Dist. 37, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 3
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 37
Quaestio III.
Utrum Angelus pertranseat medium motu subito, vel successivo.
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.).
Tertio quaeritur, utrum spiritus angelicus pertranseat medium motu1 subito, vel successivo. Et quod successivo, videtur.
1. In aliquo instanti est in termino a quo, et in alio instanti est in termino ad quem2; sed inter quaelibet duo instantia cadit tempus medium, et in medio illorum instantium est moveri: ergo moveri ipsius Angeli est in tempore: ergo movetur motu successivo.
2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur a parte spatii sic: Angelus, si pertransit medium in aliquo instanti, est in medio et in partibus medii; sed impossibile est, quod aliquod unum praeter Deum et corpus Christi simul et semel sit in pluribus locis: ergo impossibile est, quod Angelus in eodem instanti sit in toto medio et in fine: ergo non movetur subito: ergo necessario oportet, quod successive.
3. Item, hoc ostenditur a parte virtutis. Sicut vult Philosophus3, si tanta virtus movet in tanto tempore, et maior in minori, et maxima in minimo, et infinita in nunc, ergo secundum quod est virtus, secundum hoc velocior est motus; sed instans excedit tempus improportionabiliter: ergo et virtus, quae movet in instanti, superexcedit illam, quae movet in tempore in infinitum. Sed nulla virtus creata superexcedit aliam in infinitum, et virtus angelica est creata: ergo cum omnis motus naturalis localis sit successivus, patet quod motus Angeli sit successivus.
4. Item, si Angelus movetur, aut ergo motus ille est vere motus, aut mutatio4. Si mutatio: ergo generatio, vel corruptio, quod constat esse falsum. Si motus; sed omnis motus proprie dictus habet prius et posterius, et situm et tempus, et omne tale est successivum: ergo etc.
Contra:
1. Augustinus in libro Quinque Responsionum5: «Radius non citius pervenit ad loca propinquiora quam ad loca remotiora», et constat quod pertransit medium: ergo si virtus angelica non est minus potens, sed magis, patet etc.
2. Item, Philosophus6 probat, «quod si esset vacuum, non esset motus»; sed idem facit ipsum spatium Angelo, quod facit vacuum corpori moto, quia ei nullo modo resistit, sicut nec vacuum: ergo videtur, quod ipse Angelus subito ipsum pertranseat.
3. Item, omne quod successive movetur, partim est in termino a quo, partim in termino ad quem7; sed omne tale est partibile: ergo necesse est, Angelum esse partibilem, aut non movetur successive.
4. Item, omne quod simul se transfert et totum simul, non successive movetur; sed Angelus simul se transfert, cum sit omnino simplex: ergo in instanti, et non successive movetur.
5. Item, motus successivus est compositus et accidens, et nullum accidens compositum est in subiecto simplici; sed Angelus est simplex: ergo non est subiectum motus successivi, sed mobile est subiectum motus, ergo etc.
Conclusio.
Angelus movetur per medium successivo motu, ratione distantiae spatii et ratione finitae virtutis moventis.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod circa hoc senserunt aliqui diversimode.
Quidam enim dixerunt, quod quia Angelus est simplex, et spatium compositum, quod tam Angelus quam eius virtus est spatio improportionabilis8; et ideo virtus eius omnino vincit supra spatium, adeo quod subito et motu improportionabili spatium pertransit, et est huiusmodi motus supra
naturam. — Sed quoniam difficile videtur intelligere, quod pertranseat medium, quin sit in pluribus partibus medii; et ponere, quod subito moveatur et sit in pluribus partibus medii, est ponere in illo motu, quod sit in pluribus locis simul; et hoc omnino absurdum est dicere de Angelo, sicut dicunt Sancti, et philosophi et doctores catholici in hoc concordant: ideo dicendum est, quod Angelus non movetur per medium motu subito, sed successivo.
Propter quod notandum, quod in motu, qui successivus est successione perfecta, est successio ex quadruplici causa: prima est medii distantia, secunda medii resistentia, tertia est partibilitas mobilis, quarta est finitas virtutis, eo quod finitae virtutis proprie est movere in tempore, maxime per medium9. Concedendum est igitur, quod motus Angeli per medium non est perfecta successione successivus, quia deficit ibi resistentia spatii et partibilitas mobilis; est tamen successivus ratione distantiae spatii, in qua non potest esse simul per totam, et finitatis virtutis moventis, quae non excedit medium improportionabiliter, ideo nec facit motum improportionalem medio omnino. — Et concedendae sunt rationes probantes, motum illum per spatium esse successivum. Tamen prima ratio sophistica est; sed alibi dissolvetur cum agetur de transitione panis in corpus Christi, ubi habet locum suum10.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod radius non citius pervenit; dicendum, quod Augustinus loquitur secundum perceptionem sensus11, quia sensus non percipit, radium citius pervenire ad propinquiora loca quam ad remotiora, non quia secundum rem non sit ibi vere prius et posterius. Unde si dicatur radius moveri subito, intelligitur subito pro repente, et repentinum dicitur illud quod habet moveri in tempore imperceptibili. — Sed aliter potest dici, quod lux subito movetur, quia motus lucis in medio non est motus localis tantum, sed est motus diffusionis, qui est generatio, sicut generatur idolum12 ab obiecto; et quia lux simul est et lucet, simul cum est, generat splendorem, et ita in eodem instanti: similiter de illo intelligi potest, et sic deinceps. Unde si simul esset homo et generaret, in primo instanti fuisset mundus plenus hominibus. Hoc modo potest respondere qui nescit melius.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de vacuo, quod si esset vacuum, non esset motus; dicendum, quod circa hoc multi multa dixerunt, quorum dicta longum esset dicere. Nunc autem, sustinendo Philosophum, dici potest, quod si esset vacuum, non esset motus successivus, recte intellecto vacuo, secundum quod credo Philosophum intelligere, quod dicit simpliciter privationem: si est vacuum ibi — ubi intelligimus vacuum, ibi intelligimus nihil esse — ergo non solum deest corporis resistentia, verum etiam nulla distantia est ibi; ubi autem nulla distantia est, non est prope nec longe; ubi autem est motus localis, necessario est approximatio vel elongatio: ergo si est vacuum, non est motus, non propter defectum resistentiae, sed distantiae. Sed quoniam medium comparatum ad Angelum habet rationem distantiae, quia vere facit distantiam inter extrema, ideo sufficit ad successionem qualemcumque propter distantiam; sed ubi est vacuum, non est distantia, et haec praeexigitur necessario ad motum localem. Partibilitas enim mobilis et finitas virtutis non faciunt successionem, nisi sit prius et posterius in magnitudine, supra quam est, sive in eo quod acquiritur per motum.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illud quod movetur successive, partim est in termino a quo, et partim in termino ad quem; dicendum, quod in successivo, ubi est plena successio, est ponere partem et partem et quantum ad magnitudinem substratam, et quantum ad magnitudinem motam et quantum ad dispositionem acquisitam. Quia naturalis motus ad situm est motus ad formam quodam modo; sed in motu Angeli non est successio secundum omnimodam completionem, et ideo non
secundum omnes has differentias, sed solum secundum prioritatem et posterioritatem magnitudinis supra quam13. — Quod ergo dicitur, quod partim est in termino a quo, partim in termino ad quem, hoc non est secundum diversitatem partium mobilis, sed est solum per accessum et recessum.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod simul se transfert totum: dicendum, quod quamvis ex parte sua se totum simul transferat, non tamen transfert se simul super totum, propter distantiam medii, in qua tota non potest esse simul.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod compositum accidens non potest esse in re simplici; dicendum, quod verum est de composito, quod habet partes actu: sed de composito, quod est in successione, non est verum. Sicut enim duratio successiva potest esse in Angelo, secundum quod manet, eo quod de illa nunquam est nisi nunc, ita motus successivus potest esse in eo, secundum quod fertur; et hoc quidem secum nullum habet inconveniens. His visis, patent obiecta.
Est enim praedictorum summa, quod Angelus movetur sine corpore assumto, et quod movetur in medio sive per medium, et quod movetur motu successivo, licet non omnimoda successione composito, ut praedictum est.
I. Omnis motus continuus est etiam successivus, sed non e converso. Motus successivus enim opponitur instantaneo; continuus autem non continuo sive discreto. — Prima opinio, in textu memorata, recte reprobatur, quia ex ipsa sequeretur, quod Angelus posset simul esse definitive in pluribus locis sibi adaequatis. Docet igitur Seraphicus, Angelum moveri non in instanti, sed motu successivo, qui tamen differt a motu successivo corporum, sicut explicatur in corp. et ad 3. Etiam S. Thomas (hic q. 4. a. 3; S. I. q. 53. a. 3.) negat, motum localem Angelorum, sive sit continuus sive non continuus, fieri posse in eodem instanti; sed quoad motum non continuum, quem ipse Angelo vindicat, aliis rationibus utitur. Scotus iuxta distinctionem in Scholio praeced. commemoratam, putat solam simplicem mutationem loci intra sphaeram loci Angelo adaequati in instanti fieri posse. — In solut. ad 1. observatione dignum videtur, S. Doctorem iam coniectasse, motum lucis non fieri in instanti. Alteram eiusdem obiectionis solutionem approbat S. Thom., S. I. q. 53. a. 3. ad 2.
II. Scot., II. Sent. d. 2. q. 14. — S. Thom., hic q. 4. a. 3; S. I. q. 53. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 24. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 5. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ.
---
Question III.
Whether the Angel passes through the medium by a sudden or by a successive motion.
Thirdly, it is asked whether the angelic spirit passes through the medium by a sudden motion1 or by a successive [motion]. And that [it does so] successively, [the following] is seen.
1. In one instant it is in the term from which (a quo), and in another instant it is in the term to which (ad quem)2; but between any two instants there falls an intermediate time, and in the middle of those instants there is being-moved: therefore the being-moved of the Angel itself is in time: therefore it is moved by a successive motion.
2. Likewise, this very thing is shown on the part of the space, thus: the Angel, if it passes through the medium in some instant, is in the medium and in the parts of the medium; but it is impossible that any one [thing] except God and the body of Christ be at one and the same time in several places: therefore it is impossible that the Angel be in the same instant in the whole medium and at the end: therefore it is not moved suddenly: therefore necessarily it must [be moved] successively.
3. Likewise, this is shown on the part of [its] power. As the Philosopher holds3, if such-and-such a power moves in such-and-such a time, and a greater [power] in less [time], and the greatest in the least, and an infinite [power] in the now, then according as [something] is power, accordingly its motion is faster; but the instant exceeds time disproportionately: therefore also the power which moves in an instant exceeds, by an infinite [degree], that which moves in time. But no created power exceeds another infinitely, and the angelic power is created: therefore since every natural local motion is successive, it is plain that the Angel's motion is successive.
4. Likewise, if the Angel is moved, then either that motion is truly motion, or [it is] a mutatio (change)4. If a mutatio: then [it is] generation or corruption, which is plainly false. If motion; but every motion properly so called has a before and an after, and place and time, and every such [thing] is successive: therefore etc.
On the contrary:
1. Augustine in the book Five Responses5: "A ray does not arrive at nearer places more quickly than at remoter places", and it is plain that it passes through the medium: therefore if the angelic power is not less powerful, but more, the conclusion is plain etc.
2. Likewise, the Philosopher6 proves "that if there were a vacuum, there would be no motion"; but the same [thing] which a vacuum does for a moved body, the very space does for the Angel, since it in no way resists it, just as neither does a vacuum: therefore it seems that the Angel itself passes through it suddenly.
3. Likewise, everything which is moved successively is partly in the term from which, partly in the term to which7; but every such [thing] is partible: therefore it is necessary either that the Angel be partible, or [that] it not be moved successively.
4. Likewise, everything which transfers itself all-at-once and as-a-whole-at-once is not moved successively; but the Angel transfers itself all-at-once, since it is wholly simple: therefore in an instant, and not successively, is it moved.
5. Likewise, successive motion is something composite and an accident, and no composite accident is in a simple subject; but the Angel is simple: therefore it is not the subject of successive motion, but the mobile is the subject of motion, therefore etc.
Conclusion.
The Angel is moved through the medium by a successive motion, by reason of the distance of the space and by reason of the finite power of the mover.
I respond: It must be said, that on this [matter] some have held diverse views.
For some have said that, since the Angel is simple, and space composite, both the Angel and his power are disproportionate to space8; and therefore his power altogether prevails over the space, to such a degree that he passes through the space suddenly and by a disproportionate motion, and such a motion is above
nature. — But since it seems difficult to understand that he passes through the medium without being in several parts of the medium; and to posit that he is moved suddenly and is in several parts of the medium is to posit, in that motion, that he be in several places at once; and this is altogether absurd to say of the Angel, as the Saints say, and the philosophers and the Catholic doctors agree on this: therefore it must be said, that the Angel is not moved through the medium by a sudden motion, but by a successive [motion].
On account of which it should be noted, that in motion which is successive with perfect succession, the succession comes from a fourfold cause: the first is the distance of the medium, the second the resistance of the medium, the third is the partibility of the mobile, the fourth is the finitude of the power, since to a finite power it properly belongs to move in time, especially through a medium9. It must be conceded therefore, that the Angel's motion through the medium is not successive with perfect succession, since there fails there the resistance of the space and the partibility of the mobile; it is nevertheless successive by reason of the distance of the space, in which he cannot be all at once throughout the whole, and by [reason of] the finitude of the moving power, which does not exceed the medium disproportionately, and therefore does not produce a motion altogether disproportionate to the medium. — And the reasons proving that motion through space [to be] successive must be conceded. Yet the first reason is sophistical; but it will be resolved elsewhere, when treatment is made of the transition of the bread into the body of Christ, where it has its [proper] place10.
1. To that, then, which is objected, that a ray does not arrive more quickly; it must be said, that Augustine speaks according to the perception of sense11, because sense does not perceive that a ray arrives more quickly at nearer places than at more distant ones, not because in fact there is not truly a before and after there. Hence if the ray be said to be moved suddenly, "suddenly" is to be understood for "instantly" (pro repente), and "instantaneous" (repentinum) is said of that which is to be moved in an imperceptible time. — But it can be said otherwise, that light is moved suddenly, since the motion of light in the medium is not only local motion, but is a motion of diffusion, which is generation, just as an idolum (image)12 is generated from an object; and since light is and shines simultaneously, simultaneously with its being it generates splendor, and so in the same instant: similarly the like can be understood [of the splendor], and so on. Hence if a man simultaneously [were] and generated [men], in the first instant the world would be full of men. In this way may answer one who knows no better.
2. To that which is objected concerning the vacuum, that if there were a vacuum, there would be no motion; it must be said, that on this [matter] many have said many things, and to recount their sayings would be long. But now, sustaining the Philosopher, it can be said that, if there were a vacuum, there would not be successive motion, the vacuum being rightly understood, in the sense in which I believe the Philosopher to understand it, [taking it] as he says, simply [as] a privation: if there is a vacuum there — where we understand a vacuum, there we understand nothing to be — therefore not only does the resistance of body fail, but also there is no distance there at all; but where there is no distance, there is neither near nor far; but where there is local motion, necessarily there is approach or recession: therefore if there is a vacuum, there is no motion, not on account of a defect of resistance, but of distance. But since the medium, compared to the Angel, has the character of distance, since it truly makes a distance between the extremes, therefore it suffices for some succession or other on account of the distance; but where there is a vacuum, there is no distance, and this is necessarily required beforehand for local motion. For the partibility of the mobile and the finitude of the power do not produce succession, unless there be a before and an after in the magnitude over which [the motion] is, or in that which is acquired through motion.
3. To that which is objected, that what is moved successively is partly in the term from which and partly in the term to which; it must be said, that in [a motion] successive, where there is full succession, one must posit a part-and-part both as regards the underlying magnitude, and as regards the magnitude moved-through, and as regards the disposition acquired. Since natural motion to situs (place) is motion to a form in a certain way; but in the motion of an Angel there is not succession according to every kind of completeness, and therefore not
according to all these differences, but only according to the priority and posteriority of the magnitude over which13. — As to what is therefore said, that [a thing in motion] is partly in the term from which, partly in the term to which, this is not according to a diversity of parts of the mobile, but is only by approach and recession.
4. To that which is objected, that [the Angel] transfers itself wholly at once: it must be said, that, although on its own part it transfers the whole of itself at once, it does not however transfer itself simultaneously over the whole [space], because of the distance of the medium, in which it cannot be all at once throughout the whole.
5. To that which is objected, that a composite accident cannot be in a simple thing; it must be said, that this is true of [something] composite which has parts in act: but of [something] composite which is in succession, it is not true. For just as successive duration can be in the Angel, according as he abides — since of [that duration] there is never anything except the now — so successive motion can be in him, according as he is borne along; and this indeed has nothing inappropriate about it. With these things seen, the objections are clear.
For the sum of the foregoing is, that the Angel is moved without an assumed body, and [that] he is moved in or through the medium, and [that] he is moved by a successive motion, although [a motion] not composed by every kind of succession, as has been said.
I. Every continuous motion is also successive, but not conversely. Successive motion indeed is opposed to instantaneous; continuous, however, to non-continuous or discrete. — The first opinion, recorded in the text, is rightly rejected, because from it would follow that the Angel could be at the same time definitively in several places adequate to himself. The Seraphic [Doctor] therefore teaches, that the Angel is moved not in an instant, but by a successive motion, which however differs from the successive motion of bodies, as is explained in the body [of the article] and ad 3. St. Thomas too (here q. 4. a. 3; S. I. q. 53. a. 3.) denies, that the local motion of Angels, whether continuous or non-continuous, can take place in the same instant; but with respect to non-continuous motion, which he claims for the Angel, he employs other reasons. Scotus, according to the distinction recalled in the preceding Scholion, holds that only a simple change of place within the sphere of a place adequate to the Angel can take place in an instant. — In the solutio ad 1. it seems worthy of observation that the Holy Doctor already conjectured that the motion of light does not occur in an instant. The other solution of the same objection St. Thomas approves, S. I. q. 53. a. 3. ad 2.
II. Scotus, II Sent. d. 2. q. 14. — St. Thomas, here q. 4. a. 3; S. I. q. 53. a. 3. — B. Albert., here a. 24. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 5. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., here a. 3. q. 3. — Aegid. R., here 2. princ.
---
- Plurimi codd. cum ed. I actu, quae lectio non congruit cum rubrica huius articuli.Very many codices with ed. 1 [read] actu (in act), a reading which does not agree with the rubric of this article.
- Verbo est Vat. praefigit simul.Before the word est the Vatican [edition] prefixes simul.
- Colligi potest ex VI. Phys. text. 13. seqq. (c. 2.), et VIII. text. 79. seq. (c. 10.). — Circa finem argumenti post naturalis cod. T interiicit et.[The point] can be gathered from VI Physics text 13 ff. (c. 2), and VIII text 79 ff. (c. 10). — Near the end of the argument, after naturalis, codex T inserts et.
- Secundum Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7-9. (c. 1.) omnis transmutatio vel est a non-subiecto in subiectum, vel a subiecto in non-subiectum, vel a subiecto in subiectum; vocatur generatio, secunda corruptio, tertia motus. Duas priores transmutationis species S. Doctor hic comprehendit vocabulo mutatio. De sententia mox allata, quod in motu proprie dicto sit prius et posterius, cfr. Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 99. (c. 11.). — Post verba Si motus Vat. omittit sed omnis motus, et inter Si et motus interiicit omnis.According to Aristotle, V Physics text 7–9 (c. 1), every transmutation is either from non-subject to subject, or from subject to non-subject, or from subject to subject; [the first] is called generation, the second corruption, the third motion. The first two species of transmutation the Holy Doctor here comprehends under the word mutatio. On the sentence next adduced, that in motion properly so called there is a before and an after, cf. Aristotle, IV Physics text 99 (c. 11). — After the words Si motus, the Vatican [edition] omits sed omnis motus, and between Si and motus it inserts omnis.
- Quaest. I. n. 5. (sive Epist. 102. ad Deogratias): Ut enim radius oculi nostri non citius pervenit ad propinquiora, tardius ad longinquiora, sed utraque intervalla pari celeritate contingit.Quaest. I, n. 5 (or Letter 102, to Deogratias): "For just as a ray of our eye does not arrive more quickly at nearer [places], more slowly at farther ones, but reaches both intervals with equal speed."
- Libr. IV. Phys. text. 66. seqq. (c. 8.).Book IV Physics text 66 ff. (c. 8).
- Cfr. Aristot., VI. Phys. text. 32. (c. 4.). Vide etiam ibid. text. 87. (c. 10.), ubi ipse Aristoteles ex sententia allata prima probat, impartibile non posse moveri.Cf. Aristotle, VI Physics text 32 (c. 4). See also ibid., text 87 (c. 10), where Aristotle himself, from the sentence adduced, proves first that the impartible cannot be moved.
- Cod. T improportionalis. Mox pro vincit cod. R dicitur esse, et paulo inferius pro Sed quoniam Vat. et alii codd. praeter cod. Y et ed. 1 Et quoniam.Codex T [reads] improportionalis. Soon after, in place of vincit, codex R [reads] dicitur esse, and a little below, in place of Sed quoniam, the Vatican [edition] and other codices, except codex Y and ed. 1, [read] Et quoniam.
- Prima et secunda causa successionis in motu ab Aristot. insinuatur IV. Phys. text. 66. seqq. (c. 8.), ubi ex defectu huius duplicis condicionis ostenditur, motum successivum in vacuo esse impossibilem. Duae alterae causae successionis in argumentis huius quaestionis breviter tactae sunt. — Contextu repugnante, Vat. et cod. cc hic addunt Quinta potest esse finitas et limitatio mobilis.The first and second cause of succession in motion is intimated by Aristotle in IV Physics text 66 ff. (c. 8), where, from the defect of this twofold condition, it is shown that successive motion in a vacuum is impossible. The two other causes of succession have been briefly touched on in the arguments of this question. — Against the context, the Vatican [edition] and codex cc here add Quinta potest esse finitas et limitatio mobilis ("The fifth can be the finitude and limitation of the mobile").
- Libr. IV. Sent. d. 11. p. 1. q. 3. ad 4, ubi fusius de hac difficultate agitur.Book IV of the Sentences, d. 11, p. 1, q. 3, ad 4, where this difficulty is treated more fully.
- Vat. cum non paucis mss. minus bene perceptibilitatem sensus, et dein quod sensus pro quia sensus. Pro nostra lectione militant codd. A T V, pro quia sensus etiam cod. X.The Vatican [edition], with not a few manuscripts, less correctly [reads] perceptibilitatem sensus, and then quod sensus in place of quia sensus. For our reading codices A T V militate, [and] for quia sensus codex X also.
- Graece εἴδωλον (imago, simulacrum, species) significat hic in genere speciem rem exprimentem. — Paulo ante pro sed est motus codd. A T sed etiam motus. — Intellige: splendorem. Pro illo Vat. cum nonnullis codd. et ed. 1. alio.In Greek εἴδωλον (image, simulacrum, species) here signifies in general a species representing a thing. — A little before, in place of sed est motus, codices A T [read] sed etiam motus. — Understand: splendorem (splendor). In place of illo, the Vatican [edition] together with several codices and ed. 1 [read] alio.
- Pro si est codd. A G S T V I aa ff cum ed. 1 sed est; cod. H quod si est, Vat. si esset, cod. X quia, qui et subinde omittit verba proxima vacuum ibi. — Haec et quae sequuntur, clarius dicta sunt in fine solutionis praecedentis obiectionis. — De motu ad situm et de motu ad formam, qui mox commemorantur, cfr. hic dub. 2. Motus ad formam in latiore sensu dicuntur illi, per quos res vel disponitur ad receptionem vel corruptionem formae substantialis vel ipsam formam substantialem recipit aut amittit. Et sunt quinque: generatio et corruptio, augmentatio et diminutio (quae ambae respiciunt quantitatem) et alteratio (quae respicit qualitatem et in se comprehendit intensionem, remissionem et alterationem specialiter dictam). In sensu strictiore excluduntur generatio et corruptio. Motum ad situm intellige motum localem sive mutationem secundum locum. Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Motu, et V. Phys. text. 9–17. (c. 1. seq.). — Mox post quodam modo in cod. Y additur quia completio est formae (completior est forma), cum pervenit ad suum locum naturalem.In place of si est, codices A G S T V I aa ff with ed. 1 [read] sed est; codex H [reads] quod si est, the Vatican [edition] si esset, codex X quia, which also straightway omits the next words vacuum ibi. — These [things] and what follows are said more clearly at the end of the solution to the preceding objection. — Concerning motion to situs and motion to form, which are mentioned soon after, cf. here dub. 2. Motions to form in the broader sense are said [to be] those by which a thing is either disposed to the reception or corruption of a substantial form, or receives or loses the substantial form itself. And they are five: generation and corruption, augmentation and diminution (both of which regard quantity), and alteration (which regards quality and contains within itself intension, remission, and alteration in the specialized sense). In the stricter sense, generation and corruption are excluded. By motion to situs understand local motion or change with respect to place. Cf. Aristotle, Categories, chapter de Motu, and V Physics text 9–17 (c. 1 f.). — Soon after quodam modo, in codex Y is added quia completio est formae (completior est forma), cum pervenit ad suum locum naturalem ("since the completion is of the form" / "the form is more complete", "when it has reached its natural place").