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 II.

ARTICLE II

 

Question 2

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 65-67.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 65-67.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO II.

 

Utrum inter tempus et aevum sit aliqua mensura media.

QUESTION 2

 

Whether between time and an aevum there is any intermediary measure?

SECUNDO QUAERITUR, utrum inter tempus et aevum sit aliqua mensura media.  Et quod non, videtur:

SECOND THERE IS ASKED, whether between time and an aevum there is any intermediary measure.  And that (there is) not, seems:

1. Primo per Philosophum, qui dividit substantias mensuratas in libro de Causis7 sic, quod « inter substantiam, cuius substantia et actio est in momento aeternitatis, et substantiam, cuius substantia et actio est in momento temporis, est substantia media, cuius substantia est in momento aeternitatis, et actio in momento temporis ».  Si ergo omnis substantia creata ad aliquam istarum habet reduci; et ad has mensurandas sufficiunt tempus et aevum:  ergo etc..

1. First through the Philosopher, who divides measured substances in the Book of Causes7 thus, that « between the substance, whose substance and action is in the moment of eternity, and the substance, whose substance and action is in a moment of time, there is an intermediary [media] substance, whose substance is in the moment of eternity, and (whose) action (is) in a moment of time ».  Therefore, if every created substance has (its) ‘being reduced’ [reduci] to any of these, and to measure these time and an aevum suffice:  ergo etc..

7  Prop. 31.  —  In hoc verbo plures codd. ut A V Z bis pro substantiam substituunt rem, et dein pro est substantia media ponunt est res media, quod textui originali concordat.

7  Proposition 31.  —  In this citation several codices, such as A V and Z, twice substitute a thing [rem] for the substance [substantiam], and then for there is an intermediary substance [est substantia media] put there is an intermediary thing [est res media], which concords with the original text.

p. 66

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur per Dionysium de Divinis Nominibus:1  « Aevi proprietas est esse sine alteratione et secundum totum metiri; temporis vero, quod in alteratione aliter et aliter se habens; media vero entium, quae illinc quidem aevo, illinc tempore participant ».  Ergo omnia quae sunt, vel totaliter aevo, vel totaliter tempore, vel partim aevo et partim tempore mensurantur:  ergo non est tertia mensura alia ab his.

2. Likewise, this very (thing) seems through (St.) Dionysius (the Areopagite), On the Divine Names:1  « It is the property of the aevum to be without alteration and to be measured [metiri] according to the whole; but of time, that (it be) as one holding itself in one and another manner in alteration; but of the beings, which indeed participate on one side in the aevum, on the other in time, (to be) intermediaries [media] ».  Therefore all which are, either are measured totally by an aevum, and/or totally by time, and/or partly by an aevum and partly by time:  therefore there is no third measure other than these.

3. Item, omne creatum aut est stabile et incorruptibile, aut variabile et corruptibile; sed primum mensuratur aevo, et secundum tempore:  ergo nihil est medium inter aevum et tempus.

3. Likewise, every created either is stable and incorruptible, or variable and corruptible; but the first is measured by an aevum, the second by time:  therefore nothing is intermediary between an aevum and time.

4. Item, esse omnis creati aut est terminabile aut interminabile.  Si est terminabile, sic mensuratur tempore, quod est principium corruptionis, quia facit distare quod est.2  Si vero interminabile, sic aevo:  ergo non videtur, quod sit aliquod tertium mensurans praeter haec duo.

4. Likewise, the ‘to be’ of every created (being) either  is terminable or interminable.  If it is terminable, thus it is measured by time, which is the principle of corruption, because it causes what is to stand at a distance [facit distare].2  But if (it is) interminable, thus (it is measured) by an aevum:  therefore it does not seem, that there is any third, measuring, besides these two.

CONTRA:  1. Ante quartum diem non erat tempus, quia dicitur in factione luminarium:  Erunt in signa et tempora et dies et annos;3 et constat, quod non solum erat aevum, cum essent aliqua corporalia, ut herbae et arbusta:  ergo erat alia mensura:  ergo etc.

ON THE CONTRARY:  1. Before the Fourth Day time was not, because there is said in the making of the (celestial) luminaries:  They shall be as signs and seasons and days and years;3 and it is established, that there was not only the aevum (of the empyrean Heaven), since there were some corporal (things), such as plants and lands planted with trees [herbae et arbusta]:  therefore there was another measure:  ergo etc..

2. Item, post diem iudicii non erit tempus, secundum quod iurat Angelus in Apocalypsi,4 et erit successio et variatio in tormentis, quae non poterit aevo mensurari:  ergo necesse est mensuram tertiam ab his ponere.

2. Likewise, after the Day of Judgment time will not be, according to what the Angel swears in the Apocalypse,4 and there will be succession and variation among the torments (of the damned), which will not be able to be measured by an aevum:  therefore it is necessary to posit a third measure according to these [ab his].

3. Item, in affectionibus Angelorum est intensio et variatio, et ipsi sunt supra tempus, sicut dicitur in libro de Causis:5  ergo mensura illa affectionum est supra tempus; sed non potest esse aevum, cum in aevo non cadat variatio:  ergo oportet, quod sit alia mensura.

3. Likewise, in the affections of the Angels there is a tending-unto [intensio] and a variation, and these are above time, just as is said in the Book of Causes:5  therefore that measure of affections is above time; but it cannot be an aevum, since in an aevum there falls no variation:  therefore it is necessary [oportet], that there be another measure.

4. Item, Angelus cum convertitur ad Deum, elevatur supra tempus:  ergo illa conversio, et illud quod in illa conversio accipit,6 supra tempus est; et mensura supra tempus debet mensurari; sed Angelus ibi aliquid cognoscit quod potest desinere cogitare:  saltem ergo illud non potest mensurari aevo, quod est mensura rei interminabilis, nec tempore:  ergo etc.

4. Likewise, an Angel when he turns toward God, is elevated above time:  therefore that conversion, and that which (the Angel)6 accepts in that conversion, is above time; and it ought to be measured by a measure above time; but an Angel in this cognizes something which he can cease to think about [desinere cogitare]:  therefore, at least that cannot be measured by the aevum, which is the measure of an interminable thing, nor (can it be measured) by time:  ergo etc..

CONCLUSIO.

 

Si tempus accipitur proprie, tunc inter aevum et tempus non est medium re, sed solum ratione differens; si autem magis proprie, tunc est media mensura differens, ab antiquis vocata saeculum.

CONCLUSION

 

If “time” is accepted properly, then between an aevum and time there is no medium differing according to thing, but only according to a reckoning; but if more properly, then there is a different intermediary measure, called by the ancients the saeculum.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod secundum quod tempus dividitur contra aevum, in duabus scilicet acceptionibus ultimis prius positis,7 dupliciter potest accipi, aut scilicet prout dicit mensuram cuiuslibet durationis variae sive variationis successivae; et sic inter aevum et tempus non est medium re, sed solum ratione; non, inquam, est medium differens ab utroque in genere mensurae, sed medium in genere mensuratorum, participans utrumque, ut est illa substantia, quae est in confinio aeternitatis et temporis.  —  Et sic procedunt omnes rationes ad primam partem, ut patet aspicienti de facili.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that according to which “time” is divided against and “aevum”, namely in the two last acceptations posited before,7 it can be accepted in a twofold manner, that is, either insofar as it means the measure of any various duration or of (any) successive variation; and thus between an aevum and time there is no medium according to the thing, but only according to a reckoning; there is, I say, no medium differing from each in the genus of a measure, but (there is) a medium in the genus of (things) measured, participating in each, such as is that substance, which is on the confine [in confinio] of eternity and time.  —  And in this manner all the reasons for the first side proceed, as is easily [de facile] clear to the one looking at (them).

Aliter vero accipitur tempus prout est mensura variationis, in qua est successio habens continuationem et regulationem a motu orbis primi; et haec mensura habet finem et desinet esse.  Et inter hanc et aevum est ponere mediam mensuram, in qua est variatio, nec oportet quod sit desitio, vel primi motus regulatio; cuiusmodi fuit in triduo conditionis rerum, et qualis erit in inferno post diem extremum.  Et haec ab antiquis doctoribus appellata est saeculum.8  —  Et hoc concludunt rationes ad oppositum; et sic patet totum.

However, “time” can be accepted in another manner (i.e. as a “season”) insofar as it is a measure of a variation, in which there is a succession having a continuation and a regulation by the movement of the first orb; and this measure has an end and will cease to be.  And between this and an aevum there is the positing of an intermediary measure, in which there is a variation, nor is it necessary [nec opportet] that there be a ceasing [desitio], and/or the regulation of a first movement; of the kind there was in the Triduum of the foundation of things, and of which kind there will be in Hell after the Last Day.  And this (measure) was named by the ancient doctors the saeculum (i. e. an “age”).8  —  And in this (manner) the reasons for the opposite conclude; and thus the whole is clear.

1  Cap. 10. § 3:  Proprietas aeterni [versio in oper. S. Thomae:  aevi] est antiquum et immutabile et universale esse metiendo [versio ibid.: et totum secundum totum metiri].  Tempus autem vocant in generatione et corruptione et mutabilitate et aliud aliter habens . . . media vero existentium et factorum quaecumque, alibi quidem aeternum, alibi vero tempus participant.

2  Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 117. (c. 12.):  Corruptionis enim causa per se tempus est; numerus enim ipsius motus est; motus autem distare facit quod est [recentiore versio:  expellit id quod inest].  Cfr. ibid. text. 128. (c. 13.).

3  Gen. 1, 14:  Et sint in signa etc.

4  Cap. 10, 6:  Et tempus non erit amplius.

5  Prop. 29:  Omnis substantia simplex est stans per se ipsam, scilicet per essentiam suam:  quod est, quia creata sine tempore, et est in substantialitate sua superior substantiis temporalibus.  Et in prop. 30. substantiae sempiternae dicuntur quae sunt supra tempus.  —  In fine argumenti Vat. quod sit alia mensura pro quod sit alia mensura.

6  Supple:  Angelus.  Vat. cum paucis codd. accipitur.  Paulo inferius ed. 1 cum pluribus mss., variata interpunctione, potest desinere cogitare saltem:  ergo.

7  In corp. quaest. praeced.

8  Damasc. II. de Fide orthod. c. 1. inter varias saeculi acceptiones hanc affert:  « Quin saeculum quoque dicitur non tempus nec temporis pars ulla solis motu ac cursu definita sive ex dierum noctiumque serie conflata, sed ille velut temporalis motus ac spatium, quod una cum iis quae aeterna sunt, protenditur.  Quod enim iis quae tempori subsunt, tempus est, hoc perpetuis est saeculum ».  Et Haymo, in expos. Epist. ad Titum, 1, 2:  Saecularia dicuntur a sequendo, quod in se resolvantur (revolvantur?), Varrone teste.  Saecula autem copulantur ex eo, quo materies informis per species discreta est, et ex quo Deus dicit:  Fiat lux, et facta est lux (Gen. 1, 3.); ex eo enim coepit varietas temporis et vicissitudo horarum pariterque dierum in semet resolvi; antea vero, ut doctores dicunt, non erat tempus, sed aevum, quod solummodo esse habebat.

1  Chapter 10, § 3:  The property of eternity is to be ancient and immutable and universal in being measured. (In the version had in the Works of St. Thomas this reads:  The property of the aevum is to measure the ancient and the immutable and according to the whole).  But they call “time” the one holding in generation and corruption and mutability and (having) another (manner) in an other manner . . . but the intermediary (measure is) of (things) existing and made of whatever which, indeed in one manner participate in aeternity, but in another in time.

2  Aristotle, Physics., Bk. IV, text 117 (ch. 12):  For the cause of corruption per se is time; for it is the number of movement itself, but movement makes what is stand at a distance (the more recent version reads:  expels that which is in it).  Cf. ibid., text 128 (ch. 13).

3  Genesis 1:14:  And let them be as signs etc. [Et sint in signa etc].

4  Chapter 10:6:  And time shall be no more [Et tempus non erit amplius].

5  Proposition 29:  Every simple substance is (something) standing through its very self, that is, through its own essence; which is, because (it was) created without time, and it is in its substantiality superior to temporal substances.  And in proposition 30 sempiternal substances are said (to be) those which are “above time”.

6  Supply:  the Angel [Angelus].  The Vatican edition, together with a few codices reads is accepted [accipitur] for (the Angel) accepts [accipit].  A little below this edition 1, together with several manuscripts, with a varied interpunctuation, moves at least [saltem] before the colon (and in the English placing it after he can).

7  In the body of the preceding Question.

8  (St. John) Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. II, ch. 1, among the various acceptation of saeculum, mentions this one:  « But indeed the saeculum is also said (to be) not time nor a part of time according to any movement or definite course of the Sun or conflated series of days and nights, but it (is) as if a temporal movement and space, which is stretched out as one with those which are eternal.  For that which (is) according to those, which are subject to time, is time, that (which is) according to perpetuals is the saeculum ».  And (Bishop) Haymo (of Halberstadt, O. S. B, † 853 A. D.), in (his) Exposition on the Epistle to Titus 1:2 (says):  (Things) are said (to be) “secular” from “seeking” [sequendo], on which account they are self dissipating [in se resolvantur], according to Varro’s testimony.  But the ages [saecula] are joined together out of that, by which formless matter has been divided [discreta est] through species, and on account of which God says:  Let there be light, and light was made (Gen. 1:3); for from this the variety of time and the vicissitude of hours and equally of days began to be resolved into the same [in semet:  that is, “into ages”]; but before this, as the doctors (of theology) say, time was not, but the aevum (was), which alone had ‘being’.

p. 67

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Orta est haec quaestio ex difficultatibus, quae in argg. pro parte affirmativa recensentur, scil. quod ante motum firmamenti et post iudicium non sit tempus, et tamen aliqua duratio successiva; quae etiam in Angelis est quoad affectiones, licet ipsi quoad substantiam sint supra tempus.  —  Solutio supponit distinctionem in praeced. quaest. factam circa tempus in 3. et in 4. sensu acceptum.  Si tempus sumitur in sensu ultimo, ita ut importet mensuram regulatam a motu primi mobilis, tunc, deficiente hoc motu, actualis variatio et mutatio indiget alia mensura, differente et ab aevo et a tempore in dicto sensu sumto, quae quasi medium obtinet inter utrumque.  De hac nonnullorum sententia, confirmata auctoritate Haymonis, plura dicit Alex. Hal. (S. p. I. q. 12. m. 9. a. 4. § 2.), quem sequuntur S. Bonav., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med.  —  Alii sine ista distinctione simpliciter negant, esse mediam illam mensuram.

I. This Question has arisen from the difficulties, which are cited in the arguments for the affirmative, namely, that before the movement of the firmament and after the (Last) Judgment time is not, and yet (there is) some successive duration; which is even in the Angels in regard to (their) affections, though in regard to substance they themselves are above time.  —  The solution supposes the distinction made in the preceding Question about “time”, accepted in the 3rd and 4th sense.  If “time” is taken in the last sense, thus that it conveys a measure regulated by the movement of the first mobile (sphere), then, with this movement failing, actual variation and change lacks any measure, differing both from an aevum and from time taken in the aforesaid sense, which (variation) obtains an intermediary (place) between each. On this sentence of not a few (authors), as confirmed by the authority of (Bishop) Haymo (of Halberstadt), Alexander of Hales says many things (Summa, p. I, q. 12, m. 9, a. 4, § 2), whom St. Bonaventure, (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Middleton follow.  — Other (authors) simply deny without this distinction, that there is this intermediary measure.

II. Specialis difficultas est de mensura affectionum et actuum intellectualium in Angelis.  S. Thom., S. I. q. 10. a. 5. ad 1. ex mente plurimorum dicit, quod « Angeli quantum ad affectiones et intelligentias, in quibus est successio, mensurantur tempore . . . quantum vero ad eorum esse naturale mensurantur aevo; sed quantum ad visionem gloriae* participant aeternitatem ».  Sed Scoto (hic q. 4; Report. hic q. 1; de Rerum princ. q. 21. a. 2.) non placet nec prima nec ultima positio; ipse autem nititur probare, omnes Angelorum operationes, quae sunt interiores, etiam liberae et beatificae, mensurari aevo, et tantum transeuntes tempore.

II. There is a special difficulty concerning the measure of the affections and of the intellectual actions among the Angels.  St. Thomas, Summa., I, q. 10, a. 5, in reply to n. 1, says according to the mind of very many (authors), that « the Angels as much as regards (their) affections and intelligences, in which there is a succession, are measured by time . . . however as much as regards the ‘to be’ of their nature [eorum esse naturale] they are measured by the aevum; but as much as regards (their) vision of glory they participate in eternity ».  But (Bl. John Duns) Scotus (here in q. 4; Reportatio., here in q. 1; de Rerum principio., q. 21, a. 2) is pleased by nether the first nor the last position; but strives himself to prove, that all the operations of the Angels, which are interior, even (those) free and beatific, are measured by the aevum, and (are) only transient to time.

III. Praeter laudatos:  B. Albert., S. p. I. tr. 5. q. 23. m. 4. a. 1.  —  Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2.  —  Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1.  —  Aegid. R., hic a. 5. dub. later. in fine.  —  Henr. Gand., Quodl. 12. q. 8.  —  Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

III. Besides (the passages) cited:  Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), Summa., p. I, tr. 5, q. 23, m. 4, a. 1.  —  (B l.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 2, a. 2, quaestiunc. 2.  —  Richard of Middleton, here in a. 2, q. 1.  —  Giles the Roman, here in a. 5., the lateral doubt, at the fine.  —  Henry of Ghent, Quodlibetals., 12, q. 8.  —  (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in q. 2.

* [Trans. nota:  Hic perperam legivit glorriae pro gloriae.]

 

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.