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

SECUNDI LIBRI

BOOK TWO

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM II.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION II

PARS I.

PART I

ARTICULUS II.

 

Quaestio I.

ARTICLE II

 

Question 1

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 64-65.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 64-65.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

ARTICULUS II.

 

De mensura angelicae naturae in comparatione ad mensuram rei corporalis.

ARTICLE II

 

On the measure of the angelic nature in comparison to the measure of a corporal thing.

Consequenter quaeritur de mensura substantiae spiritualis in comparatione ad mensuram rei corporalis.  De qua tria quaeruntur.

Consequently there is the question concerning the measure of the substance of a spiritual (being) in comparison to the measure of a corporal thing.  Concerning which three (things) are asked:

Primum est, utrum aevum praecedat tempus aliquo prioritatis genere.

The first is, whether an aevum precedes time in any genus of priority.

Secundum est, utrum inter aevum et tempus cadat mensura mediae naturae.

The second is, whether between an aevum and time there falls the measure of an intermediary nature [mediae naturae].

Tertio, utrum res spirituales et corporales, sive aeviternae et temporales fuerint simul productae.

Third, whether spiritual and corporal things, or eviternals and temporals, were produced together.

QUAESTIO I.

 

Utrum aevum praecedat aliquo modo tempus.

QUESTION 1

 

Whether an aevum precedes time in any manner?

CIRCA PRIMUM sic.  Quod aevum sit prius tempore, ostenditur:

ABOUT THE FIRST (one proceeds) thus.  That an aevum is prior to time, is shown:

1. Per illud Boethii de Consolatione1 loquentis ad Deum:

1. Through that (verse) of (St. Severinus) Boethius, On the Consolation (of Philosophy),1 speaking to God:

Qui tempus ab aevo

                 Ire iubes;

Who time from the aevum

     doest command to go;

sed tempus ire ab aevo non potest intelligi nisi vel ratione causalitatis, vel durationis, vel excellentiae, quia deficit ab aevo:  ergo videtur omnino intelligendum, quod aevum sit tempore prius.

but ‘that time go from an aevum’ cannot be understood except either according to the reckoning of causality, and/or of duration, and/or of excellence, because it defects from the aevum:  therefore it seems that it must entirely be understood, that an aevum is prior to time.

2. Item, omnis motus et mutatio ad immobile reducitur tanquam ad prius:2  ergo et mensura rei mobilis ad mensuram rei immobilis:  ergo et tempus ad aevum tanquam ad prius.  Prima consequentia manifeste est vera, quia omne fluxibile ad stans tanquam ad prius reducitur.  Et secunda consequentia tenet secundum rationem proportionis, quia, sicut se habet mensuratum ad mensuratum, sic mensura ad mensuram:  ergo etc.

2. Likewise, every movement and change is lead back [reducitur] to (something) unmovable as to (something) prior:2  therefore the measure of a movable thing (is) also (lead back) to the measure of an unmovable thing:  therefore time too (is lead back) to an aevum as to (something) prior.  The first consequence is manifestly true, because everything flowable is lead back to (something) standing still as to (something) prior.  And the second consequence holds according to the reckoning of proportion, because, just as a measured holds itself to a measured, so a measure to a measure:  ergo etc..

3. Item, a priori et posteriori in magnitudine causatur prius et posterius in motus, et a priori et posteriori in motu causatur prius et posterius in tempore:3  ergo per naturam prior est magnitudo et magnitudine esse, quam sit esse temporis; sed esse substantiale primi corporis mensuratur aevo, motus vero tempore:  ergo aevum prius est tempore.

3. Likewise, from a prior and posterior in magnitude there is caused a prior and posterior in movement, and from a prior and posterior in movement there is cause a prior and posterior in time:3  therefore through nature magnitude is prior also to the magnitude of a ‘to be’, than the ‘to be’ of time is; but the ‘to be’ of the substance of the first body is measured by the aevum (of the empyrean Heaven), but movement by time:  therefore the aevum (of the empyrean Heaven) is prior to time.

4. Item, aevum fuit a principio creaturae, sicut et Angeli; sed tempus coepit cum motu primi mobilis, qui incepit, ut dicitur, die quarto, vel saltem ante secundum diem non potuit incipere:4  ergo aevum duratione praecedit tempus.

4. Likewise, the aevum (of the empyrean Heaven) was before [a] the beginning of a creature, just as (it was before the beginning) of an Angel; but time began [coepit] with the movement of the first mobile (sphere), which started [incepit], as is said, on the Fourth Day, and/or at least before the Second Day it could not start:4  therefore the aevum (of the empyrean Heaven) preceded time.

CONTRA:  1. Beda5 dicit, quod quatuor fuerunt primo creata, et inter illa enumerat tempus; aevum autem non enumeratur inter primo creata; et fuit creatum:  ergo posterius.

ON THE CONTRARY:  1. (St.) Bede (the Venerable) says,5 that four (things) were created first, and among them he enumerates time; but an aevum is not enumerated among the first created (things); and it was created:  therefore (it was created) posteriorly.

2. Item, Richardus de sancto Victore6 dicit et accipit ab Augustino, quod omne quod coepit, coepit ex tempore; sed aevum coepit:  ergo coepit ex tempore.  Sed quod incipit ex tempore non antecedit tempus, sed potius consequitur vel concomitatur:  ergo aevum non potest esse ante tempus.

2. Likewise, Richard of Saint Victor6 says and accepts from (St.) Augustine, that everything which began [coepit], began on account of time [ex tempore]; but the aevum (of the empyrean Heaven) began:  therefore it began on account of time.  But what starts on account of time does not antecede time, but rather is consequent to and/or concomitant with (it):  therefore the aevum (of the empyrean Heaven) cannot be before time.

3. Item, tempus est mensura mutationis; sed aevum est mensura esse stabilis et fixi:  ergo cum ante esse creatum praecedat ipsa creatio, quae est mutatio, ergo tempus est ante aevum.

3. Likewise, time is a measure of change; but an aevum is a measure of a stable and fixed ‘to be’:  therefore since before a created ‘to be’ there precedes a creation itself, which is a change, therefore there is time before an aevum.

4. Item, prius est7 quod imperfectum est, deinde quod perfectum; sed tempus est mensura secundum esse imperfectum, quod est esse in potentia, aevum vero secundum esse actuale et completum:  ergo tempus per naturam est ante aevum.  —  Quaeritur igitur de ordine temporis ad aevum, et e converso.

4. Likewise, what is imperfect is prior,7 what (is) perfect (comes) next; but time is a measure according to an imperfect ‘to be’, which is a ‘to be’ in potency, but an aevum (is a measure) according to an actual and complete ‘to be’:  therefore time through (its) nature is before an aevum.  —  Therefore, one asks concerning the order of time to an aevum, and vice versa.

CONCLUSIO.

 

Distincto quadruplici sensu termini tempus, asseritur, quod in tertio sensu aevum est prius dignitate; in quarto sensu aevum praecedit tempus et duratione et dignitate.

CONCLUSION

 

Having distinguished a fourfold sense of the term “time”, there is asserted, that in the third sense an aevum is prior in dignity; in the fourth sense an aevum precedes time both in duration and in dignity.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod tempus accipi consuevit quadrupliciter in scripturis Sanctorum, scilicet communissime, communiter, proprie et magis proprie.  Communissime tempus dicit mensuram cuiuslibet durationis creatae; per quam modum accipitur a Beda, cum dicit, quod quatuor fuerunt primo creata, inter quae enumerat tempus.  —  Communiter; sic dicit mensuram mutationis cuiuscumque, sive illius quae est de non-esse in esse, sive alterius quae est de uno esse in aliud esse; et sic . . .

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that “time” is customarily accepted in a fourfold manner in the writings of the Saint, namely most commonly, commonly, properly and more properly.  Most commonly “time” means the measure of any created duration; through which manner it is accepted by (St.) Bede, when he says, that four (things) were created first, among which he enumerates time.  —  Commonly, just as (“time”) means the measure of a change of anything whatsoever, or of that which is from ‘being-not’ into ‘being’, or of the other which is from one ‘to be’ into another ‘to be’; and thus . . .

1  Libr. III. Metro 9.

2  Cfr. tom. I. pag. 78, nota 2. et pag. 157, nota 11.

3  Vide supra pag. 61, nota 4.

4  Ita cod. aa, cuius lectio firmatur plurimis aliis codd., qui habent tantummodo potuit; Vat. et ed. 1 incepit.  Cod. Q post vel saltem interserit in die secundo, quia.

5  Cfr. supra pag. 55, nota 8.

6  Libr. I. de Trin. c. 6:  Omne quod est vel esse potest, aut ab aeterno habet esse aut esse coepit ex tempore.  Ibid. libr. II. c. 9:  Omne itaque creatum ex tempore esse coepit.  —  Quod spectat ad Augustinum cfr. de Gen. ad lit. imperf. libr. c. 3. n. 7. seq; V. de Gen. ad lit. c. 5. n. 12, c. 19. n. 38; I. de Gen. contra Manich. c. 2. n. 3. seq; XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 6.

7  In cod. aa prius est secundum naturam.

1  Book III, meter 9.

2  Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 3, p. I, Doubt I, p. 78, footnote 2, and d. 8, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, p. 157, footnote 11.

3  See above p. II, a. 2, q. 3, p. 61, footnote 4.

4  Thus codex aa, whose reading is confirmed by very many other codices, which have only it could not [non potuit]; the Vatican edition and edition 1 have it did not begin [non incepit].  Codex Q after and/or at least [vel saltem] inserts on the Second Day, because [in die secundo, quia].

5  Cf. above d. 2, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, p. 55, footnote 8.

6  On the Trinity, Bk. I, ch. 6:  Everything which is either can be, or has (its) ‘to be’ from eternity or began to be on account of time.  Ibid., Bk. II, ch. 9:  And so everything created began to be on account of time.  —  What pertains to (St.) Augustine, cf. On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, the unfinished Book, ch. 3, n. 7 f.; On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. V, ch. 5, n. 12; ch. 19, n. 38; On Genesis against the Manichees., Bk. I, ch. 2, n. 3 f; On the City of God., Bk. XI, ch. 6.

7  In codex aa there is read what is imperfect is prior according to nature [prius est secundum naturam quod imperfectum est].

p. 65

accipitur illud quod dicit Richardus, quod omne quod coepit, ex tempore coepit; et habetur in Glossa, in principio Genesis:1  In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram, scilicet temporis.  —  Tertio modo accipitur proprie; et sic dicit mensuram variationis successivae, sive sit successiva successione regulari et continua, sive non; et sic dicit Augustinus ad Orosium:2  « Affectiones variae Angelorum mensurantur tempore et omnis variatio rerum ».  —  Quarto modo accipitur magis proprie; et sic dicitur mensura motus sive variationis successivae et continuae et regulatae secundum regulam motus octavae sphaerae; et sic consuevit accipi a Philosopho:3  sed ista est coarctata temporis acceptio.

is accepted that which Richard (of St. Victor) says, that everything which began, began on account of time; and (this sense) is had in the Gloss, on the beginning of Genesis:1  In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, that is “(in the beginning) of time”.  —  In a third manner (“time”) is accepted properly; and thus it means the measure of a successive variation, whether it is successive by a regular and continuous succession, or not; and in this manner (St.) Augustine says To Orosius:2  « The various affections of the Angels and every variation of things are measured by time ».  —  In a fourth manner (“time”) is accepted more properly; and thus it means the measure of a movement or of a variation successive and continuous and regulated according to the rule of the movement of the eighth sphere; and in this manner it is customarily accepted by the Philosopher:3  but that is a constrained acceptation of “time”.

Cum igitur quaeritur de ordine, dicendum, quod si tempus accipiatur primo modo, sic includit aevum; et sic temporis ad aevum nullus est ordo; si autem secundo modo, sic tempus praecedit aevum secundum rationem intelligendi, sicut creatio esse creatum.  Si autem tertio modo, aevum et tempus simul sunt duratione, sed aevum prius est dignitate.  Si autem quarto modo, sic aevum praecedit tempus et duratione et dignitate.  —  Et ex his patet quaestio principalis, et obiectiones adductae pro magna parte.

Therefore, when there is the question [quaeritur] of (their) order, it must be said, that if “time” is accepted in the first manner, thus it includes an aevum; and in this manner there is no order of time to an aevum; but if in the second manner, thus time precedes an aevum according to the reckoning of understanding, just as (an act of) creation (precedes) a created ‘to be’.  But if in the third manner, an aevum and time are simultaneous according to duration, but an aevum is prior according to dignity. But if in the fourth manner, thus an aevum precedes time both according to duration and according to dignity.  —  And from these (considerations) the principal Question is clear, and the objections adduced for the negative side [pro magna parte].

Quod enim ostenditur, quod aevum praecedit tempus; intelligitur vel tertio modo, et ita praecedit dignitate; vel quarto modo, et ita duratione.

For what is shown (in the fundament), that an aevum precedes time; is understood either in the third manner, and thus it precedes in dignity; and/or in the fourth manner, and thus in duration.

1. Quod tamen ostenditur, quod praecedat causalitate; dicendum, quod illud non oportet; neutra enim harum mensurarum est ab alia,4 sed a Deo producente utrumque indivisibile, scilicet nunc aevi et nunc temporis.  Unde quod dicitur, quod tempus exit ab aevo, hoc dicitur, quia deficit ab illo et defluit continua deperditione; sed in aevo est fixio sine deperditione et novi acquisitione.

1. What, however, is shown, that it precedes according to causality; it must be said, that that is not necessary [non oportet]; for neither of these measures is from another (measure),4 but (rather) from God producing each indivisible, that is the now of an aevum and the now of time.  Wherefore what is said, that time goes forth from the aevum, this is said, because it defects from the latter and flows from (it) by a continual loss [continua deperdition]; but in an aevum there is a ‘being fixed’ [fixio] without loss and acquisition of (something) new.

2. Quod obiicitur de reductione ad immobile, dicendum, quod verum est ex parte motoris, et illum non oportet esse creatum, et similiter nec mensuram oportet esse creatam:  et ideo non oportet, tempus reduci ad aevum sicut ad prius.

2. What is objected concerning ‘being lead back’ [de reductione] to an unmovable, it must be said, that it is true on the part of the mover, and it is not necessary [non oportet] that that be (something) created, and similarly neither is it necessary that the measure be created:  and for that reason it is not necessary, that time be lead back to an aevum as to (something) prior.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de priori et posteriori magnitudinis et motus et temporis, dicendum, quod non causatur a priori et posteriori in magnitudine prius et posterius in motu vel tempore, nisi secundum quod magnitudo illa est mobilis; et sic habet mensurari per nunc temporis, non aevi; nam sicut tempus mensurat motum, sic nunc temporis mensurat ipsum mobile in quantum mobile.

3. To that which is objected concerning a prior and posterior of magnitude and of movement and of time, it must be said, that by a prior and posterior in magnitude there is not caused a prior and posterior in movement and/or time, except according to which that magnitude is movable; and in this manner it has (its) ‘being measured’ [mensurari] through the now of time, not (through that) of an aevum; for just as time measures movement, so the now of time measures the movable itself inasmuch as (it is) movable.

4. Quod ultimo obiicitur, patet, quod5 procedit in quarta acceptione temporis.

4. What is objected last, it is clear, that5 (that argument) proceeds in (the sense of) the fourth acceptation of “time”.

Rationes vero ad oppositum procedunt de tempore secundum primam acceptionem vel secundam, sicut patet aspicienti, excepta ultima, quae accipitur a comparatione imperfecti ad perfectum.  Ad quam respondendum:  quod imperfectum praecedit perfectum, verum est, ubi6 sunt circa idem, sed circa diversa est e converso.  Et ideo potius potest argui oppositum quam propositum per illud medium.

However, the reasons for the opposite proceed from “time” according to the first and/or second acceptation, just as is clear to the one looking at (them), except the last one, which is accepted from the comparison of the imperfect to the perfect.  To which it must be responded:  that the imperfect precedes the perfect, is true, where6 they are about the same (thing), but about diverse (things) it is the other way around.  And for that reason the opposite can be argued through that medium rather than the proposed.

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Quadruplex temporis distinctio sumta est ex Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 12. m. 9. a. 4. § 1, et fere eisdem verbis repetitur a Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2, et quando agit de hac ipsa quaest. ibid. a. 3.).  Differentia inter tempus 3. et 4. modo sumtum a Richard. a Med. (hic a. 2. q. 2.) ita explicatur:  « Tempus dupliciter potest accipi, scil. communiter pro quaecumque mensura esse existentis in variatione [sive sit successionis continuae, sive non], et proprie, scil. secundum quod est continuatio motus ab anima numerata, qua, mediante motu, cuius est passio, mensurat anima durationes motuum aliorum » etc. (cfr. Schol. ad a. 1. q. 1.).  Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 2.) de hac quaest. refert tantum verba Petri a Tar.

I. The fourfold distinction of “time” is take from Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. I, q. 12, m. 9, a. 4, § 1, and is repeated in nearly the same words by (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise (here in q. 2, a. 2, quaestiuncula 2, and when he deals with this very Question, ibid., in a. 3).  The difference between “time” taken in the 3rd and 4th sense is explained by Richard of Middleton (here in a. 2, q, 2) thus:  « “Time” can be accepted in a threefold manner, namely commonly on behalf of any measure whatsoever of the ‘to be’ of one existing in a variation ( « whether belonging to a continual succession, or not »), and properly, that is, according to which the continuation of the movement is numbered by a soul, according to which (continuation), by means of the movement, whose passion it is, the soul measures the durations of the movements of others » etc. (cf. Scholium here on a. 1, q. 1).  (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian (here in q. 2) on this question reports only the words of (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise.

1  Cap. 1, 1.  —  Glossa interlinearis:  In principio temporis vel ante cetera, vel in Filio suo.

2  Quaest. 41. et 42, sententialiter.  Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. argum. 1. ad opp.

3  Libr. IV. Phys. text. 133. (c. 14.).  —  Paulo superius cod. T secundum regulationem pro secundum regulam.

4  Cod. cc et ed. 1 perperam ab anima, qui et paulo inferius cum pluribus mss. pro quod tempus exit ponit quod tempus it, quod verbis Boethii respondet.

5  Codd. aa bb quia.

6  Cod. cc et ed. 1 ut.

1  Gen. 1:1.  —  The Glossa interlinearis reads:  In the beginning of time and/or before all other (things), and/or in His Son.

2  Questions 41 and 42, according to their meaning. Cf. above a. 1, q, 1, 1st opposed argument.

3  Physics., Bk. IV, text 133 (ch. 14).  —  A little above this codex. T has according to the regulation [secundum regulationem] for according to the rule [secundum regulam].

4  Codex cc and edition 1 have faultily from the soul [ab anima] for from another (measure) [ab alia], which (codex) also a little below this, together with several manuscripts, for that time goes forth [quod tempus exit] puts that time goes [quod tempus it], which responds to the words of (St.) Severinus Boethius (above).

5  Codices aa and bb have because [quia] for that [quod].

6  Codex cc and edition 1 have to the extent that [ut] for where [ubi].

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.