Dist. 13, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 13
## ARTICULUS II.
De ipsius lucis essentia et natura in se.
Consequenter quaeritur de essentia et quidditate lucis corporalis in se. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum lux sit corpus, vel forma corporis. Secundo quaeritur, utrum sit forma substantialis, vel accidentalis.
Quaestio I. Utrum lux sit corpus, vel forma corporis.
Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod lux sit corpus.
Ad oppositum.
1. Augustinus in libro de Libero Arbitrio tertio1: «In corporibus lux primum locum tenet».
2. Item, Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram, libro septimo2: «Anima omnem corpoream naturam dignitate naturae praecellit; per lucem tamen et aërem, quae in mundo praecellentia sunt corpora, corpus administrat».
3. Item, Augustinus in epistola ad Volusianum tertia3: «Hominum, inquit, iste sensus est nihil nisi corpora valentium cogitare, sive ista grossiora, scilicet humor aut humus, sive subtiliora, sicut aër et lux; sed tamen corpora».
4. Item, hoc videtur ratione. In spiritualibus est reperire spiritum, qui est pure lux4: ergo similiter in corporalibus videtur, quod sit reperire corpus, quod sit pura lux: ergo videtur, quod id quod est luminosum in corporibus, sit lux pura. Sed illud est corpus, cum habeat extensionem, sicut patet in sole: ergo videtur, quod lux sit corpus.
5. Item, lux in sole est in plena actualitate et potestate multiplicandi se, ergo non videtur, quod sit permixta possibilitati materiae; constat autem, solem esse corpus: ergo videtur, quod pura lux sit corpus.
6. Item, nihil movetur localiter motu dimensivo et successivo nisi corpus5; sed lux illa, quae primo creata fuit, suo motu faciebat diem et noctem: ergo erat corpus.
Ad oppositum:
Fundamenta.
1. Damascenus6: «Lumen est qualitas naturalis ipsius ignis»; sed nulla qualitas est corpus: ergo lux non est corpus, sed qualitas corporis.
2. Item, dicit Philosophus7, quod forma est principium agendi, ergo quod maxime est principium agendi, illud maxime est forma: sed lux inter cetera corporalia est maxime activa: ergo videtur, quod sit pure forma. Sed nullum corpus est pure forma, cum omne corpus sit compositum: ergo lux non est corpus.
3. Item, Augustinus duodecimo super Genesim ad litteram8: «Lux est subtilissimum in corpore, et ob hoc animae vicinissimum»; sed quod est vicinissimum nobilissimae formae, illud maxime participat rationem formae: ergo videtur, quod ipsa lux sit pure forma.
4. Item, nulli corpori opponitur aliquid privative, secundum quod corpus est; sed luci, secundum quod lux est, opponitur tenebra privative9: ergo lux non est corpus.
CONCLUSIO.
Lux proprie et in abstractione dicta non est corpus, sed forma corporis luminosi.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quidam, non attendentes nec interius considerantes verba Augustini, dixerunt, lucem esse corpus, pro eo quod posuerunt, aliquod corpus esse pure lucem, ita quod in eo nihil esset admixtum de tenebrositate materiae, sicut est corpus solare, a quo cetera corpora mundi recipiunt illuminationem. — Opinio 1. Sed cum supra10 probatum sit, quod nulla substantia per se existens, sive corporalis sive spiritualis, est pure forma nisi solus Deus; satis planum est, quod nullum corpus potest esse pure forma. Cum etiam nullum corpus
careat extensione, et omnis extensio fundetur super materiam corporalem, nullum corpus potest esse sine materia: et ita11, nullum corpus potest esse pure forma. Si ergo lux formam dicit, non potest esse lux ipsum corpus, sed aliquid corporis. Si enim lux esset ipsum corpus, cum lucis sit ex se ipsa se ipsam multiplicare, aliquod corpus posset se ipsum multiplicare ex se sine appositione materiae aliunde; quod est impossibile alicui creaturae, cum materia non habeat educi nisi per creationem12.
Opinio 2 cum distinctione. Et ideo aliter dicendum est, quod sicut humor et calor dupliciter accipiuntur: aliquando enim dicunt proprietates sive qualitates corporeae substantiae, sicut dicuntur humor aquae et calor ipsius ignis; aliquando nominant ipsam substantiam sub tali forma, sicut dicit Augustinus13, quod humor et humus sunt elementa, et philosophi dicunt, quod calor est substantia quaedam subtilis. Sic intelligendum est a parte lucis, quod lux potest dici in abstractione, et sic nominat formam corporis luminosi, per quam corpus illud habet lucere et agere; et sic dicit Damascenus, quod lux est qualitas ignis. — Conclusio 1. Aliquando nominat in concretione ipsam, scilicet substantiam luminosam; et sic accipitur in illa divisione, scilicet quod tres sunt species ignis, scilicet carbo, flamma et lux14. — Conclusio 2. Et per hunc modum loquitur Augustinus, quando dicit, quod «lux tenet primum locum in corporibus», et quod «lux et aër sunt corpora subtiliora». Vocat enim ibi lucem quod nos vocamus ignem, sicut ex verbis ipsius Augustini colligitur expresse.
Et per hoc patent obiecta ad utramque partem. — Ad fundam. Nam auctoritates et rationes, quae dicunt et probant, lucem non esse corpus, sed qualitatem, accipiunt lucem in abstractione, sicut patet.
Solutio oppositorum.
1. 2. 3. Auctoritates vero, quae ad oppositum inducuntur, loquuntur de luce, prout accipitur concretive. — Rationes vero, quae probant, quod aliquod corpus sit pure lux, non sunt cogentes.
4. Notandum. Ad illud enim quod obiicitur de similitudine spiritualium et corporalium, non est simile, quia lux spiritualis est communis Creatori et creaturae secundum analogiam. Et quia Creator pure actus est, ideo potest reperiri in spiritualibus lux in omnimoda actualitate, ita quod nihil habeat de possibilitate materiae nec de tenebrositate ignorantiae. Corporalis vero lux non reperitur nisi in creatura, quae ad hoc, ut per se existat, indiget sustentante materia15; et ideo non potest inveniri lux pura per omnimodam exclusionem possibilitatis materiae, potest tamen reperiri pura lux per exclusionem opacitatis et tenebrae; et sic est in sole.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si lux solis esset permixta materiae, non posset se multiplicare perfecte; dicendum, quod praesentia16 materiae non tollit actualitatem formae, maxime quando corpus multum habet de specie et parum de materia; et quia in sole est abundantia lucis, quamvis sit ibi materia, non impeditur ab actione sua. Ea autem quae dicuntur habere lucem incorporatam, non habent perfectam potestatem multiplicandi se, non quia lux sit solum ibi in materia, sed quia corpora illa multum habent de materia et parum de specie.
6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lux primo creata mota fuit dimensive et successive; dicendum, quod lux ibi vocatur nubecula lucida17, quae vere corpus erat; et illa non fuit creata, pro eo quod fuit ex praeexistenti materia forma lucis sibi divinitus impressa vel educta. Sic igitur ex praedictis patet, quod lux, proprie et abstracte loquendo, non est corpus, sed forma corporis.
I. Secundum principia scientiae naturalis illa aetate vigentis S. Doctor copiose disputat in hoc articulo de luce, in sequenti de lumine. Lumen autem ipsi est participatio lucis, sive aliquid a luce, tanquam eius fonte, influxum. Hinc dicitur I. Sent. d. 17. p. I. q. 1. in corp.: «Lux potest tripliciter considerari, scil. in se et in transparenti et in extremitate perspicui terminati; primo modo est lux, secundo modo lumen, tertio modo hypostasis coloris». Cfr. etiam I. Sent. d. 19. p. II. dub. 4. et II. Sent. d. 14. p. I. a. 3. q. 2. ad 3. Quomodo differant splendor, radius et lumen, «quae omnia dicunt influentiam a luminoso», docetur I. Sent. d. 9. dub. 7. Breviter haec comprehendit Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 2. a. 2.) his verbis: «Lux dicit formam corporis luminosi, lumen formam corporis diaphani, radius directam oppositionem huius ad illam, splendor reflexionem huius a forma opaci corporis»; quae verba magis explicantur a S. Thoma (hic q. unica, a. 3.).
Ceterum termini lux et lumen a multis frequenter pro eodem accipiuntur, praesertim ab iis qui utrumque significare qualitatem eiusdem rationis cum S. Thoma opinantur. Ipsum etiam corpus luminosum, cuius proprietas est lux vel lumen, interdum hoc nomine significatur, ut hic in corp. dicitur, proprie autem vocatur luminare.
II. De luce et lumine etiam inter antiquos doctores diversae erant opiniones, quarum sex vel potius septem a S. Thoma in Comment. (loc. cit.) recensentur. B. Albert. autem (II. de Anima, tr. 3. c. 9.) omnes reducit ad quinque, «quarum una antiqui Democriti fuit, qui de omnibus curam habuit, qui dixit, lumen esse corpus pervium, quod defluit continue a corpore luminoso. Alia autem sententia est, quae dicit, lumen esse formam substantialem, quae substantificat quidquid substantificatur in generabilibus et corruptibilibus. Tertia autem dixit, lumen esse substantiam spiritualem, non corporalem, quae quasi medium est inter substantiam corpoream et incorpoream. Quarta autem dixit, lumen omnino nihil esse secundum se, sed potius aliquid comitans coloratum; dixit enim, lumen non esse nisi coloris evidentiam in eo quod est coloratum». Has quatuor opiniones in seqq. refutat, et c. 12. quintam, quae sit Aristotelis, addit: Dicimus, lucem et lumen esse qualitatem luminosi corporis, secundum quod est luminosum, quae ab ipso procedit generata etc.
Quod autem lux in se non sit corpus nec quaedam effluvia substantialia, ut postea Carthesio aliisque placuit, principales auctores cum S. Bonaventura certum esse dicebant. — Nostra aetate physici de luce, quatenus est phaenomenon sensibile, multa inquisierunt et plerumque docent, phaenomenon lucis effici motibus quibusdam undulatoriis in aethere productis. Hi autem motus manifeste supponunt «aliquam virtutem sive vim activam» (infra a. 3. q. 2.), quae iterum requirit subiectum, cui inhaereat.
III. Alii Scholastici hanc de luce vel lumine materiam plerumque vel una vel duabus quaestionibus sub diversis titulis absolvunt. In nullo alio invenimus easdem quatuor qq., quas habet S. Bonav. — Alex. Hal. aliqua tangit S. p. II. q. 46. m. 5. a. 3. — Scotus, in utroque Scripto, hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic loc. cit.; S. I. q. 67. a. 2. 3; Opuscul. n. 47. (alias 51.) de Natura luminis. — B. Albert., de hac tantum q. hic a. 2; S. p. II. tr. II. q. 51. m. 1. et de aliis qq. II. de Anima, tr. 3. c. 8. seqq. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. 3. 4. a. 2. q. 1–4. — Aegid. R. tangit has qq. hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. — Henr. Gand., Quodl. 3. 12. — Durand., hic q. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. unica. — Biel, hic q. unica.
---
## ARTICLE II.
On the essence and nature of light itself in itself.
Next it is asked about the essence and quiddity of corporeal light in itself. And concerning this two [things] are asked. First it is asked, whether light is a body or the form of a body. Secondly it is asked, whether it is a substantial form or an accidental [form].
Question I. Whether light is a body, or the form of a body.
Concerning the first it is so proceeded and shown that light is a body.
Against the opposite.
1. Augustine in book three On Free Choice1: «Among bodies light holds the first place».
2. Likewise, Augustine on Genesis according to the Letter, book seven2: «The soul excels every corporeal nature by the dignity of nature; nevertheless through light and air, which in the world are the more excellent bodies, it administers the body».
3. Likewise, Augustine in the third letter to Volusianus3: «The sense of men, he says, is this — they are able to think of nothing but bodies, whether the grosser ones, namely water or earth, or the more subtle ones, such as air and light; but bodies, nonetheless».
4. Likewise, this is seen by reason. Among spirituals one finds spirit, which is pure light4: therefore in like manner among corporeals it seems that one ought to find a body which is pure light: therefore it seems that what is luminous in bodies is pure light. But that is a body, since it has extension, as is clear in the sun: therefore it seems that light is a body.
5. Likewise, light in the sun is in full actuality and power of multiplying itself; therefore it does not seem that it is mixed with the possibility of matter; but it is established that the sun is a body: therefore it seems that pure light is a body.
6. Likewise, nothing is moved locally with dimensional and successive motion except a body5; but that light which was first created made day and night by its motion: therefore it was a body.
On the contrary:
Foundations.
1. Damascene6: «Light is a natural quality of fire itself»; but no quality is a body: therefore light is not a body, but a quality of a body.
2. Likewise, the Philosopher says7 that form is the principle of acting, therefore that which is most of all the principle of acting is most of all form: but light, among other corporeals, is most of all active: therefore it seems that it is purely form. But no body is purely form, since every body is composite: therefore light is not a body.
3. Likewise, Augustine in book twelve on Genesis according to the Letter8: «Light is the most subtle [thing] in body, and on account of this is the nearest to the soul»; but that which is nearest to the most noble form, that most of all shares the character of form: therefore it seems that light itself is purely form.
4. Likewise, nothing is opposed to any body privatively in respect of its being a body; but darkness is opposed privatively to light in respect of its being light9: therefore light is not a body.
CONCLUSION.
Light, properly speaking and said in abstraction, is not a body, but the form of a luminous body.
I respond: It must be said that some, not attending to nor inwardly considering the words of Augustine, said that light is a body — on this account, that they posited that some body is purely light, such that in it nothing was mixed in of the darkness of matter, just as is the solar body, from which the other bodies of the world receive illumination. — Opinion 1. But since it was proved above10 that no substance existing through itself, whether corporeal or spiritual, is purely form except God alone, it is plain enough that no body can be purely form. Since also no body
lacks extension, and all extension is founded upon corporeal matter, no body can be without matter: and so11, no body can be purely form. If, therefore, light means a form, light cannot be the body itself, but something of the body. For if light were the body itself — since it belongs to light from itself to multiply itself — some body could multiply itself from itself without the addition of matter from elsewhere; which is impossible to any creature, since matter cannot be brought forth except by creation12.
Opinion 2, with a distinction. And therefore it must be said otherwise: that just as moisture and heat are taken in two ways — for sometimes they mean properties or qualities of a corporeal substance, as one speaks of the moisture of water and the heat of fire itself; but sometimes they name the substance itself under such a form, as Augustine says13, that humor (moisture) and humus (earth) are elements, and the philosophers say that heat is a certain subtle substance. So is it to be understood on the side of light: that light can be said in abstraction, and in this way it names the form of a luminous body, by which that body is able to shine and act; and in this sense Damascene says that light is a quality of fire. — Conclusion 1. Sometimes it names in concretion the [substance] itself, namely the luminous substance; and so it is taken in that division, namely that there are three species of fire: charcoal, flame, and light14. — Conclusion 2. And in this manner Augustine speaks when he says that «light holds the first place among bodies», and that «light and air are the more subtle bodies». For he there calls light what we call fire, as is gathered expressly from Augustine's own words.
And through this the [arguments] objected on both sides are clear. — Reply to the foundations. For the authorities and reasons which say and prove that light is not a body, but a quality, take light in abstraction, as is clear.
Solution of the opposing [arguments].
1, 2, 3. The authorities, however, which are adduced for the opposite [view], speak of light as it is taken concretively. — But the reasons which prove that some body is purely light are not cogent.
4. Note. For to that which is objected concerning the likeness of spirituals and corporeals, it is not similar — because spiritual light is common to Creator and creature according to analogy. And because the Creator is purely act, therefore in spirituals light can be found in every kind of actuality, such that it has nothing of the possibility of matter nor of the darkness of ignorance. Corporeal light, however, is not found except in a creature, which, in order that it may exist through itself, needs sustaining matter15; and on this account pure light cannot be found by an entire exclusion of the possibility of matter, yet pure light can be found by the exclusion of opacity and darkness — and thus it is in the sun.
5. To that which is objected, that if the light of the sun were mixed with matter it could not multiply itself perfectly, it must be said that the presence16 of matter does not take away the actuality of the form, especially when a body has much of the species and little of the matter; and because in the sun there is an abundance of light, although matter is there, it is not impeded from its action. But those [things] which are said to have incorporated light do not have perfect power of multiplying themselves — not because the light is only there in the matter, but because those bodies have much of matter and little of species.
6. To that which is objected, that the first-created light was moved dimensionally and successively, it must be said that light is there called a luminous little cloud17, which was truly a body; and that [cloud] was not created — on this account, that out of pre-existing matter the form of light was divinely impressed or brought forth in it. Thus, then, from what has been said, it is clear that light, speaking properly and abstractly, is not a body, but the form of a body.
I. According to the principles of natural science flourishing in that age, the holy Doctor disputes copiously in this article on lux, and in the following on lumen. Now lumen for him is the participation of lux, or something flowing in from light as from its source. Hence it is said in I Sent. d. 17, p. I, q. 1, in the body: «Light can be considered in three ways, namely in itself, in the transparent [medium], and in the extremity of a defined visible [body]; in the first way it is lux, in the second way lumen, in the third way the hypostasis of color». Cf. also I Sent. d. 19, p. II, dub. 4, and II Sent. d. 14, p. I, a. 3, q. 2, ad 3. How splendor, radius, and lumen differ — «all of which mean an influx from a luminous [body]» — is taught in I Sent. d. 9, dub. 7. Peter of Tarantasia briefly comprises these (here q. 2, a. 2) in these words: «Lux means the form of a luminous body, lumen the form of a transparent body, radius the direct opposition of this to that, splendor the reflection of this from the form of an opaque body»; which words are more explained by St. Thomas (here q. unica, a. 3).
For the rest, the terms lux and lumen are frequently taken by many for the same thing, especially by those who, with St. Thomas, hold that both signify a quality of the same character. The very luminous body itself, whose property is lux or lumen, is sometimes also signified by this name, as is here said in the body — but properly it is called luminare.
II. Concerning lux and lumen there were also diverse opinions among the ancient doctors, six or rather seven of which are enumerated by St. Thomas in the Commentary (loc. cit.). B. Albert, however (On the Soul II, tr. 3, c. 9), reduces all to five: «One of these was that of Democritus of old, who took thought of all [things], who said that light is a pervious body which continuously flows down from a luminous body. Another opinion is that which says light is a substantial form which substantifies whatever is substantified among generables and corruptibles. A third said that light is a spiritual substance, not corporeal, which is as it were a middle between corporeal and incorporeal substance. A fourth said that light is altogether nothing in itself, but rather something accompanying the colored; for it said that light is nothing but the evidence of color in that which is colored». He refutes these four opinions in what follows, and in c. 12 adds a fifth, which would be Aristotle's: We say that lux and lumen are a quality of the luminous body, in respect of its being luminous, which proceeds from it as generated, etc.
But that light in itself is not a body nor certain substantial effluvia, as later pleased Descartes and others — the principal authors with St. Bonaventure said this was certain. — In our age the physicists have investigated much about light insofar as it is a sensible phenomenon, and for the most part teach that the phenomenon of light comes about by certain undulatory motions produced in the aether. But these motions manifestly suppose «some power or active force» (below, a. 3, q. 2), which in turn requires a subject in which to inhere.
III. Other Scholastics for the most part settle this matter of light or lumen with either one or two questions under diverse titles. In no other do we find the same four questions which St. Bonaventure has. — Alex. Hal. touches on some [things] in the Summa, p. II, q. 46, m. 5, a. 3. — Scotus, in both Scripta, here q. unica. — S. Thom., here loc. cit.; S. I, q. 67, a. 2, 3; Opusculum n. 47 (alias 51) On the Nature of Light. — B. Albert, on this question alone, here a. 2; Summa p. II, tr. II, q. 51, m. 1, and on the other questions, On the Soul II, tr. 3, c. 8 and following. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1, a. 2; q. 2, a. 2. — Richard a Med., here a. 1, q. 2, 3, 4; a. 2, q. 1–4. — Aegid. R. touches on these qq. here q. 2, a. 1, 2. — Henr. Gand., Quodlibet 3, 12. — Durand., here q. 1, 2. — Dionys. Carth., here q. unica. — Biel, here q. unica.
---
- Cap. 5. n. 16.[Augustine, On Free Choice III,] c. 5, n. 16.
- Cap. 19. n. 25, ubi textus originalis substituit creaturam pro naturam, et post quae in adiungit ipso quoque.[On Genesis according to the Letter VII,] c. 19, n. 25, where the original text substitutes creaturam for naturam, and after quae in adds ipso quoque.
- Alias 137. c. 2. n. 4, ubi textus orig.: crassiora, sicut sunt humor atque humus, sive subtiliora, sicut aëris et lucis etc.Otherwise [numbered] 137, c. 2, n. 4, where the original text [reads]: crassiora, sicut sunt humor atque humus, sive subtiliora, sicut aëris et lucis, etc.
- Epist. I. Ioan. 1, 5: Deus lux est. — Nonnulli codd. cum Vat. paulo inferius post secundum ergo repetunt similiter. Dein ex cod. cc et ed. 1 substituimus id pro illud.1 John 1, 5: God is light. — Some codices with the Vatican [edition] a little later, after secundum ergo, repeat similiter. Then, from cod. cc and edition 1, we have substituted id for illud.
- Aristot., VII. Phys. text. 2: Omne enim quod movetur, divisibile est. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 37. p. II. a. 2. per totum. — De minori vide hic n. 1. q. 2.Aristotle, Physics VII, text 2: For everything that is moved is divisible. Cf. I Sent. d. 37, p. II, a. 2, throughout. — On the minor, see here n. 1, q. 2.
- Libr. I. de Fide orthod. c. 8. Cfr. etiam II. c. 7. — De minori cfr. Aristot., III. Metaph. text. 17. et VII. text. 1. seqq. (II. c. 5. et VI. c. 1.), ubi dicit, quod quantitates, qualitates etc. non sunt substantiae.[John Damascene,] On the Orthodox Faith I, c. 8. Cf. also II, c. 7. — On the minor cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics III, text 17, and VII, text 1 and following (II, c. 5 and VI, c. 1), where he says that quantities, qualities, etc. are not substances.
- Libr. II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 53. (c. 9.). Vide supra pag. 89, nota 5. et pag. 300, nota 1. — De activitate lucis cfr. August., VII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 15. n. 21. et c. 19. n. 25.[Aristotle,] On Generation and Corruption II, text 53 (c. 9). See above p. 89, note 5, and p. 300, note 1. — On the activity of light cf. Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter VII, c. 15, n. 21, and c. 19, n. 25.
- Cap. 16. n. 32.[On Genesis according to the Letter XII,] c. 16, n. 32.
- Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 70. (c. 7.).Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 70 (c. 7).
- Dist. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. et I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 2.D. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 1 and following, and I Sent. d. 8, p. II, q. 2.
- Ita cod. cc cum ed. 1; in aliis et iterum, fortasse pro unde iterum. Paulo inferius cod. N aliquid corporale pro aliquid corporis, dein cum lux nata sit pro cum lucis sit.Thus cod. cc with edition 1; in others et iterum, perhaps for unde iterum. A little later, cod. N [reads] aliquid corporale for aliquid corporis, then cum lux nata sit for cum lucis sit.
- Vide supra d. 1. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. ad 5.See above d. 1, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, ad 5.
- De Gen. ad lit. (imperf. lib.) c. 14. n. 43. et III. de Gen. ad lit. c. 4. n. 6. seq. et c. 10. n. 14.[Augustine,] On Genesis according to the Letter (unfinished book) c. 14, n. 43, and III On Genesis according to the Letter, c. 4, n. 6 and following, and c. 10, n. 14.
- Aristot., V. Topic. c. 3. (c. 5.).Aristotle, Topics V, c. 3 (c. 5).
- Vide supra pag. 96, nota 8.See above p. 96, note 8.
- Cod. cc et ed. 1 possibilitas.Cod. cc and edition 1 [read] possibilitas.
- Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Cod. cc et ed. 1 quod lux illa pro quod lux ibi.Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2. — Cod. cc and edition 1 [read] quod lux illa for quod lux ibi.