Bonaventure

ARTICULUS II. De luminaribus in comparatione ad ea, in quae agunt.

Consequenter quaeritur de ipsis luminaribus in comparatione ad ea, in quae agunt. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum in luminaribus diversis sit diversitas perfectionum.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum habeant diversitatem impressionum.

Tertio quaerilur, utrum ex eorum impressionibus causetur diversitas morum.

QUAESTIO I. Utrum luminaria habeant diversitatem perfectionum.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum luminaria diversitatem habeant perfectionum. Et quod sic, videtur.

Fundamenta. 1. Sicut vult Philosophus¹, sol non est nomen individui, sed speciei; similiter et luna. Constat autem, quod sol et luna sunt imposita diversis: ergo ea sunt diversa secundum speciem.

2. Item, non potest esse nisi unus sol, sicut dicit Philosophus², quia sol est ex tota sua materia; sed si sol ab aliis luminaribus non differret nisi solo numero, non esset ex tota sua materia: ergo differt amplius quam numero: ergo differt specie.

3. Item, corpus, quod est naturaliter luminosum, et corpus, quod ex se est opacum, sunt alterius et alterius naturae secundum speciem: sed corpus solis de sui natura est luminosum, luna vero, quantum est de se, opacum corpus est, quod patet in eclipsatione solis ex interpositione lunae: ergo sol et luna differunt specie³, pari ratione et alii planetae.

4. Item, terra ornata est diversis lapidibus et plantis et animalibus secundum speciem: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod caelum sit ornatum diversis luminaribus secundum speciem differentibus.

Ad oppositum. Sed contra: 1. Corporis simplicis, non habentis admixtionem alterius corporis, partes sunt unigeneae et ad totum et inter se; sed caelum, sicut probat Philosophus⁴, est corpus simplex, non mixtum, et similiter luminaria: ergo non habent formas secundum speciem diversas.

2. Item, luminaria sunt ex aggregatione lucis sui orbis, sicut vult Philosophus in libro de Caelo et mundo⁵; sed maior aggregatio et minor non facit diversitatem secundum speciem, sed solum secundum numerum: ergo luminaria caeli non perficiuntur diversis formis secundum speciem.

3. Item, flamma maior et minor non differunt secundum speciem, quamvis sit in una maior aggregatio luminis quam in alia: ergo si sic videtur esse circa luminaria caelestia, videtur, quod non differant forma specifica.

4. Item, nobilissima forma, quae sit in sole, est ipsius lux; et nobilissima forma in unaquaque re est forma ultima: ergo lux est forma ultima et completiva solis in specie sua. Sed in luce convenit cum omnibus aliis luminaribus; ergo videtur, quod luminaria caeli specie non sint distincta.

Conclusio. Luminaria caeli specie differunt.

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod communis philosophorum positio fuit, quod inter luminaria caeli est reperire diversitatem quantum ad speciem et formam. — Et istud concordat satis rationi rectae, quamvis non omnino recta ratio moverit quosdam ad ponendum diversitatem secundum speciem in luminaribus caeli. Ratio falsa illorum. Posuerunt enim aliqui, quod luminaria secundum speciem erant necessario diversa propter hoc, quod non habeant materiam transmutabilem, et unumquodque erat ex tota sua materia. — Improbatur. Sed haec ratio est falsa et vana et principium erroris, et occasio fuit aliquibus ponendi in omnibus hominibus animam unam, sicut melius patebit infra⁶. Unde quod transmutabilitas materiae requiratur ad diversitatem secundum numerum, dicendum, quod hoc non est generaliter verum, utpote in diversitate secundum numerum, quae attenditur in aliquibus secundum simultatem suae productionis et secundum immediatum egressum a primo opifice; sed in his solum habet veritatem, quorum unum generatur ex alio. — Et ideo, hac ratione praetermissa, potest sumi ratio diversitatis illorum luminarium ex parte quadruplicis causae. Vera ratio quadruplex.

Ratio 1. Et primum ex parte finis sumitur ratio. Sunt enim producta propter diversas influentias in his inferioribus faciendas et propter ornandam caelestem naturam⁷; et ideo competebat diversas habere species et virtutes, ut ex diversarum virtutum coniunctione resultaret perfectio in effectu, et ex diversarum specierum comparatione pulcritudo consurgeret in ornatu.

Ratio 2. Sumitur etiam ratio ex parte efficientis, qui secundum suam potentiam et sapientiam et bonitatem diversa producit secundum speciem et formam, ut quod dari non poterat uni soli per se, daretur diversis in specie.

Ratio 3. Sumitur etiam ratio ex parte materiae. Sicut enim in mixtis materia secundum diversitatem mixtionum aptatur ad susceptionem diversarum formarum, sic in corporibus simplicibus secundum maiorem raritatem et densitatem in suis partibus ad diversarum formarum aptatur susceptionem, sicut patet in elementis, quorum materia secundum maiorem densitatem suscipit formam terrae; dum autem rarefit secundum plus et minus, disponitur ad formas aliorum elementorum. Per hunc modum intelligendum est in caelo. Cum enim in caelesti natura, sicut dicitur in libro de Substantia orbis⁸, sit reperire rarum et densum, contingit secundum maiorem raritatem et densitatem, materiam diversarum formarum esse susceptibilem. Aliter tamen est rarum et densum in materia elementari et natura caelesti. In elementis enim causantur a frigido et calido dissolvente et constringente partes materiae; in caelo autem causantur solummodo secundum diversum

partium situm. In denso enim sunt partes propinquiores, et in raro magis distantes, quia in denso sunt compressae et magis unitae, et in raro sparsae.

Ratio 4. Sumitur etiam ratio ex parte formae. Lux enim est una forma communis, reperta in omnibus luminaribus, et secundum cuius⁹ participationem maiorem et minorem sunt magis et minus nobilia; et ideo, cum istam formam diversimode participent, diversos habent gradus completionis, ideo etiam diversas formas completivas.

Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ostendentes, luminaria caeli secundum speciem esse diversa, quamvis illa ratio parum valeat, quod sunt ex tota sua materia, sicut iam ostensum est.

Solutio oppositorum. 1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod est corpus simplex; dicendum, quod simplicitas corporis tollit diversitatem, quae ortum habet ex mixtione et formis perficientibus mixtum; sed non tollit illam diversitatem, quae venit ex diversitate formarum simplicium, sicut patet, quod, quamvis elementum sit corpus simplex, non tamen omnia elementa sunt unius speciei.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sunt ex aggregatione lucis; dicendum, quod non tangitur ibi tota ratio, sed solum tangitur dispositio ad diversitatem. Et ideo sequens ratio non valet de flamma maiori et minori; plus enim differunt luminaria quam flamma maior et minor, sicut colligitur ex suis virtutibus et operationibus consequentibus.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod forma ultima est completiva: Notandum. dicendum, quod hoc est verum respectu formarum, quae disponunt ad ipsam; lux autem potius est forma perficiens alias formas corporales, quam ad eas¹⁰ disponens, cum secundum eius participationem maiorem et minorem formae corporales sint magis et minus completae. — Alia solutio. Vel dicendum, quod lux est nobilissima formarum corporalium, earum scilicet, quae sunt ei extraneae; sed non est verum de formis luminarium caelestium, in quibus virtus eius et natura complete salvatur.

Article II. On the luminaries in comparison to the things upon which they act.

Next there is inquiry concerning the luminaries themselves in comparison to the things upon which they act. And concerning this three [questions] are asked.

First it is asked, whether in the different luminaries there is a diversity of perfections.

Second it is asked, whether they have a diversity of impressions.

Third it is asked, whether from their impressions a diversity of customs is caused.

Question I. Whether the luminaries have a diversity of perfections.

Concerning the first [question] one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether the luminaries have a diversity of perfections. And that they do, is seen [thus].

Arguments. 1. As the Philosopher holds¹, "sun" is not the name of an individual, but of a species; and likewise "moon." But it is settled that "sun" and "moon" are imposed upon different things: therefore those things are diverse according to species.

2. Likewise, there cannot be but one sun, as the Philosopher says², because the sun is [made] from the whole of its matter; but if the sun did not differ from the other luminaries except in number only, it would not be from the whole of its matter: therefore it differs by more than number: therefore it differs in species.

3. Likewise, a body which is naturally luminous, and a body which is of itself opaque, are of another and another nature according to species: but the body of the sun is of its nature luminous, whereas the moon, so far as it is of itself, is an opaque body, as is evident in the eclipse of the sun by the interposition of the moon: therefore sun and moon differ in species³, and by parity of reasoning so do the other planets.

4. Likewise, the earth is adorned with different stones and plants and animals according to species: therefore by parity of reasoning it is seen that heaven is adorned with different luminaries differing according to species.

To the opposite. On the contrary: 1. Of a simple body, not having any admixture of another body, the parts are uniform both with respect to the whole and to one another; but heaven, as the Philosopher proves⁴, is a simple body, not mixed, and likewise the luminaries: therefore they do not have forms diverse according to species.

2. Likewise, the luminaries are [made] by an aggregation of the light of their orb, as the Philosopher holds in the book On the Heavens and the World⁵; but a greater and a lesser aggregation does not make diversity according to species, but only according to number: therefore the luminaries of heaven are not perfected by diverse forms according to species.

3. Likewise, a greater and a lesser flame do not differ according to species, although in the one there is a greater aggregation of light than in the other: therefore if this is seen to hold concerning the celestial luminaries, it is seen that they do not differ in specific form.

4. Likewise, the noblest form which is in the sun is its very light; and the noblest form in any thing whatsoever is the ultimate form: therefore light is the ultimate and completive form of the sun in its species. But in light it agrees with all the other luminaries; therefore it is seen that the luminaries of heaven are not distinct in species.

Conclusion. The luminaries of heaven differ in species.

I respond: For the understanding of what has been said, it must be noted that the common position of the philosophers has been that among the luminaries of heaven a diversity is to be found with respect to species and form. — And this accords well enough with right reason, although not entirely right reasoning has moved certain men to posit a diversity according to species in the luminaries of heaven. Their false reasoning. For some have posited that the luminaries were necessarily diverse according to species on this account, that they do not have transmutable matter, and each was [made] from the whole of its matter. — It is refuted. But this reasoning is false and vain and a source of error, and was the occasion for some to posit one soul in all men, as will appear better below⁶. Hence as to [the claim] that transmutability of matter is required for diversity according to number, it must be said that this is not generally true, namely in diversity according to number which is observed in some things according to the simultaneity of their production and according to their immediate procession from the first Maker; but it holds true only in those things one of which is generated from another. — And therefore, this reasoning set aside, the reasoning for the diversity of those luminaries can be drawn from the fourfold cause. True fourfold reasoning.

First reasoning. And first the reasoning is drawn from the end. For they were produced for the sake of diverse influences to be effected in these lower things and for the adorning of celestial nature⁷; and therefore it was fitting that they have diverse species and powers, so that from the conjunction of diverse powers perfection in effect should result, and from the comparison of diverse species beauty should arise in the adornment.

Second reasoning. The reasoning is also drawn from the efficient cause, who according to his power and wisdom and goodness produces diverse things according to species and form, so that what could not be given to one alone by itself, might be given to diverse things in species.

Third reasoning. The reasoning is also drawn from matter. For just as in mixed things matter according to the diversity of mixtures is adapted to the reception of diverse forms, so in simple bodies according to the greater rarity and density in their parts [matter] is adapted to the reception of diverse forms, as is evident in the elements, whose matter according to greater density receives the form of earth; whereas when it is rarefied according to more and less, it is disposed to the forms of the other elements. In this way it must be understood concerning heaven. For since in celestial nature, as is said in the book On the Substance of the Orb⁸, there is to be found rare and dense, it happens that according to greater rarity and density the matter is susceptible of diverse forms. Yet rare and dense are otherwise in elemental matter and in celestial nature. For in the elements they are caused by cold and heat dissolving and constraining the parts of matter; in heaven, however, they are caused only according to the diverse position of the parts. For in the dense the parts are nearer together, and in the rare more distant, because in the dense they are compressed and more united, and in the rare scattered.

Fourth reasoning. The reasoning is also drawn from form. For light is one common form, found in all the luminaries, and according to the greater and lesser participation of which⁹ [the luminaries] are more and less noble; and therefore, since they participate in this form diversely, they have diverse degrees of completion, and hence also diverse completive forms.

Therefore the reasonings showing that the luminaries of heaven are diverse according to species are to be granted, although that reasoning is of little worth which [claims] that they are [made] from the whole of their matter, as has already been shown.

Resolution of the opposing arguments. 1. To that which is objected, that it is a simple body; it must be said that the simplicity of a body removes that diversity which has its origin from mixture and from the forms perfecting the mixed; but it does not remove that diversity which comes from the diversity of simple forms, as is evident, for although an element is a simple body, nevertheless not all the elements are of one species.

2. 3. To that which is objected, that they are [made] by an aggregation of light; it must be said that the whole reasoning is not touched there, but only the disposition to diversity is touched. And therefore the following reasoning [about] the greater and lesser flame does not hold; for the luminaries differ more than do a greater and a lesser flame, as is gathered from their powers and consequent operations.

4. To that which is objected, that the ultimate form is completive: Note. it must be said that this is true with respect to forms which dispose to it; but light is rather a form perfecting other corporeal forms, than disposing to them¹⁰, since according to the greater and lesser participation of it the corporeal forms are more and less complete. — Another solution. Or it must be said that light is the noblest of corporeal forms, namely of those which are extraneous to it; but this is not true of the forms of the celestial luminaries, in which its power and nature are completely preserved.