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 V.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION V

ARTICULUS II.

 

Quaestio I.

ARTICLE II

 

Question 1

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 150-152.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 150-152.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

ARTICULUS II.

 

De aversione minorum Angelorum.

ARTICLE II

 

On the turning away of the lesser Angels.

Consequenter secundo loco quaeritur de aversione minorum Angelorum.  Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo.

Consequently in the second place there is the question concerning the aversion of the lesser Angels.  And about this two (things) are asked.

Primum est, quo genere peccati peccaverunt minores Angeli.

The first is, according to which genus of sin did the lesser Angels sin.

Secundum est de comparatione peccati minorum Angelorum ad peccatum luciferi.

The second is on the comparison of the sin of the lesser Angels to the sin of Lucifer.

QUAESTIO I.

 

Utrum minores Angeli peccaverit peccato superbiae.

QUESTION 1

 

Whether the lesser Angels sinned by a sin of pride?

CIRCA PRIMUM sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum minores Angeli peccaverunt peccato superbiae.  Et quod sic, videtur.

ABOUT THE FIRST (the argument) is advanced in this manner and there is asked, whether the lesser Angels sinned by a sin of pride.  And it seems, that (it is) so.

1. Gregorius secundo Moralium:2  « Tanto magis homines ad caelestia ascendere invident, quanto se a caelestibus per immunditiam elationis deiectos vident »; loquitur de daemonibus.

1. (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great) says of the demons in the second (book) of Morals (on the Book of Job):2  « As much as men are more envious of ascending to heavenly (things), so much do they see themselves cast down from heavenly (things) through the uncleanliness of (their) elation ».

2. Item, Hugo de sancto Victore:3  « Omnes in eandem malitiam consenserunt, et unum ordinem perversae societatis fecerunt »; sed si omnes consenserunt in eandem malitiam, cum malitia diaboli fuerit superbia:  ergo omnes consenserunt in superbiam.  Sed nullus in superbiam consentit nisi superbus:  ergo etc.

2. Likewise, Hugh of Saint Victor (says):3  « All (the Angels) consented to the same wickedness, and made one the order of (their) perverse society »; but if all consented to the same wickedness, since the wickedness of the Devil was pride:  therefore all consented to pride.  But no one consents to pride except the proud:  ergo etc..

3. Item, libido est fundamentum civitatis diaboli, et radix omnis peccati:  ergo cum libidinosus amor sit amor ad se recurvus et amor privatus, quia in hoc differt ab amore casto:4  ergo . . .

3. Likewise, lust [libido] is the foundation of the Devil’s city, and the root of every sin:  therefore since libidinous love is a love curved back upon itself an a deprived love, because in this it differs from chaste love:4  therefore . . .

2  Cap. 47. n. 74, ubi textus originalis corda hominum pro homines et proiectos pro deiectos.

3  Libr. I. de Sacram. p. V. c. 30:  In una simul omnes malitia consenserunt, quasi unum ex se perversae societatis ordinem effecerunt.

4  De his duabus propositionibus cfr. August., XI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 15. n. 19 seq., XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 33, et XIX. c. 28.

2  Chapter 47, n. 74, where the original texts reads the hearts of men [corda hominum] for men [homines] and cast forth [proiectos] for cast down [deiectos].

3  On the Sacraments, Bk. I, p. V, ch. 30:  All consented together in one wickedness, as if they were made out of themselves one order of perverse society.

4  On these two propositions, cf. (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. XI, ch. 15, n. 19 f.; On the City of God, Bk. XI, ch. 33, and Bk. XIX, ch. 28.

p. 151

quilibet aliquid sibi appetiit.  Sed non appetiit appetibile oculorum nec carnis:  ergo superbiae vitae.

any (Angel moved by such alove) desired something for himself.  But he did not desire (what is) desirable by the eyes nor by the flesh [appetibile ocurlorum nec carnis]:  therefore (what is desirable) by the pride of life.

4. Item, « est amor commodi, et amor honesti », ut vult Anselmus.1  Si ergo peccaverunt daemones, aut igitur amore commodi, aut honesti, cum omnis affectio ortum habeat ex amore; sed non amore honesti:  ergo amore commodi; sed hic est amor proprii boni:  ergo etc.

4. Likewise, « there is the love of advantage [amore commodi], and the love of the honest [amor honesti] », as (St.) Anselm1 wants.  If, therefore the demons sinned, therefore either (they did so) for the love of (their own) advantage, or (for the love) of (something) honest, since every affection has its rise out of love; but (the did) not (sin) for the love of (something) honest:  therefore for the love of (their own) advantage; but this is the love of one’s own good:  ergo etc..

CONTRA:  1. Quod non peccaverunt peccato superbiae, videtur, quia superbi est appetere praeesse et non subesse, sed minores Angeli voluerunt lucifero subesse:  ergo non superbierunt.  Maior manifesta est.  Minor probatur per Hugonem2 et Magistrum, quorum uterque dicit, quod lucifero consenserunt:  ergo voluerunt, quod praeesset, sicut optabat.

ON THE CONTRARY:  1. That they did not sin by the sin of pride, seems, because it belongs to pride to desire to take precedence and to not be subject, but the lesser Angels wanted to be subject to Lucifer:  therefore they were not proud.  The major (of the argument) is manifest.  The minor is proven through Hugo and Master (Peter), each of which says, that they consented to Lucifer:  therefore they willed, that he would take precedence, just as he chose to.

2. Item, maioris dignitatis et sublimitatis est subesse summo domino quam minori, ergo Deo quam Angelo:  ergo si superbus appetit quod maioris est dignitatis, si superbierunt, potius appetierunt subesse Deo quam lucifero.  Sed voluerunt a dominio Dei transire in omnimodum dominium luciferi:  ergo etc.

2. Likewise, it belongs to a greater dignity and sublimity to be subject to a most high lord than a lesser one, therefore to God (rather) than to an Angel:  therefore if the proud one desires what belongs to a greater dignity, if they were proud, they desired rather to be subject to God than to Lucifer.  But they willed to pass over from God’s dominion unto the dominion of Lucifer:  ergo etc..

3. Item, omnis superbus appetit aliquam excellentiam:  si ergo superbierunt, aliquid appetierunt, scilicet se parificari Deo, ut videtur dicere Magister in littera,3 quod superbia « voluerunt se parificare Deo ».  Tunc igitur, cum minus haberent motivum ad hoc quam lucifer, ergo gravius peccaverunt; quod est contra totam Scripturam, quae dicit ipsum caput malitiae.  Si tu dicas, quod voluerunt quiescere sine meritis, et ideo superbierunt; sed contra:  laus est et gloria consequi praemium per merita:  ergo cum superbus appetat laudem et gloriam, appetere beatitudinem sine meritis non erit superbiae, immo ignaviae.  —  Item, aut appetebant sine meritis propter vitandam dilationem, aut propter vitandum laborem.  Non propter vitandum laborem, quia Angeli non lassantur, sicut nec motor primi mobilis:  ergo propter dilationem.  Sed sancti viri vitant dilationem, qui cupiunt dissolvi et esse cum Christo:4  ergo videtur tunc, quod ipsi superbiant.

3. Likewise, everyone proud desires some excellence:  if, therefore, they were proud, they desired something, namely to be made God’s peer, as Master (Peter) seems to say in the text,3 that by pride « they wanted to make themselves God’s peer ».  Therefore at that time, since they has less motive for this than Lucifer, therefore they sinned more gravely; which is contrary to the whole (of) Scripture, which says that he (is) the head of wickedness.  If you say, that they wanted to rest without merits, and for that reason they were proud; but on the contrary:  that one obtain a reward through merits is the praise and glory (of beatitude):  therefore since one (who is) proud desires praise and glory, it will not belong to pride to desire beatitude without merits, nay (it belongs to) idleness [ignaviae].  —  Likewise, either they desired without merits on account of avoiding a delay [dilationem], or on account of avoiding work [laborem].  Not on account of avoiding work, because Angels do not grow weary [lassantur], just as neither does the mover of the first mobile (sphere):  therefore on account of a delay.  But holy men avoid a delay, who desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ:4  therefore it seems then, that these (latter) are proud.

CONCLUSIO.

 

Primum Angeli peccatum fuit superbia; quod initiatum est in praesumtione, consummatum in ambitione, confirmatum in invidiae et odii aversione.

CONCLUSION

 

The first sin of the Angel was pride; which started in presumption, (was) consummated in ambition, (and was) confirmed in the aversion of envy and hatred.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod planum est ex dictis Sanctorum et Glossis,5 quod Angeli minores peccato superbiae sunt aversi.  Sed tamen in modo superbiendi diversitas est inter doctores.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that it is plain from the sayings of the Saints and the Glosses,5 that the lesser Angels turned away on account of the sin of pride.  But, yet, in (their) manner of being proud there is a diversity among the doctors (of theology).

Nam aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod superbia eorum fuit in consentiendo superbiae luciferi; et consentire superbiae non potest esse nisi superbientis, sicut etiam Adam dicitur superbisse, quia mulieri superbienti consensit.  —  Sed tamen illud non videtur probabile, quod Angeli minores prius appetierint alii aliquod bonum commutabile quam sibi, cum uniuscuiusque affectus maxime sit iunctus sibi, et6 primo appetat sibi inordinate quam alii, et si alii, propter se hoc facit.

For some wanted to say, that their pride was in consenting to the pride of Lucifer; and to consent to pride cannot belong but to the proud, just as even Adam is said to have been proud, because he consented to the woman, in her pride [superbienti].  —  But yet it does not seem probable, that the lesser Angels first desired some commutable good of another than their own, since the affection of each one has been joined most of all to himself, and6 (since each one) first desires his own inordinately than (that) of another, and if of another, he does this for his own sake.

Secunda vero positio est, quod Angeli minores superbierunt non tantum consentiendo, sed sibi excellentiam appetendo; et cum se non crederent posse ad illud pervenire sine ipsius luciferi sublimitate, qui erat quasi caput, et sibi et illi appetierunt; et ideo superbierunt proprie et superbiae etiam consenserunt.  Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hanc partem inductae.

On the other hand the second position is, that the lesser Angels were proud not only by consenting, but by desiring their own excellence; and since they did not believe that they could arrive at that without the sublimity of Lucifer himself, who was as it were (their) head, they desired both their own and his, and for that reason they were properly proud and consented even to pride.  And the reasons brought forward for this side are to be conceded.

Ad intelligentiam autem obiectorum in contrarium notandum, quod superbia daemonum conformis fuit capiti totius malitiae, principi scilicet tenebrarum.  Ipse autem diabolus, attendens suorum naturalium strenuitatem et excellentiam et praecellentiam, voluit praeesse et requiescere sua auctoritate, hoc est sine meritis, sine ministerio.  Daemones vero ei subiecti non sunt ausi tantum appetere; sed considerantes naturalium sternuitatem, voluerunt sub umbra illius requiescere, ita quod non ministrarent, sed quadam sub illo potierentur voluntaria libertate, quam videbant se non posse habere sub divino dominio.  Cognoverunt enim Angeli, se esse factos ad participandum quietis beatitudinem, et acquirendum per merita et ministeria.  In hoc ergo superbierunt, quod sine meritis voluerunt beati esse et sine ministerio quiescere et sine limite propriam voluntatem implere; et hoc totum est superbire, quamvis non sit tantae superbiae, quantae fuit appetere omnibus praecellere et nulli subesse.  His visis, facile est ad obiecta respondere.

Moreover for an understanding of the objections to the contrary it must be noted, that the pride of the demons was conform to the head of the whole wickedness, namely to the prince of darkness [principi tenebrarum].  Moreover the Devil himself, attending to the vigor [strenuitatem] and excellence and pre-excellence of his own natural (powers), he wanted to take precedence and to rest on his own authority, that is without merits, without a ministry.  But the demons subject to him did not dare to desire so much; but considering the vigor of (their own) natural (powers), they wanted to rest under his shade, so that they would not minister, but under him become masters of [potierentur] a certain voluntary liberty, which they saw they could not have under the Divine dominion.  For the Angels cognized, that they were made to participate in the beatitude of rest, and to acquire (this) through merits and ministries.  In this, therefore, they were proud, that they wanted to be blessed without merits and to rest without a ministry and to fulfill their own will without limit; and this whole is (what it means) to be proud, though it is not of such a great pride, as was (his) desiring to surpass all and be subject to none.  With these (things) seen, it is easy to respond to the objections.

1. 2. Ad illud enim quod obiicitur, quod non superbierunt, quia non appetierunt praeesse; dicendum, quod quamvis non appetierint praeesse; noluerunt tamen debito modo subesse, quia non voluerunt subesse illi Domino, qui praecipit solum quod bonum est, et restringit voluntatem, sed ei qui permittit laxari fraenum concupiscentiae.  Ideo mali homines et superbi potius volunt subesse diabolo quam Deo; similiter potuit esse de Angelis.  Praeterea, alia fuit ratio, quia7 non cupiebant ei subesse, sed sub eius dominio sine servitio vel ministerio requiescere; et hoc superbiae est.  —  Et . . .

1. 2. For to that which is objected, that they were not proud, because they did not desire to take precedence; it must be said, that although they did not desire to take precedence; yet they were unwilling to be subject in a due manner, because they did not want to be subject to that Lord, who precepts alone what is good, and restrains the will, but to him who permits that restraint against concupiscence [fraenum concupiscentiae] be relaxed.  For that reason evil and proud men want rather to be subject to the Devil than to God; it could have been in a similar manner concerning the Angels.  Moreover, there was another reason, because7 they did not desire [cupiebant] to be subject to Him, but to rest under his dominion without service and/or ministry; and this belongs to pride.  —  And . . .

1  Monol. c. 1. et de Casu diaboli, c. 4. et 12.  Argumentum ipsum insinuatur libr. de Casu diaboli, c. 4, de quo vide supra pag. 148, nota 5.

2  Verba Hugonis vide supra pag. 150, nota 3.  Sententiam Magistri reperies infra d. VI. c. 2.

3  Hic c. 1.

4  Phil. 1, 23.  —  Quod motor primi mobilis non fatigetur, docet Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 83 (c. 10.) et II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 3. (c. 1.).

5  Glossa ordinaria et interlinearis in Epist. Iudae, 1, 6.

6  Vat. ut.  Paulo ante plures codd. ut I W aa bb magis sit pro maxime sit.

7  Non pauci codd. qua et nonnulli cum ed. 1 quare; incongrue.

1  Monologion, ch. 1, and On the Downfall of the Devil, chs. 4 and 12.  The argument itself is hinted at in the book On the Downfall of the Devil, ch. 4, concerning which see the previous question above, p. 148, footnote 5. 

2  See the words of Hugo above on p. 150, footnote 3.  You will find the sentence of Master (Peter) below in d. VI, ch. 2.

3  Here in ch. 1.

4  Phil. 1:23.  —  That the mover of the first mobile (sphere) does not grow weary, is taught by Aristotle, Physics, Bk. VIII, text 83 (ch. 10), and On Heaven and the World, Bk. II, text 3 (ch. 1).

5  The ordinary and interlineary Glosses on Jude 1:6.

6  The Vatican edition has so that he [ut] for and (since each one) [et].  A little before this several codices, such as I W aa and bb, have more [magis] for most of all [maxime].

7  Not a few codices have according to which [qua] and not a few, together with edition 1, have for which reason [quare], incongruously.

p. 152

ita patet sequens quod obiicit, quod gloriosius est Deo subesse; verum est secundum veritatem, sed non secundum aestimationem superbi.

thus the following (objection) is clear, which objects, that it is more glorious to be subject to God; (this) is true according to the truth, but not according to the estimation of the proud.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur tertio:  quid appetierunt? utrum parificari Deo? dicendum, quod in aliquo voluerunt parificari Deo, in hoc scilicet quod, sine meritis et obsequio voluerunt esse quieti et beati in aeternum, quod solius Dei est proprium; non tamen adeo parificari voluerunt, ut lucifer, et ideo non adeo peccaverunt.

3. To that which is objected third:  “What did they desire? whether (it was) to be made God’s peer?”, it must be said, that in some (manner) they did want to be made God’s peer, namely in this, that they wanted without merits and reverent service [obsequio] to be at rest [quieti] and blessed in eternity, which is proper to God alone; yet they did not want to be made (His) peer to such an extent [adeo], as Lucifer (did), and for that reason they did not sin as much [adeo].

Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod gloria est obtinere cum meritis; dicendum, quod superbus magis reputat esse gloriosum habere,1 et non ab alio, quam per merita ab alio obtinere; tum quia dedignatur servire, tum quia dedignatur ab alio recipere.  Et quia Angeli voluerunt propria auctoritate quiescere, patet, quod secundum aestimationem superbi excellentiam appetierunt, non veram, sed falsam; sicut patet in superbis, qui appetunt magis gloriam et excellentiam vanam quam veram.

to that which is objected last, that to obtain (a reward) with merits is a glory; it must be said, that the proud (man) reputes it more glorious to have,1 and not from another, than to obtain from another through merits; both because he scorns serving, and because he scorns receiving from another.  And because the Angels wanted to rest on their own authority, it is clear, that according to the estimation of the proud they desired an excellence, not a true one, but a false one; just as is clear among the proud, who desire vain glory and excellence rather than true (glory and excellency).

Et per hoc patet quod quaeritur, quare appetebant sine meritis; dico, quod non quia laboriosum, nec quia tardum propter desiderium; sed vile reputabant obsequium et ministerium; et hoc superbiae est.

And through this is clear what is asked, “For what reason did they desire (beatitude) without merits?”; I say, that (they did so) not because (it was) laborious, nor because (it was) tardy (to obtain such) on account of their desire; but (because) they reputed vile the reverent service and ministry (they would have to show to God); and this belongs to pride.

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Haec et seq. quest. secundum principia in praecedente articulo stabilita solvuntur.  Quoad q. 2. aliqui dicunt, peccatum luciferi non praecessisse peccatum aliorum, nec tempore nec aliqua causalitate; alii vero, illud praecessisse quidem causalitate, non autem tempore; alii cum S. Bonav. probabilius esse putant, praecessisse et tempore et causalitate.  —  Alex. Hal. diffuse de hoc disputat; alii plerumque auctores has duas quaestiones vel tantum tangunt, vel una quaestione absolvunt.

I. This and the following Question are solved according to the principles established in the preceding Article.  In regard to Question 2 some say, that the sin of Lucifer indeed did not precede the sin of the other (Angels), neither in time nor in any causality; but others (say), that it did indeed precede in causality, but not in time; others, together with St. Bonaventure, think that it is more probable, that it preceded both in time and causality.  —  Alexander of Hales disputes about this at length; very many other others either only touch upon these two questions, and/or solve (them) in one question.

II. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 99. m. 1. 2. 5. 6.  —  Scot., II. Sent. d. 5. q. 1. n. 9, et alii loci collecti ab Hier. de Montefortino t. II. q. 63. a. 9.  —  S. Thom., II. Sent. d. 6. q. unica, a. 2; S. I. q. 63. a. 8.  —  B. Albert., II. Sent. d. 6. a. 2. 3; S. p. II. tr. 5. q. 20. m. 2.  —  Petr. a Tar., II. Sent. d. 6. q. 2. a. 1.  —  Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3.  —  Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 3. dub. later.  —  Durand., II. Sent. d. 6. q. 2.  —  Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.  —  Biel, II. Sent. d. 6. q. unica in fine.

II. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 99, m. 1, 2, 5, and 6.  —  (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, Sent., Bk. II, d. 5, q. 1, n. 9, and in other passages, cited by Hieronymus de Montefortino, tome II, q. 63, a. 9.  —  St. Thomas, Sent., Bk. II, d. 6, q. sole, a. 2; Summa., I, q. 63, a. 8.  —  B. Albert., Sent., Bk. II, d. 6, aa. 2 and 3; Summa., p. II, tr. 5, q. 20, m. 2.  —  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, Sent., Bk. II, d. 6, q. 2, a. 1.  —  Richard of Middleton, here in a. 1, q. 3.  —  Giles the Roman, here in q. 1, a. 3, lateral doubt .  —  Durandus, Sent., Bk. II, d. 6, q. 2.  —  (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in q. 1.  —  (Gabriel) Biel, Sent., Bk. II, d. 6, q. sole at the end.

1  Vat. supplet a se, cod. I autem sine meritis.

1  The Vatican edition supplies from himself [a se], but codex I has without merits [sine meritis].

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.