Dist. 12, Art. 2, Q. 3
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 12
Quaestio III. Quam relationem materia illa informis habuerit ad locum.
Tertio quaeritur de illa informi materia quantum ad locum, et est quaestio, utrum habuerit illa materia situm. Et quod illa materia corporalium habuerit situm, videtur.
Fundamenta.
1. Hugo de sancto Victore1: «Erat terrenum hoc elementum medio uno loco subsidens, ceteris in una confusione permixtis et circumquaque in modum nebulae oppansis»; sed hoc non potuit esse absque situ corporali: ergo etc.
2. Item, quod repleverit locum, videtur, quia caelum empyreum, sicut dicit Beda2, cum ipsa materia corporalium fuit creatum; sed constans est, quod empyreum intra concavitatem suam natura est omnia corpora alia continere: ergo vel erat vacuum, vel ab illa mole corporea replebatur. Sed natura non sustinet vacuum: ergo videtur, quod moles illa repleret locum.
3. Item, videtur, quod haberet sursum et deorsum, «quia summitas eius, sicut dicit Hugo3, porrigebatur, quousque nunc summum creaturae corporeae pertingit»: ergo erat ibi circumferentia et centrum.
4. Item, «materia illa, sicut Magister dicit in littera4, in partibus superioribus erat rarior, levior et subtilior, in inferiori parte spissior et grossior»: ergo erat ibi gravitas et levitas; sed secundum has proprietates corpora habent locari sursum et deorsum: ergo redit idem quod prius.
Ad oppositum.
1. Nihil per se est in loco, nisi quod est hic et nunc; et nihil est hic et nunc, nisi quod est hoc aliquid; et nihil est hoc aliquid, nisi quod est individuum; et omne tale est ens completum5: ergo a primo, nihil est in loco, nisi quod est ens completum. Sed materia illa non erat ens completum: ergo in loco non habebat situm.
2. Item, quod non repleret locum, videtur, quia nihil inane et vacuum replet locum; sed materia illa erat inanis et vacua, sicut dicitur in principio Genesis: ergo locum non replebat.
3. Item, quod non haberet differentias positionis secundum sursum et deorsum, videtur, quia istae sunt positiones, secundum quas distinguuntur et ordinantur diversa corpora mundi in universo; sed tunc non erat ibi distinctio nec ordo: ergo nec erat ibi huiusmodi diversa positio.
4. Item, gravitas et levitas sunt proprietates consequentes formas elementares; sed in materia illa nondum erant formae elementares: ergo nec erat ibi grave nec leve, ergo nec sursum nec deorsum, cum hae positionis differentiae attendantur secundum illas proprietates.
Conclusio.
Materia illa informis erat in loco, locum replebat et imperfecte positionem habebat secundum sursum et deorsum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod cum materia illa esset moles, habens extensionem, et caelum empyreum haberet ambiens, Conclusio 1. quod ipsa in loco erat, et cum esset substantia corpulenta, locum replebat. Rursus, cum in partibus distinctionem quandam haberet secundum subtilitatem et grossitiem, sed semiplenam, Conclusio 2. positiones secundum sursum et deorsum quodam modo, sed imperfecte habebat. — Et ideo concedendae sunt rationes, quae ad istam partem adductae sunt.
Solutio oppositorum. 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod nihil est in loco nisi ens completum; dicendum, quod hoc est falsum, si intelligatur de completione perfecta: embryo enim in loco est, quamvis sit aliquid incompletum. Nec valet illa deductio; peccat enim in hoc quod dicit, quod omne quod est hoc aliquid, est completum. Hoc enim falsum est, nam ipsum individuum et forma individualis habet esse completum et minus completum6.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non replebat locum, quia erat inanis et vacua; dicendum, quod vacuitas loci et vacuitas materiae est aequivoce dicta. Vacuitas enim loci est per privationem corporis contenti, sed vacuitas materiae est per privationem formae et complementi. — Notandum. Attendendum tamen, quod sicut locus dupliciter dicitur vacuus: aut proprie, ut per privationem omnis corporis, aut large secundum vulgarem modum7 per privationem corporis solidi et sensibilis, sicut dicitur arca vacua propter absentiam panis, et dolium vacuum propter absentiam vini; sic etiam intelligendum est in vacuitate materiae, quod dicitur dupliciter vacua: aut quia non habet aliquam formam, et sic nunquam fuit vacua; aut quia non habet formam omnimode perfectam, et sic quamvis esset vacua, tamen locum poterat replere, quia erat extensa et corporea8.
3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non habebat sursum et deorsum, quia carebat ordine et distinctione et elementari proprietate; ad illas duas rationes simul dicendum est, quod sicut illa tria proposita non habebat nisi imperfecte et semiplene ratione cuiusdam inclinationis et longinquae dispositionis, sic etiam sursum et deorsum non habebat proprie, habebat tamen quodammodo, scilicet incomplete et propter quasdam dispositiones, quas habebat ad grave et leve. Dicit Magister, leviorem fuisse in superiori parte, et graviorem in inferiori, non quod istas proprietates complete participaret, sed in quadam longinqua et praeambula dispositione, sicut supra9 ostensum est ex parte.
I. Sequentem 3. quaestionem ex Hugone a S. Victore accepit Magister (hic c. 5.). De ea explicite tractant Alex. Hal., loc. cit. in fine, et Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 5.
---
Question III. What relation that unformed matter had to place.
Thirdly, the question is asked concerning that unformed matter as regards place, and the question is whether that matter had a situation. And that the matter of corporeal things had a situation, appears [as follows]:
Foundations.
1. Hugh of Saint Victor1: «That earthen element was settling in one middle place, while the others were mingled together in a single confusion and spread round about in the manner of a mist»; but this could not have been without a corporeal situation: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, that it filled a place appears [as follows]: because the empyrean heaven, as Bede says2, was created together with the matter of corporeal things itself; but it is settled that the empyrean is, by nature, that which contains all other bodies within its concavity: therefore either it was empty, or it was filled by that corporeal mass. But nature does not allow a vacuum: therefore it appears that that mass filled the place.
3. Likewise, it appears that [the matter] had up and down, «because its summit, as Hugh says3, stretched out to where the summit of corporeal creation now reaches»: therefore there was there a circumference and a centre.
4. Likewise, «that matter, as the Master says in the text4, was in its upper parts rarer, lighter and more subtle, in its lower part denser and grosser»: therefore there was there gravity and lightness; but according to these properties bodies are located up and down: therefore the same conclusion returns as before.
For the opposite.
1. Nothing is per se in a place except that which is here and now; and nothing is here and now except that which is this something; and nothing is this something except that which is individual; and every such thing is a complete being5: therefore from the first [premise], nothing is in a place except that which is a complete being. But that matter was not a complete being: therefore in place it did not have a situation.
2. Likewise, that it did not fill a place appears [as follows]: because nothing empty and void fills a place; but that matter was empty and void, as is said at the beginning of Genesis: therefore it did not fill a place.
3. Likewise, that it did not have differences of position according to up and down appears [as follows]: because these are positions according to which the diverse bodies of the world are distinguished and ordered in the universe; but at that time there was there neither distinction nor order: therefore neither was there at that time such a diverse position.
4. Likewise, gravity and lightness are properties consequent upon the elementary forms; but in that matter there were not yet the elementary forms: therefore there was there neither heavy nor light, therefore neither up nor down, since these differences of position are reckoned according to those properties.
Conclusion.
That unformed matter was in a place, was filling a place, and imperfectly had position according to up and down.
I respond: It must be said that since that matter was a mass, having extension, and the empyrean heaven had [it as] something it encompassed, Conclusion 1. it itself was in a place, and since it was a corpulent substance, it was filling the place. Again, since in its parts it had a certain distinction according to subtlety and grossness, but a half-full one, Conclusion 2. it had the positions according to up and down in a certain way, but imperfectly. — And therefore the reasons which have been adduced for this side are to be conceded.
Solution of the opposing arguments. 1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that nothing is in a place save a complete being: it must be said that this is false, if it is understood of perfect completion: for an embryo is in a place, although it is something incomplete. Nor does that deduction hold; for it errs in this, that it says that everything which is this something is complete. For this is false, since the individual itself and the individual form have being [that is] complete and less complete6.
2. To that which is objected, that it did not fill a place, because it was empty and void: it must be said that the emptiness of a place and the emptiness of matter is said equivocally. For the emptiness of a place is by privation of a contained body, but the emptiness of matter is by privation of form and of completion. — Note. It is to be observed, however, that just as place is said to be empty in two ways — either properly, namely by privation of every body, or broadly according to the common manner7 by privation of a solid and sensible body, as a chest is said to be empty on account of the absence of bread, and a cask empty on account of the absence of wine — so also is it to be understood in the emptiness of matter, [which] is said to be empty in two ways: either because it does not have any form, and so it never was empty; or because it does not have a form altogether perfect, and so although it was empty, yet it could fill a place, because it was extended and corporeal8.
3. 4. To that which is objected, that it did not have up and down, because it lacked order and distinction and elementary property: to those two arguments together it must be said that just as it had those three proposed [features] only imperfectly and half-fully by reason of a certain inclination and a far-off disposition, so also up and down it did not have properly, yet it had [them] in some way, namely incompletely and on account of certain dispositions which it had toward the heavy and the light. The Master says that it was lighter in the upper part, and heavier in the lower, not that it participated those properties completely, but in a certain far-off and preambular disposition, as has been shown above9 in part.
I. The Master took the following 3rd question from Hugh of Saint Victor (here, c. 5). On it Alexander of Hales (at the place cited, at the end) and Peter of Tarantasia (here, the single question, a. 5) treat expressly.
---
- Libr. I. de Sacram. p. I. c. 6. — Paulo superius plures codd. cuiusmodi pro utrum, et dein codd. A ee corporalem pro corporalium.[Hugh of St. Victor,] On the Sacraments, book I, p. I, c. 6. — A little above, several codices [read] cuiusmodi for utrum, and then codices A and ee [read] corporalem for corporalium.
- Cfr. supra pag. 55, nota 8. et pag. 68, nota 1. — Quod vacuum non detur, ostendit Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 67. seqq. (c. 8. seq.).Cf. above p. 55, note 8, and p. 68, note 1. — That a vacuum is not given, Aristotle shows in Physics IV, text 67 and following (c. 8 and following).
- Libr. I. de Sacram. p. I. c. 6.[Hugh of St. Victor,] On the Sacraments, book I, p. I, c. 6.
- Hic c. 5.[Lombard, Sentences II, d. 12,] here, c. 5.
- De his cfr. supra pag. 77, nota 2; pag. 79, nota 1; pag. 90, nota 1; pag. 109, nota 7. et Avicenna, II. Metaph. c. 3. — Cod. cc et ed. 1 bis pro hic et nunc substituunt hoc unum. Mox post a primo Vat. addit ad ultimum; sed in pluribus codd. et ed. 1 desideratur tota propositio usque ad Sed materia.On these [matters] cf. above p. 77, note 2; p. 79, note 1; p. 90, note 1; p. 109, note 7; and Avicenna, Metaphysics II, c. 3. — Codex cc and edition 1 twice substitute hoc unum for hic et nunc. Just after a primo the Vatican [edition] adds ad ultimum; but in several codices and in edition 1 the whole proposition down to Sed materia is lacking.
- Vide supra a. 1. q. 3. in corp.See above, article 1, q. 3, in the body [of the response].
- In Vat. omittuntur verba per privationem usque ad modum. — Paulo superius plures codd. est vacuus pro dicitur vacuus.In the Vatican [edition] the words per privationem down to modum are omitted. — A little above, several codices [read] est vacuus for dicitur vacuus.
- Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. seqq.Cf. above article 1, q. 1 and following.
- Art. 1. q. 3. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.[Above,] article 1, q. 3. — See the scholion to the preceding question.