Dist. 15, Art. 1, Q. 2
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/15/q/bon-sent-II-d15-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether the bodies of animals are composed of the four elements.*

In the second place it is asked whether the bodies of animals are composed of the four elements, or of one only. And that they are of one only, it seems:

*To the opposite.*

1. *First* through Scripture, which says: *Let the waters bring forth the creeping thing*, etc.; and likewise: *Let the earth bring forth the living soul.* If therefore Scripture sufficiently expresses the matter of animals, since it expresses nothing but the simple elements, the point is plain, etc.

2. Likewise, form ought to be proportioned to matter; therefore also the body to the soul; but the form of animals is simple: therefore their bodies also ought to be simple: therefore they are not of the four elements: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the more anything approaches the nature of composition, the less perfect it is; for what is simpler is more potent and more perfect. If therefore the sensitive soul is a very potent and noble form: therefore it ought to be the perfection of a simple body, not one mixed of the four elements.

4. Likewise, the bodies pertaining to the adornment of the heavens are not made of a nature other than the heavens which they adorn: therefore by parallel reason, if certain animals adorn the earth, and others the waters, some are from earth alone, and some from water alone.

5. Likewise, if the bodies of animals consist of the four elements, then it seems, since the elements have distinct spheres, that the elements constituting the body of an animal are joined into one by violence: if therefore violence is against nature, the constitution of the body of every animal is against nature; which is unfitting.

6. Likewise, animals were then produced from the same things from which they are now produced; but now the elements cannot be brought together by the power of nature: therefore the bodies of animals cannot be produced from the four elements. The major proposition is manifest of itself; the minor is proved, because it is not in the power of nature to make fire descend; for if it should descend, since the intermediate interstice of air is the coldest, it would necessarily there be extinguished, and many other unfitting consequences would follow: therefore etc.

*To the opposite it is argued thus.*

*Fundamenta.*

1. Sense is the operation of the soul in the body according to the conformity of the organ to the object; but every animal has touch, which perceives the four qualities, which are rooted in the four elements: therefore every animal is constituted of the four elements.

2. Likewise, every animal is mobile with some motion, as of *progression*, or of *contraction*, or of *expansion*; but no element of itself is mobile in this way: therefore it is necessary that an animal consist of several elements.

3. Likewise, the more spiritual the form, the more it is a principle of multiple operations; but the sensitive soul is a very spiritual form: therefore it is the principle of multiple operation. But the body is given

to be its servant: therefore it is necessary that the body be apt and suitable for diverse operations; but it is not apt for diverse *operations* except through diverse *powers*, nor for diverse *powers* except through diverse *natures*, nor does it have diverse *natures* except because it is composed of diverse things: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the later and further the form, the more noble, because the earlier are material in respect of the later: therefore the form of a mixed body is nobler than the form of an element. If therefore the sensitive soul, since it is a noble form, ought to have a noble body, therefore the body of an animal is not only not a simple body, but consists of diverse elements.

### Conclusion.

> The bodies of animals have in themselves the nature of the four elements.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt the bodies of animals have in themselves the nature of the four elements, as has been shown by four reasons, *Conclusio.* both because of this, that they should be suitable for *sense*; and because of this, that they should be suitable for *motion*; and because of this, that they should be suitable for *multiplicity of operation*; and because of this, that they may have in themselves *the dignity of completion*, all of which befit that body which is perfected by the sensitive soul. *Four Reasons.* — And on account of this *Corollarium.* it ought to have some *perfect degree of mixture*, where there is not only *mixture* but also *complexion*; and there is no perfect mixture until the four elements concur. For *water*, since it is more subtle than earth in tenfold proportion, penetrates the parts of earth; but not perfectly, because it has a certain coarseness. *Air* indeed, which is more subtle in hundredfold proportion, sinks itself yet more intimately. But *fire*, which is more subtle and rarer in thousandfold proportion, by its subtlety penetrates to the innermost parts, and thus there is a full alteration down to the smallest parts and a *perfect mixture*, because the things to be mixed are perfectly altered. — And thus it is plain that the bodies to be perfected by the sensitive soul must be composed in this way.

*Solution of the opposites.*

1. To that which is objected from the authority of Genesis, it must be said that this was said by a certain predominance or appropriation, as will appear more clearly below.

2. To that which is objected, that form ought to be proportioned to matter; it must be said that this is true in those conditions which befit the form itself more properly. But the soul, since it is simple in substance, is multiple in power; and therefore it does not befit that the body be assimilated to it in simplicity, because corporeal simplicity is repugnant to multiplicity of power.

3. And through this is plain the solution to that which is objected in the third place, that the more composite anything is, the less perfect. *Notandum.* For although this has truth in *spirits*, whose perfection is attended to by access to the highest simple; nevertheless it does not have truth in *bodies*, in which power is both *magnified* by the magnitude of parts, as a great fire burns more than a small one; and is *multiplied* by the multiplication of parts, as a compound syrup is of greater power than an unmixed liquor. And therefore man, who is the most perfect among the rest of the animals, is among the rest the most composite, as will be seen more plainly below.

4. To that which is objected concerning the bodies adorning heaven, it must be said that it is not similar, because those are neither moved by their own *motions* nor perfected by spiritual *forms*, to which would be owed a multiplicity of operations, or a diversity of component parts and organs, as is posited in animals.

5. To that which is objected, that there is a violence of the elements; it must be said that it is not to be understood that the Lord at the beginning, when he composed the bodies of animals, caused the elements to run together from diverse spheres; for this was not necessary, both because both water and earth are not pure elements, but mixed with others according to that part from which animals were made out of them; and also because, if they were pure and simple, in one element the rest are in potency, and from one all things can be made, if an altering and active power be present, without any local motion, and on this account without any violence.

6. And through this is plain the answer to the last point, because likewise, when the commixture of elements takes place, nature does not make the fire, which is above, descend, nor the air; but that fire or air which is either in earth, or is generated through the action of some agent, it brings to the constitution of the animal. And this indeed happens through nature, not through violence. « For since nature, according to what the Philosopher says, always desires what is better », matter, which is under the elemental form, desires to be under the form of the mixed, and that which is under the form of mixture desires to be under the form of complexion; therefore when from diverse elements a mixture into one is made, the appetite of nature is completed, and no violence is inflicted.

### Scholion.

**I.** Other ancient authors treat this and the following (3rd) question in a single treatment under diverse titles, except Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla; but all agree as to the conclusions themselves.

But if it is asked concerning the *mode* in which the elements remain in animate bodies, then there arises the celebrated controversy concerning the *plurality* of forms in mixtures, of which above, d. 13, a. 2, q. 2, in the scholion we made mention. This controversy is explicitly treated by Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 1, q. 1), who inscribes the question: « Whether the bodies of animals are so composed of the four elements that the essences of the elemental forms truly remain there incompletely ». Likewise Scotus (in both of his Writings, here q. unica) asks: « Whether in the body of an animal, or in any mixed body, the elements remain according to substance in act ». Richard reports the affirmative and negative opinions with their grounds and the solutions of opposing arguments, without determining anything. But Scotus (ibid. n. 5) responds negatively thus: « The elements do not remain in the mixed body according to substance whether remitted, as the Commentator says, or unremitted, as Avicenna holds ». Then (n. 6, 7) he adds: « The four elements remain in one mixed body *virtually*, since it has a substantial form containing *in power* the forms of the elements, not however according to substance as parts of itself ». These words sufficiently agree with the doctrine of St. Thomas (S. 1, q. 76, a. 4, ad 4), who says: « The forms of the elements remain in the mixed body not in *act* but in *power*; for the *proper qualities* of the elements remain, although remitted, in which is the *power* of the elemental forms. And a quality of mixture of this sort is the proper *disposition* to the substantial form of the mixed body, such as the form of stone or of anything animated ». — But B. Albert speaks otherwise, in *On Generation and Corruption*, book I, tr. 6, c. 3, 6.

St. Bonaventure, who in these two questions closely follows Alexander of Hales (S. p. II, q. 77 and q. 81, m. 1), disputing concerning the human body, does not explicitly explain the mode in which the elements remain in mixtures. But, his doctrine of incomplete forms and seminal reasons being supposed, several of his words in both questions, especially in fundamentum 3 of question 2, favor the affirmative opinion, as has been said above in the cited scholion. Concerning the composition of the *human* body it is disputed below in d. 17, a. 2, q. 1, 2, 3, where especially in q. 2 the solution to obj. 6 is to be noted. Peter of Tarentaise (here q. 1, a. 2) also treats explicitly of the 2nd question, but says nothing of this controversy.

**II.** Other authors treat principally of the 3rd question. — Besides those already cited: St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1; (as concerns the human body) S. 1, q. 91, a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1, a. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2. — Biel, here q. unica.

---