|
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 XXXI. |
COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXI |
|
PARS II. |
PART II |
|
ARTICULUS I.
Quaestio III. |
ARTICLE I
Question 3 |
|
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
|
Latin
text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
|
|
QUAESTIO III.
Quare aeternitas approprietur Patri, species Imagini, et usus Muneri.* |
QUESTION 3
For what reason is “eternity” appropriated to the Father, “sightliness” to the Image, and “use” to the Gift.* |
|
TERTIO QUAERITUR, quare aeternitas approprietur Patri, species Imagini et usus Muneri. Videtur, quod non sit bona appropriatio Hilarii:1 |
THIRD THERE IS ASKED, for what reason is “eternity” appropriated to the Father, “sightliness” [species] to the Image and “use” to the Gift. It seems, what (St.) Hilary’s appropriation is not good:1 |
|
1. Quia omnes divinae personae simul aeternae sunt et coaequales; et aeternitas abstrahit ab actu personae: ergo non est appropriabilis. |
1. Because all the Divine Persons together are eternal and coequal; and “eternity” abstracts from the act of a Person: therefore it is not appropriable. |
|
2. Item, quaeritur, quare species appropriatur imagini? Aut enim sumitur ibi species, ut species dicitur forma, aut pulcritudo; si forma; sed sicut natura nulli2 est appropriabilis, sic nec species. Si autem pulcritudo; sed pulcritudo imaginis refertur ad protypum, ergo ad Patrem: ergo illi debet appropriari. |
2. Likewise, there is asked, for what reason is species appropriated to an image? For either it is taken there as “species”, as a species is said (to be) a form, or as “beauty” [pulcritudo]; if as a form; but just as “nature” is appropriable to None,2 so neither (is) “species”. But if as “beauty”; but the beauty of an image is referred to (its) prototype, therefore to the Father: therefore, it ought to be appropriated to Him. |
|
3. Item, Dionysius3 dicit, quod « bonum et pulcrum idem est »: ergo cum bonitas sit appropriabilis Spiritui sancto, ergo et pulcritudo. |
3. Likewise, (St.) Dionysius (the Areopagite) says,3 that « the good and the beautiful is the same »: therefore since “goodness” is appropriable to the Holy Spirit, therefore also “beauty”. |
|
4. Item, Hilarius4 dicit, quod « oportet imaginem habere essentiam et naturam et speciem auctoris ». Quare ergo magis definit imaginem per speciem quam aliquod aliorum? |
4. Likewise, (St.) Hilary (of Poitiers) says,4 that « it is necessary [oportet] that an image have the essence and nature and species of the original [auctoris] ». Therefore, for what reason does he define an image through a species rather than one of the others? |
|
5. Item, non est utendum Deo, sed solum creatura:5 ergo usus nulli personae est appropriabilis, ergo nec Spiritui sancto. |
5. Likewise, one is not to use God, but only a creature:5 therefore “use” is appropriable to no Person, therefore neither to the Holy Spirit. |
|
CONCLUSIO.
Congrue appropriatur aeternitas Patri propter carentiam principii; usus, ut dicit generaliter actum voluntatis, Spiritui sancto propter modum emanationis, id est secundum voluntatem; Filio autem species, quia species dicit similitudinem, rationem cognoscendi, et pulcritudinem: quae omnia illi congruunt, quia emanat per modum naturae. |
CONCLUSION
“Eternity” is congruously appropriated to the Father, on account of (His) lack of a beginning; “use”, as it means generally the acting of the will, to the Holy Spirit, on account of (His) manner of emanation, that is, according to will; but species to the Son, because species means a similitude, a reckoning of being cognizing, and a beauty: all of which are congruent to Him, because He emanates through a manner of nature. |
|
RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod ista appropriatio Hilarii fuit ad explicandum personarum originem sive emanationem. Quoniam igitur persona Patris emanatione et origine caret, ideo illud debuit ei appropriari, quod importat privationem principii. Tale . . . |
I RESPOND: It must be said, that this appropriation of (St.) Hilary was to explain the origin or emanation of the Persons. Since, therefore, the Person of the Father lacks both an emanation and an origin, for that reason there ought to have been appropriated to Him that (name), which conveys a privation of a beginning. But / such . . . |
|
1 Verba Hilarii inventes pag. 541, nota 1. — Paulo superius post Videtur codd. X Z inserunt enim. Post hoc argumentum in cod. O sequens invenitur interpositum: Item, appropriatio est ad excludendum errorem: ergo cum magis possunt homines errare circa aeternitatem Filii quam Patris, magis Filio debet appropriari. 2 Pro nulli, quod auctoritate codd. O Q Y et ed. 1 ponimus, Vat. nulla. Paulo superius post ut species dicitur forma codd. aa bb addunt vel essentia. 3 De Div. Nom. c. 4. § 7: ταυτόν εστι ταγαθων το καλόν. — Post idem est codd. aa bb adiungut vel se consequntur. — Hoc argumentum hic a Vat. ultimo loco positum, auctoritate codd. et ed. 1 primo loco posuimus. 4 Libr. de Synod. n. 13: Ut rei imago sit, speciem necesse est et naturam et essentiam, secundum quod imago est in se habeat auctoris. 5 Cfr. supra d. 1. a. 1. q. 3. — In fine argumenti Vat. cum aliquibus mss. perperam Spiritus sanctus. |
1 You will find the words of (St.) Hilary (here) above in q. 1, p. 541, footnote 1. — A little above this codices X and Z read For it seems [Videtur enim]. After this argument, in codex O the following is found inserted: Likewise, an appropriation is to exclude error: therefore, since men can err more about the eternity of the Son than (that) of the Father, it ought rather be appropriated to the Son [Item, appropriatio est ad excludendum errorem: ergo cum magis possunt homines errare circa aeternitatem Filii quam Patris, magis Filio debet appropriari]. 2 For to None [nulli], which we have put on the authority of codices O Q and Y, and of edition 1, the Vatican has by None (i.e. no Person) [nulla]. A little before this after as a species is said (to be) a form [ut species dicitur forma], codices aa and bb add and/or an essence [vel essentia]. 3 On the Divine Names, ch. 4, § 7: ταυτόν εστι ταγαθων το καλόν. — After is the same [idem est], codices aa and bb adjoin and/or follow after one another [vel se consequenter]. — This argument, placed in the last position by the Vatican edition, we have put here, in the first position, on the authority of the codices and edition 1. 4 On Synods, n. 13: To be an image of a thing, it is necessary (that) it have the species and nature and essence of the original [auctoris], according to which it is, in itself, an image. 5 Cf. above d. 1, a. 1, q. 3. — At the end of the argument the Vatican edition, together with some manuscripts, reads faultily the Holy Spirit [Spiritus sanctus] for to the Holy Spirit [Spiritui sancto]. |
|
* [Trans. nota: Hic in titulo originaliter lecta sunt aeternitas, species, usus sine litteris cursivis, perperam, contra contra contextum totae quaestionis, quae respicit nomina ut appropriabilia, et contra usum praedictum editionis criticalis. — Inferius in nota 3 huius paginae ipsae, editionis criticalis originaliter legit perperam hoc pro hic.] |
* [Trans. note: Here in the title, eternity, sightliness, and use were written without italics, faultily, contrary to the context of the entire question, which regards the word as appropriated, and contrary to the custom of the Quaracchi Edition, as previously noted. — Below, on this same page, in footnote 3, the critical edition has faultily this [hoc] for here [hic].] |
p. 544
|
autem est hoc nomen aeternitas. Aeternum enim est quod principio caret.1 Et licet de suo nomine non dicat nisi privationem initii durationis, per appropriationem tamen dicit privationem omnis principii. |
But / such is this name “eternity”. For the eternal is that which lacks a beginning.1 And though from its own name it does not mean but a privation of the duration of a start, yet through appropriation it means a privation of every beginning. |
|
1. Et sic patet prima obiectio. |
1. And thus is clear the first objection. |
|
Spiritus vero sanctus procedit per modum voluntatis et amoris; et ita debuit ei appropriari nomen, quod actum exprimit voluntatis; hoc autem est hoc nomen usus. « Nam uti est assumere aliquid in facultatem voluntatis »2 sive ad utendum sive ad fruendum. Quoniam ergo assumtio ad fruendum est per amore, similiter ad utendum, quia amor est pondus et ordo:3 ideo usus recte appropriatur Spiritui sancto. |
However, the Holy Spirit proceeds through a manner of will and love; and thus there ought to have been appropriated to Him the name, which expresses the acting [actus] of the will; but this is this name “use”. « For ‘to use’ is ‘to assume something into the faculty of the will’ »2 to either use or enjoy (it). Since, therefore, taking up (something) to enjoy (it) is through love, similarly to use (it), because love is a weight and an order:3 for that reason “use” rightly is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. |
|
5. Et sic patet ultimo quaesitum, scilicet quod usus accipitur hic, non prout dividitur contra fruitionem, sed prout dicit amoris complexum et4 actum liberum. |
5. And in this manner (what was) sought last is clear, namely, that “use” is accepted here, not insofar as it is divided against “fruition”, but insofar as it means the embrace of love and4 a free act. |
|
Filius vero emanat per modum naturae; et quia emanat per modum naturae,5 ideo emanat per modum perfectae et expressae similitudinis. Nam natura producit sibi simile et aequale. Et quia habet in se rationem expressae similitudinis, ideo et cognitionis, quia expressa similitudo est ratio cognoscendi.6 Et quia per modum perfectae similitudinis et rationis habet in se rationem et exemplar omnium, inde est, quod habet rationem perfectae pulcritudinis. Quia enim est perfecta et expressa similitudo, ideo pulcher est in comparatione ad eum quem exprimit. Quia vero rationem cognoscendi habet, et non unius tantum, sed totius universitatis; ideo « pulcrum pulcherrimus ipse mundum mente gerens »,7 pulcritudinem habet in comparationem ad omnem pulcritudinem exemplatam. Ex his duobus relinquitur perfectissima pulcritudo. Sicut enim dicit Augustinus:8 « Pulcritudo non est aliud quam aequalitas numerosa ». Quoniam igitur in comparatione ad Patrem habet pulcritudinem aequalitatis, quia perfecte exprimit, sicut pulcra imago; in comparatione vero ad res habet omnes rationes, secundum quod dicit Augustinus,9 quod « est ars plena omnium rationum viventium »: ideo patet, quod in Filio recte reperitur ratio omnis pulcritudinis. — Eo igitur quo Filius per modum naturae emanat, habet rationem perfectae et expressae similitudinis; eo quod habet rationem perfectae similitudinis, habet rationem cognitionis; et ratione utriusque habet rationem pulcritudinis. Quoniam igitur nomen speciei importat similitudinem et importat cognoscendi rationem, importat etiam pulcritudinem — ut « species quidem Priami digna est imperio »10 — ideo elegantissime appropriatur Filio. |
However, the Son emanates through a manner of nature;5 and because He emanates through a manner of nature, for that reason He emanates through the manner of a perfect and expressed similitude. For nature produces a similar and equal to itself. And because He has in Himself the reckoning of an expressed similitude, for that reason, also (one) of an act of cognition [cognitionis], because an expressed similitude is a reckoning of being cognized.6 And because through the manner of a perfect similitude and reckoning He has in Himself the reckoning and exemplar of all (things), hence it is, that He has the reckoning of perfect beauty. For because He is the perfect and expressed similitude, for that reason He is beautiful in comparison to Him whom He expresses. However, because He has the reckoning of being cognized, and not only of one (thing), but of the whole universality [totius universitatis]; for that reason as « the most beautiful One bearing in (His) mind a beautiful world »,7 He has beauty in comparison to every exemplified beauty. From these two there is bequeathed [relinquitur] a most perfect beauty. For just as (St.) Augustine says:8 « Beauty is not other than a numerous equality ». Since, therefore, in comparison to the Father He has a beauty of equality, because He expresses perfectly, as a beautiful image; but comparison to things He has all the reasons, according to which (St.) Augustine says,9 that « He is the Art full of all living reasons »: for that reason it is clear, that in the Son there is rightly found the reckoning of every beauty. — Therefore by that, by which the Son emanates through a manner of nature, He has the reckoning of a perfect and expressed similitude; by this, that He has the reckoning of a perfect similitude, He has the reckoning of an act of cognition [rationem cognitionis]; and by reason of each He has the reckoning of beauty. Since, therefore, the name for a species conveys a similitude and conveys a reckoning of being cognized, it conveys also a beauty — so that « indeed, the sightliness of Priam is worthy of empire »10 — for that reason it is most elegantly appropriated to the Son. |
|
2. 4. Patet ergo, quare illud nomen magis appropriat Hilarius Filio quam aliud, quare etiam magis definit imaginem per illud nomen quam per aliquod aliud. |
2. 4. It is clear, therefore, for what reason (St.) Hilary appropriates that name to the Son rather than another, (and) also for what reason He defines an image through that name than through any other. |
|
Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod pulcritudo imaginis refertur ad prototypum; dicendum, quod verum est, sed tamen aliter refertur honor, aliter pulcritudo: quia honor imaginis sive picturae ita refertur ad prototypum, quod in ipsa non est secundum se honor, sicut patet, si honoretur iconia beati Nicolai; sed pulcritudo ita feretur ad prototypum, quod nihilominus est in imagine pulcritudo, non solum in eo cuius est imago. Et potest ibi reperiri duplex ratio pulcritudinis, quamvis in eo cuius est, non nisi una inveniatur. Quod patet, quia imago dicitur pulcra, quando bene repraesentat illum, ad quem est. Et quod ista sit alia ratio pulcritudinis, patet, quia contingit unam esse sine alia: quemadmodum dicitur11 imago diaboli pulcra, quando . . . |
To that, therefore, which is objected, that the beauty of an image is referred to (its) prototype; it must be said, that (that) is true, but yet in one manner the honor (of the image) is referred, in another the beauty (of it): because the honor of an image or a picture is so referred to (its) prototype, that there is no honor in it according to itself, just as is clear, if an icon of blessed Nicholas is honored; but the beauty is thus referred to the prototype, which nevertheless is a beauty in the image, not only in that of which it is an image. And there can be found there a twofold reckoning of beauty, though in that of which it is (an image), naught but one is found. Which is clear, because an image is said (to be) beautiful, when it represents well that, according to which it is. And that this is another reckoning of beauty, is clear, because it happens that one is without the other: according to which standard of measure [quemadmodum] there is said11 (to be) beautiful an image of a devil, when . . . |
|
1 Richardus de S. Victore, II. de Trin. c. 4: Sempiternum namque esse videtur, quod caret initio et fine; aeternum, quod caret utroque et omni mutabilitate. 2 August., X. de Trin. c. 11. n 17. Vide supra d. I, c. 3, et explicationem S. Doctoris ibi a. 1. q. 1. 3 August., XIII. Confess. c. 9. n. 10: Pondus meum amor meus, eo feror quocumque feror. Cfr. etiam XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 28, et XV. c. 22, ubi et docetur, in amore requiri ordinem. 4 Codd. K V X subiiciunt ita. 5 Verba et quia emanat per modum naturae, quae in plurimis codd. et ed. 1 exstant, in Vat. et aliquibus codd. desiderantur. — De ratione mox addita vide supra pag. 134, nota 10. 6 Cfr. supra d. 6. q. 3. ad 4, et infra d. 35. q. 1. in copr., et Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 38 (c. 8.) ac libr. de Memoria et Reminisc. c. 2. (c. 1). — Paulo inferius post rationem Vat. repetit cognoscendi, neque codd. neque edd. 1, 2, 3 suffragantibus. 7 Boeth., III. de Consolat. metr. 9. — Vat. absque auctoritate codd. et ed. 1 addit ut ait Boethius, et mox pro exemplatam substituit extraneam, paucis tantum suffulta codd. Cod. O examplati pro exemplatam. 8 Libr. VI. de Musica, c. 13. n. 38: An aliud quam aequalitatem numerosam esse arbitraris (pulcritudinem)? Cfr. et XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 19. n. 2. et 3. 9 Libr. VI. de Trin. c. 10. n. 11. 10 Porphyr., de Praedicab. c. de Specie, iuxta mendosam translationem antiquam, qua usi sunt Scholastici (etiam Averroës sic legit.) Verba species Priami B. Albertus, qui nomen Priami librariorum errore ortum esse non suspicabatur, sic explicare tentat in suo Commentario super Porphyrium: « Secundum quod dicimus, quod species Priami, Troiano regis (qui forma elegantissima fuit), digna est imperio; quia ex elegantis formae demonstratur dispositio ad virtutes » etc. At Boethius (ed. Migne), Porphyrii textum Graecum recte Latine reddens, pro Priami legit primum (alii interpretes prima), quae vox et in Euripide habetur, ex quo verba illa citata sumta sunt. Euripidis verba, in Latinum translata, sunt:
Utinam videre contingat mihi ipsorum nepotes nepotum, Primum quidem forma dignos regno: Haec enim summa virtus existit in vita, Corpus habere, quod res pulcra mereatur.
11 Sola Vat. hic addit iconia beati Nicolai pulcra, quia decorum illius representat, et tunc placida est, et. |
1 Richard of St. Victor, On the Trinity, Bk .II, ch. 4: For it seems that the sempiternal is, that which lacks a start and an end; the eternal, that which lacks each and every mutability. 2 (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk .X, ch. 11, n. 17. Se above (Master Peter), d. I, ch. 2, and the Seraphic Doctor’s explanation there in a. 1, q. 1. 3 (St.) Augustine, Confessions, Bk. XIII, ch. 9, n. 10: My weight (is) my love, by the one I am moved [feror], wheresoever I am moved. Cf. also On the City of God, Bk. XI, ch. 28, and Bk. XV, ch. 22, where there is also taught, that in love an order is required. 4 Codices K V and X insert thus [ita]. 5 The words and because He emanates through a manner of nature [et quia emanat per modum naturae], which are extant in very many codices and edition 1, are wanting in the Vatican edition and in some codices. — On the next added reckoning, see above d. 7, a. sole, q. 1, p. 134, footnote 10. 6 Cf. above d. 6, q. 3, in reply to n. 4, and below in d. 35, q. 1, in the body (of the question), and Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. II, text 38 (ch. 8), and his book On Memory and Reminiscence, ch. 2 (ch. 1). — A little below this after a reckoning [rationem] the Vatican edition repeats of being cognized [cognoscendi], supported by neither the codices nor editions 1, 2 and 3. 7 (St. Severinus) Boethius, On the Consolation of Philosophy, Bk. III, metr. 9. — The Vatican edition, without the authority of the codices and edition 1, adds as (St. Severinus) Boethius says [ut dicit Boethius], and next for every exemplified beauty [omne pulcritudinem exemplatam] it reads every extraneous beauty [omnem pulcritudinem extraneam], supported by only a few codices. Codex O has every beauty of the One exemplified [omnem pulcritudinem exemplati]. 8 On Music, Bk VI, ch. 13, n. 38: Or do you judge (beauty) to be other than a numerous equality? Cf. also On the City of God, Bk. XXII, ch. 19, nn. 2 and 3. 9 On the Trinity, Bk. VI, ch. 10, n. 11. 10 Porphyry, On the Predicables, ch. on Species, according to the faulty, ancient translation, which the Scholastics used — even Averroës reads it thus. The words the sightliness of Priam [species Priami], Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), who did not suspect that the of Priam had arisen through the error of copyists, attempted to explain in his Commentary On the Predicables of Porphyry in this manner: « According to which we say, that the sightliness of Priam, the Trojan King (whose form was most elegant), was worthy of empire; because out of an elegant form there is demonstrated a disposition to virtues » etc. But (St. Severinus) Boethius, according to the edition of Migne, renders the Greek text of Porphyry into Latin rightly, reading sightliness, indeed, is first worthy of empire [species quidem primum digna est imperio], which other interpreters rendered as sightliness, indeed, is the first worthy of empire [species quidem prima digna est imperio], the first reading of which is had in Euripides, from whom those words cited have been taken. The words of Euripides, translated into English read:
Indeed, it happens to me to see the nephews of their nephews, First, indeed, in form worthy of a kingdom: For this most high virtue exists in life, A body to have, to merit something beautiful.
11 The Vatican edition alone here adds beautiful an icon of blessed Nicholas, because it represents his comeliness, and then it is pleasant, and [iconia beati Nicolai pulcra, quia decorum illius representat, et tunc placida est, et.]. [Trans. note: In which addition placid [placida] is read as pleasant [placita].] |
p. 545
|
bene repraesentat foeditatem diaboli, et tunc foeda est. Et ideo Hilarius, approprians speciem sive pulcritudinem Filio, magis appropriat sub nominem imaginis quam sub nomine filii. |
it represents well the foulness [foeditatem] of the devil, and then (the image itself) is foul. And for that reason (St.) Hilary, appropriating sightliness [speciem] or beauty to the Son, appropriates more under the name of “image” than under the name of “son”. |
|
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod idem est bonum et pulcrum; dicendum, quod Dionysius non vult dicere, quod sint unum ratione, sed quod sint unum re. Sed quoniam ratione differunt, ideo potest alicui appropriari unum, quod non appropriatur alterum. |
3. 4. To that which is objected, that the same is the good and the beautiful; it must be said, that (St.) Dionysius does not want to say, that they are ‘one’ according to reckoning [ratione], but that they are ‘one’ according to thing [re]. But since they differ according to reckoning, for that reason one can be appropriated to one, which is not appropriated to the other. |
|
SCHOLION. |
SCHOLIUM |
|
I. De ipsa ratione appropriationis et de duplici eius radice cfr. infra d. 34. q. 3, ubi etiam sermo est de appropriatione, qua Patri tribuitur potentia, Filio sapientia, Spiritui S. bonitas; tertiam appropriationem vide hic a. 2. q. 3 (cfr. Breviloq. p. I. c. 6.). In hac quaestione egregie exponitur appropriatio ex S. Hilario sumta. |
I. On the reckoning itself of appropriation and on its twofold root, cf. below d. 34, q. 3, were there is also a discussion concerning the appropriation, by which power is attributed to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness to the Holy Spirit; see the third appropriation here in a. 2, q. 3 (cf. Breviloquium., p. I, ch. 6). In this question there is expounded in an outstanding manner the appropriation taken from Saint Hilary. |
|
Notandum est, quod in Filio sit ratio summae pulcritudinis ex duplici capite: ex parte Patris, quem perfectissima similitudine exprimit, et ex parte exemplatorum. Plura de ratione pulcritudinis vide II. Sent. d. 9. q. 8; IV. Sent. d. 49. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. in fundam; Itiner. mentis in Deum, c. 2; Hexaëm. Serm 6. 20. — Attentione digna est etiam doctrina in solut. ad 2. |
It must be noted, that in the Son there is a reckoning of most high pulchritude from a twofold source [ex duplici capite]: on the part of the Father, whom He expresses by a most perfect similitude, and on the part of (what are) exemplified. See more on the reckoning of beauty in Sent, Bk. II, d. 9, q. 8; Sent., Bk. IV, d. 49, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, in the fundament; Itinerarium, ch. 2; Hexaëmeron., Sermons 6 and 20. — The doctrine in the solution to n. 2 is also worthy of attention. |
|
II. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 67. m. 1. — Scot., I. Report. d. 34. q. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; S. I. q. 39. a. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. 6. 7.; S. p. I. tr. 12. q. 48. m. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 71. q. 4. — Durand., hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel, hic q. unica. |
II. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. I, q. 67, m. 1. — (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, Reportatio., Bk. I, d. 34, q. 3. — St. Thomas, here in q. 2, a. 1; Summa., I, q. 39, a. 8. — Bl. (not St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in a. 5, 6 and 7.; Summa., p. I, tr. 12, q. 48, m. 2. — Giles the Roman, here in 2nd. princ., q. 2. — (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 2. a. 1,. 2 and 3. — Richard of Middleton, here in a. 2, q. 1. — Henry of Ghent, Summa., a. 71, q. 4. — Durandus, here in q. 3. — (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in q. 1. — (Gabriel) Biel, here in the q. sole. |
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.