← Back to Distinction 20

Dist. 20, Art. 1, Q. 6

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 20

Textus Latinus
p. 485

Quaestio VI. Utrum aequalis fieret multiplicatio virorum et mulierum, si homo stetisset.

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum aequalis fieret multiplicatio virorum et mulierum. Et quod sic, videtur.

Fundamenta. 1. Natura sic procederet in generando, sicut Deus eam instituit; sed Deus, cum produxit naturam humanam, produxit masculum et feminam in pari numero1: ergo similiter et natura in pari numero multiplicasset.

2. Item, generatio hominis non poterat continuari nisi per masculum et feminam, et ita necessaria est ad generationem mulier, sicut et masculus: ergo videtur, quod natura aequaliter intenderet utrumque sexum; sed sicut intendebat, ita2 multiplicabat: ergo etc.

3. Item, sicut vir intendit se salvare3 in simili, scilicet in viro, quem generat, sic et mulier in consimili, scilicet in muliere; sed natura aeque bene esset ordinata in muliere, sicut in viro: ergo si vir non frustraretur sua intentione, similiter nec mulier: ergo quot conciperet masculos ad conservationem sexus virilis, tot conciperet feminas ad conservationem sexus muliebris.

4. Item, in statu innocentiae sicut quilibet comederet, ita quilibet prolem multiplicaret, cum omnibus esset dictum: Crescite et multiplicamini4 etc.: ergo quilibet haberet uxorem. Si ergo matrimonium requirit, quod sint duo in carne una, tot essent viri, quot mulieres, nec plures nec pauciores.

Ad oppositum. 1. Sicut dicit Philosophus in libro de Animalibus5: «femina est vir occasionatus»: ergo videtur esse praeter naturae intentionem; sed tempore naturae institutae, cum natura esset recta, nihil produceretur praeter intentionem ipsius: ergo videtur, quod nulla mulier generaretur, vel saltem paucae: ergo plures essent viri quam mulieres.

2. Item, sicut vult Philosophus6: «Natura semper desiderat quod melius est»; sed sexus virilis perfectior est et melior quam sexus muliebris: ergo natura magis desiderat generare virum quam mulierem; si ergo sic produceret, secundum quod desideraret, plures produceret viros quam mulieres.

3. Item, generatio maris est propter vigorem virtutis generantis et seminis decisi, sicut dicunt naturales et medici7; sed in statu naturae institutae virtus generativa et semen decisum completam et sufficientem haberet virtutem: ergo semper vel plures masculos generari contingeret.

4. Item, cum semen viri praedominatur semini mulieris, tunc ad propriam naturam trahit et convertit; sed secundum ordinem naturae masculus potentior est femina: ergo, natura stante, semper vel plures vinceret semen virile: ergo plures generaret natura masculos quam mulieres.

Conclusio.

Si homo mansisset in statu innocentiae, natura aequaliter multiplicasset viros et mulieres.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod si homo stetisset, aequaliter natura multiplicaret viros et mulieres. — Rationem autem huius facile est accipere a parte finis ad quem, sed difficile est accipere a parte principii a quo.

Ratio ex parte finis. A parte namque finis ad quem ratio est in promptu. Cum enim distinctio sexuum esset propter multiplicationem generis humani et completionem numeri electorum; et illa multiplicatio ad omnes spectaret, et hoc solum secundum legem matrimonii, in qua tantum una erat unius: necesse est, si natura stetisset, tot fuisse mulieres, quot viros, cum nulla mulier careret viro, et nullus vir careret uxore, nec una esset plurium, nec plures unius8.

Ratio ex parte principii. Rationem autem a parte principii effectivi assignare est difficile; potest tamen sic investigari descendendo ad principia alterius scientiae, scilicet naturalis et medicinae, quarum utraque famulari habet theologiae. Notandum. Magna est enim quaestio apud naturales et medicos de distantia generationis maris et feminae; et cum quaeritur, quare modo mas, modo femina generatur, triplex ratio redditur a diversis9.

Redditur triplex ratio. Una a parte vasis suscipientis: si enim suscipitur in parte dextra, dicunt, quod ibi generatur vir propter fortem calorem, qui ibi viget; si in parte sinistra, sic generari habet mulier. — Secunda ratio redditur ex parte commixtionis utriusque sexus10, scilicet viri et mulieris. Si enim praedominatur semen viri, tunc trahitur ad naturam viri, et generatur masculus; si vero semen mulieris, tunc trap. 486hitur ad suam naturam, et generatur sexus femineus. — Tertia ratio redditur ex parte virtutis seminis virilis. Si enim semen virile fuerit virtutis fortis ex concursu triplicis caloris et spiritus in ipso existentis11, tunc fit fortior coagulatio et complexio, et generatur sexus vigorosus, id est masculinus. Si autem fuerit virtutis debilis, tunc fit coagulatio mollior et fragilior, et generatur ex eo sexus infirmus, scilicet femineus. — Notandum. Haec autem ratio tertio dicta principalior est inter istas tres, nec aliae habent efficaciam nisi ab ista. Nam, sicut vult Philosophus12, principaliter movens in generatione sive maris sive feminae est semen virile; et ideo nec semen mulieris proprie habet semini viri praedominari, nisi hoc dicatur propter debilitatem seminis virilis, qua accedit ad conformitatem seminis mulieris; nec locus matricis facit sexuum diversitatem principaliter sicut principaliter movens, sed sicut cooperans principaliter moventi, quae quidem est fortitudo vel debilitas in virtute seminis virilis.

Ratio 3. declaratur ex tribus rationibus. Si autem quaeratur, quae sit ratio diversitatis in debilitate et virtute virilis seminis; triplex etiam ratio potest reddi13. — Una est propter caliditatem et bonam dispositionem membri, a quo fit seminis generatio, et per quod fit seminis transfusio, ita quod nec excedit in caliditate nec declinat ad frigiditatem; tunc enim semen, quod ab illo membro transfunditur, est fortis virtutis et vigoris. Si autem membrum se habet in opposita dispositione, tunc semen est virtutis debilis. — Alia ratio potest sumi ex parte exterioris adiutorii, utpote alimenti et venti et temporis, quae multum faciunt ad vigorationem vel debilitationem virtutis. Boreas enim suo flatu virtutem vigorat, dum eam recludit interius; sed auster debilitat, dum eam exhalare facit; sic etiam facit cibus et tempus. Et quando exteriores dispositiones concurrunt, quae virtutem habent vigorare, tunc semen est fortis virtutis; quando vero sunt in contraria dispositione, tunc semen est virtutis debilis. — Tertia ratio sumitur ex parte animae. Vis enim generativa multum conformatur accidentibus animae et imaginationibus, secundum quod per experimentum patet. Nam ex memoria delectationis frequenter fit excitatio pruritus carnis; et ex imaginatione forti in somnis fit effusio seminis, sicut fit ad praesentiam mulieris; et vis formativa, quae est praecipua virtus in semine, multum adiuvatur ab imaginativa, secundum quod exempla ponuntur et sunt in sacra Scriptura et etiam in medicina, ut patet in ovibus Iacob, Genesis trigesimo14. Et narratur pro exemplo, quod mulier, quae nanum aspiciebat, cum a viro cognoscebatur, omnes filios nanos concipiebat.

Quoad statum naturae lapsae. Inter has autem rationes cum omnes sint bonae et faciant ad seminis vigorationem, secundum statum naturae lapsae praecipua sumitur ratio ex parte complexionis membri; aliae duae sunt sicut adminiculares solum vel impedientes.

Quoad statum naturae institutae. Sed tempore naturae institutae, in qua corpus subiectum erat animae, principalis ratio sumitur generationis maris et feminae a parte virtutis animalis moventis et imaginantis. Cum enim vir intenderet et vellet generare virum, tunc vigoraretur virtus naturalis eius in agendo, et esset semen maioris virtutis, et generaretur sexus vigorosus sive masculus; quando vero vellet et imaginaretur generare sexum femineum, tunc minus forti impressione ageret in naturam inferiorem corporalem, et tunc semen esset minus forte, et generaretur sexus femineus: et ideo in tempore naturae institutae generatio maris et feminae subesset voluntati rationali. — Et quoniam ratio dictaret, omnia facienda esse ordinate, et tot producere mulieres quot viros, ut quilibet vir haberet adiutorium simile sibi15 secundum exigentiam legis matrimonii; ideo tunc viros et mulieres produceret in numero aequali. Nunc autem, quia generativa non omnino subest virtuti animali, id est imaginariae, nec etiam rationali, licet ei aliquo modo conformetur, sed magis variatur penes dispositionem membri et exterioris adiutorii; hinc est, quod non est certa determinatio numeri nec in viris nec in feminis generandis; immo modo16, quando credit generare masculum, generat feminam, et quando credit generare feminam, generat masculum; et aliqui plures habent feminas, aliqui plures masculos. — Sic ergo patet, quod si homo stetisset, in aequali numero fieret multiplicatio virorum et mulierum. Unde rationes hoc ostendentes concedendae sunt.

Solutio oppositorum. 1. Ad illud autem quod primo obiicitur, quod femina dicitur vir occasionatus; dicendum, quod Philosophus non vult dicere, quod femina sit praeter naturae intentionem, sed quod virtus naturae aliquem defectum habet in productione mulieris respectu productionis viri; ille autem defectus non repugnat ordini naturae, sed potius salvat. Secundum enim ordinem naturae, sicut producuntur in eodem corpore quaedam membra magis fortia, quaedam minus: sic producuntur in eadem specie quaedam individua unius sexus, quaedam alterius. Et ideo, licet ille defectus, qui ordinem naturae corrumpit, utputa est ille, qui est causa defectus membri vel bonae complexionis17, sit praeter naturaep. 487intentionem; generatio tamen mulieris nec est praeter naturam nec contra naturam, sed secundum naturam.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod natura semper desiderat illud quod melius est; dicendum, quod non intelligitur, quod semper desiderat melius simpliciter, sed melius in ordine; licet autem sexus masculinus melior sit in se quam femineus, non tamen esset ita sufficienter salus naturae in solo virili sexu, sicut est in virili et muliebri: et ideo natura magis desiderat utrumque quam alterum solum.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod semen viri praedominatur18 semini mulieris; dicendum, quod illa ratio debet sane intelligi, ad hoc quod valeat. Proprie enim loquendo, nunquam semen mulieris praedominatur semini viri; sed ideo dicitur praedominari semen mulieris, quia semen viri adeo est debilis virtutis, quod magis est idoneum ad productionem sexus muliebris quam virilis; hoc autem modo potuit esse in statu primo, sicut praetactum est.

Ad 3. Et per hoc patet responsio ad aliud quod obiicitur de fortitudine caloris et virtutis. Gradus enim ibi fuissent secundum ordinem rationis et secundum exigentiam finis, ita quod vir aliquando operaretur actione magis fortificata in productione viri, aliquando minus fortificata in productione mulieris. — Si quis autem vellet dicere, sicut aliqui existimant, quod mulier semper gemellos conciperet, ita quod pars dextra attraheret quod est maioris virtutis de semine ad generationem sexus virilis, et pars sinistra quod est virtutis magis debilis ad generationem sexus feminei; tunc facile esset ad ea quae obiecta sunt respondere. Hoc autem nec de facili probatur, nec etiam reprobatur certitudine rationis: et ideo modus solvendi praehabitus videtur esse magis rationabilis19.

Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaestionem (q. 5 SCHOLION II) pro auctorum nominibus qui hanc quaestionem tractant.

---

English Translation

Question VI. Whether the multiplication of men and women would have been equal, if man had stood.

Sixthly and lastly it is asked whether the multiplication of men and women would have been equal. And that it would, seems thus.

Fundamenta. 1. Nature would so proceed in generating as God instituted it; but God, when he produced human nature, produced male and female in equal number1: therefore similarly nature also would have multiplied in equal number.

2. Likewise, the generation of man could not be continued except through male and female, and so woman is as necessary for generation as is the male: therefore it seems that nature would equally intend each sex; but as it intended, so2 it multiplied: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, just as the man intends to preserve himself3 in the like, namely in the man whom he generates, so too the woman in what is co-like, namely in the woman; but nature is just as well ordered in the woman as in the man: therefore if the man were not frustrated in his intention, neither would the woman: therefore as many males as she would conceive for the preservation of the male sex, so many females would she conceive for the preservation of the female sex.

4. Likewise, in the state of innocence, just as everyone would eat, so everyone would multiply offspring, since to all it was said: Increase and multiply4 etc.: therefore everyone would have a spouse. If therefore matrimony requires that there be two in one flesh, there would be as many men as women, neither more nor fewer.

On the contrary. 1. As the Philosopher says in the book On Animals5: «woman is a man by accident (vir occasionatus)»: therefore she seems to be beside the intention of nature; but in the time of nature as instituted, since nature was upright, nothing would be produced beside its intention: therefore it seems that no woman would be generated, or at any rate few: therefore there would be more men than women.

2. Likewise, as the Philosopher holds6: «Nature always desires what is better»; but the male sex is more perfect and better than the female sex: therefore nature more desires to generate a man than a woman; if therefore she should produce according to what she desires, she would produce more men than women.

3. Likewise, the generation of the male is on account of the vigor of the generating virtue and of the seed cut off, as the natural philosophers and physicians say7; but in the state of nature as instituted the generative virtue and the seed cut off would have complete and sufficient strength: therefore it would always — or for the most part — happen that males be generated.

4. Likewise, since the seed of the man dominates the seed of the woman, it draws and converts it to its own nature; but according to the order of nature the male is more potent than the female: therefore, nature standing, the male seed would always — or for the most part — prevail: therefore nature would generate more males than females.

Conclusion.

If man had remained in the state of innocence, nature would equally have multiplied men and women.

I respond: It must be said that if man had stood, nature would equally have multiplied men and women. — The reason for this, however, is easy to grasp from the side of the end to which, but difficult to grasp from the side of the principle from which.

Reason from the end. For from the side of the end to which, the reason is at hand. Since the distinction of the sexes was for the multiplication of the human race and the completion of the number of the elect; and that multiplication would pertain to all, and this only according to the law of matrimony, in which one only belonged to one: it is necessary, if nature had stood, that there be as many women as men, since no woman would lack a man and no man would lack a wife, neither would one belong to many nor many to one8.

Reason from the principle. But to assign a reason from the side of the effective principle is difficult; it can however be investigated thus by descending to the principles of another science, namely natural philosophy and medicine, both of which are to serve theology. Note. For there is a great question among natural philosophers and physicians concerning the distinction of the generation of male and female; and when it is asked why now a male, now a female is generated, a threefold reason is given by different authors9.

A threefold reason is given. One is from the side of the receiving vessel: for if the seed is received in the right part, they say that a male is there generated on account of the strong heat which thrives there; if in the left part, then a woman has to be generated. — The second reason is given from the side of the commixture of the two sexes10, namely of man and woman. For if the seed of the man dominates, then it is drawn to the man's nature, and a male is generated; but if the woman's seed dominates, then it is drawnp. 486 to her nature, and a female sex is generated. — The third reason is given from the side of the virtue of the male seed. For if the male seed has been of strong virtue from the concurrence of the threefold heat and spirit existing in it11, then a stronger coagulation and complexion takes place, and a vigorous sex is generated, that is, the masculine. But if it has been of weak virtue, then a softer and frailer coagulation takes place, and from it a weak sex is generated, namely the feminine. — Note. This reason, the one given third, is the principal among these three, nor do the others have efficacy except from it. For, as the Philosopher holds12, what principally moves in the generation of either male or female is the male seed; and therefore the seed of the woman does not properly have to dominate the seed of the man, unless this be said on account of the weakness of the male seed, by which it approaches the conformity of the woman's seed; nor does the place of the womb make the diversity of the sexes principally as principal mover, but rather as cooperating with the principal mover, which indeed is the strength or weakness in the virtue of the male seed.

The third reason is declared from three reasons. But if it be asked what the reason is of the diversity in weakness and strength of the male seed; a threefold reason also can be given13. — One is on account of the heat and good disposition of the member, from which the generation of the seed takes place, and through which the transfusion of the seed takes place, such that it neither exceeds in heat nor inclines toward cold; for then the seed which is transfused from that member is of strong virtue and vigor. But if the member is in the opposite disposition, then the seed is of weak virtue. — Another reason can be taken from the side of exterior aid, namely of food and wind and time, which contribute much to the strengthening or weakening of virtue. For Boreas by its blast strengthens the virtue, while it encloses it within; but Auster weakens it, while it makes it exhale; so too does food and time. And when the exterior dispositions concur which have the power to strengthen, then the seed is of strong virtue; but when they are in the contrary disposition, then the seed is of weak virtue. — The third reason is taken from the side of the soul. For the generative power is much conformed to the accidents of the soul and to imaginations, as appears by experience. For from the memory of pleasure there often arises a stirring of the itching of the flesh; and from strong imagination in sleep there is an effusion of seed, as occurs at the presence of a woman; and the formative virtue, which is the principal virtue in the seed, is much aided by the imaginative, as is shown by the examples set down both in sacred Scripture and in medicine, as appears in Jacob's sheep, Genesis thirty14. And it is told as an example that a woman who would gaze on a dwarf, when she was known by her man, would conceive all her sons as dwarfs.

As regards the state of fallen nature. Among these reasons, since all are good and contribute to the vigoration of the seed, according to the state of fallen nature the principal reason is taken from the side of the complexion of the member; the other two are as auxiliaries only, or as impediments.

As regards the state of nature as instituted. But in the time of nature as instituted, in which the body was subject to the soul, the principal reason for the generation of male and female is taken from the side of the moving and imagining animal virtue. For when the man would intend and will to generate a man, then his natural virtue would be strengthened in acting, and the seed would be of greater virtue, and a vigorous sex, namely a male, would be generated; but when he would will and imagine to generate a female sex, then by a less strong impression he would act upon the inferior bodily nature, and then the seed would be less strong, and a female sex would be generated: and therefore in the time of nature as instituted the generation of male and female would be subject to the rational will. — And since reason would dictate that all things ought to be done in order, and to produce as many women as men, that every man might have an aid like to himself15 according to the exigency of the law of matrimony; therefore he would then produce men and women in equal number. Now however, since the generative is not entirely subject to the animal virtue, that is the imaginative, nor even to the rational, although it is in some way conformed to it, but is rather varied according to the disposition of the member and of exterior aid; hence it is that there is no fixed determination of the number either of the men or of the women to be generated; indeed sometimes16, when one believes he is generating a male, he generates a female, and when he believes he is generating a female, he generates a male; and some have more females, others more males. — So therefore it is plain that, if man had stood, the multiplication of men and women would have taken place in equal number. Whence the reasons showing this are to be conceded.

Solution of the opposing arguments. 1. To that which is first objected, that woman is called a man by accident; it must be said that the Philosopher does not mean that woman is beside the intention of nature, but that the virtue of nature has some defect in the production of the woman with respect to the production of the man; that defect, however, does not conflict with the order of nature, but rather preserves it. For according to the order of nature, just as in the same body certain members are produced as more strong, certain as less strong: so in the same species certain individuals of one sex are produced, certain of the other. And therefore, although that defect which corrupts the order of nature — namely that which is the cause of a defect of a member or of a good complexion17 — is beside thep. 487intention of nature; nevertheless the generation of a woman is neither beside nature nor contrary to nature, but according to nature.

To 2. To that which is objected, that nature always desires what is better; it must be said that this is not to be understood as that she always desires what is better simply, but what is better in order; for although the masculine sex is better in itself than the feminine, yet the salvation of nature would not be sufficiently secured in the male sex alone, as it is in the male and the female together: and therefore nature more desires both than the one alone.

To 4. To that which is objected, that the seed of the man dominates18 the seed of the woman; it must be said that this argument must be soundly understood, that it may have force. For properly speaking, never does the seed of the woman dominate the seed of the man; but the woman's seed is said to dominate for this reason: that the seed of the man is so weak in virtue that it is more fitted for the production of the female sex than of the male; and this in fact could be the case in the first state, as has been touched on above.

To 3. And by this is plain the response to the other [objection] which is raised concerning the strength of the heat and of the virtue. For there the degrees would have been according to the order of reason and according to the exigency of the end, such that the man would sometimes operate with a more strengthened action in the production of a man, sometimes with a less strengthened action in the production of a woman. — But if anyone should wish to say, as some hold, that the woman would always conceive twins, such that the right part would draw what is of greater virtue of the seed to the generation of the male sex, and the left part what is of weaker virtue to the generation of the female sex; then it would be easy to respond to the objections. But this is neither easily proved nor refuted with the certitude of reason: and therefore the mode of solution previously set out seems to be the more reasonable19.

See the scholion on the preceding question (q. 5 SCHOLION II) for the names of the authors who treat this question.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cfr. Gen. I, 27.
    Cf. Gen 1:27.
  2. Cod. cc. et ed. 1 ita et.
    Codex cc and ed. 1 read ita et.
  3. Edd. et plures codd. salvari.
    The editions and several codices read salvari ("to be saved" passive).
  4. Gen. 1, 28. — Seq. textus est ibid. 2, 24.
    Gen 1:28. — The following text [duo in carne una] is from ibid. 2:24.
  5. Libr. XVI. sive libr. II. de Generat. animal. c. 3: Femina enim quasi mas laesus est (τὸ γὰρ θῆλυ ὥσπερ ἄρρεν ἐστὶ πεπηρωμένον). Cfr. ibid. IV. c. 6, ubi haec: Sexum femineum quasi laesionem naturalem et detrimentum esse putandum est.
    Book XVI, or Book II, On the Generation of Animals, c. 3: "For the female is as it were a maimed male" (Greek as quoted). Cf. ibid. IV c. 6, where one reads: "the female sex must be regarded as a sort of natural maiming and detriment."
  6. Libr. II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 59. (c. 10). Vide supra pag. 341, nota 1. — Paulo inferius edd. 1, 2 et multi codd. desideraret pro desiderat.
    Book II, On Generation and Corruption, text 59 (c. 10). See above p. 341 n. 1. — A little below, eds. 1 and 2 and many codices read desideraret (subjunctive) for desiderat.
  7. Cfr. Aristot., IV. de Generat. animal. c. 1. 6, et Avicenna, III. Canon. Fen 21. tr. 1. c. 12.
    Cf. Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals IV, c. 1, 6; and Avicenna, Canon III, Fen 21, tr. 1, c. 12.
  8. Vide supra q. 1. in corp.
    See above, q. 1 in the body.
  9. Cfr. de his rationibus Aristot., IV. de Generat. animal. c. 1. seq., et Comment. Averrois, ibid., Avicenna, III. Canon. Fen 20. tr. 1. c. 3. et Fen 21. tr. 1. c. 12.
    Cf. on these reasons Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals IV c. 1 ff., and the Commentary of Averroes, ibid.; Avicenna, Canon III, Fen 20, tr. 1, c. 3, and Fen 21, tr. 1, c. 12.
  10. Nonnulli codd. cum ed. 1. seminis.
    Several codices with ed. 1 read seminis ("of seed") [in place of "of commixture"].
  11. Cfr. supra pag. 219, nota 8, et pag. 421, nota 2.
    Cf. above p. 219 n. 8 and p. 421 n. 2.
  12. Libr. I. de Generat. animal. c. 20; II. c. 1; IV. c. 1. — Aliquanto inferius Vat. quod quidem est pro quae quidem est.
    Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals I c. 20; II c. 1; IV c. 1. — Somewhat below, the Vatican edition reads quod quidem est for quae quidem est.
  13. Prima et secunda ratio affertur ab Aristot., IV. de Generat. animal. c. 2, et ab Averroe, ibid.
    The first and second reasons are adduced by Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals IV c. 2, and by Averroes, ibid.
  14. Vers. 37. seqq. — Quoad expositionem huius textus vide August., III. de Trin. c. 8. n. 13; XI. c. 2. n. 3; XII. de Civ. Dei, c. 25; XVIII. c. 5. De hac ratione cfr. etiam Avicenna, I. Canon. Fen 2. Doctr. 2. c. 14.
    Gen 30:37 ff. — On the exposition of this text see Augustine, On the Trinity III c. 8 n. 13; XI c. 2 n. 3; On the City of God XII c. 25; XVIII c. 5. On this argument cf. also Avicenna, Canon I, Fen 2, Doctr. 2, c. 14.
  15. Gen. 2, 18. — Paulo inferius pro generativa cod. F vis generativa.
    Gen 2:18. — A little below, for generativa codex F reads vis generativa.
  16. Nonnulli codd. cum ed. 1 unde modo; Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. et edd. 3, 4 omittit modo.
    Several codices with ed. 1 read unde modo; the Vatican edition with one or two codices and eds. 3, 4 omit modo.
  17. Cod. cc et ed. 1 dispositionis.
    Codex cc and ed. 1 read dispositionis [for complexionis].
  18. Non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 praedominabatur.
    Not a few codices with ed. 1 read praedominabatur (imperfect).
  19. Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion on the preceding question (q. 5 SCHOLION II — Quaracchi prints there the commentator-roll for q. 6: Alex. Hal., S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Aegid. R., Durand.). ---
← Dist. 20, Art. 1, Q. 5Dist. 20, Dubia→