Bonaventure

Articulus II. De dote claritatis.

Consequenter quaeritur de dote claritatis. De qua duo quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de ipsa in se.

Secundo, in comparatione.

Quaestio I. Utrum corpora gloriosa sint pervia, an colorata, an luminosa.

Quantum ergo ad primum quaeritur, utrum corpora illa sint pervia, an colorata, an luminosa. Quod autem sint pervia, videtur.

1. Gregorius super illud Iob vigesimo octavo¹⁰: Non comparabitur etc.: «Uniuscuiusque mentem ab alterius oculis membrorum corpulentia non abscondet»: ergo membrorum corpulentia visui non obsistet; sed hoc non esset, nisi essent pervia: ergo etc.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia plus subtiliatur corpus per gloriam, quam possit¹ per naturam, aut artem; sed natura et ars de obscuro facit pervium subtiliando, utpote de cinere vitrum: ergo multo fortius illa.

3. Item, in visceribus corporis gloriosi est pulcherrima harmonia²; sed haec nata est delectare visum: ergo si corpora resurgent in eadem dispositione, in qua possunt perfecte delectare, ergo intus et extra; et hoc non possunt, nisi sint pervia: ergo etc.

Sed quod sint colorata, videtur:

1. Quia Augustinus, vigesimo secundo de Civitate Dei, capitulo decimo nono³: «Omnis pulcritudo est partium convenientia cum quadam coloris suavitate»; sed corpora gloriosa erunt pulcherrima: ergo habebunt suavitatem coloris.

2. Item, Philosophus⁴ dicit, quod «color est extremitas perspicui in corpore terminato»; sed corpora gloriosa sunt corpora terminata, cum sint eadem, quae nunc, et habent naturam perspicui: ergo etc.

3. Item, ad hoc est ratio: quia ad colorem duo concurrunt, scilicet lux et quatuor qualitates⁵; sed ista sunt in corpore glorioso: ergo etc.

4. Item, ratione videtur: quia corpora gloriosa erunt obiecta visus, non media videndi: ergo non erunt transparentia⁶.

Sed quod sint penitus luminosa, videtur.

5. Matthaei decimo tertio⁷: Fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris etc.: si ergo sol nec pervius est nec coloratus: ergo etc.

6. Item, se ipsis videbuntur⁸: ergo erunt luminosa, non colorata.

7. Item, nobilior qualitas est pervietas quam color, et lux quam pervietas⁹; sed corpora illa erunt perfectissima inter corpora: ergo erunt potius luminosa.

Conclusio

Corpora gloriosa sunt simul colorata et luminosa.

Respondeo: Oportet, omnes concedere, quod corpora illa sunt luminosa; sed volunt aliqui, quod simul sint luminosa et pervia secundum aliam et aliam rationem: pervia propter subtilitatem, luminosa vero ratione claritatis et fulgoris superadditi. — Sed ista positio non est conveniens, quia, si pervia essent, non terminarent visum nec haberent distinctionem in partibus, et ita oculi non possent discerni a naso. Et iterum, magnitudo luminis non patitur, corpus esse transparens, ut patet in sole, in quo est luminis aggregatio, et in candela.

Alii voluerunt dicere, quod essent simul luminosa et colorata: colorata per naturam quatuor elementorum et eorum qualitatum, ex quibus constat corpus humanum; sed luminosa ratione luminis superadditi. Nec hoc est inconveniens, ut dicunt, sicut patet in noctiluca¹⁰, quae est corpus coloratum, ut patet in die, sed lucens in nocte. — Et ista positio est convenientior: quia constat, quod homines recognoscentur in patria; unde habebunt effigies, quas habuerunt, et aspectus oculorum gloriosorum pervenient usque ad superficiem corporis illius splendentis, sicut ensis per multam tersionem non amittit colorem, sed eius colori additur splendor; sic in proposito. Sicut etiam carbo per sui naturam alicuius coloris est, adveniente autem igne, efficitur luminosus; et tamen nihilominus est coloratus, quia est ibi lux materiae terrestri incorporata: sic in proposito intelligendum, quod corpus resurgens per naturam suam habebit colorem, et claritas luminis superinduet¹¹ ipsum sicut ignis carbonem.

Concedendae igitur sunt rationes, quod corpora gloriosa sunt colorata et luminosa secundum duplicem naturam, ut visum est.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpulentia non abscondet mentem; dicendum, quod ex hoc non sequitur, quod sint pervia, quia non magis videtur mens per corpus pervium quam per solidum; sed hoc vult dicere, quod ita cogitationes et affectiones habebunt intus in corpore, ut sint patentes.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magis subtiliatur quam¹ per naturam vel artem; dicendum, quod non quaelibet subtiliatio facit pervietatem. Nam ubi est subtiliatio cum aggregatione luminis, non manet pervietas, ut patet in lumine candelae sive in flamma; et quia sic est in proposito, ideo etc.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod harmonia visum debet delectare; dicendum, quod harmonia illa nata est delectare visum, non corporalem, sed spiritualem; et hunc delectat et delectare potest, etiam si corpus non sit pervium; ideo patet, quod illud non valet².

De numeratione notarum. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on every printed page. The apparatus below is therefore labelled by page: note 10 of page 1024, notes 1–11 of page 1025, and notes 1–2 of page 1026. Notes 1–9 of page 1024 belong to the preceding question (a1-q2), and notes 3–9 of page 1026 to the following question (a2-q2).

---

Article II. On the dowry of brightness.

Next there is inquiry concerning the dowry of brightness. Concerning which two things are asked.

First, there is inquiry concerning it in itself.

Second, in comparison.

Question I. Whether glorified bodies are transparent, or coloured, or luminous.

As regards the first, then, it is asked whether those bodies are transparent, or coloured, or luminous. That they are transparent, it seems.

1. Gregory, on that passage of Job the twenty-eighth¹⁰: It shall not be compared etc.: «The bulk of the members shall not hide the mind of any one from the eyes of another»: therefore the bulk of the members will not obstruct sight; but this would not be so unless they were transparent: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it seems by reason: because a body is more refined through glory than it could be¹ through nature or art; but nature and art make what is opaque transparent by refining it, as glass from ash: therefore much more strongly those bodies.

3. Likewise, in the inward parts of the glorified body there is a most beautiful harmony²; but this is of a nature to delight sight: therefore if bodies rise in the same disposition in which they can perfectly delight, then within and without; and this they cannot do unless they are transparent: therefore etc.

But that they are coloured, it seems:

1. Because Augustine, in the twenty-second book of the City of God, chapter nineteen³: «All beauty is a fitting-together of parts with a certain sweetness of colour»; but glorified bodies will be most beautiful: therefore they will have sweetness of colour.

2. Likewise, the Philosopher⁴ says that «colour is the extremity of the transparent in a bounded body»; but glorified bodies are bounded bodies, since they are the same as now, and have the nature of the transparent: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, there is a reason for this: because two things come together for colour, namely light and the four qualities⁵; but these are in the glorified body: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, it seems by reason: because glorified bodies will be objects of sight, not media of seeing: therefore they will not be transparent⁶.

But that they are wholly luminous, it seems.

5. Matthew the thirteenth⁷: They shall shine as the sun in the kingdom of the Father etc.: if therefore the sun is neither transparent nor coloured: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, they will be seen by themselves⁸: therefore they will be luminous, not coloured.

7. Likewise, transparency is a nobler quality than colour, and light than transparency⁹; but those bodies will be the most perfect among bodies: therefore they will rather be luminous.

Conclusion

Glorified bodies are at once coloured and luminous.

I respond: It must be said that all must concede that those bodies are luminous; but some hold that they are at once luminous and transparent according to one and another account: transparent on account of subtlety, but luminous by reason of the brightness and splendour superadded. — But that position is not fitting, because, if they were transparent, they would not terminate sight nor have distinction in their parts, and so the eyes could not be distinguished from the nose. And again, a magnitude of light does not allow a body to be transparent, as is plain in the sun, in which there is an aggregation of light, and in a candle.

Others have wished to say that they would be at once luminous and coloured: coloured through the nature of the four elements and their qualities, of which the human body consists; but luminous by reason of the light superadded. Nor is this unfitting, as they say, as is plain in the glow-worm¹⁰, which is a coloured body, as appears by day, but shining by night. — And this position is more fitting: because it is agreed that men will be recognized in the fatherland; whence they will have the features which they had, and the looks of glorified eyes will reach as far as the surface of that shining body, just as a sword through much polishing does not lose its colour, but splendour is added to its colour; so in the case proposed. Just as also coal is by its own nature of some colour, but when fire comes upon it, it is made luminous; and yet nonetheless it is coloured, because there is there light incorporated into earthy matter: so in the case proposed it must be understood that the rising body will have colour through its own nature, and the brightness of light will clothe it over¹¹ as fire does the coal.

The reasons are therefore to be conceded, that glorified bodies are coloured and luminous according to a twofold nature, as has been seen.

1. To that which is objected, that bulk will not hide the mind; it must be said that from this it does not follow that they are transparent, because the mind is not seen more through a transparent body than through a solid one; but he means to say this, that they will so have their thoughts and affections within the body that these are open to view.

2. To that which is objected, that it is refined more¹ than through nature or art; it must be said that not every refining produces transparency. For where there is refining together with an aggregation of light, transparency does not remain, as is plain in the light of a candle or in a flame; and because it is so in the case proposed, therefore etc.

3. To that which is objected, that harmony ought to delight sight; it must be said that that harmony is of a nature to delight sight — not the bodily but the spiritual; and this it does delight and can delight, even if the body is not transparent; therefore it is plain that that argument does not hold².

---