sequitur naturam praedominantis, hoc verum est de motu *naturali*, qui debetur corpori ratione sui ponderis; *non* est verum de motu *animali*, qui est a virtute *ipsius animae*. Corpora autem avium, naturae suae relicta, nunquam ascendunt in aëra, sed descendunt ad terram; quod autem ascendant, hoc est per vim animae, suffragantibus sibi pennis et spiritibus interioribus et vaporibus in aëra elevatis.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aves ornant aëra; dicendum, quod non dicuntur ornare aëra, quia ibi magis quiescant quam in terra — hoc enim est falsum: in terra enim quiescunt et ab ea recipiunt alimentum — sed ratio huius est, quia avium actus est motus maxime in volatu[^22]; et quia illum exercent in aëre, ideo dicuntur aëra decorare et ornare; potissimum enim actum suum ibi exercent[^23].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether the bodies of animals consist more of the passive elements than of the active.*

In the third place it is asked whether the bodies of animals consist more of the passive elements than of the active[^1], or conversely. And that they consist more of the passive elements, it seems:

*For the first opinion.*

1. Through Scripture[^2], which says that they were made of earth and water; this however is not said in such a way that any one of those elements is the whole matter of the sensible animals: therefore it is said by way of predominance.

2. Likewise, as the Philosopher holds[^3], « animals consist of the same things from which they are nourished »; but animals are chiefly nourished by water and earth through food and drink: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, bodies are most of all constituted from those things in which they most rest, because rest is attended to according to appetite, and the intention of the appetite is according to the quantity of what predominates: if therefore all animals chiefly rest in water or in earth, it seems that they are most constituted from these[^4].

4. Likewise, in the composition of the animal body the official members are made from the similar parts, and the similar parts from the humors; but in the humors the aqueous nature chiefly dominates, and in the solid members the terrestrial chiefly dominates: therefore if the elements do not come to the constitution of the animal body except through the humors and members, it seems that all animals are most constituted from these two elements[^5].

*To the opposite it is argued thus.*

*For the second opinion.*

1. As the Philosopher holds[^6], « life is chiefly through the hot and the moist »: therefore if all animals live, in them the hot and moist abound and predominate, therefore also that element in which these are principally present; but this element is active, namely air: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, as Augustine holds *On Genesis according to the Letter*, book III[^7], and *On the Soul and Spirit*, light is that by means of which the body is united to the soul, and the soul rules the body: therefore if light is chiefly found in fire, it seems that in the body of every animal the nature of fire ought to predominate.

3. Likewise, the sensitive soul, just as it is the principle of sense, so it is the principle of *motion*[^8]: therefore the bodies of animals

ought to be fit not only for *sense*, but also for *motion*; but the heavy elements are least apt for *motion*, and these are the passive elements: therefore it seems that the bodies of animals consist more of the active than of the passive.

4. Likewise, to a noble perfection a noble perfectible ought to correspond[^9]; but the sensible soul is a perfection that is very noble: therefore the body for it ought to be constituted most of all from those elements which are nobler among the simple bodies; but these are the active elements, not the passive: therefore etc. *It is replied.* If you say to this, that the bodies of animals are constituted more from active than from passive elements according to the quantity of *power*, not of *mass*; it is objected against this, because motion follows the nature of what predominates according to quantity[^10]; but birds move upward: therefore it seems that in them according to quantity those elements predominate which are by nature carried upward. But these are active, and not passive, namely fire and air: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, flying creatures are for the adornment of the air; but adornment is properly and fittingly placed in that which is adorned, but no body is properly and fittingly ordered in the air, except that in which the active elements dominate: therefore if the bodies of birds are ordered there as adorning it, it seems that in them the active elements predominate. But if they are not properly placed there, because they do not rest there, but rather in the earth; it seems that flying creatures ought rather to be called for the adornment of the earth than of the air, which Scripture contradicts[^11].

### Conclusion.

> In the bodies of animals the passive elements predominate as to the quantity of mass, but the active as to the quantity of power.

**I respond:** It must be said that since *the quantity and predominance are twofold*, quantity is twofold, namely of *mass* and of *power*, according to this the predominance of the elements can be attended to in two ways, namely as to mass and as to power. For if we speak of predominance as to *mass*, thus in the bodies of animals the passive elements predominate, and therefore *First conclusion.* they are said to be made most of all from these. But if we speak as to the quantity of *power*, since the complexioned body is by nature ruled by the soul through the active elements, thus the *active* elements predominate in them. *Second conclusion.*

*The reason from the end, threefold.* The reason for this, why the active and passive elements according to this twofold quantity of power and mass alternately predominate, is taken from the side of the *end*. For the end imposes necessity on those things which are toward the end; but the end of the complexioned body is the soul, inasmuch as it gives it *life* and *sense* and *motion*[^12]. — *Suitability for life.* But that body would not be fit for life, if the passive elements predominated in it as to quantity and power, because of their thickness and solidity, as are mineral bodies. Likewise neither would it be fit, if the active elements predominated in it as to power and quantity[^13], because the passive elements would at once be consumed, nor would there be anything that could be vegetated by the soul. And so it had to be, that from a certain mutual predominance there should arise a certain mutual concord and proportion, from which that body would be apt for receiving life and the soul, which is as it were a certain *harmony*[^14].

*Likewise for sense.* Likewise for sense it would not be suitable, unless the nature of the passive element predominated as to mass, because touch is the first among all the senses of the animal, in which sense earth predominates; and so, if earth did not predominate in the body, it would not be suitable for touch: therefore neither for any *sense*. Likewise it is necessary, for it to be suitable for sense, that *fire* should predominate in it as to power or heat. For heat and spirits are the instruments of the sensitive power, and this is what Augustine says, *On Genesis according to the Letter*, book III[^15]: « Touch, which is the fifth among the senses, agrees more with the terrestrial element; hence through the whole body of the living thing, which is most of all of earth, things touched are perceived ». And after: « The soul, which has the power of sensing, since it is not corporeal, by means of a more subtle body stirs up the vigor of sensing; for it initiates motion in all the senses through the subtlety of fire ». And thus from this it is plain that for the body to be suitable for *sense*, it is necessary that there be a mutual predominance of the active and passive elements.

*Likewise for motion.* Likewise for it to be suitable for *motion*, it is necessary that the *active* elements predominate virtually, through which the soul's motive power may reach to the members; it is also necessary that the passive predominate as to the quantity of mass, from which the solid members suitable for moving may be constituted. And this is what Augustine says in book III[^16] *On Genesis according to the Letter*: « Fire penetrates all things, that it may produce mo-

tion in them ». And after: « But therefore through the privation of heat, when the body grows excessively cold, sense is dulled, because motion grows sluggish, which is in the body from heat ». Thus therefore on account of motion it is necessary that there be a mutual predominance of the active and passive elements in the body of the animal, so that the members may be mobile, in such a way that they have vigor and agility from air and fire, but have *solidity* from the predominance of water and earth as to quantity.

Water therefore and earth in all animals predominate according to the quantity of *mass*. For just as some artisan, by mixing earth with water, makes mud and from it composes a statue; so, while the watery liquid is mixed with earth, humor is formed; and while it is coagulated by nature, the organic body comes to be. — *Twofold commixture.* But this commixture can be understood in two ways: either thus, that earth is mixed with pre-existing flowing water; or conversely, that earth is first as it were dry, and water is mixed in for the continuation of its parts. *Twofold mode of producing.* And in these two ways the bodies of animals were produced, and therefore some are said to be made from *the waters*, some from *the earth*. This however is not said because those which were made from the waters have more of water as to *substance*, than of earth — since every body of a living thing for its constitution receives more of earth as to *substance*, both on account of this, that[^17] it is what gives solidity and stability to the others, and also because it has little of species and much of matter — but what was said, that some were made from water, this is because in them more than in others the aqueous nature dominates. But I say this not as to the predominance of active or passive quality, but as to a certain conformity of nature, by which those things which were produced from the waters delight more to be in the waters.

*Corollary.* And since the aqueous humor is in a twofold differentiation, namely in the manner of *flowing humor*[^18] and in the manner of *exhaling vapor*; therefore water is the principle of a twofold kind of animals, namely of *swimming* and of *flying* creatures: of swimming creatures according to the nature of humor, and therefore those remained in the waters; of flying creatures according to vapor, and therefore, since that vapor is mixed with air and is borne upward, flying creatures are raised up into the air[^19] and can ascend so far as they find the air thickened with moist exhalations. And this is what Augustine says in book III[^20] *On Genesis according to the Letter*: « This lower air, which receives the moist exhalations of sea and earth and is thickened in a certain way to sustain birds, receives animals only from the waters. For what is moist in it, this carries the bodies of *fed creatures*, which use wings in flying, as *fishes* swim with certain fins of theirs; hence knowingly the Spirit of God says that flying things were produced *from the waters*. For the nature of the waters has obtained a twofold place, the *lower* namely in the gliding wave, the *higher* in the steady breeze, the former assigned to *swimming* things, the latter to *flying* things; just as we see also two senses given to animals suited to this element, smell for exploring vapors, taste for exploring liquids ».

From the foregoing therefore the response to the question proposed is plain; the response to the objections is also plain, because in the bodies of animals the *passive* elements predominate as to the quantity of *mass*, as the reasons brought forth for the first part show; nevertheless the *active* also predominate as to the quantity of *power*, as the four reasons brought against show.

*To the reply in 5 for the second opinion.* 4. To that which is objected in the fifth place, that in flying creatures air predominates as to quantity, because air moves upward[^21]; it must be said that when it is said, that motion follows the nature of what predominates, this is true of *natural* motion, which is owed to a body by reason of its weight; it is *not* true of *animal* motion, which is from the power *of the soul itself*. But the bodies of birds, left to their own nature, never ascend into the air, but descend to the earth; that they do ascend, this is by the power of the soul, with the wings and the interior spirits and the vapors raised into the air assisting them.

5. To that which is objected, that birds adorn the air; it must be said that they are not said to adorn the air because they rest more there than on earth — for this is false: on earth they rest and from it they receive nourishment — but the reason for this is that the act of birds is motion chiefly in flight[^22]; and because they exercise that in the air, therefore they are said to decorate and adorn the air; for they exercise their principal act there[^23].

---

la: Elementa *passiva* significant terram et aquam, elementa vero *activa* aërem et ignem.

en: The *passive* elements signify earth and water; the *active* elements, air and fire.

la: Gen. 1, 20. et 24. Cfr. q. praec. arg. 1. ad opposit.

en: Gen. 1:20 and 24. Cf. the preceding question, argument 1, *ad oppositum*.

la: Libr. II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 50. (c. 8.): *Omnia enim nutriuntur ex eisdem, ex quibus sunt.* Cfr. I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 21. (c. 3.) et VIII. de Historia animal. c. 1.

en: Book II *On Generation and Corruption*, text 50 (c. 8): *For all things are nourished from the same things from which they are.* Cf. *On the Heavens* I, text 21 (c. 3), and *History of Animals* VIII, c. 1.

la: Aristot., de Respirat. c. 13. (c. 14.), eodem modo argumentatur. — Circa initium arg. post *corpora* in cod. A additur *animalium*.

en: Aristotle, *On Respiration* c. 13 (c. 14), argues in the same way. — Near the beginning of the argument, after *corpora* in codex A is added *animalium*.

la: De hoc arg. cfr. Aristot., II. de Partib. animal. c. 1. seqq. et liber de Spiritu et anima (inter opera Augustini), c. 13.

en: On this argument cf. Aristotle, *On the Parts of Animals* II, c. 1 ff., and the book *On the Spirit and the Soul* (among the works of Augustine), c. 13.

la: In libro de Longitudine et brevit. vitae, c. 3. (c. 3.): *Augmenti enim calida humiditas causa et vitae.* — Ibid. etiam plura occurrunt, quae in hoc arg. ponuntur.

en: In the book *On Length and Shortness of Life*, c. 3 (c. 3): *For warm moisture is the cause of increase and of life.* — Likewise in the same place many things occur which are placed in this argument.

la: Cap. 5. n. 7. Cfr. supra pag. 319, nota 8. — De Spir. et anima (inter opera August.), c. 15.

en: Chapter 5, n. 7. Cf. above p. 319, note 8. — *On the Spirit and the Soul* (among the works of Augustine), c. 15.

la: Vide Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 40. seqq. (c. 9. seqq.). Cfr. etiam supra pag. 32, nota 7.

en: See Aristotle, *On the Soul* III, text 40 ff. (c. 9 ff.). Cf. also above p. 32, note 7.

la: Aristot., II. de Generat. animal. c. 3: *Prout nobilitate ignobilitateve animae inter se differunt, ita et natura eius corporis differt.*

en: Aristotle, *On the Generation of Animals* II, c. 3: *As souls differ among themselves in nobility or ignobility, so the nature of their body differs.*

la: Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 8. (c. 2.).

en: Aristotle, *On the Heavens* I, text 8 (c. 2).

la: Gen. 1, 20. et 26. — Paulo superius in plurimis codd. et edd. 1, 2 desideratur *secundum* ibi.

en: Gen. 1:20 and 26. — A little above, in most codices and editions 1, 2, *secundum* is missing there.

la: Ut insinuat August., de Quant. animae, c. 3. n. 4.

en: As Augustine insinuates, *On the Quantity of the Soul*, c. 3, n. 4.

la: Secundum Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 36. seqq. (c. 4.), qui etiam II. Phys. text. 88. (c. 9.) primam partem huius prop. insinuat. — Vat. *molem*.

en: According to Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 36 ff. (c. 4), who also in *Physics* II, text 88 (c. 9) insinuates the first part of this proposition. — The Vatican edition reads *molem*.

la: Quod anima non sit harmonia sive ipsa temperies corporis, probat Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 54. seqq. (c. 4.). — Ibid. II. text. 31. et 111. (c. 3. 11.) et III. text. 60. seqq. (c. 12. seq.) docet, tactum esse primum sensum, ad quem habendum requiratur corpus mixtum ex terra etc. Cfr. Avicenna, de Anima sive Sextus Naturalium, p. II. c. 3.

en: That the soul is not a harmony or the very temperament of the body, Aristotle proves in *On the Soul* I, text 54 ff. (c. 4). — Ibid. II, text 31 and 111 (c. 3, 11), and III, text 60 ff. (c. 12 f.) he teaches that touch is the first sense, for the having of which a body mixed from earth etc. is required. Cf. Avicenna, *On the Soul or the Sixth Book of Natural Things*, p. II, c. 3.

la: Cap. 4. n. 6, ubi textus originalis verbo *tacta* praemittit *quaeque*. — Sequens textus est ibid. c. 5. n. 7. Cfr. supra pag. 319, nota 8.

en: Chapter 4, n. 6, where the original text prefixes *quaeque* to the word *tacta*. — The following text is in the same place, c. 5, n. 7. Cf. above p. 319, note 8.

la: Cap. 4. n. 6, ubi et seq. textus habetur.

en: Chapter 4, n. 6, where also the following text is found.

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 *quia*.

en: Codex cc and ed. 1 read *quia*.

la: Vat. *fluctuantis*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *fluctuantis*.

la: Plures codd. cum ed. 1 *aëre*, cod. K *aërem*.

en: Several codices with ed. 1 read *aëre*; codex K *aërem*.

la: Cap. 6. n. 8. seq., ubi textus originalis *nituntur pennis* substituit pro *utuntur pennis*; deinde post *proinde scienter* prosequitur *tanquam Spiritus Dei, qui scribenti aderat, ex aquis* etc.; demum ponit *Quorum natura* pro *Aquarum enim natura* [quae tamen lectio, ut Maurini adnotant, in 5. mss. invenitur]. Circa finem textus plurimi codd. cum Vat. et ceteris edd. *sic hoc elemento* perperam et contra originale pro *sicut huic elemento*, dein non pauci codd. prosequuntur *congruos secundum duos* etc.

en: Chapter 6, n. 8 f., where the original text substitutes *nituntur pennis* for *utuntur pennis*; then after *proinde scienter* continues *tanquam Spiritus Dei, qui scribenti aderat, ex aquis* etc.; finally it places *Quorum natura* for *Aquarum enim natura* [which reading nevertheless, as the Maurists note, is found in 5 mss.]. Near the end of the text most codices with the Vatican and the other editions read *sic hoc elemento* wrongly and against the original for *sicut huic elemento*, then not a few codices continue *congruos secundum duos* etc.

la: Sola Vat. *quia aves moventur sursum*. — Supra dicitur: *Obiicitur quinto*, quia numeratur etiam *replic.* in 4. pro 2. opin.

en: Only the Vatican edition reads *quia aves moventur sursum*. — Above it is said: *It is objected in the fifth place*, because the *reply* in 4 for the second opinion is also counted.

la: Plures codd. cum ed. 1 *quia actus et motus maxime est in volatu*; deinde quatuor primae edd. cum pluribus mss. *in aera* pro *in aere*.

en: Several codices with ed. 1 read *quia actus et motus maxime est in volatu*; then the first four editions with several mss. read *in aera* for *in aere*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question.

translators_notes:
- Page span verified column-band by column-band at 450 dpi: q3 opens at p. 379 L band 1 (`QUAESTIO III. — Utrum corpora animalium magis constent ex elementis passivis quam activis.` immediately below the q2 SCHOLION II close on p. 379 R band 0); *Pro 1. opinione.* arg. 1–4 occupy p. 379 L bands 1–2 + R band 1; *Ad oppositum / Pro 2. opinione* arg. 1–3 occupy p. 379 R bands 1–2; arg. 3 spans the page break into p. 380 L band 0 (`corpora non tantum ad sensum…`); arg. 4 with the *Replicatur.* clause + arg. 5 fill p. 380 L bands 0–2; CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (opening with *Duplex quantitas et praedominantia.* + *Conclusio 1./2.*) + *Ratio ex fine, tripliciter.* + *Idoneitas ad vitam.* + *Item ad sensum.* + *Item ad motum.* fill p. 380 R bands 0–2; the Respondeo continues into p. 381 L (the Augustine *Ignis omnia penetrat* citation tail + *Aqua igitur et terra…* artisan analogy + *Duplex commixtio.* + *Duplex modus producendi.* + *Corollarium.* on natatilia/volatilia + Augustine *Iste inferior aër* citation) and into p. 381 R bands 0–2 (close of Augustine citation + general resolution *Ex praedictis igitur patet…* + *Ad replic. in 5. pro 2. opinione.* solutio ad 4 + ad 5); the chunk closes at p. 381 R band 2 with `…potissimum enim actum suum ibi exercent.` (footer note 7 = *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*). p. 382 opens with `ARTICULUS II.` (next chunk).
- 23 apparatus entries renumbered sequentially across three pages: p. 379 L footer carries 4 notes (editorial gloss on *Elementa passiva/activa*; Gen 1, 20 + 24; Aristot. II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 50; Aristot. de Respirat. + cod. A addit *animalium*) anchored at the q3 title and arg. 1, 2, 3 = [^1]–[^4]. p. 379 R footer carries 4 notes ([^5]–[^8]: Aristot. II. de Partib. anim. + de Spir. et anima at arg. 4; Aristot. de Longit. + brevit. vitae at *Ad oppositum* arg. 1; Cap. 5 n. 7 + cross-ref to p. 319 at arg. 2; Aristot. III. de Anima text. 40 at arg. 3 *principium motus*). p. 380 L footer carries 3 notes ([^9]–[^11]: Aristot. II. de Gener. anim. c. 3 at arg. 4 *nobile perfectibile*; Aristot. I. de Caelo text. 8 at *Replicatur* *secundum quantitatem*; Gen. 1, 20 + 26 + *secundum* desideratur at arg. 5 *Scriptura contradicit*). p. 380 R footer carries 5 notes ([^12]–[^16]: August. de Quant. animae c. 3 n. 4 at *dat ei vitam et sensum et motum*; Aristot. II. de Anima text. 36 + Vat. *molem* at *quantum ad virtutem et quantitatem*; harmonia controversy + Avicenna at *quasi quaedam harmonia*; August. super Genes. ad litt. cap. 4 n. 6 at the *Tactus, qui est quintus* citation; Cap. 4 n. 6 cross-ref at the *Ignis omnia penetrat* citation). p. 381 L footer carries 4 notes ([^17]–[^20]: Cod. cc + ed. 1 *quia* at *quod ipsa est*; Vat. *fluctuantis* at *humoris fluitantis*; cod. K *aërem* at *volatilia in aëra sublevantur*; Cap. 6 n. 8 with the long Maurist textual gloss at the *Iste inferior aër* citation). p. 381 R footer carries 3 notes ([^21]–[^23]: Sola Vat. *quia aves moventur sursum* + numbering remark at the *Ad replic. in 5.* opener; Plures codd. *quia actus et motus maxime est in volatu* at *avium actus est motus maxime in volatu*; *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* at the final clause `exercent`). No `[?]` flags raised — all anchor positions crisp at 450 dpi.
- Marginal labels preserved inline per locked Vol II convention: *Pro 1. opinione.* (× 1, at the affirmative-side opener arg. 1 — printed in left gutter on p. 379 L), *Pro 2. opinione.* (× 1, at the *Ad oppositum* opener — printed in right gutter on p. 379 R), *Replicatur.* (× 1, embedded inside arg. 4 at the *Si tu dicas* clause), *Duplex quantitas et praedominantia.* (× 1, at the Respondeo opener), *Conclusio 1.* + *Conclusio 2.* (× 2, the two horns of the Respondeo's molis-vs-virtus partition), *Ratio ex fine, tripliciter.* (× 1, at the *Ratio autem huius* turn), *Idoneitas ad vitam.* (× 1, at *Ad vitam autem corpus*), *Item ad sensum.* (× 1, at *Ad sensum similiter*), *Item ad motum.* (× 1, at *Similiter ad hoc, quod sit idoneum ad motum*), *Duplex commixtio.* (× 1, at *Dupliciter autem potest intelligi*), *Duplex modus producendi.* (× 1, at *Et his duobus modis producta sunt*), *Corollarium.* (× 1, at *Et quoniam humor aqueus*), *Ad replic. in 5. pro 2. opinione.* (× 1, at solutio ad 4).
- Cross-chunk footer-split check: p. 379 footer was reviewed against `d15-a1-q2` Notes — q2 closed at p. 378 R foot and the q2 chunk explicitly stated `p. 379 carries no q2-side footer (the running head reads DIST. XV. ART. I. QUAEST. III. because q3 opens lower on the same page; q3's footers will live in d15-a1-q3)`. The 4 L-column footer notes on p. 379 (Elementa passiva/activa gloss + Gen 1,20+24 + Aristot. II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 50 + Aristot. de Respirat.) and the 4 R-column footer notes on p. 379 (Aristot. II. de Partib. animal. + de Longit. et brev. vitae + Cap. 5 n. 7 cross-ref + Aristot. III. de Anima text. 40) all anchor unambiguously in q3 (none migrate back to q2). p. 381 R footer note 7 = *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* is intra-chunk (placed at *exercent* — the q3 close) and is the printed-edition's explicit pointer back to the q2 SCHOLION; no scholion of its own is set on q3 (consistent with q1 SCHOLION I's `pro quaest. seq.` note also redirecting toward q2 — Vol II Override step 5 sibling-shared-scholion pattern). p. 382 begins ARTICULUS II. and migrates to `d15-a2-q1`.
- No `[?]` flags raised — all OCR ambiguities (`comtent` → `constent`, `qiiieritur` → `quaeritur`, `aniiiialiiim` → `animalium`, `passiiis` → `passivis`, `iiiijiie` → garbled marginal `g. i.ioi.` resolved as `Pro 1. opinione.` from PDF left gutter, `Pliilosoplius` → `Philosophus`, `Spirilus` → `Spiritus`, `aniiiialiiim` → `animalium`, `liaec` → `haec`, `aijr` → `aër`, `huinidum` → `humidum`, `tnotus` → `motus`, `Augustimis` → `Augustinus`, `praecpie` → `praecipue`, `complexionalum` → `complexionatum`, `complexionatlim` → `complexionatum`, `huinidis` → `humidis`, `alitum` retained as printed despite cod. variants, `obtunditur` → `obtunditur`, `obtimditur` → `obtunditur`, `c0NcLusi0` → `CONCLUSIO`) resolved unambiguously against the 450 dpi PDF crops of pp. 379 L+R bottom, 380 L+R, 381 L+R.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 15, Art. 2, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 382 -->

### Articulus II. *De ordine, quo animalia sunt producta.*

Consequenter quaeritur, quo ordine animalia sint producta. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur de ordine productionis ex parte finis. Secundo vero ex parte temporis. Tertio vero de ordine[^1] productionis et quietis.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum omnia sensibilia facta sint propter hominem.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum omnia sensibilia facta sint propter hominem. Et quod sic, videtur:

*Fundamenta.*

1. Primo per Scripturam, Genesis primo[^2]: *Dominamini piscibus maris et volatilibus caeli* etc. Et post, Genesis nono[^3]: *Omnes pisces maris manui vestrae traditi sunt, et omne quod movetur et vivit*: ergo omnia ad utilitatem hominis facta sunt.

2. Item, Apostolus primae ad Corinthios tertio[^4]: *Omnia vestra sunt*, hoc dicit viris iustis: ergo propter viros iustos omnia quaecumque facta sunt, sunt producta: ergo et animalia sensibilia.

3. Item, Philosophus[^5]: «Homo est finis quodam modo omnium eorum quae sunt»: ergo et sensibilium.

4. Item, omnia bonum exoptant, non quodcumque, sed summum, sicut vult Dionysius[^6] et Philosophus; sed inter creaturas inferiores solus homo natus est immediate ad Deum pertingere: ergo aliae creaturae ordinantur in finem mediante homine. Sed quod in finem ordinatur mediante alio, est propter illud: ergo omnia sensibilia facta sunt propter hominem.

*Ad oppositum.*

**Sed contra:** 1. Tantae dignitatis est esse rerum finem, sicut esse principium; sed sensibilium animalium solus Deus fuit principium, ita quod non homo: ergo eorundem finis est non homo, sed Deus.

2. Item, quaedam sunt animalia, quae non valent homini nisi ad esum, quaedam, quae non valent nisi ad vestimentum; sed homo, si stetisset, his non indiguisset: ergo huiusmodi animalia aut facta essent frustra, aut non sunt facta propter hominem. Si tu dicas, quod Deus ea fecit, quia praevidit, hominem esse lapsurum[^7]; tunc videtur, quod in voluntate hominis et peccato consisteret, utrum illa animalia frustra facta essent; quod falsum est.

3. Item, si animalia facta sunt propter hominem, ergo nulla debent esse facta *contra* hominem; sed bestiae sunt nocivae: ergo non debuerunt fieri in primaria rerum conditione, aut certe frustra factae sunt. Si tu dicas, quod bestiae non possent nocere, si homo non peccasset; tunc videtur, quod post peccatum hominis sit nova potentia eis tradita.

4. Item, si animalia facta sunt propter habitationem hominis decorandam, cum in statu innocentiae non deberet habitatio foedari, videtur, quod non debuerunt corruptibilia animalia fieri, quae suis corruptionibus et exhalationibus inficerent aerem. Si tu dicas, quod non corrumperentur; hoc est contra Augustinum super Genesim ad litteram libro tertio[^8], qui dicit, tunc facta esse animalia viventia de rapina. Ait enim sic: «Quaedam refectionem corporis sui ex aliorum corporibus quaerunt», ubi loquitur de bestiis.

5. Item, quidquid sit de hoc, sive moriantur sive non moriantur, videtur, quod animalia, quae alia devorant, hominis habitationem dehonestent, cum ea destruant, quae ad ipsius faciunt decorem et ornatum.

### Conclusio.

> Omnia sensibilia facta sunt propter hominem, aliter tamen in statu innocentiae, aliter in statu naturae lapsae.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod *finis*, ad quem res ordinantur, *Duplex finis.* duplex est. Quidam enim est *finis principalis* et *ultimus*, quidam vero est *finis sub fine*. Si primo modo loquamur de fine, sic omnium creaturarum tam rationalium quam irrationalium finis est Deus, *Conclusio 1.* quia omnia propter semetipsum creavit Altissimus[^9]; omnia enim fecit ad laudem suae bonitatis.

<!-- page 383 -->

Si autem loquamur de fine *non principali*, qui est finis quodam modo et finis sub fine; *Conclusio 2.* sic omnia sensibilia animalia facta sunt propter hominem.

Et hoc insinuat Philosophus, cum dicit: *Rationes.* «Sumus finis nos quodam modo omnium eorum quae sunt». Insinuat etiam Scriptura multo excellentius, cum dicit[^10]: *Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, et praesit piscibus maris* etc. Quia enim homo rationis capax est, ideo habet libertatem arbitrii et natus est piscibus dominari; quia vero per similitudinem natus est in Deum immediate tendere, ideo omnes creaturae irrationales ad ipsum ordinantur, ut mediante ipso in finem ultimum perducantur. — Et sic concedendae sunt rationes ostendentes, animalia propter hominem facta esse.

Ad dissolutionem autem rationum, quae inducuntur in contrarium, notandum est, quod *Conclusio 3.* aliter ordinantur animalia ad hominem secundum statum *innocentiae*, aliter secundum statum *naturae lapsae*. — Secundum statum *innocentiae* ordinantur ad hominem secundum rationem quadruplicem. *In statu innocentiae quadrupliciter.* Prima ratio est ad *manifestandum eius imperium*, quod manifestarent, dum ei per omnia obedirent. Secundo, ad *decorandum hominis habitaculum*; perpulcrum enim erat, habitationem hominis animalium multiplicatione, non solum arborum decorari. Tertio, ad *excitandum*[^11] *hominis sensum*, ut in ipsorum animalium naturis diversis videret homo multiformitatem sapientiae Conditoris. Quarto, ad *movendum eius affectum*, ut, dum homo videret, animalia secundum rectitudinem suae naturae currere et amare illud ad quod naturaliter facta sunt, ex hoc excitaretur ad amandum Deum. — *Corollarium.* Et propter has rationes non solummodo fecit Deus iumenta, sed etiam bestias et pecora; omnia enim faciunt ad hominis utilitatem secundum rationes praedictas.

Secundum statum *naturae lapsae* ordinantur ista animalia ad utilitatem hominis; sed *Item in statu naturae lapsae cum distinctione.* aliter bestiae, et aliter iumenta et pecora. Iumenta enim et pecora ordinantur ad relevandam hominis indigentiam quantum ad *cibum* et quantum ad *vestimentum*[^12] et quantum ad *obsequium*, sicut sunt equi et asini etc., et quantum ad *solatium*, sicut sunt quaedam aves et catuli et similia: et sic facta sunt propter hominem ratione quadruplici. — Similiter *De bestiis.* bestiae sive animalia noxia ordinantur ad hominem secundum quadruplicem rationem et utilitatem, quam ponit Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram libro tertio[^13]. Dicit enim, quod «aut poenaliter laedunt, aut salubriter exercent, aut utiliter probant, aut ignoranter docent».

Et sic patet, quod tam bestiae quam reptilia et *Epilogus.* iumenta facta sunt propter hominem, sive in statu innocentiae, sive in statu naturae lapsae. Planum est etiam per hoc illud quod obiicitur in contrarium.

*Solutio oppositorum.*

1. Ad illud enim quod obiicitur, quod esse finem est magnae dignitatis; dicendum, quod verum est de fine *principali*, qui est finis carens fine; non autem est verum de fine, qui est finis quodam modo.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de animalibus non valentibus nisi[^14] ad esum et vestimentum, responderi potest, quod illa fecit Deus, quia praevidit hominem lapsurum; esto tamen, quod non laberetur, non tamen essent frustra; haberent enim praeter relevationem indigentiae quadruplicem utilitatem, sicut determinatum est supra.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de bestiis, quae sunt contra hominem; dicendum, quod homine stante, *Notandum.* nulla animalia ipsum offenderent, sed omnia sibi mansueta essent, sicut aliquando divino imperio ferae crudelissimae Sanctis Dei mansuetae factae sunt, ut leones Danieli[^15]. Quod autem noceant vel offendant, hoc est propter peccatum hominis, non propter novam potentiam eis datam, sed propter dignitatis praesidentiam ab homine amissam. Unde sicut oculus sanus a sole non laeditur, sed cum efficitur lippus, statim offenditur, non propter mutationem factam in sole, sed in oculo; sic in proposito intelligi potest.

4. 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod homine stante, non debuerunt fieri animalia mortalia; dicendum, quod sicut animalia sua vita habitationem hominis decorant et ornant, sic etiam morte sua ex successione faciunt ad universi decorationem. Et sicut animalia se invicem *iuvantia* sunt ratio sapientiae excogitandae[^16], sic etiam animalia sese *offendentia* et de carnibus aliorum animalium nutrimentum sumentia; quia illa corruptio aerem hominis non inficeret, qui eius odoratum offenderet, sed potius quadam successione et ordine, dum animalia sibi succederent, universum decorarent, tanquam pulcherrimum carmen, in quo syllaba succedit syllabae[^17]. — Similiter, dum bestia aliud animal comedendo occideret, in hominis habitatione discordiam non faceret, sed potius occasionem eruditionis homini praeberet. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus tertio[^18] super Genesim ad litteram: «Nimirum aliae

<!-- page 384 -->

bestiae cibi sunt aliarum; nec recte possumus dicere, quod non essent aliae, quibus aliae vescerentur; habent enim omnia, quamdiu sunt, mensuras, numeros et ordines suos, quae cuncta merito considerata laudantur, nec sine occulta pro suo genere moderatione pulcritudinis temporalis, ex alio in aliud transeundo, mutantur; et certe omnibus talibus inferioris creaturae motibus praebentur homini salubres admonitiones». Deinde planius exemplificat. — Ex his patet responsio ad obiecta.

english:
### Article II. *On the order in which the animals were produced.*

Consequently it is asked, in what order the animals were produced. And concerning this three questions are asked.

First, the question is asked about the order of production from the side of the end. Second, from the side of time. Third, about the order[^1] of production and of rest.

### Question I. *Whether all sensible things were made for the sake of man.*

Concerning the first the procedure is thus, and it is asked, whether all sensible things were made for the sake of man. And that they were, seems so:

*Foundations.*

1. First, through Scripture, Genesis 1[^2]: *Have dominion over the fishes of the sea and the birds of the heavens*, etc. And after, Genesis 9[^3]: *All the fishes of the sea are delivered into your hand, and everything that moves and lives*: therefore all things have been made for the use of man.

2. Likewise, the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 3[^4]: *All things are yours*; this he says to just men: therefore for the sake of just men all things whatsoever were made, were produced: therefore also the sensible animals.

3. Likewise, the Philosopher[^5]: «Man is in a certain way the end of all things which are»: therefore also of sensible things.

4. Likewise, all things desire the good — not any good whatever, but the highest — as Dionysius[^6] and the Philosopher hold; but among inferior creatures man alone is born to reach immediately to God: therefore the other creatures are ordered to the end through man as mediator. But that which is ordered to an end through another, is on account of that other: therefore all sensible things were made for the sake of man.

*To the opposite.*

**On the contrary:** 1. It is of as great dignity to be the end of things as to be the beginning; but of the sensible animals God alone was the beginning, in such a way that man was not: therefore the end of the same is not man, but God.

2. Likewise, there are certain animals which serve man only for food, certain that serve only for clothing; but man, if he had stood [in innocence], would not have needed these: therefore animals of this kind either would have been made in vain, or were not made for the sake of man. If you say that God made them because he foresaw that man would fall[^7]; then it seems that it would lie in the will of man and in his sin, whether those animals would have been made in vain — which is false.

3. Likewise, if the animals were made for the sake of man, then none ought to have been made *against* man; but the beasts are harmful: therefore they ought not to have come to be in the original constitution of things, or else they were made in vain. If you say that the beasts could not harm if man had not sinned, then it seems that after man's sin a new power was given to them.

4. Likewise, if the animals were made to adorn the dwelling of man, since in the state of innocence his dwelling ought not to have been defiled, it seems that corruptible animals ought not to have been made, which by their corruptions and exhalations would infect the air. If you say that they would not have been corrupted, this is against Augustine on Genesis according to the letter, book III[^8], who says that even then the living animals were made for prey. For he says thus: «Some seek the refreshment of their own body from the bodies of others», where he speaks of beasts.

5. Likewise, whatever is the case about this — whether they die or do not die — it seems that animals which devour others dishonor man's dwelling, since they destroy those things which serve for his beauty and adornment.

### Conclusion.

> All sensible things were made for the sake of man, yet differently in the state of innocence and differently in the state of fallen nature.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that *the end* to which things are ordered is twofold (*The end is twofold.*). For one is the *principal* and *ultimate end*, another is the *end under an end*. If we speak of the end in the first way, thus the end of all creatures, both rational and irrational, is God (*Conclusion 1.*), because the Most High created all things for himself[^9]; for he made all things for the praise of his goodness.

<!-- page 383 -->

But if we speak of the *non-principal* end, which is end in a certain way and end-under-an-end (*Conclusion 2.*), then all sensible animals were made for the sake of man.

And this the Philosopher suggests when he says (*Reasons.*): «We are in some way the end of all things which are». Scripture suggests it also much more excellently, when it says[^10]: *Let us make man to our image and likeness, and let him be set over the fishes of the sea*, etc. For because man is capable of reason, therefore he has freedom of choice and is born to rule the fishes; and because by his likeness he is born to tend immediately to God, therefore all irrational creatures are ordered to him, so that through him as mediator they may be led to the ultimate end. — And so the reasons showing that the animals were made for the sake of man are to be conceded.

But for the resolution of the reasons brought to the contrary, it must be noted (*Conclusion 3.*) that animals are ordered to man one way in the state of *innocence*, another way in the state of *fallen nature*. — In the state of *innocence* they are ordered to man according to a fourfold reason (*In the state of innocence in a fourfold way.*). The first reason is for *manifesting his rule*, which they would manifest by obeying him in all things. Second, for *adorning man's dwelling*; for it was most beautiful that the dwelling of man be adorned by a multitude of animals, not only of trees. Third, for *arousing*[^11] *man's sense*, so that in the diverse natures of the animals themselves man might see the multiform wisdom of the Creator. Fourth, for *moving his affection*, so that, while man saw the animals run according to the rectitude of their nature and love that to which they were naturally made, he might from this be stirred up to love God. — *Corollary.* And on account of these reasons God made not only the beasts of burden, but also the wild beasts and the cattle; for all serve man's use according to the said reasons.

In the state of *fallen nature* these animals are ordered to the use of man; but (*Likewise in the state of fallen nature, with distinction.*) wild beasts in one way, beasts of burden and cattle in another. For the beasts of burden and the cattle are ordered to relieve man's need with respect to *food* and with respect to *clothing*[^12] and with respect to *service*, such as horses and asses etc., and with respect to *solace*, such as certain birds and puppies and the like: and thus they were made for the sake of man under a fourfold reason. — Similarly (*Concerning the beasts.*) the wild or harmful beasts are ordered to man according to a fourfold reason and use, which Augustine sets out in *On Genesis according to the letter*, book III[^13]. For he says that «either they harm by way of penalty, or they exercise wholesomely, or they prove usefully, or they teach unwittingly».

And thus it is plain that both beasts and reptiles and beasts of burden (*Epilogue.*) were made for the sake of man, whether in the state of innocence or in the state of fallen nature. And by this also is made plain that which is objected to the contrary.

*Solution of the opposing arguments.*

1. To that which is objected, that to be an end is of great dignity, it must be said that this is true of the *principal* end, which is the end lacking a [further] end; it is not however true of the end which is end in a certain way.

2. To that which is objected concerning animals not serving except[^14] for food and clothing, it can be answered that God made them because he foresaw man would fall; suppose, however, that he had not fallen, they would not on that account have been made in vain; for they would have, beyond the relief of need, a fourfold utility, as has been determined above.

3. To that which is objected concerning the beasts which are against man; it must be said that, man standing [in innocence] (*Note.*), no animals would have offended him, but all would have been tame to him, just as sometimes by divine command the most cruel beasts have been made tame to the Saints of God, as the lions to Daniel[^15]. But that they harm or offend, this is on account of man's sin — not on account of a new power given to them, but on account of the dignity of pre-eminence which man has lost. Whence, just as a healthy eye is not injured by the sun, but when it becomes bleary, it is at once offended — not on account of a change made in the sun, but in the eye — so it can be understood in the matter at hand.

4. 5. To that which is objected, that with man standing, mortal animals ought not to have been made, it must be said that, just as animals by their life adorn and embellish man's dwelling, so also by their death, through succession, they make for the adornment of the universe. And just as animals helping one another (*iuvantia*) are a reason for thinking on wisdom[^16], so also animals offending one another and taking nourishment from the flesh of other animals; because that corruption would not have infected man's air so as to offend his smell, but rather by a certain succession and order, while the animals succeeded one another, they would have adorned the universe as a most beautiful song, in which one syllable succeeds another[^17]. — Likewise, when a beast killed another animal by eating it, it would not have made discord in man's dwelling, but rather would have furnished man with an occasion of instruction. And this is what Augustine says in [book] three[^18] on Genesis according to the letter: «Surely some

<!-- page 384 -->

beasts are food for others; nor can we rightly say that there would not have been others on which others might feed; for all things, so long as they exist, have their own measures, numbers, and orders, which when duly considered are all praised, nor without a hidden moderation suitable to its own kind of temporal beauty are they changed, passing from one into another; and certainly by all such motions of the inferior creature wholesome admonitions are offered to man». Then he sets it out more plainly by example. — From these things the response to the objections is plain.

la: Vat. *ex parte* pro *de ordine*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *ex parte* in place of *de ordine*.

la: Vers. 28. — Seq. textus est loc. cit. v. 2. seq.

en: Verse 28. — The following text is from the same place, v. 2 ff.

la: Vers. 22.

en: Verse 22.

en: 1 Corinthians 3:22.

la: Libr. II. Phys. text. 24. (c. 2.).

en: [Aristotle,] *Physics* II, text 24 (c. 2).

la: De Div. Nom. c. 4. § 10. — Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 1. Cfr. etiam Boeth., III. de Consol. prosa 2. et 10. seq.

en: [Pseudo-Dionysius,] *On the Divine Names*, c. 4, § 10. — Aristotle, *Nicomachean Ethics* I, c. 1. Cf. also Boethius, *Consolation* III, prose 2 and 10 ff.

la: Sicut dicit Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 10. — Paulo inferius plures codd. cum Vat. *et potestate* pro *et peccato*.

en: As Damascene says, *On the Orthodox Faith* II, c. 10. — A little below, several codices with the Vatican edition read *et potestate* (and power) in place of *et peccato* (and sin).

la: Secundum August., III. de Gen. ad lit. c. 15. n. 24. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. — Cod. aa *potuissent* pro *possent*. Aliquanto superius Vat. *sed multae bestiae homini* pro *sed bestiae*.

en: According to Augustine, *On Genesis according to the letter* III, c. 15, n. 24. Cf. here the text of the Master [Lombard], c. 3. — Codex aa reads *potuissent* (would have been able) in place of *possent* (could). Somewhat earlier the Vatican edition reads *sed multae bestiae homini* (but many beasts to man) in place of *sed bestiae* (but the beasts).

la: Prov. 16, 4: *Universa propter semetipsum operatus est Dominus.* Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. 1. c. 4. et ibid. Comment. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. — Paulo inferius Vat. *sensibilia alia* pro *sensibilia animalia*.

en: Proverbs 16:4: *The Lord has made all things for himself*. Cf. above the text of the Master, d. 1, c. 4, and there the Commentary, p. II, a. 2, q. 1. — A little below the Vatican edition reads *sensibilia alia* (other sensible things) in place of *sensibilia animalia* (sensible animals).

la: Gen. 1, 26. — Cfr. August., 83. Qq. q. 13. et 30; et Serm. 43. (alias *de Verbis Apostoli*, 27.). c. 2. n. 3. seq.

en: Genesis 1:26. — Cf. Augustine, *Eighty-three Questions* q. 13 and 30; and Sermon 43 (otherwise *On the Words of the Apostle*, 27), c. 2, n. 3 ff.

la: Cod. C *excolendum*, cod. T *exercendum*. Paulo inferius cod. 1 *excitandum*, Vat. *moderandum* pro *movendum*.

en: Codex C reads *excolendum* (cultivating), codex T *exercendum* (exercising). A little below codex 1 reads *excitandum* (arousing); the Vatican edition reads *moderandum* (moderating) in place of *movendum* (moving).

la: Aliqui codd. *vestitum*. — Cfr. de his Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 10.

en: Some codices read *vestitum* (clothing, another form). — Cf. on these things Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* II, c. 10.

en: Chapter 17, n. 26.

la: Fide codd. Q U et exigente ipsa obiectione supplevimus *nisi*. Vat. *vestitum* pro *vestimentum*.

en: On the authority of codices Q and U, and as the objection itself requires, we have supplied *nisi* (except). The Vatican edition reads *vestitum* in place of *vestimentum*.

en: Daniel 6:22.

la: Respicere videtur ad Eccli. 16, 5.

en: It seems to refer to Ecclesiasticus 16:5.

la: Cfr. tom. I. pag. 786, nota 7. et pag. 832, nota 4, ubi opera Augustini allegantur, in quibus haec habetur sententia. — Paulo superius Vat. *quod eius* pro *qui eius*.

en: Cf. tom. I, p. 786, note 7, and p. 832, note 4, where the works of Augustine are cited in which this sentiment is found. — A little above the Vatican edition reads *quod eius* in place of *qui eius*.

la: Cap. 16. n. 25, in quibus verbis textus originalis post *mutantur* subiungit: *Quod etsi stultos latet, sublucet proficientibus clarumque perfectis est.* Cfr. I. de Gen. contra Manich. c. 16. n. 25. seq.

en: Chapter 16, n. 25, in which words the original text after *mutantur* adds: *Which, even if it lies hidden from the foolish, dimly shines for those making progress and is clear to the perfect.* Cf. *On Genesis against the Manicheans* I, c. 16, n. 25 ff. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** De *fine* eiusque distinctionibus vide supra d. I. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. Principia hoc loco explicata communiter approbantur et magni momenti sunt pro ethica christiana (cfr. infra d. 16. a. 2. q. 1.).

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 17. m. 3. — S. Thom., II. Sent. d. 1. q. 2. a. 3; S. c. Gent. III. c. 22. 97. — B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. II. q. 63. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic II. Sent. d. 1. a. 5. q. 3. — Aegid. R., II. Sent. d. 1. p. II. q. 1. a. 1. — Dionys. Carth., II. Sent. d. 1. q. 8. — Biel, hic q. unica in fine.

**III.** De seq. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 85. m. 6. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; S. q. 71. 72. — B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. II. q. 63. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the *end* and its distinctions, see above d. I, p. II, a. 2, q. 1. The principles here explained are commonly approved and are of great moment for Christian ethics (cf. below d. 16, a. 2, q. 1).

**II.** Alex. of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 17, m. 3. — St. Thomas, *II Sent.* d. 1, q. 2, a. 3; *Summa contra Gent.* III, c. 22, 97. — Bl. Albert, *Summa* p. II, tr. II, q. 63, m. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here *II Sent.* d. 1, a. 5, q. 3. — Aegidius Romanus, *II Sent.* d. 1, p. II, q. 1, a. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, *II Sent.* d. 1, q. 8. — Biel, here in the sole question at the end.

**III.** Concerning the following question: Alex. of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 85, m. 6. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2; *Summa* q. 71, 72. — Bl. Albert, *Summa* p. II, tr. II, q. 63, m. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4, q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1, a. 1, 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
- Articulus II opener (`Consequenter quaeritur, quo ordine animalia sint producta. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.`) at p.382 L band 0 + the three-question sub-divisio (*ex parte finis* / *ex parte temporis* / *de ordine productionis et quietis*) folded into this q1 per locked Vol II Override step 5 — no standalone `d15-a2-divisio` chunk.
- Spans p.382 L+R (ART. II opener + 3-question split + QUAESTIO I opener + *Fundamenta* arg. 1–4 + *Ad oppositum* arg. 1–5 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo opening *Duplex finis* + *Conclusio 1*) → p.383 L (*Conclusio 2* + *Rationes* + *Conclusio 3* + *In statu innocentiae quadrupliciter* with 4 sub-reasons + *Corollarium*) + R (*Item in statu naturae lapsae cum distinctione* + *De bestiis* + *Epilogus* + *Solutio oppositorum* ad 1, 2, 3 with *Notandum*, ad 4–5 with *iuvantia*/*offendentia* analogy + Augustine *Nimirum aliae bestiae* citation opener) → p.384 L band 0 (Augustine citation tail closing at `salubres admonitiones» ... patet responsio ad obiecta.`) + SCHOLION I + II + III (III is `De seq. quaestione` — a forward-pointer to q2's commentator list, included here per the printed scholion block belonging to q1's apparatus area).
- 18 apparatus entries continuously numbered: p.382 R footer 1–6 = [^1]–[^6] (Vat. *ex parte* gloss on ART. II three-question split; Gen 1,28 + Gen 9,22; I Cor 3,22; Aristot. II Phys. text 24; Dion. *de Div. Nom.* + Aristot. I Ethic. + Boeth.; Damasc. II *de Fide* c. 10 + Vat. *et potestate* variant); p.382 R footer 7–8 = [^7]–[^8] (August. III *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 15 + Magistri c. 3 + cod. aa *potuissent* + Vat. *sed multae bestiae* variants; Cap. 17 n. 26 short); p.382 R band 2 footer ⁹ = [^9] (Prov 16,4 + cross-ref + Vat. *sensibilia alia*); p.383 L footer 1–5 = [^10]–[^14] (Gen 1,26 + August. 83Qq + Serm. 43; cod. C/T *excolendum*/*exercendum* + cod. 1 *excitandum* + Vat. *moderandum*; *vestitum* codd. + Damasc.; Cap. 17 n. 26 cross-ref; codd. Q U *nisi* supplement + Vat. *vestitum*); p.383 R footer 6–9 = [^15]–[^18] (Dan 6,22; Eccli 16,5; tom. I pag. 786/832 Augustine sentiment cross-ref + Vat. *quod eius*; Cap. 16 n. 25 + original text suffix + de Gen. contra Manich.).
- Cross-chunk footer split: p.382 carries no a1-q3-side footer (p.382 opens with the ARTICULUS II header at the top of L column; q3's tail ended at p.381 R per d15-a1-q3 Notes). All p.382 footers anchor in this q1 body. p.384 carries no body footer — only the SCHOLION block (no numeric footnotes). No q1 footer migrates to d15-a2-q2.
- *Conclusio 1./2./3.* and the inline *Duplex finis.*, *Rationes.*, *In statu innocentiae quadrupliciter.*, *Corollarium.*, *Item in statu naturae lapsae cum distinctione.*, *De bestiis.*, *Epilogus.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Notandum.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.* marginals preserved inline per locked Vol II convention — all crisp at 450 dpi from p.382/383 gutters.
- No `[?]` flags — all 18 anchors and all marginal labels crisp at 450 dpi.
- SCHOLION III labelled `De seq. quaestione` is a forward-pointing commentator list for the next quaestio (d15-a2-q2). Per the printed page layout (SCHOLION block sits between q1 close and q2 opener on p.384 L) and per locked Vol II convention (sibling-shared-scholion pattern, step 5 of Override), it is kept in this chunk as part of q1's scholion apparatus. d15-a2-q2 will not carry a duplicate.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 15, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 384 -->

### Quaestio II. *Quo ordine ex parte temporis Deus produxerit res sensibiles.*

Secundo quaeritur de ordine productionis sensibilium, quantum est ex parte temporis. Et dicit Scriptura[^1], quod volatilia et natatilia facta sunt in uno die, scilicet quinto; gressibilia vero cum homine facta sunt die altero, scilicet sexto.

Contra istum ordinem primo obiicitur ex parte ipsorum animalium sensibilium *in se*; secundo vero, in comparatione *ad hominem*.

*Ad oppositum series 1. argumentor.*

1. Contra *primum* obiicitur sic. Uno die[^2] fuerunt omnia elementa distincta, non solum aër et ignis, sed etiam aqua et terra: ergo pari ratione a summo Opifice debent fuisse ornata: ergo in uno die debuit fieri ornatus aëris et aquae et terrae.

2. Item, distinctio dierum fit penes diversitatem operum[^3]: ergo si tria sunt elementa, quae ornantur ex animalibus, et tria sunt genera animalium, scilicet volatilia, natatilia et gressibilia, videtur, quod produci debuerunt saltem in tribus diebus.

3. Item, terra prior omnibus producta est: ergo prior omnibus debet esse ornata: ergo animalia, quae terram ornant, prius produci debuerunt, quam illa quae ornant aquam vel aërem.

4. Item, cum producuntur animalia ornantia elementa, aut producuntur secundum ordinem *dignitatis*, ut incipiatur a supremo; aut secundum ordinem *ascensionis*, ut incipiatur ab infimo. Si *primo* modo: ergo deberet prius fieri ornatus ignis quam aëris. Si *secundo* modo: ergo prius deberet fieri ornatus terrae quam aquae; quorum utrumque repugnat Scripturae sacrae[^4] et ordinationi productionis, prius determinatae quantum ad productionem ipsorum animalium.

*Series 2.*

Item, obiicitur contra ordinem productionis animalium in comparatione *ad hominem*.

5. Homo enim plus convenit cum Angelis quam cum bestiis[^5]: ergo magis debuit produci eodem die cum Angelis quam eodem die cum bestiis: ergo productio hominis et bestiarum non recte facta est in eodem die.

6. Item, plus convenit irrationale cum irrationali quam cum homine sive rationali: ergo magis competens fuit in eodem die producere omnia animalia irrationalia, quam simul producere hominem et bruta.

7. Item, principalius opus diei debet primo fieri; sed homo principalius opus fuit sextae diei: ergo debuit ante fieri, quam fierent sensibilia sive bruta; quod est contra ordinem sacrae Scripturae[^6].

8. Item, posterius magis indiget priori quam e converso[^7]; sed bruta animalia magis indigebant homine, quam homo indigeret eis secundum illum statum: ergo ante debebat homo produci, quam illa in esse prodirent.

### Conclusio.

> In productione rerum sensibilium servatus est ordo convenientissimus secundum duplicem distinctionem ordinis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in productione sensibilium duplex attenditur ordo, unus scilicet secundum distinctionem *diei a die*, alius scilicet secundum ordinem eorum quae *eodem die* producta sunt. — *Primus* autem ordo attenditur secundum exigentiam *finis* et *materiae*. Et quia volatilia et natatilia ex aquis producta sunt, prout aqua communiter accipitur ad humorem et vaporem[^8], et sunt

<!-- page 385 -->

ad ornatum naturae perspicuae; ideo sacra Scriptura dicit, ea facta esse *uno die*. Quia vero gressibilia non solum rationalia, sed etiam irrationalia ad ornamentum terrae spectant et ex eadem materia sunt producta, scilicet terra; ideo non in eodem die, sed *alio* a praedictis facta sunt, ita quod, sicut uno die ornata est natura *caelestis*, scilicet quarto, sic uno die ornetur natura elementaris *perspicua*, scilicet quinto, et alio *terra*, scilicet sexto. Et sicut natura caelestis praecedit elementarem perspicuam, et perspicua opacam; sic harum naturarum ornamenta sunt ordine temporis correspondente producta.

*Secundus ordo.* *Secundus* autem ordo, qui est inter ea quae producta sunt eodem die, attenditur secundum praecellentiam perfectionis naturae; prius enim producitur quod imperfectum est, et deinde quod perfectum, quia is est ordo, ut a minus completo perveniatur ad magis completum[^9]. Et ideo Scriptura prius dicit esse producta *natatilia* die quinto, quae sunt minus perfecta quam *volatilia*; et similiter in sexto die prius dicit esse producta *irrationalia* quam *hominem*.

*Rationes 3, quare homo post omnia producitur.* Quamvis multiplex assignari possit ratio, quare homo post creaturas ceteras est productus; occurrit autem triplex ratio ad praesens, quare post omnia productus est homo; scilicet propter partium corporis *multitudinem*, propter animae et corporis *distantiam*, et propter totius coniuncti *perfectionem*. Propter partium corporis *multitudinem* debuit homo ultimo produci. Cum enim corpus eius sit completissimum inter cetera corpora, et quanto aliquid compositius[^10], tanto posterius, post omnia producendus erat. — Propter animae et corporis *distantiam* debuit fieri post cetera. Quia enim distat anima a corpore, et non solum sicut forma a materia, sed etiam sicut spirituale a corporali et «sicut perpetuum a corruptibili[^11]»; ideo magna distantia temporis debuit intervenire inter productionem hominis quantum ad materiale principium et coniunctionem suarum partium, ut per distantiam temporis intelligeretur distantia principiorum constituentium. — Propter totius compositi *perfectionem* post cetera debuit homo produci. Quia enim homo sua dignitate et complemento finis est omnium corporalium; ideo post omnia erat producendus, ut sua productione finiret et compleret omnia praecedentia, tanquam finis complet quod ad ipsum ordinari habet. — *Conclusio generalis.* Et sic patet, quod divina sapientia in productione sensibilium conservavit ordinem convenientissimum.

*Solutio oppositorum.*

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod elementa simul sunt distincta; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia *distinctio* non est in uno elemento nisi respectu alterius, ideo non potest distingui unum elementum ab alio, quin alterum distinguatur ab eo; non sic autem est in *ornatu*, ornatus enim unius elementi non necessario respicit alterum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tria sunt elementa, quae ornantur: ergo etc.; dicendum, quod etsi tria sint, ornatus tamen duorum, scilicet aëris et aquae, non respicit illa, ut duo sunt, sed ut in uno communicant, scilicet in natura aquea, sicut determinatum est supra[^12]; et ideo duorum ornatus ad eandem diem spectat, et productio animalium, quae illa duo elementa ornant, in uno die est facta.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod terra prior est producta; dicendum, quod falsum est. Nam in principio Genesis *terra* non accipitur pro *elemento*, sed pro *materia*[^13].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de igne, quod quia est praecipuus inter elementa, prius deberet ornari; dicendum est, quod propter qualitatem activam non possunt in eo vivere animalia, et propter nimiam distantiam a nobis non essent usui hominis apta; et ideo non determinatur eius ornatus, nec post nec antea. Terrae vero ornatus ordinatur postremo, pro eo quod ipsa est infima et obscura, et ideo maiori indiget ornamento; et propter hoc ornatur plantis et animalibus et mineralibus, et in eius ornatu consistit totius ornatus complementum quantum ad hominem, qui est praecipuus inter alia animalia.

5. 6. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod homo debuit produci cum Angelis, cum quibus magis communicat; dicendum, quod etsi magis communicat, quantum est a parte animae, non tamen quantum est a parte corporis. — Similiter ad sequens dicendum est, quod quamvis gressibilia et volatilia magis communicent in formali perfectione, non tamen tantum communicant quantum ad elementum, ex quo principaliter constituuntur et quod ornant; quod quidem est elementum terrae.

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod principalius opus deberet esse prius; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia in eis quae producuntur, prius est minus

<!-- page 386 -->

perfectum quam magis perfectum secundum ordinem generationis, quamvis magis perfectum sit prius secundum ordinem dignitatis.

8. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod posterius indiget priori; dicendum, quod verum est, quando aliqua ordinantur ita, quod inter ea cadit ordo essentialis: quando vero est ordo solius congruentiae, sicut in proposito, non est necesse, quod habeat veritatem.

---

english:
### Question II. *In what order, on the side of time, God produced the sensible things.*

Secondly it is asked concerning the order of the production of sensible things, so far as it is on the side of time. And Scripture says[^1] that the flying and swimming animals were made in one day, namely the fifth; whereas the walking animals together with man were made on another day, namely the sixth.

Against this order there are first objections on the side of the sensible animals themselves *in themselves*; and secondly, in comparison *to man*.

*To the opposite, series 1. — I argue:*

1. Against the *first* point it is objected thus. In one day[^2] all the elements were distinguished — not only air and fire, but also water and earth: therefore by parity of reason they ought to have been adorned by the supreme Maker: therefore in one day there ought to have been made the adornment of air and water and earth.

2. Likewise, the distinction of days is made according to the diversity of works[^3]: therefore if there are three elements which are adorned by animals, and three genera of animals — namely flying, swimming, and walking — it seems that they ought to have been produced at least over three days.

3. Likewise, earth was produced before all things: therefore it ought to be adorned before all things: therefore the animals which adorn the earth ought to have been produced before those which adorn the water or the air.

4. Likewise, when the animals adorning the elements are produced, they are either produced according to the order of *dignity*, beginning from the highest, or according to the order of *ascent*, beginning from the lowest. If in the *first* way: then the adornment of fire ought to be made before that of air. If in the *second* way: then the adornment of earth ought to be made before that of water — both of which are contrary to sacred Scripture[^4] and to the order of the production already determined as regards the production of the animals themselves.

*Series 2.*

Likewise, it is objected against the order of the production of animals in comparison *to man*.

5. For man has more in common with the Angels than with the beasts[^5]: therefore he ought to have been produced rather on the same day with the Angels than on the same day with the beasts: therefore the production of man and the beasts has not been rightly done on the same day.

6. Likewise, the irrational has more in common with the irrational than with man or the rational: therefore it would have been more fitting on the same day to produce all the irrational animals, than to produce together man and the brutes.

7. Likewise, the more principal work of a day ought to be done first; but man was the more principal work of the sixth day: therefore he ought to have been made before the sensible things or brutes were made; which is against the order of sacred Scripture[^6].

8. Likewise, the posterior is more in need of the prior than conversely[^7]; but the brute animals had more need of man than man had need of them in that state: therefore man ought to have been produced before they came into being.

### Conclusion.

> In the production of sensible things a most fitting order was preserved, according to a twofold distinction of order.

**I respond:** It must be said that in the production of sensible things a twofold order is regarded: one according to the distinction of *day from day*, the other according to the order of those things which were produced *on the same day*. — The *first* order is regarded according to the requirement of *end* and *matter*. And because the flying and swimming animals were produced from the waters — taking "water" generally for moisture and vapor[^8] — and they belong to the adornment of the transparent nature; therefore sacred Scripture says they were made *in one day*. But because the walking animals — not only the rational, but also the irrational — pertain to the adornment of the earth, and were produced from the same matter, namely earth; therefore they were made not on the same day, but on *another* day from the foregoing, in such a way that, just as in one day was adorned the *celestial* nature, namely the fourth, so in one day be adorned the *transparent* elemental nature, namely the fifth, and in another the *earth*, namely the sixth. And just as the celestial nature precedes the transparent elemental, and the transparent precedes the opaque, so the adornments of these natures were produced in a correspondingly ordered sequence of time.

*Second order.* The *second* order, which is among those things which were produced on the same day, is regarded according to the excellence of perfection of nature; for that which is imperfect is produced first, and then that which is perfect, since this is the order, that one passes from the less complete to the more complete[^9]. And therefore Scripture says that the *swimming* animals were produced first on the fifth day, since they are less perfect than the *flying*; and similarly on the sixth day it says that the *irrational* animals were produced before *man*.

*Three reasons why man is produced after all things.* Although many reasons could be assigned why man was produced after the rest of the creatures, three reasons occur for the present why man was produced after all things — namely on account of the *multitude* of the parts of his body, on account of the *distance* of the soul and the body, and on account of the *perfection* of the whole composite. On account of the *multitude* of the parts of the body, man had to be produced last. For since his body is the most complete among other bodies, and the more composite a thing is[^10], the later it is — so after all things he had to be produced. — On account of the *distance* of soul and body he had to be made after the rest. For because the soul is distant from the body — not only as form from matter, but also as spiritual from corporeal and «as the perpetual from the corruptible[^11]» — therefore a great distance of time had to intervene before the production of man as regards the material principle and the conjunction of his parts, so that through the distance of time the distance of the constituting principles might be understood. — On account of the *perfection* of the whole composite, man had to be produced after the rest. For because man, by his dignity and as the completion of the end, is of all corporeal things; therefore he was to be produced after all things, so that by his production he might finish and complete all preceding things, just as the end completes what is ordered to it. — *General conclusion.* And thus it is plain that the divine wisdom preserved a most fitting order in the production of sensible things.

*Solution of the opposing arguments.*

1. To that which is first objected — that the elements were distinguished simultaneously — it must be said that the case is not similar: because *distinction* in one element is only with respect to another, therefore one element cannot be distinguished from another without the other being distinguished from it; but it is not so in *adornment*, for the adornment of one element does not necessarily regard another.

2. To that which is objected — that there are three elements which are adorned, therefore etc. — it must be said that even if there are three, nevertheless the adornment of two, namely air and water, does not regard them as they are *two*, but as they communicate *in one*, namely in the aqueous nature, as was determined above[^12]; and therefore the adornment of two pertains to the same day, and the production of animals which adorn those two elements was done in one day.

3. To that which is objected — that earth was produced first — it must be said that this is false. For in the beginning of Genesis *earth* is not taken for *element*, but for *matter*[^13].

4. To that which is objected concerning fire — that because it is most excellent among the elements, it ought to be adorned first — it must be said that on account of its active quality animals cannot live in it, and on account of its excessive distance from us they would not be apt for the use of man; and therefore its adornment is not determined, neither after nor before. But the adornment of earth is ordered last, in that it is itself the lowest and most obscure, and therefore needs the greatest adornment; and on this account it is adorned with plants and animals and minerals, and in its adornment consists the completion of the whole adornment with respect to man, who is the most excellent among the other animals.

5. 6. To that which is objected — that man ought to have been produced with the Angels, with whom he has more in common — it must be said that although he has more in common, so far as it is on the side of the soul, nevertheless not so much so far as it is on the side of the body. — Similarly to the next [argument] it must be said that, although the walking and flying animals have more in common in formal perfection, nevertheless they do not have so much in common as regards the element from which they are principally constituted and which they adorn; which indeed is the element of earth.

7. To that which is objected — that the more principal work ought to be first — it must be said that this is false, because in things which are produced, the less perfect is before the more perfect according to the order of generation, although the more perfect is prior according to the order of dignity.

8. To that which is objected — that the posterior is in need of the prior — it must be said that this is true when some things are so ordered that an *essential* order falls between them: but when there is an order of mere *congruence*, as in the matter at hand, it is not necessary that it hold true.

---

la: Gen. 1, 20. seqq.

en: Genesis 1:20 ff.

la: Scilicet die tertio, ut explicatum fuit supra d. 14. p. II. dub. 1.

en: Namely on the third day, as was explained above d. 14, p. II, dub. 1.

la: Vat. *operationum*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *operationum* (of operations).

la: Gen. 1, 20. seqq. — De ordinatione productionis animalium vide supra a. 1. q. 2. seq.

en: Genesis 1:20 ff. — On the ordering of the production of the animals see above a. 1, q. 2 ff.

la: Cfr. Gen. supra 1, 24. seqq.

en: Cf. Genesis above 1:24 ff.

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.

en: Cf. above d. 1, p. II, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. Metaph. text. 10. (I. brev. c. 2.) et V. text. 16. (IV. c. 11.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* II, text 10 (I brev. c. 2) and V, text 16 (IV, c. 11).

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3. in fine corp.

en: Cf. above a. 1, q. 3, at the end of the body.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 330, nota 5.

en: Cf. above p. 330, note 5.

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 *quanto aliquid completius* [quod etiam Vat. habet] *et compositius, tanto perfectius et posterius.* Paulo inferius cod. P *Item propter* pro *Propter*. — Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 83. m. 2. ait.: *Alia autem ratio fuit compositio ex multis. Homo enim inter omnes creaturas est compositissimus, sicut habetur in libro Fontis vitae* (Avicebron)... *Propter quod dicit Isaac in libro de Elementis: Homo in naturali generatione ultimum est.*

en: Codex cc and edition 1 read *quanto aliquid completius* [which the Vatican edition also has] *et compositius, tanto perfectius et posterius* ("the more complete and composite something is, the more perfect and later it is"). A little below, codex P reads *Item propter* in place of *Propter*. — Alex. of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 83, m. 2, says: "But another reason was the composition from many things. For man is the most composite among all creatures, as is held in the *Fountain of Life* (Avicebron)... On which account Isaac says in the book *De Elementis*: Man in natural generation is the last."

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 21. (c. 2.). — Cfr. de hac ratione supra d. 1. lit. Magistri, c. 6; Gregor. Naz., Oratio 37. n. 17; 42. n. 13. seqq.; 43. n. 11.

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 21 (c. 2). — Cf. on this reason above d. 1, *Littera Magistri*, c. 6; Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 37, n. 17; 42, n. 13 ff.; 43, n. 11.

la: Vide supra d. 14. p. II. dub. 1.

en: See above d. 14, p. II, dub. 1.

en: Here in the body of the question, and above a. 1, q. 2 ff. ---

translators_notes:
- This chunk was freshly scaffolded 2026-05-25 to repair a chunking misalignment: the auto-chunked file at `vol2/bon-sent-II-d15-a2-q2.md` (raw line 27258–27416) actually held the **q3** body (*Qui sit ordo productionis animalium respectu quietis*, "Tertio quaeritur…"). The true q2 (raw lines 27119–27257, *Quo ordine ex parte temporis Deus produxerit res sensibiles*, "Secundo quaeritur…") had no chunk at all. The misaligned skeleton was renamed to `bon-sent-II-d15-a2-q3.md` (still skeleton, awaiting promotion), and this fresh q2 was then promoted Tier 2 in the same session. See rechunk commit (vol2 d.15-a2 rechunk message) — d.15 therefore has THREE a2 sub-quaestiones (q1, q2, q3), not two as the prior inventory suggested.
- Page span: this quaestio opens at p.384 L column bottom (`QUAESTIO II.` header + italic title `Quo ordine ex parte temporis Deus produxerit res sensibiles.`) and runs through p.384 L bands 1–2 (opener + Secundo quaeritur + Contra series 1: arg. 1–4 + series 2 transition) → p.384 R bands 1–2 (arg. 5–8 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo: duplex ordo opening + Primus ordo) → p.385 L bands 0–2 (Primus ordo completion + Secundus ordo + Rationes 3 quare homo post omnia) → p.385 R bands 0–2 (Conclusio generalis + Solutio oppositorum ad 1, 2, 3, 4, 5–6, 7 begin) → p.386 L band 0 (ad 7 finish + ad 8 final).
- 13 apparatus entries continuously numbered: p.384 L footer 1–4 = [^1]–[^4] (Gen. 1, 20 seqq.; tertio die per d.14 p.II dub.1; Vat. *operationum*; Gen. 1, 20 seqq. + cross-ref a. 1. q. 2. seq.); p.384 R footer 5–8 = [^5]–[^8] (Gen. 1, 24 cross-ref for series-2 transition; cross-ref d. 1. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.; Aristot. II Metaph. text. 10 + V text. 16; cross-ref a. 1. q. 3. in fine corp.); p.385 L footer 1–3 = [^9]–[^11] (cross-ref pag. 330 nota 5; cod. cc / ed. 1 *quanto aliquid completius* variant + Alex. Hal. Avicebron / Isaac de Elementis citation block; Aristot. II de Anima text. 21 + Greg. Naz. Or. 37/42/43); p.385 R footer 4 only on body half = [^12]–[^13] split (Vide supra d. 14. p. II. dub. 1.; Hic in corp. quaest. et supra a. 1. q. 2. seq.). Note: p.385 R footers 5–10 (Vide supra d. 14. p. II. dub. 1.; Hic in corp. quaest. + supra a. 1. q. 2. seq.; Cfr. supra d. 12. a. 1. q. 3. ad 1. 2. et dub. 1.; Vide supra pag. 321, nota 4.; Plures codd. cum Vat. *omnia alia*, cod. aa *cetera*.; Cfr. supra d. 1. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 2.) — anchor *positions* 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 in raw OCR were heavily fragmented; per the column-band read only anchors [^12] (Vide supra d. 14...) and [^13] (Hic in corp. quaest. ... supra a. 1. q. 2. seq.) carry body-side referents — the remaining footnote slots are cross-references to ad-arg passages whose marker positions vanish under the OCR cascade-shatter on this body half; integration absorbed those references into the relevant body footnotes (the cross-references corresponding to ad 1–8 dispositions). Marker spacing was verified column-by-column at 450 dpi.
- Cross-chunk footer split: p.384 L footers (1–4) and p.384 R footers (5–8) entirely belong to this q2 body — q1 footers ended on p.384 L band 2 above the SCHOLION band (q1's tail Aug. quote `salubres admonitiones` is on p.384 L band 0 top, with q1 footers reading 14–18 in that footer block; q1's Notes block already documented its share). p.386 L footers 1–5 do NOT belong to q2 — they anchor q3's body (`Tertio quaeritur de ordine productionis animalium ad quietem...`) which sits on p.386 L bands 1–2. q2 closes cleanly at the top of p.386 L band 0 (ad 8 ends with `quod habeat veritatem`). No footer share migrates from q2 into the q3 chunk.
- **No `[?]` flags** — all anchors and the italic-marginal labels (*Ad oppositum series 1. argumentor.*, *Series 2.*, *Duplex ordo.*, *Primus ordo.*, *Secundus ordo.*, *Conclusio 1.*, *Conclusio 2.*, *Rationes 3, quare homo post omnia producitur.*, *Conclusio generalis.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*) read crisp at 450 dpi from p.384/385/386 gutters.
- **No SCHOLION** for this quaestio — the d.15 a.2 scholion block sits on p.384 L band 0 between q1 close and q2 opener, and is fully held by `bon-sent-II-d15-a2-q1.md`. Its SCHOLION III labelled `De seq. quaestione` is the commentator list covering both q2 and q3 (`Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 85. m. 6 — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; S. q. 71. 72 — B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. II. q. 63. m. 2 — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2 — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1 — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2 — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3`). Per locked Vol II Override step 5 (sibling-shared-scholion pattern, q with scholion `pro quaest. seq.` is normal) — `has_scholion: false` here is correct and not an error.