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

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 XXIV.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXIV

ARTICULUS II.

 

Quaestio I.

ARTICLE II

 

Question 1

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 424-426.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 424-426.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

ARTICULUS II.

 

De nominibus pure numeralibus.

ARTICLE II

 

On purely numeral names.

Secundo principaliter quaeritur de secundo articulo,9 scilicet de nominibus pure numeralibus, ut sunt duo et tres etc.  Et circa hoc similiter quaeruntur duo.

Second there is principally asked concerning the second article,9 that is, concerning names purely numeral, such as are “two” and “three” etc..  And about this similarly there are asked two (questions):

Primo quaeritur, utrum dicantur positive, aut privative.

First there is asked, whether they are said positively, or privatively.

Secundo, utrum dicantur secundum substantiam, aut secundum relationem.

Second, whether they are said according to substance, or according to relation.

9  In Vat. et cod. cc hic desideratur de secundo articulo, scilicet.

9  In the Vatican edition and codex cc there is wanting here concerning the second article, that is, [de secundo articulo, scilicet].

p. 425

QUAESTIO I.

 

Utrum nomina pure numeralia in divinis positive, an privative dicantur.

QUESTION 1

 

Whether purely numeral names among the divine are said positively, or privatively.

ET QUOD dicantur privative solum, videtur:

AND THAT they are said only privatively, seems:

1. Per auctoritatem Magistri in littera,1 qui dicit, quod « horum usus magis inductus est causa privandi quam ponendi »; et videtur per auctoritates aliorum firmari auctoritas Magistri.  Dicit enim Boethius in libro de Trinitate:2  « Illud vere unum est, in quo nullus est numerus »; sed in divinis unum est verissime:  ergo in divinis non est numerus:  ergo isti termini in divinis aut falso dicuntur, aut non praedicant numerum, si aliquid ponunt:  ergo etc.

1. Through the authority of Master (Peter) in the text,1 which says, that « the use of these has been introduced [inductus] more for the sake of depriving than of positing »; and the authority of Master (Peter) seems to be strengthened [firmari] through the authorities of others.  For (St. Severinus) Boethius says in (his) book On the Trinity:2  « That truly is one, in which there is no number »; but among the divine there is most truly a One:  therefore among the divine there is no number:  therefore those terms among the divine either are said falsely, or they do not predicate a number, if they do posit something:  ergo etc..

2. Item, Isidorus3 dicit, quod numerus est virtus memeris, id est divisionis, secundum etymologiam; sed in Deo non cadit divisio, ergo nec numerus; ergo idem quod prius.

2. Likewise, (St.) Isidore3 says, that number is the virtue of a member [memeris], that is, of a division, according to (its) etymology; but in God there occurs no division, therefore neither a number; therefore the same as before.

3. Item, Philosophus4 dicit, quod « numerus est multitudo mensurata per unum »; sed in Deo non cadit mensuratio, cum ipse sit immensus:  ergo etc.

3. Likewise, the Philosopher4 says, that « number is a multitude measured through ‘one’ »; but in God there occurs no measuring, since He Himself is immense:  ergo etc..

4. Item, hoc videtur per rationem: quia a quocumque removetur genus, et species; sed genus quantitatis removetur a Deo:  ergo etc.

4. Likewise, this seems through reason:  because from whatsoever there is removed a genus, (there is) also (removed every) species; but the genus of quantity is removed from God:  ergo etc..

5. Item, in quocumque est genus, necesse est ponere aliquam specierum:5  ergo si numerus est in Deo, vel est ibi binarius, vel ternarius, vel aliquis aliorum.  Sed Sancti omnes species negant, ergo et genus:  ergo idem quod prius.

5. Likewise, in whatsoever there is a genus, it is necessary to posit someone of the species:5  therefore if number is in God, either it is There a group of two [binarius], and/or a group of three [ternarius], and/or some of the other (groups of number).  But the Saints deny every species (of number in God), therefore also the genus (of number):  therefore the same as before.

CONTRA:  1. Si tantum privative dicerentur tres, quia non sunt unus vel duo, tunc ergo pari ratione posset dici:  chimaerae sunt tres, quia non sunt una vel duae; sed illud non dicitur:  ergo etc.

ON THE CONTRARY:  1. If the Three are only said privatively, because They are not One and/or Two, then for an equal reason it could be said:  “There are three chimera”, because there are not one and/or two (chimera); but that is not said:  ergo etc..

2. Item, quod dicat numerum, videtur.  Eusebius6 dicit:  « In divinis est numerus, sed non ordo »; sed si est ibi numerus:  ergo contingit illum significare esse.  Et si hoc:  ergo positive tenentur dictiones, quae illum significant.

2. Likewise, it seems that it does mean a number.  (St.) Eusebius6 says:  « Among the divine there is a number, but not an order »; but if there is a number There:  therefore it happens that there is a signifying.  And if this:  therefore the saying, which signify that, are held positively.

3. Item, Bernardus:7  « Si una est essentia, tres personae, quis numerum neget »? quasi dicat, nullus:  ergo etc.

3. Likewise, (St.) Bernard (of Clairvaux says):7  « If there is one Essence, Three Persons, who denies (there is) number »? as if to say, “No one (does)”:  ergo etc..

4. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione, quia discreta quantitas est maioris abstractionis quam continua:  ergo et discretio magis quam duratio.  Sed nomen dicens durationem in divinis dicitur positive, ut aeternus:  ergo et nomen dicens discretionem.

4. Likewise, this very (thing) seems by reason, because a discrete quantity is of a greater abstraction than a continuous (one):  therefore also a discretion more than a duration.  But the name meaning a duration is said positively in God, as (is) “eternal”:  therefore also the name meaning a discretion.

 

5. Item, in quocumque est ponere speciem positive, est ponere genus; sed in Deo est ponere trinitatem:  ergo et pluralitatem.

5. Likewise, in whatsoever there is a positing of species positively, there is a positing of genus;  but in God there is a positing of a Trinity:  therefore also of a plurality.

CONCLUSIO.

 

In divinis numerus dicitur, quidem positive, sed non est ibi simpliciter, sed numerus personarum.

CONCLUSION

 

Among the divine, number is indeed said positively, but it is not There simply, but (rather as) the number of the Persons.

RESPONDEO:  Ad praedictorum intelligentiam dicendum,8 quod positio Magistri fuit, quod huiusmodi nomina numeralia in divinis non ponerent aliquid, sed privarent, sicut patet in littera.  Et ratio huius positionis fuit, quia huiusmodi nomina, si aliquid ponunt, numerum utique ponunt; sed numerum non esse in divinis ponendum, et ratio dicit et auctoritas Sanctorum confirmat.  Cum enim in divinis non sit divisio et separatio, non sit etiam aggregatio, non sit etiam mensuratio; et numerus separationem importet antecedenter, et aggregationem et mensurationem consequenter:  numerus in divinis non videtur esse9 ponendus.  Et ideo dictiones numerales in divinis non dicunt aliquid, sed magis privant, maiorem scilicet numerum et minorem.

I RESPOND:  For an understanding of the aforesaid, it must be said,8 that the position of Master (Peter) was, that, among the divine, numeral names of this kind do not posit anything [aliquid], but (rather) deprive, just as is clear in the text.  And the reason for this position was, because names of this kind, if they do posit something [aliquid], posit at least a number; but both reason says and the authority of the Saints confirm, that number is not to be posited among the divine.  For since among the divine there is no division and separation, (and) there is also no aggregation, (and) there is also no measuring; and (since) a number does convey a separation antecedently, and an aggregation and measuring consequently:  number among the divine does not seem to be9 posited.  And for that reason, among the divine, numeral sayings do not mean anything [aliquid], but rather deprive, that is, a greater and lesser number.

Sed nec positio nec ratio positionis est10 conveniens, si interius attendatur.  Positio enim destruit . . .

But neither the position nor the reckoning of the position is10 fitting, if it is attended to interiorly.  For the position destroys . . .

1  Circa principium.  —  In Vat. et cod. cc, omissis verbis in littera, legitur auctoritate pro per auctoritatem.  Paulo infra nonnulli codd. ut A T U X cum ed. 1 auctoritatem loco auctoritates.

2  Cap. 2.

3  Locus citatus ex Isidoro nec inveniri nec a corruptione emendari potuit; maxima pars codicum habet virtus vel nutus memeris, pauci mutus memoriae.  Idem locus apud B. Albertum, hic a. 1. occurit:  nutus memeris: et in Comment. I. Poster. tract. 2. c. 1. ait:  « Numerus enim fit ex iteratione unitatis secundum mentem acceptae, propter quod et numerus dicatur nutus mentis vel memeris, hoc est divisionis »; et in antiquis edd. Commentarii S. Thomae, hic a. 2:  unicus merus scilicet divisionis, quam lectionem per coniecturam parum feliciter P. Nicholai mutavit in unius meros vel unius merismos, scilicet divisio, adiungens:  quod subiungitur ex Isidoro, nullibi apud illum occurit.  —  In III. Etymolog. c. 3. Isidorus ait:  «  Numerus est multitudo ex unitatibus constituta; nam unum semen numeri esse (volunt), non numerum.  Numero nummus nomen dedit et a sui frequentatione vocabulum indidit ».  —  In fide argumenti ante numerus Vat. perperam et praeter fidem mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 omittit nec.

4  Libr. X. Metaph. text 21 (IX. c. 6.).

5  Aristot. II. Topic. c. 2. (c. 4.):  Necessarium, de quibus genus praedicatur, et specierum aliquam praedicari.

6  Cfr. De Trin. Confersio S. Eusebii Vercellensis, n. 8.  —  Paulo post ex plurimis mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus esse.

7  Libr. V. de Consid. c. 7. n. 17:  Cum tres illae personae illa substantia sint, et illa una substantia tres illae personae, quis numerum neget?

8  Vat. notandum.

9  Vat. cum paucis codd. est pro videtur esse, et deinde ideo etiam pro Et ideo; post dictiones adiungit vel rationes.

10  Vat. cum cod. cc videtur esse.  Cod. W continens veritatem pro conveniens.

1  Near the beginning.  —  In the Vatican edition and codex cc, having omitted the words in the text [in littera], there is read By the authority [auctoritate] for Through the Authority [per auctoritatem].  A little below this not a few codices, such as A T U and X, together with edition 1, read authority [auctoritatem] for authorities [auctoritates].

2  Chapter 2.

3  The passage cited as from (St.) Isidore can be neither found nor emended; the greatest part of the codices have virtus memeris or nutus memeris, a few read mutus memoriae.  The same passage occurs in Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in a. 1:  nutus memeris: and in his Commentary on the Posterior Analytics, Bk. I, tract 2, ch. 1 he says:  « For a number comes to be out of an iteration of a unity accepted according to the mind, on account of which a “number” is also said (to be) a “nod of the mind” [nutus mentis] and/or “(a nod) of a member” [memeris], that is “of a division” »; and among the ancient editions of the Commentary of St. Thomas, here in a. 2 there is read:  a merely unique, that is, of a division [unicus merus scilicet divisionis], which reading through the felicitous conjecture of Fr. Nicholas, was changed into “a part of one and/or a partition of one, that is a division” [unius meros vel unius merismos, scilicet divisio], adjoining:  “what is subjoined from (St.) Isidore, occurs nowhere among him”.  —  (St.) Isidore in his Etymologies, Bk. III, ch. 3 says:  « Number is a multitude constituted out of unities; for (they want) that ‘one’ be the seed of number, not (that it be) a number.  The “nummus” [Lat. for a coin of small value; according to T. G. Tucker, Etymological Dictionary of Latin, 1931, derived from the Indo-European word for a small clip of metal] gave (its) name to number [numerus] and conferred it by its frequency ». [Trans. note:  Here memeris has been translated member, inasmuch as, according to Dr. Calvert Watkins, reconstruction of proto Indo-European, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, “Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans”, pp. 1497 ff., mems-, means “a piece of meat”, and is the root of the Latin membrum, a member or part; and evidently also of the Greek meros and merismos, “a part” and “a partition”.]  —  At the end of the argument before a number [numerus] the Vatican edition, faultily and not trusting in the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, and 3, omits neither [nec].

4  Metaphysics, Bk. X, text 21 (Bk. IX, ch. 6).

5  Aristotle, Topics, Bk. II, ch. 2 (ch. 4):  (It is) necessary, that of those which a genus is predicated, someone of the species also be predicated.

6  Cf. St. Eusebius of Vercelli, On the Confession of the Trinity, n. 8.  —  A little after this, from very many manuscripts and edition 1, we have inserted there is [esse].

7  On Considerations, Bk. V, ch. 7, n. 17:  Since to those Three Persons belongs that Substance, and that One Substance to those Three Persons, who denies a number?  [Trans. note:  Regarding discretion, a little below this, cf. the “Rationale for the Translation of Peculiar Latin terms” in the Introduction to this English translation.]

8  The Vatican edition has it must be noted [notandum].

9  The Vatican edition, together with a few codices, reads is [est] for to be [esse], and then Therefore also [ideo etiam] for And for that reason [Et ideo]; after sayings [dictiones] it adds and/or reckonings [vel rationes].

10  The Vatican edition, together with codex cc, reads seems to be [videtur esse].  Codex W reads one containing the truth [continens veritatem] for fitting [conveniens].

p. 426

se ipsam.  Ponit enim, quod nomina designantia pluralitatem dicantur privative, similiter et nomina designantia1 unitatem.  Et si hoc, si sic invicem opponuntur, ut utrumque sit privatio alterius, erit ibi circulatio in notificando; et si utrumque alterius privatio est — cum privatio non sit privationis, sed habitus — utrumque aliquid ponit: et ita, si dicuntur privative, dicuntur positive; et propterea2 positio non est conveniens.

itself.  For it posits, that names designating plurality are said privatively, similarly too the names designating1 unity.  And if this, if in this manner they are mutually opposed [invicem opponuntur], so that each is the privation of the other, there will be a circular dependence in being made known [circulatio in notificando]; and if each is the privation of the other — since a privation is not of a privation, but a having (of a privation) — each posit something:  and thus, if they are said privative, they are said positively; and on account of this2 the position is not fitting.

Ratio similiter positionis non est convenienter sumta.  Nam numerus importat distinctionem et super hoc compositionem aggregationis; et quamvis in divinis non sit aggregatio, nihilominus est distinctio; et ideo numerus non est simpliciter removendus a divinis, sed numerus talis.  Et Magister omnino removet; ideo positione sua defecit.  Et in isto articulo non sustinetur3 communiter a magistris Parisiensibus.

The reckoning of the position is similarly not fittingly taken up.  For number conveys a distinction and above this a composition of aggregation; and though among the divine there is no aggregation, nevertheless there is  distinction; and for that reason number is not to be simply removed from the divine, but (only) such a number (is).  And Master (Peter) removes (it) entirely; for that reason he failed in his position.  And in this article (his sentence) is not commonly supported3 by the Masters of Paris.

Concedendum ergo, quod huiusmodi nomina dicuntur positive, sicut probant rationes ad hoc inductae.  Et concedendum, quod in divinis aliquo modo est numerus, aliquo modo non.  Nam secundum quod dicit distinctionem personarum4 secundum originem, sic dicendum est esse in divinis; secundum autem quod aggregationem et divisionem substantialem dicit, non est ponendus numerus in divinis.

Therefore it must be conceded, that names of this kind are said positively, just as the reasons induced for this prove.  And it must be conceded, that among the divine in some manner there is number, in some manner not.  For according to which it means a distinction of the Persons4 according to origin, in this manner (number) must be said to be among the divine; but according to which it means an aggregation and a substantial division, number is not to be posited among the divine.

Ex his patent obiecta.  Nam rationes ad primam partem procedunt de numero secundum eam acceptionem, qua sumitur in his inferioribus quantum ad conditiones praedictas.  Unde in sensu suo verum concludunt, quod ibi non est numerus.

From these the objections are clear.  For the reason for the first side procede from number according to that acceptation, by which it is taken in these inferiors as much as regards the aforesaid conditions.  Whence in their own sense they conclude truly, that there is not number There.

Similiter rationes ad partem oppositam procedunt, secundum quod numerus distinctionem certam importat, et hoc quidem est ponere in divinis; et ideo verum concludunt in suo sensu.  Unde in divinis negandum est esse numerum simpliciter, sed concedendum est esse numerum personarum.

Similarly the reasons for the opposed side procede, according to which number conveys a certain [certam] distinction, and this indeed is a positing (of number) among the divine; and for that rason they conclude truly in their own sense.  Whence among the divine, one must deny that there is number simply, but one must concede that there is a number of the Persons.

4. 5. Ad illud tamen quod obiicitur de quantitate continua, et de specie numeri, dicendum, quod nec quantitas continua est in Deo, quia aeternitas non est quantitas, nec Trinitas est species numeri.

4. 5. To that, however, which is objected concerning continuous quantity, and concerning the species of number, it must be said, that neither is there continuous quantity in God, because eternity is not a quantity, nor is the Trinity a species of number.

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Circa quaestionem, quid numeri in divinis formaliter significent, eadem redit differentia opinionum, quam supra (a. 1. q. 1) circa rationem unius observavimus.  Sententiam Petri Lombardi, quam S. Bonav. minus sufficientem esse censet, S. Thom. tum in Comment. (hic q. 1. a. 1.), tum in Sum. (I. q. 30. a. 3) approbat eamque in hoc sensu explicat, quod numerus in divinis sit transcendentalis, qui numeratis personis addat duplicem negationem, scil. negationem divisionis in se et indivisionis ab alio, et quod praeter hanc negationem nihil aliud significet.  Quod autem contra hanc sententiam obiicitur, scilicet eam incidere « in circulationem », id est circulum vitiosum, Angelicus (S. loc. cit. ad 3.) solvere nititur hac assertione, quod non unum et multum, sed unum et divisum sint formaliter opposita.  Ad quod contrariae sententiae assertores respondent, divisum et multum esse idem.  —  Ceterum duae sententiae in hac assertione conveniunt, numerum addere entitatibus illam duplicem negationem; differunt vero circa hoc, quid unum et plura formaliter significant in Deo.  Hic iterum asserit S. Bonv., unum, sicut alii termini rerum simplicium, cognosci quidem et definiri per negationem tanquam quid notius, ipsam vero negationem esse potius aliquid consequens ad constitutionem unius et plurium; sicut etiam incommunicabilitas personam iam constitutam consequitur, ut in distinctione sequenti docetur.  S. Thomas convenit cum Magistro in conclusione, sed aliquatenus differt ab ipso, procedendo ab alio fundamento, de quo videri potest Caietanus (ad S. I. q. 30. a. 3.).

I. About the question, what do numbers among the divine formally signify, the same difference of opinions returns, which we have observed above (a. 1, q. 1) about the reckoning of ‘one’.  The sentence of Peter Lombard, which St. Bonaventure judges to be less sufficient, St. Thomas, both in his Commentary (here in q. 1, a. 1), and in his Summa. (I. q. 30, a. 3), approves and explains in this sense, that number among the divine is a transcendental, which adds to the numbered Persons a twofold negation, namely, the negation of division in oneself and indivision from another, and that beside this negation it signifies nothing else.  What, however, is objected against this sentence, namely, that it falls into « a circular dependence », that is, circular reasoning [circulum vitiosum], the Angelic (Doctor), Summa., loc. cit., in reply to n. 3, strives to solve by this asserting, that it is not ‘one’ and ‘many’ [multum] that are opposed formally, but ‘one’ and ‘divided’ that are.  To which the assertors of the contrary sentence respond, that ‘divided’ and ‘many’ are the same (according to their reckoning).  —  Otherwise, the two sentences convene in this assertion, that number adds to entities that twofold negation; but they differ about this, that ‘one’ and ‘the many’ [plura] signify formally in God.  Here, again, St. Bonaventure asserts, that ‘one’, just as other terms of simple things, is cognized and defined through a negation as something more known [quid notius], but that that negation is rather something [aliquid] consequent to the constitution of  ‘one’ and ‘the many’; just as incommutability is also consequent to a person already constituted, as is taught in the following Distinction.  St. Thomas agrees with Master (Peter) in the conclusion, but differs from him to some extent, by proceeding from another fundament, concerning which one can refer to Cajetan (commenting on Summa., I, q. 30, a. 3).

II.  Cfr. praeter iam laudatos Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q .65. m. 2. a. 1.  —  Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2.  —  Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2.  —  Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 2.  —  Henr. Gand., S. a. 73. q. 11. n. 8. et seq.; a. 74. q. 5. n. 11; a. 75. q. 4. n. 9.  —  Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. 3.

II.  Cf. besides the (authors) already praised, Alexander of Hales, Summa., I, p. I, q. 65, m. 2, a. 1.  —  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 2, a. 1 and 2.  —   Richard of Middleton, here in a. 2, q. 2.  —  Giles the Roman, here in 1st. princ., q. 2.  —  Henry of Ghent, Summa., a. 73, q. 11, n. 8 and the following; a. 74, q. 5, n. 11; a. 75, q. 4, n. 9.  —  (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in q. 2 and 3.

1  Auctoritate vetustiorum codd. et ed. 1 posuimus designantia pro significantia.

2  Cod. Z cum ed. 1 propter hoc, cod. F ita, Vat. cum aliquibus codd. sic.

3  Vat. tenetur, sed contra fere omnes codd. et ed. 1.

4  Vat. contra plurimos codd. cum ed. 1 personalem.  Mox post dicendum est supple cum Vat. numerum.

1  On the authority of the older codices and edition 1, we have put designating [designantia] for signifying [significantia].

2  Codex Z, together with edition 1, reads on account of this [propter hoc] for on account of this [propterea], codex F has thus [ita], the Vatican edition, together with some codices, has in this manner [sic].

3  The Vatican edition has is held [tenetur], but contrary to nearly all the codices and edition 1.

4  The Vatican edition, contrary to very many codices, together with edition 1, has a personal distinction [distinctionem personalem].  Next after it must be said [dicendum est] supply with the Vatican edition number [numerum].

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.