Dist. 12, Dubia
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/2/d/12/q/bon-sent-II-d12-dubia
----------------------------------------
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE MASTER'S TEXT

### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first the question is asked concerning what he says, that *Moses called the matter of the four elements by the name "earth," because among all the elements earth is the least comely*. Against this it is objected — by what Hugh says: «*By "earth" I think this element of earth is signified, when it is said: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth*»: therefore it does not seem to signify that unformed matter in its generality. — Likewise, if by *earth* unformed matter is signified, since heaven and earth coincide in it, it appears that those two are not well distinguished.

*An incidental question.* Alongside this is a question, why that unformed matter is called by these three names, namely by the name *earth*, *deep*, and *water*, since there was there no more of the character of earth and water than of fire and air.

**I respond:** It must be said that, although there are many

expositions of this saying: *In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth*, yet four are the principal ones, and according to these the name of *earth* is differently expounded.

*Exposition 1.* One exposition is that *heaven* and *earth* name the same matter, namely the unformed matter of all corporeal things, yet inasmuch as out of it there were to be made two genera of bodies, namely the celestial and the elementary, so that the sense is: *In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth*, that is, the matter out of which the heaven and all the elements were to be made. And this exposition is confirmed by the following text. For thereafter is expressed how the heaven was made and how the earth was made.

*Exposition 2.* But another exposition is very far removed from this one, which by the name *heaven* wishes to be understood spiritual nature, and by the name *earth* corporeal nature, so that the sense is: *In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth*, that is, the *angelic nature* and *first matter*. And this exposition is confirmed by the following text, because on the second day the production of the *corporeal heaven* is expressed: therefore at the beginning of time, if there was any production of heaven, it was not [the production] of a corporeal heaven but of a spiritual [one].

*Exposition 3.* The third exposition, as it were midway between these two, is the exposition of Hugh, who says that by *earth* is understood the element earth, and by *heaven* the other three elements, which were spread round about over the earth in the manner of a mist and were mingled together in a single confusion, or rather were suspended round about in a single confused commingling, which were stretched out on high to where the summit of corporeal nature now reaches. And this likewise seems to be confirmed by the following text.

*Exposition 4.* The fourth exposition, which is the more common according to the expositors and the plainer, is that by *heaven* is understood the *empyrean heaven*, which is the dwelling-place of the Angels, in which the Angels were created; and by *earth* the *matter of all bodies contained within it*, whether celestial or terrestrial. This exposition accords with the following text, which expresses that out of that matter were made the celestial and elementary bodies. And if you ask why he distinguishes the two, the answer is plain: because the empyrean heaven was complete and immutable and was to be measured by aeviternity together with its contents; but that matter was incomplete and subject to mutability — both itself and the things which were to come to be out of it — and therefore it had to be measured by time. — And by this it is clear that Scripture distinguished those two very reasonably and elegantly, since in their primary condition they had diverse measures, according to which they differed from one another, or [according to which] their differences became known. And by this both of the first two objections are answered.

*To the incidental question.* To that which is asked, why it was called by these three names: it must be said that, although the Master in the text responds sufficiently to this, yet it can be said that it is intimated that the unformed matter itself by those three names has, under a threefold condition, [a relation] in comparison to form. *On the relation of matter to form.* For matter itself gives fixity to form, and on this account it is called by the name *earth*, which among the other elements has the most of stability. Also matter receives from form beauty and completion, and is of itself as it were a darkness; and therefore it is signified by the name *dark deep*. Also matter has toward form an aptitude and inclination, and so a certain fluidity, which is signified by the name *water*.

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *For darknesses are not anything*. For if *darkness is nothing*: then it is not anywhere: therefore it does not appear that they were upon the face of the deep. — Likewise, if darkness signifies nothing but the negation of the presence of corporeal light: since from eternity it was true to say that corporeal light was not from eternity, it is true to say that there was darkness; which is false. — Likewise, if darkness is nothing; and what is nothing cannot be divided from anything else: therefore darkness could not have been divided from the light, the contrary of which is held in the text of Genesis. — Likewise, if darkness is nothing; and what is nothing does not bless the Lord: therefore darknesses do not bless the Lord.

**I respond:** It must be said that *darkness* is always taken *privatively*; and since a privation leaves the constancy of some subject, darkness always presupposes something *in the oblique* [case]; for there is never darkness unless there be something which is being darkened; hence *darkness* does not signify only the non-existence of light, but together with this also adds the aptitude of an illuminable body. Therefore because darkness signifies a privation, on that account it is not

said to be made; but because it posits something in the oblique [case], on that account it is not eternal. If therefore it is said somewhere that *darkness is nothing*, this is said as regards what darkness signifies *in the direct* [case], as blindness is said to be nothing. But if it is said that *darknesses are something*, or that *they were divided*, or that *they bless the Lord*, this is said by reason of that *about which* they are. And thus the objections are answered.

*An objection.* But it could still be objected that habit naturally precedes privation: therefore if darkness signifies the privation of light, light was prior to the time when darknesses existed. Furthermore, night is a difference of time, therefore it is not a pure privation; but Scripture says that He *called the darknesses night*: therefore it appears that he speaks falsely when he says that darknesses are not anything.

*It is solved by distinguishing.* — And therefore it must be distinguished, [namely] that *darkness* can imply privation in two ways. In one way, because it simply signifies the absence of light, and in this way it does not follow light; and so [in this sense] it is nothing, formally speaking. In this sense also Scripture understands [it] when [it says] that *darknesses were upon the face of the deep*; and in this sense Augustine understands [it] when he says that *darknesses are not anything*. In another way *darkness* signifies the privation of light in one part together with the position of illumination in another, and in this way *darkness* is called *shadow*, which results from the interposition of an opaque body; and so *darkness*, although in some way it is a privation, yet is not a *pure* privation; and taking [it] in this manner, it is understood to have been divided from the light, and is signified by the name *night*, and is invited to the praise of the Creator, and follows upon the habit of light.

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what Alcuin says, that *God operates in the Word by disposing all things*; on the contrary: every operation has some effect corresponding to it: therefore if God operates all things by disposing in the Word, since that operation has been from eternity, it appears that He has produced many things from eternity. — Likewise, in a wise operator *disposition* precedes *operation*: therefore since God is wise in all His works, it appears that no operation of His ought to be called *disposition*.

**I respond:** It must be said that Alcuin needs here a pious expositor. For he speaks very improperly, when he calls the eternal *disposition* itself an *operation*; for he extends the name *operation* to every production. And since the Father, in generating and producing the Word, has disposed all things in Him, on this account in a broad but improper manner he said that [the Father] from eternity *operates* by *disposing* in the Son.

---