S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis
S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis

St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio
Cardinal Bishop of Alba & Doctor of the Church

Commentaria in Quatuor
Libros Sententiarum

Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis

Commentaries on the Four
Books of Sentences

of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris

PROEMIUM IN LIBRUM PRIMUM
SENTENTIARUM

FOREWORD TO THE FIRST BOOK
OF THE SENTENCES

QUAESTIONES PROEMII

Quaestio IV.

QUESTIONS ON THE FOREWORD

Question 4

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 14-15.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 14-15.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO IV.

 

Quae sit causa efficiens sive auctor huius libri.

QUESTION 4

 

What is the efficient cause or author of this book?

Postremo ad maiorem evidentiam potest quaeri1 de causa efficiente. Et dicitur fuisse Magister Petrus Lombardus, Parisiense Episcopus. Sed quod non debeat dici auctor huius libri, videtur.2

Lastly for greater evidence one can ask1 concerning the efficient cause. And it is said that it was Master Peter Lombard, Bishop of Paris. But it seems that he ought not be called the author of this book.2

1. Ille solus dicendus est auctor libri, qui est doctor sive auctor doctrinae; sed, sicut dicit Augustinus in libro de Magistro:3 « Solus Christus est doctor » : ergo solus debet dici huius libri auctor.

1. He alone is to be called the author of a book, who is a teacher or author of doctrine; but, as (St.) Augustine says in the book On the Teacher:3 « Christ alone is Teacher » therefore He alone ought to be called the author of this book.

2. Item, sicut dicit Philosophus in Ethica veteri:4 « Non quicumque facit grammaticalia vel musicalia, debet dici grammaticus vel musicus, utpote si faciat casu, vel fortuna, vel alio supponente sive dicente »; sed Magister hoc opus composuit ex aliena doctrina, sicut ipse dicit in littera,5 quod « in hoc opere maiorum exempla doctrinamque reperies »: ergo non debet dici auctor.

2. Likewise, as the Philosopher says in the Old Ethics:4 « Not everyone who makes (things) grammatical or musical, ought to be called a grammarian and/or musician, as (is the case) if it happens on occasion, by fortune, and/or by another substituting or speaking »; but Master (Peter) composed this work from another's doctrine, as he himself says in (his) text,5 that « in this work you will find the examples and doctrine of (our) elders » therefore he ought not be called (its) author.

Si tu dicis,6 quod non tantum hic est doctrina Sanctorum, sed etiam sua, ratione cuius debet dici auctor; contra: « A maiori et digniori debet fieri denominatio »;7 sed Magister dicit, quod « paulisper vox sua insonuit, et tunc a paternis limitibus non dicessit »: ergo non deberet iste liber dici esse Magistri.

If you say,6 that this is not only the doctrine of the Saints, but also his own, by which reckoning he ought to be called the author: on the contrary: « From the greater and more worthy ought a denomination come to be »;7 but Master (Peter) says, that « his own voice sounded out a little while, and then did not depart from the limits of (our) fathers »: therefore that book ought not be said to be Master( Peter)'s.

CONTRA: Constat quod Deus hoc opus non scriptsit digito suo, ergo habuit alium, creatum auctorem;8 sed non est dare alium nisi Magistrum.

ON THE CONTRARY: It is established that God did not write this book with His finger, therefore it had another, created author;8 but no other is given except Master (Peter).

Item, si auctoritas Magistri in hac causa recipitur, ipse dicit in littera:9 « In multo labore et sudore hoc volumen, Deo praestante, compegimus »: ergo videtur, quod ipse fuit auctor praesentis libri.

Likewise, if the authority of Master (Peter) is received in this case, he himself says in (his) text:9 « In much labor and sweat, with God as (our) surety, we have compiled this volume »: therefore it seems, that he himself was the author of the present book.

CONCLUSIO.

 

Petrus Lombardus, Episcopus Parisiensis, est auctor huius libri.

CONCLUSION

 

Peter Lombard, the Bishop of Paris, is the author of this book.

RESPONDEO: Ad intelligentiam dictorum notandum, quod quadruplex est modus faciendi librum. Aliquis enim scribit aliena,10 nihil addendo vel mutando; et iste mere dicitur scriptor. Aliquis scribit aliena, addendo, sed non de suo; et iste compilator dicitur. Aliquis scribit et aliena et sua, sed aliena / tamquam principalia, . . .

I RESPOND: For an understanding of the things said, it must be noted, that fourfold is the manner of making a book. For one writes another's (words),10 by adding and/or changing nothing; and that one is called merely a writer. Another writes another's (words), by adding, but not from his own; and that one is called a compiler. Another writes both his own words and another', but the other's / as the principle ones, . . .

1 Suffragante nullo codice, Vat., omissis praecedentibus verbis, incipit ab istis: De causa.
2 Vat. adiungit sic, quod tamen deest in mss. et sex primis edd.
3 Colligitur ex c. 14. Cfr. etiam Expos. in Epist. I. S. Ian. Tract. 4.
4 Verba Aristotelis (II. Ethic. c. 4.) iuxta antiquam translationem in operibus S. Thomae (Parmae 1867) sunt: Vel neque in artibus ita (res) se habet? Contingit enim grammaticum quid facere a casu et alio supposito; tunc igitur grammaticus, si grammaticum quid faciat et grammatice. — Vide supra q. 2. arg. 5 ad opp. — Vat. sola post Ethica omittit veteri. — Codd. I L N O V X vel docente pro sive dicente.
5 In Prolog. — Ex mss. et sex primis edd. substituimus sicut loco nam et mox supplevimus omissum quod.
6 Plures codd. A H I K T etc. dicas.
7 Aristot., II. de Anima text. 49. (c. 4.): A fine appelari omnia iustum est. Finem autem Aristot. diversis in locis (II. Phys. text. 23. et V. Metaph. text. 3.) dicit esse optimum rei. — Verba Magistri mox citata vide infra in Prolog. Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 in prima parte verborum Magistri post quod addit si et ulutimam eorum partem ita exhibet: non tamen a paternis limitibus discessit. Sed notandum, quod S. Doctor saepe saepius verba sive Magistri sive S. Patrum non verbotenus, sed tantum ad sensum recitet. — Mox ex pluribus codd. C F G I K L R S T etc. deberet posuimus pro debet.
8 Vat. cum recentiori cod. cc, omisso creatam, non bene habet doctorem pro auctorem, antiquioribus mss. et. ed. 1 reluctantibus.
9 In Prologo; vide infra. — In prima propositione huius argument post Item ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus si et dein substituimus causa pro parte, quae lectio iam ex isto adagio: Nemo in propria causa est iudex, praeferenda videtur. — Mox post recipitur in Vat. additur ideo cum, quod abest a mss. et ed. 1.
10 Vat. et recentior cod. cc non cohaerenter cum consequentibus habent alienam materiam, obnitentibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1.

1 With no codex supporting, the Vatican text, having omitted the preceding words, begins from: of the efficient cause.
2 The Vatican text adjoins this, which however is lacking in the manuscripts and the six first editions.
3 This is taken from ch. 14. Cf. also The Exposition on the First Epistle of St. John, Tract 4.
4 The words of Aristotle (Ethics, Bk. II, ch. 4) according to the ancient translation among the works of St. Thomas (Parma 1867) are: And/or is (a thing) thus held neither in the arts? For does happen that a grammarian makes something by chance and with another substituting; therefore (he is) then a grammarian, if as a grammarian he also makes something grammatical. — See above q. 2. argument 5 in reply. — The Vatican text alone omits Old. — Codices I L N O V and X have and/or teaching in place of or speaking.
5 In the Prologue. — From the manuscripts and the six first editions we have substituted as in place of for and next we have supplied the omitted that.
6 Very many codices A H I K T etc. have you may say.

7 Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. II, text 49 (ch. 4): From (their) end it is just that all things be named. Moreover Aristotle in diverse places (Physics, Bk. II, text 23 & Metaphysics, Bk. V, text 3) calls the end the best (part) of a thing. — For the words of Master (Peter) cited next, see below in the Prologue. The Vatican text, against the testimony of the manuscripts and edition 1, in the first part of the words of Master (Peter) adds if after that and exhibits the last part of them thus: he does not, however, depart from the limits of the Fathers. But it must be noted, that the Seraphic Doctor much more often cites either the words of Master (Peter) or of the holy Fathers not word-for-word, but only according to (their) sense. — Next from very many of the codices C F G I K L R S and T etc. we have put ought [deberet] in place of ought [debet].
8 The Vatican text together with the more recent codex cc, having omitted created, has the not so well teacher in place of author, in disagreement with the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1.
9 In the Prologue; v. infra.. — In the first proposition of this argument we have inserted if from the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1 and then we have substituted case in place of part [parte], which reading now seems to be preferred, according to that adage: No one is a judge in his own case. [Trans.: the Latin, parte, is a just-as-suitable, classical usage.] — Next after is received in the Vatican text there is added for that reason since, which is absent from the manuscripts and edition 1.
10 The Vatican text and the more recent codex cc, incoherently with what follows, have another's matter, with the firm opposition of the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1.

p. 15

tamquam principalia, et sua tamquam annexa ad evidentiam; et iste dicitur commentator, non auctor.1 Aliquis scribit et sua et aliena, sed sua tanquam principalia, aliena tamquam annexa ad confimationem; et talis debet dici auctor. Talis fuit Magister, qui2 sententias suas ponit et Patrum sententiis confirmat. Unde vere debet dici auctor huius libri.

as the principles one, and his won as those annexed for evidence; and that one is called a commentator, not an author.1 Another writes both his own and another's, but his own as the principle ones, the other's as things annexed for confirmation; and such ought to be called an author. Such was Master (Peter), who2 put (forth) his own sentences and confirms the sentences of the Fathers. Whence he truly ought to be called the author of this book.

1. Quod ergo obiicitur, quod solus Christus est doctor et auctor; dicendum, quod sicut dicit Augustinus in libro de Doctrina chirstiana,3 docere est dupliciter, sicut dicitur dupliciter aliquis facere videre. Aliter enim facit videre qui visum restituit, aliter, qui visibile digito ostendit; et4 primum facit Deus, secundum homo. Similiter aliter docet qui scientiam, quam habet in anima,5 verbo vel scripto offert vel ostendit, aliter, qui habitum scientiae imprimit; uterque tamen dicitur doctor et auctor, sed Deus principalius; sic6 in proposito.

1. Therefore because it is objected, that Christ alone is Teacher and Author; it must be said, that as (St.) Augustine says in the book On Christian Doctrine,3 teaching is twofold, as anyone is said in a twofold manner to cause seeing. For in one way he causes seeing who has restored sight, another way, he who shows the visible thing with (his) finger; and4 God does the first, man the second. Similarly in one way he teaches, who offers and/or shows the science, which he has in (his) soul,5 (to others) by word and/or writing, in another, he who impresses the habit of science; each, however, is called a teacher and author, but God more principally; so6 in the proposed (objection).

2. Quod obiicitur, quod fecit7 librum, alio supponente; dicendum, quod non ideo dicitur facere aliquis, supponente alio, quia8 ab alio didicit — tunc enim pauci essent doctores vel grammatici — sed si omnino scientia eius dependet ab alio, ita quod non habet habitum intra, sicut illi qui faciunt bonum latinum, quia alii eis9 dixerunt, sed ipsi ignorant artem; hoc modo non fuit Magister. Nam a scientia, quam acquisierat longo tempore vel labore, hoc opus composuit et per doctrinas Patrum suas sententias10 confirmavit. Et quod sunt ibi multa dicta aliorum, hoc non tollit Magistro auctoritatem, sed potius eius auctoritatem confirmat11 et humilitatem commendat.

2. Because it is objected, that he made7 the book, with another substituting; it must be said, that no one for that reason is said to make, with another substituting, because8 he has learned from another — for then few would be teachers and/or grammarians — but if his science depends entirely on another, so that he does not have the habit inside, as those who write good Latin, because others have told them,9 but themselves are ignorant of the art; in this manner Master (Peter) was not (the author). For by the science, which he had acquired over a long time and/or with labor, he composed this work and through the doctrines of the Fathers confirmed his own sentences10. And because there are many things said there by others, this does not take away from the Master's authority, but rather confirms his authority11 and commends (his) humility.

1 Sequimur codd. R T X ee addendo non auctor, quae lectio et ex se et ex subnexis probatur, in super ex falsa lectione multorum codd. ut A B F H I M V W Y Z aa bb cc ff cum ed. 1 et auctor confirmatur.
2 Fide mss. et ed. 1 mutavimus quoniam in qui. Mox plures codd. ut F H I O T U aa et ed. 1 per Patrum sentientias.
3 In Prooemio, ubi haec Augustini sententia quoad sensum verborum invenitur.
4 In Vat. deest particula et a mss. ed ed. 1 exhibita.
5 Falsam lectionem Vat. et cod. cc alium pro anima emendamus ope aliorum mss. et ed. 1.
6 Substituimus ex codd. D F H R aa ee et ed. 1 sic loco sicut; quae lectio sincerior nobis videtur eo , quod per particulam sic applicatio generalium principiorum in praecedentibus nondum facta, sed iam facienda melius indicatur. Codd. D ee et ed. 1 addunt est.
7 Subaudi: Magister.
8 Codd. B C D G H K O S U V ee ff cum ed 1 qui pro quia, cod. A quae, sed non bene propter superius positum non ideo. Paulo post Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 dependeat pro dependet et habeat loco habet.
9 Lapsum librariorum in Vat. ei pro eis emendavimus; paulo post reposuimus fuit loco fecit librum istum auctoritate mss. et ed. 1.
10 Codd. F O X per doctrinas et Patrum sententias; lectio non spernenda, a qua codd. H S V et ed. 1 in eo tantum discedunt, quod omittant particulam et. Cod. R per catholicas Patrum sententias.
11 Non ita bene Vat. cum recentiori cod. cc omittit confirmat, quod tamen in antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 habetur.

1 We follow codices R T X and ee by adding not an author, which reading is proved both from itself and from what follows, as is confirmed besides from the false reading of many of the codices as A B F H I M V W Y Z aa bb ee and ff together with edition 1, which have also an author.
2 Trusting in the manuscripts and edition 1 we have changed since into who. Next very many of the codices as F H I O T U aa and edition 1 have through the sentences of the Fathers.
3 In the Foreword, where this sentence of (St.) Augustine is found in regard to its sense.
4 In the Vatican text the particle and, present in the manuscripts and edition 1, is lacking.
5 The false reading of the Vatican text and codex cc, which have in another in place of in (his) soul, we emend with the help of the other manuscripts and edition 1.
6 We have substituted from codices D F H R aa ee and edition 1 so in place of as; which reading seems to us more sincere for this, that by the particle so an application of general principles in the preceding matters has not yet been made, but now a better way for it to be done is indicated.
7 Understand here: Master (Peter).
8 Codices B C D G H K O S U V ee and ff together with edition 1 have who in place of because, codex A has which, but this is not good on account of the above placed for that reason . . . not. A little afterwards the Vatican text, against the manuscripts and edition 1, has depends [dependeat] for depends [dependet] and have [habeat] for have [habet].
9 The lapsus of the copyist in the Vatican text ei for eis we have emended; a little afterwards we have replaced was . . . (author) instead of made that book on the authority of the manuscripts and edition 1.
10 Codices F O and X have through the doctrines and sentences of the Fathers; a reading not to be spurned, from which only codices H S V and edition 1 depart in this, that they omit the particle and. Codex R has through the catholic sentences of the Fathers [trans.: i.e. through their unanimous opinions].
11 Not so well does the Vatican text together with codex cc omit confirms, which is, however, had in the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1.

The English translation here has been released to the public domain by its author. The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation that that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator.