COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. II, d. 17, a. 2, q. 2: 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 XVII.	COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVII
ARTICULUS II. Quaestio II.	ARTICLE II Question 2
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 420-423. Cum Notitiis Originalibus	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 420-423. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
QUAESTIO II. Utrum corpus Adae constitutum fuerit ex natura pure elementari.	QUESTION 2 Whether the body of Adam was constituted out of a purely elementary nature?
SECUNDO QUAERITUR, utrum corpus Adae sive corpus primi hominis constitutum fuerit de natura pure elementari, an simul cum natura elementari ad eius constitutionem concurrerit natura caelestis. Et quod simul cum elementari concurrat natura caelestis ad corporis humani constitutionem, videtur:	SECOND THERE IS ASKED, whether the body of Adam or the body of the first man was constituted from a purely elementary nature, or whether together with the elementary nature there concurred for its constitution a celestial nature. And that together with the elementary there concurred a celestial nature for the constitution of the human body, seems:

p. 421

1. Primo per Augustinum super Genesim ad litteram,¹ qui dicit, quod anima luce corpus vivificat et administrat; et eadem est sententia Avicennae. Si ergo corpus humanum sic conditum est, ut natum esset ab anima vivificari, videtur, quod ad eius constitutionem concurrerit natura lucis; et haec est natura caelestis: ergo etc.	1. First through (St.) Augustine On a Literal Exposition of Genesis,¹ who says, that the soul vivifies and administers the body by light [luce]; and the same is the sentence of Avicenna. If, therefore, the human body was thus founded, that it would be bound to be vivified by the soul, it seems, that for its constitution there concurs the nature of light; and this is a celestial nature: ergo etc..
2. Item, Philosophus in decimo sexto² de Animalibus dicit, quod in nobis est « calor igneus et calor caelestis, qui quidem est calor vitalis »; sed non est accidens sine substantia: ergo de constitutione corporis nostri est caelestis natura.	2. Likewise, the Philosopher in the sixteenth (book)² On Animals says, that there is in us « a fiery heat and a celestial heat, which is indeed the vital heat »; but no accident is without (its) substance: therefore a celestial nature concerns the constitution of our body.
3. Item, impossibile est, contraria venire ad conformitatem et unitatem nisi per unum, quod sit elevatum a contrarietate; quia si illud haberet contrarietatem, potius discordiam faceret, quam conciliaret. Si igitur natura corporalis a contrarietate elevata non est nisi natura caelestis, et in corpore vivificabili necesse est contraria elementa conciliari maxime: videtur ergo, quod de constitutione primi hominis fuerit natura caelestis.³	3. Likewise, it is impossible, that contraries come (together) for the conformity and unity (of anything) except through the one (being), which has been elevated above contrariety; because if that had a contrariety, it would cause discord more than it would conciliate. If, therefore, no corporal nature has been elevated above contrariety except the celestial nature, and (if) in a vivifiable body it is necessary that contrary elements be conciliated in the greatest manner: it seems, therefore, that a celestial nature concerned the constitution of the first man.³
4. Item, omne corpus mediante anima rationali quodam modo habet beatificari;⁴ sed non pertingunt ad beatitudinem mediante anima, nisi quae ei uniuntur; nulla tamen corpora ei coniunguntur, nisi quae sunt de constitutione sui corporis: videtur ergo, quod corpus primi hominis non tantum constitutum sit de natura elementari, verum etiam de natura caelesti.	4. Likewise, every body has, in a certain manner, to be beatified by means of the rational soul;⁴ but naught but those which are united to the soul stretch out [pertingunt] toward beatitude by means of it; yet no bodies are conjoined to it, except those which concern the constitution of its body: therefore it seems, that the body of the first man is not only of an elementary nature, but also of a celestial nature.
5. Item, in quolibet organo cuiuslibet sensus dominatur aliquod corpus simplicium, sicut ostendit Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram:⁵ cum igitur quinque sensus sint in homine, videtur, quod quinque corpora sint de eius constitutione: ergo non solum natura elementaris, sed etiam caelestis.	5. Likewise, in any organ of any sense there dominates some body of simple (elements), just as (St.) Augustine shows On a Literal Exposition of Genesis:⁵ therefore since there are five senses in man, it seems, that the five bodies (i.e. elements) concern his constitution: therefore not only elementary nature, but also the celestial (nature).
6. Item, ordo est in ascendendo et in descendendo, ita quod ab infimo pervenitur ad supremum per media, et e converso; sed substantia spiritualis maxime distantia distat a natura corporea et opaca, et minus a natura perspicua, et adhuc minus a natura luminosa, quae est natura caelestis: ergo videtur, quod nec corpus animae, nec anima corpori uniri debeat, nisi natura lucis interveniente; videtur ergo, quod corpus primi hominis non tantum de elementari, sed etiam de caelesti natura constitutum fuerit.	6. Likewise, there is an order in ascending and in descending, such that from the lowest one arrives to the supreme through intermediaries [per media], and vice versa; but a spiritual substance stands off [distat] in distance in the greatest manner from a corporeal and opaque nature, and less from a perspicuous nature, and still less from a luminous nature, which is the celestial nature: therefore it seems, that neither ought the body be united to the soul, nor the soul to the body, except with the intervening nature of light [lucis]; therefore it seems, that the body of the first man was constituted not only from an elementary nature, but also from a celestial one.
CONTRA: 1. Ex nullis corporibus constituitur corpus mixtum, nisi quae possunt ad invicem agere et pati; haec autem sola sunt habentia contrarietatem:⁶ cum igitur natura quinti corporis talis sit, ut non habeat contrarietatem, non videtur, quod veniat ad constitutionem corporis mixti: ergo nec ad constitutionem corporis primi hominis.	ON THE CONTRARY: 1. A mixed body is constituted out of no bodies, except (those) which can act and suffer regarding one another; but these are only those having a contrariety:⁶ therefore, since the nature of the fifth body (i. e. fifth element) is such, that it does not have a contrariety, it does not seem, that it comes to the constitution of a mixed body: therefore neither to the constitution of the body of the first man.
2. Item, nihil venit ad constitutionem mixti nisi corpus, quod est miscibile; miscibile autem non est nisi corpus rarefactibile et condensabile, et omne tale est corruptibile, natura autem quinti corporis est incorruptibilis: ergo non potuit venire ad constitutionem humani corporis.	2. Likewise, nothing comes to the constitution of a mixed (being) except the body, which is mixable; but a mixable (body) is naught but a rarefiable and condensable body, and every such is corruptible, but the nature of the fifth body (i. e. of the fifth element) is incorruptible: therefore it could not come to the constitution of the human body.
3. Item, corpus humanum secundum se totum est propagabile, ergo secundum se totum est generabile et corruptibile per naturam; sed natura quinti corporis non recipit generationem nec corruptionem: ergo non videtur esse de constitutione humani corporis.	3. Likewise, the human body according to (its) whole self is propagatable, therefore according to (its) whole self it is generable and corruptible through nature, but the nature of the fifth body does not receive generation nor corruption: therefore it does not seem to concern the constitution of the human body.
4. Item, si est de constitutione, quaero, unde . . .	4. Likewise, if (the nature of the fifth element) concerns the constitution (of the human body), I ask, “Whence . . .
¹ Libr. VII. c. 15. n. 21; c. 19. n. 25. Cfr. supra pag. 319, nota 8. — Avicenna, de Anima sive Sexto Naturalium, p. IV. c. 5, ubi agit de complexione sive temperamento elementorum corporis, requisito ad recipiendam vitam, sic ait: Cum vero temperatissimum fuerit, ita ut contraria aequalia sint in eo et operentur aequaliter, coaptabitur perfectioni vitae rationalis, similis vitae caelestis; haec autem aptitudo est in spiritu humano. Spiritus vero humanus omnino est quoddam, quod generatur ex elementis et effigiat vultus ad similitudinem caelestium corporum; unde iudicant de eo dicentes, quod sit substantia lucida; et ideo spiritus visibilis vocatur radius et lux; unde et anima gratulatur, cum videt lucem, et molestatur in tenebris. Ipsa enim lux est comparata eius vehiculo et confortatur propter eam vehiculum eius, quod est spiritus, cui tenebra est contraria. — Vat. Et eadem est ratio Avicennae: Si enim corpus etc. ² Haec sententia secundum antiquam divisionem operum de Animalibus reperitur in libro 12. et 16, secundum recentiorem in II. de Partib. animal. c. 7. et II. de Generat. animal. c. 3. In primo loco Aristoteles contra eos qui dicunt, « animam esse ignem aut aliquam eiusmodi vim », docet: « Melius fortasse dixeris, animam in quodam eiusmodi corpore constare; cuius rei causa est, quod ad exsequenda animae officia calor omnium maxime administrandi vim obtinet ». In secundo loco ait: « Inest . . . videlicet quod calor vocatur, idque non ignis . . . sed spiritus . . . proportione respondens elemento stellarum. Quamobrem ignis nullum animal generat . . . at vero solis calor et animalium . . . principium habet vitale. Ceterum calorem in animalibus contentum nec ignem esse neque ab igne originem ducere, apertum ex his est ». Virgilius etiam, Aeneid. 6. v. 730. ait: Igneus est ollis vigor et calestis origo. — Vat. calor igneus, et calor animalis et calor caelestis. — De minori cfr. Aristot., VII. Metaph. text. 3. (VI. c. 1.), ubi de accidentibus dicit, quod per se existere non possunt: « Quoniam subiectum eis determinatum est; hoc autem substantia et singulare est ». Et Porphyr., de Praedicab. penult. c. ait: Oportet enim esse subiectum, ut illi aliquid accidat. ³ De principiis huius arg. vide supra d. 14. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. et p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ⁴ Cfr. Alanus ab Insulis, II. de Articul. cath. fidei, prop. 13, in qua dicitur, quod propter caritatem Dei « oportuit, quod omni rei aut alicui habenti cum omni re communem naturam etiam gloriam suam communicaret. Sed omni non debuit hoc facere. Gloria enim Dei inutilis esset in insensatis et brutis. Ergo aliquid oportuit esse, quod haberet cum omni re aliquid commune ratione necessitatis ad illam gloriam capessendam . . . Ergo de terra formatus est homo, rationalis ut Angelus, cum inanimatis vivens, et constat ex quatuor elementis, supremam gloriam suscepturus. ⁵ Libr. III. c. 4. n. 6. seq. Cfr. supra pag. 319, nota 8. ⁶ Hae propositiones sunt Aristot., I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 87. seqq. (c. 10.). — De proprietatibus corporis quinti sive caeli, quae in hoc est in seqq. argg. proferuntur, vide Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, ex quo iam supra d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. plura allegata sunt.	¹ Book VIII, ch. 15, n. 21; ch. 19, n. 25. Cf. above d. 13, a. 2, q. 2, p. 319, footnote 8. — Avicenna, On the Soul or Of Natural Things, Bk. VI, p. IV, ch. 5, where he deals with the complexion or temperament of the elements of the body, required for receiving life, says thus: But when it will be most temperate, such that contraries are equal in it and work equally, it will be co-adapted to the perfection of rational life, similar to celestial life; but this aptitude is in the human spirit. On the other hand, the human spirit is entirely a certain (something), which is generated out of the elements and images an appearance [effigiat vultus] after the similitude of celestial bodies; wherefore they judge of it, saying, that it is a lucid substance; and for that reason ray and light [lux] are called a “visible spirit”; wherefore the soul also gives thanks, when it sees light, and is molested in shadows. For light itself has been compared to its vehicle and on account of it, the vehicle of that (i. e. the body), which is the spirit, to which darkness is contrary, is comforted. — The Vatican edition has And the same is the reckoning of Avicenna: for if the human body etc. [Et eadem est ratio Avicenna: Si enim corpus etc.]. ² This sentence, according to the ancient division of the works On Animals, is found in Bks. 12 and 16, according to the more recent (division), in On the Parts of Animals, Bk. II, ch. 7, and On the Generation of Animals, Bk. II, ch. 3. In the first passage, Aristotle, against those who say, « that the soul is fire or some force of this kind », teaches: « Perhaps it would be better to say, that the soul is established in a certain body of this kind; the cause of which thing is, that for the execution of the offices of the soul the heat (of the soul) obtains the force of administering all (the parts of the body) in the greatest manner ». In the second passage he says: « There is in . . . namely that which is called “heat”, and that (is) not fire . . . but a spirit . . . responding in proportion to the element of the stars. On account of which fire generates no animal . . . but, on the other hand, the heat of the Sun for animals also . . . has a vital principle. That the heat contained in the all the other animals is neither fire nor has (its) origin from fire, is clear from these (considerations) ». Virgil too, Aeneid, Bk. VI, v. 730, says: Fire is there vigor and celestial origin. — The Vatican edition reads a fiery heat, and an animal heat and a celestial heat [calor igneus, et calor animalis et calor caelestis]. — On the minor (of the argument), cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. VII, text. 3 (Bk. VI, ch. 1), where he says of accidents, that they cannot exist through themselves: « Since the subject for them has been determined; but this is singular and a substance ». And Porphyry, On the Predicables, in the penultimate chapter says: For it is necessary [oportet] that there be a subject, so that something accede to it. ³ On the principles of this argument, see above d. 14, p. I, a. 1, q. 2, and p. II, a. 2, q. 2. ⁴ Cf. Alain of Lille, On the Articles of the Catholic Faith, Bk. II, proposition 13, in which there is said, that on account of God’s charity « it was necessary [oportuit], that He communicate His own Glory to every thing or anything having a common nature with every thing. But He ought not do this to everything. For the Glory of God would be useless in the insensate and brutes. Therefore it was necessary [oportuit] that there be something, which would have with every thing something common according to the reckoning of necessity to seize that Glory . . . Therefore there was formed from the earth, man, rational as an Angel, living with inanimate (things), and he is established out of the four elements, for suscepting the Supreme Glory. ⁵ Book III, ch. 4, n. 6 ff. — Cf. above d. 13, a. 2, q. 2, p. 319, footnote 8. ⁶ These propositions are Aristotle’s, On Generation and Corruption, Bk. I, text 87 ff. (ch. 10). — On the properties of the fifth body or of a heaven, which are proffered in this and in the following arguments, see Aristotle, On Heaven and the World, Bk. I, from which several (things) have been cited already, above in d. 8, p. I, a. 2, q. 1.

p. 422

sumta sit illa natura; aut enim de caelo aut de terra. Si de caelo: ergo videtur, quod ab ipso caelo fiat aliquarum partium sequestratio, cum generatur homo. Si de terra; sed contra: nihil est de terra, quod non sit natum ex ipsa produci; sed natura quinti corporis non est nata produci de natura alicuius elementi: ergo nec de caelo nec de terra potest sumi illa natura: ergo non est de constitutione corporis humani. Si tu dicas, quod de caelo venit per radiorum immissionem; hoc non videtur conveniens, quia impossibile est, per radium separari a sua origine; impossibile est etiam venire ad alterius constitutionem, cum lumen in medio sit per modum speciei et idoli, quae nullo modo veniunt ad constitutionem alicuius rei naturalis.¹	has that nature been taken?; for either (it has been taken) from a heaven or from the Earth. If from a heaven: therefore it seems, that the sequestration of some of the parts from that heaven is made, when a man is generated. If from the Earth; but on the contrary: nothing is from the Earth, which is not bound to be produced out of it; but the nature of the fifth body is not bound to be produced from the nature of any (terrestrial) element: therefore that nature can be taken neither from a heaven nor from the Earth: therefore it does not concern the constitution of the human body. If you say, that it comes from a heaven through the immission of rays; this does not seem fitting [conveniens], because it is impossible, that through a ray it be separated from its origin; it is also impossible that come to the constitution of another, since the light in a medium [lumen in medio] is through the manner of a species and an image [idoli], which in no manner comes to the constitution of any natural thing.¹
5. Item, si natura quinti corporis venit ad constitutionem corporis hominis, quaero, quid fiat de ea,² quando corpus humanum resolvitur. Aut enim tendit sursum, aut in propria natura manet deorsum, aut corrumpitur in aliquod elementum. Sed in aliquod elementum non potest cedere, cum sit per naturam incorruptibilis. Deorsum in propria natura non convenit sibi manere, cum eius locus proprius sit esse in circumferentia, non in centro. Si sursum tendit: ergo videtur, spatium orbium caelestium aliquando ampliari aut condensari. Quod si tu dicas, quod cedit in constitutionem alterius corporis nec habet corrumpi; cum ergo ex corpore hominis generentur vermes et bufones et serpentes, poneretur natura quinti corporis esse de constitutione vermium, sicut de constitutionem hominem.	5. Likewise, if the nature of the fifth body (i. e. the fifth element) comes to the constitution of the human body, I ask, “What comes to be from it,² when the human body is dissolved [resolvitur]?” For either it tends up above [sursum], or remains down below [deorsum] in its own nature, or is corrupted into some (terrestrial) element. But it cannot cede into some element, since it is incorruptible through nature. It cannot befit [convenit] it to remain down below in its own nature, since its own proper place is to be on the circumference (of an orb), not in the center. If it tends up above: therefore it seems, that the space of the celestial orbs sometimes is amplified or condensed. Wherefore if you say, that it cedes into the constitution of another body and does not have to be corrupted; therefore, since worms and toads and serpents are generated out of a human body, the nature of the fifth body would be posited to concern the constitution of worms, just as (it would be to) concern the constitution of men.
6. Item, quaero, propter quid natura quinti corporis veniat ad constitutionem humani corporis; aut enim propter mixtionem, aut propter animationem, aut propter sensum, aut propter intellectum. Si propter mixtionem: ergo tunc esset de compositione cuiuslibet mixti. Si propter animationem: tunc esset de natura cuiuslibet plantae. Si propter sensificationem: tunc esset de natura cuiuslibet animalis bruti. Si ergo venit, hoc est propter intellectum solum. Sed contra: « intellectus nullius partis corporis est actus »:³ ergo quantum est de se, non magis exigit corpus suum componi de natura caelesti quam de elementari.	6. Likewise, I ask, “On account of what does the nature of the fifth body (i. e. the fifth element) come to the constitution of the human body?”; for (it either does so) on account of (its) being mixed [mixtionem], or on account of (its) being animated [animationem], or on account of (its) sensing [sensum], or on account of (its) understanding [intellectum]. If on account of (its) being mixed: therefore it would then concern the composition of any mixed (body). If on account of (its) being animated: then it would concern the nature of every plant. If on account of (its) being made able to sense [sensificationem]: then it would concern the nature of every brute animal. If, therefore, it comes, this is on account of (its) understanding alone. But on the contrary: « understanding is the act of no part of the body »:³ therefore as much as concerns itself, his body does not require to be composed more from a celestial nature than from an elementary one.
CONCLUSIO. Natura quinti corporis non venit ad constitutionem corporis humani secundum substantiam, sed secundum virtutem et per quandam conformitatem.	CONCLUSION The nature of the fifth body does not come to the constitution of the human body according to (its) substance, but according to (its) virtue and through a certain conformity.
RESPONDEO: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod circa hoc est triplex modus dicendi.	I RESPOND: For an understanding of the aforesaid it must be noted, that about this there is a threefold manner of speaking.
Quidam enim dicere voluerunt, quod natura caelestis venit ad constitutionem humani corporis sicut elementum, pro eo quod natura caelestis non est alia quam natura ignis; et ideo, cum constet, ignem ad constitutionem humani corporis venire, dicunt, corpus humanum ex natura caelesti constitutum esse. Haec autem natura ignis, etsi, prout aliis permiscetur, habeat agere et pati, et corrumpi et generari, et hoc, prout est hic inferius; prout tamen est in sphaera sua, tanquillitatem et quietem habet nec suscipit corruptiones nec peregrinas impressiones. Et istam suam positionem per verba Augustini⁴ muniunt, qui negat, esse quintum corpus praeter quatuor corpora mundi. — Sed haec positio viae philosophicae et communi aperte repugnat, quae praeter quatuor corpora mundi ponit essentiam quintam, supra omnem contrarietatem elevatam; quod valde rationabile est, sicut ostensum fuit supra, distinctione decima quarta.⁵ Nec huic repugnat sententia Augustini, si recte intelligatur, sicut ibidem expositum est.	For certain (authors) wanted to say, that the celestial nature comes to the composition of the human body as an element, in virtue of this that the celestial nature is not other than the nature of fire; and for that reason, since it is established, that fire comes to the constitution of the human body, they say, that the human body has been constituted out of the celestial nature. But this nature of fire, even if, insofar as it is thoroughly mixed with the other (elements), has an ‘acting’ and ‘suffering’, and a ‘being corrupted’ and ‘being generated’, and this, insofar as it is here below [hic inferius]; yet insofar as it is in its own sphere, it has a tranquility and rest and does not suscept corruptions nor wandering impressions [peregrinas impressiones]. And they fortify this, their own position through the words of (St.) Augustine,⁴ who denies, that there is a fifth body (i. e. fifth element) besides the four bodies of the world. — But this position is openly repugnant to the way of philosophy and to the common one, which besides the four bodies of the world posits a fifth essence, elevated above every contrariety; which is very reasonable, just as has been shown above, in the Fourteenth Distinction.⁵ Nor is the sentence of (St.) Augustine repugnant to this, if it be rightly understood, just as it has been expounded in the same passage.
Ideo aliter alii voluerunt dicere, quod natura caelestis venit ad constitutionem humani corporis, non sicut unum ex elementis, sed sicut medium ligans omnia elementa et illa concilians. Et hoc dicunt exigere dignitatem complexionis humane, per quam corpus humanum in sua prima constitutione habuit elementa in optima conciliatione; habuit etiam idoneitatem ad hoc, ut post meriti consummationem inhabitaret in caelesti mansione. Et sic debuit habere naturam caelestem et elementarem de sui constitutione: elementarem propter statum viae, in quo competebat ipsum habere corpus passibile;⁶ caelestem propter statum patriae, in quo competebat ipsum habere corpus clarum et impassibile. Et quemadmodum in statu viae natura elementaris praedominatur, sic in statu patriae erit e contrario. — Hoc autem etsi videatur satis probabile esse dictum, tamen non modicam habet calumniam, qualiter illa natura quinti corporis, cum sit incorruptibilis et carens contrarietate, veniat ad commixtionem cum aliis elementis. Et iterum, si venit, unde venit et in quid cedit, difficile est assignare.	For that reason others wanted to say in another manner, that the celestial nature does come to the constitution of the human body, not as one of the elements, but as a medium binding all the elements and conciliating them. And this they say the dignity of the complex being of man [complexionis humanae] requires, through which the human body in its first constitution had the elements in the best conciliation; it also had an idoneity for this, that after the consummation of merit it might indwell in the celestial Mansion. And thus it ought to have had a celestial and an elementary nature from its constitution: elementary on account of the state of the way(farer), in which it was suitable that he have a passible⁶ body; celestial on account of the state of the Fatherland, in which it was suitable that he have a bright [clarum] and impassible body. And according to the manner that the elementary nature predominates in the state of the way, so will it be the other way around in the state of the Fatherland. — But this, even if it seems to be a sufficiently probable saying, yet it is not a little calumniated, in what kind of manner that nature of the fifth body, since it is incorruptible and lacking contrariety, comes to be commingled [ad commixtionem] with the other elements. And again, if it does come, it is difficult to assign, whence it comes and into what it cedes.
Et ideo est tertius modus dicendi, quod dupliciter est loqui de natura caelesti: aut per proprietatem, aut per conformitatem. — Per proprietatem natura caelestis dicitur esse natura quinti corporis, quae sic perfecta est sua forma, ut nullo modo habeat appetitum ad aliam formationem,⁷ sic est activa, quod nullo modo potest pati et corrumpi; et sic est natura orbium et stellarum et firmamenti. Haec autem non venit ad constitutionem humani corporis secundum substantiam et veritatem, sed solum venit . . .	And for that reason there is a third manner of speaking, (which says) that there is a speaking of “celestial nature” in a twofold manner: either through propriety, or through conformity. — Through propriety the “celestial nature” is said to be the nature of the fifth body, which has be thus perfected in its form, that it has in no manner an appetite for any ‘being formed’ [formationem],⁷ (and) is thus active, that it can in no manner suffer and be corrupted; and thus is the nature of the orbs and stars and the firmament. But this (nature) does not come to the constitution of the human body according to the substance (of the former) and (according to) truth, but it only comes . . .
¹ Cfr. de hoc supra d. 13. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — Paulo superius plures codd. cum edd. 2, 3 et Vat. radium pro per radium. ² Cod. cc et ed. 1 eo. ³ Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 11. et 21. (c. 1. seq.). Cfr. III. text. 4. seqq. (c. 4.). — Paulo superius codd. V W sensum pro sensificationem. ⁴ Libr. VII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 21. n. 27. Cfr. supra d. 14. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. arg. 2. ad opp. ⁵ Part. I. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. ⁶ Nonnulli codd. animale. ⁷ Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. formam.	¹ Cf. on this, above d. 13, a. 3, q. 1 f.. — A little above this several codices, together with editions 2 and 3, and the Vatican edition, have a ray [radium] for through a ray it [per radium]. ² Codex cc and edition 1 have from it (i. e. the body) [de eo] for from it (i. e. the nature of the fifth body) [de ea]. ³ Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. II, texts 11 and 21 (ch. 1 f.). Cf. Bk. III, text 4 ff. (ch. 4). — A little above this codices V and W have sensing [sensum] for being made able to sense [sensificationm]. ⁴ On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. VII, ch. 1, n. 27. Cf. above d. 14, p. I, a. 1, q. 2, 2nd opposed argument. ⁵ Part I, a. 1, q. 2, in the body of the Question. ⁶ Not a few codices have an animal [animale] for a passible [passibile]. ⁷ The Vatican edition, together with one and another codex, have form [fomram] for ‘being formed’ [formationem].

p. 423

secundum virtutem, quia virtus stellarum et orbium influendo facit elementorum conciliationem, quae veniunt ad humani corporis constitutionem secundum rem, dum actio elementorum regimen et directionem habet ab influentia corporum superiorum. — Alio modo dicitur natura caelestis per conformitatem; et sic large accipitur et vocatur natura caelestis illud quod est conforme caelo in subtilitate et in claritate et in quadam sublevatione¹ a contrarietate. Et per hunc modum spiritus, qui sunt de constitutione corporis viventis, et maxime hominis, dicuntur esse naturae caelestis propter subtilitatem et luminositatem, et propter hoc etiam, quod sublevationem habent a natura contrarietatis, dum consurgunt ex commixtione elementorum in quadam harmonia et consonantia. Et quoniam in corpore humano, sicut infra² patebit, maior est harmonia quam in aliquo corpore mixto; hinc est, quod eius calor et spiritus et complexio magis conformantur naturae caelesti. Et hoc modo, accipiendo naturam lucis sive naturam caelestem large sive per conformitatem, intrat constitutionem humani corporis secundum virtutem³ magis quam constitutionem alicuius alterius mixti propter humanae complexionis aequalitatem et dignitatem. Secundum veritatem tamen tam spiritus quam calor, qui dicuntur naturae caelestis, sunt de natura elementari, quia deperduntur et restaurantur, secundum quod expresse physici dicunt.	according to (its) virtue, because the virtue of the stars and orbs by inflowing causes the conciliation of the elements, which come to the constitution of the human body according to the thing, while the action of the elements has a regimen and direction from the influence of superior bodies. — In another manner the “celestial nature” is said through conformity; and thus it is accepted broadly and that which is conform to a heaven in subtlety and in brightness [claritate] and in a certain ‘being raised up’ [sublevatione]¹ from contrariety, is called a “celestial nature”. And through this manner the breaths [spiritus], which concern the constitution of a living body, and most of all of man’s, are said to be of a celestial nature on account of (their) subtlety and luminosity, and on account of this also, because they have a ‘being raised up’ from the nature of contrariety, when they rise up together out of the commingling of elements in a certain harmony and consonance. And since in the human body, just as will be clear below,² there is a greater harmony than in any other mixed body; hence it is, that its heat and breath and complex being [complexio] are more conformed to the celestial nature. And in this manner, by accepting the “nature” of light or the “celestial nature” broadly or through conformity, it does enter the constitution of the human body according to (its) virtue³ more than the constitution of any other mixed (body) on account of the equality and dignity of the complex being of man [humanae complexionis]. Yet according to the truth both breath and heat, which are said (to belong) to the celestial nature, concern elementary nature, because they are lost and restored, according to what the physicists expressly say.
Iuxta hanc tertiam viam, quae probabilior est et planior, patet responsio ad quaestionem propositam,⁴ patet etiam responsio ad obiecta. Nam rationes ostendentes, quod natura quinti corporis non venit ad constitutionem corporis humani, loquuntur de natura caelesti proprie dicta, quae est incorruptibilis et inalterabilis et immiscibilis; et ideo non est miscibilis ad constitutionem tertii. Rationes vero ad oppositum inductae procedunt vel de natura caelesti dicta per conformitatem, sicut duae primae auctoritates; vel, si concludunt de natura quinti corporis proprie dicta, non ostendunt, quod veniat ad constitutionem corporis humani secundum substantiam, sed secundum virtutem. Aliter non concludunt, sicut patet discurrendo per singulas.	In accord with this third way, which is the more probable and more plain one, the response to the proposed Question is clear,⁴ (and) the response to the objections is also clear. For the reasons showing, that the nature of the fifth body does not come to the constitution of the human body, speak of the “celestial nature” properly said, which is incorruptible and unalterable and unmixable; and for that reason is not able to be mixed [non est miscibilis] for the constitution of a third. But the reasons brought forward for the opposite proceed either from the “celestial nature” said through conformity, just as the first two authorities (do); and/or, if they conclude concerning the “nature” of the fifth body properly said, they do not show, that it comes to the constitution of the human body according to (its) substance, but according to (its) virtue. Otherwise they are not conclusive, just as is clear to the one running through each one.
1. Nam ad illud quod primo obiicitur de luce, dicendum, quod est lux quinti corporis, et lux ignea, et lux ex aequalitate complexionis generata sive consurgens; et haec est illa lux, quae facit corpus esse susceptibile vitae, aliae vero minime.	1. For to that which is first objected concerning light, it must be said, that there is the light [lux] of the fifth body, and the light of fire, and the light generated or rising up [consurgens] out of an equality of complexion; and this is that light, which causes the body to be susceptible of life, but the others least of all.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de calore, dicendum, quod calor caelestis non dicitur, quia sit in natura caelesti, sicut in subiecto, quia illa neque calida est neque frigida; sed quia est a naturae caelesti secundum debitam proportionem, ita quod facit ad conservationem; et talis calor in corpore humano est. Sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod natura caelestis veniat ad constitutionem corporis humani secundum substantiam, sed solum, quod influat.	2. To that which is objected concerning heat, it must be said, that heat is not said (to be) “celestial”, because it is in celestial nature, just as in a subject, because the latter is neither hold nor cold; but because it is from celestial nature according to a due proportion, such that it works for conservation; and such heat is in the human body. But it does not follow from this, that a celestial nature comes to the constitution of the human body according to (its) substance, but only, that it influence (the constitution of that body).
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de conciliatione, iam patet responsio, quia non conciliat veniens intra, sed sufficit ad conciliandum, influens extra.	3. To that which is objected concerning the conciliation (of elements), the response is already clear, because (something) coming within does not conciliate (them), but there suffices to conciliate (them), (something) influencing outside.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de beatificatione, dicendum, quod corpora beatificari dicuntur in homine⁵ non per veritatem, sed per conformitatem; et ideo ex hoc non sequitur, quod de constitutione humani corporis sit natura caelestis secundum veritatem, sed sufficit, quod sit secundum conformitatem, ita quod aliquid ei conforme respondeat in humano corpore.	4. To that which is objected concerning beatification, it must be said, that bodies are said “to be beatified” in man⁵ not through the truth, but through a conformity; and for that reason it does not follow from this, that a celestial nature concerns the constitution of the human body according to truth, but it suffices, that it (concern the same) according to a conformity, such that something conform to it respond in the human body.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de quinque sensibus, dicendum, quod sicut idem Augustinus dicit, unum elementum dominatur in duobus, sicut aqua sub ratione vaporis dominatur in olfactu, sub ratione humoris dominatur in gustu, sicut ipse dicit tertio super Genesim.⁶	5. To that which is objected concerning the five senses, it must be said, that just as the same (St.) Augustine says, one element dominates in two (senses), such as water under the reckoning of vapor dominates smell, (and) under the reckoning of a humor dominates in taste, just as he himself says in the third (book) On (a Literal Exposition of) Genesis.⁶
6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de ordine, dicendum, quod etsi natura caelestis sit excelsior inter corpora simplicia secundum se considerata, non tamen excellit in gradu in comparatione ad ulteriorem formam suscipiendam; sed is est ordo, quod forma elementaris unitur animae mediante forma mixtionis, et forma mixtionis disponit ad formam complexionis. Et quia haec,⁷ cum est in aequalitate et harmonia, conformatur naturae caelesti; ideo habilis est ad susceptionem nobilissimae influentiae, scilicet vitae. Et sic in unione animae ad corpus rectus servatur ordo. Magna etiam est dignitas humani corporis propter magnam harmoniam et proportionalem coniunctionem suarum partium, ob quam in statu viatoris conformis fit naturae caelesti; in statu autem comprehensoris perficietur a Deo, non tantum, ut sit conformis, sed etiam, ut supra naturam caelestem sit exaltata et sublimata, ut ei congruat potissime habitatio caeli empyrei.⁸	6. To that which is objected concerning order, it must be said, that even if a celestial nature is more exalted [excelsior] among simple bodies considered according to itself, yet it does not excel in grade in comparison to the final form to be suscepted; but this is the order, on account of which [quod] the elementary form is united to the soul by means of the form of a mixture, and the form of the mixture disposes to the form of the complexion. And because this (complexion),⁷ when it is in equality and harmony, is conformed to celestial nature; for that reason it is able [habilis] for the susception of the most noble influence, namely of life. And thus in the union of soul to body a right order is served. Great too is the dignity of the human body on account of the great harmony and proportional conjunction of its parts, on account of which [ob] in the state of the wayfarer it is made conform to celestial nature; but in the state of the comprehensor it will be perfected by God, not only, so that it might be conform, but also, so that it might be exalted and sublimated above celestial nature, so that the habitation of the empyrean Heaven might befit it most ably.⁸
¹ Multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 sibi non constantes, hic tantum sublimatione. ² Quaest. seq. ³ Ita codd. D O Y cc et ed. 1; alii secundum veritatem, sed contra contextum. Vat. omittit secundum virtutem. Dein non pauci codd. post magis quam perperam subnectunt secundum. ⁴ Fide codd. et ed. 1 supplevimus verba responsio ad quaestionem propositam, patet etiam. ⁵ Vat. mediante anima rationali pro in homine. ⁶ Cap. 5. n. 7. Vide supra pag. 319, nota 8. ⁷ Vat., interpunctione variata, Et quia cum haec in aequalitate et harmonia conformatur. ⁸ Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.	¹ Many codices, together with editions 1, 2 and 3, are self-inconsistent; having here only sublimation [sublimatione]. ² In the following Question. ³ Thus codices D O Y and cc and edition 1; the others have according to truth [secundum veritatem], but contrary to the context. The Vatican edition omits according to (its) virtue [secundum virtutem]. Then not a few codices, after more than [magis quam] faultily subjoin according to [secundum]. ⁴ Trusting in the codices and edition 1, we have supplied the words the response to the proposed Question is clear . . . also [responsio ad quaestionem propositam, patet etiam]. ⁵ The Vatican edition has by means of the rational soul [mediante anima rationali] for in man [in homine]. ⁶ Chapter 5, n. 7. See above d. 13, a. 2, q. 2, p. 319, footnote 8. ⁷ The Vatican edition, with varied punctuation, reads And because when this (complexion) is conformed in equality and harmony etc. [Et quia cum haec in aequalitate et harmonia conformatur]. ⁸ See the Scholium to the preceding Question.

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 XVII.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVII