Quaestio 71 Question 71 De opere quintae diei The Work of the Fifth Day Deinde considerandum est de opere quintae diei. We must next consider the work of the fifth day. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum opera quintae diei convenienter describatur Whether the work of the fifth day was fittingly described? Et videtur quod inconvenienter hoc opus describatur. Illud enim aquae producunt, ad cuius productionem sufficit virtus aquae. Sed virtus aquae non sufficit ad productionem omnium piscium et avium, cum videamus plura eorum generari ex semine. Non ergo convenienter dicitur, producant aquae reptile animae viventis, et volatile super terram. Objection 1: It would seem that this work is not fittingly described. For the waters produce that which the power of water suffices to produce. But the power of water does not suffice for the production of every kind of fishes and birds since we find that many of them are generated from seed. Therefore the words, Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth, do not fittingly describe this work. Praeterea, pisces et aves non tantum producuntur ex aqua, sed in eorum compositione videtur magis terra dominari quam aqua, quia corpora eorum naturaliter moventur ad terram; unde et in terra quiescunt. Non ergo convenienter dicitur pisces et aves ex aqua produci. Obj. 2: Further, fishes and birds are not produced from water only, but earth seems to predominate over water in their composition, as is shown by the fact that their bodies tend naturally to the earth and rest upon it. It is not, then, fittingly said that fishes and birds are produced from water. Praeterea, sicut pisces habent motum in aquis, ita et aves in aere. Si ergo pisces ex aquis producuntur, aves non deberent produci ex aquis, sed ex aere. Obj. 3: Further, fishes move in the waters, and birds in the air. If, then, fishes are produced from the waters, birds ought to be produced from the air, and not from the waters. Praeterea, non omnes pisces reptant in aquis, cum quidem habeant pedes, quibus gradiuntur in terra, sicut vituli marini. Non ergo sufficienter productio piscium designatur in hoc quod dicitur, producant aquae reptile animae viventis. Obj. 4: Further, not all fishes creep through the waters, for some, as seals, have feet and walk on land. Therefore the production of fishes is not sufficiently described by the words, Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life. Praeterea, animalia terrestria sunt perfectiora avibus et piscibus. Quod patet ex hoc quod habent membra magis distincta, et perfectiorem generationem, generant enim animalia, sed pisces et aves generant ova. Perfectiora autem praecedunt in ordine naturae. Non ergo quinta die debuerunt fieri pisces et aves, ante animalia terrestria. Obj. 5: Further, land animals are more perfect than birds and fishes which appears from the fact that they have more distinct limbs, and generation of a higher order. For they bring forth living beings, whereas birds and fishes bring forth eggs. But the more perfect has precedence in the order of nature. Therefore fishes and birds ought not to have been produced on the fifth day, before land animals. In contrarium sufficit auctoritas Scripturae. On the contrary, Suffices the authority of Scripture. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, opus ornatus per ordinem respondet ordini distinctionis. Unde sicut inter tres dies distinctioni deputatos, media, quae est secunda, deputatur distinctioni medii corporis, scilicet aquae; ita inter tres dies deputatos ad opus ornatus, media, idest quinta, deputatur ad ornatum medii corporis, per productionem avium et piscium. Unde sicut Moyses in quarta die nominat luminaria et lucem, ut designet quod quarta dies respondet primae, in qua dixerat lucem factam; ita in hac quinta die facit mentionem de aquis et de firmamento caeli, ut designet quod quinta dies respondet secundae. I answer that, As said above, (Q. 70, A. 1), the order of the work of adornment corresponds to the order of the work of distinction. Hence, as among the three days assigned to the work of distinction, the middle, or second, day is devoted to the work of distinction of water, which is the intermediate body, so in the three days of the work of adornment, the middle day, which is the fifth, is assigned to the adornment of the intermediate body, by the production of birds and fishes. As, then, Moses makes mention of the lights and the light on the fourth day, to show that the fourth day corresponds to the first day on which he had said that the light was made, so on this fifth day he mentions the waters and the firmament of heaven to show that the fifth day corresponds to the second. Sed sciendum est quod, sicut in productione plantarum differt Augustinus ab aliis, ita et in productione piscium et avium. Alii enim dicunt pisces et aves quinta die esse productos in actu, Augustinus autem dicit, V super Gen. ad Litt., quod quinta die aquarum natura produxit pisces et aves potentialiter. It must, however, be observed that Augustine differs from other writers in his opinion about the production of fishes and birds, as he differs about the production of plants. For while others say that fishes and birds were produced on the fifth day actually, he holds that the nature of the waters produced them on that day potentially. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Avicenna posuit omnia animalia posse generari ex aliquali elementorum commixtione absque semine, etiam per viam naturae. Sed hoc videtur inconveniens. Quia natura determinatis mediis procedit ad suos effectus, unde illa quae naturaliter generantur ex semine, non possunt naturaliter sine semine generari. Et ideo dicendum est aliter, quod in naturali generatione animalium, principium activum est virtus formativa quae est in semine, in iis quae ex semine generantur; loco cuius virtutis, in iis quae ex putrefactione generantur, est virtus caelestis corporis. Materiale autem principium in utrorumque animalium generatione, est aliquod elementum vel elementatum. In prima autem rerum institutione, fuit principium activum verbum Dei, quod ex materia elementari produxit animalia vel in actu, secundum alios sanctos; vel virtute, secundum Augustinum. Non quod aqua aut terra habeat in se virtutem producendi omnia animalia, ut Avicenna posuit, sed quia hoc ipsum quod ex materia elementari, virtute seminis vel stellarum, possunt animalia produci, est ex virtute primitus elementis data. Reply Obj. 1: It was laid down by Avicenna that animals of all kinds can be generated by various minglings of the elements, and naturally, without any kind of seed. This, however, seems repugnant to the fact that nature produces its effects by determinate means, and consequently, those things that are naturally generated from seed cannot be generated naturally in any other way. It ought, then, rather to be said that in the natural generation of all animals that are generated from seed, the active principle lies in the formative power of the seed, but that in the case of animals generated from putrefaction, the formative power is the influence of the heavenly bodies. The material principle, however, in the generation of either kind of animals, is either some element, or something compounded of the elements. But at the first beginning of the world the active principle was the Word of God, which produced animals from material elements, either in act, as some holy writers say, or virtually, as Augustine teaches. Not as though the power possessed by water or earth of producing all animals resides in the earth and the water themselves, as Avicenna held, but in the power originally given to the elements of producing them from elemental matter by the power of seed or the influence of the stars. Ad secundum dicendum quod corpora avium et piscium possunt dupliciter considerari. Uno modo, secundum se. Et sic necesse est quod in eis magis terrestre elementum dominetur, quia ad hoc quod fiat contemperatio mixtionis in corpore animalis necesse est quod quantitative abundet in eo elementum quod est minus activum, scilicet terra. Sed si considerentur secundum quod sunt nata moveri talibus motibus, sic habent affinitatem quandam cum corporibus in quibus moventur. Et sic eorum generatio hic describitur. Reply Obj. 2: The bodies of birds and fishes may be considered from two points of view. If considered in themselves, it will be evident that the earthly element must predominate, since the element that is least active, namely, the earth, must be the most abundant in quantity in order that the mingling may be duly tempered in the body of the animal. But if considered as by nature constituted to move with certain specific motions, thus they have some special affinity with the bodies in which they move; and hence the words in which their generation is described. Ad tertium dicendum quod aer, quia insensibilis est, non per seipsum connumeratur, sed cum aliis, partim quidem cum aqua, quantum ad inferiorem partem, quae exhalationibus aquae ingrossatur; partim etiam cum caelo, quantum ad superiorem partem. Aves autem motum habent in inferiori parte aeris, et ideo sub firmamento caeli volare dicuntur, etiam si firmamentum pro nebuloso aere accipiatur. Et ideo productio avium aquae adscribitur. Reply Obj. 3: The air, as not being so apparent to the senses, is not enumerated by itself, but with other things: partly with the water, because the lower region of the air is thickened by watery exhalations; partly with the heaven as to the higher region. But birds move in the lower part of the air, and so are said to fly beneath the firmament, even if the firmament be taken to mean the region of clouds. Hence the production of birds is ascribed to the water. Ad quartum dicendum quod natura de uno extremo ad aliud transit per media. Et ideo inter terrestria et aquatica animalia sunt quaedam media, quae communicant cum utrisque; et computantur cum illis cum quibus magis communicant, secundum id quod cum eis communicant; non secundum id quod communicant cum alio extremo. Tamen, ut includantur omnia huiusmodi quae habent aliquid speciale inter pisces, subiungit, postquam dixerat, producant aquae reptile animae viventis, creavit Deus cete grandia, et cetera. Reply Obj. 4: Nature passes from one extreme to another through the medium; and therefore there are creatures of intermediate type between the animals of the air and those of the water, having something in common with both; and they are reckoned as belonging to that class to which they are most allied, through the characters possessed in common with that class, rather than with the other. But in order to include among fishes all such intermediate forms as have special characters like to theirs, the words, Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, are followed by these: God created great whales, etc. Ad quintum dicendum quod productio horum animalium ordinatur secundum ordinem corporum quae eis ornantur, magis quam secundum propriam dignitatem. Et tamen, in via generationis, ab imperfectioribus ad perfectiora pervenitur. Reply Obj. 5: The order in which the production of these animals is given has reference to the order of those bodies which they are set to adorn, rather than to the superiority of the animals themselves. Moreover, in generation also the more perfect is reached through the less perfect. Quaestio 72 Question 72 De opere sextae diei The Work of the Sixth Day Deinde quaeritur de opere sextae diei. We must now consider the work of the sixth day. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum opera sextae diei convenientur describatur Whether the work of the sixth day was fittingly described? Et videtur quod inconvenienter describatur. Sicut enim aves et pisces habent viventem animam, ita etiam et animalia terrestria; non autem terrestria animalia sunt ipsa anima vivens. Ergo inconvenienter dicitur, producat terra animam viventem; sed debuit dici, producat terra quadrupedia animae viventis. Objection 1: It would seem that this work is not fittingly described. For as birds and fishes have a living soul, so also have land animals. But these animals are not themselves living souls. Therefore the words, Let the earth bring forth the living creature, should rather have been, Let the earth bring forth the living four-footed creatures. Praeterea, genus non debet dividi contra speciem. Sed iumenta et bestiae sub quadrupedibus computantur. Inconvenienter ergo quadrupedia connumerantur iumentis et bestiis. Obj. 2: Further, a genus ought not to be opposed to its species. But beasts and cattle are quadrupeds. Therefore quadrupeds ought not to be enumerated as a class with beasts and cattle. Praeterea, sicut alia animalia sunt in determinato genere et specie, ita et homo. Sed in factione hominis non fit mentio de suo genere vel specie. Ergo nec in productione aliorum animalium debuit fieri mentio de genere vel specie, cum dicitur, in genere suo, vel specie sua. Obj. 3: Further, as animals belong to a determinate genus and species, so also does man. But in the making of man nothing is said of his genus and species, and therefore nothing ought to have been said about them in the production of other animals, whereas it is said according to its genus and in its species. Praeterea, animalia terrestria magis sunt similia homini, qui a Deo dicitur benedici, quam aves et pisces. Cum igitur aves et pisces dicantur benedici, multo fortius hoc dici debuit de aliis animalibus. Obj. 4: Further, land animals are more like man, whom God is recorded to have blessed, than are birds and fishes. But as birds and fishes are said to be blessed, this should have been said, with much more reason, of the other animals as well. Praeterea, quaedam animalia generantur ex putrefactione, quae est corruptio quaedam. Corruptio autem non convenit primae institutioni rerum. Non ergo animalia debuerunt in prima rerum institutione produci. Obj. 5: Further, certain animals are generated from putrefaction, which is a kind of corruption. But corruption is repugnant to the first founding of the world. Therefore such animals should not have been produced at that time. Praeterea, quaedam animalia sunt venenosa et homini noxia. Nihil autem debuit esse homini nocivum ante peccatum. Ergo huiusmodi animalia vel omnino fieri a Deo non debuerunt, qui est bonorum auctor, vel non debuerunt fieri ante peccatum. Obj. 6: Further, certain animals are poisonous, and injurious to man. But there ought to have been nothing injurious to man before man sinned. Therefore such animals ought not to have been made by God at all, since He is the Author of good; or at least not until man had sinned. In contrarium sufficit auctoritas Scripturae. On the contrary, Suffices the authority of Scripture. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in die quinto ornatur medium corpus, et respondet secundae diei, ita in sexto die ornatur ultimum corpus, scilicet terra, per productionem animalium terrestrium, et respondet tertiae diei. Unde utrobique fit mentio de terra. Et hic etiam, secundum Augustinum, animalia terrestria producuntur potentialiter, secundum vero alios sanctos, in actu. I answer that, As on the fifth day the intermediate body, namely, the water, is adorned, and thus that day corresponds to the second day; so the sixth day, on which the lowest body, or the earth, is adorned by the production of land animals, corresponds to the third day. Hence the earth is mentioned in both places. And here again Augustine says (Gen ad lit. v) that the production was potential, and other holy writers that it was actual. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Basilius dicit, diversus gradus vitae qui in diversis viventibus invenitur, ex modo loquendi Scripturae colligi potest. Plantae enim habent imperfectissimam vitam et occultam. Unde in earum productione nulla mentio fit de vita, sed solum de generatione, quia secundum hanc solum invenitur actus vitae in eis; nutritiva enim et augmentativa generativae deserviunt, ut infra dicetur. Inter animalia vero, perfectiora sunt, communiter loquendo, terrestria avibus et piscibus, non quod pisces memoria careant, ut Basilius dicit, et Augustinus improbat; sed propter distinctionem membrorum, et perfectionem generationis (quantum autem ad aliquas sagacitates, etiam aliqua animalia imperfecta magis vigent, ut apes et formicae). Reply Obj. 1: The different grades of life which are found in different living creatures can be discovered from the various ways in which Scripture speaks of them, as Basil says (Hom. viii in Hexaem.). The life of plants, for instance, is very imperfect and difficult to discern, and hence, in speaking of their production, nothing is said of their life, but only their generation is mentioned, since only in generation is a vital act observed in them. For the powers of nutrition and growth are subordinate to the generative life, as will be shown later on (Q. 78, A. 2). But amongst animals, those that live on land are, generally speaking, more perfect than birds and fishes, not because the fish is devoid of memory, as Basil upholds (Hom. viii in Hexaem.) and Augustine rejects (Gen ad lit. iii), but because their limbs are more distinct and their generation of a higher order, (yet some imperfect animals, such as bees and ants, are more intelligent in certain ways). Et ideo pisces vocat, non animam viventem, sed reptile animae viventis, sed terrena animalia vocat animam viventem, propter perfectionem vitae in eis, ac si pisces sint corpora habentia aliquid animae, terrestria vero animalia, propter perfectionem vitae, sint quasi animae dominantes corporibus. Perfectissimus autem gradus vitae est in homine. Et ideo vitam hominis non dicit produci a terra vel aqua, sicut ceterorum animalium, sed a Deo. Scripture, therefore, does not call fishes living creatures, but creeping creatures having life; whereas it does call land animals living creatures on account of their more perfect life, and seems to imply that fishes are merely bodies having in them something of a soul, whilst land animals, from the higher perfection of their life, are, as it were, living souls with bodies subject to them. But the life of man, as being the most perfect grade, is not said to be produced, like the life of other animals, by earth or water, but immediately by God. Ad secundum dicendum quod per iumenta, vel pecora, intelliguntur animalia domestica, quae homini serviunt qualitercumque. Per bestias autem intelliguntur animalia saeva, ut ursi et leones. Per reptilia vero, animalia quae vel non habent pedes quibus eleventur a terra, ut serpentes; vel habent breves, quibus parum elevantur, ut lacertae et tortucae et huiusmodi. Sed quia sunt quaedam animalia quae sub nullo horum comprehenduntur, ut cervi et capreae, ut etiam ista comprehenderentur, addidit quadrupedia. Reply Obj. 2: By cattle, domestic animals are signified, which in any way are of service to man: but by beasts, wild animals such as bears and lions are designated. By creeping things those animals are meant which either have no feet and cannot rise from the earth, as serpents, or those whose feet are too short to lift them far from the ground, as the lizard and tortoise. But since certain animals, as deer and goats, seem to fall under none of these classes, the word quadrupeds is added. Vel quadrupedia praemisit quasi genus, et alia subiunxit quasi species, sunt enim etiam quaedam reptilia quadrupedia, ut lacertae et tortucae. Or perhaps the word quadruped is used first as being the genus, to which the others are added as species, for even some reptiles, such as lizards and tortoises, are four-footed. Ad tertium dicendum quod in aliis animalibus et plantis mentionem fecit de genere et specie, ut designaret generationes similium ex similibus. In homine autem non fuit necessarium ut hoc diceretur, quia quod praemissum fuit de aliis, etiam de homine intelligi potest. Reply Obj. 3: In other animals, and in plants, mention is made of genus and species, to denote the generation of like from like. But it was unnecessary to do so in the case of man, as what had already been said of other creatures might be understood of him.