COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. II, d. 2, p. II, a. 2, q. 4: S. BONAVENTURAE

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 IV.	ARTICLE II Question 4
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 82-84 Cum Notitiis Originalibus	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 82-84. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
QUAESTIO IV. Utrum plures Angeli sunt simul in eodem loco.	QUESTION 4 Whether several Angels are together in the same place?
QUARTO ET ULTIMO quaeritur, utrum plures Angeli simul possint esse in eodem loco primo. Et quod sic, videtur ratione multiplici.	FOURTH AND LAST there is asked, whether several Angels can be together [simul] in the same prime place. And that (it is so), seems by a multiple reason.
1. Et prima est haec: Angelus non est in loco corporaliter, sed spiritualiter: ergo cum dicat Philosophus tertio de Anima,⁵ quod « anima est locus specierum », in quo scilicet sunt spiritualiter, similis est modus existendi Angelum in loco et speciem in anima. Sed in anima simul possunt esse plures species, ita quod una non est in alia: ergo pari ratione plures Angeli in uno loco corporali.	1. And the first (reason) is this: an Angel is not in a place corporally, but spiritually: therefore when the Philosopher says in the third book On the Soul,⁵ that « the soul is the place for species », in which, namely, they are spiritually, there is a similar manner of existing of an Angel in a place and of a species in the soul. But in the soul there can be several species together, such that one is not in the other: therefore for an equal reason several angels (can be) in one corporal place.
2. Item, Angelus non est minoris simplicitatis quam punctus; sed duo puncta possunt esse simul: ergo et plures Angeli. Probatio minoris: Philosophus⁶ dicit, quod « contigua sunt, quorum ultima sunt simul »: et dicit, quod « simul sunt quaecumque in eodem loco primo sunt »: ergo cum contingat lineas continguari, et ita ultima esse simul: ergo duo indivisibilia sunt simul.	2. Likewise, an Angel is not of a lesser simplicity than a point; but two points can be together: therefore also several Angels. Proof of the minor: the Philosopher⁶ says, that « they are contiguous, whose ends [ultima] are together »: and he says, that « they are together whatever are in the same prime place »: therefore since it happens that lines are contiguous, and thus that (their) ends are together: therefore two indivisibles are together.
⁵ Text. 6. (c. 4.). Cfr. etiam text. 38. (c. 8.). ⁶ Libr. V. Phys. text. 22. seqq. (c. 3.) et VI. text. 1, ubi explicat, quid sit simul, contiguum, continuum etc.	⁵ Text 6 (ch. 4). Cf. also text 38 (ch. 8). ⁶ (Aristotle,) Physics, Bk. V, text 22 ff. (ch. 3), and Bk. VI, text 1, where he explains, what is together [simul], contiguous, continuous etc..

p. 83

3. Item, per aliud simile: quia « Angeli sunt lumina spiritualia », sicut dicit Dionysius;¹ « sed lumina corporalia », quae sunt minoris simplicitatis et magis dependent a loco corporali, « simul sunt », sicut dicit Dionysius, et plures species in eodem medio simul sunt, sicut patet: ergo pari ratione, immo fortiori plures Angeli in uno loco.	3. Likewise, through another simile: because « Angels are spiritual lights », just as (St.) Dionysius (the Areopagite);¹ « but lights are corporal (things) », which are of a lesser simplicity and depend more from a corporal body, « they are together », just (St.) Dionysius says, and several species are together in the same medium, just as is clear: therefore for an equal reason, nay for a stronger one, several Angels (can be) in the same place.
4. Item, rationalis anima magis appropriat sibi corpus, in quo toto est, quam Angelus locum, quia maiori nexu illi unitur; sed daemon potest obsidere et esse in eodem corpore cum anima: ergo etc.	4. Likewise, a rational soul appropriates the body, in which whole it is, more to itself, than an Angel (does) a place, because it is united to it by a greater binding [maiori nexu]; but a demon can obsess [obsidere] and be in the same body with the soul: ergo etc..
5. Item, Sancti dicunt et infra² habebitur, quod corpus glorificatum pertransit per non glorificatum: ergo possunt simul esse duo corpora, ergo multo fortius duo spiritus. Si dicas, quod non valet in spiritibus, quia unus non est materialis respectu alterius, sicut corpus non glorificatum respectu glorificati; obiicitur tunc: sint simul duo corpora animata, quorum unum sit glorificatum et alterum non; constat, quod duae animae sunt simul; et tamen una non est materialis respectu alterius: ergo pari ratione duo spiritus.	5. Likewise, the Saints says and there will be had below,² that a glorified body passes through a non-glorified (body): therefore two bodies can be together, therefore much more strongly two spirits. If you say, that (this) is not valid among spirits, because one is not material in respect of the other, just as a non-glorified body (is) in respect of a glorified one; there is then objected: let there be two animated bodies, one of which is glorified and the other (is) not; it is established, that there are two souls together; and yet one is not material in respect of the other: therefore for an equal reason two spirits.
6. Item, spiritus rationalis non occupat locum; intelligamus enim, quod locus sit vacuus a corpore, et ponatur ibi spiritus, nihilominus erit vacuus sicut prius, et natus tantum recipere, quantum prius: ergo cum aeque bene possit ibi esse corpus, sicut si non esset³ spiritus, pari ratione videtur, quod et alius spiritus.	6. Likewise, a rational spirit does not occupy a place; for let us understand, that the place is empty of a body, and let the spirit be placed there, nevertheless it will be empty as before, and bound [natus] to receive as much as before: therefore since a body can be there equally as well, as if there were no spirit (there),³ it seems for an equal reason, that another spirit (can) also.
CONTRA: 1. Strabus dicit et habetur in littera,⁴ « quod statim, cum empyreum est factum, repletum est sanctis Angelis »; sed non est repletum quoad vacuitatem, ergo quoad ornatus totalitatem: ergo loca distincta et diversa habent in empyreo: ergo si eos ita produxit Deus, sicut nati sunt esse, non ergo in eodem loco nati sunt esse, sed in diversis.	ON THE CONTRARY: 1. (Walafrid) Strabo says and it is had in (Master Peter’s) text,⁴ « that immediately, when the empyrean (Heaven) was made, it was filled full with holy Angels »; but it was not filled full in regard to (its) vacuity, therefore in regard to (its) totality of being adorned [ornatus totalitatem]: therefore they have distinct and diverse places in the empyrean (Heaven): therefore if God produces them thus, just as they were born to be, therefore they were not born to be in the same place, but in diverse (places).
2. Item, Augustinus de Fide ad Petrum:⁵ « Inest singulis spiritibus naturalis terminus, quo a se invicem distinguuntur, et unus in altero non est »; ergo si distincti sunt per terminos naturales, impossibile est, eos esse simul et in eodem loco simul existere.	2. Likewise, (St.) Augustine (says) On the Faith to Peter:⁵ « There is in each one of [singulis] the natural spirits a terminus, according to which they are distinguished from one another, and one is not in the other »; therefore if they have been distinguished through natural termini, it is impossible, that they be together and exist together in the same place.
3. Item, locus dicitur ad locatum relatione essentiali: ergo cum, multiplicato uno relativorum, multiplicatur alterum,⁶ quot sunt locata, tot sunt loca, eodem modo, quod locus dicitur ad locatum: ergo cum locus Angeli dicatur ad locatum non per modum mensurantis, sed per modum definientis, ergo quot sunt Angeli definiti, tot sunt loca definientia.	3. Likewise, “place” is said regarding (something) placed according to an essential relation: therefore since, with one of (two) relatives multiplied, there is multiplied the other of the two,⁶ as many as are the (things) placed, so many are the places, in the same manner, as “place” is said regarding (something) placed: therefore since the place of an Angel is said regarding (something) placed, not through the manner of one measuring, but through the manner of one delimiting [definientis],* therefore as many as are the delimited Angels [Angeli definiti], so many are the delimiting places [loca definientia].
4. Item, sicut se habet locus ad locatum, ita e converso,⁷ ergo sicut unum locatum ad plura loca, ita unus locus ad plura locata; sed unum locatum, ut Angelus, non potest esse in pluribus locis:⁸ ergo unus locus non potest esse plurium Angelorum: manifestum est ergo etc.	4. Likewise, just as a place holds itself to (something) placed, so (it is) vice versa,⁷ therefore, just as one placed (thing holds itself) to several places, so one place to several placed (things); but one placed (thing), such as an Angel, cannot be in several places:⁸ therefore there cannot e one place for several Angels: it is, therefore, manifest, that etc..
CONCLUSIO. Propter ordinem universi servandum duo Angeli non possunt esse in eodem loco primo.	CONCLUSION For the sake of conserving the order of the universe, two Angels cannot be in the same prime place.
RESPONDEO: Ad praedictam quaestionem dixerunt aliqui, quod Angeli poterant esse plures simul, nullo repugnante, et hoc propter suam simplicitatem et propter hoc, quod locum non replent ratione suae spiritualitatis. Unde nec minuunt loci capacitatem, quemadmodum nec lumina nec idola in medio, nec species in anima, quae in eodem et secundum idem sunt in multitudine; nec tamen ponitur idolum in idolo, nec lumen in lumine; sic dicunt se habere in proposito. Nec cogit obiectio de repletione caeli,⁹ quia hoc dictum est propter spirituum multitudinem; nec de virtute sive loco spirituali, quia semper distinguuntur propria virtute et natura, nec unus illabitur alteri;¹⁰ nec de relatione, quia unius ad alterum non est habitudo nec dependentia necessitatis, sed solum cuiusdam congruitatis.	I RESPOND: To the aforesaid question some said, that Angels could be several together, with no repugnance, and this on account of their own simplicity and on account of this, that they do not fill a place full by reason of their spirituality. Wherefore they neither lessen the capacity of the place, nor (are they) according to that manner (in which) lights or likenesses [idola] (are) in a medium, nor as species (are) in a soul, which are in the same and according to the same in multitude; nor, however, is a likeness placed [ponitur] in a likeness, nor a light in a light; thus they say it is to be held [se habere] in the proposed. Nor is the objection concerning the filing full of (the empyrean) Heaven⁹ cogent, because this has been said on account of the multitude of spirits; nor (the objection) concerning virtue or a spiritual place, because their own virtue and nature are always distinguished, nor does one glide into [illabitur] the other;¹⁰ nor (the objection) concerning relation, because of the one to the other there is no habitude nor dependence of a necessity, but only of a certain congruity.
Alii dixerunt, quod quamvis Angelus spiritualiter sit in loco, tamen plures Angeli in eodem loco simul esse non possunt, repugnante habitudine distinctionis, quae est loci ad Angelum. Sicut enim duae species albedinis in eadem anima esse non possunt, non propter hoc, quod repugnet repletio, sed propter hoc, quod repugnat ipsius animae informatio, quia informata specie albedinis, non potest iterum consimili specie informari:¹¹ similiter in proposito locus definiens aliquid non potest aliud, . . .	Others said, that although an Angel is spiritually in a place, yet several Angels cannot be together in the same place, (being as it is) repugnant to the habitude of distinction, which is of the place to the Angel. For just as two species of whiteness cannot be in the same soul, not on account of this, that an act of being filled full [repletio] is repugnant (to the soul), but on account of this, that the its being informed [informatio eius] is repugnant to the soul, because having been informed by the species of whiteness, it cannot again be informed by a consimilar species:¹¹ similarly in the proposed, a place delimitating [definiens] something cannot delimit [definire] (something) else, . . .
¹ De Caelest. Hierarch. c. 3. § 2. nominat Angelos « specula clarissima et munda, receptiva principalis luminis »; de Div. Nom. c. 4. § 2. « luminaria clara », et ibid. § 22. « imago est Dei Angelus, manifestatio occulti luminis, speculum purum ». Sequens textus habetur de Div. Nom. c. 2. § 4: Lumina lampadum . . . dum sunt in domo una, et tota in se invicem totis sunt, et diligentem a se invicem proprie substantem habent discretionem, unita discretione et unitate discreta. — Vocem species, quae infra in corp. quaest. vocantur idola, intellige formas seu qualitates in medio ab obiectis productas, quae repraesentant obiecta. — Codd. K T circa initium argumenti post per aliud simile subiungunt patet. ² Libr. IV. Sent. d. 48. p. II. a. 2. sect. 3. q. 1. ³ Supple cum cod. aa ibi. ⁴ Hic c. 4. ⁵ Cap. 3. n. 30: Inest tamen singulis terminus naturalis, quo a se invicem discernuntur, quia nullus eorum est in alio. — In fine argumenti plures codd. ut F T aa bb omittunt esse simul et. ⁶ Nam, ut ait Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Relatione, relativa videntur esse simul natura. — Paulo inferius codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3 dicatur ad locatum per modum mensurantis et per modum definientis pro dicatur ad locatum non per modum mensurantis, sed per modum definientis, quae lectio est in Vat. et a nobis retenta, quia concordat cum dictis q. 1, in corp. ⁷ Cfr. supra pag. 80, nota 7. ⁸ Ut supra q. 2. probatum est. ⁹ Intellige cum cod. T caeli empyrei. Tanguntur hic argg. in fundam. ¹⁰ Talis illapsus siquidem convenit soli Deo; cfr. infra d. 8. p. II. q. 2. — Plures codd. alii. ¹¹ Cfr. infra d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.	¹ (In his work) On the Celestial Hierarchies, ch. 3, § 2 he names the Angels « the clearest and clean mirrors [specula], receptive of the principle Light »; On the Divine Names, ch. 4, § 2 (he calls them) « clear luminaries [luminaria] », and ibid., § 22, (he says that) « God’s image is the Angel, the manifestation of the Hidden Light, (and) a pure mirror ». The following text is had in On the Divine Names, ch. 2, § 4: The lights of lamps . . . as long as they are in one house, are both whole in regard to their whole selves, and have a discretion, choosing from one another, properly underlying (them all), according to a united discretion and a discrete unity. — Understand the term “species” [species], which below in the body of the Question are called likenesses [idola], as the forms or qualities in a medium produced by the objects (perceived), which (forms) represent the objects. Codices K and T, near the beginning of the argument after through another simile [per aliud simile] subjoin it is clear [patet]. ² Sent., Bk. IV, d. 48, p. II; a. 2, section 3, q. 1. ³ Supply together with codex aa there [ibi]. ⁴ Here in ch. 4. ⁵ Chapter 32, n. 30: Yet there is in each one a natural terminus, by which they are discerned from one another, because none of them is in another. — At the end of the argument several codices, such as F T aa and bb, omit they be together and [esse simul et]. ⁶ For, as Aristotle, says, On the Predicaments, ch. “On Relation”, relatives seem to be together by nature. — A little below this the codices and editions 1, 2, and 3, read is said regarding (something) placed through the manner of one measuring and through the manner of one delimiting [dicatur ad locatum per modum mensurantis et per modum definientis] for is said regarding (something) placed not through the manner of one measuring, but through the manner of one delimiting [dicatur ad locatum non per modum mensurantis, sed per modum definientis], which reading is in the Vatican edition and has been retained by us, because it concords with what has been said in q. 1, in the body (of the Question). ⁷ Cf. above q. 3, p. 80, footnote 7. ⁸ As has been proven above in q. 2. ⁹ Understand together with codex T the empyrean Heaven [caeli empyrei]. Here the arguments of the fundament are touched upon. ¹⁰ Such a ‘gliding-into’, indeed, befits God alone; cf. below d. 8, p. II, q. 2. — Several codices read another [alii] for the other [alteri]. ¹¹ Cf. below d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, in the body (of the Question).
	* [Trans. note: See definire in the “Rational for the Translation of Peculiar Latin Terms”, in the Introduction to this English translation.]

p. 84

quod eodem modo est in loco, definire; unde sicut unum corpus non potest perfici a duabus animabus, sic nec unus locus primus deputari duobus spiritibus.	which is in the place in the same manner; wherefore just as one body cannot be perfected by two souls, so neither (can) one prime place be deputed for two spirits.
Sed melius istam quaestionem terminare possumus, si respiciamus ad rationem, ob quam Angelos ponimus in loco corporali; hoc enim non est propter indigentiam Angeli, quia, omni corporali loco destructo, posset spiritualis substantia permanere. Nec hoc etiam est propter indigentiam loci, quia per praesentiam Angeli nulla removetur indigentia loci; sed hoc est propter ordinem universi. Quoniam igitur Angelus locum non occupat, Angelus indigentiam loci corporalis non terminat, nec simpliciter nec in parte; quantum¹ est de spirituali natura eius et loci, nihil prohiberet, plures spiritus simul esse, sicut plura idola, vel species in anima. Sed quoniam ordo universi ita tollitur per omnimodam indistantiam, sicut per distantiam infinitam: sicut non patitur ordo universi, ut Angelus infinite distet ab Angelo, immo omnes intra unam circumferentiam caeli ultimi clauduntur; sic non patitur, quod Angelus in eodem loco primo simul sit cum Angelo. Et ex his patent obiecta.	But we can terminate this Question better, if we look back to the reason, on account of which we posit that Angels (are) in a corporal place; for this is not on account of the indigence of the Angel, because, with ever corporal place destroyed, a spiritual substance could remain. Nor is this even on account of the indigence of the place, because through the presence of an Angel there is removed no indigence of the place; but this is on account of the order of the universe. Therefore, since an Angel does not occupy a place, an Angel does not terminate the indigence of a corporal place, neither simply nor in part; as much as¹ concerns his spiritual nature and (the nature) of a place, nothing would prohibit, that several spirits be together, just as several likenesses, and/or species in the soul. But since the order of the universe thus is taken away through omnimodal indistance, just as through infinite distance: just as the order of the universe does not suffer, that an Angel be infinitely distant from an Angel, nay all are enclosed within the one circumference of the ultimate Heaven [caeli ultimi]; so it does not suffer, that an Angel be in the same prime place with an Angel. And from these (considerations) the objections are clear.
1. 2. 3. Quod enim obiicitur de speciebus in anima et punctis et luminaribus, patet responsio, quod non est simile, pro eo quod diversae species diversas indigentias animae complent; non sic plures Angeli indigentiam loci. Amplius, non sic attenditur ordo in illis quantum ad existentiam in loco, sicut in Angelis.	1. 2. 3. For what is objected concerning species in a soul and (concerning) points and lights [luminaribus], the response is clear, that it is not similar, in virtue of this that diverse species complete diverse needs [indigentias] of the soul; not so (do) several Angels (complete) the need of the place. Furthermore, an order among those as much as regards existence in a place is not attained in the same manner, as (it is) among Angels.
4. 5. Similiter sequentia² duo non valent, quia nihil est ibi, quod repugnet ordini universi, quia daemon et anima sunt in corpore diverso modo essendi, et corpus non glorificatum est materiale respectu glorificati.	4. 5. Similarly the two following (objections)² are not valid, because there is nothing, which is repugnant to the order of the universe, because a demon and a soul are in a body by a diverse manner of being, and a non-glorified body is material in respect of a glorified one.
6. Ultimum vero concludit a parte naturae Angeli; sed aliud est, quod impedit.³	6. However, the last (objection) concludes on the part of the nature of the Angel; but what impedes (this), is (something) else.³
SCHOLION.	SCHOLIUM
I. Scotus responsionem affirmativam praefert; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. aliique vero negativam, si quaestio intelligitur de loco formali adaequato, et de Angelo per modum causae principalis virtutem suam applicante. Huic sententiae suffragatur etiam S. Bonav. cum Richardo a Med., sed aliis ductus rationibus. Putat autem, ex parte naturae Angeli et etiam loci nihil obstare, quominus pures Angeli possint esse in eodem loco.	I. (Bl. John Duns) Scotus prefers the affirmative response (to this Question); St. Thomas, (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise and others, however, the negative one, if the question is understood concerning a form adequated place, and concerning an Angel applying his own virtue through the manner of a principal cause. This sentence is supported also by St. Bonaventure, together with Richard of Middleton, but lead by other reasons. Moreover, he thinks, that on the part of the nature of the Angel and even (on the part of the nature) of the place nothing withstands, that several Angels are able be in the same place.
II. Scot., hic q. 8. — S. Thom., I. Sent. d. 37. q. 3. a. 3; S. I. q. 52. a. 3. — B. Albert., I. Sent. d. 37. a. 25. — Petr. a Tar., I. Sent. d. 37. q. 4. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., I. Sent. d. 37. a. 2. q. 4.	II. (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, here in q. 8. — St. Thomas, Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, q. 3, a. 3; Summa. , I, q. 52, a. 3. — Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, a. 25. — (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, q. 4, a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, a. 2, q. 4.
¹ Vat. Ideo quantum. Mox plures codd. cum ed. 1 prohibet pro prohiberet, et dein codd. I Q bb vel plures species pro vel species, ubi cod. T addit sunt. ² Non pauci codd. similia, codd. I aa alia. ³ In codd. A I additur scilicet ordo universi.	¹ The Vatican edition reads For that reason, as much as [Ideo quantum]. Next several codices, together with edition 1, has will prohibit [prohibet] for would prohibit [prohiberet], and then codices I Q and bb read and/or several species [vel plures species] for and/or species [vel species], where codex T adds are [sunt]. ² Not a few codices read similar (objections) [similia] for following (objections) [sequentia]; codex I and aa read other (objections) [alia]. ³ In codices A and I there is added namely, the order of the universe [scilicet ordo universi].

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.

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM II.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION II