|
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 |
|
SECUNDI LIBRI |
BOOK TWO |
COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM I. |
COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION I |
|
PARS II. |
PART II |
|
ARTICULUS II.
Quaestio II. |
ARTICLE II
Question 2 |
|
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
|
Latin
text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
|
|
QUAESTIO II.
Utrum natura spiritualis dignitate naturae praecellat compositam ex spirituali et corporali. |
QUESTION 2
Whether the spiritual nature excels in the dignity of nature the (nature) composed out of the spiritual and corporal? |
|
SECUNDO QUAERITUR de ordine rerum ad invicem. Nam hunc tangit Magister in littera,2 utrum videlicet natura spiritualis dignitate naturae praecellat compositam ex spirituali et corporali. Certum enim est, quod utraque praecellit corporalem. Et quod sic, videtur. |
SECOND THERE IS ASKED concerning the order of things to one another. For Master (Peter) touches upon this in (his) text,2 whether, namely, the spiritual nature excels [praecellat] in the dignity of nature the (nature) composed out of the spiritual and corporal. For it is certain, that each excels the corporal. And it seems, that (it is) so. |
|
1. In omni genere « nobilius est illud propter quod est alterum, sicut finis eo quod est ad finem »;3 sed homo est propter Angelum — nam, sicut dicunt Sancti, et Magister recitat in littera, homo factus est ad reparationem angelicae ruinae — ergo etc. |
1. In every genus « more noble is that for the sake of which the other is, just as the end (is more noble) than that which is for the end »;3 but man is for the sake of the Angel — for, just as the Saints say, and Master (Peter) recites in the text, man was made for the reparation of the ruin of the Angels [angelicae ruinae] — ergo etc.. |
|
2. Item, spirituale, simpliciter loquendo, nobilius est corporali: ergo nobilius est illud quod pure est spiritus, nihil habens de corpore, quam quod est spirituale et coniunctum corpori: ergo nobilior angelica natura quam humana. |
2. Likewise, the spiritual, simply speaking, is more noble than the corporal: therefore more noble is that which is purely spiritual, having nothing of a body, than that which is spiritual and conjoined to a body: therefore the angelic nature is more noble than the human. |
|
3. Item, in quolibet genere immortale et incorruptibile nobilius est mortali et corruptibili; sed Angelus per naturam est immortalis et incorruptibilis, homo vero e contrario: ergo etc. |
3. Likewise, in any genus the immortal and incorruptible is more noble than the mortal and corruptible; but the Angel through nature is immortal and incorruptible, but man (is) the other way around: ergo etc.. |
|
4. Item, « quod similius est meliori est melius, si non sit similius in ridiculosioribus, ut simia homini quam equus »;4 sed Angelus est Deo similior et deiformior quam homo; hoc manifestum est; et non in ridiculosis, sed in optimis: ergo simpliciter melior est natura spiritualis quam composita. |
4. Likewise, « what is more similar to the better is better, if it is not more similar in (things) more ridiculous, such as the simian (is) to the man than the horse »;4 but the Angel is more similar to God and more deiform than man; this is manifest, and (it is more similar) not in (things) ridiculous, but in the best: therefore the spiritual nature is simply better than the composite. |
|
CONTRA: 1. Augustinus:5 « Mente humana solus Deus est maior ». Unde in libro de Trinitate undecimo et in libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum dicit, « quod immediate ipsa mens a prima veritate formatur », et « inter ipsam et Deum nihil cadit medium »: ergo Angelus non est supra mentem huma- / -nam: . . . |
ON THE CONTRARY: 1. (St.) Augustine (says):5 « God alone is greater than the human mind ». Wherefore in the eleventh book On the Trinity and in the book Of Eighty-Three Questions he says, « that the mind itself is formed immediately by the Prime Truth », and « between it and God there falls no medium »: therefore the Angel is not above the human / mind: . . . |
|
2 Hic c. 6. in fine. 3 Aristot., I. Rhetor. c. de Bono maiore et utili maiore; III. Topic. c. 1. et I. Magn. Moral. c. 3. (c. 2.). Verba Magistri mox citata vide hic c. 5, ubi etiam in nota a nobis adiecta allegatur Augustinus pro hac sententia, de qua etiam cfr. Anselm. I. Cur Deus homo, c. 18. 4 Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2: Et [melius est] quod meliori eorum est similius . . . Considerandum autem, si et in ridiculosioribus sit simile, ut simia homini quam equo, cum non sit similis; non enim est simia melior, similior tamen est homini. 5 In multis locis. v. g. I. de Lib. Arb. c. 10. n. 21; XL. de Civ. Dei, c. 2; libr. 83 Qq. q. 54; XIV. de Trin. c. 14. n. 20. — Textus seq. est loc. cit. c. 5. n. 8: « Sed illa sola [creatura est imago Dei], qua superior ipse solus est. Ea quippe de illo prorsus exprimitur, inter quam et ipsum nulla interiecta natura est ». Codd. et edd. allegant librum XV. de Trin., ubi tamen c. 27. n. 49. solum dicitur, quod mente humana non est superior nisi Deus. In libro 83 Qq. q. 51. n. 4. legitur: Quae [mens], nulla interposita substantia, ab ipsa veritate formatur. Cfr. de Vera Relig. c. 55. n. 113; de Gen. ad lit. (liber imperf.) c. 16. n. 60; Enarrat. in Ps. 118. Serm. 18. n. 4; de Spiritu et anima, c. 10. seq. |
2 Here in ch. 6, at the end. 3 Aristotle, Rhetorics, Bk. I, ch. “On the greater good and the more useful”; Topics, Bk. III, ch. 1 and, Greater Morals, Bk. I, ch. 3 (ch. 2). See the words of Master (Peter) cited next, here in ch. 5, where even in the note placed by us (St.) Augustine is cited for this sentence, concerning which, cf. (St.) Anselm, Cur Deus homo., Bk. I, ch. 18. 4 Aristotle, Topics, Bk. III, ch. 2: And what is more similar to the better of these (is better) . . But one must consider, if it be similar in (things) more ridiculous, as a simian (is) to a man than to a horse, since it is not similar; for a simian is not better, yet it is more similar to a man. 5 In many passages, v. g. On Free Will., Bk. I, ch. 10, n. 21; On the City of God., Bk. XL, ch. 2; in the book Of Eight-Three Questions., q. 54; On the Trinity, Bk. XIV, ch. 14, n. 20. — The following text is loc. cit., ch. 5, n. 8: « But that (creature) alone (is the image of God), which He alone is superior to. Indeed it is, in a word, expressed from Him, between which and Him no nature has been interjected ». The codices and editions cite On the Trinity, Bk. XV, where, however, in ch. 27, n. 49, there is only said, that none is superior to the human mind but God. In the book Of Eight-Three Questions., q. 51, n. 4, there is read: Which (mind), with no substance interposed, is formed by the Truth Itself. Cf. On the True Religion, ch. 55, n. 113; On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, the unfinished Book, ch. 16, n. 60; Enarrations on the Psalms, Ps. 118, Sermon 18, n. 4; On Spirit and the Soul, Ch. 10 f.. |
p. 46
|
huma- / -nam: ergo per se adeo bona est, ut Angelus. Sed anima propter coniunctionem sui cum corpore non deterioratur, immo maius bonum est, cum corpus sit bonum: ergo simpliciter totus homo est Angelo melior. |
the human / mind: therefore per se it is as good, as an Angel. But the soul on account of its conjunction with the body is not worsened [deterioratur], nay it is a greater good, since the body is good: therefore the whole man is simply better than the Angel. |
|
2. Item, in omni genere quod tenet rationem finis, illud est melius; sed in genere creaturarum homo tenet rationem finis, non Angelus. Unde Remigius dicit et Philosophus,1 quod « nos summus finis quodammodo omnium quae sunt »; hoc non dicitur de Angelo: ergo etc. |
2. Likewise, in every genus what holds the reckoning of the end, that is better; but in the genus of creatures man holds the reckoning of the end, not the Angel. Wherefore Remigius and the Philosopher says,1 that « we are the end in a certain manner of all which are »; this is not said of the Angel: ergo etc.. |
|
3. Item, si « optimum in uno genere melius optimo in alio, et simpliciter hoc illo melius »;2 sed optimus in genere hominum est melior optimo in genere Angelorum, ut patet, quia Christus: ergo etc. Si tu dicas, quod non in quantum homo, sed in quantum Deus; obiicitur de beata Virgine, quae est pure femina, et tamen domina Angelorum. |
3. Likewise, if « the best in one genus (is) better than the best in another (genus), (then) it (is) also simply better than it »;2 but the best in the genus of men is better than the best in the genus of Angels, as is clear, because (it is) Christ: ergo etc.. If you say, that (He is not the best) inasmuch as (He is) man, but inasmuch as (He is) God; there is objected concerning the Blessed Virgin, who is purely a woman [femina], and yet is the Lady of the Angels [domina Angelorum]. |
|
4. Item, maior est qui recumbit, quam qui ministrat, teste Domino, Lucae vigesimo secundo;3 sed Angelus ministrat homini, ad Hebraeos primo: Omnes sunt administratorii spiritus: ergo etc. |
4. Likewise, greater is the one who reclines, than the one who ministers, as the Lord testifies, in the twenty-second (chapter of the Gospel of St.) Luke;3 but the Angel ministers to man, according to the first (chapter of St. Paul’s Letter) to the Hebrews: All are administering spirits: ergo etc.. |
|
CONCLUSIO.
Angelus et homo quoad ordinem in finem, qui est beatitudo, sunt pares; quoad naturae dignitatem Angelus est creatura homine superior. |
CONCLUSION
Angel and man, in regard to (their) order to the end, which is beatitude, are peers; in regard to the dignity of nature the Angel is a creature superior to man. |
|
RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod cum quaeritur de ordine spiritus rationalis sive uniti ad spiritum angelicum vel separatum, de duplici ordine potest intelligi: aut de ordine quantum ad finem, aut quantum ad naturae dignitatem. — Si quantum ad finem; sic dico, quod sunt pares. Nam ad eundem finem, scilicet ad aeternum beatitudinem, immediate ordinantur; et eadem est mensura hominis, quae et Angeli, nec4 homo propter Angelum, nec Angelus propter hominem. Tamen sicut lex caritatis facit in membris corporalibus et concivibus civitatis, quod unum membrum supplet indigentiam alterius — ut patet, quia oculus videt viam sibi et pedi, et pes fert se ipsum et oculum, et in civibus terrenae civitatis similiter contingit — similiter intelligendum est in homine et Angelo, qui sunt cives civitatis supernae. Nam homo habet habilitatem ad labendum frequenter, et possibilitatem ad resurgendum; Angelus vero stans perpetuitatem in stando, et cadens impossibilitatem in resurgendo: ideo Angelus stans sustentat hominem sive infirmitatem humanam, et homo resurgens reparat ruinam angelicam; ideo quodam modo Angelus propter hominem, et quodam modo homo propter Angelum: et ideo in hoc ordine pares sunt. |
I RESPOND: It must be said, that when there is the question of an order of the rational or united spirit to the angelic and/or separated spirit, it can be understood of a twofold order: either of the order as much as regards an end, or as much as regards the dignity of nature. — If as much as regards an end; thus I say, that they are peers [pares]. For they have been immediately ordered to the same end, namely, to eternal beatitude; and same is the measure of man, as of the Angel, nor (is)4 man for the sake of the Angel, nor the Angel for the sake of man. Yet just as the law of charity causes among the members of a body and the co-citizens of a city, that one member supplies the indigence of the other — as is clear, because the eye sees the way for itself and the foot, and the foot carries itself and the eye, and among the citizens of an earthly city it happens similarly — similarly must it be understood in man and Angel, who are citizens of the supernal City. For man has an ability to fall down [labendum] frequently, and the possibility to rise up again; but the Angel standing (has) a perpetuity in standing, and falling [cadens] (has) an impossibility in rising up again: for that reason the Angel standing sustains the man or (his) human infirmity, and the man, rising up again, repairs the ruin of the Angels; for that reason in a certain manner the Angel (is) for the sake of man, and in a certain manner man (is) for the sake of the Angel: and for that reason in this order they are peers. |
|
Si autem loquamur de ordine quantum ad naturae dignitatem, dicendum, quod simpliciter loquendo, Angelus est creatura superior homine. Natura enim angelica, sicut patet ex multis locis Scripturae,5 noblior est humana et in superiori gradu consistit. |
But if we speak of an order as much as regards the dignity of nature, it must be said, that simply speaking, the Angel is a creature superior to man. For the angelic nature, juast as is clear from many passages of Scripture,5 is more noble than the human and consists in a superior grade. |
|
Concedendae igitur sunt rationes manifestantes, quod Angelus naturae dignitate praecellit hominem, praeter prima, ad quam solutum est. |
Therefore, the reasons manifesting, that the Angel excels man in the dignity of nature are to be conceded, except the first, regarding which a solution has been given [solutum est]. |
|
1. Quod ergo obiicitur in contrarium, quod nihil cadit medium inter mentem et Deum; dicendum, quod est medium secundum dignitatem naturae, vel secundum causalitatem influentiae. Primo modo cadit medium, secundo modo, non. Nam Deus immediate influit in mentem, et ipsa mens immediate a prima veritate formatur.6 |
1. What, therefore, is objected unto the contrary, that nothing falls as a medium between the mind and God; it must be said, that there is a medium according to the dignity of nature, and/or according to the causality of influence. In the first manner there does fall a medium, in the second manner, (there does) not. For God immediately flows into the mind, and the mind itself is formed immediately by the Prime Truth.6 |
|
2. Quod obiicitur secundo, quod homo tenet rationem finis; dicendum, quod aliquid, propter quod res est, aut est ad supplendum indigentiam, sicut domus propter hominem, et calceus propter pedem; aut ad suscipiendum eius influentiam, sicut homo propter Deum. Quod ultimo modo habet rationem finis, nobilius est; quod primo modo, non. Quia enim homo omnibus indiget, Angelus nullo nisi Deo; ideo omnia propter hominem, non omnia propter Angelum. In cuius rei signum Angelus conditus est in principio, homo vero in die sexto.7 |
2. What is objected second, that man holds the reckoning of an end; it must be said, that something, for the sake of which a thing is, either is for supplying (its) indigence, just as a house (is) for the sake of man, and a sandal [calceus] (is) for the sake of the foot; or for suscepting its influence, just as man (is) for the sake of God. What has a reckoning of an end in the last manner, is more noble; what (has such) in the first manner, (does) not. For because man is in need of all, an Angel of nothing except God; for that reason all (are) for the sake of man, not all (are) for the sake of the Angel. As a sign of which the Angel has been founded at the beginning, but man on the sixth day.7 |
|
3. Quod obiicitur de optimo, intelligendum est . . . |
3. What is objected concerning the best, must be understood . . . |
|
1 Aristot., II. Phys. text. 24. (c. 2.). — Quis sit laudatus Remigius, indagere non potuimus. Probabilior autem est idem ac ille, qui scripsit quendam librum de Anima. Nam Ioan. a Rupella, Sum. de Anima., p. I. c. 2. dicit: « Secundum hoc definitur in libro de Anima a Remigio: Anima est substantia incorporea, regens corpus ». Et B. Albert., I. p. II. tr. 12. q. 69. m. 1, eandem definitionem attribuit ipsi Remigio. — Fabricius (Biblioth. mediae et inf. latinit.) praeter notissimum Remigium Episc. Remensem († 533) tres alios Remigios, ante S. Bonaventuram viventes, recenset, scil. Remigium Antissiodorensem O. S. Benid. (in fine saec. 9.), multorum librorum auctorem, Remigium, Episc. Lugdunensem (ab a. 852), et Remigium, Abbatem monasterii Mediolanensis (?) Trevirensis diocesis. Sed nulli horum attribuitur liber de Anima. Neque nos in aliis libris antiquis de anima tractantibus v. g. in libris Honorii Augustodunensis (sub init. saec. 12.), praedictos locos invenire potuimus. 2 Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2. — Paulo inferius cod. W pura creatura pro pure femina. 3 Vers. 27: Nam quis maior est, qui recumbit, an qui ministrat? nonne qui recumbit? — Sequens textus est Hebr. 1, 14. 4 In cod. N additur est. 5 Psalm. 8, 6: Minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis. 6 Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 3. ad 1. de statu innocentiae; et hic d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 6. — Vat. et propterea ipsa mens pro et ipsa mens. 7 Vide infra d. 2. p. I. a. 2. q. 3; et d. 15. a. 2. q. 1. seq. |
1 Aristotle, Physics, Bk. II, text 24 (ch. 2). — Who this Remigius is, we have not been able to discover. But he is more probably the same as the one, who wrote a certain book de Anima. For John of Rupella, in his Summa de Anima., p. I, ch. 2, says: « According to this, there is defined in the book On the Soul, by Remigius: The soul is an incorporeal substance, ruling the body ». And Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), (Summa.,) I, p. II, tr. 12, q. 69, m. 1, attributes the same definition to Remigius himself. — Fabricius (Biblioth. mediae et inf. latinit.), besides the very noted Remigius, Bishop of Rheims († 533 A. D.), cites three others (with the name of) Remigius, living before St. Bonaventure, namely, Remigius of Auxerre, O. S. B. (at the end of the 9th century A. D.), the author of many books; Remigius, Bishop of Lyons (from A. D. 852), and Remigius, Abbot of the Monastery of Milan (?), in the diocese of Trier. But to none of these is attributed a book (entitled) de Anima. Nor have we be able to find the aforesaid passages in other ancient books, treating of the soul, v. g. in the books of Honorius of Autun (at the beginning of the 12th century A. D.). 2 Aristotle, Topics, Bk. III, ch. 2. — A little below this codex W has a pure creature [pura creatura] for purely a woman [pure femina]. 3 Verse 27: For who is greater, the one who reclines, or the one who ministers? Is it not the one who reclines? [Nam quis maior est, qui recumbit, an qui ministrat? nonne qui recumbit?] — The following text is Heb 1:24. 4 In codex N there is added is [est]. 5 Psalm 8:6: Though has lowered him for a little while less than the Angels [Minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis]. 6 Cf. Sent, Bk. I, d. 3, p. I, q. 3, in reply to n. 1, concerning the state of innocents; and here in d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, in reply to n. 6. — The Vatican edition reads moreover [propterea] before the mind itself [ipsa mens]. 7 See below d. 2, p. I, a. 2, q. 3; and d. 15, a. 2, q. 1 f.. |
p. 47
|
per se et praecise. Sed nec beata Virgo nec Christus excedunt Angelos pure ratione naturae, sed ratione multiplicis gratiae. |
per se and precisely. But neither the Blessed Virgin nor Christ exceed the Angels purely according to the reckoning of nature, but according to the reckoning of manifold grace. |
|
4. Quod ultimo obiicitur de ministerio, infra1 melius patebit; ad praesens tantum sufficiat dicere, quod alicui ministratur dupliciter: aut propter se, sicut regi et domino, et talis est nobilior; aut propter alium, sicut ministrat miles garcioni2 regis; et per hoc solvendum. Angelus enim ministrat homini propter Deum, sicut dives pauperi, et fortis aegrotanti. |
4. What is objected last concerning ministry, will be more clear below; for the present let it suffice to say only, that one ministers to someone in a twofold manner: either for his sake, just as to a king and lord, and such (a one minister to) is more noble; or for another’s sake, just as a soldier ministers to the butler [garcioni]2 of a king; and through this it must be solved. For the Angel ministers to man for God’s sake, just as a rich man (does) to a poor (man), and a strong (man) to a sick (man). |
|
SCHOLION. |
SCHOLIUM |
|
De hac quaestione explicite hoc loco non tractant alii commentators praeter Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; et Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 4, qui testatur, aliquos magistros illa aetate aliter ac S. Bonav. opinatos esse. Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 10.) exscribit tantum verba nostri Doctoris. |
Of this question, in this place, the other commentators do not explicitly treat, except (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 3, a. 2, quaestiuncula 2; and Richard of Middleton, here in a. 5, q. 4, who testifies, that some masters (of theology) in that age thought otherwise than St. Bonaventure. (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian (here in q. 10) records only the words of our Doctor. |
|
1 Dist. 11. a. 1. q. 1. 2 Garciones pro famulis, maxime iis, qui castra sequuntur. Du Gange, Glossarium. |
1 Distinction 11, a. 1, q. 1. 2 Garciones (stands) for “household servants”, most of all, camp followers (Du Gange’s Glossarium.) [Trans. note: where Du Gange specifies the term more exactly as one who carries water, serves at the table or works in the kitchen.] |
This English Translation and the
digitization of the Latin and English texts, the HTML markup, all
emendations and corrections of the Latin text, and all notes by the Translator,
are © 2007, 2008 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo. 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.