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

COMMENTARIUS IN PROLOGUM
MAGISTERI

DIVISIO TEXTUS AC DUBIA

COMMENTARY ON THE PROLOGUE
OF MASTER PETER

DIVISION OF THE TEXT AND DUBIA

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 22-25.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 22-25.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

DIVISIO TEXTUS

DIVISION OF THE TEXT

Totali libro praemittit Magister prologum, in quo tangit causas suscepti operis. Dividitur autem in duas partes. In prima parte ponit rationes, quae moverunt1 ipsum ad aggrediendum praesens negotium sive opus; in secunda rationes, quae debent movere disciplulos ad benigne audiendum, ibi2 circa finem: In quo maiorum etc., ubi incipit alloqui auditores.

To the entire book Master (Peter) prefaces a prologue, in which he touches upon the causes of undertaking this work. Moreover it is divided into two parts. In the first part he posits the reasons, which moved1 him to approach [aggrediendum] the present business or work; in the second the reasons, which ought to move students to hear (him) kindly, there2 near the end: In which you shall again find etc. , where he begins to speak to (his) listeners.

Prima pars dividitur iterum in duas, quia duplex ratio potest movere aliquem ad opus faciendum, scilicet amor boni et odium mali. Primo ergo ponit rationes sumtas ex parte amoris boni, scilicet catholicae veritatis. Secundo ex parte odii mali, scilicet haereticae pravitatis, ibi: Quamvis non ambigamus etc. Prima pars habet quatuor particulas. In prima tangit3 causam excitantem; et haec est desiderium mercedis et spes auxilii sub exemplo viduae et parabola Samaritani. In secunda ponit causam retrahentem, quae duplex est, scilicet laboris immensitas et propria infirmitas, ibi: Delectat nos etc. In tertia ponit causam ipsum4 propellentem, et haec est zelus ipsum accendens, ibi: Quam vincit zelus etc. In quarta ponit causam compellentem et praevalentem, ibi: Non valentes etc., et haec est petitio fratrum studiosorum, quibus non potest quis iure resistere, sed quodammodo necessario oportet collum subiicere.

The first part is divided again into two parts, because a twofold reason can move anyone to do a work, namely the love of the good and the hatred of evil. First, therefore, he posits the reasons taken from the part of the love of the good, namely of catholic truth. Second from the part of the hatred of evil, namely of heretical depravity, there (where he says): Although we do not dispute etc.. The first part has four subparts. In the first he touches upon3 the exciting cause; and this is the desire for recompense and hope for help after the example of the widow and the parable of the Samaritan. In the second he posits the restraining cause, which is twofold, namely the immensity of the labor and his own infirmity, there (where he says): The truth of the One etc.. In the third he posits the cause propelling him,4 and this is the zeal influencing [accedens] him, there (where he says): Which zeal for the house etc.. In the fourth he posits the cause compelling and prevailing (upon him), there (where he says): Not prevailing etc., and this is the petition of (his) studious brothers, whom one cannot lawfully resist, but (to whom) in a certain, unavoidable [necessario] manner it is proper to submit (one's) neck.

 

DUBIA CIRCA PRIMAM PARTEM
PROLOGI MAGISTRI

 

DUB. I.

DOUBTS ABOUT THE FIRST PART
OF THE PROLOGUE OF MASTER PETER

 

DOUBT I

Sed quaeritur de hoc quod dicit:5 Opus agere praesumsimus; sed praesumtio est peccatum: ergo peccavit.

But (the first doubt) is asked concerning this which he says:5 we have presumed to do a work; but presumption is a sin: therefore he has sinned.

RESPONDEO: Est praesumtio confidentiae de divino adiutorio, et praesumtio superbiae, quae est de proprio ingenio. Prima non est peccatum, sed est virtutis;6 secunda vero est peccatum; sed de prima loquitur Magister.

I RESPOND: A presumption of confidence concerns divine assistance, and a presumption of pride concerns one's own ingenuity . The first is not a sin, but is a virtue;6 but the second is a sin; but Master (Peter) speaks of the first.

Vel aliter: Est praesumtio secundum veritatem, et est praesumtio secundum propriam aestimation / em.

And/or in another manner: There is a presumption according to the truth, and a presumption according to one's own estimation.

1 Cod. I. et ed 1 movent.
2 Supplevimus ibi, sicuti et paulo infra post dividitur particulam iterum ex mss. et ed. 1.
3 Cod. W et X ponit. Mox aliqui codd. ut F G K ee ff cum ed. 1 hoc est loco haec est, quae lectio adhuc bis in sequentibus occurit, sed non ita bene.
4 Vat. indebite et contra mss. ac 1 omittit ipsum.
5 Praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 in hoc dubio et in sequentibus Vat. omittit haec verba preambula. Dein Vat. textum Magistri integre exhibet, post opus addendo ultra vires nostras, quae tamen verba desunt in mss. et ed. 1. Haec omissio et mutatio praeambulorum in omnibus fere dubiis litteralibus totius Commentarii occurrit in Vat., sicut iam in Prolegominis observatum est.
6 Minus bene et reluctantibus mss. cum ed. 1, hic Vat. addit indicium.

1 Codex I and edition 1 have move.
2 We have supplied there, just as also a little below, after is divided we have supplied again, from the manuscripts and edition 1.
3 Codex W and X have posits. Next some of the codices, as F G K ee and ff, together with edition 1, have this is [hoc est] in place of this is [haec est], which reading occurs twice more in what follows, but not so well.
4 The Vatican text unduly, and against the manuscripts and edition 1, omits him.
5 Not trusting in the manuscripts and edition 1, the Vatican text in this doubt and in the following ones, omits these opening words. Then the Vatican text exhibits the whole passage of Master (Peter), by adding beyond our strength after work, which words however are lacking in the manuscripts and edition 1. This omission and mutation of the opening words in nearly all the texts of the doubts of the whole Commentary occurs in the Vatican text, as has already been observed in the Prolegomenon.
6 Less well and with the manuscripts and edition 1 opposing, the Vatican text has here but is the indication of truth.

 p. 23

/ em. Prima est reprehensibilis, quia superbiae, secunda laudabilis, quia humilitatis, nec est culpabilis in aliquo; vir enim humilis in omnibus1 operibus suis se reputat indignum et quasi praesumtuosum.

The first is reprehensible, because (it belongs) to pride, but the second laudable, because (it belongs) to humility, nor is it culpable in anything; for a humble man in all1 his works reputes himself unworthy and, as it were, presumptuous.

DUB. II.

DOUBT II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Prolatis duobus denariis supereroganti; quae sit ista supererogatio. Si tu dicis, quod sit magistrorum et Sanctorum superadditio ad sacram Scripturam; contra, Damascenus:2 « Quae tradita sunt nobis per Legem et Prophetas veneremur, nihil ultra haec inquirentes ».

Likewise (the second doubt) is asked of this which he says: having offered two denarii to the one paying out more [supereroganti]; what is that supererogation? If you say, that it is the masters' and Saints' superaddition to Sacred Scripture; against (you is St. John) Damascene:2 « That which has been handed down to us through the Law and the Prophets we venerate, inquiring nothing beyond these things ».

Item, Apocalypsis ultimo:3 Si quis apposuerit super haec, apponet ei Dominus plagas.

Likewise, the last (chapter) of the Apocalypse:3 If anyone adds upon these (words), the Lord will add to him the plagues . . ..

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod est additio distrahens et est additio complens. Addens primo modo non supererogat, sed magis diminuit et subvertit; et tales sunt haeretici, quibus datur maledictio. Addens secundo modo supererogat, quia salvo sensu Scripturae4 ipsam dilucidat. Per duos igitur denarios duo intelligo Testamenta, per Samaritanum, Christum, per semivivum, hominem gratuitis expoliatum et vulneratum in naturalibus, per5 supererogationem intelligo doctorem exponentem.

I RESPOND: It must be said, that there is a distracting addition and there is a completing addition. Adding in the first manner does not supererogate, but rather diminishes and subverts; and such are the heretics, for whom the malediction is given. Adding in the second manner does supererogate, because with the sense of Scripture preserved4 it makes it shine forth [dilucidat]. Therefore through the two denarii I understand two Testaments, by the Samaritan, Christ, by the half-alive, man despoiled [expoliatum] and wounded in (his) natural gifts [gratuitis], by5 supererogation I understand a teacher expounding (the sense of Scripture).

Vel aliter dicendum, quod est additio, in qua additum est contrarium, et est,6 in qua additum est diversum, et est in qua additum est consonem. Prima additio est erroris, secunda praesumtionis; quia praesumtio est dicere in sacra Scriptura aliquid omnino diversum ab his, quae in ea expressa sunt; tertia fidelis instructionis; quia quod implicitum est explicat.

And/or it another way it must be said, that there is an addition, in which the thing added is contrary, and there is (one),6 in which the thing added is diverse, and there is (one), in which the thing added is consonant. The first addition belongs to error, the second to presumption; because it is presumption to say that (there is) in Sacred Scripture anything entirely diverse from those things, which have been expressed in it; the third (belongs) to faithful instruction; because one explicates what is implicit.

DUB. III.

DOUBT III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Quam vincit zelus domus Dei, quis sit iste zelus. Et quare magis hoc zelo accenditur contra animales et carnales quam contra superbos et alios peccatores? Et cum zelus sit amor privatus, non videtur quod deberet zelo accendi.

Likewise (the third doubt) is asked of this which he says: Which zeal for the house of the Lord conquers, what is that zeal of his? And why is he by this zeal more ignited [accenditur] against animal and carnal (men), than against the proud and other sinners? And since zeal is a private love, it does not seem that, he ought to have been ignited by zeal.

Praeterea,7 cum maius peccatum sit superbia, videtur quod magis deberet accendi contra superbos.

Besides,7 since pride is a greater sin, it seems that he ought to have been ignited more against the proud.

RESPONDEO: Ad primum dicendum, quod zelus est amor nolens habere consortium in amato. Zelus malus vitat omne consortium, sed zelus bonus vitat tantum malum;8 unde veri zelatores domus Dei non possunt videre in Ecclesia vitia, quin insurgant contra ipsa. Unde Ioannis secundo dicit Glossa:9 « Zelus bonus est, quo animus, abiecto humano timore, accenditur et eo comeditur, quo quaelibet prava, quae viderit, corrigere satagit, et si nequiverit, tolerat et gemit ».

I RESPOND: To the first it must be said, that zeal is love [amor] not wanting to have a partnership in the beloved. Evil zeal avoids all partnership, but good zeal avoids only evil (partnership);8 whence those truly zealous [zelatores] for the house of God cannot see vices in the Church, that they do not rise up against. Whence in the second (chapter) of (St.) John, the Gloss says:9 « Good zeal is that, by which the spirit, having cast off human fear, is ignited and by which it is eaten up, by which it acts in a manner sufficient [satagit] to correct any depraved things, which it sees, and if it cannot, (it) tolerates (them) and groans ».

Ad secundum dicendum, quod Magister specialiter in Ecclesia zelabat fidem; et ideo magis succendebatur10 contra fidei corruptores. Dupliciter autem corrumpit quis fidem: aut motus perversitate voluntatis et affectionis; et hic dicitur carnalis. Nam caro dicitur hic carnalis affectio, secundum illud ad Galatas quinto:11 Manifesta sunt opera carnis etc. » Alio modo corrumpit quis, motus perversitate iudicii; et hic dicitur animalis, quasi phantasticus, quia phantasiae pervertunt iudicium rationis.

To the second it must be said, that Master (Peter) was especially zealous for faith in the Church; and for that reason he used to be enkindled10 against corruptors of the faith. But anyone corrupts the faith in two manners: either a movement by perversity of the will and the affection; and this is called carnal. For carnal affection is called here "the flesh", according to that (which is said) in the fith (chapter of the Letter) to the Galatians:11 The works of the flesh have been manifested etc. » In another manner one corrupts (the faith), (who is) moved by perversity of judgment; and here it is called animal, in a fanciful manner [quasi phantasticus], because fantasies [phantasiae] pervert the judgment of reason.

DUB. IV.

 

Quas bigas agitat in nobis Christi caritas.

DOUBT IV.

 

Which as a chariot the charity of Christ puts in motion in us.

CONTRA: Ecclesiastis nono:12 Nemo scit, utrum odio, an amore dignus sit.

ON THE CONTRARY: in the ninth (chapter) of Ecclesiastes:12 No one knows, whether he is worthy of hatred or of love.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod caritas uno modo dicit virtutem gratuitam, alio modo dicit large amo / rem multum appretiantem amatum.

I RESPOND: It must be said, that charity in one manner means [dicit] "gratuitous virtue", in another manner it means broadly "the love / (that) much appreciates the beloved":

1 Vat. cum recentiore cod. cc nec est culpabilis, qui in omnibus, quae lectio mutila exindeque vim dictis distrahens resarcitur ex antiquioribus mss. et. ed. 1.
2 Libr. I. de Fide orthod. c. 1: Omnia, quae nobis tam per Legem et Prophetas, quam per Apostolos et Evangelistas tradita sunt, amplectimur, agnoscimus et veneramur; nec ultra ea quidquam inquriumus. — In quo textu Vat. post ultra omittit haec, quod in fere omniibus mss. et ed. 1 habetur.
3 Vers. 18, ubi Vat. cum Vulgata contra mss. et ed. 1. ad haec pro super haec; deinde Vulgata legit apponet Deus super illum plagas.
4 Faventibus antiquoribus mss. et ed. 1 nec non constructione grammaticali, substituimus Scripturae loco Scripturam quod Vat. cum recentiore cod. cc habet.
5 Minus clare Vat. cum cod. cc legit et loco per, obnitentibus vetustioribus mss. cum ed. 1.
6 Cod. N hic et paulo post repetit verbum additio.
7 Vat. praeter fidem mss. et sex primarum edd. Item.
8 Supple: consortium. — Lectio in textum recepta et praecedentibus conformior suppeditatur a mss. antiquioribus ac ed. 1 pro lectione Vat. et cod. cc malos. — Mox perturbatam, immo mendosam lectionem Vat. et paucorum codd. ut A F K cc quae insurgunt contra ipsam, emendavimus ope aliorum mss. et ed. 1.
9 Glossa apud Lyranum loc. cit. v. 19 ita habet: Bonus zelus est fervor animi, quo mens, abiecto humano timore, pro defensione veritatis accenditur. Ab eo comeditur qui quaelibet prava, quae viderit, corrigere satagit; si nequit, tolerat et gemit. — Quoad primam propositionem cod. O magis quam ceteri codd. cum allegatis convenit, quia post timore habet pro defensione veritatis; quoad secundam propositionem Vat. a mss. et ed. 1 discendens legit tendit ut pro comeditur quo ac propter variatam constructionem in fine propositionis satagat, toleret, gemat.
10 Vat. Magister accendebatur. Omnes mss. habet succendebatur; plures vero ut M aa bb ee magis pro magister, quam lectionem tanquam unice veram, utpote obiectioni superius positae conformem, praeferimus. Error aliorum mss. facilimus ex eo iudicatur, quod duo ista vocabula eodem fere modo abbreviantur.
11 Vers. 18, ubi Vulgata post sunt addit autem. — Mox post quis supple fidem, quod et ed 1 habet.
12 Vers. 1, in quo textu restituimus ex multis mss. ut A F G I K T etc. et ed. 1, ac Vulgata utrum loco an.

1 The Vatican text together with the more recent codex cc has is not culpable, who in all his, which reading, mutilated and hence distracting from the force of the things said, is mended from the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1.
2 On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. I, ch. 1: All the things, which have been handed down to us as much as through the Law and Prophets, as through the Apostles and Evangelists, we embrace, acknowledge and venerate; nor do we inquire for anything beyond these. — In which passage the Vatican text omits these things, which are had in nearly all the manuscripts and edition 1.
3 Verse 18, where the Vatican text together with the Vulgate, against the manuscripts and edition 1, has to these (words) in place of upon these (words); then the Vulgate reads God will add upon him the plagues.
4 With the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1 favoring it, and also the grammatical structure, we have substituted with the sense of Scripture preserved in place of with (its) sense preserved, . . . it makes Scripture itself, which the Vatican text together with the more recent codex cc has.
5 Less clearly does the Vatican text, together with codex cc, read and in place of by, in opposition to the older manuscripts together with edition 1.
6 Codex N here and a little after this repeats the word addition here in place of (one).
7 The Vatican text, not trusting in the manuscripts and six of the first editions, has Likewise instead.
8 Supply: partnership. — The reading received here, and more conformable with the preceding things, is provided from the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1, in place of the reading of the Vatican text and codex cc, which is only evil (partnerships). — Next the perturbed, rather faulty reading of the Vatican text and of a few of the codices, as A F K and cc, which rise against Her, we have emended with the assistance of the other manuscripts and edition 1.
9 The Gloss, quoted in Nicolas of Lyra, loc. cit., v. 19, has this: Good zeal is fervor of spirit, by which the mind, having cast off fear, is enkindled on behalf of the defense of truth. By this one is eaten up who acts in a sufficient manner to correct any depraved things, which he sees; (and) if he cannot, he tolerates (them) and groans. — In regard to the first proposition codex O more than all other codices, agrees with this reading, because after fear it has on behalf of the defense of the truth; in regard to the second proposition the Vatican text, departing from the manuscripts and edition 1, reads one tends to in place of is eaten up, by this and on account of the diverse construction has at the end of the proposition, act in a sufficient manner, tolerate, groan.
10 The Vatican text has Master (Peter) used to be set on fire. All the manuscripts have used to be enkindled; but very many, as M aa bb and ee, have more in place of Master (Peter), which reading we have preferred as the only true one, as it is conformable to the above, posited objection. The error of the other manuscripts is explained more easily from this, that those two words [magis & Magister] are abbreviated in the same manner.
11 Verse 18, where the Vulgate adds autem after sunt [rendering the English: But the works of . . .]. — Next after corrupts supply the faith, as is had even in edition 1.
12 Verse 1, in which we have restores from many manuscripts, as A F G I K T etc. and edition 1, and from the Vulgate, whether [utrum] in place of or [an].

p. 24

amor / rem multum appretiantem amatum: unde caritas,1 amor carus. Primo modo sumta caritate, verum est, quod certitudinaliter nescit aliquis;2 potest tamem aliquo experimento dulcedinis divinae misericordiae hoc coniicere probabiliter; secundo modo potest scire. Et si primo modo dicit Magister, non dicit asserendo, sed coniiciendo; si secundo modo, tunc assertive potest intelligi; et sic patet illud.

(that) much appreciates the beloved": whence charity (is called, as it were),1 a dear love [amor carus]. Having taken charity in the first manner, it is true, that one does not know with certitude [cerrtitudinaliter nescit];2 one can, however, by some experience of the sweetness of the Divine Mercy conjecture this with probability [probabiliter]; in the second manner one can know it [scire]. And if Master (Peter) speaks in the first manner, he does not say (it) by asserting, but by conjecture; if in the second manner, then he can be understood (to do so) in an assertive manner; and thus this is clear.

 

DIVISIO TEXTUS
SECUNDAE PARTIS PROLOGI

THE DIVISION OF THE TEXT
OF THE SECOND PART OF THE PROLOGUE

Quamvis non ambigamus etc. Supra posuit Magister rationes moventes ex approbatione3 boni; hic ponit rationes moventes ex odio et detestatione mali; et hoc est malus haereticae perversitatis. Habet autem haec pars quatuor particulas. In prima parte tangit eorum perversitatem, quae consistit in calumniando bonum et verum ex erroris caecitate et invidiae pari malignitate.4 In secunda tangit huius perversitatis radicem, quae est suggestio diabolica et propria superbia, ibi: Quam Deus huius saeculi. In tertia tangit huius erroris diffusionem,5 quae est per falsam superstitionem et mendacem et contentiosam locutionem, ibi: Habent rationem sapientiae in superstitione. In quarta infert rationem, quae ipsum movit ad praesentis operis compilationem, ibi: Horum igitur Deo odibilem. Et ratio haec est subversio erroris.

Although we do not dispute etc. Above Master (Peter) posited the reasons moving from approbation of3 the good; here he posits the reasons moving from hatred and detestation of evil; and this is the evil of heretical perversity. Moreover this part has four subparts. In the first part he touches upon their perversity, which consists in calumniating the good and the true out of the blindness of error and the equal malignity of envy.4 In the second he touches upon the root of this perversity, which is a diabolic suggestion and one's own pride, there (where he says): Which the god of this age. In the third he touches upon the diffusion of this error,5 which is through false superstition and mendacious and contentious speech, there (where he says): They have a reason for (their) wisdom in superstition. In the fourth he infers the reason, which moves him to the compilation of the present work, there (where he says): Therefore lest they be able. And this reason is the subversion of error.

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM
SECUNDAE PARTIS PROLOGI.

 

DUB. V.

DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT
OF THE SECOND PART OF THE PROLOGUE

 

DOUBT V.

Quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Veritati non intellectae. Videtur enim,6 quod dicat male, quia veritas est lux intelligibis, sicut lux corporalis sensibilis; sed oculus habens visum non potest ignorare lucem sensibilem: ergo pari ratione nec intellectus ignorabit lucem intelligibilem. Si tu dicas, quod non est simile; quaeritur, quare non est simile, et quare magis deficit natura intellectui quam sensui?

(The fifth doubt) is asked of this which he says: the truth (that is) not understood. For6 it seems, that he speaks badly, because truth is intelligible light, just as corporal light (is) sensible; but the eye having sight cannot ignore the sensible light: therefore, for an equal reason, neither will the intellect be ignorant of the intelligible light. If you say, that it is not similar; there is asked, why it is not similar, and why does nature fail in understanding more than (it does) in sense?

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod simile est, si quis attendat. Triplex enim est causa, quare aliquis non videt visibile: aut enim non videt, quia non vult respicere, aut si vult, impeditur propter defectum organi, aut propter absentiam lucis. Hoc manifestum est. Similiter in spiritualibus intellectus7 frequenter aliqua non intelligit, quia non vult considerare; aliquando vero non intelligit propter impedimentum ex parte corporis, ut patet in phreneticis et stultis; aliquando propter abstinentiam lucis. Licet enim lux increata se non subtrahat quantum ad essentiam vel quantum ad qualemcumque influentiam, subtraxit8 tamen se homini, cum peccavit, quantum ad influentiam perfectam; unde dicitur inflixisse ei ignorantiam. Unde sicut oculus in tenebris errat, sic hodie miser humanus intellectus. Cum autem plene restituetur9 in lucem, sicut oculus videre poterit omne visibile, sic intellectus omne intelligibile.

I RESPOND: It must be said, that it is similar, if one attends. For threefold is the cause, whereby someone does not see the visible: for he either does not see, because he does not want to look upon it [respicere], or if he wants to, he is impeded on account of a defect of the organ, or on account of an absence of light. This is manifest. Similarly in spiritual things the intellect7 frequently does not understand some things, because it does not want to consider (them); but sometimes it does not understand on account of an impediment on the part of the body, as is clear in the mad and the stupid; sometimes on account of an absence of light. For though uncreated light does not withdraw itself as much as regards (its) essence and/or as much as regards whatever kind of influence, it has withdrawn,8 however, itself from a man, when he sins, as much as regards (its) perfect influence; whence it is said to have inflicted ignorance upon him. Wherefore as the eye errs in darkness, so today (does) the wretched human intellect. But when it9is fully restored to the light, just as the eye can see every visible thing, so the intellect every intelligible thing.

DUB. VI.

DOUBT VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Veritati offendenti. Contra: « Omnes homines natura scire desiderant »,10 sicut etiam esse beati; sed beatitudo neminem offendit, quia omnes eam desiderant: ergo nec veritas offendit aliquem.

Likewise (the sixth doubt) is asked of this which he says: the truth offending. On the contrary: « All men by nature desire to know »,10 just as (they) also (desire) to be blessed; but beatitude offends no one, because all desire it: therefore neither does truth offend anyone.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod est loqui de veritate quantum ad primum effectum, qui est illuminare; et quantum ad istum nemo ipsam odit: omnes enim naturaliter desiderant illuminari. Est iterum loqui quantum ad effectum consequentem, qui est arguere; et hunc habet in malis. Manifestando enim mala redarguit mala facientem;11 et inde est, quod mali odiunt veritatem, quia sicut dicitur Ioannis tertio:12 Qui male agit, odit lucem.

I RESPOND: It must be said, that there is a speaking of the truth as much as regards (its) first effect, which is to illuminate; and as much as regards that no one hates it: for all naturally desire to be illuminated. Again there is a speaking (of it) as much as regards (its) consequent effect, which is expressing [arguere]; and one has this in evils. For by manifesting evils one refutes [redarguit] the doer of evils;11 and hence it is, that evil (men) hate the truth, because as is said in the third (chapter of the Gospel) of (St.) John:12 He who acts in an evil manner [male], hates the light.

DUB. VII.

DOUBT VII.

Qui contentioni studentes contra veritatem sine foedere bellant. Contra: Tertii Esdrae quarto:13 Magna est veritas et fortior omnibus. Omnis terra veritatem invocat, et omnes tremunt eam.

Who as students of contention war without the restraint of treaties against the truth. On the contrary: in the fourth (chapter) of the Third (Book) of Esdra:13 Great is truth and stronger than all. Every land invokes the truth, and all tremble before it.

1 Vat. hic addit dicitur quasi, sed castigatur ex mss. et ed. 1.
2 Reluctantibus mss. et ed. 1, verbis ita transpositis verum est certitudinaliter, quod nescit aliquis, Vat. sensum Doctoris distorquet. Cod. cc omittit quod. Mox post tamen ed 1 satis bene addit praepositionem ex, et cod. M habet aliquis pro aliquo. S. Doctor sententiam, quam hic proponit, fusius exponit infra d. 18, p. I. a. 1. q. 2 et Comment. in Ioan. c. 14. n. 999 (Supplem. Bonelli, tom. I.).
3 Ed. 1 appetitione.
4 Codd. diversimode hic legunt; cod. V omittit caecitate; cod. S cum ed. 1 omittit pari; cod. O habet prava loco pari; alii aliter, sed corrupte; nihil immutandum duximus.
5 Prave et contra codd. ac ed. 1 legit Vat. defensionem.
6 Adiecimus ex mss. et ed. 1 enim.
7 Cod. T adiungit hic enim, mutata in praecedentibus interpunctione; omisso siquidem puncto post est habet hoc manifestum est similiter in spiritualibus; eandem interpunctionem et plures alii codd. exhibent; sed non ita bene.
8 Plures codd. ut F G H K Y Z et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 minus bene subtrahit, quorum tamen aliqui sibi non constantes mox habent peccavit. — De influentia lucis increatae vide infra d. 3. p. I. q. 1. Scholion.
9 Cod. N hic addit intellectus. Circa finem propositionis Vat. intelliget pro intellectus, contradicentibus permultis mss. et ed. 1.
10 Aristot., I. Metpah. text. 1.
11 Corruptam lectionem Vat. manifestatio enim mali redarguit facientem emendavimus ex mss. et ed. 1.
12 Verse. 20.
13 Verse 35 et 36, ubi Vulgata: Et veritas magna et fortior prae omnibus etc.

1 The Vatican text here adds is called, as it were [Trans. without the comma], but this is corrected from the manuscripts and edition 1 [Trans., which however the trans. follows for greater clarity.]
2 Opposing the manuscripts and edition 1, by having transposed the words in this manner: it is certainly true, that no one knows, the Vatican text distorts the sense of the Seraphic Doctor. Codex cc omits that. Next after however edition 1 adds well enough the preposition from [ex, which thus renders the English, from some], and codex M has someone instead of some [rendering the English: someone can, however, by experience]. The Seraphic Doctor expounds the sentence, which is proposed here, more fully below in d. 18, p. I, a. 1, q. 2 and in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, ch. 14, n. 999 (Bonelli's Supplement, tom. I).
3 Edition 1 has an appetite for.
4 The codices here read in diverse manners; codex V omits blindness [rendering the English: out of the equal malignity of error and envy. The semicolon immediately following these present words is restored by the trans. in both the Latin and English texts.]; codex S together with edition 1 omits equal; codex O has a depraved in place of an equal; others in other ways, but corrupted; we have decided to change nothing.
5 Wrongly and against the codices and edition 1, the Vatican text reads the defense of error.
6 We have inserted for from the manuscripts and edition 1.
7 Codex T inserts for [enim] here, having moved the period; even if the period is moved, one has This is manifest similarly in spiritual things. For the intellect . . .; this same punctuation very many of the other codices also exhibit; but not so well.
8 Very many of the codices, as F G H K Y Z and editions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, have less well it withdraws, some of which, however, contradicting themselves, have next he has sinned.
9 Codex N has the intellect. Near the end of the proposition, the Vatican text has it will understand in place of the intellect, in contradiction to very many manuscripts and edition 1.
10 Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. I, text 1.
11 The corrupted reading of the Vatican text, for the manifestation of evil refutes evil, we have emended from the manuscripts and edition 1.
12 Verse 20.
13 Verses 35 and 36, where the Vulgate reads: And the truth, great and stronger than [prae] all etc..

p. 25

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod1 est loqui de veritate simpliciter, vel de veritate in hoc sive in speciali. Primo modo veritas est inexpugnabilis, et ideo praevalet; et sic intelligitur illud Esdrae. Est iterum loqui de veritate secundo modo; et2 sic contingit eam per rationes phantasticas obumbrari et per contentionem impugnari. Unde Ambrosius super primum ad Romanos:3 « Contentio est impugnatio veritatis cum confidentia clamoris ».

I RESPOND: It must be said, that1 there is a speaking of the truth in a simple manner, and/or of the truth in this regard or in a special way. In the first manner the truth is inexpugnable, and for that reason it prevails; and thus is understood that (verse) of Esdra. Again there is a speaking of the truth in the second manner; and2 so it happens that it is overshadowed through fantastic reasons and impugned through contention. Whence (St.) Ambrose (says) on the First (Letter) to the Romans:3 « Contention is an impugning of the truth with the confidence of clamor ».

DUB. VIII.

DOUBT VIII.

Ex testimoniis veritatis in aeternum fundatis. Contra: primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio:4 Scientia destruetur: ergo et testimonia.

From the testimonies of the truth founded in eternity. On the contrary: in the thirteenth (chapter) of the First (Letter) to the Corinthians:4 knowledge shall be destroyed: therefore also testimonies.

RESPONDEO: Quod testimonia veritatis sunt in aeternum fundata, sicut dicitur in Psalmo:5 Initio cognovi de testimoniis tuis etc. Quod obiicitur, quod scientia destruetur; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad modum docendi et considerandi, sed non quantum ad cognitum et rationem cognoscendi, Psalmus:6 In aeternum Domine permanet verbum tuum etc.

I RESPOND: That the testimonies of truth have been founded in eternity [in aeternum], as is said in the Psalm:5 From the beginning I have known [cognovi] of Thy testimonies etc.. Because it is objected, that knowledge [scientia] will be destroyed; it must be said, that it is true as much as regards the manner of teaching and considering, but not as much as regards the thing cognized and the reason for cognizing, as the Psalm (says):6 For ever, Lord, does Thy word remain etc..

 

DIVISIO TEXTUS ULTIMAE PARTIS

THE DIVISION OF THE TEXT OF THE LAST PART

In quo maiorum exempla. Haec est pars ultima, in qua ponit Magister rationes moventes discipulos ad audiendum. Et dividitur haec pars in quatuor partes secundum quatuor, quae movent discipulos ad audiendum, duo quorum7 sunt ex parte operis, videlicet auctoritas et utilitas; duo vero ex parte docentis, scilicet humilitas et facilitas. In primo praeparat docilitatem, scilicet in auctoritate. In secundo, scilicet8 in utilitate, suscitat attentionem. In duobus autem sequentibus, scilicet humilitate et facilitate, captat benevolentiam.

In which you shall find again. This is the last part, in which Master (Peter) posits the reasons moving (his) disciples to listen. And this part is divided into four parts according to the four things, which move disciples to listen, two of which7 are from the part of the work, namely authority and utility; but two on the part of the one teaching, that is, humility and facility. In the first (manner) he prepares (their) docility, that is in authority. In the second, that is8 in utility, he stirs up (their) attention. But in the following two, that is with humility and facility, he captures (their) benevolence.

In prima igitur parte ostendit, opus suum esse authenticum, in secunda compendiosum, ibi: Non igitur debet hic labor; in tertia ostendit, modum docendi esse humilem, in hoc quod vult corrigi, ibi: In hoc autem tractatu etc. In quarta ostendit, esse facilem ad inveniendum et memorandum, ibi: Ut autem quod quaeritur facilius occurrat.

In the first part, therefore, he shows, that his work is authentic, in the second (that it is) compendious, there (where he says): Therefore this labor ought not; in the third he shows, that (his) manner of teaching is humble, in this that he wants to be corrected, there (where he says): But in this tract etc.. In the fourth he shows, that it is easy for to find and remember, there (where he says): Moreover so that what is sought may more easily come to meet.

DUBIUM ULTIMAE PARTIS.

 

DUB. IX.

A DOUBT ON THE LAST PART

 

DOUBT IX.

Quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Liberum correctorem; quid vult dicere per hoc nomen liberum?

(The ninth doubt) is asked of this which he says: a free corrector; what does he want to say by this name free?

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod liber corrector dicitur, sicut homo liber, qui « sui tantum causa est », ut dicit Philosophus;9 sic corrector liber dicitur qui tantum gratia correctionis, non invidiae vel subsanationis corrigit. Hunc desiderat Magister exemplo Augustini secundo de Trinitate,10 ubi dicit: « Magis amabo inspici a rectis, quam timebo morderi a perversis. Gratanter enim suscipit osculum columbinum pulcherrima et modestissima caritas; dentem vero caninum vel evitat cautissima humilitatis, vel retundit solidissima veritas: magisque optabo a quolibet reprephendi, quam sive ab errante sive ab adulante laudari ».

I RESPOND: It must be said, that one is called a free corrector, as a free man, who « is only for his own cause », as the Philosopher says;9 so one is called a free corrector who corrects only for the sake of correcting, not (for the sake) of envy and/or of the appearance of a cure [subsanationis]. This (kind of corrector) Master (Peter) desires after the example of (St.) Augustine in the second (book) of On the Trinity,10 where he says: « I shall love to be inspected by the upright more than I will fear to be bitten by the perverse. For thankfully [gratanter] does most beautiful and most modest charity take up a dove's kiss; but a dog's tooth does most cautious humility avoid and/or most solid truth hammers down: and I will choose to be reprehended by anyone rather than to be praised either by the errant or the flatterer ».

1 In Vat. deest quod, sed contra mss. et ed. 1. Mox ex mss. et ed. 1 substituimus in hoc loco quantum ad hoc, quia in hoc et materiae subiectae et verbis immediate subnexis magis correspondet et in operibus S. Doctoris saepius occurit.
2 Fere ominibus mss. et ed. 1 faventibus addidimus et.
3 Vers. 29. — Expositio, quae a S. Doctore et etiam a S. Thoma (hic in expos. textus) attribuitur S. Ambrosio, invenitur in Glossa ordinaria apud Lyranum. — Vat. contra codd. antiquiores specialem citationem omittendo ponit super illud verbum Apostoli: Contentione, dicit.
4 Vers. 8. — Mox codd. X et Z post respondeo addunt dicendum.
5 Psalm. 118, 152.
6 Plsam. 118, 89. — Cod Y Unde Psalmista loco Psalmus. Paulo ante permulti codd. et pro sed, at minus bene.
7 Postulantibus mss. et ed. 1, mutavimus quae in quorum.
8 Vat. In prima et in secunda; quam lectionem subnexis minus cohaerentem emendamus ope fere omnium mss. et ed. 1.
9 Libr. I. Metaph. c. 3, ubi in antiqua ed. Venetiis 1489 sic legitur: Sed ut dicimus homo liber, qui suimet et non alterius causa est. — In ed. Paris. c. 2: Sed quemadmodum dicimus liber homo de eo, qui ipsius et non alterius gratia est.
10 In Prooemio. — In hoc textu Vat., contradicentibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 necnon ed. operum S. Augustini, habet castissima pro modestissima et paulo infra post caninum omittit vel. Mss. in eo tantum ab ed. operum S. Augustini discedunt, quod legant osculum loco oculum, et paulo infra post dentem habeant vero pro autem. Sequimur mss. — Paulo supra nullius cod. auctoritate nec non contra edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 omisso Magister Vat. loco Augustini ponit Augustinus.

1 In the Vatican text that is lacking, but contrary to the manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted in this regard [in hoc], because in this regard corresponds more to the subject matter and the words immediately subjoined and occurs more frequently in the works of the Seraphic Doctor.
2 With nearly all the manuscripts and edition 1 favoring, we have added and.
3 Verse 29. — The exposition, which by the Seraphic Doctor and even by St. Thomas (here in the exposition of the text) is attributed to St. Ambrose, is found in the Glossa ordinaria of Nicholas of Lyra. — The Vatican text, against the more ancient codices, by omitting the special citation puts it this way: Ambrose on that word of the Apostle: By Contention, says: .
4 Verse 8. — Next codices X and Z add it must be said after I respond:.
5 Psalm 118:152.
6 Psalm 118:89. — Codex Y has Whence the Psalmist in place of as the Psalm. A little before this very many of the codices have and in place of but, though less well.
7 As demanded by the manuscripts and edition 1, we have changed which into of which.
8 The Vatican text has In the first (part) and In the second (part); which reading, being less coherent with what is subjoined, we emend with the assistance of nearly all the manuscripts and edition 1.
9 Metaphysics, Bk. I, ch. 3, where in the ancient edition printed at Venice in 1489, there is read: But as we call a man free, who is for his very own cause and not another's. — In the Parisian edition, ch. 2: But according to the manner in which we call a man free from this, who is for the sake of himself and not another.
10 In the Foreword. — In this passage the Vatican text, contradicted by the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1 and even the edition of the Works of St. Augustine, has most chaste in place of most modest and a little below this, after caninum, it omits vel [which does not alter the translation]. The manuscripts depart from the edition of the Works of St. Augustine only in this, that they read kiss in place of eye, and a little below this, before a dog's, they have but [vero] in place of but [autem]. We have followed the manuscripts. — A little above this, on the authority of none of the codices and also contrary to editions 1, 2, 3 and 6, having omitted Master (Peter) and of (St.) Augustine, has (St.) Augustine desires.

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.