title: Dist. 14, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation that follows.

<!-- page 354 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum conveniat alicui orbi moveri absque stellis.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum conveniat alicui orbi moveri absque stellis. Et quod non, videtur:

***Ad oppositum.***

1. Quia caelum empyreum ponitur a Sanctis esse immobile propter sui uniformitatem[^1]; sed caelum, quod universaliter caret stellis, est uniforme: ergo nullum caelum, quod caret stellis, est mobile.

2. Item, ubicumque est motus, ibi est continuitas et variatio[^2]; sed continuitas, quae est in motu, est a continuitate magnitudinis: ergo pari ratione variatio motus est a varietate mobilis. Sed corpus caeleste, quod caret stellis, non habet in suis motibus varietatem: ergo nec mutabilitatem.

3. Item, omnis motus est propter aliquam indigentiam supplendam vel in ipso mobili vel in aliquo inferiori[^3]; sed caelum, quod caret stellis, non potest moveri propter suam indigentiam, cum nulla

<!-- page 355 -->

in motu illo eius indigentia compleatur; nec propter supplendam indigentiam in inferioribus, quia ita bene influit quiescendo, sicut movendo, et uniformiter: ergo videtur, quod nullo modo absque stellis caelesti corpori moveri competat.

4. Item, motus caeli est perfectissimus omnium motuum, et ideo est omnium motuum regula[^4]: ergo si per regulam mensurantur omnia quae sunt in genere illo, anima mensurat omnes motus per motum primi mobilis: ergo motus primi mobilis maxime notus est ipsi animae. Sed nullius corporis motus est notus ipsi animae, nisi quod habet in se aliquod luminare, quia non deprehenditur motus orbis nisi per motum luminaris: ergo videtur, quod non sit ponibile[^5] aliquem orbem moveri, qui careat omni luminari, praecipue cum motus eius lateat sensum nostrum, et sacra Scriptura uniformis orbis reticeat motum. Et sic videtur, quod ponere, aliquem orbem moveri supra firmamentum, quod est nostris oculis conspicuum, sit temerarium.

**Contra:**

***Fundamenta.***

1. Omnis multitudo reducitur ad unitatem[^6]: ergo motus corporis multiformis reducitur ad motum corporis uniformis; sed uniforme corpus non est, nisi quod caret omni luminari: ergo videtur, quod ultra istos orbes, in quibus sunt luminaria, sit aliquod caelum mobile.

2. Item, motus ille, qui est mensura omnium motuum, est ille qui est ab oriente in oriens per occidens, qui est motus diei naturalis effectivus et complet viginti quatuor horas; sed dies naturalis omni tempore est uniformis: ergo et iste motus: ergo et mobile: ergo etc.

3. Item, si est recta ordinatio medii ad extrema, necesse est, medium participare quodam modo naturam utriusque extremi[^7]; sed caelum crystallinum medium est inter empyreum et firmamentum: cum ergo empyreum sit uniforme et immobile, et firmamentum sit multiforme et mobile, videtur, quod crystallinum caelum sit aut multiforme et immobile, aut uniforme et mobile. Sed si multiforme et immobile esse non potest, cum varietas mobilis disponat ad motum: ergo necesse est, quod sit uniforme et mobile.

4. Item, quandocumque aliqua plura concurrunt ad constitutionem alicuius, necesse est, per virtutem alicuius illa coniungi: ergo quandocumque plura mobilia concurrunt ad effectum unum conformem per suam influentiam, necesse est, quod coniungantur per alicuius mobilis uniformitatem. Si ergo virtus planetarum et stellarum concurrit ad productionem effectuum in his inferioribus secundum quandam conformitatem, necesse est, ultra illa esse aliquod mobile, per quod iungantur, quod quidem habeat in toto et in partibus uniformitatem; et ita alicui orbi absque stellis competit moveri.

***Quaestio incidens 1.*** Est igitur quaestio, quis sit ille orbis, et per quam naturam competit ei moveri. Si enim, quia caelum est[^8]; tunc ergo, empyreum erit mobile. Si quia caelum, quod est non tantum continens, sed etiam contentum; obiicitur tunc de caelo igneo et aethereo, qui quidem continent et continentur, et tamen non moventur orbiculariter. — ***Quaestio incidens 2.*** Iuxta hoc quaeritur de sufficientia et numero caelorum; et cum natura caelestis distinguatur ab elementari, quomodo aliquae differentiae caelorum sumuntur penes elementa? Si tu dicas, quod propter naturam perspicui in eis repertam; tunc, cum perspicuitas sit in aqua, elementum aquae deberet dici caelum.

> **Conclusio.** Caelum aliquod carens stellis ultra firmamentum est mobile.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est ponere, aliquod caelum moveri, quod caret luminarium et stellarum varietate; et hoc est caelum aqueum sive crystallinum. Ad cuius cognitionem etsi pauci philosophi pervenerunt, quia corporeum latet sensum, ratiocinando tamen pervenerunt aliqui[^9]; et illi qui pervenerunt, posuerunt, ipsum moveri, sicut quidam astronomi nisi sunt hoc probare. ***Notandum.*** Communiter tamen ad cognitionem existentiae huius caeli pervenerunt omnes tractatores catholici, auctoritate sacrae Scripturae divinitus illustrati, quae ipsius existentiam expresse declarat[^10], motum tamen eius vel quietem non explicat. Sed doctores theologiae, rationibus suffulti, communiter ponunt, illud caelum moveri.

***Ad quaest. incid. 2.*** Et inter alias rationes potissima ratio est illa, quae sumitur ex perfectione universi, ex qua etiam distinctio caelorum et numerus rationabiliter potest investigari.

Et hoc patet sic. ***1. Caelum communiter.*** Caelum enim de sua communi acceptione dicit aliquam naturam perspicuam et contentivam; de sua vero propria acceptione nominat naturam perspicuam, contentivam, supra contrarietatem elevatam.

***1. Caelum communiter.*** Secundum primam acceptionem caelorum distinguuntur a Rabano[^11] septem caeli. — Natura enim

<!-- page 356 -->

***Sufficientia numeri septenarii.*** perspicua et contentiva aut est luminis dativa, aut luminis receptiva. Si est dativa, aut est uniformis, non mota, et sic est empyreum; aut est multiformis et mota, et sic est sidereum; aut est uniformis et mota, et sic est crystallinum. Quarta differentia esse non potest, scilicet quod sit multiformis, non mota, propter hoc quod motus est passio consequens naturaliter ad multiformitatem corporis. — Si autem natura perspicua est luminis receptiva, aut separabiliter, aut inseparabiliter. Si inseparabiliter, aut secundum circulum superioris superficiei, et tunc est igneum; aut secundum circulum inferioris superficiei, in quo communicat aëri, et tunc est olympium, quod quidem dicitur olympium propter Olympi montis approximationem. Si autem est receptiva[^12] separabiliter, sicut aër, qui illuminatur ex praesentia corporis luminosi et obtenebratur ex eius absentia; hoc dupliciter: aut secundum superiorem partem, et sic est aethereum; aut secundum inferiorem, et sic est aëreum. — Et in hac distinctione[^13] comprehenduntur omnia corpora mundi praeter terram et aquam. Terra enim non potest comprehendi nomine caeli, quia caret tam perspicuitate quam ambiendi capacitate. Aqua autem similiter caret, quia, quamvis habeat perspicuitatem, non tamen ambit undique. Et sic ex ista sufficientia caelorum, in qua ostenditur sapientia Conditoris et perfectio universitatis, satis manifeste apparet, quod oportet ponere, aliquem orbem sine luminarium multiformitate moveri; et illud proprie dicendum est primum mobile. — ***Ita secundum Rabanum.*** Haec autem distinctio et sufficientia sumta est secundum enumerationem Rabani, qui caelos numerat secundum communem acceptionem caeli, prout nominat naturam perspicuam et contentivam; sic enim comprehendit naturam caelestem proprie dictam et elementarem, licet non omnem.

***II. Caelum proprie.*** Si autem caelum proprie dicatur natura caelestis, scilicet natura perspicua, undique contentiva, et nulli contraria; sic distinguitur a quibusdam ***Triplex numeratio.*** philosophis[^14] per octo orbes, qui dixerunt, octavam sphaeram ultimam esse. — Alii autem, amplius illuminati in hac materia, ultra octavam sphaeram posuerunt nonam. — Tertii, perfecte illuminati, venerunt ad perfectam orbium distinctionem, ut ponerent decimam sphaeram, in qua est quies et vita sempiterna, videlicet caelum empyreum, de quo, etsi Augustinus vix aut nunquam loquatur, Beda[^15] tamen et Rabanus ipsum esse expresse testantur.

***Sufficientia horum numerorum.*** Horum autem numerum et sufficientiam possumus sumere sic. Distinctio enim caelorum aut est per diversitatem propriarum formarum, aut per distinctionem motuum et luminarium contentorum. — ***Caeli 3 per diversitatem formarum.*** Si per diversitatem formarum, sic distinguimus tres caelos. Aut enim viget in eo natura perfectae luminositatis, et sic est habile ad statum gloriae, et ideo quietum; et sic est empyreum. Aut viget in eo natura perfectae perspicuitatis et effectivae frigiditatis; et sic est crystallinum sive aqueum, quod quidem facit ad conservationem rerum corruptibilium, et ideo est habile ad motum. Aut viget in eo natura perspicuitatis simul et luminositatis et effectivae caliditatis; et sic est caelum sidereum, quod quidem facit ad transmutationem rerum inferiorum; ideo est multiforme et motum[^16].

***Caeli 7 per distinctionem luminarium.*** Si vero fiat distinctio caelorum penes distinctionem luminarium, sic est distinctio orbium. Aut enim orbis continet multitudinem siderum, aut unitatem. Si multitudinem, sic est caelum stellatum; si unitatem, sic cum septem sint planetae, secundum quos regitur universitas temporum, quae septenario dierum clauditur, septem sunt orbes; et sic tertium caelum sua multiformitate continet octo sphaeras sive orbes, et duo sunt praecedentes, et ***Ita 10 caeli.*** ita decem, ut sic perfectioni partium universi respondeat etiam perfectio numeri, scilicet denarii.

Ex praedictis igitur patet, quod qualitercumque sumatur sufficientia caelorum, sive sub propria appellatione caeli, sive sub communi, ponere est, caelum crystallinum moveri, quod quidem caret stellis. — ***Ad quaest. incid. 1.*** Et ideo ad quaestionem propositam respondendum est, quod absque stellis potest aliquis orbis moveri, scilicet caelum aqueum, quod est mobile primum, et quod uniformiter movetur ab oriente in oriens per occidens; et illius virtute trahitur firmamentum et omnes orbes inferiores, ut uno die naturali, scilicet per spatium viginti quatuor horarum, ab oriente in oriens revolvatur, quamvis nostro sensui non appareat, et aliqui philosophi hoc senserint, quod firmamentum sit mobile primum. Aliqui tamen philosophi deprehenderunt, quod ipsum firmamentum movetur proprio motu, ita quod in centum annis procedit uno gradu[^17]. Sive autem hoc sit verum, sive falsum, hoc tenendum est, quod communiter doctores theologiae ponunt, quod est ***Conclusio 2.*** caelum aliquod mobile ultra firmamentum, carens stellis. Et concedendae sunt rationes hoc ostendentes.

***Solutio oppositorum.***

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud vero quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod est uniforme; dicendum, quod si habeat uniformitatem per carentiam diversitatis partium, habet tamen diversitatem secundum rationem dextrae et sinistrae per comparationem ad influentiam motoris[^18]: et haec diversitas sufficit ad faciendum motum. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad secundum,

<!-- page 357 -->

quia non est talis variatio in illo motu primi mobilis, quae exigat diversitatem luminis in partibus, quin potius concordat uniformitati. Etsi enim motus dicatur variatio respectu quietis, motus tamen primi mobilis respectu aliorum est uniformis.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aequaliter influit, cum movetur et quiescit; dicendum, quod falsum est. Si enim quiesceret, non moveret orbes inferiores suo motu; nunc autem, cum movetur, vis motiva ab ipso descendit in corpora inferiora.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod motus eius debet esse notissimus, cum sit regula aliorum motuum; dicendum, quod non oportet esse notum sensui in se, sed sufficit, quod notificetur in effectu suo. Sic etiam non percipimus revolutionem octavae sphaerae ab oriente in oriens manifeste nisi per solem et alia luminaria. Per hunc modum uniformitas quantum ad spatium horarum nobis motum caeli uniformis expresse indicat; hunc[^19] tamen percipimus per varietatem diei et noctis.

Ad illa vero, quae ultimo querebantur, iam patet solutio ex praedictis.

english:
### Question III. *Whether it is fitting for some orb to be moved without stars.*

Thirdly it is asked whether it is fitting for some orb to be moved without stars. And that it is not, it seems:

***In the contrary sense.***

1. Because the empyrean heaven is held by the Saints to be immobile on account of its uniformity[^1]; but the heaven that universally lacks stars is uniform: therefore no heaven that lacks stars is mobile.

2. Likewise, wherever there is motion, there is continuity and variation[^2]; but the continuity which is in motion is from the continuity of magnitude: therefore by parity of reasoning the variation of motion is from the variety of the mobile. But a celestial body that lacks stars does not have variety in its motions: therefore neither does it have changeability.

3. Likewise, every motion is for the sake of supplying some need either in the mobile itself or in something inferior[^3]; but the heaven which lacks stars cannot be moved on account of its own need, since no

need of its own is filled in that motion; nor for the sake of supplying a need in inferior things, because it influences as well by resting as by moving, and uniformly: therefore it seems that in no way is it fitting for a celestial body to be moved without stars.

4. Likewise, the motion of the heaven is the most perfect of all motions, and therefore is the rule of all motions[^4]: therefore if all things that are in that genus are measured by the rule, the soul measures all motions by the motion of the prime mobile: therefore the motion of the prime mobile is most known to the soul itself. But the motion of no body is known to the soul itself unless it has in itself some luminary, because the motion of an orb is not perceived except through the motion of a luminary: therefore it seems that it is not positable[^5] for any orb to be moved which lacks every luminary, especially since its motion eludes our sense, and sacred Scripture is silent about the motion of a uniform orb. And so it seems that to posit that some orb is moved above the firmament — which is visible to our eyes — is rash.

**On the contrary:**

***Fundamental arguments.***

1. Every multitude is reduced to unity[^6]: therefore the motion of a multiform body is reduced to the motion of a uniform body; but a body is not uniform unless it lacks every luminary: therefore it seems that beyond those orbs, in which there are luminaries, there is some mobile heaven.

2. Likewise, that motion which is the measure of all motions is the one which goes from east to east through west, which is the motion productive of the natural day and completes twenty-four hours; but the natural day is at every time uniform: therefore so also is this motion: therefore so also is the mobile: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if there is a right ordering of the middle to the extremes, it is necessary that the middle participate in some manner the nature of either extreme[^7]; but the crystalline heaven is the middle between the empyrean and the firmament: since therefore the empyrean is uniform and immobile, and the firmament is multiform and mobile, it seems that the crystalline heaven is either multiform and immobile, or uniform and mobile. But since it cannot be multiform and immobile — since variety of the mobile disposes to motion — therefore it is necessary that it be uniform and mobile.

4. Likewise, whenever several things concur to the constitution of some thing, it is necessary that they be conjoined by the power of some one thing: therefore whenever several mobiles concur to one conformable effect through their influence, it is necessary that they be conjoined through the uniformity of some mobile. If therefore the power of the planets and stars concurs to the production of effects in these inferior things according to a certain conformity, it is necessary, beyond them, that there be some mobile through which they are joined, which indeed has uniformity in the whole and in the parts; and thus it is fitting for some orb to be moved without stars.

***Incidental question 1.*** It is therefore a question what that orb is, and through what nature it is fitting for it to be moved. For if [it is moved] because it is heaven[^8]; then the empyrean will be mobile. If because it is a heaven which is not only containing but also contained; then objection arises concerning the fiery and aethereal heaven, which indeed contain and are contained, and yet are not moved circularly. — ***Incidental question 2.*** Alongside this it is asked concerning the sufficiency and number of the heavens; and since the celestial nature is distinguished from the elemental, how are some differences of the heavens taken from the elements? If you say, on account of the nature of the transparent found in them; then, since transparency is in water, the element of water ought to be called heaven.

> **Conclusion.** Some heaven lacking stars beyond the firmament is mobile.

**I respond:** It must be said that one must hold that some heaven is moved which lacks the variety of luminaries and stars; and this is the watery or crystalline heaven. To the cognition of which, even though few philosophers attained — because the corporeal eludes sense — nevertheless some attained it by reasoning[^9]; and those who attained it held that it is moved, just as certain astronomers strove to prove this. ***Note.*** Commonly, however, all Catholic treatise-writers attained to the cognition of the existence of this heaven, illumined divinely by the authority of sacred Scripture, which expressly declares its existence[^10] but does not explain its motion or rest. But the doctors of theology, supported by reasons, commonly hold that that heaven is moved.

***To incidental question 2.*** And among the other reasons, the most powerful reason is that which is taken from the perfection of the universe, from which also the distinction of the heavens and their number can be reasonably investigated.

And this is shown thus. ***1. Heaven in the common sense.*** For heaven, in its common acceptation, signifies some transparent and containing nature; in its proper acceptation, however, it names a transparent, containing nature elevated above contrariety.

***1. Heaven commonly.*** According to the first acceptation, seven heavens are distinguished by Rabanus[^11]. — For the

***Sufficiency of the septenary number.*** transparent and containing nature is either giving light, or receiving light. If it is giving, it is either uniform, not moved, and thus it is the empyrean; or it is multiform and moved, and thus it is the sidereal; or it is uniform and moved, and thus it is the crystalline. A fourth difference cannot exist, namely that it be multiform, not moved, because motion is a passion that naturally follows the multiformity of a body. — But if the transparent nature is receptive of light, [it is so] either separably or inseparably. If inseparably, [it is so] either according to the circle of the higher surface, and then it is the fiery [heaven]; or according to the circle of the lower surface, in which it communicates with the air, and then it is the olympian, which indeed is called olympian on account of its nearness to Mount Olympus. If however it is receptive[^12] separably, like air, which is illumined by the presence of a luminous body and darkened by its absence; this [happens] in two ways: either according to the superior part, and thus it is aethereal; or according to the inferior, and thus it is aëreal. — And in this distinction[^13] are comprehended all bodies of the world except earth and water. For earth cannot be comprehended under the name of heaven, since it lacks both transparency and the capacity of surrounding. Water likewise lacks [these], because, although it has transparency, nevertheless it does not surround on every side. And thus, from this sufficiency of the heavens, in which is shown the wisdom of the Creator and the perfection of the universe, it appears quite manifestly that one must hold that some orb without the multiformity of luminaries is moved; and that ought properly to be called the prime mobile. — ***Thus according to Rabanus.*** This distinction and sufficiency is taken according to the enumeration of Rabanus, who numbers the heavens according to the common acceptation of heaven, insofar as it names a transparent and containing nature; for thus he comprehends the celestial nature properly so-called and the elemental, though not every [elemental nature].

***II. Heaven properly.*** If however heaven be properly called the celestial nature — namely a transparent nature, containing on every side, contrary to none — thus it is distinguished by some ***Threefold enumeration.*** philosophers[^14] through eight orbs, who said the eighth sphere is the last. — Others, however, more illumined in this matter, beyond the eighth sphere posited a ninth. — A third group, perfectly illumined, came to the perfect distinction of orbs, so as to posit a tenth sphere, in which is rest and eternal life, namely the empyrean heaven — concerning which, even though Augustine scarcely or never speaks, Bede[^15] nevertheless and Rabanus expressly testify that it exists.

***Sufficiency of these numbers.*** The number and sufficiency of these we can take thus. For the distinction of the heavens is either by the diversity of their proper forms, or by the distinction of motions and luminaries contained in them. — ***3 heavens by the diversity of forms.*** If by the diversity of forms, we thus distinguish three heavens. For either there is vigorous in it the nature of perfect luminosity, and thus it is apt for the state of glory, and therefore quiet; and thus it is the empyrean. Or there is vigorous in it the nature of perfect transparency and of effective coldness; and thus it is the crystalline or watery, which indeed serves the conservation of corruptible things, and therefore is apt for motion. Or there is vigorous in it the nature of transparency together with luminosity and of effective heat; and thus it is the sidereal heaven, which indeed serves the transmutation of inferior things; therefore it is multiform and moved[^16].

***7 heavens by the distinction of luminaries.*** If, however, the distinction of the heavens be made according to the distinction of luminaries, thus there is a distinction of orbs. For either an orb contains a multitude of stars, or a unity. If a multitude, thus it is the starry heaven; if a unity, then since there are seven planets, according to which the universality of times is governed — which is enclosed by a septenary of days — there are seven orbs; and thus the third heaven by its multiformity contains eight spheres or orbs, and the two are preceding, and ***Thus 10 heavens.*** so [there are] ten, so that in this way the perfection of number — namely the denary — may correspond to the perfection of the parts of the universe.

From what has been said, therefore, it is clear that howsoever the sufficiency of the heavens be taken — whether under the proper appellation of heaven, or under the common one — one must hold that the crystalline heaven is moved, which indeed lacks stars. — ***To incidental question 1.*** And so to the proposed question it must be responded that without stars some orb can be moved, namely the watery heaven, which is the prime mobile, and which is moved uniformly from east to east through west; and by its power the firmament and all inferior orbs are drawn along, so that in one natural day — namely through the space of twenty-four hours — it revolves from east to east, although it does not appear to our sense, and some philosophers have thought that the firmament is the prime mobile. Yet some philosophers have detected that the firmament itself is moved by its own motion, in such a way that in a hundred years it proceeds one degree[^17]. Whether however this be true or false, this must be held — which the doctors of theology commonly posit — that there is ***Conclusion 2.*** some mobile heaven beyond the firmament, lacking stars. And the reasons showing this are to be conceded.

***Solution of the opposing [arguments].***

*To 1, 2.* To that which is objected to the contrary, that it is uniform; it must be said that if it has uniformity through the lack of diversity of parts, it nevertheless has diversity according to the account of right and left by comparison to the influence of the mover[^18]: and this diversity suffices for producing motion. — And by this is patent the response to the second [objection], because

there is not such variation in that motion of the prime mobile as would demand diversity of light in the parts; rather it accords with uniformity. For even if motion be called a variation with respect to rest, the motion of the prime mobile with respect to the others is uniform.

*To 3.* To that which is objected — that it influences equally when it is moved and when at rest — it must be said that this is false. For if it were at rest, it would not move the inferior orbs by its motion; but now, when it is moved, motive power descends from it into the inferior bodies.

*To 4.* To that which is objected — that its motion ought to be most known, since it is the rule of the other motions — it must be said that it is not necessary that it be known to sense in itself, but it suffices that it be made known in its effect. So also we do not perceive the revolution of the eighth sphere from east to east manifestly except through the sun and the other luminaries. By this manner the uniformity, as far as the space of hours, expressly indicates to us the motion of the uniform heaven; this[^19], however, we perceive through the variety of day and night.

To those things which were last asked, the solution is already evident from what has been said.

la: Cfr. supra d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Cf. above d. 2, p. II, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Vide Aristot., III. Phys. text. 1. seqq. et de motu ibid. IV. text. 99. (c. 11.). — Paulo inferius cod. aa *in suis partibus* pro *in suis motibus.*

en: See Aristotle, *Physics* III, text 1 ff., and on motion ibid. IV, text 99 (c. 11). — A little later codex aa reads *in its parts* for *in its motions.*

la: Cfr. supra pag. 348, nota 3.

en: Cf. above p. 348, note 3.

la: Vide supra pag. 19, nota 2; pag. 20, nota 1; pag. 91, nota 4. — Paulo inferius Vat. *per regulationem motuum,* edd. 2, 3 cum nonnullis codd. *per motum* pro *per regulam;* cod. aa post *omnia* addit *illa.*

en: See above p. 19, note 2; p. 20, note 1; p. 91, note 4. — A little later the Vatican [edition reads] *per regulationem motuum*, editions 2 and 3 with some codices [read] *per motum* in place of *per regulam*; codex aa after *omnia* adds *illa.*

la: Vat., substituto *nisi habeat* pro *nisi quod habet,* legit hic cum pluribus codd. *possibile* pro *ponibile.*

en: The Vatican [edition], having substituted *nisi habeat* for *nisi quod habet,* reads here with several codices *possibile* in place of *ponibile.*

la: Cfr. Dionys., *de Div. Nom.* c. 5. § 6. seq.; Boeth., *de Unitate et uno;* I. *de Arithmet.* c. 1. 3. et 7.

en: Cf. Dionysius, *On the Divine Names* c. 5, § 6 ff.; Boethius, *On Unity and the One;* *On Arithmetic* I, c. 1, 3, and 7.

la: Aristot., III. *de Partib. animal.* c. 1; Nam et medium particeps utriusque extremi est. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 71, nota 4.

en: Aristotle, *On the Parts of Animals* III, c. 1: For the middle also is a participant of either extreme. Cf. tom. I, p. 71, note 4.

la: In Vat. additur *et est continens.*

en: In the Vatican [edition] is added *and is containing.*

la: De quibus loqui videtur Damasc., II. *de Fide orthod.* c. 6: *Quoniam igitur caelum Scriptura dicit... dicimus, nos in universi creatione caelum illud fuisse conditum accepisse, quod externi philosophi, Moysis sibi placita vindicantes, orbem non stellatum vocant.* — Vat. *corpus illud* pro *corporeum.*

en: Concerning whom Damascene seems to speak, *On the Orthodox Faith* II, c. 6: *Since therefore Scripture calls heaven... we say that, in the creation of the universe, that heaven was made which we have received, which external philosophers — appropriating to themselves the doctrines of Moses — call the un-starred orb.* — The Vatican [edition reads] *that body* for *the corporeal.*

la: De quo vide supra p. I. huius d. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Concerning which see above p. I. of this distinction, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 352, nota 4. — In seqq. substituunt codd. ter *mobilis* pro *mota.*

en: Cf. above p. 352, note 4. — In what follows the codices three times substitute *mobilis* for *mota.*

la: Ita cod. cc et ed. 1; ceteri codd. cum Vat. *receptivum;* incongrue.

en: Thus codex cc and edition 1; the other codices with the Vatican [read] *receptivum;* incongruously.

la: In codd. Y aa subiungitur *caelorum.*

en: In codices Y aa is appended *caelorum.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., XII. *Metaph.* text 47. (XI. c. 8.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* XII, text 47 (XI, c. 8).

la: *Comment. in Pentateuch.* c. 1. (super Gen. 1.): *Quorum [caelorum] haec sunt nomina: aer, aether, olympus, spatium igneum, firmamentum, caelum Angelorum et caelum Trinitatis.*

en: *Commentary on the Pentateuch* c. 1 (on Gen. 1): *Whose [the heavens'] names are these: air, aether, olympus, fiery space, the firmament, the heaven of the Angels, and the heaven of the Trinity.*

la: Vat. *mobile.*

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *mobile.*

la: Cfr. de hoc B. Albert., II. *de caelo et mundo* tr. 2. c. 5.

en: Cf. on this B. Albert, *On the Heaven and the World* II, tr. 2, c. 5.

la: Cfr. supra p. I. huius d. a. 2. q. 2. — Paulo inferius post *ad secundum* fide cod. cc et ed. 1 substituimus *quia* pro *quod.* Dein plures codd. cum ed. 1 *qui exigat* pro *quae exigat.*

en: Cf. above p. I. of this distinction, a. 2, q. 2. — A little later, after *ad secundum,* on the authority of codex cc and edition 1, we have substituted *quia* for *quod.* Then several codices with edition 1 [read] *qui exigat* for *quae exigat.*

la: Plures codd. et Vat. *hunc.*

en: Several codices and the Vatican [read] *hunc.* ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** De hac quaestione praecise accepta alii auctores explicite non tractant, praeter B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 11. q. 32. m. 2; Petr. a Tar., hic a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. et Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. In ipsa autem solutione S. Thom. (hic q. unica, a. 4.) consentit, cum dicat de caelis: «Unum (caelum) est uniforme et immobile, scil. empyreum; secundum uniforme et mobile, scil. caelum crystallinum; tertium difforme in partibus et mobile, scil. sidereum». De quaestione autem hic incidenter, sed valde diffuse tractata, scil. de numero caelorum, diversae circumferebantur opiniones, sicut iam supra d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1, in scholio, observatum est.

**II.** De numero caelorum: Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 43. m. 2. — Scot. q. unica in utroque Scripto hic q. 2. — S. Thom., hic, a. 4; S. p. I. q. 68. a. 4. — B. Albert., loc. cit. q. 54. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., II. Sent. d. 2. a. 3. q. 1. 2. — Ægid. R., hic q. 1. a. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3. — Biel, hic q. unica (in princ.).

---

english_scholion:
**I.** On this question precisely taken, other authors do not treat explicitly, except B. Albert., *Summa* p. II. tr. 11. q. 32. m. 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 3. quaestiunc. 2; and Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 2. In the solution itself S. Thomas (here q. unica, a. 4) agrees, when he says of the heavens: «One (heaven) is uniform and immobile, namely the empyrean; the second uniform and mobile, namely the crystalline heaven; the third difform in its parts and mobile, namely the sidereal». But concerning the question here treated incidentally, but very diffusely — namely on the number of the heavens — diverse opinions were circulated, as was already observed above at d. 2, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, in the scholion.

**II.** On the number of the heavens: Alex. Hal., *Summa* p. II. q. 43. m. 2. — Scotus, q. unica in either *Scriptum* here q. 2. — S. Thomas, here, a. 4; *Summa* p. I. q. 68. a. 4. — B. Albert., loc. cit. q. 54. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, II. *Sent.* d. 2. a. 3. q. 1. 2. — Ægidius Romanus, here q. 1. a. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3. — Biel, here q. unica (in princ.).

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Manual-rescue Tier-2 promotion 2026-05-24 per d.11–d.20 boundary-sweep audit. The auto-chunker 2026-05-13 collapsed q3 into q2 because the printed *QUAESTIO III.* header at raw line 25065 was OCR-garbled to *QUAESTIO spectat / 111.* (cascade-fragmented across two lines, with `III.` mis-OCR'd as `111.`). Re-split off into its own chunk 2026-05-23. Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF crops; English freshly translated literally per Vol II PDF-priority inversion (CLAUDE.md "VOL II OVERRIDE" §1).

**Page-split map.**
- p. 354 R bottom: QUAESTIO III header + opener "Tertio quaeritur..." + Ad oppositum args 1, 2, 3 (arg 3 breaks mid-clause at *nulla*).
- p. 355 L: arg 3 completes; arg 4 full; Contra (Fundamenta) args 1, 2, 3, 4 opener.
- p. 355 R: Contra arg 4 completes; Quaestio incidens 1+2; CONCLUSIO; Respondeo opener (through *Communiter* / Notandum); ratio from *perfectio universi*; division-by-form opener (caelum communiter / Rabani septem caeli) to *Natura enim*.
- p. 356 L: Sufficientia numeri septenarii completes through Rabanus; II. Caelum proprie opener; Triplex numeratio through Beda.
- p. 356 R: Sufficientia horum numerorum; 3 caeli per formarum / 7 caeli per luminarium / Ita 10 caeli; closing summary; Solutio op. 1+2 opener through *motoris.*
- p. 357 L (top): Solutio op. continued (Ad 1, 2 close; Ad 3; Ad 4 opener through *quod motus eius*); SCHOLION I opener.
- p. 357 R (top): Ad 4 completes (through *per varietatem diei et noctis*); Ad illa ultimo querebantur close; SCHOLION I+II body. ARTICULUS II opener follows immediately on the same page (next chunk).

**Hand-offs picked up.** p. 354 footer note 3 (*Cfr. supra d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.*) from `d14-p2-a1-q2` is captured here as [^1], body-anchored at *uniformitatem* in Ad opp. arg 1 (the cross-reference is to Bonaventure's earlier discussion of the empyrean's immobility-by-uniformity, which is what arg 1 invokes by name). Verified no double-count: q2's [^1]–[^7] consumed p. 353 notes 1–5 + p. 354 notes 1–2, leaving p. 354 notes 3, 4, 5 fully available for q3 here.

**Hand-offs forwarded.** None. p. 357 footer note 1 (*Plures codd. et Vat. hunc.*) captured here as [^19]; p. 357 footer notes 2+ all belong to the next chunk (`d14-p2-a2-q1`) — anchors are visibly in ARTICULUS II QUAEST. I body ("*Sicut vult Philosophus²*", etc., immediately below the SCHOLION).

**Marginalia preserved inline per Vol II convention** (NOT promoted to headings): *Ad oppositum.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Quaestio incidens 1.*, *Quaestio incidens 2.*, *Conclusio.*, *Notandum.*, *Ad quaest. incid. 1.*, *Ad quaest. incid. 2.*, *1. Caelum communiter.*, *Sufficientia numeri septenarii.*, *Ita secundum Rabanum.*, *II. Caelum proprie.*, *Triplex numeratio.*, *Sufficientia horum numerorum.*, *Caeli 3 per diversitatem formarum.*, *Caeli 7 per distinctionem luminarium.*, *Ita 10 caeli.*, *Conclusio 2.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*

**[?] flags.** None. All 19 footnote anchors crisp at 450 dpi; SCHOLION I+II text intact at L-R column-band seam on p. 357 mid.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 14, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 357 -->

### ARTICULUS II. *De luminaribus in comparatione ad ea, in quae agunt.*

Consequenter quaeritur de ipsis luminaribus in comparatione ad ea, in quae agunt. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum in luminaribus diversis sit diversitas perfectionum.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum habeant diversitatem impressionum.

Tertio quaerilur, utrum ex eorum impressionibus causetur diversitas morum.

### QUAESTIO I. *Utrum luminaria habeant diversitatem perfectionum.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum luminaria diversitatem habeant perfectionum. Et quod sic, videtur.

*Fundamenta.* 1. Sicut vult Philosophus[^1], sol non est nomen individui, sed speciei; similiter et luna. Constat autem, quod sol et luna sunt imposita diversis: ergo ea sunt diversa secundum speciem.

2. Item, non potest esse nisi unus sol, sicut dicit Philosophus[^2], quia sol est ex tota sua materia; sed si sol ab aliis luminaribus non differret nisi solo numero, non esset ex tota sua materia: ergo differt amplius quam numero: ergo differt specie.

3. Item, corpus, quod est naturaliter luminosum, et corpus, quod ex se est opacum, sunt alterius et alterius naturae secundum speciem: sed corpus solis de sui natura est luminosum, luna vero, quantum est de se, opacum corpus est, quod patet in eclipsatione solis ex interpositione lunae: ergo sol et luna differunt specie[^3], pari ratione et alii planetae.

4. Item, terra ornata est diversis lapidibus et plantis et animalibus secundum speciem: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod caelum sit ornatum diversis luminaribus secundum speciem differentibus.

<!-- page 358 -->

*Ad oppositum.* **Sed contra:** 1. Corporis simplicis, non habentis admixtionem alterius corporis, partes sunt unigeneae et ad totum et inter se; sed caelum, sicut probat Philosophus[^4], est corpus simplex, non mixtum, et similiter luminaria: ergo non habent formas secundum speciem diversas.

2. Item, luminaria sunt ex aggregatione lucis sui orbis, sicut vult Philosophus in libro de Caelo et mundo[^5]; sed maior aggregatio et minor non facit diversitatem secundum speciem, sed solum secundum numerum: ergo luminaria caeli non perficiuntur diversis formis secundum speciem.

3. Item, flamma maior et minor non differunt secundum speciem, quamvis sit in una maior aggregatio luminis quam in alia: ergo si sic videtur esse circa luminaria caelestia, videtur, quod non differant forma specifica.

4. Item, nobilissima forma, quae sit in sole, est ipsius lux; et nobilissima forma in unaquaque re est forma ultima: ergo lux est forma ultima et completiva solis in specie sua. Sed in luce convenit cum omnibus aliis luminaribus; ergo videtur, quod luminaria caeli specie non sint distincta.

> **Conclusio.** Luminaria caeli specie differunt.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod communis philosophorum positio fuit, quod inter luminaria caeli est reperire diversitatem quantum ad speciem et formam. — Et istud concordat satis rationi rectae, quamvis non omnino recta ratio moverit quosdam ad ponendum diversitatem secundum speciem in luminaribus caeli. *Ratio falsa illorum.* Posuerunt enim aliqui, quod luminaria secundum speciem erant necessario diversa propter hoc, quod non habeant materiam transmutabilem, et unumquodque erat ex tota sua materia. — *Improbatur.* Sed haec ratio est falsa et vana et principium erroris, et occasio fuit aliquibus ponendi in omnibus hominibus animam unam, sicut melius patebit infra[^6]. Unde quod transmutabilitas materiae requiratur ad diversitatem secundum numerum, dicendum, quod hoc non est generaliter verum, utpote in diversitate secundum numerum, quae attenditur in aliquibus secundum simultatem suae productionis et secundum immediatum egressum a primo opifice; sed in his solum habet veritatem, quorum unum generatur ex alio. — Et ideo, hac ratione praetermissa, potest sumi ratio diversitatis illorum luminarium ex parte quadruplicis causae. *Vera ratio quadruplex.*

*Ratio 1.* Et primum ex parte *finis* sumitur ratio. Sunt enim producta propter diversas influentias in his inferioribus faciendas et propter ornandam caelestem naturam[^7]; et ideo competebat diversas habere species et virtutes, ut ex diversarum virtutum coniunctione resultaret perfectio in effectu, et ex diversarum specierum comparatione pulcritudo consurgeret in ornatu.

*Ratio 2.* Sumitur etiam ratio ex parte *efficientis,* qui secundum suam potentiam et sapientiam et bonitatem diversa producit secundum speciem et formam, ut quod dari non poterat uni soli per se, daretur diversis in specie.

*Ratio 3.* Sumitur etiam ratio ex parte *materiae.* Sicut enim in mixtis materia secundum diversitatem mixtionum aptatur ad susceptionem diversarum formarum, sic in corporibus simplicibus secundum maiorem raritatem et densitatem in suis partibus ad diversarum formarum aptatur susceptionem, sicut patet in elementis, quorum materia secundum maiorem densitatem suscipit formam terrae; dum autem rarefit secundum plus et minus, disponitur ad formas aliorum elementorum. Per hunc modum intelligendum est in caelo. Cum enim in caelesti natura, sicut dicitur in libro de Substantia orbis[^8], sit reperire rarum et densum, contingit secundum maiorem raritatem et densitatem, materiam diversarum formarum esse susceptibilem. Aliter tamen est rarum et densum in materia elementari et natura caelesti. In elementis enim causantur a frigido et calido dissolvente et constringente partes materiae; in caelo autem causantur solummodo secundum diversum

<!-- page 359 -->

partium situm. In denso enim sunt partes propinquiores, et in raro magis distantes, quia in denso sunt compressae et magis unitae, et in raro sparsae.

*Ratio 4.* Sumitur etiam ratio ex parte *formae.* Lux enim est una forma *communis,* reperta in omnibus luminaribus, et secundum cuius[^9] participationem maiorem et minorem sunt magis et minus nobilia; et ideo, cum istam formam diversimode participent, diversos habent gradus completionis, ideo etiam diversas formas *completivas.*

Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ostendentes, luminaria caeli secundum speciem esse diversa, quamvis illa ratio parum valeat, quod sunt ex tota sua materia, sicut iam ostensum est.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod est corpus simplex; dicendum, quod simplicitas corporis tollit diversitatem, quae ortum habet ex mixtione et formis perficientibus mixtum; sed non tollit illam diversitatem, quae venit ex diversitate formarum simplicium, sicut patet, quod, quamvis elementum sit corpus simplex, non tamen omnia elementa sunt unius speciei.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sunt ex aggregatione lucis; dicendum, quod non tangitur ibi tota ratio, sed solum tangitur dispositio ad diversitatem. Et ideo sequens ratio non valet de flamma maiori et minori; plus enim differunt luminaria quam flamma maior et minor, sicut colligitur ex suis virtutibus et operationibus consequentibus.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod forma ultima est completiva: *Notandum.* dicendum, quod hoc est verum respectu formarum, quae *disponunt* ad ipsam; lux autem potius est forma *perficiens* alias formas corporales, quam ad eas[^10] disponens, cum secundum eius participationem maiorem et minorem formae corporales sint magis et minus completae. — *Alia solutio.* Vel dicendum, quod lux est nobilissima formarum corporalium, earum scilicet, quae sunt ei extraneae; sed non est verum de formis luminarium caelestium, in quibus virtus eius et natura complete salvatur.

english:
### Article II. *On the luminaries in comparison to the things upon which they act.*

Next there is inquiry concerning the luminaries themselves in comparison to the things upon which they act. And concerning this three [questions] are asked.

First it is asked, whether in the different luminaries there is a diversity of perfections.

Second it is asked, whether they have a diversity of impressions.

Third it is asked, whether from their impressions a diversity of customs is caused.

### Question I. *Whether the luminaries have a diversity of perfections.*

Concerning the first [question] one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether the luminaries have a diversity of perfections. And that they do, is seen [thus].

*Arguments.* 1. As the Philosopher holds[^1], "sun" is not the name of an individual, but of a species; and likewise "moon." But it is settled that "sun" and "moon" are imposed upon different things: therefore those things are diverse according to species.

2. Likewise, there cannot be but one sun, as the Philosopher says[^2], because the sun is [made] from the whole of its matter; but if the sun did not differ from the other luminaries except in number only, it would not be from the whole of its matter: therefore it differs by more than number: therefore it differs in species.

3. Likewise, a body which is naturally luminous, and a body which is of itself opaque, are of another and another nature according to species: but the body of the sun is of its nature luminous, whereas the moon, so far as it is of itself, is an opaque body, as is evident in the eclipse of the sun by the interposition of the moon: therefore sun and moon differ in species[^3], and by parity of reasoning so do the other planets.

4. Likewise, the earth is adorned with different stones and plants and animals according to species: therefore by parity of reasoning it is seen that heaven is adorned with different luminaries differing according to species.

*To the opposite.* **On the contrary:** 1. Of a simple body, not having any admixture of another body, the parts are uniform both with respect to the whole and to one another; but heaven, as the Philosopher proves[^4], is a simple body, not mixed, and likewise the luminaries: therefore they do not have forms diverse according to species.

2. Likewise, the luminaries are [made] by an aggregation of the light of their orb, as the Philosopher holds in the book *On the Heavens and the World*[^5]; but a greater and a lesser aggregation does not make diversity according to species, but only according to number: therefore the luminaries of heaven are not perfected by diverse forms according to species.

3. Likewise, a greater and a lesser flame do not differ according to species, although in the one there is a greater aggregation of light than in the other: therefore if this is seen to hold concerning the celestial luminaries, it is seen that they do not differ in specific form.

4. Likewise, the noblest form which is in the sun is its very light; and the noblest form in any thing whatsoever is the ultimate form: therefore light is the ultimate and completive form of the sun in its species. But in light it agrees with all the other luminaries; therefore it is seen that the luminaries of heaven are not distinct in species.

> **Conclusion.** The luminaries of heaven differ in species.

**I respond:** For the understanding of what has been said, it must be noted that the common position of the philosophers has been that among the luminaries of heaven a diversity is to be found with respect to species and form. — And this accords well enough with right reason, although not entirely right reasoning has moved certain men to posit a diversity according to species in the luminaries of heaven. *Their false reasoning.* For some have posited that the luminaries were necessarily diverse according to species on this account, that they do not have transmutable matter, and each was [made] from the whole of its matter. — *It is refuted.* But this reasoning is false and vain and a source of error, and was the occasion for some to posit one soul in all men, as will appear better below[^6]. Hence as to [the claim] that transmutability of matter is required for diversity according to number, it must be said that this is not generally true, namely in diversity according to number which is observed in some things according to the simultaneity of their production and according to their immediate procession from the first Maker; but it holds true only in those things one of which is generated from another. — And therefore, this reasoning set aside, the reasoning for the diversity of those luminaries can be drawn from the fourfold cause. *True fourfold reasoning.*

*First reasoning.* And first the reasoning is drawn from the *end.* For they were produced for the sake of diverse influences to be effected in these lower things and for the adorning of celestial nature[^7]; and therefore it was fitting that they have diverse species and powers, so that from the conjunction of diverse powers perfection in effect should result, and from the comparison of diverse species beauty should arise in the adornment.

*Second reasoning.* The reasoning is also drawn from the *efficient* cause, who according to his power and wisdom and goodness produces diverse things according to species and form, so that what could not be given to one alone by itself, might be given to diverse things in species.

*Third reasoning.* The reasoning is also drawn from *matter.* For just as in mixed things matter according to the diversity of mixtures is adapted to the reception of diverse forms, so in simple bodies according to the greater rarity and density in their parts [matter] is adapted to the reception of diverse forms, as is evident in the elements, whose matter according to greater density receives the form of earth; whereas when it is rarefied according to more and less, it is disposed to the forms of the other elements. In this way it must be understood concerning heaven. For since in celestial nature, as is said in the book *On the Substance of the Orb*[^8], there is to be found rare and dense, it happens that according to greater rarity and density the matter is susceptible of diverse forms. Yet rare and dense are otherwise in elemental matter and in celestial nature. For in the elements they are caused by cold and heat dissolving and constraining the parts of matter; in heaven, however, they are caused only according to the diverse position of the parts. For in the dense the parts are nearer together, and in the rare more distant, because in the dense they are compressed and more united, and in the rare scattered.

*Fourth reasoning.* The reasoning is also drawn from *form.* For light is one *common* form, found in all the luminaries, and according to the greater and lesser participation of which[^9] [the luminaries] are more and less noble; and therefore, since they participate in this form diversely, they have diverse degrees of completion, and hence also diverse *completive* forms.

Therefore the reasonings showing that the luminaries of heaven are diverse according to species are to be granted, although that reasoning is of little worth which [claims] that they are [made] from the whole of their matter, as has already been shown.

*Resolution of the opposing arguments.* 1. To that which is objected, that it is a simple body; it must be said that the simplicity of a body removes that diversity which has its origin from mixture and from the forms perfecting the mixed; but it does not remove that diversity which comes from the diversity of simple forms, as is evident, for although an element is a simple body, nevertheless not all the elements are of one species.

2. 3. To that which is objected, that they are [made] by an aggregation of light; it must be said that the whole reasoning is not touched there, but only the disposition to diversity is touched. And therefore the following reasoning [about] the greater and lesser flame does not hold; for the luminaries differ more than do a greater and a lesser flame, as is gathered from their powers and consequent operations.

4. To that which is objected, that the ultimate form is completive: *Note.* it must be said that this is true with respect to forms which *dispose* to it; but light is rather a form *perfecting* other corporeal forms, than disposing to them[^10], since according to the greater and lesser participation of it the corporeal forms are more and less complete. — *Another solution.* Or it must be said that light is the noblest of corporeal forms, namely of those which are extraneous to it; but this is not true of the forms of the celestial luminaries, in which its power and nature are completely preserved.

la: Libr. VII. Metaph. text. 55. (VI. c. 15.): «Quaecumque in alio contingunt, veluti si alter fiat talis, patet, quod erit sol; communis ergo ratio». Gul. Mara, hic q. 8. dicit: Philosophus, VII. Metaphys., secundum unam translationem: sol, inquit, et luna sunt nomina specierum.

en: Book VII of the *Metaphysics,* text 55 (VI. c. 15.): "Whatever things befall in another, just as if another should become such, it is plain that it would be a sun; therefore the account is common." Guillaume de la Mare, here q. 8, says: the Philosopher, *Metaphysics* VII, according to one translation, says: "Sun" and "moon" are names of species.

la: Loc. cit.: «Latet, quod impossibile est in perpetuis definire, maxime vero quaecumque unica sunt, ut sol aut luna».

en: Loc. cit.: "It escapes [notice], because it is impossible in eternal things to define, and most of all whatever are unique, as the sun or the moon."

la: Ratio addita invenitur I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 95. (c. 9.), Cfr. supra pag. 103, nota 3. — Hoc arg. ponitur in libro de Causis proprietatum elementorum (Aristoteli olim attributo), c. 1, et illustratur hoc exemplo: Sicut candela quando opponitur ei speculum; illuminatur enim speculum a substantia candelae, et est alia a substantia speculi.

en: The reasoning added is found in *De Caelo et Mundo* I, text 95 (c. 9). Cf. above p. 103, note 3. — This argument is set down in the book *On the Properties of the Elements* (formerly attributed to Aristotle), c. 1, and is illustrated by this example: As when a candle is set opposite to a mirror; for the mirror is illuminated by the substance of the candle, and it is other than the substance of the mirror.

la: Libr. I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 8. seqq. (c. 2.). De aliis luminariis vide ibid. II. text. 41. (c. 7.). — Vat. *homogeneae* pro *unigeneae.*

en: Book I of *De Caelo et Mundo,* text 8 ff. (c. 2.). Concerning the other luminaries see ibid. II, text 41 (c. 7.). — The Vatican [edition reads] *homogeneae* for *unigeneae.*

la: Gul. Mara, hic q. 8. huic arg. addit sequentia: «Hoc autem non dicit Philosophus, sed Avicenna, libro suo de Caelo et mundo, et dicit, Aristotelem hoc dixisse in libro de Sensu et sensato». Avicenna, in praedicto suo libro c. 13, dum agit de natura stellarum et impugnat opinionem, secundum quam stellae sint igneae, ait: «Ego autem nunc dico dictionem de stellis magis convenientem usui et cursui naturali; hinc est, quod postquam stellae revolvuntur, sunt de natura corporis, in quo revolvuntur, et de natura earum splendor fit. Iam autem patefecit Aristoteles in libro de Sensu et sensato et in libro de Anima, quod non est de natura earum calor, sed calefaciunt nos suo motu». Ibid. c. 14: Postquam autem unusquisque planetarum habet caelum, et natura eius est de natura sui caeli... sed differentia est inter partes eius secundum magis et minus; quia in stellis est plus, et in reliquis partibus caeli est minus etc. Cfr. etiam Averroes, in II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 41. seq. — Quod *magis et minus* non variant speciem, supponit Aristot., VII. Phys. text. 21-35. (c. 4.); II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 37. (c. 6.).

en: Guillaume de la Mare, here q. 8, adds the following to this argument: "But the Philosopher does not say this, but Avicenna, in his book *De Caelo et Mundo,* and says that Aristotle said this in the book *De Sensu et Sensato.*" Avicenna, in his aforesaid book c. 13, while treating of the nature of the stars and refuting the opinion according to which the stars are fiery, says: "But I now say a statement about the stars more in accord with usage and natural course; whence it is, that since the stars are revolved, they are of the nature of the body in which they are revolved, and from their nature their splendor arises. But Aristotle has already made plain in the book *De Sensu et Sensato* and in the book *De Anima* that heat is not of their nature, but they warm us by their motion." Ibid. c. 14: But since each one of the planets has its [own] heaven, and its nature is of the nature of its heaven... but the difference is among its parts according to more and less; because in the stars [there is] more, and in the remaining parts of the heaven [there is] less, etc. Cf. also Averroes, in *De Caelo et Mundo* II, text 41 f. — That *more and less* do not vary the species, Aristotle supposes, *Physics* VII, text 21–35 (c. 4.); *De Generatione et Corruptione* II, text 37 (c. 6.).

la: Dist. 18. a. 2. q. 1. — Paulo inferius pro *secundum numerum* Vat. *secundum naturam.*

en: Distinction 18, a. 2, q. 1. — A little below, for *secundum numerum* the Vatican [edition reads] *secundum naturam.*

la: Cod. 1 *machinum.* Subinde Vat. *rerum* pro *circulum.*

en: Codex 1 [reads] *machinum.* Then the Vatican [edition reads] *rerum* for *circulum.*

la: Cap. 2, ubi Averroes ita ait: Accidentia vero, quae non transmutant substantiam deferentis, sunt communia utrique corpori [corruptibili et incorruptibili]: et primum istorum est motus localis, et diaphanitates et qualitates, quas sequuntur ista, scilicet raritas et densitas; videtur enim fere, quod raritas et densitas sunt causae diaphanitatis et non-diaphanitatis, sed tamen dicuntur utraeque in utroque corpore secundum prius et posterius, sicut dicitur corporeitas, et similiter conveniunt in luminatione et obscuritate.

en: Chapter 2, where Averroes thus says: But the accidents which do not transmute the substance of the carrier are common to either body [corruptible and incorruptible]: and the first of these is local motion, and transparencies and qualities, upon which these follow, namely rarity and density; for it seems almost that rarity and density are the causes of transparency and non-transparency, but nevertheless both are said in both bodies according to prior and posterior, as corporeity is said, and likewise they agree in illumination and obscurity.

la: Codd. A C O *eius.* Paulo inferius cod. cc et ed. 1 *gradus perfectionis* pro *gradus completionis.* — Cfr. supra d. 13. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

en: Codices A, C, O [read] *eius.* A little below codex cc and edition 1 [read] *gradus perfectionis* for *gradus completionis.* — Cf. above d. 13. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

la: In Vat. additur *se habens sicut ultima forma.* In principio solutionis multi codd. *completissima* pro *completiva,* et dein plures codd. cum edd. 2, 3 *illas formas* pro *alias formas.*

en: In the Vatican [edition] is added *se habens sicut ultima forma.* At the beginning of the solution many codices [read] *completissima* for *completiva,* and then several codices with editions 2 and 3 [read] *illas formas* for *alias formas.* ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Respectu 1. quaestionis dicit Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 3. a. 1.): «In corporibus caelestibus est differentia non tantum secundum *numerum,* sed etiam secundum *speciem* et secundum *genus.* Numero quidem differunt omnia caeli corpora; specie differunt omnia luminaria; genere differunt orbes, qui sunt corpora transparentia, et luminare solis, quod est corpus de se lucens et corpora stellarum, quae de se sunt obscura (!)».

De eadem re tractat B. Albert., Comment. in II. de Caelo et mundo, tr. 3. c. 4. Alii Commentatores Lombardi de 1. quaest. vel tacent, vel eam tangunt in seq. quaest.

**II.** Sequentem (2.) quaestionem alii auctores plerumque in sensu generaliore tractant, utrum scil. illa corpora habeant aliquem effectum in inferiora; tamen in conclusione consentiunt.

**III.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 52. m. 2. a. 2, ubi etiam quaedam tanguntur ex praecedentibus quaestionibus. — Scot., in utroque Scripto, hic q. 3. — S. Thom., II. Sent. d. 15. q. 1. a. 2; S. 1. q. 118. a. 3; S. c. Gent. III. c. 82. 86. — B. Albert., Comment. in II. de Caelo et mundo, tr. 3. c. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 8. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3. — Ægid. R., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Henr. Gand., de hac et seq. q. Quodl. 6. q. 10. — Durand., II. Sent. d. 15. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. II. Sent. d. 13. q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seq. q. hic q. unica.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** With respect to the 1st question, Peter of Tarentaise (here q. 3. a. 1.) says: "In celestial bodies there is a difference not only according to *number,* but also according to *species* and according to *genus.* In number indeed all the bodies of heaven differ; in species all the luminaries differ; in genus the orbs differ, which are transparent bodies, and the luminary of the sun, which is a body of itself shining, and the bodies of the stars, which are of themselves obscure (!)."

On the same matter B. Albert treats, *Comment. on II De Caelo et Mundo,* tr. 3. c. 4. Other commentators on Lombard are either silent concerning the 1st question, or touch on it in the following question.

**II.** Other authors for the most part treat the following (2nd) question in a more general sense, namely whether those bodies have any effect upon lower things; yet in the conclusion they agree.

**III.** Alex. of Hales, *S.* p. II. q. 52. m. 2. a. 2, where some things from the preceding questions are also touched on. — Scotus, in both *Scripta,* here q. 3. — S. Thomas, II. *Sent.* d. 15. q. 1. a. 2; S. 1. q. 118. a. 3; *S. c. Gent.* III. c. 82. 86. — B. Albert, *Comment. on II De Caelo et Mundo,* tr. 3. c. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3. a. 8. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3. q. 3. — Ægidius Romanus, here q. 3. a. 2. — Henry of Ghent, on this and the following q. *Quodl.* 6. q. 10. — Durandus, II. *Sent.* d. 15. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., on this and the following q. II. *Sent.* d. 13. q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following q., here q. unica.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from /tmp/colcrop/vol2-p357-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png + vol2-p358-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png + vol2-p359-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png at 450 dpi (vol2-p357 cached; pp. 358–359 generated this session). OCR raw range 25253–25395 used as reflow base; PDF authoritative for Respondeo + footers per Vol II Override.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 357 (L bottom + R bottom): ARTICULUS II opener + sub-divisio fold-in + QUAESTIO I opener + affirmative arguments 1–4. Footer notes 2–4 captured here as [^1]–[^3]; note 1 already consumed by `d14-p2-a1-q3` [^19] (verified no double-count).
- p. 358 (L+R full): Sed contra args 1–4 + Conclusio + Respondeo opener through Ratio 3 (matter) closing at *secundum diversum* before page break. Footer notes 1–5 = [^4]–[^8].
- p. 359 (L mid through R mid): Ratio 3 close (*partium situm*) + Ratio 4 (form) + Concedendae conclusion + Solutio oppositorum args 1, 2.3, 4 through *complete salvatur,* then 3-section SCHOLION. Footer notes 1–2 = [^9]–[^10]; note 3 (*Cap. 6, ubi textus originalis: Non usquequaque absurde*) belongs to next chunk `d14-p2-a2-q2` (anchors at q2 arg 1 Augustine quote *Non usquequaque absurde³* at line 25404).

**Hand-offs picked up.** p. 357 footer notes 2–4 forward-handed from `d14-p2-a1-q3` (per its Notes block, "p. 357 footer notes 2+ all belong to the next chunk … anchors are visibly in ARTICULUS II QUAEST. I body").

**Hand-offs forwarded.** p. 359 footer note 3 (Augustine *Cap. 6, ubi textus originalis*) hands forward to `d14-p2-a2-q2`; anchor at q2 arg 1 (`Augustini in quinto de Civitate Dei[Z]`).

**Marginal labels preserved inline** per Vol II convention: *Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Ratio falsa illorum.*, *Improbatur.*, *Vera ratio quadruplex.*, *Ratio 1./2./3./4.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Notandum.*, *Alia solutio.*

**Apparatus convention notes.**
- [^3] consolidates the p. 357 R-footer block (the unnumbered *Ratio addita … Cfr. supra pag. 103, nota 3.* continuation + the numbered note 4 *Hoc arg. ponitur in libro de Causis proprietatum elementorum*) per Quaracchi's bundling practice for closely-spaced variants/sources sharing the *specie* anchor in arg 3. The unnumbered *Ratio addita* could alternatively be read as a separate addendum to note 3; treating as bundled keeps the count to p. 357 = 4 notes (matches the L-footer's numbered 1, 2, 3 + R-footer's 4).
- p. 358 [^5] (Gul. Mara on aggregation-of-light) anchored at *de Caelo et mundo* in Sed contra arg 2 — the only superscript in that argument.

**No `[?]` flags.** All 10 anchors crisp at 450 dpi.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 14, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 359 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum diversa luminaria diversas habeant impressiones super corporalia.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum diversa luminaria habeant diversas impressiones super corporalia. Et quod sic, videtur:

*Fundamenta.*
1. Primo auctoritate Augustini in *quinto de Civitate Dei*[^1]: « Non usquequaque absurde potest dici, ad corporum differentias afflatus valere sidereos, sicut in solaribus accessibus et recessibus videmus ipsius anni tempora variari, et lunaribus incrementis et decrementis augeri et minui quaedam genera rerum, sicut mirabiles aestus oceani. »

2. Item, astronomi dicunt, quod quaedam stellae calefaciunt, quaedam infrigidant, quaedam humectant, et quaedam desiccant; et hoc ostendunt per sensus experientiam: ergo videtur, quod corpora caelestia impressiones diversas habeant super corpora.

3. Item, ad diversitatem *formarum* sequitur diversitas *virtutum*[^2], et ad diversitatem *virtutum* sequitur diversitas impressionum: ergo luminaria caelestia, differentia specie et natura, diversas efficiunt impressiones super haec inferiora.

4. Item, si diversas impressiones et virtutes non haberent, videtur, quod diversitas in eis frustra esset[^3]; sed non est frustra: ergo etc.

*Ad oppositum.*
**Contra:**
1. Obiicitur per Scripturam. Dicitur enim Genesis primo[^4], quod *sint in signa et tem-*
<!-- page 360 -->
*pora* etc.; sed aliud est *signum* et aliud *causa*: si igitur luminaria nihil possunt, nisi secundum quod Deus instituit, videtur, quod nihil habeant in his inferioribus *efficere*, sed solum *signare*.

2. Item, Damascenus[^5]: « Nos autem dicimus, quod ipsa non sunt causa alicuius eorum quae fiunt, neque corruptionis alicuius eorum quae corrumpuntur »: ergo videtur, quod non habeant in his inferioribus efficere aliquam impressionem.

3. Item, quod non habeant diversam impressionem, videtur, quia aut imprimunt formam, quam *habent*, aut formam, quam *non habent*. Formam, quam non habent, non possunt imprimere, quia agens debet esse in actu respectu passi. Si imprimunt formam, quam habent, aut ergo formam, in qua *communicant*, aut formas, in quibus *differunt*. Si formas, in quibus *differunt*: ergo videtur, quod luna generet lunam, et sol solem, et hoc est falsum. Si formam, in qua *conveniunt*: ergo videtur, quod omnia luminaria eandem habeant impressionem in his inferioribus.

4. Item, sol calefacit propter suum motum et emissionem radiorum, et ita mediante lumine[^6]; sed omnia luminaria caelestia communicant in luce et in radiorum emissione et in motu: ergo videtur, quod omnia habeant calefacere: ergo nihil est illud dicere, quod quaedam calefaciunt, quaedam non.

5. Item, sol habet virtutem illuminandi et calefaciendi haec inferiora: si ergo sol plus communicat de virtute sua lunae quam alicui inferiori corpori, videtur, quod luna eandem habeat impressionem, licet minus intensam.

6. Item, ignis inter omnia elementa maxime accedit ad naturam caelestem: ergo omnia luminaria caelestia plus communicant cum igne quam cum aliquo elementorum: ergo videtur, quod maxime habeant effectum supra ignem et eius qualitatem: ergo videtur, quod omnia in sui actione et dominio qualitatem ignis intendant et fortificent; et ita videtur, quod omnia desiccent et calefaciant, et nulla infrigident.

> ### Conclusio.
> *Luminaria caeli multimodam habent impressionem super elementa et corpora elementaria.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod luminaria caelestia impressionem habent super elementa et elementaria corpora, impressionem, inquam, non unicam tantum, sed multimodam.

*Ratio ad 1. membrum.* Ratio autem, quare superiora in haec inferiora agunt et imprimunt et rerum qualitates intendunt, est, quia sunt corpora nobiliora et praecellentia in virtute, sicut praecellunt in situ; et ideo, cum *ordo universitatis* sit, ut potentiora et superiora influant in inferiora et minus potentia, ordini universitatis competit, ut luminaria caelestia influant in elementa et corpora elementaria[^7]. *Status* etiam *ordinis* hoc requirit, quia, sicut in motu locali venitur ad unum movens immobile, ita in motu alterationis secundum qualitatem necesse est venire ad unum alterans non alterabile secundum easdem qualitates. Et ideo cum elementa et ex elementis commixta sint secundum primas qualitates alterantia et alterabilia, recte disposuit divina Sapientia corpora caelestia, utpote luminaria, quae inferiora alterarent sua influentia secundum qualitates primas, ita quod ipsa tam qualitatibus quam alterationibus illarum essent carentia.

*Ratio aliorum ad 2. membrum.* Ratio vero, quare *diversa* imprimunt, a quibusdam sumitur propter diversitatem *qualitatum*, sicut scribitur in libro *de Substantia orbis*[^8]. Ibi enim dicitur secundum quorundam opinionem, quod luminaria caeli qualitates habent primas; sed non habent eas omnino *univoce* cum qualitatibus elementaribus, pro eo quod secundum illas agere possunt in haec inferiora, sed ad invicem pati non possunt. — *Non probatur.* Sed ista ratio non videtur conveniens; si enim essent *aequivoce*, tunc effectus eorum non concordaret qualitatibus elementaribus.

*Ratio melior.* Et ideo melior sumitur ratio ex parte diversitatis *virtutum*. Quia enim Conditor mundi corpora caelestia incorruptibilia posuit ad regulandum et regendum corruptibilia, quae sunt diversa et multiformia, dedit eis *virtutes consequentes suas species*, secundum quas diversa luminaria aspectum haberent ad diversa elementa et ad diversa corpora mineralia[^9]. Unde quia luna ex virtute sibi indita cum adiutorio luminis aspectum habet super *humorem*; ideo per suam influentiam humidum augmentat, et ad eius praesentiam excrescunt maria et quasi exaestuant et effluunt, ad absentiam vero in sinum suum colliguntur et refluunt. Sic etiam intelligendum est et in aliis luminaribus.

Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ostendentes, quod luminaria in his inferioribus habent diversas impressiones.

*Solutio oppositorum.*
1. 2. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod nullam habent impressionem, quia sunt *signa* tantum; dicendum, quod Scriptura non dicit, quod sint *tan-*
<!-- page 361 -->
*tum* in significationem, quia et sunt in significationem et sunt in efficaciam. Magis tamen exprimit, quod sint signa, quam quod sint causae, pro eo quod nec causant *sufficienter* nec causant *necessario*; et ideo magis attribuit eis rationem signorum. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad illud Damasceni, cum dicit, quod non sunt *causa* in his inferioribus. Non vult enim negare, quin habeant influentiam, sed hoc vult dicere, quod nec sunt principia inferiorum sufficientia nec sunt necessaria. Operantur enim ut causae *universales*, quae per *particulares* indigent adiuvari et possunt impediri[^10].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur tertio: aut imprimunt quod habent, aut quod non habent; dicendum, quod primo influunt *virtutem suam*, quam habent, et per illam generant et augmentant formam et speciem, quam non habent. Et cum dicitur, quod nihil dat formam, quam non habet; dicendum, quod *habere* dicitur duobus modis: vel *virtualiter*, vel *formaliter*; et ad hoc, quod impartiatur aliquid alicui, sufficit, quod habeat virtualiter, non oportet, quod habeat formaliter, sicut *movens immobile* dat *motum*[^11], quamvis ipsum non moveatur; sic intelligendum est in proposito. Praeterea, cum ponuntur corpora caelestia imprimere in haec inferiora et diversas qualitates aggenerare; hoc non est intelligendum, quod eis dent ex se, sed quod educunt illud quod est in potentia, in actum. Praeterea, non est intelligendum, quod dent per se solum, sed adiuvando virtutem naturae inferioris. Hoc autem faciunt tum per virtutem *lucis*, in qua communicant, tum etiam per *virtutes proprias*, secundum quas agunt in haec inferiora, non ut producant sibi similia, sed ut influendo conservent, regant et intendant rerum inferiorum qualitates et naturas.

4. *Notandum.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnium sit calefacere; responderi potest, quod *motus* et *lumen* non est sufficiens causa caloris, sed motus cum *velocitate*, et lumen cum *radiorum multiplicatione*. Et quia haec non concurrunt in omnibus luminaribus, ideo non possunt omnia calefacere. — *Alia ratio.* Posset etiam ad hoc reddi alia ratio, quia hoc non tantum facit *motus* et *luminositas*, sed etiam ad hoc facit *virtus propria*, secundum quam stella vel planeta calefaciens aspectum habet super naturam igneam principaliter.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sol magis communicat virtutem suam lunae quam alicui inferiori; dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Philosophus[^12], « actus activorum est in patiente et disposito »; et Boethius: « Omne quod recipitur est in recipiente per modum recipientis, non recepti »[^13]. Quoniam igitur haec inferiora sunt susceptibilia luminis pariter et caloris; hinc est, quod sol non tantum ea illuminat, sed etiam inflammat. Quia vero luna nata est illuminari, sed non est nata calefieri; hinc est, quod a sole lumen recipit et refundit, calorem vero non recipit nec refundit.

6. *Distinctio.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod natura ignis plus convenit cum natura caelesti; dicendum, quod de luminaribus caelestibus est loqui dupliciter, scilicet quantum ad naturam, in qua conveniunt, videlicet quantum ad naturam *lucis*; et quantum ad hanc verum est dicere, quod universaliter magis conformantur igni quam elemento alii. Est etiam nihilominus loqui quantum ad virtutes sibi specialiter datas, secundum quod deputantur ad regimen inferiorum; et quia non tantummodo[^14] habent regere ignem, sed etiam alia corpora; hinc est, quod ex sua institutione primaria aliqua ex eis magis quam ignem aspiciunt elementa alia. Et quia omnis actio attenditur secundum aspectum virtutis agentis ad patiens, sicut dicunt medici et astronomi; hinc est, quod quaedam luminaria magis cum igne in effectu communicant, quaedam vero discordant, dum principaliter aspiciunt elementa alia. Aspectus autem ipsorum determinare alterius est scientiae[^15].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the various luminaries have diverse impressions upon bodily things.*

Secondly it is asked, whether diverse luminaries have diverse impressions upon bodily things. And that they do, is shown as follows:

*Affirmative arguments.*
1. First, by the authority of Augustine in *the fifth book of the City of God*[^1]: "It can be said not altogether absurdly that the breaths of the stars avail for the differences of bodies, just as in the approaches and recessions of the sun we see the seasons of the year vary, and by the waxings and wanings of the moon certain kinds of things are increased and diminished, like the wondrous tides of the ocean."

2. Likewise, the astronomers say that certain stars warm, certain cool, certain moisten, and certain dry; and they show this through the experience of the senses: therefore it seems that the heavenly bodies have diverse impressions upon bodies.

3. Likewise, upon diversity of *forms* there follows diversity of *powers*[^2], and upon diversity of *powers* there follows diversity of impressions: therefore the heavenly luminaries, differing in species and nature, produce diverse impressions upon these lower things.

4. Likewise, if they did not have diverse impressions and powers, it seems that the diversity in them would be in vain[^3]; but it is not in vain: therefore etc.

*On the opposite side.*
**Contra:**
1. It is objected from Scripture. For it is said in Genesis 1[^4] that *they be for signs and seasons* etc.; but a *sign* is one thing and a *cause* is another: if therefore the luminaries can do nothing except according as God has instituted, it seems that they have nothing to *effect* in these lower things, but only to *signify*.

2. Likewise, Damascene[^5]: "We however say that they are not the cause of any of the things which come to be, nor of the corruption of any of the things which are corrupted": therefore it seems that they do not effect any impression in these lower things.

3. Likewise, that they do not have diverse impression seems true, because either they impress a form which they *have*, or a form which they *do not have*. The form which they do not have they cannot impress, because the agent must be in act with respect to the patient. If they impress a form which they have, then either a form in which they *agree*, or forms in which they *differ*. If the forms in which they differ: then it seems that the moon would generate moon, and the sun sun, and this is false. If a form in which they *agree*: then it seems that all luminaries have the same impression in these lower things.

4. Likewise, the sun warms on account of its motion and the emission of its rays, and thus by means of its light[^6]; but all the heavenly luminaries share in light and in the emission of rays and in motion: therefore it seems that all should warm: therefore it is nothing to say that some warm and some do not.

5. Likewise, the sun has the power of illuminating and warming these lower things: if therefore the sun communicates more of its power to the moon than to any inferior body, it seems that the moon should have the same impression, though less intense.

6. Likewise, fire among all elements most approaches the heavenly nature: therefore all the heavenly luminaries share more with fire than with any other element: therefore it seems that they have the greatest effect upon fire and its quality: therefore it seems that all, in their action and dominion, intensify and strengthen the quality of fire; and so it seems that all dry and warm, and none cool.

> ### Conclusion.
> *The luminaries of heaven have a manifold impression upon the elements and elemental bodies.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the heavenly luminaries have an impression upon the elements and elemental bodies, an impression, I say, not single only, but manifold.

*Reason for the first member.* The reason why the higher things act upon these lower and impress upon them and intensify the qualities of things is that they are nobler bodies and excel in power, just as they excel in position; and therefore, since it belongs to the *order of the universe* that the more powerful and the higher should flow into the lower and the less powerful, it pertains to the order of the universe that the heavenly luminaries should flow into the elements and elemental bodies[^7]. The *status of the order* also requires this, because, just as in local motion one comes to one immobile mover, so in the motion of alteration according to quality it is necessary to come to one alterer not alterable according to the same qualities. And therefore, since the elements and what is mixed from the elements are altering and alterable according to the first qualities, divine Wisdom rightly arranged the heavenly bodies, namely the luminaries, to alter the lower things by their influence according to the first qualities, in such a way that they themselves should be without those qualities and alterations.

*Reason of others for the second member.* But the reason why they impress *diverse* things is taken by some on account of diversity of *qualities*, as is written in the book *on the Substance of the Orb*[^8]. For there it is said according to the opinion of some that the luminaries of heaven have the first qualities; but they do not have them altogether *univocally* with the elemental qualities, because by them they can act upon these lower things, but they cannot suffer mutually. — *Not approved.* But this reason does not seem fitting; for if they were *equivocally*, then their effect would not agree with the elemental qualities.

*A better reason.* And therefore a better reason is taken from the side of diversity of *powers*. For because the Creator of the world placed the incorruptible heavenly bodies to regulate and govern the corruptible, which are diverse and multiform, He gave them *powers consequent upon their species*, according to which the various luminaries should have an aspect toward diverse elements and toward diverse mineral bodies[^9]. Whence, because the moon, by the power given to it together with the help of light, has an aspect upon *moisture*; therefore by its influence it increases the moist, and at its presence the seas swell and as it were boil up and flow forth, while at its absence they gather back into their bosom and flow back. So also is it to be understood in the other luminaries.

The reasons proving that the luminaries have diverse impressions in these lower things are therefore to be conceded.

*Solution of the opposing arguments.*
1. 2. To what is objected, that they have no impression because they are *signs* only; it must be said that Scripture does not say that they are *only* for signification, because they are both for signification and for efficacy. Yet it expresses rather that they are signs than that they are causes, because they cause neither *sufficiently* nor *necessarily*; and therefore it attributes to them rather the character of signs. — And by this is plain the response to that of Damascene, when he says that they are not a *cause* in these lower things. For he does not wish to deny that they have influence, but he wishes to say this, that they are neither sufficient principles of the lower things nor necessary. For they operate as *universal* causes, which need to be aided by *particular* ones, and can be impeded[^10].

3. To what is objected in the third place: either they impress what they have, or what they do not have; it must be said that they first pour in *their own power*, which they have, and through it generate and increase the form and species, which they do not have. And when it is said that nothing gives a form which it does not have; it must be said that *to have* is said in two ways: either *virtually*, or *formally*; and for this, that something be imparted to another, it suffices that it have it virtually, it is not required that it have it formally, just as the *immobile mover* gives *motion*[^11], although it itself is not moved; so it is to be understood in the present case. Moreover, when the heavenly bodies are said to impress upon these lower things and to engender diverse qualities; this is not to be understood as if they give them from themselves, but that they draw forth into act what is in potency. Moreover, it is not to be understood that they give by themselves alone, but by aiding the power of the inferior nature. They do this both through the power of *light*, in which they share, and also through their *proper powers*, according to which they act upon these lower things, not to produce things like themselves, but by their influence to conserve, govern, and intensify the qualities and natures of inferior things.

4. *Note.* To what is objected, that it would belong to all of them to warm; it can be replied that *motion* and *light* are not a sufficient cause of heat, but motion with *velocity*, and light with the *multiplication of rays*. And because these do not concur in all luminaries, therefore not all can warm. — *Another reason.* Another reason can also be given for this: that this is not done only by *motion* and *luminosity*, but to this also contributes the *proper power*, according to which a warming star or planet has its aspect chiefly upon the fiery nature.

5. To what is objected, that the sun communicates its power more to the moon than to any lower thing; it must be said that, as the Philosopher says[^12], "the act of agents is in the patient and one disposed"; and Boethius: "Everything which is received is in the receiver according to the mode of the receiver, not of the thing received"[^13]. Since therefore these lower things are susceptible alike of light and of heat; hence it is that the sun not only illuminates them, but also enkindles. But because the moon is by nature fit to be illuminated, yet is not by nature fit to be heated; hence it is that from the sun it receives light and pours it back, but does not receive heat nor pour it back.

6. *Distinction.* To what is objected, that the nature of fire agrees more with the heavenly nature; it must be said that of the heavenly luminaries one can speak in two ways, namely as to the nature in which they agree, that is, as to the nature of *light*; and as to this it is true to say that universally they are more conformed to fire than to any other element. There is also nonetheless to speak as to the powers specially given to them, according as they are deputed to the governance of lower things; and because they have to govern not only[^14] fire, but also other bodies; hence it is that, from their primary institution, some of them look more upon other elements than upon fire. And because every action is judged according to the aspect of the power of the agent to the patient, as the physicians and astronomers say; hence it is that some luminaries agree more with fire in effect, while some disagree, while they look chiefly upon other elements. But to determine their aspects belongs to another science[^15].

---

la: Cap. 6, ubi textus originalis: *Non usquequaque absurde dici posset ad solas corporum differentias... sicut echinos et conchas et mirabiles aestus oceani.* — Multi codd. *absurdum* pro *absurde*.

en: Chapter 6, where the original text reads: *It could not be said altogether absurdly with reference to the differences of bodies alone... like sea-urchins and shells and the wondrous tides of the ocean.* — Many codices read *absurdum* for *absurde*.

la: Cfr. tom. I. pag. 51, nota 11, et pag. 84, nota 7.

en: Cf. volume I, p. 51, note 11, and p. 84, note 7.

la: Vide supra pag. 197, nota 5.

en: See above, p. 197, note 5.

la: Vers. 14. — Paulo inferius plures codd. et Vat. post *causa* subnectunt *signi*.

en: Verse 14. — A little further down, several codices and the Vatican edition add *signi* after *causa*.

la: Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 7, ubi textus originalis post *quae fiunt* addit *neque generationis eorum quae fiunt*. — Vat. omittit *eorum quae fiunt neque corruptionis alicuius*.

en: Book II of *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 7, where the original text after *quae fiunt* adds *neque generationis eorum quae fiunt*. — The Vatican edition omits *eorum quae fiunt neque corruptionis alicuius*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 42. (c. 7.); et I. Meteor. c. 4. (c. 3.). — Vat. paulo ante *ex emissione* pro *et emissionem*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* II, text 42 (c. 7); and *Meteorology* I, c. 4 (c. 3). — A little before, the Vatican edition reads *ex emissione* for *et emissionem*.

la: Cfr. Dionys., de Div. Nom. c. 4. § 1. et 4. et supra pag. 204, nota 1. et pag. 277, nota 7.

en: Cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, *On the Divine Names* c. 4 §§ 1 and 4, and above p. 204 note 1 and p. 277 note 7.

la: Vide Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 20. seqq. (c. 3.); II. text. 42. (c. 7.); et supra pag. 339, nota 11. Averroes, de Substantia orbis, c. 2, etiam hanc rationem affert. Codd. V W *illorum* pro *illarum*.

en: See Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* I, text 20ff (c. 3); II, text 42 (c. 7); and above, p. 339, note 11. Averroes, *On the Substance of the Orb*, c. 2, also offers this reason. Codices V W read *illorum* for *illarum*.

la: Cap. 2. — Plures codd. *qualitates habent proprias* pro *qualitates habent primas*, scil. caliditatem, frigiditatem, humiditatem et siccitatem.

en: Chapter 2. — Several codices read *qualitates habent proprias* for *qualitates habent primas*, namely heat, cold, moisture, and dryness.

la: Cod. cc *naturalia*.

en: Codex cc reads *naturalia*.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 40. dub. 7. et d. 43. a. 2. q. 2. in corp., ubi proprietates causarum universalium et particularium explicantur. Aristot., IV. de Generat. animal. c. 10. et de Divinat. per somnium, c. 2. dicit, impressiones corporum caelestium non causare necessario; ibid. c. 1. occurrit etiam distinctio inter *signum* et *causam*.

en: Cf. *I Sent.* d. 40 dub. 7 and d. 43 a. 2 q. 2 in the body, where the properties of universal and particular causes are explained. Aristotle, *On the Generation of Animals* IV, c. 10, and *On Divination through Sleep*, c. 2, says that the impressions of heavenly bodies do not cause necessarily; *ibid.* c. 1 the distinction between *sign* and *cause* also occurs.

la: Cod. aa *moveri*, quo alluditur ad illud Boethii, III. de Consol. metro 9: *Stabilisque manens das cuncta moveri.*

en: Codex aa reads *moveri*, by which there is allusion to that of Boethius, *Consolation* III, metre 9: *Steadfast remaining, you cause all things to be moved.*

la: Libr. III. de Anima, text. 24. (c. 2.), in quo textu non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 *et disponente*, Vat. *praedisposito* pro *et disposito* (καὶ διατιθεμένῳ). Verba Boethii, V. de Consol. prosa 4, sunt: « Omne enim quod cognoscitur, non secundum sui vim, sed secundum cognoscentium potius comprehenditur facultatem ». Ad quae verba respiciens sola Vat. legit: *Omne quod cognoscitur vel recipitur secundum cognoscentium vel recipientium facultatem comprehenditur vel recipitur.* Sententia, de qua hic agitur, si verba attendas, potius invenitur in Libro de Causis, prop. 10. 20. et 24. — Paulo inferius complurior lectio codd. et ed. 1 habet *susceptibilia*, pro quo, receptiva, et codd. F aa *susceptiva*.

en: Book III *On the Soul*, text 24 (c. 2), in which text not a few codices with the first edition read *et disponente*, the Vatican edition *praedisposito*, for *et disposito* (καὶ διατιθεμένῳ). The words of Boethius, *Consolation* V, prose 4, are: "For everything that is known is grasped not according to its own power but rather according to the faculty of those knowing." Looking back to these words, the Vatican alone reads: *Everything which is known or received is grasped or received according to the faculty of those knowing or receiving.* The thought here treated, if you attend to the words, is rather found in the *Book on Causes*, propositions 10, 20, and 24. — A little further on, the fuller reading of the codices and the first edition has *susceptibilia*, for which, *receptiva*, and codices F and aa read *susceptiva*.

la: Codd. bb cc et ed. 1 *tantum*.

en: Codices bb cc and the first edition read *tantum*.

la: Scilicet astrologiae sive astronomiae. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Namely, of astrology or astronomy. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF crops at `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p{359,360,361}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (Vol II PDF-priority inversion). Raw OCR span lines 25397–25546 used for footer-anchor positions and cross-check on running prose. Translation literal, scholastic-formula table observed.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 359 R col (mid → bottom): QUAESTIO II opener + Fundamenta args 1–4 + Contra/Ad opp. arg 1 opener through `et tem-` page break.
- p. 360 L+R full: Ad opp. arg 1 close + args 2–6 + CONCLUSIO + RESPONDEO + *Ratio ad 1. membrum* + *Ratio aliorum ad 2. membrum* + *Non probatur* + *Ratio melior* + Concedendae + Solutio op. 1+2 opener through `tan-` page break.
- p. 361 L+R top (through `est scientiae⁵`): Solutio op. 1+2 close + 3 + 4 (+ Notandum / Alia ratio marginalia) + 5 + 6 (Distinctio), terminating immediately before QUAESTIO III opener at line 25538.

**Hand-offs picked up.**
- From `d14-p2-a2-q1`: p. 359 footer note 3 (*Cap. 6, ubi textus originalis: Non usquequaque absurde…*) consumed here as `[^1]`, anchored at q2 arg 1 Augustine *quinto de Civitate Dei* — exactly as forecast in the prior chunk's notes.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- p. 361 footer note 6 (*Libr. IV. prosa 6.*, the Boethius *de Consolatione* citation) hands forward to `d14-p2-a2-q3`, anchoring at q3's *Ad oppositum* arg 1 *Boethius in libro de Consolatione* citation (raw line 25540).

**No scholion.** Per locked Vol II convention the article-level 3-section SCHOLION is attached to a2-q1 (SCHOLION II *Sequentem (2.) quaestionem … in sensu generaliore tractant* is the forward-pointer for this very question; verified in q1).

**Marginal labels.** Preserved inline per Vol II convention: *Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Conclusio bimembris.*, *Ratio ad 1. membrum.*, *Ratio aliorum ad 2. membrum.*, *Non probatur.*, *Ratio melior.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Notandum.*, *Alia ratio.*, *Distinctio.* (rendered as inline italics, not promoted to subheadings).

**[?] flags.** None — all 15 anchor positions crisp at 450 dpi.

**Apparatus count.** 15 entries (raw line range 25397–25546 also includes p. 361 footer note 6 which forwards to q3; small positive diff expected on `audit-apparatus-count.py`).