Residues

Use in the book

Part One supplies the practical groundwork. The visible shell of the subject has substantial and accidental aspects. The first separation removes contrary and superfluous things that lack a natural bond with the substance, including elemental superfluities and Excrementen (I.032.1). The second distinguishes parts related in substance and power. Thus residues are not identical with every bodily condition. The substantial shell is also the vehicle through which the spirit becomes tangible.

The early account of spoiled remedies uses a related vocabulary. Apothecaries’ distilled waters that lose taste, smell and colour leave only phlegm; an apple that loses those qualities through decay leaves an Excrementum (I.022.1). These examples explain what the author regards as the loss of a thing’s useful life and essence. They do not establish that every sensory change is a sufficient modern analysis of the remaining matter.

At p. 165 opposition among separated elements is called accidental, concerning qualities rather than essence. The perfection of the work occurs by removing superfluities (II.165.2). The maxim that nothing is to be added or diminished must be read with its final qualification: superfluous things are to be removed. Purification is selective, not a denial that any material leaves the work.

The reply letter gives the fuller definition. Lower bodies consist of substance and residues; the former is essential, the latter accidental (II.218.2). Substance considered in itself is pure. The residue exceeds it and mingles with it, contaminating or distorting its purity, yet can be separated by art. Nuysement is cited for assigning the evil of corruption following the first parents’ sin to residues rather than substance. The causal and theological claims are the reply’s argument, not neutral definitions imposed by the edition.

At p. 219 the writer explains why substance is also simple and admits no contrariety. Its three principles may be separated but not essentially divided; each is in its companion (II.219.1). Our Mercury is said to receive only what is homogeneous with its essence (II.219.2). An objection that impurity visibly occurs in a body is therefore answered by distinguishing accidental mixture from essential admission of a contrary nature.

The application to sin at pp. 220–222 is careful in one respect and forceful in another. “Whatever is in man is substance” is rejected; sin is not substance (II.220.2). Corruption adheres principally to the accidental residual flesh, while sin nevertheless contaminates the whole earthly human being (II.221.1–II.222.2). The argument should not be simplified either into sin being an independently created substance or into an innocent body whose outward dirt alone needs washing.

The physical analogy describes residue as threatening to choke the substance unless removed by art after putrefaction and with great diligence (II.222.2). Putrefaction is preparatory; separation is the subsequent intervention. At p. 223 regeneration frees the subject from grossness and impurity and gives a living image of resurrection (II.223.2). The same logic governs the cosmic conclusion, where excrementitious earth and accidental features pass away while enduring substance is transformed into crystalline clarity (II.228.1–II.231.1).

Places to read

1. Part I · I.022.1; I.032.1; I.035.123Spoiled matter, accidental residue and the necessary substantial vehicle.
2. Part II · II.165.2; II.218.2; II.219.1; II.219.2234Removal of superfluities and the substance-residue definition.
3. Part II · II.220.2; II.221.1; II.222.2; II.223.2; II.228.1; II.231.123456The application to sin, purification and cosmic renewal.

Translation

Excrementum and excrementa are rendered residue or residues in the natural-philosophical passages, with waste where that best fits the example. “Excrementitious earth” preserves the source’s unusual adjective in the cosmic conclusion; it identifies the impure condition, not all earth or every substantial body. Superfluities translates the related but not verbally identical superflua vocabulary.

The active suffocare in the crucial Latin comparison is understood as the residue choking substance, not substance choking residue. The grammar and subsequent demand for separation support that direction. Preserving the relation matters because the theological comparison takes its force from impurity threatening what it contaminates.¹⁰⁵

Connections

Substance and Accident supply the conceptual opposition. Separation gives the two operations that must not be confused. Putrefaction explains the preparatory stage, while Corruption and sin and World and its end address the theological extensions. Salt philosophical is a useful corrective to any reading that treats all bodily material as waste.

Cautions

The account is neither a modern theory of toxins nor an instruction to identify sinful human flesh as a disposable chemical residue. The author’s physical-theological analogy requires interpretation at each level. His distinction of essential and accidental parts should also not be turned into an assertion that particular natures remain unchanged through the world’s end: he explicitly allows their resolution while universal natures endure.

Excrementen

Excrementen — residues or wastes; German plural. I.032.1.

excrementis

excrementis — residues; inflected Latin plural. II.218.2.

excrementum

excrementum — residue; Latin singular. II.218.2; II.222.2.

superfluitatibus

superfluitatibus — superfluities; inflected Latin plural. II.231.1.