|
S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis |
St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio |
Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum |
Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences |
|
Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis |
of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris |
|
PRIMI LIBRI |
BOOK ONE |
COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXII. |
COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXII |
|
ARTICULUS UNICUS.
Quaestio III. |
ARTICLE SOLE
Question 3 |
|
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
|
Latin
text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
|
|
QUAESTIO III.
Utrum omnia divina nomina dicantur translative. |
QUESTION 3
Whether all Divine Names are said in a transferred manner. |
|
TERTIO QUAERITUR, utrum omnia nomina divina dicantur translative, an etiam quaedam dicantur proprie. Et quod omnia dicantur translative, videtur. |
THIRD THERE IS ASKED, whether all Divine Names are said in a transferred manner [translative], or whether certain ones are also said properly. And it seems, that all are said in a transferred manner. |
|
1. In Regulis fidei6 dicitur: « Omne simplex proprie est, et improprie dicitur »; sed quod improprie dicitur, improprie nominatur: cum ergo Deus sit simplex, nominatur improprie; sed improprietas reducitur ad proprietatem: ergo nomina divina de Deo dicuntur improprie, de aliis proprie; sed quod dicitur de aliquod improprie, dicitur translative, si de alio proprie:7 ergo etc. |
1. In The Rules of the Faith6 there is said: « Every simple is properly, and is said improperly »; but what is improperly said, is improperly named: since, therefore, God is simple, He is improperly named; but impropriety is lead back [reducitur] to a property: therefore the Divine Names are said of God improperly, (and) of others properly; but what is said of anything improperly, is said in a transferred manner, if (it is said)7 of another properly: ergo etc.. |
|
2. Item, unumquodque, sicut contingit intelligere, contingit et significare; sed non contingit Deum intelligere8 nisi per proprietates et conditiones creaturarum, ergo nec nominare; sed quod nominatur secundum alienas proprietas semper translative nominatur: ergo etc. |
2. Likewise, just as one happens to understand8 any one thing [unumquodque], one happens also to signify (it); but one does not happen to understand God except through the properties and conditions of creatures, therefore neither to name (Him); but what is named according to the properties of others is always named in a transferred manner: ergo etc.. |
|
3. Item, non est nisi duplex theologia, scilicet mystica et symbolica, secundum quod vult Dionysius;9 sed utraque Deum nominat translative — nam mystica per creaturas spirituales et invisibiles, sed symbolica per corporales — ergo omnis nominatio Dei translativa est. |
3. Likewise, there is naught but a twofold theology, that is, the mystical and the symbolic, according to which (St.) Dionysius (the Areopagite) would have it;9 but each names God in a transferred manner — for the mystical (names Him) through spiritual and invisible creatures, but the symbolic through corporal ones — therefore every naming of God is a transferred one [translativa est]. |
|
4. Item, omne nomen divinum est impositum propter nostram instructionem;10 sed omnis nostra . . . |
4. Likewise, every Divine Name has been imposed for the sake of our instruction;10 but all our . . . |
|
6 Alanus ab Insulis, Theologicae Regulae, reg. 20. — Codd. aa bb post fidei addunt vel theologiae. 7 In cod. aa additur dicatur; codd. vero P Q ultima verba legunt sed de aliquo proprie et transponunt post improprie. 8 Vat. cum cod. cc, sed aliis codd. et ed. 1 obnitentibus, intelligi. Paulo ante pauci codd. ut P Q V verbis contingit et apte praefigunt sic; cod. T autem loco contingit et significare ponit ita et nominare, lectio, si formam argumenti spectes, praeferenda. 9 Epist. 9. Cfr. etiam de Div. Dom. c. 1 veruss finem et de Mystica Theolog. c. 1. — Paulo infra post spirituales ed. 1 omittit et ac dein in aliquibus codd. ut V W X particula sed deest; in fine argumenti plurimi mss. cum edd. 2, 3, 6 exhibent minus congrue translative pro translativa; tandem cod. O ibidem ponit dicitur et codd. P Q dicitur esse loco est. 10 Respicitur illud Rom. 15, 4: Quaecumque scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt. |
6 Alan of Lille, Theological Rules, rule 20. — Codices aa and bb after of the Faith [fidei] add and/or Theology [vel theologiae]. 7 In codex aa there is added it is said [dicatur]; but codices P and Q read instead but of anything properly [sed de aliquot proprie] and transposes these after improperly [improprie]. 8 The Vatican edition, together with codex cc, but with the other codices and edition 1 striving against this, reads as any one thing happens to be understood [unumquodque, sicut contingit intelligi]. A little before this a few codices, such as P Q and V, prefix so [sic] aptly before one happens also to signify [contingit et significare]; codex T, however, in place of these same words puts thus (one happens) also to name [ita et nominare], a reading which, if one looks at the form of the argument, is to be preferred. 9 Epistle 9. Cf. also On the Divine Names, ch. 1, near the end, and On Mystical Theology, ch. 1. — A little below this after spiritual [spirituales] edition 1 omits and [et] and then in some codices, such as V W and X, the particle but [sed] is lacking; at the end of the argument very many manuscripts, together with editions 2, 3 and 6, exhibit less congruously in a transferred manner [translative] for a transferred one [translativa]; next codex O puts is said (to be) [dicitur] and codices P and Q is said to be [dicitur esse] in place of the final is [est]. 10 A reference to Rom. 15:4: Whatsoever has been written, has been written for our instruction [Quaecumque scripta sunt, ad nostrum doctrinam scripta sunt]. |
p. 395
|
doctrina incipit a sensu:1 ergo omen nomen Dei accipitur secundum aliquod sensibile; sed in Deo nulla est proprietas sensibilis secundum veritatem, sed solum translative: ergo etc. |
learning [doctrina] begins from sense;1 therefore every Name of God is accepted according to some sensible; but in God there is no sensible property according to truth, but solely in a transferred manner: ergo etc.. |
|
CONTRA: 1. Apostolus dicit ad Ephesios tertio,2 loquens de Deo: A quo omnis paternitas in caelo et in terra nominatur; sed si paternitas in terris nominatur a paternitate Dei: ergo Deus proprius et principalius dicitur Pater quam alia, non ergo translative. Hoc ipsum dicunt Dionysius3 et Damascenus, innitentes huic auctoritati Apostoli. Inquit enim Damascenus:4 « Sciendum, quod non est a nobis translatum ad beatum Deitatem paternitatis et filiationis et processionis nomen, sicut ait divinus Apostolus: Ex quo omnis paternitas »: ergo etc. |
ON THE CONTRARY: 1. The Apostle says in the third (chapter of his Letter) to the Ephesians,2 speaking of God: From whom every paternity in Heaven and Earth is named; but if paternity on earth [in terris] is named from the paternity of God: therefore God is more properly and more principally said (to be) “Father” than others, therefore not in a transferred manner. This very (thing) does (St.) Dionysius3 and (St. John) Damascene say, supporting (themselves) upon this authority of the Apostle. For (St. John) Damascene says:4 « It must be known, that there is not transferred from us to the Blessed Deity the name for ’paternity’ and ‘filiation’ and ‘procession’, just as the divine Apostle says: From whom every paternity »: ergo etc.. |
|
2. Item, beatus Ambrosius dicit, et habetur in littera,5 quod triplex est nominum divinorum differentia, et una ex illis sunt nomina translativa: non ergo omnia dicuntur translative. |
2. Likewise, Blessed Ambrose says, as it is had in the text,5 that there is a threefold difference of Divine Names, and one of those are transferred [translativa] names: therefore not all are said in a transferred manner. |
|
3. Item, quaedam dicuntur de Deo, quae habent oppositum in omni creatura, ut aeternitas et immensitas; sed nomen translativum attenditur secundum aliquam similitudinem:6 ergo talia nomina non sunt translativa. |
3. Likewise, certain (names) are said of God, which have an opposite in every creature, such as “eternity” and “immensity”; but a transferred name is attained according to some similitude:6 therefore such names are not transferred ones. |
|
4. Item, quaedam dicuntur de Deo, quorum significatum est proprie in solo Deo, ut hoc homen bonum et qui est, Lucae decimo octavo:7 Nemo bonus nisi solus Deus. Et Augustinus8 dicit, quod « solus Deus vere est, cuius comparatione cetera non sunt ». |
4. Likewise, certain (names) are said of God, the signified of which is properly in God alone, as this name “the Good” and “He who is”, according to the eighteenth (chapter of the Gospel of St.) Luke:7 No one (is) good, except God alone. And (St.) Augustine8 says, that « God alone truly is, in comparison to Whom all others are not ». |
|
CONCLUSIO.
Non omnia nomina de Deo dicuntur translative: quando enim significant rem, cuius veritas est in Deo et oppositum in creatura, nullo modo transferuntur; quando significant rem, cuius veritas est in Deo et similitudo in creatura, transferuntur secundum impositionem, non secundum rem; quando denique significant rem, cuius veritas est in creatura et consimilis proprietas in Deo, proprie transferuntur. |
CONCLUSION
Not all names are said of God in a transferred manner: for when they signify a thing, the truth of which is in God and the opposite in a creature, they are in no manner transferred; when they signify a thing, the truth of which is in God and the similitude in a creature, they are transferred according to imposition, not according to thing; finally when they signify a thing, the truth of which is in a creature and a completely similar property in God, they are properly transferred. |
|
RESPONDEO: Ad hoc voluerunt quidam dicere, quod quaedam sunt nomina, quae Deus sibi imposuit, quaedam, quae nos ei imposuimus. Si loquamur de nominibus, quae Deus sibi imposuit, cum ipse se proprie intelligat, huiusmodi nomina sunt propria; et talia dicuntur esse bonum et qui est. Unde Dionysius9 videtur velle, quod illud nomen bonum solum sit proprium et principale; Damascenus10 vero, quod illud nomen qui est solum est proprium et principale; et unus attendit in nomine perfectionem, alter absolutionem, uterque tamen proprietatem.11 Si autem loquamur de nominibus, quae nos ei imposuimus, sic cum non cognoscamus Deum nisi per creaturas, non eum nominamus nisi per nomina creaturarum; et12 ideo solum translative, sive quia proprius et prius conveniunt creaturae, sive quia prius imposita sunt creaturae, quamvis non proprius conveniant creaturae. Et haec est . . . |
I RESPOND: To this certain (authors) wanted to say, that there are certain names, which God imposed upon Himself, certain ones, which we imposed upon Him. If we speak of the names, which God imposed upon Himself, since He Himself understands Himself properly, names of this kind are proper; and such are said to be “the Good” and “He who is”. Whence (St.) Dionysius9 seems to want, that that name “the Good” is alone the proper and principal (name); however (St. John) Damascene,10 that that name “He who is” is alone the proper and principal one; and one stretches out in name to the perfection (of God), the other to (His) absolution (from all things), each, however, to (Divine) property.11 But if we speak of the names, which we have imposed upon Him, thus since we do not cognize God except through creatures, we do not name Him except through the names of creatures; and12 for that reason (such names are said of God) solely in a transferred manner, whether because they more properly and first convene with a creature, or because the have been first imposed upon a creature, though they do not more properly convene with a creature. And this is . . . |
|
1 Cfr. Aristot., I. Poster. c. 14. (c. 18.), III. de Anima text. 39. (c. 8.), et c. 6 de Sensu et Sensibili, nec non I. Metaph. c. 1. — Mox plures codd. ut A S T W Z etc. aliquid pro aliquod. 2 Vers. 15, in quo textu Vat. cum Vulgata Ex quo pro A quo, et dein Vulgata caelis pro caelo contra codd. et ed. 1 exhibet. — Paulo infra cod. V alius pro alia. 3 De Div. Nom. c. 1. § 4: Unde in omni fere theologica actione thearchiam videmus divinitus laudatam, ut monadem quidem et unum propter simplicitatem et unitatem . . . ut trinitatem vero propter subsistentem ter superessentialis fecunditatis expressionem, ex qua omnis paternitas in caelo et in terra est et nominatur. 4 Libr. I.de Fide orthod. c. 8: Quin illud quoque nosse interest, paternitatis, filiationis et processionis vocabula non a nobis ad beatam Deitatem esse translata, verum contra illinc nobis communicata, quaemadmodum Apostolus ait: Propterea flecto genua mea ad Patrem, ex quo omnis paternitas. 5 Hic, c. 1. — Mox cod. V. illarum pro ex illis. 6 Cfr. supra pag. 1, nota 8.. 7 Vers. 19. Quia ista verba sic leguntur apud Lucam, ipsum in textu citavimus, licet in mss. et edd. habeatur Matthaei, 19, 14, ubi sic legitur: Unus est bonus, Deus. 8 Libr. VIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 11: « Ego sum qui sum; et dices filiis Israel: Qui est misit me ad vos; tanquam in eius comparatione qui vere est, quia incommutabilis est, ea quae mutabilia facta sunt, non sint ». Ceterum cfr. de hoc supra d. VIII. c. 1 lit. Magistri, ubi idem recurrit et Hieronymo attribuitur. 9 De Div. Nom. c. 3. § 1: Ac primum, si videtur, perfectum et quod omnes Dei emanationes manifestat, boni nomen expendamus (versio Corderii). Cfr. et c. 4. 10 Libr. I. de Fide orthod. c. 9, ubi et rationem addit: Nam totum esse velut immensum quoddam ac nullis terminis definitum essentiae pelagus complexu suo ipse continet. — Ex fere omnibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus particulam vero. 11 Aliis verbis, Dionysius in nomine bonum attendit divinum esse, quatenus in se completissime existens est causa omnia comprehendens sive omnium principium et finis. Nam bonum ex natura sua est diffusivum sui tenetque rationem finis; perfectum autem est illud quod omnia praehabens potest facere sibi simile (cfr. loc. cit. c. 4. et 13.). Damascenus vero in nomine Qui est considerat divinum esse secundum se et absolute, quatenus est infinitum pelagus essentialitatis. Uterque tamen in his nominibus tale designat, quod Deo vere et proprie convenit. Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 49. m. 4. a. 2. 12 In Vat. et cod. cc deest et ab aliis codd. et ed. 1 exhibitum. Paulo supra post cum et dein post creaturas fide mss. et ed. 1 expunximus nos. Mox cod. T non quia pro quamvis non. Unus alterque codex ut Y in hac et in sequenti propositione per prius loco proprius. |
1 Cf. Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, Bk. I, ch. 14 (ch. 18), On the Soul, Bk. III, text 39 (ch. 8), and ch. 6, “On Sense and the Sensible”, and also Metaphysics, Bk. I, ch. 1. — Next very many codices, such as A S T W Z etc., have something [aliquid] for some [aliquod]. 2 Verse 15, in which text the Vatican edition, together with the Vulgate, reads From whom [Ex quo] for From whom [A quo], and then the Vulgate exhibits in the Heavens [in caelis] for in Heaven [in caelo], contrary to the codices and edition 1 [Trans. note: According to the classical conception, which distinguished Heaven from the sky, the former was caeli and the latter caelum; which distinction of terms frequently is absent in post classical Latin.]. — A little below this codex V has another (father is) [alius] for others [alia: in the sense of other beings are]. 3 On the Divine Names, ch. 1 § 4: Whence in nearly every theological action we see the Thearchy divinely praised, such that the Monad is indeed also named “the One” on account of (His) simplicity and unity . . . so that, however, the Trinity on account of the subsistent expression of the thrice super-essential fecundity, out of which every paternity in Heaven and on Earth is, is also named. 4 On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. I, ch. 8: It is also interesting to know that, the vocabulary [vocabula] of paternity, filiation and procession has not been transferred by us to the Blessed Deity, but on the contrary has been communicated to us from There, according to the extent that the Apostle says: On this account I bend my knees to the Father, from whom every paternity etc.. 5 Here in ch. 1. — Next codex V has of those [illarum] for of those [ex illis]. 6 Cf. above Prooemium, p. 1, footnote 8. 7 Verse 19. Because those words are thus read in St. Luke, in the very passage cited by us, though in the manuscripts and editions there is had Matthew 19:14, where there is read: One is good, God [Unus est bonus Deus]. 8 On the City of God, Bk. VIII, ch. 11: « I am who am; and you shall say to the children of Israel: He who is has sent me to you; as if in the comparison to Him who truly is, because He is incommutable, those which have been made mutable, are not ». For the rest of this, cf. above Master (Peter’s) text, Distinction VIII, ch. 1, where the same passage recurs, and he attributes it to (St.) Jerome. 9 On the Divine Names, ch. 3, § 1: And, if He is seen, we weigh the name “the Good” as the first, perfect (name) and as that which manifests all the emanations of God. (in Corderius’ version). Cf. also ch. 4. 10 On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. I, ch. 9, where he also adds a reason: For He Himself contains within His own embrace ‘being’ in its entirety [totum esse] as a certain immense open sea of essence and defined with no limits. — From nearly all the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1 we have supplied the particle however [vero]. 11 In other words, (St.) Dionysius in the name “the Good” [bonum] intends the Divine ‘Being’ [divinum esse], to the extend that as existing most completely in Itself It is the cause comprehending all or the principle and end of all. For good out of its own nature is diffusive of itself and has the reckoning of an end; but the perfect is that which, being had before all, can make a similar to itself (cf. loc. cit. chs. 4 and 13). But (St. John) Damascene in the name “He who is” considers the Divine ‘Being’ according to Itself and absolutely, to the extent that it is an infinite, open sea of essentiality. Yet each designates such in these names, that it convenes truly and properly to God. Cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. I, q. 49, m. 4, a. 2. 12 In the Vatican edition and codex cc, there is lacking and [et], which is exhibited by the other codices and edition 1. In the previous two clauses we have expunged the explicit subjects of the verb we [nos], which followed the words since [cum] and creatures [creaturas], on the testimony of the manuscripts and edition 1. Next codex T has not because they [non quia] for though they do not [quamvis non]. One or the other codex, such as Y, in this and the following proposition, has through (a consideration of what is) prior [per prius] for more properly [proprius]. |
p. 396
|
translatio quaedam, quamvis, proprie loquendo, sit translatio, quando proprius conveniunt iis, a quibus transferuntur, ut ridere hominibus proprius quam pratis. |
a certain transferal [translatio quaedam], though, properly speaking, there is a transferal, when (the names) properly convene with those, from which they are transferred, such as “to laugh” (convenes) more properly with men, than with meadows. |
|
Sed haec positio non videtur stare.1 Cum enim2 nos cognoscamus Deum tripliciter, scilicet per effectum, per excellentiam et per ablationem, constat quod omnibus his modis contingit Deum nominare. Si per effectum, nulla est ibi translatio;3 similiter, si per ablationem, quoniam translatio attenditur secundum aliquam similitudinem: « omnes enim transferentes secundum aliquam similitudinem transferunt ».4 |
But this position does not seem to stand.1 For since2 we cognize God in a threefold manner, that is through an effect, through excellence and through ablation, it is established, that in all these manners one happens to name God. If through an effect, there is no transferal;3 similarly, if through ablation, since a transferal is attained according to some similitude: « for all transferring according to some similitude transfer ».4 |
|
Et propterea aliter dicendum, quod quaedam sunt nomina, quae significant rem, cuius veritas est in Deo et oppositum in creatura, ut immensus et aeternus; et talia nullo modo transferuntur, nec secundum rem nec secundum impositionem. Quaedam5 significant rem, cuius veritas est in Deo et similitudo eius in creatura, ut potentia, sapientia et voluntas; et talia nomina transferuntur a creaturis ad Deum, non secundum rem, sed secundum impositionem; quia prius imposita sunt creaturis quam Deo, licet prius sint in Deo. Quaedam sunt nomina, quae significant rem, cuius veritas6 est in creatura et consimilis proprietas in Deo, ut lapis et leo — res enim significata est in creatura, sed similitudo proprietatis, ut stabilitas et fortitudo in Deo est — et ista sunt proprie translativa. Concedendum ergo, quod in divinis sunt aliqua nomina translativa, non omnia. |
And on this account it must be otherwise said, that there are certain names, which signify a thing, the truth of which is in God and the opposite in a creature, such as “the Immense One” and “the Eternal One”; and such are in no manner transferred, neither according to thing nor according to imposition. Certain ones5 signify a thing, the truth of which is in God and its similitude in a creature, such as “Power”, “Wisdom”, and “Will”; and such names are transferred from creatures to God, not according to thing, but according to imposition; because they have been imposed upon creatures before (they have) upon God, thought they are first in God. There are certain names, which signify a thing, the truth6 of which is in a creature and a completely similar property in God, such as “Rock” and “Lion” — for the thing signified is in a creature, but the similitude of the property, such as “stability” and “fortitude” is in God — and these are properly transferred [translativa]. It must be conceded, therefore, that among the divine some are transferred names, not all. |
|
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod simplex improprie dicitur; dicendum, quod dicere ibi non est nominare, sed7 enuntiare, quia simplici non est compositio in essendo, sed est compositio in enuntiando, et ideo improprie; non sic in nominando. — Vel dic, quod non omne dictum improprie est dictum translative. |
1. To that, therefore, which is objected, that a simple is said improperly, it must be said, that there “to say” is not “to name”, but (rather)7 “to enunciate”, because for the simple there is no composition in being [in essendo], but there is a composition in enunciating, and for that reason (it is said) improperly; not so in naming. — And/or say, that not everything said improperly has been said in a transferred manner. |
|
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod solum per creaturas intelligitur; dicendum, quod quamvis intelligatur solum per creaturas, non tamen solum per similitudinem,8 immo per negationem et dissimilitudinem est cognoscibilis. |
2. To that which is objected, that He is understood solely through creatures; it must be said, that although He is understood solely through creatures, yet not solely through a similitude,8 nay (rather) He is (also) cognizable through negation and dissimilitude |
|
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod symbolica et mystica theologia nominant Deum translative; dicendum, quod quamvis mystica nominet9 Deum translative quantum ad proprietates excellentiae, tamen non solum sic nominat, sec etiam per abnegationem; et ideo non solum translative. |
3. To that which is objected, that symbolic and mystical theology name God in a transferred manner; it must be said, that although mystical (theology) does name9 God in a transferred manner, as much as regards the properties of (His) excellence, yet it does not solely name (Him) in this manner, but also through abnegation; and for that reason not solely in a transferred sense. |
|
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnis nostra doctrina incipit a sensu; dicendum, quod verum est; et10 omne nomen aliquid habet sensibile, scilicet vocem, ut audiatur; sed non oportet, quod habeat sensibilem significationem, quia verbum intelligentiae, quod est insensibile, induit vocem sensibilem. |
4. To that which is objected, that all our learning begins from sense; it must be said, that it is true; and10 every name has something sensible, namely, a spoken sound [vocem], so that it is heard; but it is not bound [oportet], that it have a sensible signification, because a word of understanding, which is insensible, puts on the sensible, spoken sound. |
|
SCHOLION. |
SCHOLIUM |
|
I. Non proprium hic non accipitur, quatenus in divinis distinguitur contra commune, sed quatenus distinguitur contra metaphoricum seu translativum. — S. Doctor cum Angelico reiicit sententiam in prima opinione notatam, quod omnia nomina, Deo a nobis imposita, non sint nisi metaphorica; hoc probat per inductionem, enumerando tres vias seu modos, quibus formamus nomina divina, scil. causalitatis, negationis, eminentiae. In via eminentiae translatio fit quidem secundum quandam similitudinem, quae tamen differt a similitudine metaphorica. — Quoad modum concipiendi perfectiones divinas Richard. a Med. (loco infra cit.) haec observat: « Quaedam sunt nomina, quae significant, vel potius per quae significare intendimus distincte et insinuare (quamvis ad sic significandum non attingamus) res, quae per prius sunt in Deo et per posterius in creatura; et talia nomina magis proprie dicuntur de Deo quam de creatura, non ratione huius, quod per nomen intelligimus distincte insinuari, sed ratione huius, quod per nomen insinuare intendimus; et sic de Deo non dicuntur translative ». Deinde idem in solut ad 4. dicit: « Quamvis Deum intelligamus per suos effectus, quae sunt quaedam similitudines Dei, tamen cognitio nostra non sistit in illis effectibus, sed ascendit ad cognoscendum Dei virtutem et divinitatem, quamvis in generali et obscure ». — Dionysius autem Carth. (hic q. 2.) non omnino consentit solutioni S. Thomae, Bonav., Alberti aliorumque, praesertim quoad hoc, quod omnia nomina Deo imposita sint ex creaturis et quantum ad vocem translata a creaturis ad creatorem; in specie facit quasdam exceptiones contra reprobationem primae opinionis, quam habet S. Boanv. in responsione, asseritque, frequenter esse translationem, dum nominamus Deum tum per effectum, tum per ablationem, tum per eminentiam. Sed responderi potest, S. Bonaventuram minime negare, quaedam nomina non nisi Deo revelante ipsi imposita esse, sed . . . |
I. Here “proper” is not accepted, to the extent that among the divine it is distinguished against “common”, but to the extent that it is distinguished against “metaphorical” or “transferred”. — The Seraphic Doctor together with the Angelic (Doctor) rejects the sentence noted in the first opinion, that all names, imposed upon God by us, are naught but metaphorical; this he proves through induction, by enumerating the three ways or manners, by which we form Divine Names, that is, (by way) of causality, negation and eminence. In the way of eminence a transferal indeed comes to be according to a certain similitude, which, however, differs from a metaphorical similitude. — In regard to the manner of conceiving the divine perfections, Richard of Middleton (loc. cit. below) makes these observations: « There are certain names, which signify, and/or rather through which we intend to signify and hint at distinctly (although we do not attain to signify it in this manner) a thing, which are in God through (a consideration of what is) prior and in a creature through (a consideration of what is) posterior; and such names more properly are said of God than of a creature, not by a reckoning of this, that through the name we understand that He has been distinctly hinted at, but by the reckoning of this, that through the name we intend to hint at it; and in this manner they are not said of God in a transferred manner ». — However, (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, (here in q. 2), does not entirely consent to the solution of Sts. Thomas, Bonaventure, Albertus (Magnus) and others, chiefly in regard to this, that all names have been imposed upon God from creatures and as much as regards the spoken sound [vocem] (have been) transferred from creatures to the Creator; in particular he makes certain exceptions against the reproof of the first opinion, which St. Bonaventure has in the Response, and he asserts, that frequently there is a transferal, while we name God, both through (His) effect, as well as through ablation, and through eminence. But one can respond, that St. Bonaventure least of all denies, that certain names have not been imposed upon Him, except by God the Revealer, but . . . |
|
1 Pauci mss. ut I X cum ed. 1 verbo stare bene praemittunt posse. 2 In cod. O additur secundum Dionysium, cuius verba vide supra pag. 77, nota 10. 3 Vat. addit Pariformiter si per excellentiam, quae tamen verba omittuntur in mss. et ed. 1; rationem huius omissionis vide paulo infra in solutione ad 3. 4 Aristot., VI. Topic. c. 2, de quo vide supra pag. 1, nota 8. 5 Ed. 1 adiungit sunt nomina, quae. 6 Codd. K V proprietas; paulo infra post fortitudo in cod. A additur proprie, et dein multi codd. ut A C F G H K L S etc. ponunt ita pro ista, inter quos est cod. T, qui, pluribus omissis, breviter legit et ita sunt aliqua nomina translativa, non omnia. 7 Cod. T nisi pro sed. — Notandum, quod nominare respicit terminum, ennuntiare autem propositionem, quae semper est aliquid complexum sive compositum. 8 In cod. O adiicitur creaturae. 9 Cod. V, post mystica addito et symbolica, consequenter habet nominent et paulo infra nominant. Mox in aliquibus mss. ut A T etc. et ed. 1 deest Deum. Dein cod. X negationem pro abnegationem. 10 Vat. cum cod. cc, mutata interpunctione, quod loco et ac mox secundum pro scilicet, sed minus distincte et contra alios codd. cum ed. 1. Paulo infra cod. W intelligibile pro intelligentiae. |
1 A few manuscripts, such as I and X, together with edition 1 prefix to the word to stand [stare] the word able [posse]. 2 In codex O there is added according to (St.) Dionysius [secundum Dionysium], for the words of which, see above d. 3, dubium 1, page 77, footnote 10. 3 The Vatican edition adds Equi-formally, if through excellence [Pariformiter si per excellentiam], which words, however, are omitted in the manuscripts and edition 1; see the reason for this omission a little below this, in the solution to n. 3. 4 Aristotle, Topics, Bk. VI, ch. 2, concerning which see above, Prooemium, page 1, footnote 8. 5 Edition 1 reads instead There are certain names, which [Quaedam sunt nomina, quae] for Certain ones [Quaedam]. 6 Codices K and V read the property [proprietas]; a little below this after “fortitude” is [fortitudo] in codex A there is added properly [proprie], and then many codices, such as A C F G H K L S etc., put thus [ita] for these [ista], among which is codex T, which, having omitted many words, briefly reads and thus some are transferred names, not all [et ita sunt aliqua nomina translativa, non omnia]. 7 Codex T has except [nisi] to but (rather) [sed]. — It must be noted, that “to name” respects a term, but “to enunciate” a proposition, which is always something complex or composed. 8 In codex O there is added of a creature [creaturae]. 9 Codex V, after mystical [mystica], having added and symbolic [et symbolica], consequently has the verbs of naming which follow in the plural. Next in some manuscripts, such as A T etc., and edition 1 there is lacking God [Deum]. Then codex X reads negation [negationem] for abnegation [abnegationem]. 10 The Vatican edition, together with codex cc, having changed the punctuation, reads that [quod] for and [et] and next reads according to [secundum] for namely [scilicet], but less distinctly and contrary to the other codices, together with edition 1. A little below this codex W has an intelligible word [verbum intelligibile] for a word of understanding [verbum intelligentiae]. |
p. 397
|
ipse negat, hac ratione apte distingui posse nomina propria a metaphoricis. Item, non negat S. Bonav., immo expresse affirmat, quosdam effectus Dei et nomina hos effectus significantia non nisi metaphorice de Deo dici posse. Denique secundum mentem eiusdem Seraphici dici potest, etiam nomina, quae proprie Deo conveniunt quoad rem significatam (ut sapientia), tamen quoad modum significandi non proprie Deo attribui, quatenus non eo modo, quo nos ea in hac vita concipimus, sed per modum in infinitum eminentiorem et perfectiorem Deo conveniunt. Sed hoc non efficit, ut ista nomina sint translativa (metaphorica) nisi in sensu improprio. Nam, ut bene dicit Richard. (loc. cit. ad 4.), « nomen translatum non dicitur, nisi ubi est translatio ratione rei significatae ». |
he denies, that for this reason there can be aptly distinguished proper names from metaphorical ones. Likewise, St. Bonaventure does not deny, nay expressly affirms, that certain effects of God and the names signifying these effects cannot be said but metaphorically of God. Finally, according to the mind of the Seraphic Doctor it can be said, that even the names which properly convene God in regard to the thing signified (such as “wisdom”), are yet not properly to be attributed to God in regard to the manner of signifying, to the extent that not in that manner, by which we conceive them in this life, but through the manner they convene with God in the more eminent and more perfect, infinite degree. But this does not cause, those names to be transferred (metaphorical), except in an improper sense. For, as Richard rightly says (loc. cit., in reply to n. 4), « a name is not said (to be) transferred [translatum], except where there is a transferal by reason of the thing signified ». |
|
II. Plura de necessitate et regulis translationis vide infra d. 34. q. 4. — De nomine Dei; Qui est, magnifice loquitur S. Doctor in Intinerar. mentis in Deum, ch. 5. Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 49. m. 4. a. 1. 2. — S. Thom., I. Sent. d. 8. q. 1. a. 1 et 3; S. I. q. 13. a. 11. — B. Albert., I. Sent. d. 3. a. 13. 14. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 6. |
II. For more on the necessity and rules for a transferal, see below d. 34, q. 4. — On the Name of God; “He who is”, the Seraphic Doctor speaks magnificently in the Itinerarium mentis in Deum, ch. 5. Cr. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. I, q. 49, m. 4, a. 1 and 2. — St. Thomas, Sent., Bk. I, d. 8, q. 1, a. 1 and 3; Summa., I, q. 13, a. 11. — Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), Sent., Bk. I, d. 3, a. 13 and 14. — Richard of Middleton, here in q. 6. |
|
III. Quoad conclusionem: Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 48. m. 2. a. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; S. I. q. 13. a. 3. et 6. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. hic a. 1; S. p. I. tr. 14. q. 56. et 59. m. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Richard. a. Med., hic q. 4. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 3. — Henr. Ghand., S. a. 32. q. 2, et a. 73. q. 2. seqq. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. |
III. In regard to the conclusion: Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. I, q. 48, m. 2, a. 2. — St . Thomas, here in q. 1, a. 2; Summa., I, q. 13, a. 3. and 6. — B l. (now St.) Albertus, on this and the following question, here in a. 1; Summa., p. I, tr. 14, q. 56 and 59, m. 1 and 2. — (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 1, a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here in q. 4. — Giles the Roman, here in 1st. princ., q. 3. — Henry of Ghent, Summa., a. 32, q. 2, and a. 73, q. 2. ff. — (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in q. 2. |
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 than 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. Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.