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 XV.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XV

ARTICULUS I.

 

Quaestio II.

ARTICLE I

 

Question 2

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 377-379.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 377-379.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO II.

 

Utrum corpora animalium sint composita ex quatuor elementis.

QUESTION 2

 

Whether the bodies of animals were composed out of the four elements?

SECUNDO QUAERITUR, utrum corpora animalium sint composita ex quatuor elementis, an ex uno.  Et quod ex uno, videtur:

SECOND THERE IS ASKED, whether the bodies of animals were composed out of the four elements, or out of one (element).  And that (they were composed) out of one, seems:

1. Primo per Scripturam,1 quae dicit:  Producant aquae reptile etc.; et similiter:  Producat terra animam viventem.  Si ergo Scriptura sufficienter animalium exprimit materiam, cum non exprimat nisi simplicia elementa, patet etc.

1. First through Scripture,1 which says:  Let the waters produce the creeping (thing) etc.; and similarly:  Let the earth produce a living soul.  If Scripture, therefore, sufficiently expresses the matter of animals, since it does not express but the simple elements, it is clear that etc..

2. Item, forma debet proportionari materiae,2 ergo et corpus animae; sed forma animalium est simplex:  ergo et corpora debent esse simplicia:  ergo non sunt ex quatuor elementis:  ergo etc.

2. Likewise, form ought to be proportioned to matter,2 therefore body (ought to be proportioned) to soul; but the form of animals is simple:  therefore (their) bodies ought also to be simple:  therefore they are not out of the four elements:  ergo etc..

3. Item, quanto aliquid ad naturam compositionis magis accedit, tanto minus est perfectum; quod enim simplicius est, potentius est et perfectius.3  Si igitur anima sensibilis est forma valde potens et nobilis:  ergo debet esse perfectio corporis simplicis, non mixti ex quatuor elementis.

3. Likewise, as much as anything approaches more to the nature of a composition, so much is it less perfect; for what is more simple, is more potent and more perfect.3  If, therefore, a sensible soul is a very potent and noble form:  therefore it ought to be the perfection of a simple body, not of one mixed out of the four elements.

4. Item, corpora ad ornatum caeli spectantia non sunt facta de alia natura quam caelum, quod ornant:4  ergo pari ratione, si quaedam animalia ornant terram, et quadam aquas, quaedam sunt ex sola terra, et quaedam ex sola aqua.

4. Likewise, bodies pertaining to the ornament of a heaven were not made from a nature other than the heaven, which they ornament:4  therefore for an equal reason, if certain animals ornament the Earth, and certain ones the waters, certain ones are out of earth alone, and certain ones out of water alone.

5. Item, si corpora animalium constant ex quatuor elementis, tunc videtur, quod cum elementa habeant sphaeras distinctas, quod elementa constituentia corpus animalis sint in unum iuncta per violentiam:  si ergo violentia est contra naturam, constitutio corporis cuiuslibet animalis est contra naturam; quod est inconveniens.

5. Likewise, if the bodies of animals are established out of the four elements, then it seems, that since the elements have distinct spheres, that the elements constituting the body of an animal have been joined into one (body) through violence:  if, therefore, violence is contrary to nature, the constitution of the body of any animal is contrary to nature; which is unfitting.

6. Item, ex eisdem animalia sunt producta tunc, ex quibus producuntur nunc; sed nunc non possunt elementa virtute naturae coadunari:  ergo non possunt corpora animalium ex quatuor elementis produci.  Maior propositio per se manifesta est; minor probatur, quia non est in potestate naturae ignem facere descendere; si enim descenderet, cum medium interstitium aλris sit frigidissimum, necessario haberet ibi exstingui, et alia plura sequerentur inconvenientia:  ergo etc.

6. Likewise, animals were produced out of the same (elements) then, out of which they are now produced; but the elements now cannot be conjoined as one [coadunari] by the virtue of nature:  therefore the bodies of animals cannot be produced out of the four elements.  The major proposition is per se manifest; the minor is proven, because it is not in the power of nature to make fire descend; for if it did descend, since the interstitial medium [medium interstitium] of the air is most cold, it would necessarily have to be extinguished there, and several other inconvenient (things) could follow:  ergo etc..

Ad oppositum arguitur sic.

For the opposite (side) it is argued thus:

1. Sensus est operatio animae in corpore secundum conformitatem organi ad obiectum;5 sed quodlibet animal habet tactum, qui est perceptibilis quatuor qualitatum, quae radicantur in quatuor elementis:  ergo quodlibet animal constat ex quatuor elementis.

1. Sensing is an operation of a soul in a body according to the conformity of an organ to an object;5 but any [quodlibet] animal, which is perceptible of the four qualities, which are rooted in the four elements, has (the sense of ) touch:  therefore any such [quodlibet] animal is established out of the four elements.

2. Item, omne animal aliquo motu est mobile, ut progressionis, vel constrictionis, vel dilationis; sed nullum elementum de se est sic mobile:  ergo necesse est, animal constare ex pluribus elementis.

2. Likewise, every [omne] animal is movable by some movement, such as (by the movement) of progression, and/or of constriction, and/or of dilation; but no element is of itself thus movable:  therefore it is necessary, that an animal be established out of several elements.

3. Item, quanto forma est spiritualior, tanto est plurium operationum principium; sed anima sensibilis est forma valde spiritualis:  ergo est principium multiplicis operationis.  Sed corpus datum est . . .

3. Likewise, as much as a form is more spiritual, so much is it the principle of more operations; but a sensible soul is a very spiritual form:  therefore it is the principle of a multiple operation.  But the body has been given . . .

1  Gen. 1, 20.  —  Seq. textus est ibid. v. 24.

2  Cfr. Aristot., II. Phys. text. 26. (c. 2.) et VIII. Metaph. text. 6. (VII. c. 2.) et II. de Anima, text. 26 (c. 2.).  —  De minori cfr. Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 55. seqq. (c. 4.).

3  Vide librum de Causis, prop. 17.

4  De quo vide plura supra d. 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 4.

5  Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 121. seqq. (c. 12.).  —  De minoris vide ibid. II. text. 60. seqq. (c. 12. seq.), ubi etiam seq. arg. insinuatur.  —  Vat. et radicatur pro quae radicantur.

1  Gen. 1:20.  —  The following text is ibid, v. 24.

2  Cf. Aristotle, Physics, Bk. II, text 26 (ch. 2), and Metaphysics, Bk. VIII, text 6 (Bk. VII, ch. 2), and On the Soul, Bk. II, text. 26 (ch. 2).  —  On the minor (of the argument), cf. Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. I, text 55 ff. (ch. 4).

3  See the Book of Causes, proposition 17.

4  Concerning which see more above in d. 14, p. II, a. 2, q. 4.

5  Cf. Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. II, text 121 ff. (ch. 12).  —  On the minor (of the argument) see ibid., Bk. II, text 60 ff. (ch. 12 f.), where the following argument is also hinted at.  —  The Vatican edition has and is rooted [et radicatur] for which are rooted [quae radicantur].

 

p. 378

 

ad subministrandum ei:  ergo necesse est, quod corpus sit aptum et idoneum ad diversas operationes;1 sed non est aptum ad diversas operationes nisi per diversas virtutes, nec ad diversas virtutes nisi per diversas naturas, nec habet diversas naturas, nisi quia ex diversis compositum:  ergo etc.

to minister beneath [subministrandum] it:  therefore it is necessary, that the body be apt and suitable [idoneum] to diverse operations;1 but it is not apt for diverse operations except through diverse virtues, not for diverse virtues except through diverse natures, nor does it have diverse natures, unless because (it has) been composed out of diverse (elements):  ergo etc..

4. Item, quanto forma posterior et ulterior, tanto nobilior, pro eo quod anteriora sunt materialia respectu posteriorum:2  ergo nobilior est forma mixti quam forma elementi.  Si ergo anima sensibilis, cum sit forma nobilis, debet habere corpus nobile, ergo corpus animalis non tantum non est corpus simplex, sed constans ex diversis elementis.

4. Likewise, as much as a form is latter [posterior] and further [ulterior], so much is it more noble, in virtue of this that (those) anterior are material in respect of (those) posterior:2  therefore more noble is the form of one mixed than the form of an element.  If, therefore, the sensible soul, since it is a noble form, ought to have a noble body, therefore the body of an animal is not only not a simple body, but one established out of diverse elements.

CONCLUSIO.

 

Corpora animalium habent in se naturam quatuor elementorum.

CONCLUSION

 

The bodies of animals have in themselves the nature of the four elements.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod absque dubio corpora animalium habent in se naturam quatuor elementorum, sicut ostensum est per quatuor rationes, tum propter hoc, ut sint idonea ad sensum; tum propter hoc, ut sint idonea ad motum; tum propter hoc, ut sint idonea ad multiplicitatem operationis; tum propter hoc, ut in se habeant dignitatem completionis,3 quae omnia competunt illi corpori, quod perficitur anima sensibili.  —  Et propter hoc debet habere aliquem gradum perfectum mixtionis, ubi non tantum fit mixtio, sed etiam complexio:  perfecta autem mixtio non est, quousque concurrant quatuor elementa.  Aqua enim, cum sit subtilior terra in decupla proportione, penetrat partes terrae; sed non perfecte, pro eo quod aliquam habeat grossitiem.  Aλr vero, qui est subtilior in centupla proportione, adhuc intimius se profundat.4  Sed ignis, qui est subtilior et rarior in millesima proportione, sua subtilitate penetrat usque ad intima, et sic fit alteratio plena usque ad minima et mixtio perfecta, quia miscibilia sunt perfecte alterata.  —  Et sic patet, quod taliter debent componi corpora perficienda ab anima sensibili.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that without a doubt the bodies of animals have in themselves the nature of the four elements, just as has been shown through the four reasons, both on account of this, that they are suitable [idonea] for sensing; and on account of this, that they are suitable for moving; and on account of this, that they are suitable for a multiplicity of operation; and on account of this, that they have in themselves a dignity of completion,3 all of which suit [compentunt] that body, which is perfected by a sensible soul. —  And on this account it ought to have some perfect grade of mixture, where there not only comes to be a mixture, but even a enfolding [complexio]:  but a perfect mixture does not exist [est], until [quousque] the four elements run together.  For water, since it is more subtle than earth in a tenfold [decupla] proportion, penetrates the parts of earth; but not perfectly, in virtue of this that it has some thickness [grossietiem].  But air, which is more subtle in a hundredfold [centupla] proportion, will pour itself fourth [profundat]4 even more interiorly.  But fire, which is more subtle and rarified in a thousandth proportion, penetrates by its subtlety even to the most interior (parts), and thus there comes to be a full alteration even to the least (part) and a perfect mixture, because the mixables have been perfectly altered.  —  And thus it is clear, that in such a manner ought the bodies, to be perfected by a sensible soul, be composed.

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de auctoritate Genesis, dicendum, quod illud dictum est per quandam praedominantiam sive appropriationem, sicut melius patebit infra.5

1. To that, however, which is objected from the authority of Genesis, it must be said, that that has been said through a certain predominance or appropriation, just as will be more clear below.5

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod forma debet proportionari materiae; dicendum, quod verum est in conditionibus, quae magis competunt ipsi formae.  Anima autem, cum sit simplex in substantia, multiplex est in virtute; et ideo non competit, ut corpus ei assimiletur in simplicitate, pro eo quod simplicitas corporalis repugnat multiplicitati virtutis.

2. To that which is objected, that form ought to be proportioned to matter; it must be said, that it is true in the conditions, which are more suitable to form itself.  But the soul, since it is simple in substance, is multiple in virtue; and for that reason it is not suitable, that the body be assimilated to it in simplicity, in virtue of this that corporal simplicity is repugnant to the multiplicity of virtue.

3. Et per hoc patet solutio ad illud quod tertio obiicitur, quod quanto aliquid compositius, tanto minus perfectum.  Hoc enim etsi habeat veritatem in spiritibus, quorum perfectio attenditur per accessum ad summe simplex; non tamen habet veritatem in corporibus, in quibus et magnificatur virtus ex partium magnitudine, sicut magis urit magnus ignis quam parvus; et plurificatur ex partium multiplicatione, sicut maioris virtutis est syrupus compositus quam liquor impermixtus.  Et ideo homo, qui inter cetera animalia est perfectissimus, inter cetera est compositissimus, sicut planius videbitur inferius.6

3. And through this the solution to that which is objected third is clear, that as much as something (is) more composite, so much (is it) less perfect.  For even if this has truth in spirits, whose perfection is attained through approaching the One most highly simple; yet it does not have truth in bodies, in which both virtue is magnified out of the magnitude of parts, just as a great fire burns more than a small one; and is plurified out of the multiplication of parts, just as a composite syrup is of greater virtue than an unmixed liquid [liquor impermixtus].  And for that reason man, who is most perfect among all the other animals, is most composite among all the others, just as will be more plainly seen further below.6

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de corporibus ornantibus caelum, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia illa nec propriis motibus moventur nec spiritualibus formis7 perficiuntur, quibus debeatur multiplicitas operationum, vel diversitas partium componentium et organorum, sicut ponitur in animalibus.

4. To that which is objected concerning the bodies ornamenting a heaven, it must be said, that it is not similar, because those are neither moved by their own movements nor are they perfected by spiritual forms,7 to which there is due a multiplicity of operation, and/or a diversity of component parts and organs, just as is posited in animals.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fit elementorum violentatio; dicendum, quod non est intelligendum, quod Dominus in primordio, cum corpora animalium composuit, elementa ex diversis sphaeris concurrere fecerit; hoc enim non oportebat, tum quia tam aqua quam terra non sunt elementa pura, sed aliis permixta secundum eam partem,8 ex qua facta sunt ex eis animalia; tum etiam, quia, si essent pura et simplicia, in uno elemento sunt cetera in potentia, et ex uno possunt fieri omnia, si adsit virtus alterans et activa, sine aliqua locali mutatione, ac per hoc sine aliqua violentatione.

5. To that which is objected, that an act of violence is done to the elements [fit elementorum violentatio]; it must be said, that it must not be understood, that the Lord at the first rise (of things), when He composed the bodies of the animals, caused the elements to run together out of (their) diverse spheres; for this was not necessary [non oportebat], both because both the water and the Earth are not pure elements, but (are) thoroughly mixed with the others according to that part,8 out of which the animals were made from them (i. e. the elements); and also, because, if they were pure and simple, all the others are in potency in one element, and out of one all can come to be, if an altering and active virtue is at hand, without any local change, and through this without any act of violence [violentatione].

6. Et per hoc patet responsio ad ultimum, quia similiter, quando fit commixtio elementorum, natura non facit ignem, qui sursum est, descendere, vel aλrem; sed eum ignem, vel aλrem, qui vel est in terra, vel generatur per actionem alicuius agentis, facit venire ad constitutionem animalis.  Et hoc quidem fit per naturam, non per violentiam.  « Quia enim natura, secundum quod dicit Philosophus,9 semper desiderat quod melius est », materia, quae est sub forma elementari, appetit esse sub forma mixti, et quae est sub forma mixtionis appetit esse sub forma complexionis; ideo cum ex diversis elementis fit mixtio in unum, appetitus naturae completur, et violentia non infertur.

6. And through this the response to the last is clear, because similarly, when there comes to be a commingling of the elements, nature does not make the fire, which is above, descend, and/or the air; but causes that fire, and/or air, which either is in the Earth, and/or is generated through the action of some agent, to come to the constitution of the animal.  And this indeed comes to be through nature, not through violence.  For because, according to what the Philosopher9 says, « nature always desires what is better », the matter, which is under the elementary form, desires to be under the form of a mixed (composite), and (that) which is under the form of a mixture desires to be under the form of a complex being [complexionis]; for that reason when there comes to be out of diverse elements a mixture into one (body), the appetite of nature is completed, and no violence is inferred.

1  Sive quod corpus sit organicum; sub quo respectu Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 6. seq. (c. 1.), definit animam, quod sit actus primus corporis physici, organici, potentia vitam habentis.  Cfr. II. de Generat. animal. c. 3.  —  Maior invenitur secundum Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 77. m. 1. a. 1. et q. 81. m. 1. in libro Fontis vitae, ab Avicebrone conscripto.

2  Semper enim, ut ait Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 31. (c. 3.), in eo quod est consequenter, est potentia quod prius est, et in figuris et in animatis.

3  Id est perfectionis, scil. corporis nobilis.  —  Vat. complexionis et paulo inferius dicitur pro debet.

4  Cod. cc et ed. 1 profundit.  —  De mixtione vide Aristot., I. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 82. seqq. (c. 10.) et II. text.  49. seqq. (c. 8.).

5  Quaest. seq.

6  Dist. 17. a. 2. per totum.  —  De ipsa solutione cfr. I. Sent. d. 17. p. II. q. 2. ad 2. et 3.

7  In plurimis codd. et edd. 1, 2 desideratur formis; aliqui codd. ut H I W substituunt spiritibus pro spiritualibus formis.  Cfr. supra d. 14. p. I. a. 3. q. 2.

8  Vat. secundum earum partem, secundum quam facta etc.

9  Libr. II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 59. (c. 10.).  —  Paulo inferius post appetitus Vat. subiungit materiae vel.

1  Or that the body be organic; under which respect Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. II, text 6 f. (ch. 1), defines the soul, on which account it is the first act of a physical, organic body, having life in potency.  Cf. On the Generation of Animals, Bk. II, ch. 3.  —  The major (of the argument) is found according to Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. II, q. 77, m. 1, a. 1, and q. 81, m. 1, in The Well of Life, composed by Avicebron [Trans. note:  Avicebron is the English title for Solomen ben Judah Ibn Gabirol (c. A. D. 1021-1058), the Jewish poet and philosopher born at Malaga, Spain.  His other famous work is The Improvement of the Moral Qualities.].

2  For always, as Aristotle says, On the Soul, Bk. II, text 31 (ch. 3), in that which is consequently, there is a potency which is prior, both in figures and in animate (beings).

3  That is, of the perfection, namely of a noble body.  —  The Vatican editoin has of a complex being [complexionis] and a little below this has it is said [dicitur] for it ought [debet].

4  Codex cc and edition 1 have pours itself forth [profundit].  —  On mixtures see Aristotle, On Generation and corruption, Bk. I, text 82 ff. (ch. 10), and Bk. II, text 49 ff. (ch. 8).

5  In the following Question.

6  Distinction 17, a. 2, throughout.  —  On the solution itself, cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 17, p. II. q. 2, in reply to nn. 2 and 3.

7  In very many codices and in editions 1 and 2 there is wanting forms [formis]; some codices, such as H I and W, substitute spirits [spiritibus] for spiritual forms [spiritualibus formis].  Cf. above d. 14, p. I, a. 3, q. 2.

8  The Vatican edition has according to the part of them, according to which [secundum earum partem, secundum quam facta etc.] for according to that part of them, out of which etc. [secundum eam partem, ex qua facta etc.].

9  On Generation and Corruption, Bk. II, text 59 (ch. 10).  —  A little below this after the appetite [appetitus] the Vatican subjoins of matter and/or [materiae vel].

 

p. 379

 

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Alii auctores antiqui hanc et seq. (3.) quaestionem unica tractatione sub diversis titulis absolvunt, praeter Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med.; omnes autem quoad ipsas conclusiones conveniunt.

I. The other ancient authors, except (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Middleton, solves this and the following (3rd) question in a unique treatment under diverse titles; but all agree in regard to the conclusions themselves.

Si autem quaeritur de modo, quo elementa in corporibus animatis remanent, tunc incidit celebris controversia de pluralitate formarum in mixtionibus, de qua supra, d. 13. a. 2. q. 2, in scholio mentionem fecimus.  Hanc controversiam explicite tractat Richard. a Med. (hic a. 1. q. 1.), qui quaestionem inscribit:  « Utrum corpora animalium ita sint composita ex quatuor elementis, quod vere ibi maneant essentiae formarum elementarium incomplete ».  Similiter Scot. (in utroque Scripto hic q. unica) quaerit:  « Utrum in corpore animalis, vel in quocumque mixto remaneant elementa secundum substantiam in actu ».  Richardus affirmantem et negantem opinionem cum suis fundamentis et oppositorum solutionibus refert, quin aliquid determinet.  Sed Scotus (ibid. n. 5.) negative sic respondet:  « Elementa non manent in mixto secundum substantiam sive remissam, sicut dicit Commentator, sive non remissam, sicut ponit Avicenna ».  Deinde (n. 6. 7.) addit:  « Quatuor elementa manent in uno mixto virtualiter, habente formam substantialem continentem in virtue formas elementorum, non tamen secundum substantiam ut partes sui ».  Quae verba satis conveniunt cum doctrina S. Thomae (S. I. q. 76. a. 4. ad 4.), qui dicit:  « Formae elementorum manent in mixto non actu, sed virtute; manent enim qualitates propriae elementorum, licet remissae, in quibus est virtus formarum elementarium.  Et huiusmodi qualitas mixtionis est propria dispositio ad formam substantialem corporis mixti, puta formam lapidis vel animati cuiuscumque ».  —  Aliter autem loquitur B. Albert., I. de Generat. et corrupt. tr. 6. c. 5. 6.

But if one asks concerning the manner, in which the elements remain in animated bodies, then one enters the celebrated controversy concerning the plurality of forms in mixtures, concerning which we have made mention above, in d. 13, a. 2, q. 2, in the Scholium.  This controversy is explicitly treated by Richard of Middleton (here in a. 1, q. 1), who entitles (his) Question:  « Whether the bodies of animals have been composed thus out of the four elements, that there truly remain in them the essences of the elementary forms in an incomplete manner ».  Similarly (Bl. John Duns) Scotus (in each version of his Commentary, here in the q. sole) asks:  « Whether in the body of an animal, and/or in any mixed (being) whatsoever there remain in act the elements according to (their) substance ».  Richard cites the affirmative and negative opinions together with their fundaments the solutions to (their) opposites, though he determines nothing.  But (Bl.) Scotus (ibid., n. 5) responds negatively in this manner:  « The elements do not remain in a mixed (being) according to (their) substance or abated (nature) [remissam], just as the Commentator says, or (their) non-abated (nature), as Avicenna posits ».  Then (in nn. 6 and 7) he adds:  « The four elements remain in one mixed (being) virtually, having a substantial form containing in virtue the forms of the elements, yet not according to (their) substance as its parts ».  Which words are sufficiently in agreement with the doctrine of St. Thomas (Summa., I, q. 76, a. 4, in reply to n. 4), who says:  « The forms of the elements remain in a mixed (being) not in act, but in virtue; for there remain the proper qualities of the elements, though abated, in which there is the virtue of the elementary forms.  And the quality of this kind of mixture is a proper disposition to the substantial form of the mixed body, e. g. the form of a rock and/or of whatever animated (creature) ».  —  However, Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus) speaks otherwise in On Generation and Corruption, Bk. I, tr. 6, chs. 5 and 6.

S. Bonav., qui in his duabus quaest. presse sequitur Alexandrum Hal. (S. p. II. q. 77. et q. 81. m. 1), de corpore humano disputantem, explicite non explanat modum, quo remanent elementa in mixtionibus.  Sed supposita eiusdem doctrina de incompletis formis et rationibus seminalibus, plura eius verba in utraque quaest., praesertim in fundam. 3. quaestionis 2, favent affirmanti opinioni, ut supra in cit. scholio dictum est.  De corporis autem humani compositione disputatur infra d. 17. a. 2. q. 1. 2. 3, ubi praecipue in q. 2. notanda est solut. ad 6.  Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 1. a. 2.) explicite etiam de 2. quaest. tractat, sed nihil de hac controversia dicit.

St. Bonaventure, who in these two Questions closely follows Alexander of Hales (Summa., p. II, q. 77, and q. 81, m. 1), disputing of the human body, does not explain explicitly the manner, in which the elements remain in mixtures.  But supposing the doctrine of the same concerning incomplete forms and seminal reasons, several of his statements in each Question, especially in the 3rd fundament of Question 2, favor the affirmative opinion, as has been cited above in the aforementioned Scholium.  But the composition of the human body is disputed below in d. 17, a. 2, qq. 1, 2 and 3, where it is to be noted chiefly in q. 2, the solution to n. 6.  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise (here in q. 1, a. 2) also explicitly treats of the 2nd Question, but says nothing of this controversy.

II. Alii auctores praecipue de 3. quaestione agunt.  —  Praeter iam citatos:  S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; (quoad corpus humanum) S. I. q. 91. a. 1.  —  Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. 3. —  Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2.  —  Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1.  —  Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.  —  Biel, hic q. unica.

II. The other authors deal chiefly with the 3rd Question.  —  Besides those cited:  St. Thomas, here in q. 2, a. 1; (in regard to the human body), Summa, I, q. 91, a. 1.  —  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in qq. 1 and 3.  —  Richard of Middleton, here in a. 1. q. 2.  —  Giles the Roman, here in q. 1, a. 1.  —  (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in q. 2.  —  (Gabriel) Biel, here in the q. sole.

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.