Dist. 44, Part 2, 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/4/d/44/q/bon-sent-IV-d44-p2-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

#### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first upon this which he says: *It must be investigated whether monsters rise again.* The question concerns monsters and giants, whether they rise again. And that they do, it seems, because nothing ought to perish of human nature. — Likewise, how could masses so great arise from the bodies of men, since they were born from Adam?

**I respond:** It must be said that monsters will not rise again, for the reason that there is no truth of nature there, but rather error; hence, if they are of gigantic size on the way, in the fatherland they will not be so.

*But if you ask:* whence did they have their origin? it must be said that, as Josephus relates, incubus demons, having assumed bodies, generate; and the demon shows to the woman with whom he has lain such a figure of a very great man; and therefore, both on account of the multiplication of the seed and on account of the animal power, a man of wondrous size was generated, and he afterwards generates others. — *If you ask:* how can a demon generate, since only «man generates man»? to this it can be answered that the demon, having first assumed

the effigy of a woman, subjects himself to a man and transfers and preserves the seed received, as he knows how by certain remedies, lest the heat and spirit evaporate. — But all this is a matter of conjecture rather than of right reasoning.

#### Doubt II.

Likewise concerning this which he says, that *far be it, that the two-membered one, whom recently* etc.; it is asked, when someone is in part two-membered, [and] in part has members united, whether he ought to rise as one, or as two — since, by the reasoning by which he ought to rise as a single one, it seems [he should rise as] two, and conversely. — Likewise, a similar case is when there is a hermaphrodite, born in both sexes; it is asked, in which he ought to rise, since by the reasoning by which he would rise in the one, [he would rise] also in the other: therefore either he will rise in neither, or in both.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning the monster which in part has two members, in part one, in part distinct, in part united, a distinction must be made: for either it has distinction in the *principal* members and union in the *non-principal* ones, or conversely. If it has distinction in the *principal* members, there are two souls there, and then two bodies will rise; but if it has unity in *those,* [and] distinction in *the others,* one body will rise.

To that which is asked concerning the hermaphrodite, it must be said that according to nature it is impossible that it be wholly indifferent, as the physicians say, although it cannot be discerned; and therefore it ought to rise in that sex which dominates by nature.

But if it be asked concerning the monster which is partly man, partly beast; it must be said that if the principal parts are those of a man, if it lived, it had a human soul, and therefore it is ordained to the resurrection, and the man will rise according to the whole.

---