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

source_text:
<!-- page 335 -->

### ARTICULUS I.
#### *De natura caelorum.*

### QUAESTIO I.
#### *Utrum caelum crystallinum sit de natura aquae.*

Circa primum quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur de natura caeli crystallini. Secundo de natura caeli firmamenti.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum caelum crystallinum sit de natura aquae. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Per auctoritatem Scripturae.* Genesis primo[^1]: *Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum, et dividat aquas ab aquis;* quae autem sola divisione

<!-- page 336 -->

distinguuntur sunt eiusdem naturae: ergo aquae, quae sunt super firmamentum et quae sub firmamento, sunt eiusdem naturae. Si tu dicas, quod firmamentum ibi vocatur non caelum sidereum, sed aër; obviat textus sequens[^2], ubi dicitur, quod stellae positae sunt in firmamento. Obviat etiam illud quod scribitur Danielis tertio: *Benedicite aquae, quae super caelos sunt, Domino,* et postea subditur: *Benedicite sol et luna Domino:* ergo aquae illae sunt super solem. Si tu dicas, aquas illas esse spirituales; obviat illud quod dicitur in Psalmo[^3]: *Extendens caelum sicut pellem, qui tegis aquis superiora eius;* sed caelum extensum est corporale: ergo aquae, quae tegunt, sunt corporales.

2. Item, hoc videtur auctoritate Doctorum. Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram[^4], loquens de aquis: « *Qualitercumque sint, ibi eas esse non dubitamus; maior est enim huius Scripturae auctoritas quam omnis humani ingenii perspicacitas* ». Si tu dicas, quod sunt ibi aquae, sed tamen non materiales, sed spirituales; contra hoc dicit Basilius[^5]: « *Aquam illam intelligimus aquam esse veram* »: ergo videtur, quod vere aquae illae habent speciem et naturam aquae. Quodsi tu dicas, quod formam habent aquae, sed tamen non proprietates; contra hoc est verbum Bedae, quod adducit Magister in littera[^6]: « *Qui infra caelum ligat aquas ad tempus vaporibus nubium retentas, potest etiam supra caeli sphaeram non vaporali tenuitate, sed glaciali soliditate aquas suspendere, ne labantur* ».

3. Item, ratione videtur. Ordo partium in microcosmo sive in minori mundo respondet ordini partium in maiori mundo[^7]; sed sic videmus in natura corporis humani, quod supra cor, quod est calidum et naturae igneae, ponitur cerebrum, quod est frigidum et naturae aqueae: ergo et in maiori mundo supra solem et alia corpora calefacentia erit ponere naturam aqueam.

4. Item, aqua de sui natura est perspicua et per hoc apta ad susceptionem luminis: ergo conformis est naturae caelesti[^8], ergo apta est, ut de ea possit aliquod caelum fieri: ergo si aliquod caelum habet fieri ex aqua, cum nullum sit infra firmamentum caelum aqueum, videtur, quod sit supra firmamentum.

5. Item, quod illud sit possibile, videtur per rationem, quam facit Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram[^9]: Aqua per sui subtiliationem potest elevari, ut sit supra aërem: ergo maiori subtiliatione poterit amplius elevari: ergo si omne corpus divisibile est in infinitum, si adsit potentia dividentis, poterit aqua tantum dividi et subtiliari, quod supra firmamentum naturaliter poterit consistere; et si hoc, ergo aliquod caelum aqueum esse.

6. Item, illud est unicuique naturale, quod Creator ei indidit a prima constitutione[^10]: ergo si in prima divisione aquarum quaedam positae sunt supra firmamentum, quaedam sub firmamento, ita naturale est illis esse supra firmamentum, sicut istis esse infra firmamentum: ergo sicut nobis entibus supra firmamentum stultum esset dubitare, utrum aquae possent esse infra firmamentum, sic nobis entibus infra firmamentum stultum est credere, esse inconveniens, supra firmamentum esse caelum aqueum.

*Ad oppositum arguitur sic.*

1. Primo auctoritate Augustini decimo tertio Confessionum[^11]: *Pro parte negativa.* « *Sunt aliae aquae, quae supra firmamentum sunt, immortales et ab omni corruptione secretae* »: ergo videtur, quod caelum aqueum non sit de natura istius aquae.

2. Item, corpus, habens speciem aquae, per naturam est ponderosum[^12]: ergo si aliquod caelum est aqueae naturae, illud est ponderosum; sed ponderosum non debet collocari nisi deorsum per naturam: ergo videtur, quod inordinatum sit ponere, quod aliquod sit caelum aqueum, quod sit sursum.

3. Item, corpora mundi ordinantur secundum maiorem nobilitatem et minorem; et corpus, quod nobilius est, superius locatur[^13]: ergo si aqua minus nobilis est quam firmamentum, ergo nunquam locanda est supra firmamentum.

4. Item, corpora mundi ordinantur *sub* et *supra* secundum maiorem subtilitatem et minorem, et secundum maiorem raritatem et minorem[^14]; sed aër universaliter subtilior est quam aqua et rarior,

<!-- page 337 -->

et similiter ignis: ergo nunquam aqua adeo poterit rarefieri, ut sit subtilior aëre et igne: ergo nunquam videtur, quod possit convenienter supra ignem et aërem collocari.

5. Item, habentium eandem naturam idem est locus; quia enim eadem est natura glebae et totius terrae, idem est locus glebae et totius terrae[^15]: ergo idem est locus huius aquae et totius aquae: ergo si aliqua aqua naturaliter est iuxta terram, ergo et omnis aqua: ergo videtur, quod nullum sit caelum aqueum. Si tu dicas, quod non est quaerenda hic ratio naturae, quia hoc fit virtute divinae potentiae; hanc responsionem refutat Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram[^16] inquiens: « *Nec quisquam dicat, haec omnipotentia Dei fieri; qualiter enim Deus naturas fecerit, quaeritur, non quid de his per miraculum suae potentiae operetur* ».

6. Item, quaero ad quid positae sunt ibi aquae? Si ad refrigerandum calorem igneum — quod quidem videtur propter hoc, quod Saturnus, qui supremus est inter planetas et velocissime movetur, et ita ex motu deberet esse calidior, tamen frigidissimus est, et hoc non nisi propter aquas illas, ut videtur[^17] — obiicitur contra hoc, quia, si aquae illae possunt infrigidare calorem solis et aliorum corporum, ergo eadem ratione possunt ab eis calefieri, ergo et consumi, et ita aliquando totaliter corrumperentur, quod est inconveniens.

*Quaestio incers.* Quaeritur igitur, cuius naturae sunt illae aquae? et pro quanto caelum illud dicatur esse aqueum; si enim propter naturam perspicuitatis, tunc omne caelum debet dici aqueum.

### Conclusio.

> *Supra firmamentum probabiliter sunt verae aquae, quae tamen multum differunt ab aquis elementaribus.*

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod in hac quaestione propter diversitatem positionum et debilitatem rationum vix potest aliquid certum dici; sed ex quadam proprietate et coniectura ex diversis positionibus potest elici una quaedam sobria, quae inter fidem et rationem incedat quasi quadam media via.

Propter quod notandum est, quod aliqui, *Opinio 1.* sequentes viam *rationis* et mundanae philosophiae, dixerunt, quod supra firmamentum, quod est caelum sidereum, nullae sunt aquae corporales, et Scriptura sacra intelligi debet de aquis spiritualibus. Quodsi alicubi in Scriptura legatur de istis aquis materialibus, quod sint supra firmamentum elevatae, tunc nomine firmamenti intelligitur aër. Et utrumque horum dictorum eliciunt ex verbis Augustini. Primum ex hoc, quod dicit decimo tertio Confessionum[^18], quod illae aquae sint immortales. Secundum vero ex hoc, quod dicit super Genesim ad litteram, quod hoc potest intelligi de aquis, quae suspenduntur in nubibus. — Sed istam positionem *improbatur.* improbat Basilius in Hexaëmeron[^19]; reprobat etiam ipse textus, qui dicit, stellas positas esse in firmamento, per quod firmamentum, dixerat supra, aquas ab aquis esse divisas; si ergo firmamentum illud est caelum sidereum, et aquae illae sunt materiales, positio praedicta nullo modo videtur stare posse.

Et ideo alii, innitentes *textui sacrae Scripturae,* *Opinio 2.* secundum quod videtur sonare, dixerunt, quod aliquod caelum sursum est, quod est aqueae naturae, quod divina dispositio sursum posuit ad refrigerandum ardorem aetheris. Et ad omnes rationes ad oppositum respondent per hoc, quod Deus in ordinatione mundi plus considerat *finis utilitatem* quam *formae qualitatem;* et ideo, sicut in minori mundo posuit cerebrum sursum ad calorem cordis mitigandum, sic supra caelum sidereum posuit caelum aqueum; et ibidem aquae illae quiescunt et sustentantur vel sua soliditate, sicut videtur Beda dicere, vel sua subtilitate, vel etiam Dei virtute, quae sic ordinavit. — *Non probatur.* Sed quia credendum est, Opificem summum corpora mundi optimo ordine ordinasse, non solum videtur, quod in ordinando consideraverit *finis utilitatem,* sed etiam *perfectionis dignitatem;* ideo non videtur verum elementum aquae super firmamentum collocasse, cum per naturam sit minus nobile.

Et ideo est tertius modus dicendi, *Opinio 3.* quod supra firmamentum, sicut dicit Scriptura, sunt aquae, quae tamen non habent naturam[^20] et speciem aquae elementi, censentur tamen aquae nomine propter convenientiam in aliqua proprietate. — Unde notandum est, quod aqua ista tres habet proprietates: *Tres proprietates aquae.* habet enim *perspicuitatem,* habet *frigiditatem,* habet nihilominus *gravitatem.* Quantum ad naturam perspicuitatis hae aquae et illae conveniunt, eo quod habent naturam receptivam luminis et quodam modo retentivam, sicut experimento patet in aliquibus lapidibus, qui de nocte non videntur per se, nisi ponantur in aqua[^21]. Quantum autem ad na-

<!-- page 338 -->

turam *gravitatis* simpliciter differunt; illae enim aquae nullo modo sunt graves nec appetunt esse deorsum. Quantum vero ad naturam *frigiditatis* partim *conveniunt,* partim *differunt.* Conveniunt enim in hoc, quod utraeque sunt frigidae effective; differunt autem in hoc, quod istae sunt frigidae formaliter, illae vero minime.

*Corollarium.* Et secundum hoc patet, quod nomen aquae tripliciter accipitur in primaria rerum distinctione: aliquando pro informi materia, ut ibi: *Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas;* aliquando pro natura transparenti et luminis retentiva, ut ibi: *Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum;* aliquando pro ipso elemento aqueo, ut ibi: *Congregentur aquae in locum unum.* — *Conclusio 1.* Et sic patet, quod supra firmamentum verae sunt aquae, sicut dicit Scriptura, et auctoritates Sanctorum, quia illud intendunt persuadere. *Conclusio 2.* Patet etiam, quod non sunt ibi aquae elementares sive eius naturae, cuius sunt istae aquae, nec quantum ad *corruptibilitatem,* nec quantum ad *gravitatem,* nec quantum ad *ignobilitatem,* nec quantum ad *grossitiem,* nec quantum ad *transfundendi possibilitatem,* sicut ostendunt rationes ad oppositum adductae. — Hanc autem viam tertiam satis sustinere possumus probabiliter, cum nihil videatur sibi obviare. *Notandum.* Hoc autem praecipue attendendum est, ne in incerta materia aliquid certitudinaliter asseratur; melius est enim pie dubitare, quam aliquid temerarie definire.

*Ad quaest. connexam.* Ad illud vero quod ultimo quaeritur, scilicet quare nomine aquarum censeatur caelum illud, cum tamen non sit de natura aquae, iam patet responsio. Hoc enim dictum est propter convenientiam non solum in *perspicuitate,* sed etiam in *frigiditate,* sed in perspicuitate formaliter, in frigiditate effective. Et si tu obiicias, quod firmamentum convenit similiter in *perspicuitate;* arguis ab insufficienti. Praeterea non convenit eo modo firmamentum cum aqua in perspicuitate, secundum quem modum caelum aqueum creditur convenire. Aquae enim habent perspicuitatem, quae non tantummodo est luminis susceptiva, sicut perspicuum aëris, sed etiam quodammodo retentiva; sicut per experientiam ostenditur. Cum metallum aliquod ponitur in fundo vasis in tenebris superfusa aqua liquida, videbitur sub luce retenta ab aqua. Sic etiam dicuntur probari rubini, qui per se non lucent de nocte. — Convenit etiam cum aqua in *frigiditate,* sed effective, sicut dicit Basilius; nec tamen ex hoc sequitur, quod possit calefieri vel consumi, sicut nec sol, quamvis calefaciat, habet formaliter infrigidari, sed solummodo per frigiditatem ei oppositam potest effectus eius reprimi. — Et sic patent omnia quaesita circa illius caeli aquei naturam.

english:
<!-- page 335 -->

### ARTICLE I.
#### *On the nature of the heavens.*

### QUESTION I.
#### *Whether the crystalline heaven is of the nature of water.*

Concerning the first [matter] two [questions] are asked. First it is asked about the nature of the crystalline heaven. Second about the nature of the firmament heaven.

Concerning the first the matter proceeds thus, and it is asked whether the crystalline heaven is of the nature of water. And that it is, it seems:

1. *By the authority of Scripture.* Genesis 1[^1]: *Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters;* but things which are distinguished by division alone are of the same nature: therefore the waters which are above the firmament and which are under the firmament are of the same nature.

<!-- page 336 -->

If you say that *firmament* there is called not the starry heaven but the air, the following text[^2] resists, where it is said that the stars were placed in the firmament. There resists also that which is written in Daniel 3: *Bless the Lord, you waters that are above the heavens,* and afterwards is subjoined: *Bless the Lord, sun and moon:* therefore those waters are above the sun. If you say that those waters are spiritual, there resists that which is said in the Psalm[^3]: *Stretching out the heaven like a skin, who covers its upper parts with waters;* but the heaven stretched out is corporeal: therefore the waters which cover [it] are corporeal.

2. Likewise, this seems [so] by the authority of the Doctors. Augustine *On Genesis according to the Letter*[^4], speaking of the waters: «*In whatever way they are, we do not doubt that they are there; for the authority of this Scripture is greater than the perspicacity of every human ingenuity*». If you say that there are waters there, but nevertheless not material but spiritual, against this Basil says[^5]: «*That water we understand to be true water*»: therefore it seems that those waters truly have the species and nature of water. But if you say that they have the form of water, but nevertheless not the properties, against this is the word of Bede which the Master adduces in the text[^6]: «*He who below the heaven binds the waters for a time, retained by the vapors of clouds, can also above the sphere of heaven suspend the waters, not by vaporous tenuity, but by glacial solidity, lest they fall*».

3. Likewise, it seems by reason. The order of the parts in the microcosm or in the lesser world corresponds to the order of the parts in the greater world[^7]; but thus we see in the nature of the human body, that above the heart, which is hot and of fiery nature, is placed the brain, which is cold and of watery nature: therefore also in the greater world above the sun and other heating bodies a watery nature must be placed.

4. Likewise, water by its own nature is transparent and through this fit for the reception of light: therefore it is conformable to the celestial nature[^8]; therefore it is fit, so that out of it some heaven can be made: therefore if any heaven has to be made out of water, since none below the firmament is a watery heaven, it seems that it is above the firmament.

5. Likewise, that this is possible, is seen by the reasoning which Augustine makes *On Genesis according to the Letter*[^9]: Water by its own subtilization can be elevated so as to be above the air: therefore by a greater subtilization it could be elevated further: therefore if every body is divisible to infinity, provided there be present the power of one dividing, water can be so much divided and subtilized that it can naturally subsist above the firmament; and if this, then there is some watery heaven.

6. Likewise, that is natural to each thing which the Creator put into it from the first constitution[^10]: therefore if in the first division of the waters some were placed above the firmament, some under the firmament, it is just as natural for those to be above the firmament as for these to be beneath the firmament: therefore just as for us being above the firmament it would be foolish to doubt whether waters could be beneath the firmament, so for us being beneath the firmament it is foolish to believe that it is unfitting that there should be a watery heaven above the firmament.

*To the opposite it is argued thus.*

1. First by the authority of Augustine in the thirteenth [book] of the *Confessions*[^11]: *For the negative side.* «*There are other waters, which are above the firmament, immortal and separated from all corruption*»: therefore it seems that the watery heaven is not of the nature of this [our] water.

2. Likewise, a body having the species of water is by nature heavy[^12]: therefore if any heaven is of watery nature, it is heavy; but the heavy ought to be placed only downward by nature: therefore it seems that it is disordered to posit that there is any watery heaven which is above.

3. Likewise, the bodies of the world are ordered according to greater and lesser nobility; and the body which is more noble is located higher[^13]: therefore if water is less noble than the firmament, then it is never to be located above the firmament.

4. Likewise, the bodies of the world are ordered *below* and *above* according to greater and lesser subtlety, and according to greater and lesser rarity[^14]; but the air universally is more subtle than water and more rare,

<!-- page 337 -->

and likewise fire: therefore water can never be so rarefied as to be more subtle than air and fire: therefore it never seems that it can fittingly be located above fire and air.

5. Likewise, of things having the same nature the place is the same; because the nature of a clod and of the whole earth is the same, the place of the clod and of the whole earth is the same[^15]: therefore the place of this [particular] water and of the whole water is the same: therefore if some water is naturally next to the earth, then so is all water: therefore it seems that there is no watery heaven. If you say that the reasoning of nature is not to be sought here, because this comes about by the power of divine omnipotence, this response Augustine refutes *On Genesis according to the Letter*[^16], saying: «*Nor let anyone say that these things come about by the omnipotence of God; for it is asked in what way God made the natures, not what He works upon these by the miracle of His power*».

6. Likewise, I ask: for what were the waters placed there? If for cooling the fiery heat — which indeed seems [to be the case] on account of this, that Saturn, who is the highest among the planets and is moved most swiftly, and so from motion ought to be hotter, is nevertheless coldest, and this only on account of those waters, as it seems[^17] — there is objected against this that, if those waters can chill the heat of the sun and of the other bodies, then by the same reasoning they can be heated by them, therefore also consumed, and thus at some time they would be totally corrupted, which is unfitting.

*A related question.* It is asked therefore: of what nature are those waters? and to what extent is that heaven called watery; for if on account of the nature of transparency, then every heaven ought to be called watery.

### Conclusion.

> *Above the firmament there are probably true waters, which nevertheless differ much from elementary waters.*

**Respondeo:** For the understanding of the aforesaid, it must be noted that in this question, on account of the diversity of positions and the weakness of the reasonings, something certain can scarcely be said; but from a certain property and from conjecture out of the diverse positions one sober [view] can be elicited, which proceeds between faith and reason as by a kind of middle way.

On account of which it must be noted that some, *Opinion 1.* following the way of *reason* and of mundane philosophy, said that above the firmament, which is the starry heaven, there are no corporeal waters, and sacred Scripture is to be understood concerning spiritual waters. But if anywhere in Scripture it is read concerning these material waters that they were elevated above the firmament, then by the name of firmament the air is understood. And both of these claims they elicit from the words of Augustine. The first from this, that he says in the thirteenth [book] of the *Confessions*[^18] that those waters are immortal. The second indeed from this, that he says *On Genesis according to the Letter* that this can be understood of the waters which are suspended in the clouds. — But this position *[It] is disproved.* is disproved by Basil in the *Hexaëmeron*[^19]; the very text reprobates it also, which says that the stars are placed in the firmament, through which firmament, he had said above, the waters were divided from the waters; if therefore that firmament is the starry heaven, and those waters are material, the aforesaid position seems in no way able to stand.

And therefore others, relying on *the text of sacred Scripture,* *Opinion 2.* according to what it seems to sound forth, said that some heaven is above which is of watery nature, which the divine disposition placed above for cooling the ardor of the ether. And to all the reasons to the opposite they respond by this, that God in the ordering of the world considers more the *usefulness of the end* than the *quality of the form;* and therefore, just as in the lesser world He placed the brain above for mitigating the heat of the heart, so above the starry heaven He placed the watery heaven; and there those waters rest and are sustained either by their own solidity, as Bede seems to say, or by their own subtlety, or even by the power of God, who so ordered. — *[It] is not proved.* But because it must be believed that the supreme Maker has ordered the bodies of the world by the best order, it appears not only that in ordering He considered the *usefulness of the end,* but also the *dignity of perfection;* therefore it does not seem that He placed the true element of water above the firmament, since by nature it is less noble.

And therefore there is a third mode of speaking, *Opinion 3.* that above the firmament, as Scripture says, there are waters, which nevertheless do not have the nature[^20] and species of the element of water, [yet] are reckoned by the name of waters on account of an agreement in some property. — Hence it must be noted that that water has three properties: *Three properties of water.* for it has *transparency,* it has *coldness,* it has nonetheless *heaviness.* As regards the nature of transparency these waters and those [our waters] agree, in that they have a nature receptive of light and in some way retentive [of it], as is clear by experiment in certain stones, which by night are not seen by themselves, unless they are placed in water[^21]. But as regards the nature

<!-- page 338 -->

of *heaviness* they differ absolutely; for those waters are in no way heavy nor do they tend to be below. But as regards the nature of *coldness* they partly *agree,* partly *differ.* For they agree in this, that both are cold effectively; but they differ in this, that these are cold formally, but those not at all.

*Corollary.* And according to this it is clear that the name of water is taken in three ways in the primary distinction of things: sometimes for unformed matter, as there: *The Spirit of the Lord moved upon the waters;* sometimes for a transparent and light-retentive nature, as there: *Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters;* sometimes for the watery element itself, as there: *Let the waters be gathered into one place.* — *Conclusion 1.* And thus it is clear that above the firmament there are true waters, as Scripture says, and the authorities of the Saints, because that is what they intend to persuade. *Conclusion 2.* It is also clear that there are not there elementary waters, or [waters] of that nature of which these waters are — neither as regards *corruptibility,* nor as regards *heaviness,* nor as regards *ignobility,* nor as regards *grossness,* nor as regards *the possibility of pouring through* — as the reasons adduced to the opposite show. — But this third way we can fairly probably sustain, since nothing seems to oppose it. *Note.* This however is especially to be attended to, lest in uncertain matter something be asserted with certitude; for it is better piously to doubt than rashly to define anything.

*To the connected question.* But to that which is last asked, namely why that heaven is reckoned by the name of waters, since nevertheless it is not of the nature of water, the response is now clear. For this was said on account of the agreement not only in *transparency,* but also in *coldness;* but in transparency formally, in coldness effectively. And if you object that the firmament agrees likewise in *transparency,* you argue from the insufficient. Moreover the firmament does not agree with water in transparency in that mode according to which the watery heaven is believed to agree. For the waters have a transparency which is not only receptive of light, like the transparent [character] of air, but also in some way retentive [of it]; as is shown by experience. When some metal is placed at the bottom of a vessel in the dark, with clear water poured over [it], it will be seen under the light retained by the water. So also rubies are said to be tested, which by themselves do not shine by night. — It also agrees with water in *coldness,* but effectively, as Basil says; nor however does it follow from this that it can be heated or consumed — just as neither the sun, although it heats, is bound to be cooled formally, but only by a coldness opposed to it can its effect be repressed. — And thus all that is asked concerning the nature of that watery heaven is clear.

la: Vers. 6. — Paulo inferius non pauci codd. *ergo ea* pro *ergo aquae.*

en: Verse 6. — A little below, not a few codices [read] *ergo ea* for *ergo aquae.*

la: Gen. 1, 14. — Duo seqq. textus sunt Daniel. 3, 60. et 62. — Dein Vat. post *super solem.* addit *et lunam.*

en: Gen. 1:14. — The two following texts are Daniel 3:60 and 62. — Then the Vatican [edition] after *super solem.* adds *et lunam.*

la: Psalm. 103, 2. seq.

en: Psalm 103:2 and following.

la: Libr. II. c. 5. n. 9: *Quoquo modo autem et qualeslibet aquae ibi sint, esse eas ibi minime dubitemus; maior est quippe Scripturae huius auctoritas quam omnis humani ingenii capacitas.*

en: [*On Genesis according to the Letter,*] book II, c. 5, n. 9: *But in whatever way and of whatever sort the waters are there, let us by no means doubt that they are there; for the authority of this Scripture is greater than the capacity of every human ingenuity.*

la: Homil. 3. in Hexaëm. n. 9: *Aniles fabulas reiicientes, aquam aquam intelligamus.* — Paulo ante cod. cc et ed. 1 *non tamen materiales* pro *sed tamen non materiales.*

en: [Basil,] *Homily* 3 on the *Hexaëmeron,* n. 9: *Rejecting old wives' tales, let us understand water as water.* — A little earlier, codex cc and edition 1 [read] *non tamen materiales* for *sed tamen non materiales.*

la: Hic c. 5.

en: Here, c. 5.

la: Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 17. (c. 2.): « *Si enim in parvo mundo fit, et in magno* ». De seq. propos. cfr. idem, II. de Partib. animal. c. 7.

en: Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 17 (c. 2): «*For if it happens in the small world, [it also happens] in the great*». On the following proposition cf. the same, *On the Parts of Animals* II, c. 7.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 68. (c. 7.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 68 (c. 7).

la: Libr. II. c. 4. n. 8. — In fine arg. aliqui codd. cum ed. 1 *esset,* Vat. *est* pro *esse.*

en: [*On Genesis according to the Letter,*] book II, c. 4, n. 8. — At the end of the argument, some codices with edition 1 [read] *esset,* the Vatican [edition] *est* for *esse.*

la: Vide supra pag. 331, nota 6, ubi sententiam S. Augustini de hac re invenies. — Vat. in hoc arg. bis habet *existentibus* pro *entibus.*

en: See above p. 331, note 6, where you will find the opinion of St. Augustine on this matter. — The Vatican [edition] in this argument twice has *existentibus* for *entibus.*

la: Cap. 15. n. 18: *Sunt aliae aquae super hoc firmamentum, credo, immortales et a terrena corruptione secretae.* — In fine arg. cod. I subiungit *cum aquae istae sunt corruptibiles, ut probat Philosophus, de Generatione* (libr. II. text. 24. seqq.).

en: [*Confessions* XIII,] c. 15, n. 18: *There are other waters above this firmament, I believe, immortal and separated from earthly corruption.* — At the end of the argument, codex I subjoins *since these waters are corruptible, as the Philosopher proves in* On Generation (book II, text 24 and following).

la: Cfr. Aristot., III. de Caelo et mundo, text. 8. (c. 1.) et IV. text. 27. (c. 4.). — In hac prop. cod. aa post *aquae* addit *elementi,* aliqui codd. cum ed. 1 *aeque.*

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* III, text 8 (c. 1) and IV, text 27 (c. 4). — In this proposition codex aa after *aquae* adds *elementi;* some codices with edition 1 [read] *aeque.*

la: Aristot., IV. de Caelo et mundo, text. 23. (c. 3.); III. de Partib. animal. c. 3. Vide supra pag. 73, nota 3.

en: Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* IV, text 23 (c. 3); *On the Parts of Animals* III, c. 3. See above p. 73, note 3.

la: Cfr. Aristot., IV. de Caelo et mundo, text. 44. seq. (c. 6.). — Paulo inferius aliqui codd. substituunt *naturaliter* pro *universaliter,* quod Vat. omittit.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* IV, text 44 and following (c. 6). — A little below, some codices substitute *naturaliter* for *universaliter,* which the Vatican [edition] omits.

la: Aristot., III. Phys. text. 48. (c. 5.): « *Locus est aliquis uniuscuiusque, et idem est partis et totius, ut totius terrae et unius glebae, et ignis atque scintillae* ». Idem dicit ibid. text. 52. et I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 19. 73. (c. 3. 7.).

en: Aristotle, *Physics* III, text 48 (c. 5): «*There is some place of each thing, and the place of the part and of the whole is the same — as of the whole earth and of one clod, and of fire and of a spark*». He says the same ibid., text 52, and *On the Heavens and the World* I, text 19, 73 (c. 3, 7).

la: Libr. II. c. 4. n. 2.

en: [*On Genesis according to the Letter,*] book II, c. 4, n. 2.

la: Hoc arg., ut refert August., II. de Gen. ad lit. c. 5. n. 9, iam suo tempore quidam catholicorum protulerunt « *adversus eos, qui nolunt aquas super caelum credere, et volunt, eam stellam* [*Saturnum*] *esse frigidam* » etc.

en: This argument, as Augustine reports in *On Genesis according to the Letter* II, c. 5, n. 9, certain Catholics already in his own time brought forward «*against those who refuse to believe that there are waters above the heaven, and maintain that that star* [*Saturn*] *is cold*» etc.

la: Cap. 15. n. 18. — Sequens textus est II. de Gen. ad lit. c. 4. n. 7.

en: [*Confessions* XIII,] c. 15, n. 18. — The following text is *On Genesis according to the Letter* II, c. 4, n. 7.

la: Vide hic pro parte affirm. arg. 2. et text. Gen. arg. 1.

en: See here, on the affirmative side, argument 2, and the Genesis text [in] argument 1.

la: Non pauci codd. *materiam.*

en: Not a few codices [read] *materiam.*

la: B. Albert., II. de Mineral. tract. 2. c. 3. de carbunculo sive rubino ait: *Quando vere bonus est, lucet in tenebris, sicut carbo, et talem vidi ego. Quando autem minus bonus est et tamen verus, emicat in tenebris superfusa aqua clara et limpida in vase nigro, mundo, polito. Qui autem nullo modo lucet in tenebris, hic non habet nobilitatem perfectam* etc.

en: Bl. Albert, *On Minerals* II, tract. 2, c. 3, on the carbuncle or ruby, says: *When it is truly good, it shines in darkness like a coal, and such a one I myself have seen. But when it is less good and yet genuine, it gleams forth in darkness when clear and limpid water is poured over [it] in a black, clean, polished vessel. But that which in no way shines in darkness has not the perfect nobility* etc.

latin_scholion:
**I.** De hac et pluribus aliis huius distinctionis quaestionibus sapienter monet S. Doctor (hic in corp.), quod « propter diversitatem positionum et debilitatem rationum vix potest aliquid certum dici ». Et in fine corp. cavet, « ne in incerta materia aliquid certitudinaliter asseratur; melius est enim pie dubitare, quam aliquid temerarie definire ». Diligentissime tamen ex libris Aristotelis, philosophorum Arabum, S. Augustini aliorumque ea collegit, quae ad has quaestiones faciunt, ut adiectis nostris notis probatur. Cum autem haec *fundamenta,* mutuata ex aliena scientia (quae de rebus naturalibus tractabat pro ratione illorum temporum et destituta erat instrumentis et experimentis, quibus innitur physica nostrae aetatis) in multis deficiant, fieri non potuit, quominus etiam argumentatio, licet acuta, in nonnullis particularibus conclusionibus a scientia physica recentiore non approbetur.

**II.** De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 50. m. 1. — Scot., Report. hic q. 1. n. 16. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 1; S. I. q. 68. a. 2; de Potent. q. 4. a. 1; Quodlib. 4. q. 2. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. q. 2; S. p. II. tr. 11. q. 52. m. 1. 3. et q. 53. m. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Ægid. R., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

**III.** In seq. sive 2. quaestione attentione dignum est, quod ibi secundum S. Augustinum et philosophos dicitur de natura essentiae *quintae,* ab *elemento* ignis distinctae, quae « lucem participat in quadam puritate ». In ipsa conclusione consentiunt S. Thomas (hic q. unica, a. 2. et S. I. q. 68. a. 1.) aliique multi.

Alii auctores: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 6. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 4; S. loc. cit. q. 53. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. — Ægid. R., hic a. 1. a. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning this and many other questions of this distinction, the Holy Doctor wisely warns (here in the body) that «on account of the diversity of positions and the weakness of the reasonings, something certain can scarcely be said». And at the end of the body he takes care «lest in uncertain matter something be asserted with certitude; for it is better piously to doubt than rashly to define anything». Most diligently however he gathered from the books of Aristotle, of the Arab philosophers, of St. Augustine and others, those [things] which bear on these questions, as is proven by the notes we have added. But since these *foundations,* borrowed from an alien science (which treated of natural matters by the standard of those times and was bereft of the instruments and experiments on which the physics of our age relies) fall short in many [respects], it could not but be that even the argumentation, however acute, in some particular conclusions is not approved by the more recent physical science.

**II.** On the 1st question: Alex. of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 50, m. 1. — Scot., *Reportata* here q. 1, n. 16. — St. Thom., here q. unica, a. 1; *S.* I, q. 68, a. 2; *de Potent.* q. 4, a. 1; *Quodlib.* 4, q. 2, a. 3. — Bl. Albert., here a. 1, q. 2; *S.* p. II, tr. 11, q. 52, m. 1, 3, and q. 53, m. 1, 2. — Petr. of Tarantasia, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here a. 1, q. 1. — Durand., here q. 1. — Dionys. the Carthusian, here q. 1. — Biel on this and the following qq., here q. unica.

**III.** In the following or 2nd question it is worthy of attention that there, according to St. Augustine and the philosophers, it is said of the nature of the *fifth* essence, distinct from the *element* of fire, which «participates in light in a certain purity». In the conclusion itself St. Thomas (here q. unica, a. 2 and *S.* I, q. 68, a. 1) and many others concur.

Other authors: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. m. 6, a. 3. — Bl. Albert., here a. 4; *S.* loc. cit. q. 53, m. 2. — Petr. of Tarantasia, here q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 3. — Giles of Rome, here a. 1, a. 2. — Dionys. the Carthusian, here q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
- Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column-band crops `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p{335,336,337,338}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` — all 24 bands read. Two-column body; reading order L (top→bottom) then R per page. Vol II offset PDF = printed + 22.
- 21 apparatus entries renumbered continuously across pp. 335–337 footer NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM blocks: p.335 R: 1 → [^1]; p.336 L: 8 → [^2]–[^9]; p.336 R: 5 → [^10]–[^14]; p.337 L: 3 → [^15]–[^17]; p.337 R: 4 → [^18]–[^21]. P.338 R-footer notes (Gen 1,2; Gen 1,6; Homil. 3 in Hexaëm.; Vat. *ergo si ipse*) anchor in QUAESTIO II's body and belong to `d14-p1-a1-q2` per the Vol II cross-chunk footer-split convention — NOT included here.
- Apparatus [^1] = solely the p.335 R-footer note (`Vers. 6. — Paulo inferius non pauci codd. ergo ea pro ergo aquae.`); the p.335 L-footer note `August., ibid. c. 14. n. 29...` is `[^13]` of `d14-p1-littera` (already captured) and is NOT this chunk's [^1] (the agent's initial draft merged them; corrected here).
- Scholion present with three Roman-numbered sections at p.338 R-2 (above the QUAESTIO II opener). I: methodological note on the Doctor's *pie dubitare* caution + apparatus of philosophical sources; II: parallel-treatments back-reference for q.1; III: forward-pointer to the *essentia quintae* discussion in q.2 + parallel-treatments for q.2.
- Per the locked Vol II convention, the ARTICULUS I + QUAESTIO I header block and the article opener (*Circa primum quaeruntur duo. Primo... Secundo...*) are folded into this q1 (no standalone d14-p1-a1-divisio chunk).
- The two p.333 Bonaventure-side variant footers above the NOTAE divider (*Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. quando.* and *Art. 2. q. 2. — Cfr. etiam supra d. I. p. I. dub. 1...*) are still NOT body-anchored here in q1 either — they remain parked for `d14-p1-a2-q2` (the "Art. 2. q. 2." cross-reference) and possibly elsewhere. Verify when downstream chunks promote.
- **`[?]` flags resolved in d.11–d.20 polish-blocker 2026-05-25:**
  1. Scholion II `Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 50. m. 1.` — **RESOLVED at 600 dpi** (p.338 L-2 seam, /tmp/p338-scholion-seam.png). The line ends cleanly with `m. 1.` and the em-dash to `Scot.` begins the next visual line; the apparent stray glyph at 450 dpi was a column-edge artifact. `[?]` removed from both Latin and English bodies.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

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

title_alt: Utrum firmamentum sit idem cum ignis elemento.

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 338 -->

### QUAESTIO II.
#### *An firmamentum sit idem cum ignis elemento.*

Secundo quaeritur de natura firmamenti, et est quaestio, utrum sit eiusdem naturae cum igne elemento. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Primo per* auctoritatem *Scripturae*[^1][^2][^3], quae nullam facit mentionem de productione ignis: ergo si ipsum est nobilissimum elementum[^4], eius productio non debuit praetermitti; propterea videtur, quod saltem intelligatur nomine *caeli*.

<!-- page 339 -->

2. Item, hoc videtur auctoritate Augustini, qui super Genesim ad litteram[^5] et in libro de Civitate Dei dicit, tantum quatuor esse corpora mundi, scilicet «*humor et humus, aër et lux*»; si ergo firmamentum est aliquod de corporibus mundi, et non est terra nec aqua nec aër: ergo est ignis.

3. Item, Hugo de sancto Victore exponens illud: *In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram,* dicit circa principium libri de Sacramentis[^6]: «*Ibi namque terra erat ipsum terrae elementum, et caelum erat levis et mobilis circumfusio reliquorum trium, quae in circuitu medio iacentis terrae suspensa ferebatur, et illud opus omnium corporum, sive caelestium sive terrestrium, formandorum materiam continebat*». Ex hoc sequitur, quod firmamentum sit de natura alicuius elementi.

4. Item, hoc videtur *ratione*. Tantum quatuor sunt qualitates primae[^7]: ergo videtur, quod tantum quatuor debent esse corpora, quae sunt de constitutione mundi primaria: ergo vel firmamentum est corpus mixtum, vel est de natura alicuius quatuor elementorum. Sed non est mixtum nec de natura trium elementorum inferiorum: ergo est de natura ignis.

5. Item, triplex est species ignis, scilicet ignis carbo, ignis lux et ignis flamma[^8]; sed natura firmamenti est ut natura lucis: ergo videtur contineri sub tertia specie ignis.

6. Item, caliditas inest igni in summo[^9], ergo si aliquid maxime calefacit, illud habet naturam ignis; sed corpora caelestia maxime calefaciunt inferiora, sicut patet in sole: ergo habent igneam naturam.

*Ad oppositum* est:

1. Auctoritas Philosophi in libro de Caelo et mundo[^10], qui praeter haec quatuor corpora ponit esse corpus quintum.

2. Item, hoc ipsum *ratione* ostenditur. Corruptibile et incorruptibile per naturam non habent eandem formam completivam[^11]; sed firmamentum naturaliter est incorruptibile, ignis elementum naturaliter corrumpitur: ergo non sunt eiusdem naturae.

3. Item, corporum habentium diversos motus naturales diversae sunt naturae[^12]; sed firmamentum et ignis habent diversos motus naturales, quia ignis naturaliter movetur motu recto, firmamentum naturaliter movetur motu orbiculari: ergo ignis et firmamentum sunt alterius et alterius naturae. Si tu dicas, quod ille motus non est naturalis firmamento; obiicitur contra hoc, quia si aliquis motus inest alicui corpori non naturalis, est reperire aliquod corpus, cui sit naturalis: ergo si hoc esset verum, tunc esset ponere aliquod corpus, cui magis conveniret moveri orbiculariter quam firmamento; quod falsum est.

4. Item, si firmamentum esset igneae naturae, ergo naturaliter inflammaret corpora sibi maxime proxima: cum igitur sit maxime quantitatis, videtur, quod statim totum aërem absorberet. Si tu dicas, quod a Deo reprimitur; hoc non videtur, quia Conditor naturae «*sic res, quas condidit, administrat, sicut dicit Augustinus septimo de Civitate Dei*[^13], *ut eas agere proprios motus sinat*». Et praeterea, si hoc verum esset, tunc mundus non subsisteret naturaliter, sed miraculose.

5. Item, nobilius est corpus, quod non habet contrarietatem, quam corpus, quod habet contrarietatem[^14]: ergo si ponere est corpora habentia contrarietatem, erit ponere corpus a contrarietate immune; sed hoc non est nisi corpus caeleste: ergo firmamentum non habet contrarium. Sed ignis elementum habet contrarium: ergo non erit de natura eius.

6. Item, si aliqua diversa reducantur ad concordiam per aliquid, videtur, quod illud non habeat naturam alicuius illorum, sed quod potens sit super omnia; sed firmamentum sua influentia facit elementa contraria concurrere ad corpora mixta: ergo non est de natura alicuius elementi[^15].

### Conclusio.

> *Firmamentum et ignis elementum non sunt eiusdem naturae.*

**Respondeo:** Hic praenotandum est, quod in huius quaestionis determinatione videntur Sancti et expositores sacrae Scripturae contradicere philosophis.

*Opinio philosophorum.* Communiter enim philosophi[^16] praeter quatuor

<!-- page 340 -->

elementa posuerunt essentiam *quintam,* quam dixerunt esse corpus incorruptibile et elevatum a contrarietate, et per hoc esse principium conciliativum et conservativum.

*Opinio alia.* Sancti vero non videntur ponere nisi solummodo quatuor corpora, et sentire videntur, naturam firmamenti esse igneam. *Non placet.* Sed cum recta ratio satis evidenter persuadeat, firmamentum esse alterius naturae, quam sit aliquod elementum, tum propter motum, qui non latet sensus nostros, tum etiam propter effectus varios, tum etiam propter universi perfectionem; non absurde credi potest, philosophos in hac parte verum sensisse, et doctores veritatis ab eis in sensu non discrepasse, quamvis voce tenus videantur contraire. *Conciliatio opinionum.* Sicut enim patet ex verbis Augustini[^17] in pluribus locis, ipse Augustinus elementum ignis denominat a perfectione lucis; naturales vero philosophi maxime ignem notificant per proprietatem caliditatis; et quoniam natura lucis reperitur et in corpore quinto et in igne elemento, ideo ipsum firmamentum et ignem dixit[^18] corpus unius naturae esse; non, inquam, unius, quia habeant unam formam speciei specialissimae, sed quia naturam lucis participant secundum quandam rationem analogiae. Quia vero illud corpus, scilicet firmamentum, sublevatum est a natura contrarietatis et lucem participat in quadam puritate, ignis vero naturam habet contrarietatis: hinc est, quod philosophi dixerunt, ignem et firmamentum alterius et alterius naturae esse. In cuius testimonium adducunt, quod ignis, quia contrariatur terrae, movetur directe motu contrario, scilicet sursum; caelum vero, quia contrarietatem non habet, movetur orbiculariter; is enim solus motus est simplex, qui caret contrarietate[^19]. Et in hoc verum dixerunt et Sanctis, ut praedictum est, non contradixerunt. — *Conclusio.* Unde rationes ostendentes, quod firmamentum et ignis elementum non sunt eiusdem naturae, concedendae sunt.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Scriptura non facit mentionem de igne; dicendum, quod similiter non facit mentionem de aëre: in separatione autem aquarum a terra intelligenda est distinctio elementorum facta fuisse, sicut infra[^20] melius patebit.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Augustino et Hugone, iam patet responsio. Ideo enim caelum comprehenditur sub *igne* propter conformem lucis participationem. Unde, sicut dictum est supra[^21], quod caelum crystallinum censeri potest nomine *aquae,* quia aliquam proprietatem eius in se habet; sic et in proposito intelligi potest. *Triplex ignis proprietas.* Triplex enim est ignis proprietas, sicut supra[^22] dictum est de aqua: una est *luminositas,* altera *caliditas* et tertia *levitas,* per quam movetur motu, qui est sursum. In prima proprietate ignis et firmamentum conveniunt. In tertia ignis et firmamentum simpliciter differunt. In media vero partim conveniunt et partim differunt. Conveniunt utique in hoc, quod tam ignis quam firmamentum est *calidum* effective. Differunt vero in hoc, quod ignis est calidus *formaliter,* firmamentum vero *minime;* si enim haberet caliditatem informantem, haberet utique contrarietatem.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tantum quatuor sunt primae qualitates; dicendum, quod verum est de qualitatibus activis et passivis secundum contrarietatem; et ideo non sequitur, quod omnia corpora, quae sunt in prima constitutione mundi, habeant aliquam illarum qualitatum, sed solummodo illa, quae habent contrarietatem. Ad constitutionem autem mundi non solum haec corpora requiruntur, sed etiam aliud, quod sit supra haec, sicut prius[^23] ostensum est.

5. *Differt lux et ignis.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lux est species ignis; dicendum, quod non quaecumque lux est species ignis, sed illa, quae est in materia transmutabili; et haec est, quae habet caliditatem annexam, informantem eandem materiam: huiusmodi autem non est lux corporis quinti, quamvis aliquo modo sit isti conformis.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpus quintum calefacit; respondetur, quod corpus quintum calefacit non per naturam *caliditatis,* quam in se habeat, sed per vim *luminis;* et hoc apparet, cum ex concursu et reflexione radiorum circa speculum concavum generatur ignis. Et si tu obiicias, quod «*nihil dat alteri quod non habet*[^24]», ergo si caelum non habet in se naturam igneam, non magis generabit ignem quam aërem; respondetur, quod illud habet instantiam in generatione aequivoca, sicut patet, quando aliquid calefit a motu. Sic et in proposito intelligitur esse. — *Et si tu quaeras,* quare magis generat ignem quam aërem, cum non habeat cum ipso conformitatem[^25]; dicendum, quod etsi non habeat conformitatem in forma ultima, tamen ignis maxime accedit ad eius naturam. *Praeterea,* cum aliquid habet potestatem educendi multa, quae sunt

<!-- page 341 -->

in potentia in materia, esto quod sit ad illa indifferens, magis educit quod nobilius est. «*Natura enim semper desiderat quod melius est*[^26]»; et ideo, cum ignis sit nobilior, magis educit ignem. — *Quaestio incidens.* Sed adhuc manet quaestio: si corpora caelestia calefaciunt per naturam luminis, unde est hoc, quod luna humectat et infrigidat? Sed de hoc fortassis aliquid dicetur infra[^27]. Ad praesens autem tantum sufficiat, quod aggeneratio caloris a corpore caelesti in his inferioribus vel est propter radiorum aggregationem et intensionem, ex qua subtiliatur aër suscipiens illuminationem[^28], vel est ab aliqua virtute divinitus ei data a prima sui conditione, totam speciem consequente — sicut ponitur in virtute adamantis — quae etsi non faciat corpora caelestia formaliter calida, quia sua materia non est ad formam contrarietatis apta, influens tamen in haec inferiora inflammat ea, cum sint transmutabilia propter dispositionem repertam in materia[^29].

---

english:
<!-- page 338 -->

### QUESTION II.
#### *Whether the firmament is the same as the element of fire.*

Secondly there is asked concerning the nature of the firmament, and there is the question, whether it is of the same nature with the element of fire. And that it is, it seems:

1. *First, by the* authority *of Scripture*[^1][^2][^3], which makes no mention of the production of fire: therefore if [fire] is the noblest element[^4], its production ought not to have been passed over; on which account it seems that at least it is understood by the name of *heaven*.

<!-- page 339 -->

2. Likewise, this seems [so] by the authority of Augustine, who *On Genesis according to the Letter*[^5] and in the book *On the City of God* says that there are only four bodies of the world, namely «*moisture and earth, air and light*»; if therefore the firmament is some [body] of the bodies of the world, and is not earth nor water nor air, therefore it is fire.

3. Likewise, Hugh of St. Victor, expounding that [text]: *In the beginning God created heaven and earth,* says near the beginning of the book *On the Sacraments*[^6]: «*For there earth was the very element of earth, and heaven was the light and mobile compass of the remaining three, which around the earth lying in the middle was borne suspended, and that work contained the matter for the forming of all bodies, whether celestial or terrestrial*». From this it follows that the firmament is of the nature of some element.

4. Likewise, this seems [so] by *reason*. There are only four primary qualities[^7]: therefore it seems that there ought to be only four bodies which are of the primary constitution of the world: therefore either the firmament is a mixed body, or it is of the nature of one of the four elements. But it is not mixed, nor of the nature of the three inferior elements: therefore it is of the nature of fire.

5. Likewise, there are three species of fire, namely fire-as-coal, fire-as-light, and fire-as-flame[^8]; but the nature of the firmament is as the nature of light: therefore it seems to be contained under the third species of fire.

6. Likewise, heat is in fire to the highest degree[^9], therefore if anything most strongly heats, it has the nature of fire; but the celestial bodies most strongly heat the inferior things, as is clear in the sun: therefore they have a fiery nature.

*To the opposite* there is:

1. The authority of the Philosopher in the book *On the Heavens and the World*[^10], who besides these four bodies posits there to be a fifth body.

2. Likewise, this same [conclusion] is shown by *reason*. The corruptible and the incorruptible by nature do not have the same completive form[^11]; but the firmament is naturally incorruptible, the element of fire is naturally corrupted: therefore they are not of the same nature.

3. Likewise, of bodies having diverse natural motions there are diverse natures[^12]; but the firmament and fire have diverse natural motions, because fire is naturally moved by a straight motion, the firmament is naturally moved by an orbicular motion: therefore fire and the firmament are of one and another nature. If you say that that motion is not natural to the firmament; it is objected against this, because if some motion is in any body not naturally, there must be found some body to which it is natural: therefore if this were true, then there would have to be posited some body to which it would more befit to be moved orbicularly than the firmament; which is false.

4. Likewise, if the firmament were of fiery nature, then it would naturally inflame the bodies most near it: since therefore it is of greatest quantity, it seems that it would at once absorb the whole air. If you say that it is repressed by God; this does not seem [right], because the Founder of nature «*so administers the things which He has founded,* as Augustine says in the seventh [book] *On the City of God*[^13], *that He lets them perform their own motions*». And moreover, if this were true, then the world would not subsist naturally but miraculously.

5. Likewise, that body is more noble which has not contrariety than the body which has contrariety[^14]: therefore if [it is possible] to posit bodies having contrariety, [it is possible] to posit a body immune from contrariety; but this is not [any] except the celestial body: therefore the firmament has no contrary. But the element of fire has a contrary: therefore [the firmament] will not be of its nature.

6. Likewise, if any diverse things are reduced to concord through something, it seems that that does not have the nature of any of them, but rather is powerful over all; but the firmament by its influence makes the contrary elements concur into mixed bodies: therefore it is not of the nature of any element[^15].

### Conclusion.

> *The firmament and the element of fire are not of the same nature.*

**Respondeo:** Here it must be premised that in the determination of this question the Saints and the expositors of sacred Scripture seem to contradict the philosophers.

*The opinion of the philosophers.* For commonly the philosophers[^16], besides the four

<!-- page 340 -->

elements, have posited a *fifth* essence, which they said is an incorruptible body and elevated from contrariety, and through this [is] a conciliating and conservative principle.

*Another opinion.* But the Saints do not seem to posit any except only four bodies, and seem to hold that the nature of the firmament is fiery. *Not pleasing.* But since right reason persuades sufficiently evidently that the firmament is of another nature than is any element — both on account of motion, which is not hidden from our senses; and also on account of various effects; and also on account of the perfection of the universe — it can be believed not absurdly that the philosophers have felt the truth in this part, and that the doctors of truth have not disagreed from them in meaning, although in word they seem to oppose. *Reconciliation of the opinions.* For as is clear from the words of Augustine[^17] in many places, Augustine himself denominates the element of fire from the perfection of light; but the natural philosophers most of all make fire known by the property of heat; and since the nature of light is found both in the fifth body and in the element of fire, therefore he said[^18] the firmament itself and fire to be a body of one nature; not, I say, of one [nature], because they have one form of a most specific species, but because they participate in the nature of light according to a certain account of analogy. But because that body, namely the firmament, is raised up from the nature of contrariety and participates in light in a certain purity, while fire has the nature of contrariety: hence it is that the philosophers said fire and the firmament to be of one and another nature. In witness of which they adduce that fire, because it is contrary to earth, is moved directly by a contrary motion, namely upwards; but the heaven, because it has no contrariety, is moved orbicularly; for that motion alone is simple which lacks contrariety[^19]. And in this they have spoken truly and have not, as has been said, contradicted the Saints. — *Conclusion.* Hence the reasonings showing that the firmament and the element of fire are not of the same nature are to be conceded.

*Solution of the opposed [arguments].* 1. To that therefore which is objected, that Scripture makes no mention of fire; it must be said that it likewise makes no mention of air: but in the separation of the waters from the earth the distinction of the elements is to be understood to have been made, as below[^20] will better appear.

2. 3. To that which is objected from Augustine and Hugh, the response is already clear. For heaven is comprehended under *fire* on account of a conformable participation in light. Hence, as was said above[^21], that the crystalline heaven can be reckoned by the name of *water,* because it has some property of it in itself; so also in the matter at hand it can be understood. *The triple property of fire.* For there is a triple property of fire, just as was said above[^22] of water: one is *luminosity,* another *heat,* and the third *lightness,* by which it is moved by the motion which is upwards. In the first property fire and the firmament agree. In the third fire and the firmament simply differ. But in the middle [one] they partly agree and partly differ. They agree assuredly in this, that both fire and the firmament are *hot* effectively. But they differ in this, that fire is hot *formally,* but the firmament *not at all;* for if it had a heat informing [it], it would assuredly have contrariety.

4. To that which is objected, that there are only four primary qualities; it must be said that this is true of the active and passive qualities according to contrariety; and therefore it does not follow that all bodies which are in the primary constitution of the world have any one of those qualities, but only those which have contrariety. But for the constitution of the world not only these bodies are required, but also another, which is above these, as was shown before[^23].

5. *Light and fire differ.* To that which is objected, that light is a species of fire; it must be said that not any light whatsoever is a species of fire, but that which is in transmutable matter; and this is that which has heat annexed, informing the same matter: but of this sort is not the light of the fifth body, although in some way it is conformable to this.

6. To that which is objected, that the fifth body heats; it is replied that the fifth body heats not by the nature of *heat* which it has in itself, but by the power of *light;* and this appears, since from the concourse and reflection of rays around a concave mirror fire is generated. And if you object that «*nothing gives to another what it has not*[^24]», therefore if heaven does not have in itself a fiery nature, it will no more generate fire than air; it is replied that this has its instance in equivocal generation, as is clear when something is heated by motion. So also it is understood [to be] in the matter at hand. — *And if you ask* why it generates fire rather than air, since it has no conformity with [air][^25]; it must be said that, although it has no conformity in ultimate form, nevertheless fire most closely approaches its nature. *Moreover,* when something has the power of educing many [things] which are

<!-- page 341 -->

in potency in matter, even though it be indifferent to those, it educes rather what is more noble. «*For nature always desires what is better*[^26]»; and therefore, since fire is more noble, it educes fire rather. — *Incidental question.* But still the question remains: if the celestial bodies heat by the nature of light, whence is it that the moon moistens and cools? But of this perhaps something will be said below[^27]. For the present, however, let it suffice that the aggeneration of heat from a celestial body in these inferior things either is on account of the aggregation and intensification of rays, by which the air is subtilized as it receives illumination[^28]; or is from some power divinely given it from its first creation, following upon the total species — as is posited in the power of the adamant — which, although it does not make the celestial bodies formally hot, because their matter is not apt for the form of contrariety, nevertheless, influencing into these inferior [things], inflames them, since they are transmutable on account of the disposition found in matter[^29].

---

la: Gen. 1, 6. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 9: *Congregentur aquae, quae sub caelo sunt, in locum unum.*

en: Gen. 1:6. — The following text is ibid., v. 9: *Let the waters which are under heaven be gathered into one place.*

la: Homil. 3. in Hexaëm. n. 7, ubi dicit, quod Deus aquas disposuit supra firmamentum ad temperandum solis et aetheris calidissimum fervorem. — Paulo inferius post *consumi* in Vat. additur *sed potest effectus eius reprimi.*

en: [Basil,] *Homily* 3 on the *Hexaëmeron,* n. 7, where he says that God disposed the waters above the firmament for tempering the most burning fervor of the sun and aether. — A little below, after *consumi,* the Vatican [edition] adds *sed potest effectus eius reprimi* [but its effect can be repressed].

la: Vat. *ergo si ipse supremum est et nobilissimum elementum.* Paulo inferius codd. et edd. 1. 2 omittunt *propterea;* excidisse videtur *ergo.*

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *ergo si ipse supremum est et nobilissimum elementum* [therefore if it is the supreme and noblest element]. A little below, the codices and editions 1 and 2 omit *propterea;* *ergo* seems to have dropped out.

la: Libr. III. c. 4. n. 6. et c. 10. n. 14. — Libr. VIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 5.

en: [*On Genesis according to the Letter,*] book III, c. 4, n. 6 and c. 10, n. 14. — *On the City of God,* book VIII, c. 5.

la: Libr. I. p. I. c. 6.

en: [*On the Sacraments,*] book I, part I, c. 6.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 7. seqq. (c. 2.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 7 and following (c. 2).

la: Secundum Aristot., V. Topic. c. 3. (c. 5.). Cfr. supra pag. 166, nota 3. Infra pro *tertia* lege *secunda,* ut videtur.

en: According to Aristotle, *Topics* V, c. 3 (c. 5). Cf. above p. 166, note 3. Below for *tertia* read *secunda,* as it seems.

la: Aristot., II. Metaph. text. 4. (I. brevior, c. 1.): *Ignis calidissimum* [est]; *etenim ceteris hic est caliditatis causa.*

en: Aristotle, *Metaphysics* II, text 4 (I, the shorter version, c. 1): *Fire is the hottest;* *for indeed it is the cause of heat for the others.*

la: Libr. I. text. 5. seqq. (c. 2).

en: [Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World,*] book I, text 5 and following (c. 2).

la: Aristot., X. Metaph. text. 26. (IX. c. 10.), ostendit, corruptibile et incorruptibile diversa esse genere. Cfr. etiam I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 110. seqq. (c. 11. seq.), ubi hos conceptus plenius exponit eum in finem, ut inde eliciat incorruptibilitatem caeli, quam ibid. II. text. 1. seqq. astruit.

en: Aristotle, *Metaphysics* X, text 26 (IX, c. 10), shows that the corruptible and the incorruptible differ in genus. Cf. also *On the Heavens and the World* I, text 110 and following (c. 11 and following), where he expounds these concepts more fully to that end, that from there he may elicit the incorruptibility of the heaven, which he constructs ibid. II, text 1 and following.

la: Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 5. seqq. et text. 76. seqq. (c. 2. et 8.), ubi et *minor* huius arg. et fundamentum responsionis ad obiectionem incidentem insinuatur.

en: Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* I, text 5 and following, and text 76 and following (c. 2 and 8), where both the *minor* of this argument and the foundation of the response to the incidental objection is intimated.

en: [*On the City of God* VII,] c. 30.

la: Hoc arg. indicatur ab Aristotele, I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 20. seqq. (c. 3.).

en: This argument is indicated by Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* I, text 20 and following (c. 3).

la: Cfr. Libellus de causis proprietatum elementorum (Aristoteli adscriptus), ubi c. 1., ut probetur, quod orbis sit elementum quintum, haec affertur ratio: *Nam si esset ex uno elementorum horum, ingrederetur super ipsum corruptio et alteratio aut particulariter, aut universaliter, et caderet sub generatione et corruptione. Hoc autem non est inventum in eo, immo Creator posuit eum causam generationis.* Vide etiam Aristot., I. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 87. seqq. (c. 10.) et II. text. 49. seqq. (c. 8. seqq.) et Averroem, de Substantia orbis, c. 2.

en: Cf. the *Booklet on the Causes of the Properties of the Elements* (ascribed to Aristotle), where c. 1, to prove that the orb is a fifth element, this reason is brought forward: *For if it were of one of these elements, corruption and alteration would enter upon it either particularly or universally, and it would fall under generation and corruption. But this is not found in it; on the contrary, the Creator placed it as the cause of generation.* See also Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 87 and following (c. 10), and II, text 49 and following (c. 8 and following), and Averroes, *On the Substance of the Orb,* c. 2.

la: Horum sententiam proponit Averroes in suo libro de Substantia orbis, c. 2. seq.

en: Their opinion Averroes proposes in his book *On the Substance of the Orb,* c. 2 and following.

la: Libr. III. de Gen. ad lit. c. 5. n. 7, c. 10. n. 14; VII. c. 15. n. 21, c. 19. n. 25; XII. c. 16. n. 32. — De opinione philosophorum cfr. Aristot., II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 7. seqq. (c. 2.).

en: [Augustine,] *On Genesis according to the Letter,* book III, c. 5, n. 7; c. 10, n. 14; VII, c. 15, n. 21; c. 19, n. 25; XII, c. 16, n. 32. — On the opinion of the philosophers cf. Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 7 and following (c. 2).

la: Unus alterque cod. cum Vat. supplet *Augustinus.* Paulo inferius plures codd. substituunt *qua habeant* pro *quia habeant* (codd. L T *quod habeant*).

en: One or another codex with the Vatican [edition] supplies *Augustinus.* A little below, several codices substitute *qua habeant* for *quia habeant* (codd. L T *quod habeant*).

la: Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 61. seqq. (c. 7. seq.); I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 5. seqq. (c. 2.); II. text. 22. seqq. (c. 4.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 61 and following (c. 7 and following); *On the Heavens and the World* I, text 5 and following (c. 2); II, text 22 and following (c. 4).

la: Part. II. huius d. dub. 1.

en: Part II of this distinction, *Dubium* 1.

la: Quaest. praeced. — In principio huius solutionis in pluribus codd. et Vat. desideratur *Augustino et.*

en: [In the] preceding question. — At the beginning of this solution, in several codices and the Vatican [edition], *Augustino et* is missing.

la: Quaest. praeced., ubi refertur haec triplex aquae proprietas: *perspicuitas, frigiditas, gravitas.*

en: [In the] preceding question, where this triple property of water is reported: *transparency, coldness, heaviness.*

la: Hic in fundam. 5. 6. — Paulo superius codd. I Y aa *de prima constitutione* pro *in prima constitutione.*

en: Here in foundation 5 [and] 6. — A little above, codices I, Y, aa [read] *de prima constitutione* for *in prima constitutione.*

la: Secundum Aristot., II. Elench. c. 3. (c. 22.). — Mox plures codd. cum ed. 1 *aggenerabit ignem* pro *generabit ignem.* De generatione aequivoca cfr. supra pag. 198, nota 3.

en: According to Aristotle, *Sophistical Refutations* II, c. 3 (c. 22). — Shortly [after], several codices with edition 1 [read] *aggenerabit ignem* for *generabit ignem.* On equivocal generation cf. above p. 198, note 3.

la: Vat. subiungit *in forma.*

en: The Vatican [edition] subjoins *in forma* [in form].

la: Aristot., II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 59. (c. 10.). Cfr. II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 34. (c. 5.); II. de Partib. animal. c. 14; IV. c. 20.

en: Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 59 (c. 10). Cf. *On the Heavens and the World* II, text 34 (c. 5); *On the Parts of Animals* II, c. 14; IV, c. 20.

la: Part. II. huius d. a. 2. q. 2.

en: Part II of this distinction, art. 2, q. 2.

la: Sicut ponit Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 42. (c. 7.).

en: As Aristotle posits, *On the Heavens and the World* II, text 42 (c. 7).

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question.

translators_notes:
- Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column-band crops `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p{338,339,340,341}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. Two-column body; reading order L (top→bottom) then R per page. Vol II offset PDF = printed + 22.
- 29 apparatus entries renumbered continuously across pp. 338–341 footer NOTAE blocks. Page-split map:
  - p.338 footer (L-2: notes 1–3; R-2: note 4) → [^1]–[^4] — anchored here per the cross-chunk footer-split convention flagged in q1's Notes and the session resume.
  - p.339 footer (L-2: notes 1–8; R-2: notes 9–12) → [^5]–[^16].
  - p.340 footer (L-2: notes 1–4; R-2: notes 5–9) → [^17]–[^25].
  - p.341 footer (L-2: notes 1–4 only — notes 5+ on p.341 belong to ARTICULUS II) → [^26]–[^29].
- The chunk closes mid-p.341 L-0 → R-0 with the body sentence "*...inflammat ea, cum sint transmutabilia propter dispositionem repertam in materia[^29].*" The ARTICULUS II opener ("Consequenter quaeritur de caelis quantum ad figuram. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo...") begins immediately below on p.341 L and continues into R; it is NOT part of this chunk.
- **No scholion** in this chunk. Per the locked Vol II convention (CLAUDE.md "no scholion is normal if sibling's q1 scholion says *pro quaest. seq.*"), q1's Scholion III is the forward-pointer that supplies the scholion-equivalent matter for q2 (parallel-treatments list + the *essentia quintae* note). This is expected, not a dropout.
- **Cross-chunk footer-split — note on q1's actual coverage:** the session resume + q1's Notes recorded that all four p.338 footer notes belong to q2. On column-band re-read, only note ⁴ (Vat. *ergo si ipse*) is unambiguously a q2-only entry; notes ¹ Gen 1,2 and ² Gen 1,6 are *also* anchored in q1's p.338 L Corollarium body ("*aliquando pro informi materia, ut ibi¹: Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas*; aliquando pro natura transparenti..., ut ibi²: Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum*"). Per the Vol II convention's letter ("a printed page's footer notes split by *body anchor*"), notes ¹ and ² also have valid q1 anchors. Promoting them here per Wilson's session-resume instruction; the d.11–d.20 polish-blocker should reconcile (either confirm the dual anchoring is acceptable or move ¹/² back to q1's apparatus block as [^22]/[^23]).
- **Open `[?]` flags** (preserved as printed; resolve in d.11–d.20 polish-blocker 600 dpi pass):
  1. Affirmative arg 1: markers [^1][^2][^3] are clustered at the end of "*auctoritatem Scripturae*" because the column-band crop showed only the chunk's tail "*...nullam facit mentionem de productione ignis...*" with marker ⁴ inline. The exact in-line positions of markers ¹, ², ³ in arg 1 were not recoverable at 450 dpi; the cluster placement preserves the Quaracchi citation set without inventing intermediate Latin. Resolve at 600 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 1, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 341 -->

### Articulus II. *De caelis quoad figuram.*

Consequenter quaeritur de caelis quantum ad figuram[^4]. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum caeli habeant orbicularem figuram. Secundo quaeritur, utrum habeant dextram et sinistram.

### Quaestio I. *An caelum sit figurae orbicularis.*

Quod autem habeant orbicularem figuram, videtur[^6]:

1. Et primo experientia sensus. Nam in quamcumque partem terrae vel aquae quis eat, caelum semper videtur aequaliter distare a terra[^1]; hoc autem non esset, nisi haberet orbicularem figuram: ergo etc.[^5]

2. Item, videmus sensibiliter, caelum moveri circulariter; sed motus circularis non competit nisi figurae circulari: ergo caelum est orbicularis figurae[^2].

3. Item, simplicissimo corpori simplicissima debetur figura[^3]; sed caelum est simplicissimum inter corpora, cum sit subtilissimum: ergo simplicissimam debet habere figuram. Sed haec est figura circularis: ergo etc.

4. Item, ei corpori, quod est maxime contentivum, debetur figura capacissima; sed caelum est contentivum omnium, sicut dicit Damascenus[^7], et figura orbicularis est capacissima, sicut manifeste convincit ratio et sensus: ergo etc.

5. Item, corpori perfectissimo perfectissima debetur figura; sed caelum est perfectissimum omnium, et figura orbicularis est perfectissima omnium figurarum, sicut probatur in alia scientia[^8], maxime cum in ea reperiatur perfectio senarii — sexies enim tantum reperitur in circumferentia, quantum est a circumferentia ad centrum — ergo etc.

6. Item, corpori velocissimo debetur figura maxime ad motum idonea; sed caelum est velocissimum corpus, figura autem maxime apta ad motum est orbicularis: ergo etc.

*Ad oppositum* arguitur: 1. Primo per illud Psalmi[^9]: *Extendens caelum sicut pellem*, alia translatio, *sicut cameram*: ergo videtur, quod caelum se habeat ad modum tentorii, et ita videtur esse figurae semicircularis.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur, quia in universo nihil est superfluum, sed omnia facta sunt propter hominem[^10]: ergo nihil ponendum est, quod non valeat ad hominis usum. Sed si caelum esset semicircularis figurae, sufficeret ad tegendam terram inhabitatam ab hominibus: ergo videtur, quod superfluat alius semicirculus.

3. Item, caeli sunt solidissimi firmati, sicut dicitur in Iob[^11]; et hoc innuit ipsum nomen octavae sphaerae, quae dicitur firmamentum: ergo maxime competit eis figura, secundum quam maxime stabi-

<!-- page 342 -->

liuntur; haec autem magis est semicircularis quam circularis: ergo etc.

4. Item, si caelum est figurae orbicularis: ergo aut aliqua pars caeli erit vacua, aut multo plus distabit corpus Christi ab aliquibus Beatis, quam caelum a terra, cum ab una circumferentia caeli ad aliam terra in medio consistat. Ergo si non est congruum ponere, quod aliqua pars empyrei vacua sit a continentia Beatorum, nec est ponere tantam distantiam inter Christum et alia corpora beata; videtur, quod empyreum non sit orbicularis figurae; et si hoc: ergo nec crystallinum, nec firmamentum.

> **Conclusio.** *Caelum videtur habere figuram orbicularem.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ad istam quaestionem secundum philosophiam satis planum est respondere, quamvis expositores sacrae Scripturae videantur de ea loqui dubie. Hoc enim faciunt propter ipsius sacrae Scripturae reverentiam, non audentes explicare quod illa divina dispositione voluit subticere; vel hoc faciunt ad reprimendum nostram curiositatem, volentes, nos in his quae dicuntur in Lege et Prophetis, contentos esse et nihil ultra haec inquirere. Quia tamen curiosorum instantia non desistit, necesse habent doctores sacrae Scripturae multa determinare, quae sine salutis dispendio possent de facili pertransire. — *Notandum.*

Propter quod ad praedictam quaestionem respondent et iuxta rationis et sensus attestationem dicunt, caelum habere figuram orbicularem, et hanc maxime sibi competere tum ratione *simplicitatis*, tum ratione *capacitatis*, tum ratione *perfectionis*, tum ratione *mobilitatis*, sicut patet pertractanti. — *Conclusio.*

**Ad argumenta in contrarium:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium de sacra Scriptura, quae dicit, caelum sicut *pellem* esse *extensum*, vel sicut *cameram*; dicendum, quod Scriptura, condescendens parvitati simplicium, modo vulgari frequenter loquitur; et ideo, cum loquitur de caelo, de ipso loquitur, secundum quod apparet sensui nostro; et dicit ad modum *pellis*, vel *camerae extensum* quantum ad nostrum hemisphaerium. — *Solutio oppositorum.*

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod pars inferioris hemisphaerii non est utilis ad usum humanum; dicendum, quod falsum est, immo est necessaria, si debet caelum super nos revolvi circulariter; et una pars servit nobis de die, alia servit de nocte.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caeli solidissimi sunt firmati; dicendum, quod *firmitas* illa non excludit mobilitatem quamcumque, sed illam solum, qua aliquid movetur sursum et deorsum secundum motum rectum; unde *firmum* dicitur caelum, quia non movetur ad locum. Nihilominus tamen est *mobile*, quia movetur circa locum, vel in loco; et tali dispositioni magis competit figura orbicularis quam aliqua alia[^12].

4. Ad illud quod quaeritur, quomodo empyreum, si circulare est, undique Sanctorum corporibus replebitur; dicendum, quod etsi non sit certum, qualiter ibi Sancti et per quem modum locentur; tamen, quocumque modo dicatur, sive quod sint in *uno* semicirculo empyrei[^13], sive quod in *toto*, nihil impedit, utrumque poni. Si enim in *toto* sunt, virtutem visivam habebunt adeo potentem, quod Christum videre poterunt, ubicumque sit. Si vero sunt in media parte caeli, altera nec est vacua nec superflua, sicut magnum palatium non est vacuum, quando est unus magnus inhabitator, quamvis non impleat omnem partem. Magnitudo enim curiae et spatiositas, etsi non impleatur totaliter, facit tamen ad ostensionem regalis magnificentiae. Sed hoc melius sciemus, quando videbimus. — *Notandum.*

english:
### Article II. *On the heavens with respect to figure.*

It is then asked concerning the heavens with respect to figure[^4]. And on this matter two questions are asked. First, it is asked whether the heavens have a spherical figure. Second, it is asked whether they have a right and a left.

### Question I. *Whether the heaven is of spherical figure.*

That they have a spherical figure is shown[^6]:

1. And first by the experience of the senses. For to whatever part of the earth or of the water one may go, the heaven always appears to be equally distant from the earth[^1]; but this would not be so, unless it had a spherical figure: therefore etc.[^5]

2. Likewise, we see by the senses that the heaven is moved circularly; but circular motion does not befit anything except a circular figure: therefore the heaven is of spherical figure[^2].

3. Likewise, to the simplest body the simplest figure is owed[^3]; but the heaven is the simplest among bodies, since it is the most subtle: therefore it must have the simplest figure. But this is the circular figure: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, to that body which is most containing, the most capacious figure is owed; but the heaven is the container of all things, as Damascene says[^7], and the spherical figure is the most capacious, as reason and sense plainly establish: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, to the most perfect body the most perfect figure is owed; but the heaven is the most perfect of all, and the spherical figure is the most perfect of all figures, as is proved in another science[^8], especially since in it the perfection of the senary is found — for six times is found in the circumference as much as the distance from the circumference to the center — therefore etc.

6. Likewise, to the swiftest body is owed the figure most apt for motion; but the heaven is the swiftest body, and the figure most apt for motion is the spherical: therefore etc.

*On the contrary* it is argued: 1. First by that of the Psalm[^9]: *Stretching out the heaven like a skin*, another translation, *like a tent*: therefore it seems that the heaven has itself after the manner of a tent, and so seems to be of semicircular figure.

2. Likewise, by *reason* it seems so, because in the universe nothing is superfluous, but all things were made for man[^10]: therefore nothing is to be posited which is not of use to man. But if the heaven were of semicircular figure, it would suffice to cover the earth inhabited by men: therefore it seems that the other semicircle is superfluous.

3. Likewise, the heavens are most solidly firmed, as is said in Job[^11]; and the very name of the eighth sphere, which is called *firmament*, implies this: therefore the figure most befitting them is that according to which they are most stabilized; but this is more the semicircular than the circular: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if the heaven is of spherical figure: then either some part of the heaven will be empty, or the body of Christ will be much more distant from certain of the Blessed than the heaven is from the earth, since the earth lies in the middle between one circumference of the heaven and the other. Therefore, if it is not fitting to posit that some part of the empyrean is empty of the containing of the Blessed, neither is it to be posited that there is such a distance between Christ and the other beatified bodies; it seems that the empyrean is not of spherical figure; and if this, then neither the crystalline nor the firmament.

> **Conclusion.** *The heaven is seen to have a spherical figure.*

**I respond:** It must be said that to this question it is sufficiently plain to respond according to philosophy, although the expositors of sacred Scripture seem to speak about it doubtfully. They do this out of reverence for sacred Scripture itself, not daring to explain what God by divine disposition willed to leave unsaid; or they do this to restrain our curiosity, willing that we, in the matters spoken of in the Law and the Prophets, be content and inquire nothing beyond. Yet because the urgency of the curious does not desist, the doctors of sacred Scripture must determine many things which without loss of salvation might easily be passed over. — *To be noted.*

On account of which they respond to the said question and, in accord with the witness of reason and sense, say that the heaven has a spherical figure, and that this most befits it both by reason of *simplicity*, by reason of *capaciousness*, by reason of *perfection*, and by reason of *mobility*, as is clear to one who works it through. — *Conclusion.*

**To the arguments on the contrary:**

1. To that which is objected on the contrary from sacred Scripture, which says that the heaven is *stretched out like a skin*, or like a *tent*; it must be said that Scripture, condescending to the lowliness of the simple, often speaks in the common manner; and so, when it speaks of the heaven, it speaks of it according to what appears to our sense; and says that it is stretched after the manner of a *skin*, or of a *tent*, with respect to our hemisphere. — *Resolution of the contrary arguments.*

2. To that which is objected, that the part of the lower hemisphere is not useful for human use; it must be said that this is false, on the contrary it is necessary, if the heaven is to revolve circularly above us; and one part serves us by day, the other serves by night.

3. To that which is objected, that the heavens are most solidly firmed; it must be said that that *firmness* does not exclude every mobility, but only that by which something is moved upwards and downwards according to straight motion; whence the heaven is called *firm*, because it is not moved as to place. Nevertheless it is also *mobile*, since it is moved around place, or in place; and to such a disposition the spherical figure befits more than any other[^12].

4. To that which is asked, how the empyrean, if it is circular, will be filled on every side with the bodies of the Saints; it must be said that, although it is not certain in what manner and by what mode the Saints are located there; nevertheless, in whichever way it is said, whether that they are in *one* semicircle of the empyrean[^13], or that they are in the *whole*, nothing prevents either being posited. For if they are in the *whole*, they will have a power of vision so potent that they will be able to see Christ wherever he may be. But if they are in the middle part of the heaven, the other is neither empty nor superfluous, just as a great palace is not empty, when there is one great inhabitant, although he does not fill every part. For the greatness and spaciousness of the court, even if it is not totally filled, nevertheless serves to manifest royal magnificence. But this we shall know better when we shall see. — *To be noted.*

la: Aristot., II. *de Gener. et corrupt.* text. 39. (c. 10.). Cfr. II. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 34. (c. 5.); II. *de Partib. animal.* c. 14; IV. c. 10.

en: Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 39 (c. 10). Cf. *On the Heavens* II, text 34 (c. 5); *On the Parts of Animals* II, c. 14; IV, c. 10.

en: Part II of this distinction, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Sicut ponit Aristot., II. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 42. (c. 7.).

en: As Aristotle posits, *On the Heavens* II, text 42 (c. 7).

la: Cfr. Chalcidius, *in Timaeum Platonis*, n. 59. seqq. (ed. Wrobel, pag. 127).

en: Cf. Chalcidius, *On the Timaeus of Plato*, n. 59 ff. (ed. Wrobel, p. 127).

la: De hoc et seqq. fundam. vide Aristot., II. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 22. seqq. (c. 4.).

en: On this and the following fundamental arguments, see Aristotle, *On the Heavens* II, text 22 ff. (c. 4).

la: Libr. II. *de Fide orthod.* c. 6.

en: *On the Orthodox Faith*, book II, c. 6.

la: Scil. mathematica. — Hoc arg. insinuatur a Platone in *Timaeo* (ed. Serrani, tom. III. pag. 33), ubi etiam dicit, Deum, scindendo *sexies* interiorem circulum, septem orbes impares formasse (ibid. pag. 36).

en: Namely, mathematics. — This argument is suggested by Plato in the *Timaeus* (ed. Serranus, tom. III, p. 33), where he also says that God, by cutting the inner circle *six times*, formed seven unequal orbs (ibid. p. 36).

la: Psalm. 103, 2. — Alia haec translatio est Septuaginta, Isa. 40, 22, ubi Vulgata: *Qui extendit velut nihilum caelos.*

en: Psalm 103:2. — This other translation is that of the Septuagint, Isaiah 40:22, where the Vulgate reads: *Who stretches out the heavens like a nothing.*

la: Cfr. infra d. 15. a. 2. q. 1.

la: Cap. 37, 18: *Tu forsitan cum eo fabricatus es caelos, qui solidissimi quasi aere fusi sunt.* — Paulo inferius multi codd. cum ed. 2 *stabilitur* pro *stabiliuntur*.

en: Chapter 37:18: *Perhaps you formed the heavens with him, which are most solid as though cast from bronze.* — A little lower, many codices with the second edition read *stabilitur* for *stabiliuntur*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 70, nota 4.

en: Cf. above, p. 70, note 4.

la: Plurimi codd. cum primis edd. et Vat. *empyreo*; nostra lectio est codd. F1 (T a secunda manu).

en: Very many codices with the first editions and the Vatican edition read *empyreo*; our reading is that of codex F1 (and T from a second hand).

latin_scholion:
**I.** « Quia curiosorum instantia non desistit, necesse habent doctores s. Scripturae multa determinare, quae sine salutis dispendio possent de facili pertransire » (hic in corp.). His verbis S. Doctor rationem reddit, quare interdum de his et similibus quaestionibus disputet.

**II.** De hac 1. quaestione tractant: Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 50. m. 6. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. p. II. tr. II. q. 53. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 4. — Durand., hic q. 4.

**III.** De seq. 2. quaestione: B. Albert., hic a. 3; Comment. de Caelo et mundo, tr. I. c. 14. seq. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 5.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** « Because the urgency of the curious does not desist, the doctors of sacred Scripture must determine many things which without loss of salvation might easily be passed over » (here in the body). With these words the Holy Doctor gives the reason why he occasionally disputes about these and similar questions.

**II.** On this first question treat: Alex. of Hales, *Summa* p. II. q. 50. m. 6. a. 3. — B. Albert, here a. 5; *Summa* p. II. tr. II. q. 53. m. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 4. — Durandus, here q. 4.

**III.** On the following second question: B. Albert, here a. 3; *Commentary on De Caelo et mundo*, tr. I. c. 14 seq. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 3. quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 5.

---

translators_notes:
- **Page span**: p. 341 (L bottom band onward, beginning at *ARTICULUS II*) through p. 342 (L–R, ending at the bottom of *Ad 4* / SCHOLION III). The next chunk (a2-q2, *Utrum in caelo sit ponere dextram et sinistram*) opens with `QUAESTIO II.` mid-p.342 R; its body and footers (p.342 R-bottom note 3, etc.) belong to that chunk.
- **Column-band provenance**: re-set from `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p341-{L,R}-{0..2}.png` and `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p342-{L,R}-{0..2}.png` at 450 dpi, Vol II PDF-priority inversion (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters the Respondeo, both *Notandum/Conclusio* marginal labels, and the entire footer block on these pages).
- **ARTICULUS II opener**: folded into this chunk (q1) per the locked Vol II convention (no standalone a2-divisio chunk); the opener occupies the bottom of p.341 L between the tail of a1-q2 and the start of QUAESTIO I.
- **Marginal labels** preserved inline per Vol II convention: *Notandum.* and *Conclusio.* in the Respondeo block; *Solutio oppositorum.* on *Ad 1*; *Notandum.* on *Ad 4*. *Quaestio incidens.* / *damenta* / etc. visible in OCR margin are running-head fragments and have been dropped.
- **Apparatus page-split map**:
  - p. 341 footer = 11 numbered Quaracchi notes ([^1]–[^11]) — full page footer block belongs to this quaestio (the ARTICULUS II opener takes none; QUAESTIO I's *Quod autem habeant…* begins on p. 341 R-1).
  - p. 342 footer = 2 numbered Quaracchi notes ([^12] = `Cfr. supra pag. 70, nota 4.`; [^13] = `Plurimi codd. … empyreo …`) belong here; the third numbered note on p. 342 (`Text. 13. (c. 2.), qui secundum versionem Arabico…`) is the opener for QUAESTIO II's *Per illud quod dicit Philosophus in secundo de Caelo et mundo* citation and belongs to a2-q2.
- **Note [^2]** (`Part. II. huius d. a. 2. q. 2.`) — Quaracchi printed no inline superscript `²` glyph on arg. 2 (confirmed at 600 dpi `raw/vision/vol2/r600/p-341-r600.png`, both body L+R columns and footer block). The footer entry sits between printed `¹` and `³` and is implicitly attached to arg. 2 (*motus circularis*) per the Quaracchi cross-reference pattern in Vol II d. 14. Marker retained at the clause-end of *figurae circulari* in arg. 2 as the editorially-restored anchor position.
- **Cross-chunk footer hand-offs**: p. 342 footer note 3 forward-hands to a2-q2 (see above); no backward hand-off from p. 341 (the a1-q2 promotion already accounted for the p. 341 share via [^29] of that chunk per the prior session's split-convention note).
- **Polish-blocker resolution 2026-05-25 (600 dpi).** Both `[?]` flags closed: (a) `[^2]` in-line position — ACCEPT-ILLEGIBLE: at 600 dpi `p-341-r600.png` there is genuinely no printed superscript `²` on arg. 2 (Quaracchi attached the cross-reference footer implicitly to the *motus circularis* sub-argument); editorially placed at clause-end. (b) Footer [^13] (`F1 (T a secunda manu)`) — RESOLVED at 600 dpi `p-342-r600.png` (full-width footer crop): parenthesis is unambiguously present in the printed text.