COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. II, d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 1: S.

BONAVENTURAE
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon02038.html[2012-09-11 4:43:21]
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 I. COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION I
PARS II.
De multitudine, fine et distinctione creaturarum.
PART II
On the multitude, end and distinction of creatures.
ARTICULUS I.

Quaestio I.
ARTICLE I

Question 1

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 38-40.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus


Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 38-40.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

Et quia non valet etc. And because one cannot prevail etc..
DIVISIO TEXTUS. DIVISION OF THE TEXT
Supra egit Magister de conditione rerum a parte
principii, hic agit a parte finis. Et quoniam res a fine et
secundum illum respectum accipiunt distinctionem
formarum, ideo pars ista habet tres particulas. In
prima
8
ex comparatione rerum ad finem ostendit rerum
distinctionem. In secunda vero secun- / -dum . . .
Above Master (Peter) dealt with the foundation of
things on the part of (their) principle, here he deals
(with the same) on the part of (their) end. And since
things accept from (their) end, and according to that
respect, a distinction of forms, for that reason this part
has three subparts [particulas]. In the first
8
he shows
the distinction of things from the comparison of things
to (their) end. However in the second, according / to . .
.
8
In Vat. additur praemisso, quare rationalis creatura facta sit.
8
In the Vatican edition there is added here having premised, for
what reason the rational creature has been made [praemisso, quare
rationalis creatura facta sit].
COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. II, d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 1: S. BONAVENTURAE
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon02038.html[2012-09-11 4:43:21]
p. 39
secun- / -dum illam distinctionem assignat diversam
comparationem ad finem, ibi: Ideoque, si quaeritur,
quare sit creatus homo etc. Tertio vero breviter
epilogat determinata, ex ipsis faciens sibi viam ad
cetera sequentia determinanda, ibi: Ex praemissis
apparet. Prima et ultima parte remanentibus
indivisis, media dividitur in tres. In prima determinat
finem intellectualis substantiae; in secunda finem
substantiae pure corporalis, ibi: Et sicut factus est
homo propter Deum etc.; in tertio vero determinat
finem compositi ex utroque, in quantum est tale, ibi:
De homine quoque in Scriptura etc. Et ibi primo
determinat veritatem; secundo dissolvit dubitationem;
ibi: Solet etiam quaeri, cum maioris etc.
according / to that distinction he assigns a diverse
comparison regarding (their) end, there (where he
says): And for this reason, if it be asked, For what
reason was man and/or Angel created? etc.. But in
the third he briefly summarizes the determined, making
out of them his own way to determining all the other
following ones, there (where he says): From the
aforementioned it appears etc.. The first and last
part remaining undivided, the middle one is divided
into three. In the first he determines the end of the
intellectual substance; in the second the end of the
purely corporal substance, there (where he says): And
just as man has been made for Gods sake etc.; but in
the third he determines the end of the one composed
out of each, inasmuch as it is such, there (where he
says): Concerning man it is also sometimes found in
writing etc.. And in the first he determines the truth; in
the second he solves the doubt; there (where he says):
It is also customarily asked, Since the soul would
seem etc..
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM. TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS
Ad intelligentiam huius partis, in qua agitur de rebus
productis in comparatione ad finem, secundum
ordinem et distinctionem, quaeruntur principaliter tria.
For an understanding of this part, in which one deals
with things produces in comparison to (their) end,
according to (their) order and distinction, there are
principally asked three (things).
Primum est de rerum distinctione. The first concerns the distinction of things.
Secundum de ordine. The second concerns (their) order.
Tertium de differentia Angeli et animae. The third concerns the difference of the Angel
and the soul.
Circa primum quaeruntur duo. About the first two (things) are asked.
Primum est de multiplicatione rerum quantum
ad principium.
The first concerns the multiplication of things
as much as regards (its) principle.
Secundum quantum ad differentias, secundum
quae distinguuntur.
The second (concerns the multiplication of
things) as much as regards the differences,
according to which they are distinguished.
ARTICULUS I.

De rerum distinctione.
ARTICLE I

On the distinction of things.
QUAESTIO I.

Utrum a primo efficiente debuerit, vel potuerit esse
QUESTION 1

Whether from a first efficient (principle) there ought,
COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. II, d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 1: S. BONAVENTURAE
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon02038.html[2012-09-11 4:43:21]
rerum multitudo. and/or could be a multitude of things?
QUAERITUR ERGO primo, utrum a primo efficiente
debuerit, vel potuerit esse rerum multitudo. Et quod
non, videtur primo sic:
THEREFORE THERE IS ASKED first, whether from a
first efficient (principle) through ought, and/or could be
a multitude of things. And that (it is) not (so), seems
first in this manner:
1. Per Philosophum:
1
Idem, uniformiter se habens,
natum est efficere idem ; sed efficiens primum unum
est omnino uniformiter se habens: ergo videtur, quod
nunquam multa facere potuerit, ergo unum solum.
1. Through the Philosopher:
1
The same, holding
itself uniformly, is bound [natum est] to effect the same
; but the efficient, first One is one holding Itself
entirely uniformly: therefore it seems, that it could
never make many (things), therefore only one.
2. Item, a summe bono nunquam possunt esse mala, a
summe vero non
2
possunt esse falsa: ergo a summe
uno non possunt esse multa.
2. Likewise, from one most highly good there can
never be evils, from one most highly true there cannot
2
be falsehoods [falsa]: therefore from one most highly
one there cannot be many (things).
3. Item, mundus sensibilis dicitur assimilari mundo
archetypo, qui est in mente divina ad illius enim
expressionem factus est sed in illo omnia sunt
unum: ergo et in hoc mundo: ergo videtur, quod ab
illo non potuerit esse multitudo.
3
3. Likewise, the sensible world is said to be assimilated
to the world archetype, which is in the Divine Mind
for (the world) was made for an expression of this
but in that all (things) are one [unum]: therefore also in
this world: therefore it seems, that from that there
could not be a multitude.
3
4. Item, a Deo exitus est per generationem, per
spirationem et per creationem; sed per generationem
non emanat nisi una sola persona, et similiter per
spirationem: ergo per creationem non egreditur nisi
una sola creatura.
4. Likewise, from God there is a going forth [exitus]
through generation, through spiration and through
creation; but through generation there does not emanate
but one sole Person, and similarly through spiration:
therefore through creation there does not step forth
[egreditur] but one sole creature.
CONTRA: 1. Quanto substantia producens est melior,
tanto magis est sui diffusiva, et quanto magis est sui
diffusiva, tanto pluribus nata est se communicare; sed
primum efficiens est optimum inter omnia: ergo
4
etc.
ON THE CONTRARY: 1. As much as a producing
substance is better, so much more is it diffusive of
itself, and as much as it is more diffusive of itself, so
much is it bound to communicate itself to more; but the
first efficient (Principle) is the best among all: ergo
4
etc..
2. Item, quanto substantia spiritualior, tanto plurium est
cognitiva;
5
sed suprema substantia est spiritualissima:
ergo multorum est cognitiva. Sed non est cognitiva
multorum praecedentium se vel comitantium: ergo
multorum ab ipsa exeuntium.
2. Likewise, as much as a substance (is) more spiritual,
so much is it cognitive of more;
5
but the supreme
Substance is most spiritual: therefore It is cognitive of
many. But It is not cognitive of many preceding It
and/or accompanying (It): therefore (It is cognitive) of
the many going forth from It.
3. Item, quanto substantia simplicior, tanto potentior,
quia virtus quanto magis unita, tanto magis infinita
;
6
sed quanto potentior, tanto in plura potest: ergo si
substantia primi principii est simplicissima, ergo potest
et debet ad sui manifestationem producere multa, cum
ipsa sit unica.
3. Likewise, as much as a substance (is) more simple,
so much (is it) more potent, because virtue as much
as (it is) more united, so much (is it) more unlimited
[infinita] ;
6
but as much as (one is) more potent, so
much is it able unto more: therefore if the substance of
the First Principle is most simple, therefore It can and
COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. II, d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 1: S. BONAVENTURAE
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon02038.html[2012-09-11 4:43:21]
ought, for its own manifestation, produce many
(things), since It itself is unique.
4. Item, quanto causa prior, tanto universalior, unde
prima est universalissima;
7
et quanto universalior, tanto
plurium principium: ergo cum principium productivum
universi sit simpliciter primum, debuit ergo et potuit
exire ab ipso multitudo rerum.
4. Likewise, as much as a cause (is) prior, so much (is
it) more universal, wherefore the First (Cause) is the
most universal;
7
and as much as (a cause is) more
universal, so much (is it) the principle of more:
therefore since the productive Principle of the universe
is simply First, therefore the multitude of things ought
and could go forth from It.
CONCLUSIO.

Multitudo rerum est a principio uno, quia est
principium et primum et unice unum.
CONCLUSION

The multitude of things is from one principle, because
it is the Beginning and the First and the uniquely One.
RESPONDEO: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam
notandum est, quod si de principio intrinseco quaeratur,
unde veniat multitudo rerum, maxime secundum
speciem, patet, quod a forma. Sed unde veniat . . .
I RESPOND: For an understanding of the aforesaid it
must be noted, that if there be asked concerning an
intrinsic principle, whence comes the multitude of
things, most of all according to species, it is clear, that
(it comes) from form. But (if there be asked,) whence
comes . . .
1
Libr. II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 56. (c. 10.).
2
Aliqui codd. ut aa bb nunquam.
3
Plato, in Timaeo ait: Unus (mundus) profecto est: si quidem
factus sit ad exemplum . . . Ut autem hic mundus esset animanti
absoluto simillimus, hoc ipso quod solus atque unus esset, idcirco
non duos vel infinitos mundos, sed singularem et unigenum
mundum Deus procreavit, qui quidem et est et erit (ed. Serrani, tom.
III. pag. 31.).
4
Hoc argumentum fundatur in illa Dionysii propositione: Bonum
est diffusivum sui; de qua cfr. tom. I. pag. 804, nota 6.
5
Cfr. Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 3. seqq. (c. 4.) et Liber de
Causis, prop. 10.
6
Liber de Causis, prop. 17.
7
Vide Libr. de Causis, prop. 1, de qua cfr. tom. I. pag. 471, nota 3.
1
(Aristotle), On Generation and Corruption, Bk. II, text 56 (ch. 10).
2
Some codices, such as aa and bb, have there can never [nunquam
possunt].
3
Plato, in the Timaeus says: Indeed there is one (world): if,
indeed, it has been made according to the Exemplar . . . Moreover
so that this world would be most similar to the One absolute
animating (it), by this very (thing) that it was the sole and one
(world), on which account God did not procreate two and/or infinite
worlds, but a singular and only-born [unigenum] world, which
indeed both is and shall be. (Serrani edition, tome III, p. 31).
4
This argument is founded upon that proposition of (St.) Dionysius
(the Areopagite): The good is diffusive of itself; concerning which,
cf. Sent, Bk. I, d. 45, a. 2, q. 1, p. 804, footnote 6.
5
Cf. Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. III, text 3 ff (ch. 4) and the Book
of Causes, proposition 10.
6
Book of Causes., proposition 17.
7
See the Book of Causes, proposition 1, concerning which, cf.
Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, p. I, a. sole, q. 2, p. 471, footnote 3.
p. 40
multitudo formarum tanquam a principio effectivo
extrinseco, patet, quod ab efficiente uno. Sed
qualiter potest venire multitudo a principio summe et
perfectissime uno, difficile est intelligere. Et aliqui
circa hoc erraverunt.
the multitude of forms as from an extrinsic, effective
principle, it is clear, that (it comes) from one efficient
(principle). But in what manner a multitude can
come from a Principle most highly and most perfection
One, is difficult to understand. And some have erred
about this.
COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. II, d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 1: S. BONAVENTURAE
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon02038.html[2012-09-11 4:43:21]
Quidam enim dixerunt, quod quamvis unus esset rerum
Conditor, tamen multa et varia facit propter
multitudinem formarum idealium. Sed illud
improbatum est in primo libro,
1
ubi ostenditur, quod
omnes illae unum sunt; nec est in Deo secundum rem
alius numerus quam personarum.
For certain (authors) said, that though the Creator of
things was one, yet He makes many and various
(things) on account of a multitude of ideal forms.
But that has been disproved in the First Book,
1
where
it is shown, all those (ideal forms) are one [unum]; nor
is there in God, according to thing, a number other than
of the Persons.
Aliqui vero dicere voluerunt, quod hoc erat propter
multitudinem mediorum. Deus enim, cum sit unus et
summe simplex, intellexit se; et se intelligendo et nihil
aliud, produxit primam intelligentiam; et illa
Intelligentia intellexit se et Deus, et ideo produxit duo,
scilicet aliam Intelligentiam et orbem suum; et sic
descendendo et multiplicando. Et ista opinio in
lectione praecedenti
2
est improbata, ubi ostenditur,
quod Deus immediate producit omnia.
However, some wanted to say, that this was on account
of a multitude of means. For God, since He is One and
most highly Simple, understood Himself; and by
understanding Himself and nothing else, produced the
First Intelligence, and that Intelligence understood
Itself and God, and for that reason produced two
(things), namely another Intelligence and Its own orbit;
and thus by descending and multiplying, (the multitude
of things was made). And that opinion of their in
the preceding lesson
2
has been disproved, where it is
shown, that God produces all (things) immediately.
Tertii dixerunt, quod multitudo rerum erat a principio
unico propter multitudinem et infinitatem reflexionum
quibus divinus intellectus supra se reflectitur et
intelligit se, et intelligit, se intelligere; et sic usque in
infinitum. Sed illud nihil est. Primum, quia falsum
est, quod in Deo sit multitudo reflexionum,
3
cum Deus
sit suum intelligere. Item, ex hoc nunquam proveniret
nisi diversitas secundum numerum.
The third said, that the multitude of tings was from the
unique Principle on account of the multitude and
infinite of reflections by which the Divine Intellect is
reflected upon Itself and understands Itself, and
understand, that It understands Itself; and thus even
unto infinity. But that is nothing. First, because it
is false, that in God there is a multitude of reflections,
3
since God is His own act of understanding [intelligere].
Likewise, from this there would never have come but a
diversity according to number.
Et ideo est positio recta, quod multitudo in rebus est a
principio uno, quia est primum principium et unice
unum. Quia enim est principium simpliciter primum,
ideo fecundum et potens est fecunditate infinita et
immensa. Si enim unitas, quae est prima in genere
numeri, est principium, a quo possunt infiniti numeri
egredi, et punctus, a quo infinitae lineae; quod est
simpliciter primum est ita potens, quod omnino
immensum.
4
Propter ergo immensitatem infinita
potest, sed propter immensitatis manifestationem multa
de suis thesauris profert, non omnia, quia effectus non
potest aequari virtuti ipsius primae causae. Quia
vero unice unum, ideo simplicissimum et
spiritualissimum et perfectissimum: quia
simplicissimum, maximae potentiae; quia
spiritualissimum, maximae sapientiae; quia
pefectissimum est, bonitatis summae; quia maximae
potentiae, multa potest; quia maximae sapientiae,
multa novit; quia summae bonitatis, multa vult
producere et se communicare. Et ideo a principio
uno, quia primum et unum, exit
5
multitudo.
And for that reason the right position is, that the
multitude in things is from one Principle, because It is
the First Principle and uniquely the One. For because
it is the simply First Principle, for that reason It is
fecund and potent by an infinite and immense
fecundity. For if the unity, which is first in the genus
of number, is a principle, form which there can step
forth infinite number, and the point, (a principle) form
which (there step forth) infinite lines; what is simply
the First is so potent, that (It is) entirely immense.
4
Therefore, on account of (Its) immensity it can (cause)
infinite (things), but on account of the manifestation of
(Its) immensity It carries forth [profert] many from Its
treasuries, not all, because the effect (of Its Virtue)
cannot be equal to the Virtue Itself of the First Cause.
But because (It is) uniquely the One, for that reason
(It is) the Most Simple, and the Most Spiritual and the
Most Perfect: because (It is) the Most Simple, (It is) of
the greatest power, because (It is) the Most Spiritual,
(It is) of the greatest wisdom; because It is the Most
Perfect, (It is) of a most high goodness; because (It is)
COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. II, d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 1: S. BONAVENTURAE
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon02038.html[2012-09-11 4:43:21]
of the greatest power, It can (cause) many (things);
because (It is) of the greatest wisdom, It knows many
(things); because (It is) of a most high goodness, It
wills to produce many (things) and to communicate
Itself. For that reason from the One Principle,
because (It is) the First and the One, there goes forth
5
a
multitude.
1. Quod ergo obiicitur, quod idem similiter se habens
etc.; dicendum, quod intelligitur in his agentibus,
quorum virtus est arctata et limitata; et hoc non habet
locum in Deo.
6
1. What, therefore, is objected, that the same holding
itself similarly etc.; it must be said, that (this) is
understood in those agents, the virtue of which is
constrained and limited; and this has no place in God.
6
2. Quod obiicitur, quod a bono non sunt mala;
dicendum, quod non est simile, quia mala et falsa
dicunt
7
privationes et defectus, et ideo non habent
causam efficientem, sed deficientem, qualem non decet
esse Deum; sed multitudo est positio, et ideo causam
habet effectivam.
2. What is objected, that from (something) good there
are no evils; it must be said, that it is not similar,
because evils and falsehoods mean
7
privations and
defects, and for that reason they do not have an
efficient cause, but (rather) a deficient one, which it is
not fitting that God be; but a multitude is a positing (of
being), and for that reason it has an effective cause.
3. Quod obiicitur, quod de archetypo et sensibili
mundo, dicendum, quod iste imitatur illum in quantum
potest, sed deficit. In illo enim est summa pulcritudo
per omnimodam unitatem; hic autem, si esset unitas,
non esset pulcritudo, quia non esset ordo nec perfectio.
Et ideo, ut mundus hic imitaretur in perfectione et
pulcritudine, oportuit, quod haberet multitudinem, ut
multa facerent quod unum facere per se non posset.
8
3. What is objected, that concerning the archetype and
the sensible world, it must be said, that the latter
imitates the former inasmuch as it is able, but it fails.
For in the former there is a most high beauty through
an omnimodal unity; but the latter, if it would be a
unity, would not be beauty, because there would not be
an order nor perfection (in it). And for that reason, that
this world might imitate (it) in perfection and beauty, it
was necessary [oportuit], that it have a multitude (of
things), so that many would do what the one could not
do through itself.
8
4. Quod ultimo obiicitur de generatione et spiratione,
iam patet: quia genitus aequalis generanti per omnia
implet et imitatur ipsum, similiter et Spiritus sanctus; et
ideo superflueret aliam ponere personam.
8
Sed non sic
est in creatura, quae est bonitatis finitae; ideo quod non
potuit capere creatura in se, accepit quodam modo in
sibi socia, ut sic ex multis una perficeretur mundialis
machina.
4. What is objected last concerning generation and
spiration, is already clear: because the One begotten
equal to the One generating fulfills through all (things)
and imitates Him, similarly too the Holy Spirit; and for
that reason it would be superfluous to posit another
Person. But not so is it in the creature, which is of
finite goodness; for that reason what a creature could
not grasp in itself, it accepted in a certain manner in
itself as an associate, so that thus from the many there
was perfected one, world machine [una mundialis
machina].
SCHOLION. SCHOLIUM
I. Haec quaestio cohaeret cum iis quae supra (p. I. a. 2.
q. 1. 2.) disputata sunt, et militat contra multos
philosophos Arabes. Ad rem Scotus (de Rerum
Princip. q. 2. a. 1. n. 7.): Avicenna veritati catholicae
videtur maxime contrarius esse. Nam IX.
Metaphysicae suae c. 4. vult, quod a primo principio
I. This Question compliments those things which have
been disputed above (in p. I, a. 2, qq. 1 and 2), and
militates against many Arabic philosophers. On this
matter (Bl. J ohn Duns) Scotus (de Rerum Principio., q.
2, a. 1, n. 7) says: Avicenna seems most of all to be
contrary to the Catholic truth. For in his Metaphysics
COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. II, d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 1: S. BONAVENTURAE
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon02038.html[2012-09-11 4:43:21]
non possunt esse plura, nec secundum numerum, nec
secundum divisionem . Huc spectant plures articuli
condemnati Parisiis a. 1276 (cap. 6. de Deo, ut a. 15.
16; Collect. iudic. p. 189.
Bk. IX, ch. 4 he would have, that from the First
Principle there cannot be more, neither according to
number, nor according to division . To this pertain
the several articles condemned at Paris in A. D. 1276
(chapter 6, On God, e. g. aa. 15 and 16; Collectio
iudiciorum., p. 189).
II. Contra istos errores diffuse disputant Alex. Hal., S.
p. II. q. 11. m. 1. 2. Scot., loc. cit., et IV. Sent. d. 1.
q. 1.n. 16. S. Thom., S. I. q. 47. a. 1. 2; S. c. Gent.
II. c. 45, III. c. 97; de Potent. q. 3. a. 16. B. Albert.,
S. p. III. tr. 1. q. 3. m. 3. a. 1. 2. Petr. a Tar., hic q.
2. a. 2. Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2. Aegid.
R., hic p. I. q. 3. a. 3. Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.
II. These errors are disputed against at length by
Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 11, m. 1 and 2.
(Bl. J ohn Duns) Scotus, loc. cit., and Sent., Bk. IV,
d. 1, q. 1, n. 16. St. Thomas, Summa., I, q. 47, aa. 1
and 2; Summa contra Gentiles., Bk. II, ch. 45, and Bk.
III, ch. 97; de Potentia., q. 3, a. 16. Bl. (now St.)
Albertus (Magnus), Summa., p. III, tr. 1, q. 3, m. 3, aa.
1 and 2. (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 2, a. 2.
Richard of Middleton, here in a. 4, q. 2. Giles
the Roman, here in p. I, q. 3, a. 3. (Bl.) Dionysius
the Carthusian, here in q. 3.
1
Dist. 35. q. 2, ubi etiam haec positio fusius explicatur.
2
Hic p. I. a. 2. q. 2. Paulo superius codd. U bb est multitudo,
cod. N et intelligendo est multitudo, cod. I processit multiplicando
pro et multiplicando, cui cod. cc et ed. 1 addunt ista. Paulo inferius
cod. bb produxit omnia pro producit omnia.
3
Ed. 3 prosequitur: cum ratio vel causa ex parte Dei redditur ex
parte creaturae, et haec est manifestatio divinae bonitatis in suo
opere, quod Deus sit suum intelligere.
4
Cfr. I. Sent. d. 27. p. I. q. 2. ad 3. Pro sequentibus vide ibid., d.
42. q. 1, et d. 43. q. 1. seqq.
5
Plures codd. cum Vat. exiit.
6
Cod. F primo agente.
7
Multi codd. cum ed. 1 dicuntur. Plura de hac solutione
habentur infra d. 34. a. 1. q. 1 seqq.
8
Cfr. August., 83 Qq. q. 41. et XII. de Civ. Dei, c. 12. Paulo
superius post imitaretur codd. A Y aa interserunt illum.
9
Vide I. Sent. d. 2. q. 3. seq., et d. 7. q. 2.
1
Distinction 35, q. 2, where this position is also explained more at
length.
2
Here in p. I, a. 2, q. 2. A little above this codices U and bb
have there is a multitude [est multitudo], codex N and
understanding, there is a multitude [et intelligendo est multitudo],
and codex I it proceeded by multiplying [processit multiplicando]
for and multiplying, (the multitude of things was made) [et
multiplicando], which codex cc and edition 1 read as and
multiplying them, (the multitude of things was made) [et
multiplicando ista]. A little below this codex bb reads produced
[produxit] for produces [producit].
3
Edition 1 proceeds thus: when the reckoning and/or cause on the
part of God is rendered on the part of the creature, and this is the
manifestation of the Divine Goodness in His work, because God is
His own act of understanding [cum ratio vel causa ex parte Dei
redditur ex parte creaturae, et haec est manifestatio divinae bonitatis
in suo opere, quod Deus sit suum intelligere].
4
Cf. Sent, Bk. I, d. 27, p. I, q. 2, in reply to n. 3. For the
following, see ibid., d. 42, q. 1, and d. 43, q. 1 ff..
5
Several codices, together with the Vatican edition, have there
went forth [exiit].
6
Codex F has in the First Agent [in primo agente].
7
Many codices, together with edition 1, have are said (to be)
[dicuntur]. More on this solution is had below in d. 34, a. 1. q. 1
ff.
8
Cf. (St.) Augustine, Of Eighty-Three Questions, q. 41, and On the
City of God, Bk. XII, ch. 12. A little above this after might
imitate [imitaretur] codices A Y and aa insert the former [illum] for
(it).
9
See Sent, Bk. I, d. 2, q. 3 f., and d. 7, q. 2.
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
COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. II, d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 1: S. BONAVENTURAE
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon02038.html[2012-09-11 4:43:21]
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.