← Back to Distinction 13

Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 13

Textus Latinus
p. 314

Quaestio II. Qualiter illa lux fecerit diem et noctem.

Secundo quaeritur, qualiter illa lux faciebat noctem et diem. Et dicit Damascenus1, quod faciebat per emissionem radiorum et contractionem. Ait enim sic: «In primis tribus diebus, effluxo et contracto lumine, Dominico praecepto dies et nox fiebat». Et Basilius in Hexaëmero2: «Tunc autem non solaris corporis motu, sed diffusione principalis luminis, modo se subducentis, modo denuo reducentis, secundum divinam praeceptionem dies fiebat, noxque revertebatur». Beda autem et alii expositores Latini dicunt, quod diem et noctem faciebat sua revolutione; et hoc habitum fuit in auctoritate prius3 posita, quae inducitur in littera: Occidente luce paulatim etc. — Duplex expositio.

Contra primum modum dicendi obiicitur sic.

Fundamenta.

1. Primo Scriptura dicit4: Divisit Deus lucem a tenebris: ergo simul fuerunt lux et tenebrae; sed si lux illa faceret diem et noctem per emissionem et retractionem radiorum, cum non sit simul emissio et retractio, non esset simul tenebrarum et lucis divisio.

2. Item, Scriptura dicit5, quod lux illa faciendo diem faciebat vespere et mane; sed si sola radiorum emissione fieret dies, et sola contractione fieret nox, nunquam esset vespere et mane, sed semper esset clarus dies, vel obscura nox: ergo ille modus dicendi non competit sacrae Scripturae.

3. Item, emittere et contrahere radios sunt operationes oppositae: ergo cum solae potestates rationales sint ad opposita6, videtur, quod lux illa esset rationalis substantia: si ergo hoc est absurdum dicere, videtur etc.

4. Item, quod lux illuminet, iste est actus naturalis et necessarius: si ergo nulla substantia potest se ipsam privare sua necessaria et naturali operatione7, videtur, quod lux, ubi erat, non poterat non illuminare: ergo non poterat radios suos contrahere.

Contra secundum modum obiicitur sic.

1. Ad hoc, quod fiat motus alicuius corporis regularis et uniformis, non solum requiritur virtus motoris, sed etiam congrua dispositio ex parte mobilis et ex parte spatii: ergo si adhuc non erat facta orbium distinctio, videtur, quod nulla fieret huius corporis revolutio8. — Ad oppositum.

2. Item, materia ex omni parte sua erat uniformis: si ergo motus est propter aliquam diversitatem, vel in eo quod movetur, vel in eo circa quod movetur, videtur, quod illa lux non moveretur: ergo non faciebat diem et noctem per suum motum.

3. Item, materia illa ex omni parte erat aeque illuminabilis: ergo si lux illa, ubicumque esset, illuminabat, quocumque moveretur, continue faciebat diem: ergo nunquam faciebat mane et vespere.

p. 315

4. Item, si per suum motum faciebat diem et noctem, cum lux illa ante fuerit producta quam mota, fuit producta ante omnem diem: ergo non fuit opus primae diei. Si tu dicas mihi, quod simul coepit esse et illuminare et moveri; quaero, ubi primo incepit moveri: aut enim ex oriente, aut ex occidente, aut ex aliqua alia parte caeli. Si ex oriente, ergo videtur, quod primo fecerit mane et postea vesperam, et hoc est contra Scripturam9, quae dicit: Factum est vespere et mane. Si ex occidente, ergo videtur, quod lux coeperit in occasu, quod est inconveniens. Si in aliqua parte alia, ut in meridie, tunc videtur, quod dies ille non habuerit viginti quatuor horas, quod est contra expositores10.

Et propter hoc est quaestio, ubi lux illa sit facta, et qualiter diem et noctem faciebat. — Quaestio annexa.

CONCLUSIO.

Lux illa probabilius noctem et diem fecit suo motu, sicut nunc sol sua facit actione.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut praetactum est in principio11, duplex est hic modus dicendi: unus secundum doctores Graecos, videlicet Basilium et Gregorium et Damascenum; alter secundum Latinos.

Opinio Graecorum. Dixerunt enim Basilius et Damascenus, quod illa lux emissione et contractione radiorum diem et noctem faciebat; hoc autem dicebant esse in potestate ipsius lucis, non per virtutem propriam, sed per praeceptionem divinam. Et huius simile legimus in Scriptura, Exodi decimo12: Extendit Moyses manum in caelum, et factae sunt tenebrae horribiles in tota terra Aegypti tribus diebus. Constat enim, quod in illo triduo sol erat in hemisphaerio terrae nostrae habitabilis, et in terram Iessen et in alias habitabiles regiones radios suae lucis emittebat, et a terra Aegypti radios eiusdem lucis contrahebat. Simile etiam forte factum est in passione Domini, ubi sol dicitur obscuratus fuisse13: et hoc totum factum est non natura, sed divino praecepto. Et per hunc modum intellexerunt doctores Graeci fuisse in illo primo triduo; et propterea rationes prius inductae de naturali potestate in nullo eos laedunt. Auctoritates etiam sacrae Scripturae non videntur contraire, quia divisio illa lucis a tenebris non intelligitur quantum ad situm localem, sed quantum ad distinctionem formalem, sicut distinguitur habitus a sua privatione. Et quia ab hoc habitu in privationem et processus erat et regressus; quantum ad regressum in habitum dicitur fecisse mane, quod quidem fiebat radiorum emissione; quantum vero ad progressum in privationem dicitur fecisse vesperam, quod quidem fiebat radiorum contractione.

Opinio Latinorum. Conclusio. Alius14 modus dicendi est secundum Latinos doctores, qui videtur esse rationabilior, quia virtuti naturali possibilior, scilicet quod lux illa noctem et diem faciebat suo motu, sicut sol sua facit actione. Intelligitur enim lux illa facta fuisse, ubi nunc est sol — nam et ex illa formatus creditur esse sol15 — producta autem fuit super eam partem, supra quam est nostrum hemisphaerium, et illud hemisphaerium illuminando fecit diem, et progrediens pervenit ad occasum et fecit vespere, et post demum regrediens ad ortum fecit mane. Unde respectu unius et eiusdem hemisphaerii noctem et diem faciebat successive; respectu vero hemisphaerii nostri et alterius simul faciebat diem ex una parte et noctem ex alia, ex obiectu illius naturae densae16, quae erat in medio illius materiae; quae quamvis non esset adhuc in forma completa, erat tamen in illa parte ita densata, ut posset proiicere umbram, sicut in parte superiori pro sua raritate et quadam subtilitate poterat suscipere17 lucis influentiam. Et ideo utrumque horum insinuans Scriptura dicit: Divisit Deus lucem a tenebris, quantum ad existentiam lucis in uno hemisphaerio et tenebrae in alio; et factum est vespere et mane, quantum ad recessum a nostro hemisphaerio et quantum ad regressum.

Solutio oppositorum.

1. Hunc igitur modum tanquam probabiliorem sustinendo respondendum est ad primum, quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod non erat ibi idoneitas spatii nec corporis, per quod fieret motus alicuius orbis; dicendum, quod sicut sol in claritate illam lucem18 excedit, ita etiam in motus regularitate propter orbium distinctionem et complementum; et sicut lux illa claritatem habebat sufficientem pro illo statu, sic etiam superior pars materiae, quae rarior erat et purior, viam sibi praebebat ad motum habilem, quamvis non esset in tanta perfectione, in quanta nunc est aether.

p. 316

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod materia ex omni parte erat uniformis; dicendum, quod etsi ex omni parte esset influentiam lucis aequaliter nata suscipere, illa tamen lux non poterat undique illuminare, sicut et sol nunc non potest19. Et ideo, cum ex una parte illuminabatur, ex alia parte erat obscura; et quia ad lumen uniformiter erat disposita, cum non posset simul illuminari, oportebat illuminari successive, et ita oportebat, fieri noctem et diem. Si tu quaeris, quare Deus non fecit lucem ita sufficientem, quod undique posset illuminare; dicendum, quod si sic fecisset, per illam lucem esset illuminatio, sed non horarum distinctio nec temporalis successio. Divinae autem dispositioni placuit, mundum quasi carmen pulcherrimum quodam decursu temporum venustare20.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod semper illuminabat, ergo semper diem faciebat; dicendum, quod non sequitur, quia non quaecumque illuminatio dies appellabatur, sed illuminatio, quae est in nostro hemisphaerio; quae magis dies dicebatur quam illuminatio alterius hemisphaerii, non propter id quod tunc erat solum, sed etiam propter id quod futurum erat21.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ante fuit producta quam mota; dicendum, quod in die naturali duo sunt, videlicet claritas aeris sive rei transparentis, et successio temporis. — Ad diem duo requiruntur. Claritatem autem faciebat lux radiorum multiplicatione in parte materiae transparentis; et quia lux simul est et lucet et illuminat, simul coepit isto modo dies cum luce. Successionem autem temporis faciebat vel ipsa mutabilitas, quae erat in materia informi ante productionem lucis, vel etiam ipsa lux mota, quae erat nubes lucida; et ita utroque modo successio temporis vel simul cum luce incipiebat, vel ante; et illa successio ad primum diem spectabat. Et ideo, quocumque modo dicatur dies22, formatio lucis est opus primae diei, non quia prima dies ipsam lucem praecesserit, sed quia simul incepit dies cum luce. Quamvis enim motus sequatur esse secundum naturam, tamen duratione potest simul cum mobili incipere. — Et si tu quaeras, ubi inceperit moveri; dico, quod ubi facta est. Sed de loco, ubi facta est, duae sunt opiniones. — Ad quaest. connexam.

Opinio 1 cum duplici ratione. Quidam enim dicunt, quod lux illa facta est in meridie. Et rationem huius assignant duplicem: unam quia lux illa primo faciebat vespere et postea mane, sicut dicit Scriptura: ergo videtur, quod prius tenderet ad occasum, quam rediret ad ortum. Alia ratio est, quia Dei perfecta sunt opera23, et ideo diem et lucem fecit in sua plenitudine et ita in meridie. Et hoc videtur sentire Beda et alii expositores, qui dicunt, primum diem a plena luce coepisse. Et si tu obiicias, quod tunc a principio diei usque ad mane non sunt viginti quatuor horae; respondent et dicunt, quod sex horae huius diei praecesserant, successione temporis pertranseunte, propter mutabilitatem ipsius materiae, et postmodum sexta hora, quae est in numero perfecto, facta est lux, quae est corpus perfectum in sui natura, in plena et perfecta irradiatione, utpote in meridie. Et cum esset tunc tempus aequinoctiale, usque ad occasum fuerunt sex horae, et postmodum usque ad ortum sequentis diei fuerunt duodecim, et sex praecesserant ante formationem lucis post creationem caeli et terrae, et ita factus est dies naturalis perfectus et integer.

Opinio 2. Alia opinio est, quod non fuerit mora temporis interiecta inter creationem et distinctionem, immo statim post creationem caeli et terrae produxit Dominus lucem, ita quod posterius natura, sed simul duratione. Et isti dicunt, quod lux illa coepit in oriente et sua revolutione perfecta, tendendo ab eodem puncto in idem, fecit diem naturalem. Et hoc videtur Hugo in libro de Sacramentis24 sentire. Ait enim, quod «non fuit mora interiecta inter creationem et distinctionis inchoationem, quae incepit in lucis formatione»; et istud videtur satis probabile, ut ibi coeperit lux illa in die primo, ubi conditus est sol in die quarto. Creditur25 enim sol quarto die conditus fuisse in oriente, non in meridie, et luna in occidente. Et si tu obiicias, quod prius deberet dicere: factum est mane et vespere; dicendum est, quod sicut dicit Magister in littera26, mane dicit finem praecedentis noctis, et ex hoc dicit quandam obscuritatem propter hoc, quod non tantum dicit diei initium, immo dicit noctis consummationem. Et quia in prima lucis formatione non praecesserat nox, sed statim lux incepit secundum suam totam potestatem illuminare; ideo dicitur dies illa coepisse a plena luce; adeo enim lucebat ibi ubi coepit, sicut si esset in meridie. Ideo non dicitur fecisse mane, quia non praecesserat dies27, sed prius vespere, quod est finis diei, et postmodum mane, quod est finis noctis, quia prius fecit diem, et postmodum fecit noctem.

Iudicium huic. — Et tam hic modus dicendi quam praecedens satis est probabilis, nec facile discernitur, quis eorum plus habeat veritatis; et ideo, quocumque istorum modorum dicatur, non est facienda magna vis28.

---

English Translation
p. 314

Question II. In what manner that light made day and night.

Secondly it is asked, in what manner that light made night and day. And the Damascene1 says that it made [them] by emission and contraction of rays. For he speaks thus: «In the first three days, with the light flowing out and being drawn back, by the Lord's command day and night came to be». And Basil in the Hexaëmeron2: «Then indeed not by the motion of the solar body, but by the diffusion of the principal light — now withdrawing itself, now again drawing back — according to the divine command, day was made and night returned». Bede, however, and the other Latin expositors say that it made day and night by its [own] revolution; and this was held in the authority earlier3 cited, which is brought forward in the [Master's] text: With the light setting little by little, etc. — Twofold exposition.

Against the first mode of speaking it is objected as follows.

Foundations.

1. First, Scripture says4: God divided the light from the darkness: therefore light and darkness existed simultaneously; but if that light made day and night by emission and retraction of rays, since emission and retraction are not simultaneous, the division of darkness and light would not be simultaneous.

2. Likewise, Scripture says5 that that light, in making day, made evening and morning; but if day came to be by emission of rays alone, and night by contraction alone, there would never be evening and morning, but always a clear day, or a dark night: therefore that mode of speaking does not square with sacred Scripture.

3. Likewise, to emit and to draw back rays are opposed operations: therefore, since only rational powers are [ordered] to opposites6, it seems that that light would be a rational substance: if then this is absurd to say, etc.

4. Likewise, that light illumines, this is a natural and necessary act: if therefore no substance can deprive itself of its necessary and natural operation7, it seems that the light, where it was, could not but illumine: therefore it could not draw back its rays.

Against the second mode it is objected as follows.

1. For the motion of any body to be regular and uniform, there is required not only the power of the mover, but also a fitting disposition on the part of the movable and on the part of the space: therefore, if the distinction of the orbs was not yet made, it seems that no revolution of this body could come about8. — Against the opposite.

2. Likewise, the matter was uniform on every side of it: if therefore motion is on account of some diversity, either in that which is moved, or in that around which it is moved, it seems that that light was not moved: therefore it did not make day and night by its motion.

3. Likewise, that matter was equally illuminable on every side: therefore if that light, wherever it was, illumined, then wherever it moved, it was continuously making day: therefore it never made morning and evening.

p. 315

4. Likewise, if it made day and night by its motion, since that light was produced before it was moved, it was produced before any day: therefore it was not the work of the first day. If you say to me that it began at once to be and to illumine and to be moved; I ask, where it first began to be moved: either from the east, or from the west, or from some other part of the heaven. If from the east, then it seems that it first made morning and afterwards evening, and this is contrary to Scripture9, which says: Evening was made and morning. If from the west, then it seems that the light began in the place of setting, which is incongruous. If in some other part, as at midday, then it seems that that day did not have twenty-four hours, which is contrary to the expositors10.

And on account of this there is a question, where that light was made, and in what manner it made day and night. — Annexed question.

CONCLUSION.

That light more probably made night and day by its motion, just as now the sun does by its [own] action.

I respond: It must be said that, as was touched on at the outset11, there is a twofold mode of speaking here: one according to the Greek doctors, namely Basil and Gregory and Damascene; the other according to the Latins.

Opinion of the Greeks. For Basil and Damascene said that that light made day and night by emission and contraction of rays; and this they said was in the power of the light itself — not by its own power, but by the divine command. And we read of something like this in Scripture, Exodus 1012: Moses stretched out his hand to heaven, and there were horrible darknesses in all the land of Egypt for three days. For it is clear that in that three-day period the sun was in the hemisphere of our habitable earth, and was emitting the rays of its light into the land of Goshen and into other habitable regions, and was drawing back the rays of the same light from the land of Egypt. Something similar perhaps occurred at the Lord's passion, where the sun is said to have been darkened13: and this whole was done not by nature, but by divine command. And in this manner the Greek doctors understood [the light] to have been in that first three-day period; and on this account the reasons earlier adduced from natural power in no way harm them. The authorities of sacred Scripture also do not seem to be against [them], because that division of light from darkness is not understood as regards local position, but as regards formal distinction, just as a habit is distinguished from its privation. And because from this habit into privation there was both a progress and a regress; as regards the regress into habit, it is said to have made morning, and this indeed came about by emission of rays; but as regards the progress into privation, it is said to have made evening, and this indeed came about by contraction of rays.

Opinion of the Latins. Conclusion. Another14 mode of speaking is that of the Latin doctors, which seems to be more reasonable, because more possible to natural power — namely that that light made night and day by its [own] motion, just as the sun does by its [own] action. For that light is understood to have been made where the sun now is — for from it the sun is believed to have been formed15 — and it was produced over that part above which is our hemisphere, and by illuminating that hemisphere it made day, and going forward it reached the setting and made evening, and finally going back to the rising it made morning. Hence with respect to one and the same hemisphere it made night and day in succession; but with respect to our hemisphere and the other [hemisphere] it made day on one side and night on the other at the same time — by the obstruction of that dense nature16 which was in the middle of that matter, which, although it was not yet in [its] complete form, was nevertheless so densified in that part that it could project a shadow, just as in the upper part, on account of its rarity and a certain subtlety, it could receive17 the influx of light. And so, intimating both of these, Scripture says: God divided the light from the darkness, as regards the existence of light in one hemisphere and darkness in the other; and evening was made and morning, as regards the withdrawal from our hemisphere and the return.

Solution of the opposing [arguments].

1. Maintaining, then, this mode as the more probable, it must be answered to the first [argument] that is objected to the contrary — that there was not there a fitness of space nor of body, through which the motion of any orb could come about — it must be said that just as the sun exceeds that light18 in clarity, so also in regularity of motion on account of the distinction and completion of the orbs; and just as that light had a clarity sufficient for that state, so also the upper part of the matter, which was rarer and purer, was furnishing itself a way to suitable motion, although it was not in such perfection in which the aether now is.

p. 316

2. To that which is objected, that matter was uniform on every side, it must be said that, even though on every side it was equally born to receive the influx of light, nevertheless that light could not illumine on every side, just as the sun even now cannot19. And on this account, when it was illuminated on one side, on the other side it was dark; and because it was uniformly disposed to the light, since it could not be illuminated all at once, it had to be illuminated in succession, and thus it had to be that night and day came to be. If you ask, why God did not make the light so sufficient that it could illumine on every side; it must be said that, if He had done so, by that light there would be illumination, but not a distinction of hours nor a temporal succession. To the divine disposition, however, it pleased to adorn the world as a most beautiful song by a certain procession of times20.

3. To that which is objected, that it was always illuminating, therefore was always making day, it must be said that this does not follow, because not every illumination was called day, but the illumination which is in our hemisphere; which was more called day than the illumination of the other hemisphere — not on account of what then was alone, but also on account of what was to come21.

4. To that which is objected, that it was produced before it was moved, it must be said that in a natural day there are two [things], namely the clarity of the air or of the transparent thing, and the succession of time. — Two things are required for a day. The clarity, indeed, the light produced by the multiplication of rays in the part of the transparent matter; and because light at the same time both shines and illumines, in this manner day began at the same time as the light. The succession of time, however, was produced either by the mutability itself which was in the unformed matter before the production of light, or also by the moved light itself, which was a luminous cloud; and so in either mode the succession of time began either at the same time as the light, or before; and that succession pertained to the first day. And on this account, in whatever manner day22 is spoken of, the formation of light is the work of the first day — not because the first day preceded the light itself, but because day began at the same time as the light. For although motion follows being according to nature, nevertheless in duration it can begin at the same time as the movable [thing]. — And if you ask, where it began to be moved; I say, where it was made. But about the place where it was made, there are two opinions. — To the annexed question.

Opinion 1, with a twofold reason. For some say that that light was made at midday. And they assign a twofold reason for this: one, because that light first made evening and afterwards morning, as Scripture says: therefore it seems that it first tended toward setting before it returned to rising. The other reason is that God's works are perfect23, and therefore He made day and light in its plenitude, and so at midday. And this Bede and the other expositors seem to hold, who say that the first day began from a full light. And if you object that then, from the beginning of day up to morning, there are not twenty-four hours; they respond and say that six hours of this day had already preceded, with the succession of time passing, on account of the mutability of the matter itself, and afterwards in the sixth hour, which is in the perfect number, the light was made — which is a perfect body in its [own] nature — in full and perfect irradiation, as at midday. And since it was then the equinoctial time, until setting there were six hours, and afterwards until the rising of the following day there were twelve, and six had preceded before the formation of light after the creation of heaven and earth, and so the natural day was made perfect and entire.

Opinion 2. Another opinion is that there was no delay of time interposed between the creation and the distinction; rather, immediately after the creation of heaven and earth the Lord produced the light, such that it was posterior in nature but simultaneous in duration. And these say that that light began in the east, and by its completed revolution — tending from the same point to the same — it made the natural day. And Hugh in his book On the Sacraments24 seems to hold this. For he says that «there was no delay interposed between the creation and the beginning of distinction, which began in the formation of light»; and this seems sufficiently probable — that that light began on the first day there where the sun was established on the fourth day. For the sun is believed25 to have been established on the fourth day in the east, not at midday, and the moon in the west. And if you object that he should rather say: morning and evening was made; it must be said that, as the Master says in the [Lombard's] text26, morning means the end of the preceding night, and from this it means a certain darkness — on this account that it does not only mean the beginning of day, but rather means the consummation of night. And because in the first formation of light night had not preceded, but the light began at once to illumine according to its whole power; on this account that day is said to have begun from a full light — for there it shone where it began, just as if it were at midday. Therefore it is not said to have made morning, because day had not preceded27, but first evening, which is the end of day, and afterwards morning, which is the end of night, because it first made day, and afterwards made night.

Judgment on this. — And both this mode of speaking and the preceding is sufficiently probable, nor is it easily discerned which of them holds more truth; and therefore, in whatever mode of these [two] it is said, no great force is to be brought to bear28.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 7, in quo textu seculi cod. P substituimus effluxo pro refluxo; in graeco ἀναχεομένου, quod in recentiore versione redditur sese diffundente.
    [John Damascene,] On the Orthodox Faith II, c. 7, in which text, following codex P, we have substituted effluxo for refluxo; in Greek ἀναχεομένου, which in the more recent version is rendered sese diffundente (diffusing itself).
  2. Homil. 2. n. 8. secundum recentiorem versionem: Tunc autem non secundum motum solarem, sed primigenia illa luce effusa et rursus contracta, secundum praefinitam a Deo mensuram, fiebat dies, et nox succedebat.
    [Basil,] Homily 2, n. 8, according to the more recent version: Then indeed not according to solar motion, but with that primordial light poured out and again drawn back according to the measure prefixed by God, day was made and night succeeded.
  3. Hic c. 5. et in quaest. praeced. fundam. 2. Cfr. Ambros., I. Hexaëm. c. 10. n. 37; August., I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 10. n. 21. seqq., c. 16. n. 31, et IV. c. 21. n. 38. seq., ubi duplicis huius opinionis mentionem facit. Verba etiam Haymonis vide supra pag. 66, nota 8.
    Here [in Lombard's text] c. 5 and in the preceding question, fundamentum 2. Cf. Ambrose, Hexaëmeron I, c. 10, n. 37; Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter I, c. 10, n. 21 and following, c. 16, n. 31, and IV, c. 21, n. 38 and following, where he makes mention of this twofold opinion. See also the words of Haymo above, p. 66, note 8.
  4. Gen. 1, 4.
    Gen. 1, 4.
  5. Gen. 1, 5.
    Gen. 1, 5.
  6. Aristot., IX. Metaph. text. 3. et 10. (VIII. c. 2. et 5.).
    Aristotle, Metaphysics IX, text 3 and 10 (VIII, c. 2 and 5).
  7. Aristot., II. Magn. Moral. c. 7. (c. 6.): Natura a nemine extrudi potest. Cfr. August., I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 16. n. 31, ubi ait, quod nullum occurrit exemplum, quo istam emissionem contractionemque lucis probare possimus.
    Aristotle, Magna Moralia II, c. 7 (c. 6): Nature can be driven out by no one. Cf. Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter I, c. 16, n. 31, where he says that no example occurs by which we could prove that emission and contraction of light.
  8. Cfr. August., I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 12. n. 24.
    Cf. Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter I, c. 12, n. 24.
  9. Gen. 1, 5.
    Gen. 1, 5.
  10. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.
    Cf. here the Master's [Lombard's] text, c. 4.
  11. Huius quaestionis, ubi etiam verba Basilii et Damasceni sunt allata. De Gregorii Naz. sententia cfr. Comment. Eliae Cretensis n. 35. in eius Oratio 4. adversus Iulianum. — Plures codd. omittunt et Gregorium, dum econtra ed. 1 paulo inferius post Basilius addit et Gregorius.
    Of this very question, where also the words of Basil and Damascene were adduced. On the opinion of Gregory of Nazianzus, cf. the commentary of Elias of Crete, n. 35, on his Oration 4, Against Julian. — Many codices omit et Gregorium, while on the contrary edition 1 a little later, after Basilius, adds et Gregorius.
  12. Vers. 22. — Paulo inferius plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 perperam omittunt terrae. Ed. 1 dein habitationis pro habitabilis.
    [Exodus 10,] verse 22. — A little later, very many codices with edition 1 wrongly omit terrae. Edition 1 then [reads] habitationis for habitabilis.
  13. Luc. 23, 45: Et obscuratus est sol. — Non pauci codd. cum edd. 1, 2 paulo inferius postea pro propterea, et dein plures codd. modo singulari Auctoritas etiam sacrae Scripturae non videtur contraire [cod. bb contrariare].
    Luke 23, 45: And the sun was darkened. — Not a few codices with editions 1, 2 a little later [read] postea for propterea, and then several codices in the singular [read] Auctoritas etiam sacrae Scripturae non videtur contraire [cod. bb contrariare].
  14. Cod. I Sed quoniam, ut dicit Augustinus (II. de Gen. ad lit. c. I. n. 2.), in operibus creationis non est quaerendum miraculum, ideo alius modus etc. Mox nonnulli codd. proximior pro possibilior, et dein non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 atione pro actione, quae lectio fortasse respicit definitionem (Aristot. VI. Topic. c. 3.): Dies est solis latio super terram.
    Codex I [reads]: But since, as Augustine says (II On Genesis according to the Letter, c. I, n. 2), in the works of creation a miracle is not to be sought, therefore another mode etc. Soon after, some codices [read] proximior for possibilior, and then not a few codices with edition 1 [read] atione for actione — which reading perhaps regards the definition (Aristotle, Topics VI, c. 3): A day is the carrying of the sun above the earth.
  15. Cfr. infra dub. 2. et hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. et 5.
    Cf. below, dubium 2, and here the Master's text, c. 3 and 5.
  16. Ex cod. cc et ed. 1 supplevimus ex alia, scil. parte.
    From codex cc and edition 1 we have supplied ex alia, namely parte (from the other part).
  17. In cod. T additur quandam.
    In codex T quandam is added.
  18. Plures codd. nubem. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. et in Comment. hic q. 1. ad 3. et hic ad 4, ubi lux illa ex Augustino vocatur nubes lucida.
    Several codices [read] nubem (the cloud). Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2, and in the Commentary, here q. 1 ad 3 and here ad 4, where that light from Augustine is called a luminous cloud.
  19. Codd. inter se sunt divisi; una pars eorum cum Vat. omittit nunc, altera vero pars cum ed. 1 omittit non; cod. bb (a secunda manu) exhibet lectionem nostram.
    The codices are divided among themselves: one part of them with the Vatican [edition] omits nunc, the other part with edition 1 omits non; cod. bb (in a second hand) exhibits our reading.
  20. Cfr. de hoc tom. 1. pag. 786, nota 7. et pag. 832, nota 4. — Paulo superius post illam lucem cod. O addit tantum.
    Cf. on this volume 1, p. 786, note 7, and p. 832, note 4. — A little above, after illam lucem codex O adds tantum.
  21. Vide August., de Gen. ad lit. (imperf. liber) c. 6. n. 26. et 1. de Gen. ad lit. c. 12. n. 24.
    See Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter (unfinished book) c. 6, n. 26, and On Genesis according to the Letter I, c. 12, n. 24.
  22. Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4. triplex modus, quo accipitur dies, recensetur.
    Here in the Master's text, c. 4, the threefold mode by which day is taken is enumerated.
  23. Deut. 32, 4. — Verba Bedae vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4, ubi etiam sequens obiectio tangitur. — Paulo inferius Vat. perperam a prima luce pro a plena luce.
    Deut. 32, 4. — See Bede's words here in the Master's text, c. 4, where also the following objection is touched on. — A little later, the Vatican [edition] wrongly [reads] a prima luce (from a first light) for a plena luce (from a full light).
  24. Libr. I. p. I. c. 6.
    [Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments,] book I, p. I, c. 6.
  25. Plures codd. cum ed. 1 Tenditur.
    Several codices with edition 1 [read] Tenditur (it is held).
  26. Hic c. 4.
    Here [in the Master's text,] c. 4.
  27. Vat. nox, sed contra codd. et primas edd., nec non contra Magistrum, qui, hic c. 4, ait: Mane ergo primus dies non habuit, quia nec dies praecesserat, qui sequentis diei initio terminaretur.
    The Vatican [edition reads] nox, but against the codices and the first editions, and also against the Master, who, here c. 4, says: Therefore the first day did not have a morning, because no day had preceded that would be brought to its term by the beginning of the following day.
  28. Vide scholion praecedentis quaest.
    See the scholion of the preceding question.
← Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 13, Art. 2, Q. 1→