Bonaventure

Quaestio IV.

Utrum in divinis ponenda sit translatio.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each entry gives first the Latin source text (La.), then the English rendering (En.).

Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum in divinis sit ponere translationem. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per Ambrosium in libro de Trinitate¹: «Sunt nomina, quae translative et per similitudinem de Deo dicuntur».

2. Item, Dionysius in libro de Divinis Nominibus²: «Theologi tanquam innominabilem Deum laudant ex omni nomine»; sed hoc non potest esse nisi per translationem: ergo in divinis est ponere translationem.

3. Item, hoc videtur ratione, quia sacra Scriptura³ dicit, Deum irasci et dolere; sed hoc non potest dici proprie: ergo necesse est, quod dicatur translative. Sed inter omnia quae contingit nominare, dolor et ira maxime distant a Deo: ergo si haec contingit transferre, et omnia alia nomina.

4. Item, per quae contingit rem intelligere, contingit et significare, et per quae contingit significare, contingit et nominare; sed per omnia creata contingit Deum intelligere: ergo et nominare.

Sed contra:

1. «Omnes transferentes secundum aliquam similitudinem transferunt»⁴; sed Dei ad creaturam non est similitudo, cum sit summa distantia: ergo etc.

2. Item, similitudo est relatio aequiparantiae⁵: ergo si propter similitudinem contingit nomina creaturarum transferri ad Creatorem, pari ratione et e converso. Sed illa non transferuntur: ergo nec ista.

3. Item, similitudo est ratio translationis⁶: ergo nomina rerum magis Deo similium magis debent ad Deum transferri; talia autem sunt nomina Angelorum: ergo illa transferuntur. — Quaeritur ergo, quae nomina debeant transferri, et quae non.

Conclusio.

Translatio ponenda est in divinis propter duplicem rationem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ratio vel finis translationis duplex est: una, inquam, est laus Dei, alia manuductio intellectus nostri. — Propter laudem Dei necessaria est translatio. Quoniam enim Deus multum est laudabilis, ne propter inopiam vocabulorum contingeret cessare a laude, sacra Scriptura docuit nomina creaturarum ad Deum transferri⁷, et hoc in numero indefinito, ut, sicut omnis creatura laudat Deum, sic Deus laudetur ex omni nomine creaturae, et qui non poterit uno nomine laudari tanquam superexcellens omne nomen, laudaretur ex omni nomine. — Alia ratio est manuductio intellectus nostri. Quia enim per creaturas ad cognoscendum Creatorem venimus⁸, et, ut plurimum, fere omnes creaturae habent proprietates nobiles, quae sunt ratio intelligendi Deum, ut leo fortitudinem, agnus mansuetudinem, petra soliditatem, serpens prudentiam et consimilia: ideo oportuit, plura nomina transferri ad Deum.

Quoniam igitur finis imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem, cum translatio sit ad laudem Dei; ideo nomina importantia deformitatem non debent transferri, ut diabolus, bufo, vulpes, quia magis transferuntur ad vituperium quam ad laudem. — Rursus, quia translatio est propter nostram instructionem, et similitudo incipiens a notiori est via cognoscendi; ideo est translatio a creaturis tanquam a notioribus ad Creatorem, sed non convertitur. Et quia magna similitudo mater est falsitatis⁹, ideo non transferuntur nomina multum similia, sicut sunt nomina Angelorum, ne forte Angelus credatur esse Deus. — Ex hoc patet, quod translatio est in divinis, et quantum ad nominum multiformitatem ratione cuius dicitur Deus omninominabilis¹⁰; et patent omnia praeter primum.

Quod enim obiicitur, quod nulla est similitudo, quia summa est distantia; dicendum, quod non est similitudo per unius naturae participationem, est tamen similitudo secundum analogiam et habitudinem, et hoc in comparatione ad effectus. Sed de hoc magis alibi habitum est¹¹.

Question IV.

Whether translation [i.e. metaphorical transfer of names] is to be posited in divine matters.

Fourthly and lastly it is asked, whether in the divine there is to be posited a translation [transfer]. And that there is, appears thus:

1. From Ambrose in the book On the Trinity¹: "There are names which are said of God by translation [metaphorically] and by likeness."

2. Likewise, Dionysius in the book On the Divine Names²: "The theologians praise God as unnameable from every name"; but this cannot be except through translation: therefore in the divine a translation is to be posited.

3. Likewise, this appears by reason, since sacred Scripture³ says that God is wrathful and grieves; but this cannot be said properly: therefore it is necessary that it be said by translation. But among all the things which can be named, grief and wrath are most distant from God: therefore if these can be transferred [to God], so can all other names.

4. Likewise, by those things through which one can understand a thing, one can also signify it, and by those things through which one can signify, one can also name; but through all created things one can understand God: therefore [one can] also [name him].

On the contrary:

1. "All who transfer, transfer according to some likeness"⁴; but there is no likeness of God to a creature, since there is supreme distance: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, likeness is a relation of equiparancy⁵: therefore if on account of likeness the names of creatures can be transferred to the Creator, by parity of reason also the converse. But those [divine names] are not transferred [to creatures]: therefore neither these.

3. Likewise, likeness is the ground of translation⁶: therefore the names of things more like God ought more to be transferred to God; but such are the names of the Angels: therefore those are transferred. — It is therefore asked, which names ought to be transferred, and which not.

Conclusion.

Translation is to be posited in the divine on account of a twofold reason.

I respond: It must be said that the reason or end of translation is twofold: one, I say, is the praise of God, the other, the leading-by-the-hand of our intellect. — On account of the praise of God a translation is necessary. For since God is greatly praiseworthy, lest on account of the poverty of vocabulary praise should chance to cease, sacred Scripture taught that the names of creatures be transferred to God⁷, and this in indefinite number, so that, just as every creature praises God, so God may be praised from every name of a creature, and he who cannot be praised by one name as super-excelling every name, may be praised from every name. — The other reason is the leading-by-the-hand of our intellect. For since through creatures we come to knowing the Creator⁸, and, for the most part, almost all creatures have noble properties, which are the ground for understanding God — as a lion [signifies] fortitude, a lamb meekness, a rock solidity, a serpent prudence, and the like — therefore it was fitting that many names be transferred to God.

Since therefore the end imposes necessity on those things which are ordered to the end, since the translation is to the praise of God; therefore names importing deformity ought not to be transferred, like devil, toad, fox, since they are transferred more to vituperation than to praise. — Again, since translation is for the sake of our instruction, and likeness beginning from what is more known is the way of knowing; therefore translation is from creatures as from things more known to the Creator, but not vice versa. And since great likeness is the mother of falsity⁹, therefore names too similar are not transferred, such as the names of the Angels, lest perhaps an Angel be believed to be God. — From this it is clear that translation is in the divine, and as regards the multiformity of names by reason of which God is said to be all-nameable¹⁰; and all [the objections] are clear except the first.

For what is objected, that there is no likeness because there is the greatest distance; it must be said that there is not a likeness through participation of one nature, but there is nevertheless a likeness according to analogy and habitude [relation], and this in comparison to effects. But of this more has been treated elsewhere¹¹.