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.

PART II

ARTICULUS II.

 

Quaestio III.

ARTICLE II

 

Question 3

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 81-82
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 81-82.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO III.

 

Utrum Angelus sit in loco impartibili sive punctuali.

QUESTION 3

 

Whether an Angel is in an indivisible or point-like place?

TERTIO QUAERITUR de modo essendi Angelum in loco.  Et quaeritur, utrum sit in loco impartibili sive punctuali.  Et quod sic, videtur.

THIRD THERE IS ASKED concerning the manner of being of an Angel in a place.  And there is asked, whether he is in an indivisible [impartibili] or point-like [punctuali] place.  And it seems, that (it is) so.

1. Damascenus6 dicit, « quod Angelus est in loco, non figuraliter, sed intelligibiliter »:  cum ergo nihil ipsius loci sit infigurabile et intelligibile nisi punctus, est in puncto.

1. (St. John) Damascene6 says, « than an Angel is in a place, not in a manner belonging to a shape [non figuraliter], but intelligibly »:  therefore, since nothing intelligible and not-belonging-to-shape [infigurabile] belongs to a place except a point, (an Angel) is in a point.

2. Item, proportio debet esse locati ad locatum; sed Angelus est simplex et impartibilis:  ergo ei debetur locus simplex et impartibilis.7  Sed hic est solus punctus loci:  ergo etc.

2. Likewise, there ought to be a proportion of the (thing) placed to the place; but an Angel is simple and indivisible:  therefore there ought (to be) for him a simple and indivisible place.7  But this is the point of a place alone:  ergo etc..

3. Item, ponamus, Angelum esse in loco, in quo minori non potest esse, quaero:  aut ille locus est partibilis, aut impartibilis.  Si partibilis:  ergo cum Angelus sit simplex, ergo adhuc potest esse in minori.  Quod si non potest esse in minori, videtur, quod ille8 sit impartibilis; sed nihil est impartibile in loco nisi punctus:  ergo etc.

3. Likewise, let us posit, that an Angel is in a place, in a lesser than which he cannot be, I ask:  “either that place is divisible [partibilis], or indivisible”.  If divisible:  therefore since an Angel is simple, therefore he can be in a still smaller (place).  Wherefore, if he cannot be in a small one, it seems, that that (place)8 is indivisible, but nothing is indivisible in place except the point:  ergo etc..

4. Item, « quod recipitur in aliquo, recipitur ibi per modum recipientis, non per modum recepti »:9  si ergo Angelus est in loco partibili, est partibiliter.  Sed impossibile est, Angelum recipere partitionem:  ergo etc.

4. Likewise, « what is received in something, is received there through the manner of the one receiving, not through the manner of the one received »:9  if, therefore, an Angel is in a divisible place, he is in a divisible manner [partibiliter].  But it is impossible, that an Angel receive a partition:  ergo etc..

5. Item, si Angelus est in loco partibili tan- / -quam . . .

5. Likewise, if an Angel is in a divisible place as . . .

6  Libr. I. de Fide orthod. c. 13.  Vide supra pag. 79, nota 5.  —  Paulo superius plurimi codd. perperam in loco partibili sive, recte cod. M in loco vel partibili vel pro in loco impartibili sive.

7  Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 70. (c. 4.):  Quorum enim locus est indivisibilis, et ipsa [sunt indivisibilia].

8  Cod. aa locus ille.

9  Libr. de Causis, prop. 10. et 20. seq.  Cfr. etiam Boeth., V. de Consol. prosa 4.  —  Paulo inferius plures codd. ut C H K O S Y cc et edd. 1, 2 partialiter pro partibiliter.  Dein cod. T prosequitur.  Sed impossibile est, Angelum esse partitum vel recipere partitionem.

6  On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. I, ch. 13.  See above q. 2, p. 79, nota 5.  —  A little above this very many codices have faultily in a divisible or [partibili sive], codex M rightly in either a divisible and/or [vel partibili vel] for in an indivisible or [impartibili sive].

7  Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. I, text 70 (ch. 4):  For whose place is indivisible, they themselves too (are indivisible).

8  Codex aa reads that place [locus ille].

9  Book of Causes, propositions 10 and 20 f..  Cf. also (St. Severinus) Boethius, On the Consolation of Philosophy, Bk. V, prose 4.  —  A little below this several codices, such as C H K O S T and cc, and editions 1 and 2 have in the manner of a part [partialiter] for in a divisible manner [partibiliter].  Then codex T proceeds thus:  But it is impossible, that an Angel be partitioned and/or receive a partition [Sed impossibile est, Angelus esse partitum vel recipere partitionem].

 

p. 81

tan- / -quam in loco primo, aut ergo est totus in qualibet parte, aut est ita in toto, quod pars est in parte.  Si totus est in toto, ita quod pars in parte, ergo est partibilis; si ita quod in quaelibet parte totus, cum ergo partes loci sint multae, erit1 in pluribus locis.  Si tu dicas, quod est in omnibus illis tanquam in loco uno, sicut anima est in omnibus partibus corporis; contra:  esto quod corpus illud dividatur et locus, in quo est Angelus;2 constat, quod nihilominus potest esse in omnibus partibus, cum non pendeat in aliqua parte principaliter.  Et si hoc, cum sit ibi locorum multitudo, erit Angelus in pluribus locis.

in a prime place [in loco primo], therefore either he is whole in any part (of the place), or he is thus in the whole, that a part is in a part.  If he is whole in the whole, thus that (he is) as a part in a part, therefore he is divisible; if thus that (he is) whole in any part, therefore, since the parts of a place are many, he will be1 in several places.  If you say, that he is in all of them as in one place, just as the soul is in all the parts of the body; on the contrary:  let it be that that body is divided and the place, in which the Angel is, (is also);2 it is established, that he can nevertheless be in all the parts, since he does not depend on [pendeat in] any part principally.  And if this, since there is a multitude of places there, the Angel will be in several places.

CONTRA:  1. Punctus nec est locus, nec pars loci:3  ergo quod est in puncto vel in loco punctuali non est in loco.

ON THE CONTRARY:  1. A point is neither a place, nor a part of a place:3  therefore what is in a point and/or a point-like place [punctuali] is not in a place.

2. Item, « punctus, ut dicit Philosophus,4 est substantia posita », id est essentia habens positionem, in quo differt ab unitate:  ergo si Angelus est in puncto secundum proportionem puncto convenientem, ergo Angelus habet positionem.  Sed forma, habens positionem in materia, non est motor sufficiens eius in quo est:  ergo etc.

2. Likewise, as the Philosopher says,4 « a point is a positioned [posita] substance », that is, an essence having a position, in which it differs from a unity:  therefore, if an Angel is in a point according to a proportion convening with a point, therefore an Angel has a position.  But a form, having a position in matter, is not a sufficient mover of that in which it is:  ergo etc..

3. Item, si Angelus est in puncto, primo ergo influit virtutem supra punctum:  ergo cum punctus sit improportionalis corpori, impossibile est, quod virtus eius se extendat ad corpus; et ita nunquam movebit corpus.

3. Likewise, if an Angel is in a point, therefore he first lets (his) virtue flow [influit virtutem] upon the point:  therefore since a point is improportional to a body, it is impossible, that his virtue extend itself (from the point) to a body; and thus he will never move a body.

4. Item, anima est in toto corpore; sed hoc non facit unio, quia ex hoc ipso habet dependentiam, et ita arctationem:  ergo hoc est ratione simplicitatis.5  Cum ergo Angelus sit aeque simplex, vel magis quam anima, videtur, quod multo fortius in maiori loco vel aequali totus possit esse.

4. Likewise, a soul is in the whole body; but this does not cause a union, because from this very (fact) it has a dependence, and thus a restriction [arctationem];  therefore this is by reason of (its) simplicity.5  Therefore, since an Angel is equally simple, and/or more (simple) than a soul, it seems, that much more strongly can he be whole in a greater and/or equal place.

CONCLUSIO.

 

Angelus definitive est in loco divisibili, ita tamen, ut non sit locus ita parvus, quin Angelus adhuc possit esse in minori.

CONCLUSION

 

An Angel is delimitatively in a divisible place, yet such, that there is no place so small, that the Angel cannot still be in a smaller one.

RESPONDEO:  Triplex fuit circa hoc positio.

I RESPOND:  About this there was a threefold position.

Fuerunt enim quidam dicentes, quod Angelus, quamvis sit in loco corporali, non tamen est in eo corporaliter, sed spiritualiter.  Quoniam vero non est in loco situaliter, ideo nec secundum totum, nec secundum partem, nec secundum impartibile, quia nulla omnino est commensuratio Angeli ad locum.  —  Sed ista positio non intelligibilis esse videtur, quomodo scilicet aliquid possit esse in aliquo et definiri et contineri, nec tamen primo6 immediate sit in toto, vel in parte, vel in impartibili.  Omne enim quod est in aliquo toto, vel est ratione totius, vel ratione alicuius partis.

For there were certain (authors) saying, that an Angel, though he is in a corporal place, yet is not in it in a corporal manner, but in a spiritual manner.  However, since he is not in a place in the manner of a site, for that reason neither (is he there) according to the whole, nor according to a part, nor according to a divisible, because there is entirely no commensuration of an Angel to a place.  —  But that position of theirs does not seem to be intelligible, namely, (it does not seem intelligible) in what manner something can be in something and be delimited [definiri]* and contained, and yet not be at first6 immediately in the whole, and/or in a part, and/or in a divisible.  For everything which is in some whole, either is according to a reckoning of the whole, and/or according to a reckoning of a part.

Et ideo fuit circa hoc secunda positio, scilicet quod Angelus est in loco impartibili sive punctuali.  Et ratio eorum erat ista, quia Angelus non habet materiam omnino differentem a corporalium materia nisi7 secundum esse, scilicet quia non est extensa.  Unde cum materia sit simplex ut punctus de se, dicunt, Angelum habere simplicitatem proportionalem puncto, et ita est in loco punctuali.  —  Sed haec positio falsa est et non intelligibilis.  Quidquid enim sit de materia, sicut infra8 dicetur, hoc tamen est verum, quod omnis locus corporeus est partibilis:  ergo sicut est oppositio in adiecto, dicere corpus impartibile sive punctuale, ita et dicere locum punctualem.  Et iterum, cum punctus non sit locus, ponere Angelum in puncto est ponere, ipsum non esse in loco.

And for that reason there was, about this, a second position, namely that an Angel is in an indivisible or point-like place.  And their reason was this, that an Angel does not have a matter entirely differing from the matter of corporal (things) except7 according to ‘being’, that is, because it is not extended.  Wherefore, since matter is simple as a point (is) of itself, they say, that an Angel has a simplicity proportional to a point, and thus he is in a point-like place.  —  But this position is false and not intelligible.  For whatever may concern matter, just as will be said below,8 yet this is true, that every corporeal place is divisible:  therefore just as there is an oppositio in adiecto, (in) saying that a body is divisible or point-like, so (there is) also, (in) saying (that there is) a point-like place.  And again, since a point is not a place, to posit an Angel is a point is to posit, that he is not in a place.

Et ideo est tertia positio, quod Angelus, cum contineatur a loco corporali, quod est in loco partibili, tanquam in loco primo; et quoniam non potest extendi in eo, ideo necesse est, quod sit in toto, ita quod totus in toto, et totus in qualibet parte.  Et in hoc est similis quodammodo simplicitas Angeli simplicitati divinae; sed deficit, quia Angelus in uno loco sic est,9 Deus autem ubique.  Ex hoc dicit Ioannes Damascenus, quod Angelus est in loco corporali, sed intelligibiliter, non figuraliter,10 quia hoc solum capit intellectus, quomodo videlicet substantia tota sit in partibus et tota in toto.

And for that reason there is a third position, that an Angel, when he is contained by a corporal place, that he is in a divisible place, as in a prime place [in loco primo]; and since he cannot be extended in it, for that reason it is necessary, that he be in the whole, thus that (he is) whole in the whole (place), and whole in any part (thereof).  And in this the simplicity of an Angel is similar in a certain manner to the Divine Simplicity; but it is deficient, because an Angel is in one place in this manner,9 but God (is) everywhere (in this manner).  On this account (St.) John Damascene says, that an Angel is in a corporal place, but intelligibly, not in the manner belonging to a shape [non figuraliter],10 because the intellect grasps this along, namely, in what manner a substance is whole in the parts (of a place) and whole in the whole (of the place).

1. Et ita patet responsio ad verbum Damasceni.

1. And thus is clear the response to the word of (St. John) Damascene.

2. Quod obiicitur, quod debet esse proportio; dicendum, quod non oportet, quod sit proportio secundum speciales conditiones est proprias11 Angeli vel loci, quia Angelus non ponitur esse in loco pro- / - prie; . . .

2. What is objected, that there ought to be a proportion; it must be said, that it is not necessary [non opportet], that there be a proportion according to the special and proper11 conditions of the Angel and/of of the place, because the Angel is not posited to be in a place pro- / -perly; . . .

1  Cod. A simul erit.  —  Simile argumentum S. Bonav. de anima ponit I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 3. fundam. 5; et ibid. ad 6. habetur illa replicatio, quae mox affertur.

2  Vat., mutata interpunctione, dividatur, et locus est in quo est Angelus.  Mox post partibus codd. U Y adiungunt corporis.  Dein fide codd. B D H I U V aa cc et ed. 1 substituimus in aliqua parte pro ex aliqua parte.

3  Cfr. Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 47. (c. 5.).

4  Libr. I. Poster. c. 23. (c. 27.):  Unitas substantia est sine positione, punctum autem substantia posita.  Cfr. I. de Anima, text. 68. (c. 4.) et V. Metaph. text. 12. (IV. c. 6.).  De ultima propositione arg. vide I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 3. in corp.  —  Paulo inferius cod. cc et ed. 1 secundum positionem pro secundum proportionem.

5  Cfr. I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 3.

6  Codd. L O interserunt et.  Aliquanto superius Vat. cum nonnullis codd. Sed ista ratio pro Sed ista positio.  —  De seq. prop. vide Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 24. (c. 3.), ubi affert duplicem modum essendi in aliquo, scil. aut secundum se, aut secundum alterum i. e. secundum partem.  —  Vat. cum pluribus mss. in aliquo loco toto pro in aliquo toto; nimis constricte.

7  Vat. cum paucis codd. omittens non et nisi modo positivo propositionem format, fortasse, quia multi codd. minus congrue omittunt solummodo non, quod exhibetur in codd. B (F a secunda manu) I Q U aa bb.

8  Dist. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.

9  Codd. B E H (bb in marg.) addunt quod non in alio; nonnulli, ut N Z legunt sic tantum est, codd. I cc et ed. 1 uno loco tantum est, Vat. omittit sic.

10  In cod. A subnectitur id est, circumscriptibiliter.

11  Cod. cc et ed. 1 proprietates.

1  Codex A reads will be at once [simul erit].  —  St. Bonaventure posits a similar argument concerning the soul in Sent., Bk. I, d. 8, p. II, q. 3, 5th argument of the fundament; and ibid., in reply to n. 6, there is had that repetition, which is next mentioned.

2  The Vatican edition, having changed the inter-punctuation, reads be divided, and there is a place in which there is an Angel [dividatur, et locus est in quo est Angelus].  Next after parts [partibus] codices U and Y adjoin of the body [corporis].  Then, trusting in codices B D H I U V aa and cc and edition 1, we have substituted on [in] for from [ex].

3  Cf. Aristotle, Physics, Bk. IV, text 47 (ch. 5).

4  (Aristotle), Posterior Analytics, Bk. I, ch. 23 (ch. 27):  A unity is a substance without a position, but a point (is) a positioned substance.  Cf. On the Soul, Bk. I, text 68 (ch. 4), and Metaphysics, Bk. V, text 12 (Bk. IV, ch. 6).  On the last proposition of the argument, see Sent., Bk. I, d. 8, p. II, q. 3, in the body (of the Question).  —  A little below this codex cc and edition 1 have according to a position [secundum positionem] for according to a proportion [secundum proportionem].

5  Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 8, p. II, q. 3.

6  Codices L and O read first and immediately [primo et immediate] for at first, immediately [primo immediate].  Somewhat above this the Vatican edition, together with not a few codices, has But that reason of theirs [Sed ista ratio] for But that position of theirs [Sed ista positio].  On the following proposition, see Aristotle, Physics¸ Bk. IV, text. 24 (ch. 3), where he gives brings forward a twofold manner of being in a thing, namely, either according to (the thing) itself [secundum se], or according to the other [secundum alterum], i. e. according to a part.  —  The Vatican edition, together with several manuscripts, has in some whole place [in aliquo loco toto] for in some whole [in aliquo loco], in an exceedingly constricted (sense).

7  The Vatican edition, together with a few codices, omitting not [non] and except [nisi], forms the proposition in a positive sense, perhaps, because many codices, less congruously, omit only the not [non], which is exhibited in codices B (F by a second hand) I Q U aa and bb.

8  Distinction 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 2.

9  Codices B E  and H (bb in the margin) reads thus, that (he is) not in another [sic est quod non in alio] for in this manner [sic est]; not a few, such as N and Z read only in this manner [sic tantum est], codices I and cc and edition 1 have only [tantum est], the Vatican edition omits in this manner [sic].

10  In codex A there is subjoined that is, circumscribably [circumscriptibiliter].

11  Codex cc and edition 1 have according to the special conditions and properties [secundum speciales conditiones et proprietates] for according to the special and proper conditions [secundum speciales conditiones et proprias].

 

* [Trans. note:  See definire in the “Rational for the Translation of Peculiar Latin Terms”, in the Introduction to this English translation.]

 

p. 82

pro- / - prie; est tamen ibi proportio quoad finitatem et limitationem, per quas duo Angelus definitus et est in loco; sicut enim Angelus habet substantiam et virtutem finitam, sic locus eius arctatus est et limitatus.

pro- / -perly; yet there is a proportion there in regard to finity and limitation, through which two the Angel has been delimited [definitus est] and is in the place; for just as an Angel has a finite substance and virtue, so his place is restricted and limited.

3. Quod quaeritur de hoc:  si ponatur Angelus in loco, in quo minori non possit esse; dicendum, quod in hoc differt existentia Angeli in corpore et animae, quod anima, quia est perfectio corporis nati vivificari vita rationali,1 et illud est in determinata quantitate, ideo potest esse in corpore ita parvo, quod non in minori, quia minus non esset organizabile et vivificabile; Angelus autem, quia non est ut perfectio et simplex est, est in qualibet parte loci totus, quantumcumque parva est — quia ratio loci salvatur in qualibet,2 non potest accipi locus ita parvus, quin adhuc possit esse in minori — et ideo non est dare locum, in quo minori non possit esse;3 est tamen dare, in quo maiori non potest, sicut est anima, quia hoc venit ex limitatione.  Sicut ergo in corporibus status est in ascendendo, sed in dividendo nunquam est ponere statum, nec unquam devenitur ad impartibile:  sic intelligendum est circa existentiam Angeli in loco.

3. What is asked concerning this:  “if an Angel be posited in a place, in a lesser than which he cannot be”; it must be said, that in this the existence of an Angel in a body and of a soul (in a body) differs, on which account a soul, because it is the perfection of a body born to be vivified by a rational life,1 and that (body) is in a determined quantity, for that reason (the soul) can be in a body so small, that (it can) not (be) in a lesser, because the lesser would not be organizable and vivifiable; but an Angel, because he is not as the perfection (of a body) and (because) he is simple, is whole in any part of the place, howsoever small (that part) is — because the reckoning of place is retained [salvatur] in each (part),2 there cannot be accepted so small a place, that (the reckoning of place) cannot still be in one smaller — and for that reason there is no granting of a place, in a lesser than which (an Angel)3 cannot be; yet there is a granting (of a place), in a greater than which he cannot (be), just as a soul is, because this comes from (its) limitation.  Therefore, just as there is among bodies a standing still in ascending, but in dividing there is never a position of a standing still, nor does one ever arrive at an indivisible:  so it must be understood about the existence of an Angel in a place.

4. Quod obiicitur, quod est per modum recipientis; dicendum, quod verum est, ubi receptum dependet a recipiente, sicut species recipitur in organo, recipitur et intellectus, et existentia eius pendet ex eo in quo recipitur, et se habet ad illud per modum informantis; hinc est, quod recipit modum suae existentiae ab eo in quo recipitur.  Non sic Angelus recipitur a loco, quia non pendet ex illo.

4. What is objected, that (what is received) is (received) through the manner of the one receiving; it must be said, that it is true, where the received depends upon [dependet a] the one receiving, just as (when) a species is received in an organ (of sense), there is also received an understanding, and its existence depends from [pendet ex] that in which it is received, and it holds itself to that through the manner of one informing; hence it is, that it receives the manner of its existence from that in which it is received.  Not so is an Angel received in a place, because he does not depend from [pendet ex] that.

5. Quod obiicitur:  si totus est in qualibet parte loci, cum sint plura loca etc.; dicendum, quod totus est in qualibet parte, nec tamen in pluribus locis, sicut nec anima, dum vivificat totum corpus, non vivificat diversa corpora, sed unum.

5. What is objected:  “if he is whole in any part of the place, since there are several places” etc.; it must be said, that he is whole in any part, yet (he is) not in several places, just as neither (does) the soul, while it vivifies the whole body, it does not vivify diverse bodies, but (rather) one (body).

Quod autem obiicitur:  esto quod corpus illud sive locus, in quo est Angelus, dividatur; dico, quod si divideretur in mille partes, dum tamen partes non sequestrarentur longe ab invicem, totus esset in omnibus, et omnes essent ei unus locus, quia nullam habent rationem ambiendi vel definiendi Angelum, sed illud quod complectitur omnes partes.  Locus enim non numeratur secundum numerum corporum locantium, sed in comparatione ad locatum;4 sicut patet, quia unum corpus potest esse partim in aëre, partim in aqua, partim in terra, nec tamen in tribus locis, sed in uno est.

Moreover, what is objected:  “let it be that that body or place, in which the Angel is, be divided”; I say, that if it were divided into a thousand parts, yet so long as they were not sequestered [sequestrarentur] far from one another, he would be whole in all (of them), and all would be one place for him, because they have no reckoning of encompassing and/or delimiting [definiendi] the Angel, but (only) that which embraces all the parts (does).  For a place is not numbered according to the number of bodies locating (it),4 but (is numbered) in comparison to the one placed (in it); just as is clear, because one body can be partly in the air, partly in the water, partly on the earth, yet (it is) not in three places, but is in one (place).

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Quid sit esse definitive in loco, explicatur hic in fine corp.  —  Prima et secunda opinio hic recensita etiam a S. Thoma reiicitur, qui secundum principia de fundamentali ratione praesentiae angelicae in loco ab ipso stabilita resolvit, Angelos posse suam virtutem pro libitu applicare vel loco indivisibili, vel divisibili.  Idem sentit Petr. a Tar.  —  Sed S. Bonav. cum Aegidio R. aliisque negat, Angelum posse esse in loco indivisibili, hac ductus ratione, quod punctum non sit locus.  Hanc suam sententiam declarat in solut. ad 3.  —  Scotus (hic q. 6. n. 13.) putat, non esse rationem necessariam nec ad unam nec ad aliam partem, quod etiam Richard. (loc. citand. ad 3.) approbat.

I. What is is to be delimitatively [definitive] in a place, is explained here at the end of the body (of the Question).  —  The first and second opinion cited here is also rejected by St. Thomas, who, according to the principles established by him concerning the fundamental reason for the presence of an Angel in a place, concludes [resolvit], that Angels can apply their own virtue, at will [pro libitu], either to an indivisible and/or to a divisible place.  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise thinks the same.  —  But St. Bonaventure, together with Giles the Roman and others, denies, that an Angel can be in an indivisible place, led (as he is) by this reason, that a point is not a place.  He declares this his sentence in the solution to n. 3.  —  (Bl. John Duns) Scotus (here in q. 6, n. 13) thinks, that there is no necessary reason for either one side or the other, which (consideration) Richard of Middleton (loc. citand., in reply to n. 3) approves.

II. S. Thom., I. Sent. d. 37. q. 3. a. 3; S. I. q. 52. a. 2.  —  Petr. a Tar., I. Sent. d. 37. q. 4. a. 2. praesertim ad 4.  —  Richard. a Med., I. Sent. d. 37. a. 2. q. 2.

II. St. Thomas, Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, q. 3, a. 3; Summa., I, q. 52, a. 2.  —  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, q. 4, a. 2, chielfly in reply to n. 4.  —  Richard of Middleton, Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, a. 2, q. 2.

1  Idem dicitur vulgari definitione:  actus primus corporis physici, organici, vitam rationalem potentia habentis.  Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 6. seqq.  —  Paulo ante non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 et anima pro et animae, et dein codd. aa cc et ed 1 quod anima, quae pro quod anima, quia.

2  Fide cod. I emendavimus falsam editionum et codd. lectionem, quae, transposita particula quia et omisso verbo est, haec est:  simplex est, quae in qualibet parte loci totus, quantumcumque parva est ratio loci, salvatur in qualibet.  Post in qualibet Vat. addit et ideo.

3  Simul audi:  Angelus.  —  Paulo inferius cod. cc et ed. 1 in corporalibus pro in corporibus.

4  In Vat. deest sed in comparatione ad locatum.

1  The same is said in the popular definition (to be):  “the prime act of a physical, organic body, according to the power of one having a rational life.”  Cf. Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. II, text 6 ff.  —  A little before this, not a few codices, together with edition 1, have and a soul [et anima] for and of a soul [et animae], and then codices aa and cc, and edition 1, have the soul, which [animae, quae] for a soul, because [animae, quia].

2  Trusting in codex I, we have emended the false reading of the editions and codices, which, having transposed the particle because [quia] and omitted the (prior) verb is [est], reads thus:  (because) he is a simple (nature), which in any part of the place (is his) whole, howsoever small is the reckoning of the place, it is retained in each (part) [simplex est, quae in qualibet parte loci totus, quantumcumque parva est ratio loci, salvatur in qualibet].  After in each (part) [in qualibet] the Vatican edition adds and for that reason [et ideo].

3  Understand:  an Angel [Angelus].  —  A little below this codex cc and edition 1 have among corporal (things) [in corporalibus] for among bodies [in corporibus].

4  In the Vatican edition there is missing but (is numbered) in comparison to the one placed (in it) [sed in comparatione ad locatum].

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.