← Back to Distinction 15

Dist. 15, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 15

Textus Latinus
p. 377

Quaestio II. Utrum corpora animalium sint composita ex quatuor elementis.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum corpora animalium sint composita ex quatuor elementis, an ex uno. Et quod ex uno, videtur:

Ad oppositum.

1. Primo per Scripturam1, quae dicit: Producant aquae reptile etc.; et similiter: Producat terra animam viventem. Si ergo Scriptura sufficienter animalium exprimit materiam, cum non exprimat nisi simplicia elementa, patet etc.

2. Item, forma debet proportionari materiae2; ergo et corpus animae; sed forma animalium est simplex: ergo et corpora debent esse simplicia: ergo non sunt ex quatuor elementis: ergo etc.

3. Item, quanto aliquid ad naturam compositionis magis accedit, tanto minus est perfectum; quod enim simplicius est, potentius est et perfectius3. Si igitur anima sensibilis est forma valde potens et nobilis: ergo debet esse perfectio corporis simplicis, non mixti ex quatuor elementis.

4. Item, corpora ad ornatum caeli spectantia non sunt facta de alia natura quam caelum, quod ornant4: ergo pari ratione, si quaedam animalia ornant terram, et quaedam aquas, quaedam sunt ex sola terra, et quaedam ex sola aqua.

5. Item, si corpora animalium constant ex quatuor elementis, tunc videtur, quod cum elementa habeant sphaeras distinctas, quod elementa constituentia corpus animalis sint in unum iuncta per violentiam: si ergo violentia est contra naturam, constitutio corporis cuiuslibet animalis est contra naturam; quod est inconveniens.

6. Item, ex eisdem animalia sunt producta tunc, ex quibus producuntur nunc; sed nunc non possunt elementa virtute naturae coadunari: ergo non possunt corpora animalium ex quatuor elementis produci. Maior propositio per se manifesta est; minor probatur, quia non est in potestate naturae ignem facere descendere; si enim descenderet, cum medium interstitium aëris sit frigidissimum, necessario haberet ibi exstingui, et alia plura sequerentur inconvenientia: ergo etc.

Ad oppositum arguitur sic.

Fundamenta.

1. Sensus est operatio animae in corpore secundum conformitatem organi ad obiectum5; sed quodlibet animal habet tactum, qui est perceptibilis quatuor qualitatum, quae radicantur in quatuor elementis: ergo quodlibet animal constat ex quatuor elementis.

2. Item, omne animal aliquo motu est mobile, ut progressionis, vel constrictionis, vel dilatationis; sed nullum elementum de se est sic mobile: ergo necesse est, animal constare ex pluribus elementis.

3. Item, quanto forma est spiritualior, tanto est plurium operationum principium; sed anima sensibilis est forma valde spiritualis: ergo est principium multiplicis operationis. Sed corpus datum est

p. 378

ad subministrandum ei: ergo necesse est, quod corpus sit aptum et idoneum ad diversas operationes6; sed non est aptum ad diversas operationes nisi per diversas virtutes, nec ad diversas virtutes nisi per diversas naturas, nec habet diversas naturas, nisi quia ex diversis compositum: ergo etc.

4. Item, quanto forma posterior et ulterior, tanto nobilior, pro eo quod anteriora sunt materialia respectu posteriorum7: ergo nobilior est forma mixti quam forma elementi. Si ergo anima sensibilis, cum sit forma nobilis, debet habere corpus nobile, ergo corpus animalis non tantum non est corpus simplex, sed constans ex diversis elementis.

Conclusio.

Corpora animalium habent in se naturam quatuor elementorum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio corpora animalium habent in se naturam quatuor elementorum, sicut ostensum est per quatuor rationes, Conclusio. tum propter hoc, ut sint idonea ad sensum; tum propter hoc, ut sint idonea ad motum; tum propter hoc, ut sint idonea ad multiplicitatem operationis; tum propter hoc, ut in se habeant dignitatem completionis8, quae omnia competunt illi corpori, quod perficitur anima sensibili. Rationes 4. — Et propter hoc Corollarium. debet habere aliquem gradum perfectum mixtionis, ubi non tantum fit mixtio, sed etiam complexio; perfecta autem mixtio non est, quousque concurrant quatuor elementa. Aqua enim, cum sit subtilior terra in decupla proportione, penetrat partes terrae; sed non perfecte, pro eo quod aliquam habeat grossitiem. Aër vero, qui est subtilior in centupla proportione, adhuc intimius se profundat9. Sed ignis, qui est subtilior et rarior in millesima proportione, sua subtilitate penetrat usque ad intima, et sic fit alteratio plena usque ad minima et mixtio perfecta, quia miscibilia sunt perfecte alterata. — Et sic patet, quod taliter debent componi corpora perficienda ab anima sensibili.

Solutio oppositorum.

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de auctoritate Genesis, dicendum, quod illud dictum est per quandam praedominantiam sive appropriationem, sicut melius patebit infra10.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod forma debet proportionari materiae; dicendum, quod verum est in conditionibus, quae magis competunt ipsi formae. Anima autem, cum sit simplex in substantia, multiplex est in virtute; et ideo non competit, ut corpus ei assimiletur in simplicitate, pro eo quod simplicitas corporalis repugnat multiplicitati virtutis.

3. Et per hoc patet solutio ad illud quod tertio obiicitur, quod quanto aliquid compositius, tanto minus perfectum. Notandum. Hoc enim etsi habeat veritatem in spiritibus, quorum perfectio attenditur per accessum ad summe simplex; non tamen habet veritatem in corporibus, in quibus et magnificatur virtus ex partium magnitudine, sicut magis urit magnus ignis quam parvus; et plurificatur ex partium multiplicatione, sicut maioris virtutis est syrupus compositus quam liquor impermixtus. Et ideo homo, qui inter cetera animalia est perfectissimus, inter cetera est compositissimus, sicut planius videbitur inferius11.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de corporibus ornantibus caelum, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia illa nec propriis motibus moventur nec spiritualibus formis12 perficiuntur, quibus debeatur multiplicitas operationum, vel diversitas partium componentium et organorum, sicut ponitur in animalibus.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fit elementorum violentatio; dicendum, quod non est intelligendum, quod Dominus in primordio, cum corpora animalium composuit, elementa ex diversis sphaeris concurrere fecerit; hoc enim non oportebat, tum quia tam aqua quam terra non sunt elementa pura, sed aliis permixta secundum eam partem13, ex qua facta sunt ex eis animalia; tum etiam, quia, si essent pura et simplicia, in uno elemento sunt cetera in potentia, et ex uno possunt fieri omnia, si adsit virtus alterans et activa, sine aliqua locali mutatione, ac per hoc sine aliqua violentatione.

6. Et per hoc patet responsio ad ultimum, quia similiter, quando fit commixtio elementorum, natura non facit ignem, qui sursum est, descendere, vel aërem; sed eum ignem, vel aërem, qui vel est in terra, vel generatur per actionem alicuius agentis, facit venire ad constitutionem animalis. Et hoc quidem fit per naturam, non per violentiam. « Quia enim natura, secundum quod dicit Philosophus14, semper desiderat quod melius est », materia, quae est sub forma elementari, appetit esse sub forma mixti, et quae est sub forma mixtionis appetit esse sub forma complexionis; ideo cum ex diversis elementis fit mixtio in unum, appetitus naturae completur, et violentia non infertur.

p. 379

Scholion.

I. Alii auctores antiqui hanc et seq. (3.) quaestionem unica tractatione sub diversis titulis absolvunt, praeter Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med.; omnes autem quoad ipsas conclusiones conveniunt.

Si autem quaeritur de modo, quo elementa in corporibus animatis remanent, tunc incidit celebris controversia de pluralitate formarum in mixtionibus, de qua supra, d. 13. a. 2. q. 2, in scholio mentionem fecimus. Hanc controversiam explicite tractat Richard. a Med. (hic a. 1. q. 1.), qui quaestionem inscribit: « Utrum corpora animalium ita sint composita ex quatuor elementis, quod vere ibi maneant essentiae formarum elementarium incomplete ». Similiter Scot. (in utroque Scripto hic q. unica) quaerit: « Utrum in corpore animalis, vel in quocumque mixto remaneant elementa secundum substantiam in actu ». Richardus affirmantem et negantem opinionem cum suis fundamentis et oppositorum solutionibus refert, quin aliquid determinet. Sed Scotus (ibid. n. 5.) negative sic respondet: « Elementa non manent in mixto secundum substantiam sive remissam, sicut dicit Commentator, sive non remissam, sicut ponit Avicenna ». Deinde (n. 6. 7.) addit: « Quatuor elementa manent in uno mixto virtualiter, habente formam substantialem continentem in virtute formas elementorum, non tamen secundum substantiam ut partes sui ». Quae verba satis conveniunt cum doctrina S. Thomae (S. 1. q. 76. a. 4. ad 4.), qui dicit: « Formae elementorum manent in mixto non actu, sed virtute; manent enim qualitates propriae elementorum, licet remissae, in quibus est virtus formarum elementarium. Et huiusmodi qualitas mixtionis est propria dispositio ad formam substantialem corporis mixti, puta formam lapidis vel animati cuiuscumque ». — Aliter autem loquitur B. Albert., I. de Generat. et corrupt. tr. 6. c. 3. 6.

S. Bonav., qui in his duabus quaest. presse sequitur Alexandrum Hal. (S. p. II. q. 77. et q. 81. m. 1.), de corpore humano disputantem, explicite non explanat modum, quo remanent elementa in mixtionibus. Sed supposita eiusdem doctrina de incompletis formis et rationibus seminalibus, plura eius verba in utraque quaest., praesertim in fundam. 3. quaestionis 2., favent affirmanti opinioni, ut supra in cit. scholio dictum est. De corporis autem humani compositione disputatur infra d. 17. a. 2. q. 1. 2. 3, ubi praecipue in q. 2. notanda est solut. ad 6. Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 1. a. 2.) explicite etiam de 2. quaest. tractat, sed nihil de hac controversia dicit.

II. Alii auctores praecipue de 3. quaestione agunt. — Praeter iam citatos: S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; (quoad corpus humanum) S. 1. q. 91. a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. — Biel, hic q. unica.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether the bodies of animals are composed of the four elements.

In the second place it is asked whether the bodies of animals are composed of the four elements, or of one only. And that they are of one only, it seems:

To the opposite.

1. First through Scripture1, which says: Let the waters bring forth the creeping thing, etc.; and likewise: Let the earth bring forth the living soul. If therefore Scripture sufficiently expresses the matter of animals, since it expresses nothing but the simple elements, the point is plain, etc.

2. Likewise, form ought to be proportioned to matter2; therefore also the body to the soul; but the form of animals is simple: therefore their bodies also ought to be simple: therefore they are not of the four elements: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the more anything approaches the nature of composition, the less perfect it is; for what is simpler is more potent and more perfect3. If therefore the sensitive soul is a very potent and noble form: therefore it ought to be the perfection of a simple body, not one mixed of the four elements.

4. Likewise, the bodies pertaining to the adornment of the heavens are not made of a nature other than the heavens which they adorn4: therefore by parallel reason, if certain animals adorn the earth, and others the waters, some are from earth alone, and some from water alone.

5. Likewise, if the bodies of animals consist of the four elements, then it seems, since the elements have distinct spheres, that the elements constituting the body of an animal are joined into one by violence: if therefore violence is against nature, the constitution of the body of every animal is against nature; which is unfitting.

6. Likewise, animals were then produced from the same things from which they are now produced; but now the elements cannot be brought together by the power of nature: therefore the bodies of animals cannot be produced from the four elements. The major proposition is manifest of itself; the minor is proved, because it is not in the power of nature to make fire descend; for if it should descend, since the intermediate interstice of air is the coldest, it would necessarily there be extinguished, and many other unfitting consequences would follow: therefore etc.

To the opposite it is argued thus.

Fundamenta.

1. Sense is the operation of the soul in the body according to the conformity of the organ to the object5; but every animal has touch, which perceives the four qualities, which are rooted in the four elements: therefore every animal is constituted of the four elements.

2. Likewise, every animal is mobile with some motion, as of progression, or of contraction, or of expansion; but no element of itself is mobile in this way: therefore it is necessary that an animal consist of several elements.

3. Likewise, the more spiritual the form, the more it is a principle of multiple operations; but the sensitive soul is a very spiritual form: therefore it is the principle of multiple operation. But the body is given

to be its servant: therefore it is necessary that the body be apt and suitable for diverse operations6; but it is not apt for diverse operations except through diverse powers, nor for diverse powers except through diverse natures, nor does it have diverse natures except because it is composed of diverse things: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the later and further the form, the more noble, because the earlier are material in respect of the later7: therefore the form of a mixed body is nobler than the form of an element. If therefore the sensitive soul, since it is a noble form, ought to have a noble body, therefore the body of an animal is not only not a simple body, but consists of diverse elements.

Conclusion.

The bodies of animals have in themselves the nature of the four elements.

I respond: It must be said that without doubt the bodies of animals have in themselves the nature of the four elements, as has been shown by four reasons, Conclusio. both because of this, that they should be suitable for sense; and because of this, that they should be suitable for motion; and because of this, that they should be suitable for multiplicity of operation; and because of this, that they may have in themselves the dignity of completion8, all of which befit that body which is perfected by the sensitive soul. Four Reasons. — And on account of this Corollarium. it ought to have some perfect degree of mixture, where there is not only mixture but also complexion; and there is no perfect mixture until the four elements concur. For water, since it is more subtle than earth in tenfold proportion, penetrates the parts of earth; but not perfectly, because it has a certain coarseness. Air indeed, which is more subtle in hundredfold proportion, sinks itself yet more intimately9. But fire, which is more subtle and rarer in thousandfold proportion, by its subtlety penetrates to the innermost parts, and thus there is a full alteration down to the smallest parts and a perfect mixture, because the things to be mixed are perfectly altered. — And thus it is plain that the bodies to be perfected by the sensitive soul must be composed in this way.

Solution of the opposites.

1. To that which is objected from the authority of Genesis, it must be said that this was said by a certain predominance or appropriation, as will appear more clearly below10.

2. To that which is objected, that form ought to be proportioned to matter; it must be said that this is true in those conditions which befit the form itself more properly. But the soul, since it is simple in substance, is multiple in power; and therefore it does not befit that the body be assimilated to it in simplicity, because corporeal simplicity is repugnant to multiplicity of power.

3. And through this is plain the solution to that which is objected in the third place, that the more composite anything is, the less perfect. Notandum. For although this has truth in spirits, whose perfection is attended to by access to the highest simple; nevertheless it does not have truth in bodies, in which power is both magnified by the magnitude of parts, as a great fire burns more than a small one; and is multiplied by the multiplication of parts, as a compound syrup is of greater power than an unmixed liquor. And therefore man, who is the most perfect among the rest of the animals, is among the rest the most composite, as will be seen more plainly below11.

4. To that which is objected concerning the bodies adorning heaven, it must be said that it is not similar, because those are neither moved by their own motions nor perfected by spiritual forms12, to which would be owed a multiplicity of operations, or a diversity of component parts and organs, as is posited in animals.

5. To that which is objected, that there is a violence of the elements; it must be said that it is not to be understood that the Lord at the beginning, when he composed the bodies of animals, caused the elements to run together from diverse spheres; for this was not necessary, both because both water and earth are not pure elements, but mixed with others according to that part13 from which animals were made out of them; and also because, if they were pure and simple, in one element the rest are in potency, and from one all things can be made, if an altering and active power be present, without any local motion, and on this account without any violence.

6. And through this is plain the answer to the last point, because likewise, when the commixture of elements takes place, nature does not make the fire, which is above, descend, nor the air; but that fire or air which is either in earth, or is generated through the action of some agent, it brings to the constitution of the animal. And this indeed happens through nature, not through violence. « For since nature, according to what the Philosopher says14, always desires what is better », matter, which is under the elemental form, desires to be under the form of the mixed, and that which is under the form of mixture desires to be under the form of complexion; therefore when from diverse elements a mixture into one is made, the appetite of nature is completed, and no violence is inflicted.

Scholion.

I. Other ancient authors treat this and the following (3rd) question in a single treatment under diverse titles, except Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla; but all agree as to the conclusions themselves.

But if it is asked concerning the mode in which the elements remain in animate bodies, then there arises the celebrated controversy concerning the plurality of forms in mixtures, of which above, d. 13, a. 2, q. 2, in the scholion we made mention. This controversy is explicitly treated by Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 1, q. 1), who inscribes the question: « Whether the bodies of animals are so composed of the four elements that the essences of the elemental forms truly remain there incompletely ». Likewise Scotus (in both of his Writings, here q. unica) asks: « Whether in the body of an animal, or in any mixed body, the elements remain according to substance in act ». Richard reports the affirmative and negative opinions with their grounds and the solutions of opposing arguments, without determining anything. But Scotus (ibid. n. 5) responds negatively thus: « The elements do not remain in the mixed body according to substance whether remitted, as the Commentator says, or unremitted, as Avicenna holds ». Then (n. 6, 7) he adds: « The four elements remain in one mixed body virtually, since it has a substantial form containing in power the forms of the elements, not however according to substance as parts of itself ». These words sufficiently agree with the doctrine of St. Thomas (S. 1, q. 76, a. 4, ad 4), who says: « The forms of the elements remain in the mixed body not in act but in power; for the proper qualities of the elements remain, although remitted, in which is the power of the elemental forms. And a quality of mixture of this sort is the proper disposition to the substantial form of the mixed body, such as the form of stone or of anything animated ». — But B. Albert speaks otherwise, in On Generation and Corruption, book I, tr. 6, c. 3, 6.

St. Bonaventure, who in these two questions closely follows Alexander of Hales (S. p. II, q. 77 and q. 81, m. 1), disputing concerning the human body, does not explicitly explain the mode in which the elements remain in mixtures. But, his doctrine of incomplete forms and seminal reasons being supposed, several of his words in both questions, especially in fundamentum 3 of question 2, favor the affirmative opinion, as has been said above in the cited scholion. Concerning the composition of the human body it is disputed below in d. 17, a. 2, q. 1, 2, 3, where especially in q. 2 the solution to obj. 6 is to be noted. Peter of Tarentaise (here q. 1, a. 2) also treats explicitly of the 2nd question, but says nothing of this controversy.

II. Other authors treat principally of the 3rd question. — Besides those already cited: St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1; (as concerns the human body) S. 1, q. 91, a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1, a. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2. — Biel, here q. unica.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Gen. 1, 20. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 24.
    Gen. 1:20. — The following text is from the same passage, v. 24.
  2. Cfr. Aristot., II. Phys. text. 26. (c. 2.) et VIII. Metaph. text. 6. (VII. c. 2.) et II. de Anima, text. 26. (c. 2.). — De minori cfr. Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 55. seqq. (c. 4.).
    Cf. Aristotle, Physics II, text 26 (c. 2), and Metaphysics VIII, text 6 (VII, c. 2), and On the Soul II, text 26 (c. 2). — On the minor, cf. Aristotle, On the Soul I, text 55 ff. (c. 4).
  3. Vide librum de Causis, prop. 17.
    See the Book of Causes, proposition 17.
  4. De quo vide plura supra d. 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.
    On which see more above, d. 14, p. II, a. 2, q. 1.
  5. Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 121. seqq. (c. 12.). — De minori vide ibid. III. text. 60. seqq. (c. 12. seq.), ubi etiam seq. arg. insinuatur. — Vat. et radicatur pro quae radicantur.
    Cf. Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 121 ff. (c. 12). — On the minor see ibid. III, text 60 ff. (c. 12 f.), where also the following argument is insinuated. — The Vatican edition reads et radicatur for quae radicantur.
  6. Sive quod corpus sit organicum; sub quo respectu Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 6. seq. (c. 1.), definit animam, quod sit actus primus corporis physici, organici, potentia vitam habentis. Cfr. II. de Generat. animal. c. 3. — Maior invenitur secundum Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 77. m. 1. a. 1. et q. 81. m. 1, in libro Fontis vitae, ab Avicebrone conscripto.
    That is, that the body be organic; under which respect Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 6 f. (c. 1), defines the soul as the first act of a physical body, organic, having life in potency. Cf. On the Generation of Animals II, c. 3. — The major proposition is found, according to Alexander of Hales (S. p. II, q. 77, m. 1, a. 1, and q. 81, m. 1), in the Fountain of Life, written by Avicebron.
  7. Semper enim, ut ait Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 31. (c. 3.), in eo quod est consequenter, est potentia quod prius est, et in figuris et in animatis.
    For always, as Aristotle says, On the Soul II, text 31 (c. 3), in that which is consequent there is in potency what is prior, both in figures and in animate things.
  8. Id est perfectionis, scil. corporis nobilis. — Vat. complexionis et paulo inferius dicitur pro debet.
    That is, of perfection, namely of a noble body. — The Vatican edition reads complexionis, and a little below dicitur for debet.
  9. Cod. cc et ed. 1 profundit. — De mixtione vide Aristot., I. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 82. seqq. (c. 10.) et II. text. 49. seqq. (c. 8.).
    Codex cc and ed. 1 read profundit. — On mixture see Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption I, text 82 ff. (c. 10) and II, text 49 ff. (c. 8).
  10. Quaest. seq.
    The following question.
  11. Dist. 17. a. 2. per totum. — De ipsa solutione cfr. I. Sent. d. 17. p. II. q. 2. ad 2. et 3.
    Distinction 17, article 2, throughout. — On the solution itself cf. I Sent., d. 17, p. II, q. 2, ad 2 and 3.
  12. In plurimis codd. et edd. 1, 2 desideratur formis; aliqui codd. ut H I W substituunt spiritibus pro formis spiritualibus. Cfr. supra d. 14. p. I. a. 3. q. 2.
    In most codices and editions 1, 2 formis is missing; some codices like H I W substitute spiritibus for formis spiritualibus. Cf. above, d. 14, p. I, a. 3, q. 2.
  13. Vat. secundum earum partem, secundum quam facta etc.
    The Vatican edition reads secundum earum partem, secundum quam facta etc.
  14. Libr. II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 59. (c. 10.). — Paulo inferius post appetitus Vat. subiungit materiae vel.
    Book II of On Generation and Corruption, text 59 (c. 10). — A little below, after appetitus, the Vatican edition adds materiae vel.
← Dist. 15, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 15, Art. 1, Q. 3→