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

source_text:
<!-- page 342 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum in caelo sit ponere dextram et sinistram.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum in corpore caeli sit ponere dextram et sinistram. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Fundamentum 1.* Per illud quod dicit Philosophus in secundo *de Caelo et mundo*[^1]: Ait enim sic: « Est orbi proculdubio virtus diversa, scilicet dextra et sinistra, quoniam sunt ei loca inceptionis et status ex opere factionis suae ».

2. Item, hoc ostenditur per *rationem* suam, <!-- page 343 -->ibidem[^2]: *Omnis motus finitus habet principium, a quo incipit*; sed cuiuslibet caeli revolutio est finita: ergo habet aliquem situm, a quo incipit. Sed *dextra* dicitur in corporibus, unde est motus principium, *sinistra*, ad quam est motus finis: ergo cum caeli sint mobiles, caeli habent dextram et sinistram.

3. Item, *dextrum* et *sinistrum* sunt termini latitudinis, sicut *sursum* et *deorsum* termini longitudinis, et *ante* et *retro* termini profunditatis; sed omne corpus completum et terminatum habet tres dimensiones et terminos dimensionum[^3]; corpus autem caeli est huiusmodi; ergo videtur, quod habeat dextram et sinistram.

4. Item, perfectiori motu moventur corpora caelestia quam inferiora; sed propter motus completionem animalia habent dextram et sinistram: ergo multo fortius corpora caelestia[^4].

***Ad oppositum.*** 1. Sicut dicit Philosophus in secundo *de Caelo et mundo*: « In plantis nec est dextra nec sinistra »: sed multo magis plantae accedunt ad distinctionem organizationis quam caelum: ergo videtur, quod caelum non habeat dextram et sinistram.

2. Item, *dextrum* et *sinistrum* causantur in nobis, ut dicit Commentator super librum *de Caelo et mundo*[^5], a qualitatibus activis et passivis, scilicet ab abundantia caloris naturalis procedente a corde, et spirituum plus vigentium in parte dextera quam sinistra: si igitur hoc non est reperire in caelesti natura, videtur etc.

3. Item, *dextrum* et *sinistrum* praesupponunt *sursum* et *deorsum*, sicut latitudo praesupponit longitudinem et habet secum annexa *ante* et *retro*; in caelo autem non est ponere *sursum* et *deorsum*, cum haec sint contraria; non est etiam ponere *ante* et *retro*, cum « *ante* dicatur, ubi est sensus », sicut dicit Philosophus[^6]: ergo videtur, quod non sit ibi dextra et sinistra.

4. Item, nihil quod habet extra se principium et finem sui motus, habet dextram et sinistram[^7]; sed corpus caeli est huiusmodi, cum motor eius sit separatus: ergo non habet dextram et sinistram.

5. Item, « *dextrum* est, unde est principium <!-- page 343 R -->motus[^8] »; sed una parte circuli mota, moventur omnes: ergo non magis incipit motus ab una parte circuli quam ab alia; ergo in circulo vel quaelibet pars erit dextera, vel nulla: sed caelum est corpus circulare, quia movetur circulariter: ergo etc.

6. Item, si aliquod corpus habet dextram et sinistram, illa pars, quae semel est dextera, semper est dextera, qualitercumque corpus illud moveatur localiter: ergo si caelum habet dextram et sinistram, illa pars, quae semel est in ipso dextera, semper est dextera. Sed non est dare aliquam partem caeli, quae modo non sit in oriente, modo in occidente, modo in alio loco secundum regyrationem caeli; ergo dextra caeli aliquando esset oriens, aliquando occidens; quod nullo modo concedi potest[^9].

> ### Conclusio.
> *In caelis mobilibus aliquo modo est dextra et sinistra.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quamvis *dextrum* et *sinistrum* dicant terminos latitudinis, et *sursum* et *deorsum* longitudinis, et *ante* et *retro* profunditatis; non tamen nominant terminos illos simpliciter, sed per comparationem ad motum. Unde in nullo corpore ponitur proprie dextra et sinistra, nisi quod diversimode suscipit motoris influentiam, ita quod primo in una parte quam in alia. Unde *dextrum* et *sinistrum* non ponitur esse nec in lapide nec in planta, nec etiam in statua ponuntur nisi *similitudine*[^10], quia non habent moveri localiter a motore sufficiente. In eis vero corporibus, quae moventur ad locum, et magis in una parte suscipiunt motoris influentiam quam in alia, proprie ponitur dextra et sinistra, sicut in animalibus, quae moventur motu progressivo, et in quibus virtus cordis et motoris magis viget in parte dextera; cuius signum est maior fortitudo animalium in parte illa, propter quod et illam partem primo movent, quando incipiunt ambulare[^11]. — *Applicatio.* Secundum hoc intelligendum est, quod cum corpus caeleste quoddam habeat moveri ab oriente in occidentem, vel e converso <!-- page 344 -->sicut firmamentum et orbes planetarum, quoddam vero minime, sicut empyreum, quod *dextra* et *sinistra* caelis competant satis proprie, non tamen universaliter; *Conclusio.* conveniunt enim orbibus mobilibus, sed non orbi immobili.

*Explicatur.* Attendendum autem est, quod cum in animalibus et in caelo ponatur[^12] dextra et sinistra secundum rationem cuiusdam *conformitatis*, scilicet propter influentiam motoris; differenter tamen accipiuntur propter diversam comparationem mobilis ad motorem. Quia enim animalia moventur a motore sibi unito, ideo *dextrum* et *sinistrum* dicit distinctionem in partibus animalium, ita quod illa pars, quae modo est dextera, nunquam est sinistra, quia uniformiter comparatur ad ipsius motoris influentiam, pro eo quod ipsum habet sibi unitum, et nunquam ab eo magis elongatur. Corpus vero caeleste motorem habet *separatum*, cum non sit corpus animatum, sicut postea videbitur; et ideo motor secundum Dei dispositionem principaliter influit ex aliqua caeli parte; et creditur probabiliter, quod in ea parte, ex qua motus corporum caelestium primo nobis apparent, utpote in oriente[^13], cum omnia corpora facta sint propter hominem. Et quia motor semper ex illa parte influit uniformiter, quaecumque pars ibi veniat, immediatius et propinquius suscipit motoris influentiam. Et ideo semper est ibi dextra nec mutatur cum partibus mobilis, pro eo quod non est dispositio absoluta, sed relata ad motoris influentiam, quae semper manet fixa. Et per hunc modum locus cuiuslibet rei dicitur esse immobilis, propter hoc quod dicit situm relatum ad centrum et circumferentiam mundi, quae nunquam possunt moveri[^14].

Ex praedictis patet quaestio proposita, patet etiam responsio ad obiecta. Concedendum est enim, quod in caelo sit dextra et sinistra: et rationes ad hoc inductae similiter concedendae sunt, quia verum concludunt, licet tertia ratio, sumta a dimensionibus, *Ad 3. fundam.* procedat ab insufficienti.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

*Ad 1.* *Solutio oppositorum.* Ad illud vero quod obiicitur in contrarium, quo planta non habet dextram et sinistram, quamvis sit organizata[^15]; dicendum, quod dextram et sinistram non facit principaliter membrorum distinctio; hoc enim accidit et frequenter contingit, quod eiusdem dispositionis est animal in parte dextra et sinistra; sed hoc facit influentiae motoris principalior et minus principalis susceptio, secundum quam attenditur inchoatio motus et terminatio; et sic reperitur in caelo.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *dextrum* et *sinistrum* in nobis est a qualitatibus activis et passivis; iam patet responsio ex praedictis, quia *dextrum* et *sinistrum* in animalibus concernunt partes determinatas, propter unionem motoris ad mobile, non solum per modum motoris, sed etiam per modum perfectionis; et ideo ad hoc, quod una pars magis suscipiat motoris influentiam, requiritur dispositio alia et alia, quae quidem fit per qualitates activas et passivas. In caelo autem non sic est, sicut ostensum est supra.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *dextrum* et *sinistrum* praesupponunt *sursum* et *deorsum*; responderi potest, quod verum est, prout *sursum* et *deorsum* dicunt terminos *dimensionis*[^16]; *Distinctio.* non autem est verum, prout dicunt inchoationem et terminum alicuius *transmutationis*. Secundum enim *sursum* et *deorsum* proprie attenditur augmentum sive motus ad locum, sed secundum *dextrum* et *sinistrum* attenditur motus in loco. Ideo, etsi in caelo ponatur *dextrum* et *sinistrum*, non tamen oportet sic poni *sursum* et *deorsum*. — *Alia solutio.* Aliter tamen potest responderi magis secundum opinionem Philosophi[^17], quod in caelo est ponere *sursum* et *deorsum*, et *ante* et *retro*, sicut ponitur *dextrum* et *sinistrum*, non quia dicant terminos diversorum motuum, sed quia in eodem motu considerantur ultima trium dimensionum, licet magis proprie *dextrum* et *sinistrum*. Et hoc patet. *Notandum.* Ad hoc enim, quod caelum revolvatur, necesse est ponere duos polos, quorum unus habet rationem *sursum*, et alter rationem *deorsum*. Est etiam ponere duo hemisphaeria, quorum unum habet rationem *ante*, et alterum habet rationem *retro*. Necesse est etiam ponere, quod in hemisphaerio una pars sit, ex qua caelestia corpora primo apparere incipiant; altera vero pars, ex qua desinant. Et hoc totum de facili est imaginari, si quis imaginatur hominem, qui pedes habeat in polo arctico, et caput in polo antarctico, et habeat faciem versam ad nostrum hemisphaerium, statim imaginabitur differentias harum positionum[^18].

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caelum habet extra se principium sui motus, et ita non habet dextrum et sinistrum; dicendum, quod illud verum est, quando *dextrum* et *sinistrum* nominant partes determinatas; sed quando nominant ordinem mobilis ad motoris influentiam, non habet veritatem; nihil enim facit ad hoc, utrum sit motor intra, vel extra.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod una parte circuli mota, moventur omnes; dicendum, quod verum est; sed tamen ex hoc non sequitur, quod aeque primo recipiant motoris influentiam; quod patet, cum aqua movet rotam, primo movet illam partem, quam contingit.

*Ad 6.* Ad ultimum quod obiicitur, quod pars dex<!-- page 345 -->tera semper est dextera; iam patet responsio, quia hoc intelligitur de illo dextro et sinistro, quod dicit dispositionem partium in comparatione ad motorem coniunctum, sicut est in animalibus; hoc autem modo non ponitur in corporibus caelestibus, sicut prius tactum est[^19].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether right and left are to be posited in heaven.*

Secondly it is asked whether in the body of heaven right and left are to be posited. And that it is so, it seems:

1. *Fundamental argument 1.* From what the Philosopher says in the second book *On the Heavens*[^1]. For he speaks thus: « There is in the orb beyond doubt a diverse power, namely right and left, since it has places of beginning and stopping from the work of its making ».

2. Likewise, this is shown by his *reasoning* <!-- page 343 -->in the same place[^2]: *Every finite motion has a beginning from which it starts*; but the revolution of any heaven is finite: therefore it has some position from which it starts. But *right* is said in bodies of that whence motion is its beginning, and *left* of that toward which motion is its end: therefore since the heavens are mobile, the heavens have right and left.

3. Likewise, *right* and *left* are termini of breadth, just as *up* and *down* are termini of length, and *before* and *behind* termini of depth; but every complete and bounded body has three dimensions and termini of dimensions[^3]; but the body of heaven is of this kind; therefore it seems that it has right and left.

4. Likewise, the celestial bodies are moved by a more perfect motion than the lower [bodies]; but on account of the completeness of motion animals have right and left: therefore much more strongly the celestial bodies[^4].

***On the contrary.*** 1. As the Philosopher says in the second book *On the Heavens*: « In plants there is neither right nor left »: but plants approach much more to a distinction of organization than the heaven: therefore it seems that the heaven does not have right and left.

2. Likewise, *right* and *left* are caused in us, as the Commentator says on the book *On the Heavens*[^5], from active and passive qualities, namely from the abundance of natural heat proceeding from the heart, and from spirits more vigorous in the right part than in the left: if therefore this is not to be found in the celestial nature, it seems, etc.

3. Likewise, *right* and *left* presuppose *up* and *down*, just as breadth presupposes length and has annexed to itself *before* and *behind*; but in heaven *up* and *down* are not to be posited, since these are contraries; nor again are *before* and *behind* to be posited, since « *before* is said where the sense is », as the Philosopher says[^6]: therefore it seems that there is no right and left there.

4. Likewise, nothing which has the beginning and end of its motion outside itself has right and left[^7]; but the body of heaven is of this kind, since its mover is separate: therefore it does not have right and left.

5. Likewise, « *right* is that whence is the beginning <!-- page 343 R -->of motion[^8] »; but with one part of the circle moved, all are moved: therefore motion does not begin from one part of the circle any more than from another; therefore in a circle either every part will be right, or none: but the heaven is a circular body, since it is moved circularly: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, if any body has right and left, that part which is once right is always right, in whatever way that body is locally moved: therefore if heaven has right and left, that part which is once right in it is always right. But it cannot be granted that there is any part of heaven which is not now in the east, now in the west, now in another place according to the rotation of the heaven; therefore the right of heaven would sometimes be east, sometimes west; which in no way can be conceded[^9].

> ### Conclusion.
> *In the mobile heavens there is in some way right and left.*

**I respond:** It must be said that although *right* and *left* signify termini of breadth, and *up* and *down* of length, and *before* and *behind* of depth; nevertheless they do not name those termini simply, but by comparison to motion. Hence in no body is right and left properly posited, except in that which receives the influence of a mover diversely, so that first in one part rather than in another. Hence *right* and *left* are not posited as existing in a stone or in a plant, nor are they even posited in a statue except by *likeness*[^10], because they do not have the property of being moved locally by a sufficient mover. But in those bodies which are moved toward a place, and which receive the influence of the mover more in one part than in another, right and left are properly posited, as in animals, which are moved by progressive motion, and in which the power of the heart and the mover is more vigorous in the right part; whose sign is the greater strength of animals in that part, on account of which they also first move that part when they begin to walk[^11]. — *Application.* According to this it must be understood that, since one celestial body is moved from east to west, or conversely <!-- page 344 -->such as the firmament and the orbs of the planets, while another is not at all so moved, such as the empyrean, *right* and *left* are attributed to the heavens quite properly, yet not universally; *Conclusion.* for they belong to the mobile orbs, but not to the immobile orb.

*It is explained.* But it must be noted that, since in animals and in heaven right and left are posited[^12] according to the account of a certain *conformity*, namely on account of the influence of the mover; nevertheless they are taken differently on account of the diverse comparison of the mobile to the mover. For since animals are moved by a mover united to themselves, *right* and *left* signify a distinction in the parts of animals, in such a way that that part which is now right is never left, because it is uniformly compared to the influence of its mover, by reason that it has it united to itself, and is never further removed from it. But the celestial body has a *separate* mover, since it is not an animate body, as will be seen later; and therefore the mover, according to God's disposition, principally exerts its influence from some part of the heaven; and it is probably believed that [it does so] in that part from which the motions of the celestial bodies first appear to us, namely in the east[^13], since all bodies are made for the sake of man. And because the mover always exerts its influence uniformly from that part, whatever part comes there receives the influence of the mover more immediately and closely. And therefore right is always there nor does it change with the parts of the mobile, by reason that it is not an absolute disposition, but one related to the influence of the mover, which always remains fixed. And in this way the place of anything is said to be immobile, because it signifies the position related to the center and circumference of the world, which can never be moved[^14].

From what has been said, the proposed question is clear, and the response to the objections is also clear. For it must be conceded that in heaven there is right and left: and the reasons adduced to this end are likewise to be conceded, because they conclude truly, although the third reason, drawn from the dimensions, *To the 3rd fundamental.* proceeds from an insufficient ground.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*Ad 1.* *Solution of the opposing [arguments].* To that which is objected in opposition, that a plant does not have right and left, although it is organized[^15]; it must be said that right and left are not principally produced by a distinction of members; for this happens and frequently occurs, that an animal is of the same disposition in the right and left part; but this is produced by the more principal and less principal reception of the mover's influence, according to which the inception of motion and its termination are noted; and so it is found in heaven.

*Ad 2.* To that which is objected, that *right* and *left* in us are from active and passive qualities; the response is already clear from what has been said, because *right* and *left* in animals concern determinate parts, on account of the union of the mover to the mobile, not only after the manner of mover, but also after the manner of perfection; and therefore for this — that one part may more receive the influence of the mover — there is required one disposition or another, which indeed comes about through active and passive qualities. But in heaven it is not so, as has been shown above.

*Ad 3.* To that which is objected, that *right* and *left* presuppose *up* and *down*; it can be answered that it is true, insofar as *up* and *down* signify termini of *dimension*[^16]; *Distinction.* but it is not true insofar as they signify the inception and term of some *change*. For according to *up* and *down* growth or motion toward a place is properly observed, but according to *right* and *left* motion in place is observed. Therefore, even if *right* and *left* are posited in heaven, it is not necessary that *up* and *down* be so posited. — *Another solution.* Yet otherwise it can be answered more in accord with the opinion of the Philosopher[^17], that in heaven *up* and *down* are to be posited, and *before* and *behind*, just as *right* and *left* are posited, not because they signify termini of diverse motions, but because in the same motion the extremes of the three dimensions are considered, although more properly *right* and *left*. And this is clear. *To be noted.* For in order that the heaven may revolve, it is necessary to posit two poles, of which one has the character of *up*, and the other the character of *down*. It is also necessary to posit two hemispheres, of which one has the character of *before*, and the other has the character of *behind*. It is also necessary to posit that in the hemisphere there is one part from which the celestial bodies first begin to appear; and another part from which they cease [to appear]. And all this is easily imagined, if one imagines a man who has his feet at the arctic pole, and his head at the antarctic pole, and has his face turned toward our hemisphere — he will at once imagine the differences of these positions[^18].

*Ad 4.* To that which is objected, that the heaven has the beginning of its motion outside itself, and so it does not have right and left; it must be said that this is true when *right* and *left* name determinate parts; but when they name the order of the mobile to the mover's influence, it has no truth; for it makes no difference to this whether the mover is within or outside.

*Ad 5.* To that which is objected, that with one part of the circle moved, all are moved; it must be said that this is true; but nevertheless from this it does not follow that they receive the mover's influence equally first; which is clear when water moves a wheel — it first moves that part which it touches.

*Ad 6.* To the last [argument] which is objected, that the right part is always right; the response is already clear, because this is to be understood of that right and left which signifies the disposition of parts in comparison to a conjoined mover, as is the case in animals; this however is not posited in this way in the celestial bodies, <!-- page 345 -->as was touched on before[^19].

---

la: Loco cit. — Latina sic habet: *Quapropter ille orbis habebit virtutem et diversam necessario, dextrum scilicet et sinistrum, quia habet loca principii et finis ex operatione sui agentis.* — In hac quaest. scribimus *dextram*, si est substantivum, *dexteram*, si est adiectivum.

en: [Aristotle], the place cited. — The Latin runs thus: *Wherefore that orb will have a diverse power necessarily, namely right and left, since it has places of beginning and of end from the operation of its agent.* — In this question we write *dextram* if it is a substantive, *dexteram* if it is an adjective.

la: Text. 13. (c. 2.), qui secundum versionem Arabico-latinam infra col. 1. et plurimi codd. omittunt: *sinistra, ad quam est motus finis.*

en: Text 13 (c. 2), which according to the Arabic-Latin version [given in the column] below, and most codices, omit: *the left, toward which is the end of motion.*

la: Aristot., loc. cit. text. 8. Cfr. supra pag. 324, nota 1.

en: Aristotle, the place cited, text 8. Cf. above, p. 324, note 1.

la: Aristot., loc. cit. text. 9. seqq. (c. 2.).

en: Aristotle, the place cited, text 9 ff. (c. 2).

la: Text. 12. (c. 2.). Cfr. etiam ibid. text. 7.

en: Text 12 (c. 2). Cf. also ibid. text 7.

la: Libr. II. text. 8-12, ubi docet, quod motus essentialiter sit in *dextro*, et quod *dextrum* a *sinistro* per virtutem tantum distinguatur, et quod *dextrum* sit *exitus motionis*, quia principium motus animalium est a corde, sicut declaratum est in libro *de Motu animalium*. In expositione III. *de Part. animal.* c. 4, ubi agit Aristoteles de corde animalium, Averroes ait: *Aristoteles vero putat, cor habere duplicem ventriculum, cum huiusmodi duplicatio et geminatio conveniat duplici parti animalium, scil. dexterae et sinistrae.* Et hanc divisionem cordis diversamque naturam eius existimat esse causam diversitatis lateris dexteri et sinistri animalium; quare imaginatur ipse Aristoteles, ventriculum dextrum esse calidiorem, quemadmodum pars dextera est calidior.

en: Book II, texts 8–12, where he teaches that motion is essentially in the *right*, and that *right* is distinguished from *left* only by power, and that *right* is the *issuing-forth of motion*, because the beginning of animal motion is from the heart, as was declared in the book *On the Motion of Animals*. In his exposition of the third book *On the Parts of Animals*, c. 4, where Aristotle treats of the heart of animals, Averroes says: *Aristotle indeed holds that the heart has a double ventricle, since this duplication and twinning corresponds to the double part of animals, namely right and left.* And he reckons this division of the heart and its diverse nature to be the cause of the diversity of the right and left sides of animals; whence Aristotle himself imagines that the right ventricle is hotter, just as the right part [of the body] is hotter.

la: Libr. II. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 8; III. *de Partib. animal.* c. 3; *de Incessu animal.* c. 4. — Maior arg. insinuatur ab Aristot., II. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 12; et prima pars minoris ibid. text. 14.

en: Book II *On the Heavens*, text 8; III *On the Parts of Animals*, c. 3; *On the Progression of Animals*, c. 4. — The major of the argument is suggested by Aristotle, II *On the Heavens*, text 12; and the first part of the minor, ibid. text 14.

la: Aristot., II. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 9.

en: Aristotle, II *On the Heavens*, text 9.

la: Aristot., loc. cit. text. 15. — Altera pars arg. indicatur ibid. text. 13.

en: Aristotle, the place cited, text 15. — The other part of the argument is indicated ibid. text 13.

la: Aristot., loc. cit. text. 15. — Paulo superius nonnulli codd. *in alio ubi* pro *in alio loco*.

en: Aristotle, the place cited, text 15. — A little above, some codices read *in alio ubi* for *in alio loco*.

la: Ita antiquiores codd. Vat. cum nonnullis codd. *similitudinarie*; Aristot., II. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 10. (c. 2.): *Secundum similitudinem nostri, quemadmodum ea quae sunt statuae.*

en: Thus the older codices of the Vatican edition, with several codices, *similitudinarie*; Aristotle, II *On the Heavens*, text 10 (c. 2): *According to a likeness to ourselves, just as those things which are statues.*

la: Averroes, in II. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 8: *Primo movet animal dextrum pedem, deinde sinistrum, ut super hoc sustentetur.* Cfr. Aristot., *de Incessu animal.* c. 4: *Quod autem a dextris motionis est initium, indicium est, omnes ferre onera sinistris* etc.

en: Averroes, on II *On the Heavens*, text 8: *The animal first moves the right foot, then the left, so that it may be supported thereon.* Cf. Aristotle, *On the Progression of Animals*, c. 4: *Now that the beginning of motion is from the right is shown by the fact that all carry their burdens on the left*, etc.

la: Cod. cc et edd. 1 *ponitur*; cod. aa *ponantur*.

en: Codex cc and the first editions read *ponitur*; codex aa reads *ponantur*.

la: Seq. art. q. 2. — Aliquanto superius Vat. *operatur* pro *comparatur*.

en: The following article, q. 2. — Somewhat earlier the Vatican edition reads *operatur* for *comparatur*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., VIII. *Phys.* text. 84. (c. 10.); Averroes, in II. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 15.

en: Cf. Aristotle, VIII *Physics*, text 84 (c. 10); Averroes, on II *On the Heavens*, text 15.

la: Aristot., IV. *Phys.* text. 41. (c. 4.) locum definit, quod sit « continentis terminus immobilis, primus ».

en: Aristotle, IV *Physics*, text 41 (c. 4), defines place as « the first immobile terminus of the container ».

la: Vat. cum pluribus mss. et ed. 1 *organica*.

en: The Vatican edition with several manuscripts and the first edition reads *organica*.

la: Nam sicut linea est prior superficie et corpore, ita *sursum* prius est quam *anterius* et *dextrum*. — Paulo inferius post *transmutationis* cod. cc et ed. 1 subiungunt *secundum quae dicitur esse dextrum et sinistrum*.

en: For as a line is prior to a surface and to a body, so *up* is prior to *before* and *right*. — A little below, after *transmutationis*, codex cc and the first edition add *according to which it is said to be right and left*.

la: Libr. II. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 13. seqq. (c. 2.) et IV. text. 4. seq. (c. 1.). — Et: Aristot., II. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 13. (c. 2.) eandem adhibet imaginationem. — Cfr. p. 345 nota 1: *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*

en: Book II *On the Heavens*, text 13 ff. (c. 2) and IV, text 4 f. (c. 1). — And: Aristotle, II *On the Heavens*, text 13 (c. 2), employs the same imagination. — Cf. p. 345 note 1: *See the scholion on the preceding question* (i.e. the article-level Scholion III of a2-q1, which serves this question per the Vol II convention).

translators_notes:
- **Page span**: p. 342 R bottom (QUAESTIO II opens mid-R column after the SCHOLION block of a2-q1) → p. 343 L+R (full) → p. 344 L+R (full) → p. 345 R top band (close of *Ad 6*). Body ends at *prius tactum est¹* on p. 345 R-0; ARTICULUS III opens immediately on p. 345 L-0.
- **Column-band provenance**: re-set from `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p342-R-2.png`, `vol2-p343-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`, `vol2-p344-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`, `vol2-p345-{L,R}-{0..2}.png` at 450 dpi, Vol II PDF-priority inversion. The IA djvu OCR (raw 24240–24407) cascade-shatters the Respondeo, the *Notandum/Conclusio/Solutio oppositorum/Aliter solutio/Applicatio* marginal labels, and the entire p. 343/344 footer blocks; PDF column-band read is authoritative throughout.
- **No scholion**: a2-q1's Scholion III (`Ricard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 5.` etc.) is the article-level *pro quaest. seq.* forward-pointer for this question per the locked Vol II convention; this chunk introduces no fresh scholion — normal.
- **Apparatus page-split map** (17 entries continuously renumbered):
  - **p. 342 footer notes 1–2** (= `Cfr. supra pag. 70, nota 4.` and `Plurimi codd. … empyreo …`) belong to a2-q1 and are already captured there as that chunk's [^12]/[^13]; **only p. 342 note 3** (`Text. 13. (c. 2.), qui secundum versionem Arabico-latinam …`) crosses to this chunk and is captured here as [^2] per the prior chunk's hand-off memo.
  - **p. 343 footer notes 1–11** = this chunk's [^1] (above the divider, anchored to *Cfr. supra pag. 70, nota 4* — actually the p. 342→343 Quaracchi-style continuation note for the *Ait enim sic* citation), then ¹–¹¹ below the divider mapping to [^3]–[^13] of this chunk in printed order: Aristot. loc. cit. text 8 (= [^3]); Aristot. text 9 (= [^4]); Aristot. text 12 (= [^5]); Aristot. text 8–12 ventricle/Averroes (= [^6]); Aristot. II.8 / III.3 / Inc.4 (= [^7]); Aristot. II.9 (= [^8]); Aristot. text 15 (= [^9]); Aristot. text 15 *in alio ubi* (= [^10]); Vat. *similitudinarie* (= [^11]); Averroes II.8 / Aristot. Inc.4 *initium* (= [^12]).
  - **p. 344 footer notes 1–8** = [^13] *Cod. cc … ponitur*; [^14] *Seq. art. q. 2.* / Vat. *operatur*; [^15] Aristot. VIII Phys. text 84; [^16] Aristot. IV Phys. text 41 *continentis terminus*; [^17] Vat. *organica*; [^18] *Nam sicut linea … sursum prius …*; — note `7 Libr. II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 13. seqq.` and `8 Aristot. II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 13.` (= [^19]) are the closing-of-Ad-3 references, here folded into the single [^19] tail-anchor (their printed `7`/`8` markers attach in the Respondeo *Aliter tamen* / *Notandum* run; the Quaracchi compositor consolidates them at the Ad-6 tail anchor on p. 345).
  - **p. 345 footer note 1** (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) is the body anchor of *prius tactum est¹* at the close of *Ad 6* — captured at the tail of [^19] in this chunk.
- **Cross-chunk hand-offs picked up**:
  1. **p. 342 footer note 3** forward-handed from a2-q1 → captured here as **[^2]** (the *Text. 13. (c. 2.) … Arabico-latinam* note, which anchors the *Per illud quod dicit Philosophus* citation of arg. 1).
  2. **p. 333 Bonaventure-side cross-reference parked from d14-p1-littera** (*Art. 2. q. 2. — Cfr. etiam supra d. I. p. I. dub. 1; d. 10. dub. 1; d. 12. dub. 1; d. 16. p. … Thom. hic, Petr. Tar., hic q. 3; Aegid. li. … hic q. 3. a. 1.*) — this is a *catalog of cross-references to other authors' treatments of THIS question* and was parked because no body anchor existed in d14-p1-littera or d14-p1-divisio. On column-band re-read of pp. 342–345, it likewise has no clean inline body anchor in q2's text (q2 cites Aristotle, Averroes, and codex variants — not Thomas/Tarentaise/Aegidius). It belongs to the **Quaracchi editorial NOTAE block of p. 333** as a parallel-treatments catalog covering a2-q2, and is best surfaced in the d.11–d.20 polish-blocker as either: (a) a free-standing Scholion II-style note to be appended to a2-q2, or (b) confirmed as p. 333 NOTAE editorial apparatus that does NOT migrate. Documented here as **not yet captured as a [^N]** of this chunk pending the polish-blocker decision; the "Vat. … quando" partner note remains parked as before.
- **Marginal labels** preserved inline per Vol II convention: *Fundamentum 1.* (arg. 1); *Ad oppositum.* (heading of the *contra* arguments); *Declaratio terminorum.* (opening of Respondeo — folded into the body); *Applicatio.* / *Conclusio.* / *Explicatur.* (Respondeo subsections); *Ad 3. fundam.* (mid-Respondeo on the third fundam.); *Solutio oppositorum.* (*Ad 1*); *Distinctio.* / *Alia solutio.* / *Notandum.* (*Ad 3* sub-sections).
- **Polish-blocker resolution 2026-05-25 (600 dpi).** The `[?]` flag on `[^9]` is RESOLVED at 600 dpi `raw/vision/vol2/r600/p-343-r600.png` (R-top crop): the printed `⁹` superscript is unambiguously present at clause-end of *quod nullo modo concedi potest⁹.* in *Ad oppositum 6*. Marker placement confirmed.
- All other markers are anchor-confirmed at 450 dpi. The chunk introduces no new ambiguity beyond [?] #9 above; the previously parked p. 333 *Art. 2. q. 2.* cross-reference catalog is acknowledged but deferred to the polish-blocker for a final disposition (capture-vs-reject).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 345 -->

### Articulus III. *De caelis in comparatione ad motoris influentiam.*

Consequenter quaeritur tertio loco de caelis in comparatione ad motoris influentiam. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum primum mobile moveatur a Deo immediate tantum, an mediante aliqua virtute creata.

Secundum est, utrum moveatur ab Intelligentia, an a propria forma.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum caelum immediate moveatur a Deo.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod caelum immediate moveatur a Deo:

*Ad oppositum.* 1. Primo per Philosophum, qui in secundo *de Caelo et mundo* dicit: « Causa prima movet causatum primum »; causa autem prima non est nisi Deus: ergo etc.

2. Item, Boethius *de Consolatione*[^1], loquens ad Dominum:

> *Stabilisque manens das cuncta moveri:*

ergo videtur, quod maxime moveat illud quod est primum mobile; hoc autem est caelum: ergo etc.

3. Item, ratione videtur. Primi mobilis motor debet esse primus; sed « primus motor est immobilis omnino[^2] », quia nunquam est status nisi in immobili; sed nihil est omnino primum et immobile nisi solus Deus: ergo motus primi mobilis solus Deus est principium.

4. Item, ex motu et influentia caelestis corporis est conservatio omnium corporum viventium[^3]: ergo ex motore eius erit conservatio omnium spirituum vivificantium, quia, sicut se habet mobile ad mobile, sic se habet motor ad motorem; sed solus Deus est ille qui est conservator et vivificator spirituum: ergo solus ipse movet primum caelum.

**Sed contra:** 1. *Fundamenta.* Immensitas potentiae et sapientiae et bonitatis hoc requirit, ut Deus communicet virtuti creatae actum, quem illa est nata suscipere[^4]; sed actus, qui est movere secundum locum quodcumque corpus, est natus convenire virtuti creatae: ergo videtur, quod Deus nullum corpus moveat absque virtute alicuius creaturae.

2. Item, virtus motoris debet proportionari mobili[^5]; sed virtus caeli finita est, virtus autem Dei infinita est: ergo ad hoc, quod salvetur in mundo proportio debita, videtur, quod inter Deum moventem et caelum motum sit ponere aliquam virtutem creatam et finitam.

3. Item, Philosophus[^6] dicit, quod si tanta virtus movet in tanto tempore, et maior in minori, et maxima in minimo, et infinita in nunc: ergo si Deus infinitae virtutis est, et ipse immediate movet caelum, videtur, quod in instanti revolvat ipsum ab oriente in occidens, quod manifeste falsum est. Si tu dicas, quod Deus in movendo non exercet totius virtutis suae effectum, quia cum sit movens voluntarium, potest movere et cito et tarde; tunc redit prima obiectio, quia, cum actus iste, scilicet movere successive, sit virtutis finitae, erit natus convenire creaturae.

<!-- page 346 -->

4. Item, ea quae sunt immediate a divina potentia, procedunt in esse secundum cursum mirabilem, ut patet in creatione et iustificatione et miraculorum operatione[^7]: ergo si caelum immediate movetur a Deo, motus eius est mirabilis, non naturalis; quodsi est naturalis, non ergo est a Deo immediate.

> ### Conclusio.
> *Deus movet primum mobile mediante aliqua virtute creata, cui ipse immediate cooperatur.*

**Respondeo:** *Praenotanda.* Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod in omni operatione Deus operatur intime et immediate, « cum Dei voluntas, sicut dicit Augustinus[^8], et habitum est in primo libro, sit prima et summa causa omnium specierum et motionum ». In aliquibus autem sic operatur, ut ipse sit tota causa; in aliquibus sic operatur et movet, ut virtutem agendi et movendi communicet creaturae. Et prima quidem dicuntur mirabilia, secunda vero naturalia, vel voluntaria quantum ad egressum.

*Sensus quaestionis.* Quando ergo quaeritur, utrum motus primi mobilis immediate sit a Deo, non est quaestio, utrum virtus divina intime operetur et immediate ad illam mutationem exercendam, quia sic nihil movetur, nisi ipse moveat et cooperetur virtuti motivae; sed est quaestio, utrum motus primi mobilis sit a Deo tanquam a tota causa, an simul cum virtute divina movente moveat aliqua virtus creata. — *Conclusio.* Et ad istam quaestionem satis de plano responderi potest, quod cum motus ille sit natus convenire virtuti finitae propter sui successionem, et divina bonitas ad sui manifestationem communicet creaturae quod ipsa nata est suscipere, quod Deus primum mobile movet mediante aliqua virtute creata, sicut et alia mobilia. — Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae, quamvis aliquae non necessario cogant.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

*Ad 1. Solutio oppositorum.* Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de Philosopho, dici posset satis probabiliter, quod Philosophus non intellexit, quod primi orbis motor per modum efficientis esset Deus. Ipse enim ponit, virtutem motoris adeo proportionari mobili, quod si minimum vel modicum corpus apponeretur corpori, lassaretur virtus motoris in movendo, sicut dicit in libro *de Caelo et mundo*[^9]. *Notandum.* Sed ponit, quod Deus moveat primum causatum metaphorice, sicut finis et desideratum; aut si ponit, quod moveat per modum efficientis, non ponit, quod ipse solus moveat, sed cooperante virtute mobili proportionata. Unde verbum suum potest intelligi esse dictum per quandam appropriationem et primariam influentiae suae susceptionem.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de Boethio, quod Deus cuncta movet; dicendum, quod ex illa auctoritate non concluditur, quod solus Deus moveat[^10], sed quod non moventur absque divinae virtutis influentia. Nulla enim virtus alicuius motoris potest vel modicum operari sine beneficio et auxilio eius, qui penitus est immobilis, sicut in primo libro[^11] ostensum fuit et in sequentibus ostendetur, cum quaeritur, utrum omnis actio sit a Deo.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod motor primi mobilis est primus et immobilis; dicendum, quod non oportet motorem primi mobilis esse omnimode primum, vel omnimode immobilem; sed sufficit quod sit primus respectu aliorum motorum sive virtutum moventium, et quod sit immobilis secundum eum modum, per quem movet[^12]. Non enim oportet esse statum in motore primi mobilis simpliciter, sed in genere creaturarum. Omnes autem creaturae defectivae sunt et reducuntur ad ipsum Deum, qui est principium et finis omnium, citra quem nec est perfecta quies nec perfectus status[^13].

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sicut influentia mobilis conservat mobilia, ita influentia motoris motores alios; dicendum, quod illud non oportet, quia non est consimilis proportio, pro eo quod ordo est in corporibus mundi secundum tantam praedominantiam et excellentiam, quod unum potest simpliciter influere in alterum. Spiritus vero rationales, qui sunt vivificatores et motores corporum, sic habent gradum et ordinem, ut tamen secundum suum supremum a Deo immediate perficiantur et formentur; et hoc est propter rationem imaginis, per quam immediate sunt ipsius Dei capaces[^14].

<!-- page 347 -->

### Scholion.

**I.** Dum recentiores astronomi et physici de motibus corporum caelestium et de proportionibus, quae sunt in his motibus secundum legem gravitationis sive attractionis, plurima accurate exploraverunt; S. Bonav. hic disputat de ipsa virtute motiva in se considerata, qua causantur illi motus legesque motus; quae quaestio profecto non potest solvi sola observatione motuum, vel proportionum, secundum quas illa causa motiva agit. — Quoad utramque huius articuli quaestionem quatuor exortae sunt opiniones, quarum duae primae communiter a Scholasticis reprobantur. Prima contendit, ab ipso Deo ut totali causa primum mobile immediate moveri; quod a S. Doctore in I. quaest. reprobatur, secundum principia iam I. Sent. d. 45. a. 2. et II. Sent. d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. posita. — Secunda sententia (q. 2.) corporibus caelestibus tribuit animam, quae sit causa immediata motus; et haec sententia non tantum philosophis Arabis, sed etiam Platoni et Aristoteli a multis, imprimis a B. Alberto et Richardo, adscribitur. Scotus autem asserit, Aristotelem loqui de animatione non in sensu formali, sed secundum virtutem motricem. Etiam S. Thom. (S. I. q. 70. a. 3. in corp.) dicit: « Unde inter ponentes, ea esse animata, et ponentes ea inanimata, parva vel nulla differentia invenitur in re, sed in voce tantum ». De hac autem animatione ipse S. Augustinus dubitavit, qui, ut observat Scotus (hic q. 1. n. 5.), in ipsa retractatione sua, quam commemorat S. Bonav. (q. 2. in corp.), eam non ut prorsus falsam reprobat. Vide ipsa verba Augustini infra p. II. dub. 3. Sed Scholastici severius de eadem iudicant, si proprie intelligitur de anima ut forma. — Tertia et quarta opinio in 2. quaest. clare explicantur, et utraque a S. Bonav. approbatur, dummodo tertiae sententiae addatur, quod « si aliquid desit sibi ad movendi sufficientiam, suppleatur ab ipsa virtute divina ». Quarta opinio, quae tenet, quod aliquis intellectus creatus sit proximus motor caeli, communiter a Scholasticis tanquam probabilior sustinetur.

**II.** Utramque quaestionem huius articuli alii commentatores plerumque una quaestione absolvunt. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 52. m. 2. a. 4. *quaest. incid.* et q. 18. m. 4. — Scot., in utroque *Scripto* hic q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. unica a. 3; S. I. q. 70. a. 3; S. c. Gent. II. 69, III. c. 23. — B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. p. II. tr. II. q. 53. m. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 6, et a. 3. q. 4. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 3. et q. 3. a. 4. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. — Biel, hic q. unica.

---

english:
### Article III. *On the heavens in comparison to the influence of the mover.*

Consequently, it is asked in the third place concerning the heavens in comparison to the influence of the mover. And concerning this two things are asked.

First, it is asked whether the first mobile is moved by God immediately only, or by means of some created power.

The second is, whether it is moved by an Intelligence, or by its own proper form.

### Question I. *Whether the heaven is moved immediately by God.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is shown that the heaven is moved immediately by God:

*On the opposite side.* 1. First through the Philosopher, who in the second [book] *On the Heavens and the World* says: "The first cause moves the first caused"; but the first cause is none other than God: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Boethius *On Consolation*[^1], speaking to the Lord:

> *And, remaining stable, you grant all things to be moved:*

therefore it seems that he most of all moves that which is the first mobile; but this is the heaven: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it seems by reason. The mover of the first mobile must be the first; but "the first mover is altogether immobile[^2]," because there is never rest except in the immobile; but nothing is altogether first and immobile save God alone: therefore God alone is the principle of the motion of the first mobile.

4. Likewise, from the motion and influence of the celestial body comes the conservation of all living bodies[^3]: therefore from its mover will come the conservation of all life-giving spirits, because, as the mobile relates to the mobile, so the mover relates to the mover; but God alone is he who is the conserver and vivifier of spirits: therefore he alone moves the first heaven.

**On the contrary:** 1. *Foundations.* The immensity of his power and wisdom and goodness requires this, that God communicate to created power the act which that [power] is suited by nature to receive[^4]; but the act, which is to move whatsoever body according to place, is suited by nature to befit a created power: therefore it seems that God moves no body without the power of some creature.

2. Likewise, the power of the mover must be proportioned to the mobile[^5]; but the power of the heaven is finite, whereas the power of God is infinite: therefore in order that the due proportion may be preserved in the world, it seems that between God moving and the heaven moved some created and finite power must be posited.

3. Likewise, the Philosopher[^6] says that if such-and-such a power moves in such-and-such a time, and a greater [power] in less [time], and the greatest in the least, and an infinite [power] in a now: therefore if God is of infinite power, and he himself immediately moves the heaven, it seems that in an instant he would revolve it from east to west, which is manifestly false. If you should say that God in moving does not exercise the full effect of his power, because, since he is a voluntary mover, he can move both quickly and slowly; then the first objection returns, because, since this act, namely to move successively, is of finite power, it will be suited by nature to befit a creature.

4. Likewise, those things which are immediately from divine power proceed into being according to a miraculous course, as is evident in creation and in justification and in the working of miracles[^7]: therefore if the heaven is moved immediately by God, its motion is miraculous, not natural; but if it is natural, then it is not from God immediately.

> ### Conclusion.
> *God moves the first mobile by means of some created power, with which he immediately cooperates.*

**I respond:** *Preliminaries.* For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that in every operation God operates intimately and immediately, "since the will of God, as Augustine says[^8], and as was held in the first book, is the first and highest cause of all species and motions." In some things, however, he operates in such a way that he himself is the whole cause; in some things he operates and moves in such a way that he communicates to the creature the power of acting and moving. And the first indeed are called miraculous, the second natural, or voluntary as to their issuing forth.

*The sense of the question.* When therefore it is asked whether the motion of the first mobile is immediately from God, the question is not whether the divine power operates intimately and immediately for exercising that change, because in this sense nothing is moved unless he himself moves and cooperates with the motive power; but the question is whether the motion of the first mobile is from God as from the whole cause, or whether together with the divine power moving some created power [also] moves. — *Conclusion.* And to this question one can quite plainly respond, that since that motion is suited by nature to befit a finite power on account of its successiveness, and the divine goodness for its own manifestation communicates to the creature that which it is naturally suited to receive, God moves the first mobile by means of some created power, just as also the other mobiles. — And the reasons adduced for this are to be granted, although some do not necessarily compel.

**To the arguments on the affirmative side:**

*To 1. Solution of the opposing [arguments].* To that indeed which is objected from the Philosopher, it can be said probably enough that the Philosopher did not understand that the mover of the first orb was God by way of efficient [cause]. For he himself posits that the power of the mover is so proportioned to the mobile that if even the smallest or least body were added to a body, the power of the mover would be wearied in moving, as he says in the book *On the Heavens and the World*[^9]. *To be noted.* But he posits that God moves the first caused metaphorically, as end and as that which is desired; or if he posits that he moves by way of efficient [cause], he does not posit that he alone moves, but with the mobile's proportioned power cooperating. Hence his statement can be understood to have been said by a certain appropriation and by [reference to] the primary reception of his influence.

*To 2.* To that which is objected from Boethius, that God moves all things; it must be said that from that authority it is not concluded that God alone moves[^10], but that they are not moved without the influence of the divine power. For no power of any mover can operate even a little without the benefit and aid of him who is wholly immobile, as was shown in the first book[^11] and as will be shown in what follows, when it is asked whether every action is from God.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that the mover of the first mobile is first and immobile; it must be said that it is not necessary that the mover of the first mobile be in every way first, or in every way immobile; but it suffices that it be first in respect of the other movers or moving powers, and that it be immobile according to that mode by which it moves[^12]. For it is not necessary that there be rest in the mover of the first mobile absolutely, but [only] in the genus of creatures. But all creatures are defective and are led back to God himself, who is the principle and end of all, beyond whom there is neither perfect rest nor perfect stay[^13].

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that as the influence of the mobile conserves mobiles, so the influence of the mover [conserves] other movers; it must be said that this does not follow, because the proportion is not similar, for this reason: that order is in the bodies of the world according to such great predominance and excellence that one can simply influence another. But rational spirits, who are vivifiers and movers of bodies, have a grade and order in such a way that nevertheless according to their highest [part] they are perfected and formed by God immediately; and this is on account of the character of image, by which they are immediately capable of God himself[^14].

### Scholion.

**I.** While more recent astronomers and physicists have accurately explored very many things concerning the motions of the celestial bodies and concerning the proportions which are in these motions according to the law of gravitation or attraction; St. Bonaventure here disputes concerning the motive power itself considered in itself, by which those motions and the laws of motion are caused; which question certainly cannot be solved by the mere observation of motions, or of the proportions according to which that motive cause acts. — As to each of the two questions of this article four opinions have arisen, of which the first two are commonly rejected by the Scholastics. The first contends that the first mobile is moved immediately by God himself as the total cause; which is rejected by the Holy Doctor in Question I, according to the principles already posited in I *Sent.* d. 45. a. 2. and II *Sent.* d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. — The second opinion (q. 2.) attributes to the celestial bodies a soul which is the immediate cause of motion; and this opinion is ascribed by many not only to the Arab philosophers, but also to Plato and Aristotle, especially to Blessed Albert and Richard. Scotus, however, asserts that Aristotle speaks of animation not in the formal sense, but according to motive power. Likewise St. Thomas (*S.* I. q. 70. a. 3. in corp.) says: "Hence between those who posit them to be animate, and those who posit them to be inanimate, little or no difference is found in the matter, but only in word." Of this animation, however, St. Augustine himself was in doubt, who, as Scotus observes (here q. 1. n. 5.), in his very Retractation, which St. Bonaventure recalls (q. 2. in corp.), does not reprove it as utterly false. See the very words of Augustine below at p. II. dub. 3. But the Scholastics judge more severely of the same, if it is properly understood of soul as form. — The third and fourth opinions are clearly explained in the second question, and both are approved by St. Bonaventure, provided that to the third opinion is added that "if anything is wanting to it for the sufficiency of moving, let it be supplied by the divine power itself." The fourth opinion, which holds that some created intellect is the proximate mover of the heaven, is commonly maintained by the Scholastics as the more probable.

**II.** Each of the two questions of this article other commentators usually settle in a single question. Alex. Hal., *S.* p. II. q. 52. m. 2. a. 4. *quaest. incid.* and q. 18. m. 4. — Scot., in each *Scriptum* here q. 1. — St. Thom., here q. unica a. 3; *S.* I. q. 70. a. 3; *S. c. Gent.* II. 69, III. c. 23. — B. Albert., here a. 6; *S.* p. II. tr. II. q. 53. m. 3. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., here a. 1. q. 6, and a. 3. q. 4. — Aegid. R., here q. 1. a. 3. and q. 3. a. 4. — Durand., here q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 2. — Biel, here q. unica.

---

la: Libr. III. metro 9.

en: Book III, metre 9.

la: Aristot., VIII. *Phys.* text. 44. (c. 3.), ubi hanc propositionem tanquam conclusionem praecedentium probationum exhibet; XII. *Metaph.* text. 43. (XI. c. 8.). Cfr. supra pag. 14, nota 4. et pag. 32, nota 7.

en: Aristotle, VIII *Physics* text 44 (c. 3.), where he presents this proposition as the conclusion of the preceding proofs; XII *Metaphysics* text 43 (XI c. 8.). Cf. above p. 14, note 4 and p. 32, note 7.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 68. (c. 12.); supra pag. 74, nota 2. et in hac d. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. — In fine arg. cod. T *primum mobile* pro *primum caelum.*

en: Cf. Aristotle, II *On the Heavens and the World*, text 68 (c. 12.); above p. 74, note 2, and in this distinction, art. 1, q. 2, in the body. — At the end of the argument codex T reads *primum mobile* for *primum caelum*.

la: Vide supra d. 11. a. 1. q. 1. fundam. 3.

en: See above d. 11, a. 1, q. 1, fundamentum 3.

la: Colligitur ex Aristot., II. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 36. et 71. (c. 6.), ubi dicit: « Primum enim primi et incorruptibile incorruptibilis et ingenerabile ingenerabilis motivum est »; et text. 71. (c. 12.): *Omnis autem finiti corporis ad finitum virtus est.* Cfr. etiam VII. *Phys.* text. 35. seqq. (c. 3.). — De seqq. cfr. VIII. *Phys.* text. 79. seqq. (c. 10.), ubi ostendit, in magnitudine finita non posse inveniri potentiam infinitam.

en: It is gathered from Aristotle, II *On the Heavens and the World*, text 36 and 71 (c. 6.), where he says: "For the first [mover] of the first [moved] is incorruptible of [what is] incorruptible and ungenerable of [what is] ungenerable as motive"; and text 71 (c. 12.): *But all power of a finite body is [directed] to the finite.* Cf. also VII *Physics* text 35 ff. (c. 3.). — For what follows cf. VIII *Physics* text 79 ff. (c. 10.), where he shows that in a finite magnitude an infinite power cannot be found.

la: Arg. hoc insinuatur ab Averroe, II. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 38; Libr. VI. *Phys.* text. 13. (c. 2.); VII. text. 33. seqq. (c. 3.) et VIII. text. 79. seqq. (c. 10.). — In hac prop. multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 omittunt *movet*. Terminus *nunc* idem est ac *instans*.

en: This argument is suggested by Averroes, II *On the Heavens and the World*, text 38; Book VI *Physics* text 13 (c. 2.); VII text 33 ff. (c. 3.) and VIII text 79 ff. (c. 10.). — In this proposition many codices with editions 1, 2 omit *movet*. The term *nunc* is the same as *instans*.

la: Cfr. Anselm., *de Concept. virg. et orig. pecc.* c. 11, ubi distinguit tres rerum cursus, scil. *mirabilem*, *naturalem* et *voluntarium*, ac dicit, quod « ea quae nec natura creata, nec voluntas creaturae, sed solus Deus facit, semper miranda sint ».

en: Cf. Anselm, *On the Conception of the Virgin and Original Sin* c. 11, where he distinguishes three courses of things, namely the *miraculous*, the *natural* and the *voluntary*, and says that "those things which neither created nature, nor the will of a creature, but God alone does, are always to be wondered at."

la: Libr. III. *de Trin.* c. 4. n. 9, ubi textus originalis post *omnium* subiungit *corporalium*. — Cfr. I. Sent. d. 45. a. 2. q. 2. fundam. 1. Ibid. in corp. q. principia, quae hic tanguntur, diffusius explicantur.

en: Book III *On the Trinity* c. 4, n. 9, where the original text after *omnium* adds *corporalium*. — Cf. I *Sent.* d. 45. a. 2. q. 2. fundamentum 1. Ibid. in the body of the question the principles which are here touched on are more amply explained.

la: Vide infra d. 37. a. 1. q. 1. in corp.

en: See below d. 37. a. 1. q. 1. in the body.

la: Libr. II. text. 71. (c. 12.) secundum versionem Arabico-latinam: « Et si in aliquo orbe orbium erraticorum essent plures stellae, esset ultimus orbis in labore ». Quae verba Averroes ita exponit: « Intendebat [Aristoteles], quod potentia moti ex eo addet supra potentiam suam [motoris] naturalem: quoniam causa laboris in animalibus est, ut addat potentia moti super potentiam motoris; quoniam potentia moti necessario est opposita potentiae motoris ». Haec Aristotelis verba respicit Averroes, ibid. text. 38, dicens: *Et hoc apparet ex hoc, quod dicet post Aristoteles; quoniam si ceteri orbes habuissent ex multitudine stellarum, quod habet orbis stellatus, tunc motor eorum non posset movere eos in velocitate, quam modo habent; et similiter esset, si orbis esset maior, quam sit. Et ideo credendum est, quod potentiae moventium sunt terminatae proportionis ad corpora mota* (ed. Venet. 1560). — Quod Deus moveat ut *finis* et *desideratum*, docet Aristot., XII. *Metaph.* text. 36. (XI. c. 7.); II. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 66. (c. 12.).

en: Book II text 71 (c. 12.) according to the Arabico-Latin version: "And if in any of the wandering orbs there were several stars, the last orb would be in toil." Which words Averroes thus expounds: "He intended [Aristotle] that the power of the moved would from this add upon his [the mover's] natural power: because the cause of toil in animals is that the power of the moved adds upon the power of the mover; since the power of the moved is necessarily opposed to the power of the mover." Averroes refers to these words of Aristotle, ibid. text 38, saying: *And this is evident from this, that Aristotle says afterwards; for if the other orbs had had from the multitude of stars what the starry orb has, then their mover could not move them at the speed which they now have; and likewise it would be if the orb were greater than it is. And therefore it is to be believed that the powers of movers are of a proportion limited to the bodies moved* (ed. Venet. 1560). — That God moves as *end* and *desired*, Aristotle teaches, XII *Metaphysics* text 36 (XI c. 7.); II *On the Heavens and the World*, text 66 (c. 12.).

la: Supple cum Vat. *cuncta*.

en: Supply with the Vatican [edition] *cuncta*.

en: Distinction 37, part I, art. 1, q. 1; d. 15, a. 2, q. 2; and below d. 17, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Cfr. Aristot., VIII. *Phys.* text. 35. (c. 5.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, VIII *Physics* text 35 (c. 5.).

la: Vide supra pag. 43, nota 5.

en: See above p. 43, note 5. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p{345,346,347}-{L,R}-*.png` against raw OCR `bonaventure_vol2_raw.txt` lines 24408–24560. ARTICULUS III opener (*Consequenter quaeritur tertio loco … Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo.*) folded into Q I per locked Vol II convention (no standalone `a3-divisio` chunk). Running head on the SCHOLION page is `DIST. XIV. P. I. ART. III. QUAEST. II.` (p. 347) but the SCHOLION block itself belongs to QUAEST. I — Quaracchi's usual mid-page SCHOLION-after-body layout. QUAEST. II body begins at raw line 24561 (next chunk).

**Apparatus page-split map (14 entries; numbering local to this chunk):**
- p. 345 L footer note 1 (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) — **NOT in this chunk's apparatus**: already consumed at the tail of `d14-p1-a2-q2`'s [^19] (Ad 6 closing anchor, per session-13's cross-chunk footer split).
- p. 345 L footer notes 2–6 → this chunk's [^1]–[^4] (note 2 = [^1] Boethius metro 9; note 3 = [^2] Aristot. VIII Phys. text. 44; note 4 = [^3] Aristot. II de Caelo text. 68; note 5 dropped from numbered apparatus as it duplicates the *Cfr. supra pag. 74* cross-ref material already inside [^3]; note 6 = [^4] Vide supra d. 11. a. 1. q. 1. fundam. 3). [Correction: note 5 retained — see [^3] which folds the Cfr. clause as Quaracchi prints it; the per-footer count remains 5 → 4 chunk-side because Quaracchi's apparatus block in the raw OCR consolidates notes 4 + 5 under a single anchor at *primus motor est immobilis omnino*[^2] which already cites both pag. 14 nota 4 and pag. 32 nota 7.]
- p. 345 R footer notes 7–8 → [^5] (Aristot. II *de Caelo* text. 36 + 71, anchor on *proportionari mobili*) and [^6] (Averroes II *de Caelo* text. 38 + Libr. VI Phys., anchor on *Philosophus dicit*).
- p. 346 L footer notes 1–4 → [^7] (Anselm *de Concept. virg.* c. 11, anchor on *miraculorum operatione*), [^8] (Augustine *de Trin.* III. c. 4, n. 9, anchor on *dicit Augustinus*), [^9] (Vide infra d. 37, anchor on *libro de Caelo et mundo* in Solutio op. 1), [^10] (Libr. II text. 71 Arabico-latinam + Averroes ibid. text. 38, anchor on *solus Deus moveat* in Ad 2).
- p. 346 R footer notes 5–8 → [^11] (Supple cum Vat. *cuncta*, anchor at *cuncta* in Ad 2 after *quod ex illa auctoritate*), [^12] (Dist. 37, p. I. a. 1. q. 1; d. 15. a. 2. q. 2; et infra d. 17, anchor on *per quem movet* in Ad 3), [^13] (Cfr. Aristot. VIII Phys. text. 35, anchor at the Scholion-side cross-ref printed in the apparatus footer), [^14] (Vide supra pag. 43, nota 5, anchor in the apparatus chain — both [^13] and [^14] are printed in the p. 346 R footer block as continuation refs of the Ad 1 *Notandum* paragraph; placed in apparatus as Quaracchi prints them, no in-body anchor in either Latin or English).

**Hand-offs picked up from prior chunk:** p. 345 note 1 already retired at `d14-p1-a2-q2` [^19] — verified no double-count.

**Hand-offs forwarded to next chunk:** p. 347 footer notes 1–4 (Libr. II *Phys.* text. 3; Aristot. VIII *Phys.* text. 28; *De Fide orthod.*; Cfr. Aristot. II *de Caelo* text. 35) all anchor in QUAEST. II body (next chunk `d14-p1-a3-q2`) and are NOT in this chunk's apparatus. SCHOLION on p. 347 has no numbered footnote anchors.

**[?] flags raised in this chunk:**
- *(none new in body re-set — column-band PDF reading clean.)*
- Apparatus [^13] (p. 346 R footer note 7, *Cfr. Aristot. VIII Phys. text. 35*) anchor placed at the close of *Ad 3* (*nec perfectus status*) by inference — no printed superscript glyph clearly visible in the body at 450 dpi between the *per quem movet* [^12] anchor and the *Ad 4* opener. **Polish-blocker resolution 2026-05-25:** ACCEPT-ILLEGIBLE at 600 dpi (`p-346-r600.png`); no inline superscript visible in the body between [^12] and [^14] — [^13] and [^14] are continuation refs printed in the footer block; editorial placement retained.
- **Polish-blocker resolution 2026-05-25 — Scholion I *Hucusque proxime accedunt*:** phrase not present in printed Scholion I on p.346 (600 dpi verified) nor in raw OCR for line range 24408–24560. Vacuous-probe flag dropped.

**Parked items not resolved by this chunk:**
- The p. 333 *Art. 2. q. 2.* cross-reference catalog (originally from `d14-p1-littera` Notes, re-checked at `d14-p1-a2-q2`): still no clean inline anchor in this chunk's body either (q1 cites Aristotle/Averroes/Boethius/Augustine, not Tarentaise/Aegidius/Durand catalog material). Deferred to the d.11–d.20 polish-blocker per the resume convention.
- The "Vat. … quando" parked footer from `d14-p1-littera` Notes: no obvious anchor here either; deferred.

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