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 III.

ARTICLE II

 

Question 3

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 424-426.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 424-426.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO III.

 

Utrum corpus Adae constitutum fuerit ex elementis in complexione et compositione aequali.

QUESTION 3

 

Whether the body of Adam was constituted out of the elements in an equal complexion and composition?

TERTIO QUAERITUR, utrum corpus primi hominis constitutum fuerit ex elementis in complexione et compositione aequali.  Et quod sic, videtur.

THIRD THERE IS ASKED, whether the body of the first man was constituted out of the elements in an equal complexion* and composition.  And it seems, that (it is) so.

1. Quanto complexio et compositio magis accedit ad aequalitatem, tanto nobilior est, et quanto nobilior est, tanto nobilioris formae est susceptiva;1 sed complexio corporis primi hominis fuit susceptibilis nobilissimae formae per naturam, quae etiam non erat depravata per culpam:  ergo fuit complexio maxime nobilis; et sic hoc:  ergo maxime aequalis.

1. As much as a complexion and composition approach equality more, so much is it more noble, and as much as it is more noble, so much is it susceptive of a more noble form;1 but the complexion of the body of the first man was susceptible of the most noble form through nature, which was not even depraved through fault:  therefore it was a complexion, noble in the greatest manner; and if this:  therefore (a complexion), equal in the greatest manner

2. Item, tanto res complexionata est ad durandum habilior, quanto eius complexio est aequalior — inaequalis enim miscibilium est via in corruptionem — sed corpus Adae habile erat ad durandum in sempiternum, quantum est ex sua prima constitutione:  ergo videtur, quod in perfecta aequalitate complexionis et compositionis fuerit constitutum.

2. Likewise, a complexioned thing is so much more able to endure, as its complexion is more equal — for the unequal (complexion) of mixables is the way into corruption — but the body of Adam was able to endure everlastingly [in sempiternum], as much as it is from its first constitution:  therefore it seems, that it was constituted in a perfect equality of complexion and composition.

3. Item, ubi est inaequalitas complexionis, ibi necessario est pugna; ubi vero pugna est, forma non sic potest gubernare materiam, sicut si esset ibi pax et tranquillitas; ubi autem hoc est, ibi est aliqua poenalitas:  ergo aut in corpore primi hominis fuit perfecta elementorum aequalitas, aut ante peccatum fuit in eo aliqua poenalitas.  Sed nullo modo poena praecessit culpam:  ergo etc.

3. Likewise, where there is an inequality of complexion, there is necessarily a fight; but where there is a fight, the form cannot so govern the matter, just as if there were peace and tranquility there; but where this is, there is some penalty:  therefore either in the body of the first man there was a perfect equality of elements, or before sin there was in it come penalty.  But in no manner did punishment precede fault:  ergo etc..

4. Item, corpus Adae debuit fieri proportionabile animae, et ideo, quamdiu anima fuit immunis a morte culpae, corpus eius fuit immune a morte naturae:  ergo pari ratione, quamdiu anima fuit aequalis in voluntate, corpus fuit aequale in complexione.  Sed in anima primi hominis nulla erat obliquitas iustitiae2 in prima constitutione, immo perfecta innocentia:  ergo nec in corpore erat aliqua inaequalitas, sed concordia et amicitia perfecta.

4. Likewise, the body of Adam ought to have been made proportional to the soul, and for that reason, so long as the soul was immune from the death of fault, its body was immune from the death of nature:  therefore for an equal reason, so long as the soul was equal in will, the body was equal in complexion.  But in the soul of the first man there was no obliquity from justice [obliquitas iustitiae]2 in the first constitution, nay a perfect innocence:  therefore neither was there in the body any inequality, but (rather) concord and perfect friendship.

SED CONTRA:  1. Vita est per calidum et humidum, et omnis operatio animae in corpore est per calorem, sicut dicunt naturales et medici;3 sed in corpore Adae anima habebat expeditas operationes:  ergo magna erat ibi abundantia caloris, ergo praedominabatur calidum; et sic hoc:  ergo non erat perfecta aequalitas complexionis.

BUT ON THE CONTRARY:  1. Life is through the hot and the humid, and every operation of the soul in the body is through heat, just as the natural (philosophers) and doctors [medici] say;3 but in the body of Adam the soul had unfettered [expeditas] operations:  therefore there was a great abundance of heat there, therefore the hot predominated; and if this:  therefore there was not a perfect equality of complexion.

2. Item, etsi complexio hominis est deteriorata tamen non est totaliter corrupta; sed nos videmus, quod cor per naturam est calidissimum, et hepar similiter;4 et quaedam sunt alia membra, in quibus regnat phlegma et melancholia: ergo et tunc ita erat.  Si ergo in corpore Adae erat praedominatio humorum, pari ratione et qualitatum elementarum:  ergo non erat ibi perfecta adaequatio miscibilium.

2. Likewise, even if the complexion of a man has deteriorated, yet it has not been totally corrupted; but we see, that the heart by nature is most hot, and the liver [hepar] similarly;4 and there are certain other members, in which phlegm and melancholy reign:  therefore it was also then thus.  If, therefore, in the body of Adam there was a predominance of humors, for an equal reason (there was also a predominance) of the qualities of the elements:  therefore there was not a perfect adequation of mixables there.

3. Item, si esset ibi mixtio secundum omnimodam aequalitatem, ergo tantum esset ibi de gravi, quantum de levi:  ergo corpus illud esset indifferens ad gravitatem et levitatem, ergo et ad motum et ad quietem.  Si igitur nec esset natum moveri nec quiescere nec sursum nec deorsum esse:  ergo non esset corpus naturale.5

3. Likewise, if there were a mixing according to an omnimodal equality there, therefore there would be there as much of the heavy, as of the light:  therefore that body would be indifferent to gravity and levity, therefore also to movement and rest.  If, therefore, it were neither bound to be moved nor to rest nor to be above nor below:  therefore it would not be a natural body.5

4. Item, si corpus illud esset constitutum secundum omnimodam aequalitatem, tunc quantum unum elementum ageret, tantum reliquum resisteret et ipsum repelleret:  ergo unum virtutum suam et actionem in alterum non profundaret; et si hoc, non esset ibi alteratio nec transmutatio, ac per hoc nec mixtio.6  Aut ergo corpus Adae non fuit mixtum, aut si mixtum, non in perfecta aequalitate constitutum.

4. Likewise, if that body had been constituted according to an omnimodal equality, then it would put in motion [ageret] as much one element, as it would resist the rest and repel the same:  therefore one (element) would not pour forth its own virtue and action upon the other; and if this, there would be no alteration nor transmutation there, and through this neither a mixing.6  Therefore either the body of Adam was not a mixed one, or if (it was) mixed, (it was) not one constituted in a perfect equality.

5. Item, si corpus Adae fuisset constitutum in perfecta aequalitate, ergo ignis sive calor in eo non consumeret, ergo alimento non indiguisset; sed constans est secundum Sanctos, et maxime secundum Augustinum,7 quod alimento indiguit:  ergo . . .

5. Likewise, if the body of Adam had been constituted in a perfect equality, therefore the fire or heat in it would not consume, therefore it would not have had need of food [alimento]; but it is (a sentence) established according to the Saints, and most of all according to (St.) Augustine,7 that it did need food:  therefore . . .

1  Cfr. supra pag. 380, nota 1.

2  Vat. iniustitiae.

3  Cfr. supra pag. 379, nota 6; et Avicenna, Canon. I. Fen 1. doctr. 3. c. 1, ubi principium vitae reponitur in corde et spiritu, « quae quidem ambo vehementer calida existunt ad superfluitatem declinantia; et vita quidem existit per caliditatem et augmentum per humiditatem, et etiam caliditas in humiditate existit et ab ea nutritur ».  Et ibid. doctr. 6. c. 3. ait:  « Et frigiditas quidem est paralyticum faciens et mortificans et ab omnibus prohibens operationibus ».  Ibid. Fen. 2. doctr. 3. c. 3:  Calor igitur innatus virtutum omnium est instrumentum, sed frigiditas est ei inconveniens.

4  Vide Aristot., II. de Partib. animal. c. 7. et III. c. 4. et 7; de Sensu et sens. c. 2.  —  De phlegmate et melancholia, quae sunt duae species humorum animalium, dicit Avicenna, Canon. I. Fen 1. doctr. 4. c. 1:  Naturale [phlegma] est, quod est aptum, ut in aliquo tempore fiat sanguis; quoniam est sanguis non plene coctus . . . hoc namque phlegma sanguini propinquam habet similitudinem, et egent eo membra omnia, ideoque fecit natura, ut cum sanguine vadat . . . Naturalis [cholera nigra sive melancholia] est boni sanguinis faex et turbulentia et superfluitas, cuius sapor inter dulcedinem et ponticitatem existit, quae, cum in hepate generatur, in duas separatur partes, quarum una in sanguinem penetrat, et alia ad splenem transmittitur.

5  Cfr. Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 7. (c. 2.), in cuius expositione Averroes hoc arg. proponit.  Cfr. et ibid. IV. text. 1. seqq.  —  Supra cod. aa sic igitur pro si igitur.

6  Hac ratione Averroes in II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 48; IV. Meteor. text. 10; X. Metaph. text. 23. impugnat sententiam Galeni (I. de Temperam. c. 9.) ponentis « temperantiam, quae est secundum extrema, quae sunt in fine, non temperantiam, quae est secundum extrema complexionis speciei ».  —  Paulo inferius post aut si mixtum, non Vat. supplet fuit.

7  Libr. XIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 20. et 23. n. 1; XIV. c. 26; I. de Peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvul. c. 3. n. 3.  Cfr. infra dub. 4. et d. 19. a. 2. et 3.

1  Cf. above d. 15, a. 1, q. 3, p. 380, footnote 1.

2  The Vatican edition has no obliquity of injustice [obliquitas iniustitiae].

3  Cf. above d. 15, a. 1, q. 3, p. 379, footnote 6; and Avicenna, Canons of Medicine, I, Fen 1, doctr. 3, ch. 1, where the principles of life is posited to be in the heart and breath, « which both indeed stand forth [existunt] vehemently hot for turning aside a superfluity; and life indeed exists through heat and (its) augment through humidity, and heat also exists in humidity and is nourished from it ».  And ibid., doctr. 6, ch. 3, he says:  «  And frigidity indeed is the one causing paralysis [paralyticum] and causing death and prohibiting all operations ».  Ibid., Fen 2, doctr. 3, ch. 3:  Therefore innate heat is the instrument of all virtues, but frigidity is inconvenient to it.

4  See Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals, Bk. II, ch. 7, and Bk. III, chs. 4 and 7; On Sense and the Sensible, ch. 2.  —  On phlegm and melancholy, which are two species of animal humors, Avicenna, Canons of Medicine, Bk. I, Fen 1, doctr. 4, ch. 1, says:  The natural (king of phlegm) is, that which is apt, to become blood at any time; since it is not fully cooked blood . . . and indeed this phlegm has a near similitude to blood, and all members are in need of it, and for that reason nature caused (it), to go along with blood . . . Natural (black bile or melancholy) is the dregs and turbulence and superfluity of good blood, whose taste stands forth between sweet and salty [ponticitatem], which, since it is generated in the liver, is separated into two parts, one of which penetrates into the blood, and the other is transmitted to the spleen.

5  Cf. Aristotle, On Heaven and the World¸ Bk. I, text 7 (ch. 2), in the exposition of which Averroës proposes this argument.  Cf. also ibid., Bk. IV, text 1 ff..  —   Above this codex aa has Thus, therefore [Sic, igitur] for If, therefore [Si, igitur].

6  With this reason Averroës, On Generation and Corruption, Bk. II, texty 48; Meteorology, Bk. IV, text 10; and Metaphysics, Bk. X, text 23, impugns the sentence of Galen (On Temperaments, Bk. I, ch. 9), positing that « the temperance, which is according to extremes, which are in the end, (is) not the temperance, which is according to the extremes of the complexion of a species ».  —  A little below this the Vatican edition supplies it was [fuit] after mixed [mixtum, non].

7  On the City of God, Bk. XIII, chs. 20 and 23, n. 1; Bk. XIV, ch. 26; On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sinners and the Baptism of Little Ones, Bk. I, ch. 3, n. 3.  Cf. below Doubt 4, and d. 19, aa. 2 and 3.

 

* [Trans. note:  In medieval physiology and natural philosophy the complexion of an animal or plant was the combination of the qualities of hot, dry, cold, wet which constituted its body.  To complexionate, is therefore, to compose such a combination.]

 

p. 425

 

in aequalitate miscibilium corpus illud constitutum non fuit.

that body was not constituted in an equality of mixables.

6. Item, cum Adam peccavit, non fuit ei ablatum aliquid, quod esset ex parte corporis:  ergo si prius erat compositus complexione aequali, postea fuit similiter:  ergo post peccatum nulla fuit in corpore eius pugna:  ergo nec infirmitas nec mortalitas; quod si hoc falsum est, restat etc.

6. Likewise, when Adam sinned, nothing was taken away from him, which was on the part of the body:  therefore if he had been composed first in an equal complexion, he was in a similar manner afterwards:  therefore after (his) sin there was no fight in his body:  therefore neither an infirmity nor mortality; which if this is false, it remains that etc..

CONCLUSIO.

 

 Corpus primi hominis non fuit constitutum ex elementis in complexione aequalitatis a pondere, quia talis est impossibilis, sed in complexione aequalitatis a iustitia.

CONCLUSION

 

 The body of the first man was not constituted out of the elements in a complexion of equality by weight, because such is impossible, but in a complexion of equality by justice

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, sicut distinguunt naturales et medici,1 duobus modis dicitur aequalitas miscibilium in mixto, scilicet a pondere et a iustitia.  Aequalitas a pondere, ut dicunt, non est possibilis in rerum natura.  Aequalitas enim a pondere potest dici tripliciter.  Uno modo dicitur aequalitas a pondere, quando miscibilia adaequantur et quantum ad quantitatem molis et quantum ad quantitatem virtutis; et haec duo sunt incompossibilia non solummodo secundum rem, sed etiam secundum intellectum, hoc intellecto, quod elementum, quod plus habet de materia, minus habet de specie, et e converso.  Sicut enim impossibile est, quod verum aurum aequetur argento in quantitate et valore; sic impossibile est, elementa activa et passiva aequari ad invicem aequalitate ponderis in aliqua mixtione.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that just natural (philosophers) and doctors distinguish, an “equality” of mixables is said to be in (something) mixed in two manners, namely by weight and by justice.  An “equality by weight”, as they say, is not possible in the nature of things.  For an equality can be said (to be) “by weight” in a threefold manner.  In one manner an equality is said (to be) “by weight”, when the mixables are adequated both as much as regards the quantity of (their) mass and as much as regards the quantity of (their) virtue, and these two (equalities) are co-impossibles not only according to thing, but also according to understanding, with this understood, that the element, which has more of matter, has less of appearance, and vice versa.  For just as it is impossible, that true gold be equated with silver in quantity and value; so it is impossible, the active and passive elements be equated to on another according to an equality of weight in any mixture.

Alio modo potest dici aequalitas a pondere secundum adaequationem miscibilium in quantitate molis solum; et adhuc est impossibilis.  Primum, quia corpus illud non esset durabile; elementa enim activa statim passiva consumerent.  Si enim adaequarentur in substantia, adeo activa excederent in virtute, ut potius esset consumtio quam mixtio. Nec tantum corpus illud non esset durabile, immo etiam nec esset leve nec grave, cum motus gravis vel levis sequatur praedominans quantum ad quantitatem molis; et si non esset durabile nec leve nec grave, non esset de naturae intentione nec naturae possibile.

In another manner, an equality (of mixables in something mixed) can be said (to be) “by weight” according to the adequation of the mixables in the quantity of mass alone; and (this) it is still an impossible.  First, because that body would not be durable; for the active elements would consume the passive ones.  For if they were adequated in substance, the active ones would exceed (the passive ones) in virtue to such an extent, that there would rather be a consumption than a mixing.  Nor would that body only be not durable, nay it would also neither be light nor heavy, since the movement of the heavy and/or light follows the predominant (element) as much as regards (its) quantity of mass; and if it were not durable nor light nor heavy, it would not be of the intention of a nature nor a possible for nature.

Tertio modo dicitur aequalitas a pondere aequalitas a quantitate virtutis; et sic adhuc dicunt, talem aequalitatem non esse in natura possibilem.  Primo, quia si esset omnimoda aequalitas virtutum, virtus unius tantum resisteret, quantum virtus alterius ageret; et sic non esset profundatio et confractio usque ad minima, ac per hoc non esset mixtio.  Item, si hoc esset, corpus illud careret operatione2 calidi et frigidi et aliarum qualitatum elementarium:  ergo frustra esset ex diversis constitutum.  Tale igitur corpus nec est naturae possibile, quia repugnat naturae mixtionis; nec etiam est ex intentione naturae, quia careret sibi debita operatione.  —  Et sic quocumque modo accipiatur aequalitas a pondere, non potuit esse nec debuit in corpore Adae.  Et hoc satis apparet, cum corpus Adae magis esset grave quam leve, magis esset idoneum ad agendum quam ad patiendum:  ergo non habuit aequalitatem miscibilium nec quantum ad quantitatem molis, nec quantum ad quantitatem virtutis:  et ita non habuit aequalitatem a pondere.  —  Unde concedendae sunt rationes hoc ostendentes, quoniam procedunt ista via, sicut patet consideranti.

In a third manner, an “equality by weight” can be said (to be) an “equality by the quantity of virtue”; and thus they still say, that such an equality cannot be possible in nature.  First, because if there were an omnimodal equality of virtues, the virtue of one would resist as much the other, as the virtue of the other would act; and thus there would not be a pouring forth [profundatio] (of flowable elements) and a confraction (of solid elements) even to the smallest (particles), and through this there would not be a mixing (of the two kinds).  Likewise, if this were, that body would lack the operation2 of the hot and cold and of the other elementary qualities:  therefore in vain would it have been constituted out of the diverse (elements).  Therefore such a body neither is possible for nature, because it is repugnant to the mixing of (the elements’) nature; nor too is it out of the intention of nature, because it would lack the operation owed it.  —  And thus if an “equality by weight” is thus accepted in whatsoever manner, it could not be nor ought it (to have been) in the body of Adam.  And this appears sufficiently, since the body of Adam was more heavy than light, it would be more suitable for acting than for suffering:  therefore it did not have an equality of mixables neither as much as regards the quantity of mass, nor as much as regards the quantity of virtue.  and thus it did not have an equality (of mixables) by weight.  —  Wherefore the reasons showing this are to be conceded, since the proceed according to this way, just as is clear to the one considering (them).

Est et alia aequalitas a iustitia, et haec aequalitas attenditur in commensuratione miscibilium secundum proportionem debitam et secundum exigentiam formae introducendae.  Et haec aequalitas reperitur in his quae miscentur naturaliter,3 et inter omnia potissime reperitur in homine, quia nobilior debet esse in eius corpore proportio et harmonia miscibilium, secundum quod disponitur ad nobiliorem formam.  Haec autem aequalitas non est aequalitas punctualis, sed latitudinem habet et gradus, et hoc secundum diversos status.

And there is also an equality (of mixables in something mixed) by justice, and this equality is attained in a commensuration of mixables according to a due proportion and according to the exigency of the form to be introduced.  And this equality is found in those which are mixed naturally,3 and among all (bodies) it is found chiefly in man, because there ought to be in his body a more noble proportion and harmony of mixables, according to which it is disposed to a more noble form.  But this equality is not the equality of a point [aequalitas punctualis], but has a width and grade, and this according to diverse states.

Est enim status gloriae, et est status miseriae, et est status innocentiae.  Secundum statum gloriae, qui est perfectus, debetur corpori humano aequalitas a iustitia, aequalitas, inquam, perfecta, in qua nec cadit discordia nec repugnantia, nec actu nec potentia.  —  Secundum statum miseriae, qui est status imperfectus, debetur corpori hominis aequalitas, sed diminuta, quae permisceri habet inaequalitati et discordiae, non solum possibilitate, sed etiam quadam necessitate.  —  Secundum statum vero medium, scilicet innocentiae, debetur corpori hominis aequalitas media, quae a discordia et repugnantia miscibilium erat aliena in actu per adiutorium intrinsecum animae gubernantis, et per adiutorium extrinsecum alimenti nutrientis.  Erat tamen haec aequalitas possibilis ad inaequalitatem, sive ob defectum virtutis contentivae, sive etiam ob defectum alimoniae.  Nullus autem horum defectuum esse poterat in homine, nisi praecederet transgressio inobedientiae.

For there is the state of glory, and there is the state of misery, and there is the state of innocence.  According to the state of glory, which is a perfect one, there is owed to the human body an equality by justice, an equality, I say, (which is) “perfect”, in which there falls neither discord nor repugnance, neither in act nor in potency.  —  According to the state of misery, which is an imperfect state, there is owed to the human body an equality, but a diminished one, which has to be thoroughly mixed with inequality and discord, not only according to possibility, but also according to a certain necessity.  —  But according to the middle state, namely (that) of innocence, there is owed to the human body an intermediary equality, which in act is one alien form the discord and repugnance of mixables through the intrinsic help of the governing soul, and through the extrinsic help of nourishing food.  Yet this equality was a possible for inequality, whether on account of a defect of the contentive virtue, or even on account of a defect of nourishment [alimoniae].  Moreover none of these defects could have been in man, unless the transgression of obedience had preceded.

Et sic patet, quod corpus primi hominis constitutum fuit in aequalitate a iustitia, quasi media inter aequalitatem, quae erit in gloria, et aequalitatem, quae nunc est in miseria, secundum quod status animae exigebat.  —  Et hanc aequalitatem pro- / -bant . . .

And thus it is clear, that the body of the first man was constituted in an equality by justice, quasi intermediary between the equality, which will be in glory, and the equality, which is now in misery, according to which the status of the soul required.  —  And the reasons brought forward to support [ad astruendam] this side  . . .

1  Avicenna, Canon. I. Fen 1. doctr. 3. c. 1. ait:  Debes autem scire, quod aequale, de quo medici in suis inquisitionibus tractant, non est denominatum ab aequalitate, in qua aequalitas cum pondere aequaliter existit, sed denominatur a iustitia in divisione.  Et hoc est, quod in complexionato inprimis attenditur, sive sit corpus totum, sive sit membrum unum, ut sit in eo de elementis cum suis quantitatibus et qualitatibus mensura, quam humana natura habere debet secundum meliorem proportionis et divisionis aequitatem.

2  Vat. ratione.

3  In edd. 2, 3, 4 et Vat. deest reperitur in his quae miscentur naturaliter, et inter omnia potissime.

1  Avicenna, Canons of Medicine, I, Fen, 1, doctr. 3, ch. 1, says:  Moreover you should know, that the “equal”, of which doctors treat in their inquisitions, has not been denominated from the equality, in which an equality with weight equally exists, but is denominated from the justice in the division.  And this is, that in the one complexionated first of all there is attained, whether it be a whole body, or whether it be one member, that there be in it the measure of elements with their quantities and qualities, which human nature should have according to a better equity of proportion and division.

2  The Vatican edition has the reckoning [ratione].

3  In editions 2, 3, and 4, and the Vatican edition there is lacking is found in those which are mixed naturally, and among all (bodies)  . . . chiefly [reperitur in his quae miscentur naturaliter, et inter omnia potissime].

 

p. 426

 

pro- / -bant fuisse in corpore primi hominis rationes inductae ad astruendam partem istam; et ideo concedendae sunt, quia verum concludunt.  Si autem ex eis velint concludere omnimodam aequalitatem a pondere, rationes illae non valent, quia illa aequalitas ad nobilitatem non spectat.  Si autem velint concludere aequalitatem omnimodam a iustitia, adhuc non concludunt, quia, etsi corpus illud haberet nobilissimam formam, non tamen adhuc erat in statu suo nobilissimo, sicut erit in gloria.  Hoc autem solummodo concludunt, quod ibi erat tanta aequalitas a iustitia, quod non erat ibi miscibilium actualis repugnantia; et hoc quidem est verum.  Et ita patet responsio ad totum.

prove that this equality was in the body of the first man; and for that reason they are to be conceded, because they conclude to a truth.  But if from them they want to conclude to an omnimodal equality by weight, those reasons are not valid, because that equality does not pertain to nobility.  But if they want to conclude to an omnimodal equality by justice, they are still not conclusive [non concludunt], because, even if that body had a most noble form, yet it was still not in its most noble state, just as it will be in glory.  But they conclude to this only, that there was so great an equality by justice there, that there was not actual repugnance of mixables there; and this indeed is true.  And thus the response to the whole is clear.

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Distinctio inter aequalitatem a pondere et aequalitatem a iustitia, immo tota fere huius quaestionis doctrina sumta est ex scriptis Avicennae de medicina, ut ex adiectis nostris notis videri potest.  Illam distinctionem Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 2. a. 2.) sic explicat:  « Duplex est aequalitas componentium:  aut ponderis, aut iustitiae, cuius exemplum est in modico auro et multo plumbo; aequivalet enim ei secundum aequalitatem iustitiae, non ponderis.  Aequalitatis ponderis est aequalitas aequiparentiae . . . Aequalitas vero iustitiae est aequalitas proportionis in comparatione unius ad alterum et omnium ad formam suam ».

I. The distinction between an equality by weight and an equality by justice, nay nearly the whole doctrine of this Question, has been taken from the writings of Avicenna on medicine, as can be seen from the notes we have added.  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise (here in q. 2. a. 2.) explains this distinction thus:  «  There is a twofold equality of components:  either of weight, or of justice, an example of which is in a small measure of gold and a great measure of lead; for (the latter) is equivalent to the former according to an equality of justice, not of weight.  To an equality of weight belongs the equality of equiparancy . . . But the equality of justice is an equality of proportion in the comparison of one to the other and of all to its own form ».

II. De hac quaestione specialiter tractant Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 77. m. 2. a. 1. 2.  —  Petr. a Tar., loc. cit.  —  Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. 4.  —  Alios auctores vide in scholio ad q. 1.

II. Treating in particular of this Question are Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 77, m. 2, aa. 1 and 2.  —  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit..  —  Richard of Middleton, here in a. 2, qq. 3 and 4.  —  See the other authors in the Scholium to q. 1.

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.