|
S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis |
St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio |
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 XVIII. |
COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVIII |
|
DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI. |
DOUBTS ON THE TEXT OF MASTER PETER |
|
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
|
Latin
text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
|
|
Posset tamen aliquis dubitare de hoc quod dicit, quod mulier de costa facta est eo miraculo, quo de quinque panibus etc. Videtur enim dicere, quod formatio mulieris fuerit miraculosa; et gratia huius posset introduci quaestio de miraculis. Sed propter suam prolixitatem, et quia parum pertinet ad propositum, omittenda est ad praesens.3 Hoc solum dixisse sufficiat, quod ideo dictum est, mulierem de costa miraculo esse factam, non quia factum sit contra solitum cursum naturae vel contra naturam, sed quia factum est virtute divine operante supra naturam. |
However someone could doubt concerning this which (Hugo of St. Victor) says, that the woman was made from (Adam’s) rib by that miracle, by which from five loaves etc.. For he seems to say, that the formation of the woman was miraculous; and for this sake the question concerning miracles could be introduced. But on account of its prolixity, and because it pertains only a little to the proposed, it is to be omitted for the present.3 Let it be sufficient to have said this alone, that it was said for this reason, that the woman was made from (Adam’s) rib by a miracle, not because (the deed) was done contrary to the customary course of nature and/or contrary to nature, but because it was done by the Divine Virtue, operating above nature. |
|
Si quis autem quaerat, utrum hoc opus supra naturam fecerit, ministrante sibi virtute angelica; respondet Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram libro nono,4 ita inquiens: « Quale ministerium exhibuere Angeli in illa mulieris formatione, quis audeat assignare? Certissime tamen dixerim, supplementum illud carnis in costae loco, ipsiusque feminae corpus et animam configurationemque membrorum, omnia viscera, sensus omnes et quidquid erat, quo illa et creatura et homo et femina erat, non nisi illo opere Dei factum, quod Deus non per Angelos, sed per se ipsum operatus est ». — Ratio autem potissima, quare Deus ita formavit, est, tum quia modus ille formandi erat supra potestatem naturae; tum etiam, ut homo in utroque sexu immediate in eum tenderet et ex se toto eum diligeret, a quo se nosset immediate esse factum. |
But if one asks, whether He did this work above nature, with angelic virtue ministering to Him; (St.) Augustine responds in the ninth book On a Literal Exposition of Genesis,4 saying thus: « What kind of Angel’s ministry does one dare to assign in that formation of the woman? Yet most certainly will I say, that supplement of flesh in place of the rib, and the body and soul of the woman herself and the configuration of (her) members, all the internal organs [omnia viscera], all the senses and whatever she was, by which she was both a creature and a human [homo] and a woman [femina], (was) wrought not but by that work of God, which God worked, not through the Angels, but through His very Self ». — Moreover the strongest [potissima] ratio, why God formed (her) thus, is, both because that manner of forming (her) was above the power of nature; and also, so that man in each sex might tend immediately unto Him and might love Him with his whole self [ex se toto], by Whom he knew himself to have been immediately made. |
|
Ratio autem, quare ex uno homine Deus omnes producere voluerit, licet in aliis generibus animalium hoc non fecerit, sumi potest ex ordine et connexione et significatione. — Ex ordine vero dupliciter: primo, animae rationales immediate procedunt ab uno principio, sic omnia corpora humana immediate exirent ab uno;5 secundo vero, ex ordine totius coniuncti ad alias creatura. Quia enim homo medium tenet inter naturam angelicam et brutalem, cum Angeli singillatim a Deo producti sint, et creaturae brutales in duplici sexu, in masculino scilicet et feminino: homo debuit produci medio modo, et sic femina ex viro.6 |
Moreover the reason, why God willed to produce all (men) from one man [homine], though in the other genera of animals He did not do this, can be take from the order and connection and signification (of his nature). — On the one hand, from the order (of his nature) in a twofold manner: first, rational souls proceed immediately from one principle, thus all human bodies would go forth immediately from one (body);5 second, on the other hand, from the order of the whole conjunct to the other creatures. For because man holds a middle (place) between the angelic and brutal nature, since the Angels have been produced singly by God, and brutal creatures (have been produced) in a twofold sex, namely in the masculine and feminine: man ought to have been produced in an intermediary manner, and thus a woman out of a man [femina ex viro].6 |
|
Ex connexione similiter duplex sumitur ratio: primo, respectu totius speciei universaliter, ut omnis homo diligat omnem hominem tanquam fratrem; secundum vero, respectu uxoris specialiter, propter quod vinculum relinquit homo patrem . . . |
From the connection (of his nature), similarly, there is take a twofold reason: first, in respect of the whole species universally, so that every man love every man as (his) brother; but second, in respect of (his) wife in particular, on account of which bond a man leaves (his) father . . . |
|
3 Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2. ad 5. et d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 6. 4 Cap. 15. n. 28. Finem verborum textus originalis sic exhibet: non nisi in illo opere Dei . . . sed per semetipsum non operatus est et dimisit, sed ita continuanter operatur, ut nec ullarum aliarum rerum, nec ipsorum Angelorum natura subsistat, si non operetur. 5 De hac ratione cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. 6 Hanc rationem affert August., XII. de Civ. Dei, c. 1. — Duae seqq. rationes insinuantur ibid. c. 27. |
3 Cf. above a. 1, q. 2, in reply to n. 5, and d. 7, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, in reply to n. 6. 4 Chapter 15, n. 28. The original text exhibits the end of the quote thus: not but in that work of God . . . which God did not work through the Angels, but through His very self, and abandoned, but He worked thus continually, so that the nature of none of any of the other things nor of the Angels themselves subsists, if He does not work (it) [non nisi in illo opere Dei . . . sed per semetipsum non operatus est et dimisit, sed ita continuanter operatur, ut nec ullarum aliarum rerum, nec ipsorum Angelorum natura subsistat, si non operetur]. 5 On this reason, cf. here the text of Master (Peter), ch. 1. 6 (St.) Augustine gives this reason, On the City of God, Bk. XII, ch. 1. — the two following reasons are insinuated ibid., ch. 17. |
p. 455
|
et matrem, et adhaeret uxori, et sunt duo in carne una.1 |
and mother, and cleaves to (his) wife, and there are two in one flesh.1 |
|
Ex significatione etiam duplex sumitur ratio: primo ex significatione allegorica, qua intelligimus per virum et mulierem Christum et Ecclesiam; secundo, per anagogicam, qua per virum, qui fuit principium omnium hominum, intelligimus Deum, qui fuit principium omnium rerum.2 |
From the signification (of his nature), there is also take a twofold reason: first from on account of the allegorical signification, by which we understand through ‘the man and woman’ ‘Christ and the Church’; second, through the anagogical (signification), by which through the man, who was the principle of all men, we understand God, who was the principle of all things.2 |
|
1 Gen. 2, 24, ubi Vulgata: Quamobrem relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una. 2 Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. in corp.; Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 79. m. 1. et q. 85. m. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 2. seqq. S. p. II. tr. 13. q. 80. et q. 81; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. et circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4. et circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 17. seq. — Vat. omittit qui fuit principium omnium hominum. |
1 Gen. 2:24, where the Vulgate reads: On which account a man leaves his father and mother and will cleave to his wife, and the two shall be in one flesh [Quamobrem relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una]. 2 Cf. above a. 1, q. 1, in the body (of the Question); Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 79, m. 1, and q. 85, m . 3; Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in a. 2 ff.; Summa., p. II, tr. 13, q. 80, and q. 81; St. Thomas, here in q. 1, a. 3 and on the text; (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 1, a. 4 and on the text; Richard of Middleton, here on the text; Giles the Roman, here in the 17th and following lateral doubt. |
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.