Praeterea, homines beati assumuntur ad angelorum ordines, ut dicit Gregorius. Sed in angelis licet quaedam data sint quibusdam excellenter, ibi tamen nihil possidetur singulariter: omnia enim in omnibus sunt, non quidem aequaliter, quia alii aliis sublimius possident, quae tamen omnes habent, ut etiam Gregorius dicit. Ergo et in beatis non erit aliquod aliud praemium nisi omnium commune: ergo aureola non est praemium distinctum ab aurea.Obj. 4: Blessed men are taken up into the orders of the angels, as Gregory says. But among the angels, although some gifts are given to some of them in a surpassing way, nevertheless with them nothing is possessed individually. For all gifts are in all of them, though not equally, since some possess more sublimely than others what they all have, as Gregory also says. Therefore in the blessed, too, there will not be any reward that is not common to all. Therefore, an aureole is not a reward distinct from the golden crown.Praeterea, excellentiori merito excellentius praemium debetur. Si ergo aurea debetur operibus quae sunt in praecepto, aureola vero his quae sunt in consilio; aureola erit perfectior quam aurea: et ita non deberet diminutive signari: et sic videtur quod aureola non sit praemium distinctum ab aurea.Obj. 5: A more excellent reward is owed to more excellent merit. If, then, a golden crown is due to works of precept, but an aureole is due to works of counsel, then an aureole will be more perfect than the golden crown. And then it should not be designated by a diminutive. And so it seems that an aureole is not a reward distinct from a golden crown.Sed contra, Exod. 25, super illud: faciet alteram coronam aureolam, dicit Glossa: ad coronam hanc pertinet canticum novum, quod virgines tantum coram agno concinunt. Ex quo videtur quod aureola sit quaedam corona non omnibus, sed aliquibus specialiter reddita. Aurea autem omnibus beatis redditur. Ergo aureola est aliud quam aurea.On the contrary, on the passage: he shall make another little golden crown (Ex 25:25), a Gloss says: to this crown pertains the new song, which the virgins alone sing together before the Lamb. From this it seems that an aureole is a kind of crown rendered not to all but to some in particular. A golden crown, however, is rendered to all the blessed. Therefore, an aureole is something other than the golden crown.Praeterea, pugnae quam sequitur victoria, debetur corona, 2 ad Timoth. 2, 5: non coronabitur nisi qui legitime certaverit. Ergo ubi est specialis ratio certaminis, ibi debet esse specialis corona. Sed in aliquibus operibus est specialis ratio certandi. Ergo prae aliis aliquam coronam habere debent, et hanc dicimus aureolam.Furthermore, a crown is due to a struggle followed by victory: he is not crowned, unless he competes according to the rules (2 Tim 2:5). Therefore where the contest has a special character, there should be a special crown. But in some works the contest does have a special character. Therefore, they should have a crown before the others, and this we call an aureole.Praeterea, Ecclesia militans descendit a triumphante, ut patet Apoc. 21, 2: vidi civitatem sanctam Hierusalem novam descendentem de caelo a Deo. Sed in Ecclesia militante specialia opera habentibus specialia praemia redduntur, sicut victoribus corona, currentibus bravium. Ergo similiter debet esse in Ecclesia triumphante.Furthermore, the Church Militant descends from the Triumphant, as is clear: I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God (Rev 21:2). But in the Church Militant special rewards are rendered to those who perform special works, as a crown to the victors and a prize to the runners. Therefore, it should be likewise in the Church Triumphant.Respondeo dicendum, quod praemium essentiale hominis, quod est ejus beatitudo, consistit in perfecta conjunctione animae ad Deum, inquantum eo perfecte fruitur, ut viso et amato perfecte. Hoc autem praemium metaphorice corona dicitur, vel aurea: tum ex parte meriti, quod cum quadam pugna agitur, militia enim est vita hominis super terram: Job 7, 1, tum etiam ex parte praemii, per quod homo efficitur quodammodo divinitatis particeps, et per consequens regiae potestatis: Apoc. 5, 10: fecisti nos Deo nostro regnum et sacerdotes. Corona autem est proprium signum regiae dignitatis: et eadem ratione praemium quod essentiali additur coronae rationem habet. Significat etiam corona perfectionem quamdam ratione figurae circularis, ut ex hoc etiam competat perfectioni beatorum.I answer that, man’s essential reward, which is his beatitude, consists in the perfect union of the soul with God inasmuch as a person perfectly enjoys him as perfectly seen and loved. This reward is metaphorically called a crown or a golden crown, both from the perspective of merit, which occurs with a kind of struggle, for the life of man upon earth is a warfare (Job 7:1), and also from the perspective of the reward, through which man is made in a certain way a partaker in divinity and, consequently, in royal power: thou hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God (Rev 5:10). Now a crown is the proper sign of royal dignity and for the same reason the reward that is added to the essential reward has the character of a crown. A crown also signifies a certain perfection by reason of its circular shape and on this basis, too, belongs to the perfection of the blessed.Sed quia nihil potest superaddi quin sit eo minus, ideo superadditum praemium aureola nominatur. Huic autem essentiali praemio, quod aurea dicitur, aliquid additur dupliciter. Uno modo ex conditione naturae ejus quae praemiatur, sicut supra beatitudinem animae gloria corporis adjungitur, unde et ipsa gloria corporis interdum aureola nominatur: unde et super illud Exod. 25: facies alteram coronam aureolam, dicit quaedam Glossa, quod in fine aureola superponitur; cum in Scriptura dicatur, quod eis sublimior gloria in receptione corporum servetur. Sic autem nunc de aureola non agitur.But because nothing can be superadded that is not less than that to which it is added, the superadded reward is given the name of aureole. Now there are two ways that something may be added to the essential reward, which is called the golden crown. In one way, from the condition of the nature that is rewarded, as beyond beatitude, the body’s glory is joined to the soul. Thus even the glory of the body itself is sometimes given the name of aureole. This is why commenting on Exodus 25:25: thou shalt make another little golden crown (Ex 25:25), a Gloss says that at the end an aureole is placed on top of it, since in Scripture it is said that a more sublime glory is kept in store for them in the reception of their bodies. But this is not the aureole that we are now discussing.Alio modo ex ratione operis meritorii: quod quidem rationem meriti ex duobus habet ex quibus habet etiam bonitatis rationem: scilicet ex radice caritatis, quae refertur in finem ultimum; et sic debetur ei essentiale praemium, scilicet perventio ad finem, quae est aurea: et ex ipso genere actus laudabilitatem quamdam habet ex debitis circumstantiis, et ex habitu eliciente, et proximo fine; et sic debetur ei quoddam accidentale praemium, quod aureola dicitur: et hoc modo de aureola ad praesens intendimus.In the other way, from the character of a meritorious work, which has the character of merit from two sources, from which it also has the character of goodness. One is from the root of charity, which is referred to the last end. And so the essential reward, namely attaining the end, is due to it, and this is the golden crown. The other is that by its genus the act has a certain praiseworthiness from due circumstances, from the eliciting habit, and from the proximate end. And in this way an accidental reward is due to it, which is called an aureole. And this is the way in which we mean aureole in the present discussion.Et sic dicendum, quod aureola dicit aliquid aureae superadditum, idest quoddam gaudium de operibus a se factis, quae habent rationem victoriae excellentis, quod est aliud gaudium ab eo quo de conjunctione ad Deum gaudetur, quod gaudium dicitur aurea. Quidam tamen dicunt, quod ipsum praemium commune, quod est aurea, accipit nomen aureolae secundum quod virginibus vel martyribus vel doctoribus redditur, sicut et denarius accipit nomen debiti ex hoc quod alicui debetur, quamvis omnino idem sint debitum et denarius; non tamen ita quod praemium essentiale oporteat esse majus quando aureola dicitur; sed quia excellentiori actui respondet, non quidem secundum meriti intensionem, sed secundum modum merendi; ut quamvis in duobus sit aequalis limpiditas divinae visionis, in uno tamen dicatur aureola, non in altero, inquantum respondet excellentiori merito secundum modum agendi. Sed hoc videtur esse contra intentionem Glossae Exod. 25. Si enim idem esset aurea et aureola; non diceretur aureola aureae superponi. Et praeterea, cum merito respondeat praemium, oportet quod illi excellentiae meriti quae est ex modo agendi, respondeat aliqua excellentia in praemio; et hanc excellentiam vocamus aureolam; unde oportet aureolam ab aurea differre.And so it should be said that ‘aureole’ indicates something that is superadded to a golden crown, i.e., a certain joy in one’s own works having the character of a surpassing victory, which is a different joy from rejoicing at being united with God, which is the joy called the golden crown. Yet some say that the common reward itself, the golden crown, takes the name ‘aureole’ insofar as it is rendered to virgins, martyrs, or teachers of the faith, just as a denarius takes the name ‘debt’ from the fact that it is owed to someone, though in this case the debt and the denarius are altogether the same thing. This is not in such a way that the essential reward must be greater when it is called an aureole but rather that it corresponds to a more excellent act, not according to intensity of merit but according to the manner of meriting, such that although in two people there may be an equal clearness of the vision of God, in one it is called an aureole and not in the other, inasmuch as it corresponds to more excellent merit according to the manner of acting. But this seems to be contrary to the understanding of the Gloss on Exodus 25. For if the golden crown and an aureole were the same, the aureole would not be said to be placed on top of the golden crown. And besides, since reward corresponds to merit, an excellence in reward must correspond to the excellence of merit that stems from the manner of acting. And we call this excellence an aureole. Hence an aureole must differ from the golden crown.Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod beatitudo includit in se omnia bona quae sunt necessaria ad perfectam hominis vitam, quae consistit in perfecta hominis operatione; sed quaedam possunt superaddi non quasi necessaria ad perfectam operationem, ut sine quibus esse non possit, sed quia his additis est beatitudo clarior; unde pertinet ad bene esse beatitudinis, et ad decentiam quamdam ipsius; sicut et felicitas politica ornatur nobilitate, et corporis pulchritudine, et hujusmodi, sine quibus tamen esse potest, ut patet in 1 Ethicor.: et hoc modo se habet aureola ad beatitudinem patriae.Reply Obj. 1: Beatitude includes in itself all the goods necessary for man’s perfect life, which consists in man’s perfect activity. But some goods can be superadded, not as necessary for perfect activity in such a way that without them it cannot exist, but because with their addition beatitude has greater brilliance. Hence it pertains to the well-being of beatitude and to something of its comeliness, just as political happiness is adorned by nobility, physical beauty, and other such things, though it can exist without them, as is clear in Ethics 1. And this is how an aureole is related to the beatitude of heaven.Ad secundum dicendum, quod ille qui servat consilia et praecepta, semper magis meretur quam ille qui servat praecepta tantum, secundum quod ratio meriti consideratur in operibus ex ipso genere operum, non autem semper secundum quod ratio meriti pensatur ex radice caritatis; cum quandoque ex majori caritate aliquis servet praecepta tantum quam aliquis praecepta et consilia. Sed ut pluries accidit e converso; quia probatio dilectionis est exhibitio operis, sicut dicit Gregorius. Non ergo ipsum praemium essentiale magis intensum dicitur aureola, sed id quod praemio essentiali superadditur indifferenter, sive sit majus praemium essentiale habentis aureolam, sive minus, sive aequale praemio essentiali non habentis.Reply Obj. 2: A person who keeps the counsels and the precepts always merits more than someone who only keeps the precepts, insofar as the character of merit is considered in works on the basis of the genus of the works, though not always as the character of merit is weighed on the basis of the root of charity. For it sometimes happens that one person keeps only the precepts with a greater charity than another keeps both the precepts and the counsels. But the converse is more often the case, since the proof of love is doing the work, as Gregory says. It is not, therefore, the essential reward itself as more intense that is called an aureole, but rather what is superadded to the essential reward indifferently, whether the one possessing the aureole has a greater essential reward or a lesser or equal one to the essential reward of someone without an aureole.Ad tertium dicendum, quod caritas est principium merendi; sed actus noster est quasi instrumentum quo meremur. Ad effectum autem consequendum non solum requiritur debita dispositio in primo movente, sed etiam recta dispositio in instrumento; et ideo in effectu aliquid consequitur ex parte primi principii, quod est principale, et aliquid ex parte instrumenti, quod est secundarium; unde et in praemio aliquid est ex parte caritatis, scilicet aurea, et aliquid ex genere operationis, ut aureola.Reply Obj. 3: Charity is the principle of meriting, but our act is like the instrument by which we merit. Now to obtain the effect there is required not only due disposition in the one moving first but also right disposition in the instrument. And thus in the effect something follows on the part of the first principle, which is the principal effect, and something on the part of the instrument, which is secondary. This is why in the reward too there is something on the part of charity, namely the golden crown, and something from the genus of the activity, such as an aureole.Ad quartum dicendum, quod angeli omnes ex eodem genere actus suam beatitudinem meruerunt, scilicet in hoc quod sunt conversi ad Deum; et ideo nullum singulare praemium invenitur in uno quod alius non habeat aliquo modo. Homines autem diversis generibus actuum beatitudinem merentur; et ideo non est simile. Tamen illud quod unus videtur specialiter habere inter homines, quodammodo omnes communiter habent, inquantum scilicet per caritatem perfectam unusquisque bonum alterius suum reputat. Non tamen hoc gaudium quo unus alteri congaudet, potest aureola nominari; quia non datur in praemium victoriae ejus, sed magis respicit victoriam alienam; corona vero ipsis victoribus redditur, non victoriae congaudentibus.Reply Obj. 4: All the angels merited their beatitude from the same genus of act, namely in the fact that they were turned toward God. And thus none of them has an individual reward that is not found in the others in some way. Men, on the other hand, merit beatitude by different kinds of acts. And thus the case is not similar. Still, what one person seems to have in a special way among men is possessed by all in a certain way as common, namely inasmuch as through perfect charity each considers the good of another as his own. This joy, however, by which one rejoices with another cannot be called an aureole, since it is not given as his reward for victory but rather has to do with someone else’s victory, whereas a crown is given to the victors themselves, not to those who rejoice with them in their victory.Ad quintum dicendum, quod major est excellentia meriti, quae consurgit ex caritate, quam illa quae consurgit ex genere actus; sicut finis ad quem ordinat caritas, est potior his quae sunt ad finem, circa quae actus nostri consistunt. Unde etiam praemium respondens merito ratione caritatis, quantumcumque sit parvum, est majus quolibet praemio respondente actui ratione sui generis; et ideo aureola diminutive dicitur respectu aureae.Reply Obj. 5: The excellence of merit arising from charity is greater than the excellence that arises from the genus of the act, just as the end that charity orders toward is more important than what is directed toward the end, which is what our acts are concerned with. Hence, too, the reward corresponding to merit by reason of charity, however little it be, is greater than any reward corresponding to the act by reason of its genus. And thus the aureole is spoken of in the diminutive in relation to the golden crown.Articulus 2Article 2Quomodo differat a fructuHow it differs from a fruitQuaestiuncula 1Quaestiuncula 1Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aureola non differat a fructu. Eidem enim merito non debentur diversa praemia. Sed eidem merito respondet aureola et fructus centesimus, scilicet virginitati, ut patet in Glossa, Matth. 13. Ergo aureola est idem quod fructus.Obj. 1: To the second question, we proceed thus. It seems that an aureole does not differ from a fruit. For different rewards are not owed for the same merit. But an aureole and hundredfold fruit correspond to the same merit, namely virginity, as is clear in a Gloss on Matthew 13:8. Therefore, an aureole is the same as the fruit.Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in Lib. de Virginitate, quod centesimus fructus debetur martyri, et idem debetur virgini. Ergo fructus est quoddam praemium commune virginibus et martyribus. Sed eisdem etiam debetur aureola. Ergo aureola est idem quod fructus.Obj. 2: Augustine says in On Virginity that the hundredfold fruit is due to a martyr and the same to a virgin. Therefore, fruit is a kind of reward common to both virgins and martyrs. But an aureole is also due to the same people. Therefore, an aureole is the same as a fruit.Praeterea, in beatitudine non invenitur nisi duplex praemium; scilicet essentiale, et accidentale, quod essentiali superadditur. Sed praemium essentiale superadditum dictum est esse aureolam; quod patet ex hoc quod Exod. 25 aureola coronae aureae superponi dicitur. Sed fructus non est praemium essentiale, quia sic deberetur omnibus beatis. Ergo est idem quod aureola.Obj. 3: In beatitude we only find two rewards: essential and accidental, which is added above the essential. But the reward superadded to the essential is said to be the aureole, as is clear from the fact that Exodus 25 says that the aureole is placed on top of the golden crown. But a fruit is not the essential reward, since then it would be due to all the blessed. Therefore, it is the same as an aureole.Sed contra, quaecumque non sunt ejusdem divisionis, non sunt etiam ejusdem rationis. Sed fructus et aureola non similiter dividuntur; quia aureola dividitur in aureolam virginum, martyrum, et doctorum; fructus autem in fructum conjugatorum, viduarum, et virginum. Ergo fructus et aureola non sunt idem.On the contrary, things that are not subdivided in the same way do not have the same nature. But a fruit and an aureole are not subdivided in the same way, since an aureole is subdivided into the aureole of virgins, martyrs, and teachers, whereas fruit is subdivided into the fruit of spouses, widows, and virgins. Therefore, a fruit and an aureole are not the same.Praeterea, si fructus et aureola essent idem; cuicumque deberetur fructus, deberetur aureola. Hoc autem patet esse falsum; viduitati enim debetur fructus, sed non aureola. Ergo, etc.Furthermore, if fruit and aureole were the same, then to whomever is due a fruit, an aureole would be due. But this is clearly false. For fruit is due to widowhood, but an aureole is not. Therefore, etc.Quaestiuncula 2Quaestiuncula 2Ulterius. Videtur quod fructus non debeatur soli virtuti continentiae. Quia 1 Corinth. 15 super illud: alia claritas solis etc. dicit Glossa quod claritati solis illorum dignitas comparatur qui centesimum fructum habent, lunari autem qui sexagesimum, stellae qui trigesimum. Sed illa diversitas claritatum, secundum intentionem apostoli, pertinet ad quamcumque beatitudinis differentiam. Ergo diversi fructus non debent respondere soli continentiae.Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that a fruit is not due only for the virtue of continence. For on the passage: there is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory (1 Cor 15:41), a Gloss says that the dignity of those who have hundredfold fruit is compared to the glory of the sun, those who have sixtyfold fruit to the glory of the moon, and those who have thirtyfold fruit to the glory of a star. But this differentiation of glories, according to the Apostle’s intention, pertains to every difference in beatitude. Therefore, the different fruits should not correspond to continence alone.Praeterea, fructus a fruitione dicuntur. Sed fruitio ad praemium essentiale pertinet, quod omnibus virtutibus respondet. Ergo, etc.Obj. 2: ‘Fruits’ are so named from ‘fruition.’ But fruition pertains to the essential reward, which corresponds to all the virtues. Therefore, etc.Praeterea, fructus labori debetur; sapientiae 3, 15: bonorum laborum gloriosus est fructus. Sed major labor est in fortitudine quam in temperantia vel in continentia. Ergo fructus non respondet soli continentiae.Obj. 3: Fruit is due to labor: the fruit of good labors is renowned (Wis 3:15). But there is greater labor in fortitude than in temperance or in continence. Therefore, the fruit does not correspond to continence alone.Praeterea, difficilius est modum non excedere in cibis qui sunt necessarii ad vitam, quam in venereis, sine quibus vita conservari potest; et sic major est labor parsimoniae quam continentiae. Ergo parsimoniae magis respondet fructus quam continentiae.Obj. 4: It is more difficult not to exceed moderation in food, which is necessary for life, than in venereal pleasures, without which life can be preserved. And so the effort for parsimony is greater than that of continence. Therefore, the fruit corresponds more to parsimony than to continence.Praeterea, fructus refectionem importat. Refectio autem praecipue est in fine. Cum ergo virtutes theologicae finem habeant pro objecto, scilicet ipsum Deum, videtur quod eis fructus maxime debeant respondere.Obj. 5: Fruit implies refreshment. But refreshment is especially in the end. Since, then, the theological virtues have the end, namely God himself, as their object, it seems that the fruit should correspond to them most of all.Sed contra est quod habetur in Glossa, Matth. 15, quae fructus assignat virginitati, viduitati, et continentiae conjugali; quae sunt continentiae partes.On the contrary, a Gloss on Matthew 15 assigns fruits to virginity, widowhood, and spousal continence, which are the subdivisions of continence.Quaestiuncula 3Quaestiuncula 3Ulterius. Videtur quod inconvenienter assignentur tres fructus tribus continentiae partibus. Quia, Galat. 5, ponuntur duodecim fructus spiritus, scilicet gaudium, pax etc.: et ideo videtur quod non debeant poni tres tantum.Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the three fruits are unfittingly assigned to the three subdivisions of continence. For there are twelve fruits of the Spirit: charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, long-suffering, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, continency, chastity (Gal 5:22–23). And thus it seems that we should not posit only three.Praeterea, fructus nominat aliquod praemium speciale. Sed praemium quod assignatur virginibus et viduis et conjugatis, non est speciale; quia omnes salvandi continentur sub aliquo horum trium, cum nullus salvetur qui continentia careat et continentia per has partes sufficienter dividatur. Ergo inconvenienter tribus praedictis tres fructus assignantur.Obj. 2: ‘Fruit’ refers to a specific reward. But a reward that is assigned to virgins, widows, and spouses is not specific, since all those who will be saved fall into one of these three categories because no one lacking continence will be saved and continence is exhaustively divided into these three classes. Therefore, fruits are unfittingly assigned to the three mentioned.Praeterea, sicut viduitas excedit continentiam conjugalem, ita virginitas viduitatem. Sed non similiter excedit sexagenarius tricenarium, et centenarius sexagenarium; neque secundum arithmeticam proportionalitatem, quia sexagenarius excedit tricenarium in triginta, et centenarius sexagenarium in quadraginta; neque etiam secundum proportionalitatem geometricam, quia sexagenarius se habet in dupla proportione ad tricenarium, centenarius vero ad sexagenarium in sesquitertia, quia continet totum et duas tertias ejus. Ergo inconvenienter aptantur fructus tribus continentiae gradibus.Obj. 3: Just as widowhood surpasses spousal continence, so also virginity surpasses widowhood. But sixtyfold does not surpass thirtyfold in the same way that one hundredfold surpasses sixtyfold, either by arithmetical proportion, since sixtyfold is thirty greater than thirtyfold while one hundredfold is forty greater than sixtyfold, or by geometrical proportion, since sixtyfold is related to thirtyfold by a double proportion while one hundredfold is related to sixtyfold by a sesquitertian proportion because it contains the whole plus two thirds. Therefore, the fruits are not fittingly suited to the three degrees of continence.Praeterea, ea quae in sacra Scriptura dicuntur, perpetuitatem habent; Luc. 21, 33: caelum et terra transibunt; verba autem mea non transibunt. Sed ea quae ex institutione hominum sunt facta, quotidie possunt mutari. Ergo ex his quae ex institutione hominum sunt, non est accipienda ratio eorum quae in Scriptura dicuntur: et sic videtur quod inconveniens sit ratio quam Beda assignat de istis fructibus, dicens, quod fructus tricesimus debetur conjugatis, quia in repraesentatione quae fit in abacho, triginta significatur per contactum pollicis et indicis secundum suam summitatem, unde ibi quodammodo osculantur se, et sic tricenarius numerus significat conjugatorum oscula; sexagenarius vero numerus significatur per tactum indicis super medium articulum pollicis; et sic per hoc quod index jacet super pollicem opprimens ipsum, significat oppressionem quam viduae patiuntur in mundo: cum autem numerando ad centenarium pervenimus, transimus a leva in dexteram; unde per centenarium virginitas designatur, quae habet portionem angelicae dignitatis, qui sunt in dextera, scilicet in gloria, nos autem in sinistra propter imperfectionem praesentis vitae.Obj. 4: The things said in sacred Scripture have perpetuity: heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away (Lk 21:33). But the things made by human institution can be changed daily. Therefore, we should not take the account of what is said in Scripture from things of human institution. And so it seems that the reason Bede assigns concerning these fruits is unfitting, for he says that thirtyfold fruit is due to spouses, since when representing it on an abacus thirty is signified by touching together the thumb and index finger at their highest point so that in a certain way they kiss each other, and so the number thirty signifies the kisses of spouses. The number sixty, however, is signified by touching the index finger to the middle joint of the thumb, and in this way the oppression that widows suffer in the world is signified through the fact of the index finger’s lying on the thumb and pressing it down. When, finally, we reach one hundred by counting, we move from the left side to the right. Hence virginity is designated by the number one hundred, since it has a portion of the dignity of the angels, who are on the right, i.e., in glory, whereas we are on the left due to the imperfection of the present life.Quaestiuncula 1Response to Quaestiuncula 1Respondeo dicendum ad primam quaestionem, quod ea quae metaphorice dicuntur, possunt varie accipi secundum adaptationem ad diversas proprietates ejus unde fit transumptio.I answer that, things that are said metaphorically can be taken in various ways according to the adaptation of different qualities of the thing from which the word is taken.