Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 14, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 14

Textus Latinus

p. 338

QUAESTIO II.

An firmamentum sit idem cum ignis elemento.

Secundo quaeritur de natura firmamenti, et est quaestio, utrum sit eiusdem naturae cum igne elemento. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Primo per auctoritatem Scripturae¹²³, quae nullam facit mentionem de productione ignis: ergo si ipsum est nobilissimum elementum⁴, eius productio non debuit praetermitti; propterea videtur, quod saltem intelligatur nomine caeli.

p. 339

2. Item, hoc videtur auctoritate Augustini, qui super Genesim ad litteram⁵ et in libro de Civitate Dei dicit, tantum quatuor esse corpora mundi, scilicet «humor et humus, aër et lux»; si ergo firmamentum est aliquod de corporibus mundi, et non est terra nec aqua nec aër: ergo est ignis.

3. Item, Hugo de sancto Victore exponens illud: In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram, dicit circa principium libri de Sacramentis⁶: «Ibi namque terra erat ipsum terrae elementum, et caelum erat levis et mobilis circumfusio reliquorum trium, quae in circuitu medio iacentis terrae suspensa ferebatur, et illud opus omnium corporum, sive caelestium sive terrestrium, formandorum materiam continebat». Ex hoc sequitur, quod firmamentum sit de natura alicuius elementi.

4. Item, hoc videtur ratione. Tantum quatuor sunt qualitates primae⁷: ergo videtur, quod tantum quatuor debent esse corpora, quae sunt de constitutione mundi primaria: ergo vel firmamentum est corpus mixtum, vel est de natura alicuius quatuor elementorum. Sed non est mixtum nec de natura trium elementorum inferiorum: ergo est de natura ignis.

5. Item, triplex est species ignis, scilicet ignis carbo, ignis lux et ignis flamma⁸; sed natura firmamenti est ut natura lucis: ergo videtur contineri sub tertia specie ignis.

6. Item, caliditas inest igni in summo⁹, ergo si aliquid maxime calefacit, illud habet naturam ignis; sed corpora caelestia maxime calefaciunt inferiora, sicut patet in sole: ergo habent igneam naturam.

Ad oppositum est:

1. Auctoritas Philosophi in libro de Caelo et mundo¹⁰, qui praeter haec quatuor corpora ponit esse corpus quintum.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ratione ostenditur. Corruptibile et incorruptibile per naturam non habent eandem formam completivam¹¹; sed firmamentum naturaliter est incorruptibile, ignis elementum naturaliter corrumpitur: ergo non sunt eiusdem naturae.

3. Item, corporum habentium diversos motus naturales diversae sunt naturae¹²; sed firmamentum et ignis habent diversos motus naturales, quia ignis naturaliter movetur motu recto, firmamentum naturaliter movetur motu orbiculari: ergo ignis et firmamentum sunt alterius et alterius naturae. Si tu dicas, quod ille motus non est naturalis firmamento; obiicitur contra hoc, quia si aliquis motus inest alicui corpori non naturalis, est reperire aliquod corpus, cui sit naturalis: ergo si hoc esset verum, tunc esset ponere aliquod corpus, cui magis conveniret moveri orbiculariter quam firmamento; quod falsum est.

4. Item, si firmamentum esset igneae naturae, ergo naturaliter inflammaret corpora sibi maxime proxima: cum igitur sit maxime quantitatis, videtur, quod statim totum aërem absorberet. Si tu dicas, quod a Deo reprimitur; hoc non videtur, quia Conditor naturae «sic res, quas condidit, administrat, sicut dicit Augustinus septimo de Civitate Dei¹³, ut eas agere proprios motus sinat». Et praeterea, si hoc verum esset, tunc mundus non subsisteret naturaliter, sed miraculose.

5. Item, nobilius est corpus, quod non habet contrarietatem, quam corpus, quod habet contrarietatem¹⁴: ergo si ponere est corpora habentia contrarietatem, erit ponere corpus a contrarietate immune; sed hoc non est nisi corpus caeleste: ergo firmamentum non habet contrarium. Sed ignis elementum habet contrarium: ergo non erit de natura eius.

6. Item, si aliqua diversa reducantur ad concordiam per aliquid, videtur, quod illud non habeat naturam alicuius illorum, sed quod potens sit super omnia; sed firmamentum sua influentia facit elementa contraria concurrere ad corpora mixta: ergo non est de natura alicuius elementi¹⁵.

Conclusio.

Firmamentum et ignis elementum non sunt eiusdem naturae.

Respondeo: Hic praenotandum est, quod in huius quaestionis determinatione videntur Sancti et expositores sacrae Scripturae contradicere philosophis.

Opinio philosophorum. Communiter enim philosophi¹⁶ praeter quatuor

p. 340

elementa posuerunt essentiam quintam, quam dixerunt esse corpus incorruptibile et elevatum a contrarietate, et per hoc esse principium conciliativum et conservativum.

Opinio alia. Sancti vero non videntur ponere nisi solummodo quatuor corpora, et sentire videntur, naturam firmamenti esse igneam. Non placet. Sed cum recta ratio satis evidenter persuadeat, firmamentum esse alterius naturae, quam sit aliquod elementum, tum propter motum, qui non latet sensus nostros, tum etiam propter effectus varios, tum etiam propter universi perfectionem; non absurde credi potest, philosophos in hac parte verum sensisse, et doctores veritatis ab eis in sensu non discrepasse, quamvis voce tenus videantur contraire. Conciliatio opinionum. Sicut enim patet ex verbis Augustini¹⁷ in pluribus locis, ipse Augustinus elementum ignis denominat a perfectione lucis; naturales vero philosophi maxime ignem notificant per proprietatem caliditatis; et quoniam natura lucis reperitur et in corpore quinto et in igne elemento, ideo ipsum firmamentum et ignem dixit¹⁸ corpus unius naturae esse; non, inquam, unius, quia habeant unam formam speciei specialissimae, sed quia naturam lucis participant secundum quandam rationem analogiae. Quia vero illud corpus, scilicet firmamentum, sublevatum est a natura contrarietatis et lucem participat in quadam puritate, ignis vero naturam habet contrarietatis: hinc est, quod philosophi dixerunt, ignem et firmamentum alterius et alterius naturae esse. In cuius testimonium adducunt, quod ignis, quia contrariatur terrae, movetur directe motu contrario, scilicet sursum; caelum vero, quia contrarietatem non habet, movetur orbiculariter; is enim solus motus est simplex, qui caret contrarietate¹⁹. Et in hoc verum dixerunt et Sanctis, ut praedictum est, non contradixerunt. — Conclusio. Unde rationes ostendentes, quod firmamentum et ignis elementum non sunt eiusdem naturae, concedendae sunt.

Solutio oppositorum. 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Scriptura non facit mentionem de igne; dicendum, quod similiter non facit mentionem de aëre: in separatione autem aquarum a terra intelligenda est distinctio elementorum facta fuisse, sicut infra²⁰ melius patebit.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Augustino et Hugone, iam patet responsio. Ideo enim caelum comprehenditur sub igne propter conformem lucis participationem. Unde, sicut dictum est supra²¹, quod caelum crystallinum censeri potest nomine aquae, quia aliquam proprietatem eius in se habet; sic et in proposito intelligi potest. Triplex ignis proprietas. Triplex enim est ignis proprietas, sicut supra²² dictum est de aqua: una est luminositas, altera caliditas et tertia levitas, per quam movetur motu, qui est sursum. In prima proprietate ignis et firmamentum conveniunt. In tertia ignis et firmamentum simpliciter differunt. In media vero partim conveniunt et partim differunt. Conveniunt utique in hoc, quod tam ignis quam firmamentum est calidum effective. Differunt vero in hoc, quod ignis est calidus formaliter, firmamentum vero minime; si enim haberet caliditatem informantem, haberet utique contrarietatem.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tantum quatuor sunt primae qualitates; dicendum, quod verum est de qualitatibus activis et passivis secundum contrarietatem; et ideo non sequitur, quod omnia corpora, quae sunt in prima constitutione mundi, habeant aliquam illarum qualitatum, sed solummodo illa, quae habent contrarietatem. Ad constitutionem autem mundi non solum haec corpora requiruntur, sed etiam aliud, quod sit supra haec, sicut prius²³ ostensum est.

5. Differt lux et ignis. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lux est species ignis; dicendum, quod non quaecumque lux est species ignis, sed illa, quae est in materia transmutabili; et haec est, quae habet caliditatem annexam, informantem eandem materiam: huiusmodi autem non est lux corporis quinti, quamvis aliquo modo sit isti conformis.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpus quintum calefacit; respondetur, quod corpus quintum calefacit non per naturam caliditatis, quam in se habeat, sed per vim luminis; et hoc apparet, cum ex concursu et reflexione radiorum circa speculum concavum generatur ignis. Et si tu obiicias, quod «nihil dat alteri quod non habet²⁴», ergo si caelum non habet in se naturam igneam, non magis generabit ignem quam aërem; respondetur, quod illud habet instantiam in generatione aequivoca, sicut patet, quando aliquid calefit a motu. Sic et in proposito intelligitur esse. — Et si tu quaeras, quare magis generat ignem quam aërem, cum non habeat cum ipso conformitatem²⁵; dicendum, quod etsi non habeat conformitatem in forma ultima, tamen ignis maxime accedit ad eius naturam. Praeterea, cum aliquid habet potestatem educendi multa, quae sunt

p. 341

in potentia in materia, esto quod sit ad illa indifferens, magis educit quod nobilius est. «Natura enim semper desiderat quod melius est²⁶»; et ideo, cum ignis sit nobilior, magis educit ignem. — Quaestio incidens. Sed adhuc manet quaestio: si corpora caelestia calefaciunt per naturam luminis, unde est hoc, quod luna humectat et infrigidat? Sed de hoc fortassis aliquid dicetur infra²⁷. Ad praesens autem tantum sufficiat, quod aggeneratio caloris a corpore caelesti in his inferioribus vel est propter radiorum aggregationem et intensionem, ex qua subtiliatur aër suscipiens illuminationem²⁸, vel est ab aliqua virtute divinitus ei data a prima sui conditione, totam speciem consequente — sicut ponitur in virtute adamantis — quae etsi non faciat corpora caelestia formaliter calida, quia sua materia non est ad formam contrarietatis apta, influens tamen in haec inferiora inflammat ea, cum sint transmutabilia propter dispositionem repertam in materia²⁹.

---

English Translation

p. 338

QUESTION II.

Whether the firmament is the same as the element of fire.

Secondly there is asked concerning the nature of the firmament, and there is the question, whether it is of the same nature with the element of fire. And that it is, it seems:

1. First, by the authority of Scripture¹²³, which makes no mention of the production of fire: therefore if [fire] is the noblest element⁴, its production ought not to have been passed over; on which account it seems that at least it is understood by the name of heaven.

p. 339

2. Likewise, this seems [so] by the authority of Augustine, who On Genesis according to the Letter⁵ and in the book On the City of God says that there are only four bodies of the world, namely «moisture and earth, air and light»; if therefore the firmament is some [body] of the bodies of the world, and is not earth nor water nor air, therefore it is fire.

3. Likewise, Hugh of St. Victor, expounding that [text]: In the beginning God created heaven and earth, says near the beginning of the book On the Sacraments⁶: «For there earth was the very element of earth, and heaven was the light and mobile compass of the remaining three, which around the earth lying in the middle was borne suspended, and that work contained the matter for the forming of all bodies, whether celestial or terrestrial». From this it follows that the firmament is of the nature of some element.

4. Likewise, this seems [so] by reason. There are only four primary qualities⁷: therefore it seems that there ought to be only four bodies which are of the primary constitution of the world: therefore either the firmament is a mixed body, or it is of the nature of one of the four elements. But it is not mixed, nor of the nature of the three inferior elements: therefore it is of the nature of fire.

5. Likewise, there are three species of fire, namely fire-as-coal, fire-as-light, and fire-as-flame⁸; but the nature of the firmament is as the nature of light: therefore it seems to be contained under the third species of fire.

6. Likewise, heat is in fire to the highest degree⁹, therefore if anything most strongly heats, it has the nature of fire; but the celestial bodies most strongly heat the inferior things, as is clear in the sun: therefore they have a fiery nature.

To the opposite there is:

1. The authority of the Philosopher in the book On the Heavens and the World¹⁰, who besides these four bodies posits there to be a fifth body.

2. Likewise, this same [conclusion] is shown by reason. The corruptible and the incorruptible by nature do not have the same completive form¹¹; but the firmament is naturally incorruptible, the element of fire is naturally corrupted: therefore they are not of the same nature.

3. Likewise, of bodies having diverse natural motions there are diverse natures¹²; but the firmament and fire have diverse natural motions, because fire is naturally moved by a straight motion, the firmament is naturally moved by an orbicular motion: therefore fire and the firmament are of one and another nature. If you say that that motion is not natural to the firmament; it is objected against this, because if some motion is in any body not naturally, there must be found some body to which it is natural: therefore if this were true, then there would have to be posited some body to which it would more befit to be moved orbicularly than the firmament; which is false.

4. Likewise, if the firmament were of fiery nature, then it would naturally inflame the bodies most near it: since therefore it is of greatest quantity, it seems that it would at once absorb the whole air. If you say that it is repressed by God; this does not seem [right], because the Founder of nature «so administers the things which He has founded, as Augustine says in the seventh [book] On the City of God¹³, that He lets them perform their own motions». And moreover, if this were true, then the world would not subsist naturally but miraculously.

5. Likewise, that body is more noble which has not contrariety than the body which has contrariety¹⁴: therefore if [it is possible] to posit bodies having contrariety, [it is possible] to posit a body immune from contrariety; but this is not [any] except the celestial body: therefore the firmament has no contrary. But the element of fire has a contrary: therefore [the firmament] will not be of its nature.

6. Likewise, if any diverse things are reduced to concord through something, it seems that that does not have the nature of any of them, but rather is powerful over all; but the firmament by its influence makes the contrary elements concur into mixed bodies: therefore it is not of the nature of any element¹⁵.

Conclusion.

The firmament and the element of fire are not of the same nature.

Respondeo: Here it must be premised that in the determination of this question the Saints and the expositors of sacred Scripture seem to contradict the philosophers.

The opinion of the philosophers. For commonly the philosophers¹⁶, besides the four

p. 340

elements, have posited a fifth essence, which they said is an incorruptible body and elevated from contrariety, and through this [is] a conciliating and conservative principle.

Another opinion. But the Saints do not seem to posit any except only four bodies, and seem to hold that the nature of the firmament is fiery. Not pleasing. But since right reason persuades sufficiently evidently that the firmament is of another nature than is any element — both on account of motion, which is not hidden from our senses; and also on account of various effects; and also on account of the perfection of the universe — it can be believed not absurdly that the philosophers have felt the truth in this part, and that the doctors of truth have not disagreed from them in meaning, although in word they seem to oppose. Reconciliation of the opinions. For as is clear from the words of Augustine¹⁷ in many places, Augustine himself denominates the element of fire from the perfection of light; but the natural philosophers most of all make fire known by the property of heat; and since the nature of light is found both in the fifth body and in the element of fire, therefore he said¹⁸ the firmament itself and fire to be a body of one nature; not, I say, of one [nature], because they have one form of a most specific species, but because they participate in the nature of light according to a certain account of analogy. But because that body, namely the firmament, is raised up from the nature of contrariety and participates in light in a certain purity, while fire has the nature of contrariety: hence it is that the philosophers said fire and the firmament to be of one and another nature. In witness of which they adduce that fire, because it is contrary to earth, is moved directly by a contrary motion, namely upwards; but the heaven, because it has no contrariety, is moved orbicularly; for that motion alone is simple which lacks contrariety¹⁹. And in this they have spoken truly and have not, as has been said, contradicted the Saints. — Conclusion. Hence the reasonings showing that the firmament and the element of fire are not of the same nature are to be conceded.

Solution of the opposed [arguments]. 1. To that therefore which is objected, that Scripture makes no mention of fire; it must be said that it likewise makes no mention of air: but in the separation of the waters from the earth the distinction of the elements is to be understood to have been made, as below²⁰ will better appear.

2. 3. To that which is objected from Augustine and Hugh, the response is already clear. For heaven is comprehended under fire on account of a conformable participation in light. Hence, as was said above²¹, that the crystalline heaven can be reckoned by the name of water, because it has some property of it in itself; so also in the matter at hand it can be understood. The triple property of fire. For there is a triple property of fire, just as was said above²² of water: one is luminosity, another heat, and the third lightness, by which it is moved by the motion which is upwards. In the first property fire and the firmament agree. In the third fire and the firmament simply differ. But in the middle [one] they partly agree and partly differ. They agree assuredly in this, that both fire and the firmament are hot effectively. But they differ in this, that fire is hot formally, but the firmament not at all; for if it had a heat informing [it], it would assuredly have contrariety.

4. To that which is objected, that there are only four primary qualities; it must be said that this is true of the active and passive qualities according to contrariety; and therefore it does not follow that all bodies which are in the primary constitution of the world have any one of those qualities, but only those which have contrariety. But for the constitution of the world not only these bodies are required, but also another, which is above these, as was shown before²³.

5. Light and fire differ. To that which is objected, that light is a species of fire; it must be said that not any light whatsoever is a species of fire, but that which is in transmutable matter; and this is that which has heat annexed, informing the same matter: but of this sort is not the light of the fifth body, although in some way it is conformable to this.

6. To that which is objected, that the fifth body heats; it is replied that the fifth body heats not by the nature of heat which it has in itself, but by the power of light; and this appears, since from the concourse and reflection of rays around a concave mirror fire is generated. And if you object that «nothing gives to another what it has not²⁴», therefore if heaven does not have in itself a fiery nature, it will no more generate fire than air; it is replied that this has its instance in equivocal generation, as is clear when something is heated by motion. So also it is understood [to be] in the matter at hand. — And if you ask why it generates fire rather than air, since it has no conformity with [air]²⁵; it must be said that, although it has no conformity in ultimate form, nevertheless fire most closely approaches its nature. Moreover, when something has the power of educing many [things] which are

p. 341

in potency in matter, even though it be indifferent to those, it educes rather what is more noble. «For nature always desires what is better²⁶»; and therefore, since fire is more noble, it educes fire rather. — Incidental question. But still the question remains: if the celestial bodies heat by the nature of light, whence is it that the moon moistens and cools? But of this perhaps something will be said below²⁷. For the present, however, let it suffice that the aggeneration of heat from a celestial body in these inferior things either is on account of the aggregation and intensification of rays, by which the air is subtilized as it receives illumination²⁸; or is from some power divinely given it from its first creation, following upon the total species — as is posited in the power of the adamant — which, although it does not make the celestial bodies formally hot, because their matter is not apt for the form of contrariety, nevertheless, influencing into these inferior [things], inflames them, since they are transmutable on account of the disposition found in matter²⁹.

---

Apparatus Criticus

Gen. 1, 2.
Gen. 1:2.
Gen. 1, 6. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 9: Congregentur aquae, quae sub caelo sunt, in locum unum.
Gen. 1:6. — The following text is ibid., v. 9: Let the waters which are under heaven be gathered into one place.
Homil. 3. in Hexaëm. n. 7, ubi dicit, quod Deus aquas disposuit supra firmamentum ad temperandum solis et aetheris calidissimum fervorem. — Paulo inferius post consumi in Vat. additur sed potest effectus eius reprimi.
[Basil,] Homily 3 on the Hexaëmeron, n. 7, where he says that God disposed the waters above the firmament for tempering the most burning fervor of the sun and aether. — A little below, after consumi, the Vatican [edition] adds sed potest effectus eius reprimi [but its effect can be repressed].
Vat. ergo si ipse supremum est et nobilissimum elementum. Paulo inferius codd. et edd. 1. 2 omittunt propterea; excidisse videtur ergo.
The Vatican [edition reads] ergo si ipse supremum est et nobilissimum elementum [therefore if it is the supreme and noblest element]. A little below, the codices and editions 1 and 2 omit propterea; ergo seems to have dropped out.
Libr. III. c. 4. n. 6. et c. 10. n. 14. — Libr. VIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 5.
[On Genesis according to the Letter,] book III, c. 4, n. 6 and c. 10, n. 14. — On the City of God, book VIII, c. 5.
Libr. I. p. I. c. 6.
[On the Sacraments,] book I, part I, c. 6.
Cfr. Aristot., II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 7. seqq. (c. 2.).
Cf. Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption II, text 7 and following (c. 2).
Secundum Aristot., V. Topic. c. 3. (c. 5.). Cfr. supra pag. 166, nota 3. Infra pro tertia lege secunda, ut videtur.
According to Aristotle, Topics V, c. 3 (c. 5). Cf. above p. 166, note 3. Below for tertia read secunda, as it seems.
Aristot., II. Metaph. text. 4. (I. brevior, c. 1.): Ignis calidissimum [est]; etenim ceteris hic est caliditatis causa.
Aristotle, Metaphysics II, text 4 (I, the shorter version, c. 1): Fire is the hottest; for indeed it is the cause of heat for the others.
Libr. I. text. 5. seqq. (c. 2).
[Aristotle, On the Heavens and the World,] book I, text 5 and following (c. 2).
Aristot., X. Metaph. text. 26. (IX. c. 10.), ostendit, corruptibile et incorruptibile diversa esse genere. Cfr. etiam I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 110. seqq. (c. 11. seq.), ubi hos conceptus plenius exponit eum in finem, ut inde eliciat incorruptibilitatem caeli, quam ibid. II. text. 1. seqq. astruit.
Aristotle, Metaphysics X, text 26 (IX, c. 10), shows that the corruptible and the incorruptible differ in genus. Cf. also On the Heavens and the World I, text 110 and following (c. 11 and following), where he expounds these concepts more fully to that end, that from there he may elicit the incorruptibility of the heaven, which he constructs ibid. II, text 1 and following.
Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 5. seqq. et text. 76. seqq. (c. 2. et 8.), ubi et minor huius arg. et fundamentum responsionis ad obiectionem incidentem insinuatur.
Aristotle, On the Heavens and the World I, text 5 and following, and text 76 and following (c. 2 and 8), where both the minor of this argument and the foundation of the response to the incidental objection is intimated.
Cap. 30.
[On the City of God VII,] c. 30.
Hoc arg. indicatur ab Aristotele, I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 20. seqq. (c. 3.).
This argument is indicated by Aristotle, On the Heavens and the World I, text 20 and following (c. 3).
Cfr. Libellus de causis proprietatum elementorum (Aristoteli adscriptus), ubi c. 1., ut probetur, quod orbis sit elementum quintum, haec affertur ratio: Nam si esset ex uno elementorum horum, ingrederetur super ipsum corruptio et alteratio aut particulariter, aut universaliter, et caderet sub generatione et corruptione. Hoc autem non est inventum in eo, immo Creator posuit eum causam generationis. Vide etiam Aristot., I. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 87. seqq. (c. 10.) et II. text. 49. seqq. (c. 8. seqq.) et Averroem, de Substantia orbis, c. 2.
Cf. the Booklet on the Causes of the Properties of the Elements (ascribed to Aristotle), where c. 1, to prove that the orb is a fifth element, this reason is brought forward: For if it were of one of these elements, corruption and alteration would enter upon it either particularly or universally, and it would fall under generation and corruption. But this is not found in it; on the contrary, the Creator placed it as the cause of generation. See also Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption I, text 87 and following (c. 10), and II, text 49 and following (c. 8 and following), and Averroes, On the Substance of the Orb, c. 2.
Horum sententiam proponit Averroes in suo libro de Substantia orbis, c. 2. seq.
Their opinion Averroes proposes in his book On the Substance of the Orb, c. 2 and following.
Libr. III. de Gen. ad lit. c. 5. n. 7, c. 10. n. 14; VII. c. 15. n. 21, c. 19. n. 25; XII. c. 16. n. 32. — De opinione philosophorum cfr. Aristot., II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 7. seqq. (c. 2.).
[Augustine,] On Genesis according to the Letter, book III, c. 5, n. 7; c. 10, n. 14; VII, c. 15, n. 21; c. 19, n. 25; XII, c. 16, n. 32. — On the opinion of the philosophers cf. Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption II, text 7 and following (c. 2).
Unus alterque cod. cum Vat. supplet Augustinus. Paulo inferius plures codd. substituunt qua habeant pro quia habeant (codd. L T quod habeant).
One or another codex with the Vatican [edition] supplies Augustinus. A little below, several codices substitute qua habeant for quia habeant (codd. L T quod habeant).
Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 61. seqq. (c. 7. seq.); I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 5. seqq. (c. 2.); II. text. 22. seqq. (c. 4.).
Cf. Aristotle, Physics VIII, text 61 and following (c. 7 and following); On the Heavens and the World I, text 5 and following (c. 2); II, text 22 and following (c. 4).
Part. II. huius d. dub. 1.
Part II of this distinction, Dubium 1.
Quaest. praeced. — In principio huius solutionis in pluribus codd. et Vat. desideratur Augustino et.
[In the] preceding question. — At the beginning of this solution, in several codices and the Vatican [edition], Augustino et is missing.
Quaest. praeced., ubi refertur haec triplex aquae proprietas: perspicuitas, frigiditas, gravitas.
[In the] preceding question, where this triple property of water is reported: transparency, coldness, heaviness.
Hic in fundam. 5. 6. — Paulo superius codd. I Y aa de prima constitutione pro in prima constitutione.
Here in foundation 5 [and] 6. — A little above, codices I, Y, aa [read] de prima constitutione for in prima constitutione.
Secundum Aristot., II. Elench. c. 3. (c. 22.). — Mox plures codd. cum ed. 1 aggenerabit ignem pro generabit ignem. De generatione aequivoca cfr. supra pag. 198, nota 3.
According to Aristotle, Sophistical Refutations II, c. 3 (c. 22). — Shortly [after], several codices with edition 1 [read] aggenerabit ignem for generabit ignem. On equivocal generation cf. above p. 198, note 3.
Vat. subiungit in forma.
The Vatican [edition] subjoins in forma [in form].
Aristot., II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 59. (c. 10.). Cfr. II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 34. (c. 5.); II. de Partib. animal. c. 14; IV. c. 20.
Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption II, text 59 (c. 10). Cf. On the Heavens and the World II, text 34 (c. 5); On the Parts of Animals II, c. 14; IV, c. 20.
Part. II. huius d. a. 2. q. 2.
Part II of this distinction, art. 2, q. 2.
Sicut ponit Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 42. (c. 7.).
As Aristotle posits, On the Heavens and the World II, text 42 (c. 7).
Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
See the scholion on the preceding question.

← Dist. 14, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1 Dist. 14, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 1→