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 II.
De loco, ubi fuerunt Angeli creati.

PART II
On the place, where the Angels were created.

ARTICULUS I.

 

Quaestio I.

ARTICLE I

 

Question 1

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 70-73.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 70-73.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

Iam est ostensum, quando etc.

It has already been shown, when etc..

DIVISIO TEXTUS.

DIVISION OF THE TEXT

Supra ostendit Magister, quando Angeli fuerunt creati; in hac parte ostendit, ubi fuerunt creati, quia scilicet in empyreo.  Et dividitur pars ista in tres partes.  In prima determinat, ubi creati fuerunt.  In secunda vero repetit, quando creati fuerunt, ibi:  Simul ergo visibilium etc.  In tertia vero removet dubitationem, ibi:  Hic quaeri solet, si in caelo empyreo etc.  Sic circa duo versatur intentio partis praesentis, scilicet circa loci angeli quidditatem, et quantum ad actum locandi, sive officium, quod dicitur habere caelum empyreum respectu Angelorum.

Above Master (Peter) showed, when the Angels had been created; in this part he shows, where they had been created, because, that is, (they were created) in the empyrean (Heaven).  And this part is divided into three parts.  In the first he determines, where they had been created.  However in the second he repeats, when they had been created, there (where he says):  Therefore the matter of visible things etc..  But in the third he removes a doubt, there (where he says):  Here it is customary to ask, “If the Angels were in the empyrean Heaven etc.”.  Thus the intention of the present part turns about two (things), namely about the quiddity of an Angel’s place, and as much as regards the act of being a place for [actum locandi], or office, which the empyrean Heaven is said to have in respect of the Angels.

TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS

Ad intelligentiam huius partis, quae est de loco creationis Angelorum, cuiusmodi est empyreum caelum, circa duo incidit dubitatio.

For an understanding of this part, which concerns the place of the creation of the Angels, of which kind (of place) is the empyrean Heaven, a doubt falls about two (things).

Primo, circa naturam empyrei in se.

First, about the nature of the empyrean (Heaven) in itself.

Secundo, in quantum habet locare spiritus sublimes.

Second, inasmuch as it has a ‘being which is a place for’ [habet locare] sublime spirits.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo.

About the first two (things) are asked.

Primum est quantum ad qualitatem2 naturae.

The first is as much as regards the quality2 of (its) nature.

Secundum quantum ad virtutem influentiae.

The second, as much as regards the virtue of (its) influence.

ARTICULUS I.

 

De natura caeli empyrei in se.

ARTICLE I

 

On the nature of the empyrean Heaven in itself.

QUAESTIO I.

 

Utrum caelum empyreum sit, et cuiusmodi sit.

QUESTION 1

 

Whether there is an empyrean Heaven, and of what kind is it?

QUAERITUR ERGO primo de caelo empyreo quantum ad qualitatem naturae, et quaeritur, utrum caelum empyreum sit, et si sit, cuiusmodi sit.  Et quod sit, videtur.

THEREFORE THERE IS ASKED first concerning the empyrean Heaven as much as regards the quality of  (its) nature, and there is asked, whether there is an empyrean Heaven, and if there is, of what kind is it.  And it seems, that it is.

1. In quolibet genere mobile praesupponit immobile,3 quia omne fluxibile ad fixum terminatur; sed corpus caeli siderei est mobile:  ergo supra illud de necessitate est ponere ulterius corpus, quod sit immobile; hoc autem dico empyreum.  Si tu dicas, quod non requiritur, quia motus circularis est circa locum et non requiri immobilitatem nisi a parte medii;4 contra:  totum caelum movetur; . . .

1. In every [quolibet] genus a movable presupposes an unmovable,3 because every flowable is terminated at (something) fixed, but the body of the sideral heaven [caeli siderei] is mobile:  therefore above that there is of necessity the positing of a further body, which is immobile; but this I say (is) the empyrean (Heaven).  If you say, that (such a heaven) is not required, because a circular movement is about a place and there is not required an immobility except on the part of a medium;4 on the contrary:  the whole sky moves; . . .

2  Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. hic et in principio primae quaestionis quidditatem.

3  Cfr. tom. I. pag. 78, nota 2. et pag. 157, nota 11.  —  Paulo superius Vat. cuiusmodi naturae pro cuiusmodi.

4  Vide Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 76. (c. 9.), ubi probat, motum circularem ex sua natura esse continuum, quia in ipso per se non distinguitur principium, medium et finis; haec enim tria pertinent ad centrum, circa quod, non ad quod movetur.

2  The Vatican edition, together with one or the other codex, here and at the beginning of the first Question reads quiddity [quidditatem] for quality [qualitatem].

3  Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 3, p. I, Doubt I, p. 78, footnote 2, and ibid., d. 8, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, p. 157, footnote 11.  —  A little above this the Vatican edition reads of what kind of nature [cuiusmodi naturae] for of what kind [cuiusmodi].

4  See Aristotle, Physics, Bk. VIII, text 76 (ch. 9), where he proves, that circular movement from its nature is continuous, because in it per se there is not distinguished a beginning, middle and end; for these three pertain to the center, about which, not to which there is a movement.

 

p. 71

tunc ergo quaero de ultima superficie caeli, utrum moveatur; constat quod sic; sed omne mobile est in loco,1 quia « non quaeretur locus, nisi esset motus »:  ergo etc.

therefore, I then ask concerning the ultimate [ultima] surface of the sky, whether it moves; it is established that it does [sic]; but every movable is in a place,1 because « a place would not be sought, unless there was a movement »:  ergo etc..

2. Item, in quolibet genere multiforme praesupponit uniforme, sicut multa praesupponunt unum;2 sed caelum sidereum est multiforme:  ergo ultra illud et supra est corpus uniforme; hoc autem dicimus empyreum:  ergo etc.

2. Likewise, in every genus the multiform presupposes the uniform, just as the many presupposes the one;2 but the starry sky is multiform:  therefore beyond and above that is a uniform body; but this we say (is) the empyrean (Heaven):  ergo etc..

3. Item, in quolibet genere, in quo est ponere infimum et medium, est ponere supremum, sed gradus in corporibus attenditur secundum gradus perspicui et lucis; sed invenitur corpus opacum simpliciter,3 ut terra, et simpliciter secundum totum opacum:  ergo si complementum est in corporibus, debet esse corpus simpliciter et secundum totum luminosum; hoc dico empyreum:  ergo etc.

3. Likewise, in every genus, in which there is a positing of a lowest and a middle, there is a positing of a supreme, but a gradation [gradus] among bodies is attained according to a gradation of transparent (being) and of light; but there is found a simply3 opaque body, such as the Earth, and (it is) simply opaque according to the whole;  therefore if there is a complement among bodies, there ought to be a body simply, and according to the whole, luminous; I call this the empyrean (Heaven):  ergo etc..

4. Item, habitatio habitatori debet respondere:  ergo cum aliquis locus tenebrosus damnatis debeatur, ergo per oppositum videtur, quod lucidus debeatur Beatis.4

4. Likewise, a habitation ought to respond to the inhabitant [habitatori]:  therefore since there ought to be some shadowy place for the damned, therefore per oppositum it seems, that there ought to be a lucid one for the Blessed.4

CONTRA:  1. Quod non conveniat universo, quod illud sit corpus uniforme, videtur, quia corpora mundi principalia creata sunt ordinata et ornata: ergo cum ornatus consistat in maiori distinctione et pulcritudinis additione, impossibile est, corpus illud esse uniforme.

ON THE CONTRARY:  1. That it does not convene with the universe, that there be a uniform body, seems, because the principal created bodies of the world have been ordered and ornamented:  therefore since ornamenting [ornatus] consists in a greater distinction and in the addition of beauty, it is impossible, that that body be uniform.

2. Item, lux se diffundit secundum omnem differentiam positionis, ergo sursum et deorsum; sed lux solis maximae est diffusionis inter corpora mundi:  ergo sursum se diffundit, cum non habeat obstaculum.  Ergo cum non se habeat semper uniformiter, modo illuminat unam partem empyrei, modo aliam:  ergo corpus illud non est uniforme in luminositate, ut videtur.

2. Likewise, light diffuses itself according to every difference of position, therefore upwards and downwards; but the light of the Sun is of the greatest diffusion among the bodies of the world:  therefore it diffuses itself upwards, since it does not have an obstacle.  Therefore since it does not hold itself always uniformly, it illuminates now one part of the empyrean (Heaven), now another:  therefore that body is not uniform in luminosity, as is seen.

3. Item, quod non conveniat esse aliquod caelum immobile, videtur, quia omne caelum necessario est sphaericae figurae, sicut probat Philosophus,5 et rei veritas est; sed sphaerica figura apta est omnino motui:  ergo omne caelum, eo ipso quod caelum, est mobile:  ergo etc.

3. Likewise, that it is not fitting [conveniat] that there is some immobile heaven, seems, because every heaven necessarily is of a spherical figure, just as the Philosopher proves,5 and the truth of the thing is; but a spherical figure is entirely apt for movement:  therefore every heaven, by this very (thing) that (it is) a heaven, is mobile:  ergo etc.

4. Item, quod propinquius est motori citius et velocius movetur;6 sed corpus supremum est tale:  ergo non solum moveri, sed etiam velocissime moveri competit sibi.

4. Likewise, what is closer to a mover is more quickly [citius] and more swiftly [velocius] moved;6 but the supreme body is such:  therefore it suits it [competit sibi] not only to be moved, but even to be moved most swiftly.

5. Item, hoc nobilitatis est in caelo, ut moveatur — unde orbis primus, scilicet caeli stellati, movetur velocius, et ratio huius est, ut assimiletur suo motori7 — sed quanto aliquod corpus superius, tanto nobilius et motori similius et tanto mobilius:  ergo si empyreum est ultra firmamentum, non est ergo immobile.

5. Likewise, this nobility is in the sky, that it is moved — wherefore the first orb, namely the starry sky [caeli stellati], is moved more swiftly, and the reason for this is, that it is assimilated to its mover7 — but as much as any body (is) superior, so much (is it) more noble and more similar to (its) mover and more mobile:  therefore if the empyrean (Heaven) is beyond the firmament, it is not, therefore, immobile.

CONCLUSIO.

 

Est caelum empyreum, et quidem uniforme, immobile et perfecte luminosum.

CONCLUSION

 

There is an empyrean Heaven, and (it is) indeed uniform, immobile and perfectly luminous.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod quamvis Sancti parum loquantur de hoc caelo, quia latet nostros sensus, et philosophi adhuc minus, tamen ponere est caelum empyreum, sicut dicit sacra Scriptura:  In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram.8  Strabus exponit de empyreo, et hoc probat per litteram sequentem, quia firmamentum et caelum aqueum facta sunt secundo die.  Et Damascenus9 hoc exponit:  In principio creavit Deus caelum, id est « sine stellis sphaericae formae ».

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that though the Saints speak little of this Heaven, because it lies hidden to our sense, and the philosophers still less, yet there is a positing of an empyrean Heaven, just as Sacred Scripture says:  In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth.8  (Walafrid) Strabo expounds (this verse) concerning the empyrean (Heaven), and he proves this through the text which follows [litteram sequentem], because the firmament and the watery heaven [caelum aqueum] were made on the Second Day.  And (St. John) Damascene9 expounds this:  In the beginning God created Heaven, that is « (the Heaven) without stars, (and) of spherical form ».

Ponendum est etiam illud caelum, quia persuadet ratio finis triplex.  Una est perfectio universi, alia est propter motum firmamenti, et tertia principalis propter habitationem hominis beati.  Et quoniam finis imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem, propter perfectionem10 universi necesse est, ipsum esse uniforme, quia, cum sit caelum luminosum difforme, si non esset uniforme, non esset universum completum.  Propter motum firmamenti ponendum est ipsum immobile, ut motus mobilis fiat circa im- / -mobile, . . .

That Heaven must also be posited, because the threefold reason for (its) end persuades (it).  One (reason) is the perfection of the universe, another is on account of the movement of the firmament, and the third, the principle one, (is) for the sake of a habitation for the beatified man.  And since the end imposes a necessity upon those which are for the end, for the sake of the perfection10 of the universe it is necessary, that it be uniform, because, since the luminous heaven is difform [difforme], if there were not a uniform (heaven), the universe would not be complete.  For the sake of the movement of the firmament it must be posited as unmovable, so that the movement of the movable (heaven) comes to be about an im- / -movable, . . .

1  Aristot., V. Phys. text. 8. (c. 1.):  « Omne quod movetur, in loco est ».  Sequens prop. est Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 32. (c. 4.), quam Vat. invertit non quaereretur motus, nisi esset locus. Nonnulli codd. nisi esset locus motus (localis motus? quod respondet Aristot. textui.).  —  Notamus, quod in hoc argumento proponitur solutio difficultatis, quae animos Commentatorium Aristotelis, IV. Phys. text. 43. (c. 5.), diu agitabat, et quam Averroes ita proponit:  « Accidit in eo magna quaestio, quoniam manifestum est, ipsum (totum orbem) moveri, et cum omne motus sit in loci, necesse est, ut totus orbis sit in loco:  ergo sumus inter duo:  aut ponere, quod aliquid motum non est in loco, aut ponere, quod locus est inane (vacuum) et dimensio ».  Refutatis dein opinionibus Ioannis Grammatici, Themistii, Al-farabii, Avempacis, ipse tenet, quod ultima sphaera seu caelum dicatur esse in loco per accidens, in quantum centrum terrae, circa quod revolvitur et cuius indiget tanquam quiescentis et fixi, habet esse in loco.

2  Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 22. (c. 4.):  Prius natura in unoquoque genere est unum multis.

3  In nonnullis codd. ut X Z deest simpliciter.  Vat. legit Sed invenitur corpus opacum simpliciter et secundum totum, ut terra.  Ed. 4, retenta lectione codd., ultimam propositionis partem sic exhibet ut terra, et simpliciter et secundum totum opacum, ut firmamentum.

4  Aristot., de Mundo, c. 7. (c. 6.) de habitatione Dei loquens ait:  Quem locum tum Uranon ab origine vocis dicimus quasi terminum extimum supremorum corporum, tum etiam Olympum ut usquequaque lucidum, ab omni caligine secretum motuque omni incondito etc.

5  Libr. II. de Caelo et mundo, text 22. seqq. (c. 4.).

6  Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 84. (c. 10.):  Celerrime moventur quae proxima sunt moventi.  Cfr. de Mundo, c. 7. (c. 6.).

7  Averroes super XII. Metaph. text. 37:  Primum enim caelum movetur ab isto motore secundum desiderium, ut assimiletur ei secundum suum posse, sicut amatum movetur, ut assimiletur suo amato; alia autem corpora caelestia moventur secundum desiderium ad motum primo corporis etc.  Cfr. etiam Avicenna, IX. Metaph. c. 2. seqq.

8  Gen. 1, 1.  —  Verba Strabi vide hic, lit. Magistri, c. 4.

9  Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 6.

10  Cod. Z propter perfectam rationem, qui subinde post si non esset adiungit empyreum quod est.

1  Aristotle, Physics, Bk. V, text. 8. (ch. 1):  « Everything which moves, is in a place ».  The following proposition is Aristotle’s, Physics, Bk. IV, text 32 (ch. 4), which the Vatican edition inverts, reading a movement would not be sought, unless there was a place [non quaereretur motus, nisi esset locus].  Not a few codices read unless there was a place for the movement [nisi esset locus motus]; unless there were a local movement [nisi esset localis motus] would respond to Aristotle’s text.  —  We note, that in this argument there is proposed a solution of the difficulty, which agitated the minds of Aristotle’s Commentators on Physics., Bk. IV, text 43 (ch. 5) for a long time, and which Averroës proposes thus:  « In this there occurs a great question, since it is manifest, that it (the whole orb) moves, and since every movement is in a place, it is necessary, that the whole orb be in a place:  therefore we are between two (choices):  either to posit, that there is something moved not in a place, or to posit, that the place is empty (a vacuum) and (and yet has) a dimension ».  Having refuted next the opinions of John the Grammarian, Themistius, Al-Farabi, (and) Avempax, he himself holds, that the last sphere or heaven is said ‘to be in a place’ [esse in loco] per accidens, inasmuch as the center of the earth, about which it revolves and which it needs as (a place) of rest [quiescentis] and fixity, has a ‘being’ in a place [esse in loco].

2  Aristotle, On Heaven and the World, Bk. II, text 22 (ch. 4):  Prior in nature in each single genus is the one for the many.

3  In not a few codices, such as X and Z, there is missing simply [simpliciter].  The Vatican edition reads But there is found a simply opaque body and (that) according to the whole, such as the Earth [Sed invenitur corpus opacum simpliciter et secundum totum, ut terra].  Edition 4, having retained the reading of the codices, exhibits the final part of the proposition thus:  such as the Earth, and the simply and according to the whole opaque (body), such as the firmament [ut terra, et simpliciter et secundum totum opacum, ut firmamentum].

4  Aristotle, On the World, ch. 7, (ch. 6) speaking of God’s habitation, says:  Which place from the origin of the word we call “Heaven” [Uranon] as the outermost terminus of the most superior bodies, and “Olympus”, as lucid in all directions [usquequaque], hidden away from every darkness and from every unfounded movement etc.

5  (Aristotle), On Heaven and the World, Bk. II, text 22 ff. (ch. 4).

6  Aristotle, Physics, Bk. VIII, text 84 (ch. 19):  Most swiftly do they move which are nearest to the one moving.  Cf. On the World, ch. 7 (ch. 6).

7  Averroës on Metaphysics, Bk. XII, text 37 (says):  For the first heaven is moved by that mover according to desire, so that it may be assimilated to him according to his ‘being able’, just as one loved is moved, to be assimilated to one’s beloved; but the other celestial bodies are moved according to [secundum] desire according to [ad] the movement of the first body etc..  Cf. also Avicenna, Metaphysics, Bk. IX, ch. 2 ff.

8  Gen. 1:1.  —  See the words of (Walafrid) Strabo, here in the text of Master (Peter), ch. 4.

9  On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. II, ch. 6.

10  Codex Z has for the sake of a perfect reckoning [prpter perfectam rationem], which then after if there were not [si non esset] it adjoins an empyrean (Heaven) which is [empyreum quod est].

 

p. 72

im- / -mobile, scilicet centrum, et intra continens immobile et locans,1 scilicet empyreum.  Propter habitaculum hominis beati ponendum est ipsum luminositatis perfectae, ut habitatio congruat suo habitatori.  —  Ex his igitur colligitur, quare sit factum, et cuius sit dispositionis inter alios caelos, quia uniforme, immobile et luminositatis perfectae.

an im- / -movable, that is (about) a center, and within one containing and being the place for [locans] the unmovable (center),1 namely, the empyrean (Heaven).  For the sake of a dwelling [habitaculum] for the beatified man it must be posited as (being) of perfect luminosity, so that the habitation be congruent to its inhabitant.  —  From these (considerations), therefore, there is gathered, for what reason it was made, and of what disposition it is among the other heavens, because (it is) uniform, immobile and of a perfect luminosity.

1. Quod obiicitur, quod non est uniforme, quia2 ornatum; dicendum, quod ipsa lux propter sui nobilitatem est sibi ornatus; quoniam ergo corpus illud est luminosum per totum, alio ornatu non indiget.  —  Vel potest dici, quod, sicut illud caelum decoratum est astris, ita istud Angelis, qui sunt quasi astra caeli empyrei, iuxta illud Iob trigesimo octavo:3  Cum me laudarent astra matutina.  Et iterum, astra eius erunt homines beati, et quasi sol eius erit Agnus Dei.

1. What is objected, that it is not uniform, because (it is)2 ornamented; it must be said, that light itself, on account of its nobility, is its ornament; therefore, since that body is luminous throughout [per totum], it does not need another ornament.  —  And/or it can be said, that, just as that heaven is decorated with stars, so this one with Angels, which are the quasi stars of the empyrean Heaven, in accord with that (verse) in the thirty-eighth (chapter) of Job:3  When the morning stars praised Me.  And again, its stars shall be beatified men, and its quasi Sun shall be the Lamb of God.

2. Quod obiicitur, quod sol diffundit lumen in ipsum empyreum; dicendum, quod illius corporis non est recipere lumen, ad minus4 ab inferioribus.  Et ratio huius est limitatio virtutis a parte solis, quia nihil agit ultra terminum sibi a Deo constitutum.  Unde sicut ignis stat, cum pervenit ad horizontem, nec ultra progreditur, et terra, cum pervenit ad centrum; ita solis radii non protenduntur extra firmamentum, quia lucerna est huius visibilis orbis.  —  Alio ratio est, quia maior influentia absorbet minorem; et ideo tanta est illius caeli influentia, quod ad ipsum non pervenit minor, sicut candela non illuminat solem.

2. What is objected, that the Sun diffuses (its) light upon the empyrean (Heaven) itself; it must be said, that no receiving of light belongs to that body, still less [ad minus]4 from inferiors.  And the reason for this is the limitation of virtue on the part of the Sun, because nothing acts beyond the terminus constituted for it by God.  Wherefore just as fire stands still, when it arrives at the horizon (i. e. the surface of the Earth), and does not progress beyond, and earth (stands still), when it arrives at the center; so the rays of the Sun do not extend themselves outside of the firmament, because it is the lamp [lucerna] of this visible world.  —  Another reason is, that a greater influence absorbs a lesser one; and for that reason so great is the influence of that Heaven, that to it there arrives no lesser (influence), just as a candle does not illuminate the Sun.

3. 4. Quod obiicitur, quod est mobile, quia sphaericum et propinquum;5 dicendum, quod ad motum non sufficit sphaerica figura, sed etiam necessarius est, ut dicunt aliqui, locus continens; et rationabile videtur.  Necessarius est etiam absque dubio effectus, vel utilitas mobilis vel alterius.  Quoniam ergo caelum illud non est in alio, et quoniam est uniforme per totum, per sui motum nihil faceret; et ideo est immobile.  Similiter, quia est uniforme, non habet moveri, quia non habet dextrum et sinistrum.  —  Sed prima ratio de immobilitate non habet multam necessitatem, cum motus circularis secundum Philosophum6 non requirat locum in quo, sed circa quem.  Secunda de utilitate similiter, quia similiter posset dici de aqueo; eodem modo de tertia.7  Praeterea, dextrum et sinistrum sunt in caelo non ratione diversitatis partium, sed ratione influentiae motoris; et illud satis faciliter probatur, quia dextrum et sinistrum non mutatur, quamvis omnes partes caeli mutentur.

3. 4. What is objected, that it is mobile, because (it is) spherical and near (to its Mover);5 it must be said, that for movement a spherical figure does not suffice, but there is even more necessary, as some say, a containing place, and (this) seems reasonable.  There is even more necessary, without a doubt, an effect, and/or  the utility of the movable and/or (the utility) of the other (i. e. the mover).  Therefore, since that Heaven is not in the other (heaven), and since it is uniform throughout, through its movement it causes nothing; and for that reason is immobile.  Similarly, because it is uniform, it does not have a ‘being moved’, because it does not have a left and a right [dextrum et sinistrum].  —  But the first reason concerning (its) immobility does not have much necessity, since according to the Philosopher6 a circular movement does not require a place in which, but a (place) about which.  The second (reason) concerning utility similarly (does not have much necessity), because it could similarly be said of the watery (heaven); in the same manner concerning the third (it could be similarly said of the watery heaven).7  Besides, there is a right and left in the sky not by reason of a diversity of parts, but by reason of the influence of the mover; and that is proven in a sufficiently easy manner, because right and left does not change, even though all the parts of the sky are changed.

Et ideo ratio, quare non movetur, est, quia Deus nihil influit super ipsum ad motum, sed ad quietem tantum; et sicut influentia Dei movet firmamentum, sic quietat empyreum.  —  Ratio autem huius est, quia locus ille est regio deputata his qui omni modo in statu sunt et quiete; et ita patet, quod non magis approprinquat motori, ut motor est, sed ut est stabiliens.  —  Ex hac ratione, scilicet quia est, ut sit locus Beatorum, accipitur triplex eius proprietas,8 scilicet immobilitas, uniformitas et luminositas.  Et haec est ratio magis catholica, quia etiam motus caeli stellati non est nisi propter obsequium hominis viatoris; unde numero electorum completo, non erit amplius revolutio.  Rationes autem philosophicae,9 quae assignantur de motu caeli, apud fideles plus habent vanitatis quam veritatis, si quis diligenter aspiciat.

And for that reason, the reason, why it is not moved, is, because God has no influence [nihil influit] over it regarding movement, but only regards (its) rest [ad quietem]; and just as God’s influence moves the firmament, so He calms [quietat] the empyrean (Heaven).  —  But the reason for this is, because that place is the region deputed for those who are in every manner in a fixed and quiet estate [in statu et quiete]; and thus it is clear, that does not approach the Mover more, as He is the Mover, but as He is the One stabilizing (it).  —  From this reckoning, namely, because (the empyrean Heaven) is, to be a place for the Blessed, its threefold property8 is accepted, namely (its) immobility, uniformity and luminosity.  And this is the more Catholic reason, because even the movement of the starry sky is not but for the sake of the reverent service [propter obsequium] of man the wayfarer.  Moreover the philosophical reasons,9 which are assigned concerning the movement of the sky have, among the faithful, more of a vanity than of truth, if one diligently looks at (them).

5. Quod enim obiicit de assimilatione, responderi potest, quod illa causa est nulla, sed impletio numeri electorum.  —  Vel dicendum, quod est assimilatio in essendo, et est assimilatio in causando.  Verbum Philosophi non habet veritatem primo modo, quia Deus et motor caeli est immobilis; sed secundo modo, quia per sui motum est causa generationis.10  Quia ergo empyreum non assimilaretur in causando, si moveretur, et esset minus simile in essendo; ideo simpliciter dicendum, ipsum esse immobile.  Et sic patent omnia.

5. For what it objects concerning assimilation, one can respond, that that is no cause, but the fulfilling of the number of the elect (is).  —  And/or it can be said, that there is an assimilation in being [in essendo], and there is an assimilation in causing.  The word of the Philosopher does not have truth in the first manner, because God and the mover of the heaven is immobile; but in the second manner (it is true), because through its movement it is the cause of generation.10  Therefore, because the empyrean (Heaven) would not be assimilated in causing, if it were moved, and would be less similar in being; for that reason it must be said simply, that it is immobile.  And thus all (the objections) are clear.

1  Plurimi codd. cum ed. 4 et locum, in aliquibus tamen codd., ed. 1 et in anecdoto compendio Commentarii S. Bonaventurae, scripto a Fr. Gulielmo de Mara, habetur locans.

2  Vat. cum nonnullis codd. perperam addit non.

3  Vers. 7, in cuius expositione Gregor., XXVIII. Moral. c. 14. n. 34, Angelos vocat astra matutina, homines redemtos autem astra vespertina.  —  In fine solutionis alluditur ad Apoc. 21, 23.

4  Vat. lumen maius.  Paulo inferius cod. H ad suam sphaeram pro ad horizontem (in codd. et primis edd. horizonta; codd. N aa adiungunt suum).  Dein post progreditur in codd. A U additur et mare cum pervenit ad litus.

5  Supple cum Vat. motori, quae etiam aliquanto inferius pro vel utilitas ponit videlicet utilitas.

6  Cfr. supra pag. 70, nota 4, et I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 5. (c. 2.), ubi ait:  « Circularis igitur [motus] est, qui circa medium fit ».  Libr. II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 27. (c. 4.) probat, caelum esse sphaericae figurae, ex hoc quod in omnibus aliis motibus accideret, et locum et vacuum esse extra lationem caeli, quod est impossibile.  —  Cfr. in eodem libro text. 7. seqq. (c. 2 seqq.) cum Comment. Averrois, quae spectant ad ea quae sequuntur de dextro et sinistro in caelo et de eius influentia.

7  Intellige:  dici potest respectu caeli aquei.  —  Vat. interpunctione variata, sic:  Secunda de utilitate non simliter, quia similiter posset dici de aqueo:  eodem modo de tertia, quia dextrum etc.  Codd. sunt divisi inter se quoad primam propositionis partem; nam aliqui ut T Y aa cc cum ed. 1 pro utilitate substituunt inutilitate, retinentes particulam non, excepto cod. aa, quem in hoc sumus secuti; alii consentiunt lectioni Vat., quae explicatur ex cod. I:  Secunda de utilitate non valeret similiter.  Quoad alteram partem codd. et primae edd. sunt contra Vat., quae etiam paulo inferius cum nonnullis mss. ponit non mutantur pro non mutatur.

8  Cod. cc et ed. 1 accipitur triplex ratio, secundum quod est triplex eius proprietas.

9  Vat. Philosophi.  Aliquanto inferius cod. cc et ed. 1 inspiciat pro aspiciat.

10  Cfr. Aristot., II. de Gener. et corrupt., text. 56. seqq. (c. 10.).  —  Mox Vat. non magis assimilaretur pro non assimilaretur.

1  Very many codices, together with edition 4, have within one containing the unmovable (center) and place [intra continens immobile et locum] for within one containing and being the place for the unmovable (center) [intra continens immobile et locans], yet in some codices, in edition 1 and in the unpublished compendium on St. Bonaventure’s Commentaries, written by Father Guillermo de Marra, there is had et locans.

2  The Vatican edition, together with not a few codices, faultily adds not [non].

3  Verse 7, in the exposition of which (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great), Morals., Bk. XXVIII, ch. 14, n. 34, calls the Angels the “morning stars” [astra matutina], but redeemed men the “evening stars”.  —  At the end of the solution there is an allusion to Apoc. 21:23.

4  The Vatican edition reads a greater light than [lumen maius] for still less from [ad minus ab].  A little below this codex H reads ad its sphere [ad suam sphaeram] for at the horizon [ad horizontem] (in the codices and first editions there is read at the horizons [ad horizonta]; codices N and aa adjoin its own [suum]).  Then codices A and U read nor does even the sea progress beyond, when it arrives at the shore [nec ultra progreditur et mare cum pervenit ad litus] for and does not progress beyond [nec ultra progreditur].

5  Supply together with the Vatican edition to (its) Mover [motori], which (edition) also somewhat below this for and/or utility [vel utilitatis] has namely the utility [videlicet utilitas].

6  Cf. above p. 70, footnote 4, and On Heaven and the World, Bk. I, text 5 (ch. 2), where he says:  « Therefore circular (movement) is, that which is done about a middle ».  In On Heaven and the World, Bk. II, text 27 (ch. 4) he proves, that a heaven is a spherical figure, from this that it occurs in all other movements, and that there is a place and a vacuum outside of the breadth of heaven, which is impossible.  —  Cf. in the same book, text 7 ff (ch. 2 ff.) with the Commentaries of Averroës, which pertain to those (passages) which follow concerning a right and left in heaven and its influence.

7  Understand:  it can be said in respect of the watery heaven.  —  The Vatican edition, with changed inter-punctuation, reads thus:  The second concerning utility, not similarly, because it could be similarly said of the watery (heaven):  in the same manner concerning the third, because there is a right etc. [Secunda de utilitate non simliter, quia similiter posset dici de aqueo:  eodem modo de tertia, quia dextrum etc.].  The codices are divided among themselves in regards to the first part of the proposition; for some, such as T Y aa and cc, together with edition 1 have inutility [inutilitate] for utility [utilitate], retaining the particle not [non], except codex aa, which we have followed in this; the others consent with the reading of the Vatican edition, which is explained from codex I:  The second concerning utility would be similarly not valid [Secunda de utilitate non valeret similiter].  In regard to the other part (of the proposition) the codices and first editions are contrary to the Vatican edition, which also a little below this, together with not a few manuscripts, has do not change [non mutantur] for does not change [non mutatur].

8  Codex cc and edition 1 have a threefold reason is accepted, according to which its property is threefold  [accipitur triplex ratio, secundum quod est triplex eius proprietas].

9  The Vatican edition has the reasons of the Philosopher [rationes Philosophi] for philosophical reasons [rationes . . . philosophicae].  Somewhat below this codex cc and edition 1 have looks into [inspiciat] for looks at [aspiciat].

10  Cf. Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption, Bk. II, text 56 ff. (ch. 10).  —  Next the Vatican edition adds more [magis] after not be [non].

 

p. 73

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. S. Bonav. (Breviloq. p. II. c. 3.) distinguit « tres caelos principales, scil. empyreum, crystallinum et firmamentum.  Intra firmamentum autem, quod est caelum stellarum, continentur septem orbes planetarum, qui sunt saturnus, iupiter, mars, sol, venus, mercurius, luna . . . et sic procedendo a summo cardine caeli usque ad centrum terrae, decem concurrunt orbes caelestes et quatuor sphaerae elementares ».  Plura de his vide hic dub. 2, infra d. 14. per totam, d. 12. a. 2, q. 1. 2. 3.

I. St. Bonaventure (Breviloquium., p. II, ch. 3) distinguishes « three principal heavens, namely, the empyrean (Heaven), the crystalline (heaven) and the firmament.  Moreover within the firmament, which is the heaven of the stars, there are contained the seven orbs of the planets, which are Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, (and) the Moon . . . and thus by proceeding from the highest hinge of heaven to the center of the Earth, there run together ten celestial orbs and four elementary spheres ».  See more on this here in Doubt 2; below in d. 14 throughout; d. 12, a. 2, qq. 1, 2 and 3.

Ex sacra Scriptura satis constat, esse aliquem locum ut habitaculum statui Beatorum congruum, qui ab antiquis doctoribus vocabatur caelum empyreum.  De natura eius, sicut et de numero, motu et qualitatibus caelorum in genere, illa aetate exortae sunt non paucae quaestiones, quae pro conditione scientiae de rebus physicis et astronomicis tunc vigentis a theologis non sine multis controversii solvebantur.  Non tamen est opinandum, illos doctores multas de istis rebus assertiones habuisse ut spectantes ad fidem, vel ut certas.  Ipse S. Bonav. pluries observat, suas conclusiones videri tantum probabiliores.  Nemo negare potest, nostra aetate, mediante accuratiore observatione, rerum naturalium scientias progressum fecisse maximum, multasque assertiones Aristotelis de hac re omnium calculo nunc iure reprobari, quae tunc omnium doctorum sententia approbatae erant.  Quare non paucae sententiae et multa argumenta de rebus physicis, quae hic et in nonnullis aliis quaestionibus sequentibus occurrunt, nunc obsoleta sunt.  Hinc superfluum videtur singulorum magistrorum de his sententias annotare, sed sufficiat indicare auctores de hac et seq. quaest. tractantes.

From Sacred Scripture it is sufficiently established, that some fitting place has been set up as a dwelling for the Blessed, which (place) was called by the ancient doctors the “empyrean Heaven”.  Concerning its nature, just as also concerning the number, movement and qualities of the heavens in general, not a few questions arose in that age, which in virtue of the condition of science concerning physical and astronomical things then prevailing, were not solved by theologians without many controversies.  Yet it must not be opined, that those doctors considered [habuisse] (their) many assertions concerning these matters as pertaining to the Faith, and/or as certain.  St. Bonaventure himself very often observes, that his own conclusions seem only more probable.  No one can deny, in our own time, by means of more accurate observation, that the sciences of natural things have made very great progress, and that many of the assertions of Aristotle, which were then approved of by the sentence of all the doctors, concerning this matter, by the judgment of all, are rightfully [iure] reprobated.  Wherefore not a few sentences and many arguments concerning physical things, which occur here and in not a few other of the following Questions, are now obsolete.  Hence it seems superfluous to note the sentences of each master concerning them, but let it (rather) suffice to indicate the authors who treat of this and the following question.*

II. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 19. m. 3. a. 1. 2. 3, et q. 47. m. 1-5.  —  Scot., II. Sent. d. 14. q. 1. 2. 3, et Report. d. 14. q. 1.  —  S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1-3; S. I. q. 61. a. 4, q. 66. a. 3, q. 68. a. 4.  —  B. Albert., hic a. 3-5; S. p. II. tr. 3. q. 12.  —  Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. 2. 3.  —  Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. 2. 3.  —  Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. 3. 4.  —  Durand., hic q. 1. 2.  —  Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3. 4.   —  Biel, II. Sent. d. 14. q. unic.

II. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 19, m. 3, aa. 1, 2, 3, and q. 47, m. 1-5.  —  (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, Sent., Bk. II, d. 14, qq. 1, 2 and 3, and Reportatio., d. 14, q. 1.  —  St. Thomas, here in q. 2, aa. 1-3; Summa., I, q. 61, a. 4; q. 66, a. 3; q. 68, a. 4.  —  Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in aa. 3-5; Summa., p. II, tr. 3, q. 12.  —  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 3, aa. 1, 2 and 3.  —  Richard of Middle, here in a. 3, qq. 1, 2 and 3.  —  Giles the Roman, here in q. 2, aa. 1, 2, 3 and 4.  —  Durandus, here in qq. 1 and 2.  —  (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in qq. 3 and 4.   —  (Gabriel) Biel, Sent., Bk. II, d. 14, q. sole.

 

* [Trans. note:  Here the Quaracchi editors address the seeming problem of understanding the Scholastics’ own arguments and conclusions about a matter which in their own age conflated questions of theology and astronomy.  In our age, when these sciences are held as distinct disciplines, great fruit is to be had in science and theology, if the Scholastics are diligently considered in these matters, with a view to distinguishing their theological arguments and conclusions from their astronomical ones; as well as to understand better the proper and improper relations of empirical science to theology and theology to empirical science.  However, in regard to the empyrean Heaven, it would be contrary to the very nature of theology if questions regarding its nature and qualities were precluded from discussion; and thus these Scholastics must be studied to understand and comprehend what Sacred Tradition and ecclesiastical tradition teaches about them, esp. as regards the often denied truth that Heaven is a real place.]

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.