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

source_text:
<!-- page 67 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum spirituales et corporales substantiae simul creatae sint.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum spirituales substantiae et corporales simul sint creatae. Et videtur, quod sic.

1. In Genesi[^1]: *In principio creavit Deus* etc.; Glossa: «id est spiritualem et corporalem naturam».

2. Item, duodecimo Confessionum[^2]: «Duo invenio, quae fecisti carentia temporibus: unum, quod tua immutabilitate perfruitur, alterum, quod ita informe erat, ut ex forma in quam formam mutaretur, non haberet».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur. Constat, quod Angeli non sunt creati sine loco, quia tunc unus non haberet ordinem ad alium secundum existentiam: oportuit ergo quod fieret empyreum; et iterum, illius concavitas non poterat esse vacua: ergo etc.

4. Item, distinctio dierum attenditur secundum distinctionem rerum[^3], ergo productio ex nihilo praecedit omnem diem: ergo cum materia rerum corporalium sit ex nihilo producta, sicut et natura angelica, quemadmodum natura angelica est ante tempus, similiter videtur, quod materia: et si hoc, ergo in principio durationis: ergo simul.

**Contra:**

1. Ecclesiastici primo[^4]: *Prior omnium creata est sapientia*; constat, quod loquitur de sapientia non divina, sed quae est creata; haec autem est Angelus, ut dicit Glossa. *Si tu dicas,* quod prius est dignitate; obiicitur de Hilario duodecimo de Trinitate[^5]: «Quid magnum, ut ante omnem creaturam Deus Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum genuerit, cum et Angelorum origo terrae creatione reperiatur antiquior».

2. Item, hoc videtur ratione, quam facit Isidorus[^6]: «In rerum conditione primaria conditus est locus poenarum»; sed Deus non praeparavit poenam innocenti: ergo diabolus peccavit ante productionem rerum.

3. Item, videtur, quod non simul potuerint[^7], quia nulla virtus maior est infinita; sed ad productionem unius creaturae necesse est virtutem infinitam exponi: ergo si ad hunc effectum requiritur virtus infinita, et infinito nihil plus potest, ergo virtus illa non potest pro tempore illo alium effectum producere.

4. Item, simplex ad quod se convertit, totaliter se convertit[^8]: ergo si divina virtus est simplicissima, cum se convertit ad aliquem effectum producendum, impossibile est, quod ad aliud se convertat, et ita quod aliud producat: ergo impossibile est, quod simul plura producat.

<!-- page 68 -->

5. Item, quaeritur: quare tantum ista quatuor dicuntur primo esse creata?

### Conclusio

> Quatuor fuerunt primo creata, scilicet caelum empyreum, angelica natura, materia et tempus.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam notandum, quod, sicut extrahitur a Glossa[^9], quatuor fuerunt primo creata, scilicet caelum empyreum, angelica natura, materia et tempus.

Huius autem ratio duplex potest assignari: *una,* quia in principio debuerunt prima in omni genere creari, scilicet in rebus et mensuris, et in rebus corporalibus et spiritualibus, et in corporalibus activis et passivis. Quoniam igitur prima inter substantias spirituales est Angelus, prima inter substantias corporales activas est empyreum, et prima inter passivas est materia elementorum, et prima inter mensuras est tempus, quia non tantum dicit mensuram durationis, sed etiam egressionis: ideo haec quatuor dicuntur primo creata.

Alia ratio potest reddi, quod substantia spiritualis angelica primum debuit fieri tanquam caput et minus dependens, et cum facta fuit, simul habuit distinctionem et ordinem[^10]; sed ordinem existentiae non habuit nisi in aliquo continente: ergo simul factum est caelum empyreum supremum corporum, et ideo capacissimum. Et rursus, cum non posset esse vacuum, necesse fuit, fieri materiam corporalem sive molem; et quia omnis productio est in aliqua mensura, haec tria de necessitate consequitur tempus.

Concedendum igitur, quod quatuor sunt primo creata, et quod angelica natura et corporea simul sunt creatae quantum ad mensurarum concomitantiam, quia simul incepit[^11] duratio materiae et intelligentiae, sicut probatum est.

1. 2. Quod ergo obiicitur, quod *prior omnium* etc.; dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinus in fine duodecimi Confessionum[^12], *prius* dicitur quatuor modis, scilicet *aeternitate, tempore, electione, origine.* Aeternitate Deus praecedit omnia, *tempore* flos fructum, *electione* fructus florem, *origine* sonus cantum. Prioritate ergo *durationis*[^13] nec corporalis natura ante angelicam, nec e converso; prioritate autem *electionis* sive dignitatis *prior omnium creata est sapientia.* — Ad auctoritates Hilarii et Isidori, dicendum, quod ipsi loquuntur secundum illam positionem, quae posuit, creationem tempore praecedere distinctionem. Unde in principio temporis Angelus et materia sunt creata; sed res non fuerunt distinctae usque ad tertium diem. — *Vel* potest dici, quod Hilarius loquitur secundum *opinionem*[^14], et Isidorus de prioritate secundum *praevisionem.*

3. Quod obiicitur, quod Deus totam potentiam exponit ad productionem unius rei; dicendum, quod quamvis *totam* exponat, non tamen *totaliter* exponit. Virtus enim divina non tantum dicitur infinita, quia possit de non-ente facere ens, sed etiam quia non potest tot, quin plura; unde nunquam tot simul producit, quin adhuc possit plura; unde potest, quantum est de se, in infinitum intensione et extensione[^15]. Et ideo non valet illud.

4. Quod obiicitur de simplici, dicendum, quod illud habet locum in illo simplici, in quo simul est simplicitas et finitas; sed de illo, quod simplex est et infinitum simul et semel, veritatem non habet. Illud enim etsi ratione simplicitatis totum se convertat ad id, ad quod se convertit, tamen ratione immensitatis nunquam se totaliter ad effectum producendum convertit.

english:
### Question III. *Whether spiritual and corporeal substances were created simultaneously.*

Thirdly it is asked whether spiritual and corporeal substances were created simultaneously. And it seems that [they were] so.

1. In Genesis[^1]: *In the beginning God created* etc.; the Gloss: «that is, spiritual and corporeal nature».

2. Likewise, the twelfth [book] of the Confessions[^2]: «I find two [things] which you made lacking in times: one which enjoys your immutability, the other which was so formless that it had not [a form] out of which to be changed into [another] form».

3. Likewise, it seems [so] *by reason.* It is established that the Angels were not created without place, because then one would not have an order to another according to existence: it was therefore necessary that the empyrean be made; and again, its concavity could not be empty: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the distinction of days is reckoned according to the distinction of things[^3], therefore the production out of nothing precedes every day: therefore since the matter of corporeal things was produced out of nothing, just as also the angelic nature, then just as the angelic nature is before time, similarly it seems [so] of matter: and if this [is so], then [it was] at the beginning of duration: therefore simultaneously.

**On the contrary:**

1. Ecclesiasticus, chapter one[^4]: *Wisdom was created before all things*; it is established that it speaks not of divine wisdom, but of that which is created; and this is the Angel, as the Gloss says. *If you say* that it is prior in dignity; the objection [is made] from Hilary, twelfth [book] *On the Trinity*[^5]: «What [is it so] great, that before every creature God should have begotten our Lord Jesus Christ, when even the origin of the Angels is found older than the creation of the earth».

2. Likewise, this seems [so] by the reason which Isidore makes[^6]: «In the primary founding of things the place of punishments was founded»; but God did not prepare punishment for the innocent: therefore the devil sinned before the production of things.

3. Likewise, it seems that they could not [be produced] simultaneously[^7], because no power is greater than the infinite; but for the production of one creature it is necessary that an infinite power be expended: therefore if for this effect an infinite power is required, and to the infinite nothing more can [be added], then that power cannot for that time produce another effect.

4. Likewise, the simple [agent] turns itself wholly to that to which it turns itself[^8]: therefore if the divine power is most simple, when it turns itself to producing some effect, it is impossible that it turn itself to another, and so that it produce another: therefore it is impossible that it produce several [things] simultaneously.

<!-- page 68 -->

5. Likewise, it is asked: why only these four are said to have been created first?

### Conclusion

> Four [things] were created first, namely the empyrean heaven, the angelic nature, matter, and time.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the aforesaid it must be noted that, as is drawn out from the Gloss[^9], four [things] were created first, namely the empyrean heaven, the angelic nature, matter, and time.

A twofold reason for this can be assigned: *one,* because in the beginning the first [members] in every genus had to be created, namely among things and measures, and among corporeal and spiritual things, and among corporeal active and passive [things]. Since therefore the first among spiritual substances is the Angel, the first among corporeal active substances is the empyrean, and the first among the passive [ones] is the matter of the elements, and the first among measures is time — because it states not only the measure of duration but also of issuing-forth: therefore these four are said to have been created first.

Another reason can be given: that the spiritual angelic substance had to be made first as a head and as less dependent, and when it was made, it at once had distinction and order[^10]; but it did not have an order of existence except in some container: therefore at once was made the empyrean heaven, the highest of bodies, and therefore the most capacious. And again, since it could not be empty, it was necessary that corporeal matter or mass be made; and because every production is in some measure, these three of necessity entail time.

It must therefore be granted that four [things] are created first, and that the angelic nature and the corporeal [nature] are created simultaneously as regards the concomitance of the measures, because the duration of matter and of intelligence began[^11] together, as has been proved.

1. 2. To what then is objected, that *[wisdom was created] before all things* etc.; it must be said that, as Augustine says at the end of the twelfth [book] of the Confessions[^12], *prior* is said in four ways, namely *by eternity, by time, by election, by origin.* By eternity God precedes all things, *by time* the flower [precedes] the fruit, *by election* the fruit [precedes] the flower, *by origin* the sound [precedes] the song. By priority therefore of *duration*[^13] neither is the corporeal nature before the angelic, nor conversely; but by priority of *election* or dignity *wisdom was created before all things.* — To the authorities of Hilary and Isidore it must be said that they speak according to that position which held that creation precedes distinction in time. Hence at the beginning of time the Angel and matter were created; but things were not distinct until the third day. — *Or* it can be said that Hilary speaks according to [an] *opinion*[^14], and Isidore of the priority according to *foresight.*

3. To what is objected, that God expends his whole power for the production of one thing; it must be said that although he may expend the *whole* [of it], yet he does not expend it *wholly.* For the divine power is said [to be] infinite not only because it can make a being out of non-being, but also because it cannot [make] so many [things] but [that it can make] more; hence it never produces so many at once but that it can still [produce] more; hence it can, as far as in it lies, [proceed] to infinity in intensity and extension[^15]. And therefore that [argument] does not hold.

4. To what is objected about the simple [agent], it must be said that this holds in that simple [thing] in which simplicity and finitude are together; but of that which is simple and infinite at once and at one time, it is not true. For that [agent], although by reason of [its] simplicity it turns itself wholly to that to which it turns itself, yet by reason of [its] immensity it never turns itself wholly to producing the effect.

la: Cap. 1, 1. — Glossa, quae mox allegatur, est interlinearis apud Lyranum.

en: Chapter 1:1. — The Gloss, which is cited shortly after, is the interlinear [Gloss] in Lyra.

la: Cap. 12. n. 15. Vide supra pag. 60, nota 1. In hoc verbo aliqui codd. ut F K cum textu originali *ut ex qua forma* pro *ut ex forma.*

en: Chapter 12, n. 15. See above p. 60, note 1. In this word some codices, as F K, with the original text [read] *out of which form* for *out of [a] form.*

la: Vat. adiungit *corporalium.*

en: The Vatican edition adds *of corporeal [things].*

la: Vers. 4. — Glossa paulo inferius citata sumta est ex Isidor., 1. Sententiarum seu de Summo bono, c. 10. n. 3. Idem docet August., de Gen. ad lit. (liber imperf.) c. 5. n. 21; 1. de Gen. ad lit. c. 9. n. 17; XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 9. et 33. — Plures codd. *sed quae est creatura* pro *sed quae est creata.*

en: Verse 4. — The Gloss cited a little below is taken from Isidore, 1 *Sententiae* or *On the Highest Good*, c. 10, n. 3. The same is taught by Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* (the unfinished book) c. 5, n. 21; 1 *On Genesis according to the Letter* c. 9, n. 17; XI *On the City of God*, c. 9 and 33. — Several codices [read] *but that which is a creature* for *but that which is created.*

la: Num. 37: *Quid enim magnum est, ut ante terram Deus* etc.

en: Number 37: *For what [is it so] great, that before the earth God* etc.

la: Libr. de Ordine creaturarum, c. 8. n. 7: *Qui vivit in aeternum, creavit omnia simul* (Eccli. 18, 1.). In quibus omnibus etiam infernalis ille ignis aeternus, de quo Dominus dicit: *Ite in ignem aeternum, quem praeparavit Pater meus diabolo et angelis eius* (Matth. 25, 41.), simul factus fuisse minime dubitatur... Cui ergo carcer in illa creaturarum conditione praeparatus est etc. — Idem habetur 1. de Mirabil. Script. c. 2. (inter opera August.).

en: The book *On the Order of Creatures*, c. 8, n. 7: *He who lives forever created all things together* (Ecclesiasticus 18:1). Among all which [things] even that eternal infernal fire, of which the Lord says: *Go into the eternal fire, which my Father has prepared for the devil and his angels* (Matthew 25:41), is by no means doubted to have been made at once... For whom therefore the prison was prepared in that founding of creatures etc. — The same is found in 1 *On the Wonders of Scripture* c. 2 (among the works of Augustine).

la: Subaudi: *produci.* — Cod. cc et ed. 1 *potuerit* scil. Deus producere. Aliquanto inferius non pauci codd. pro *et infinito nihil plus potest* ponunt *et infinita nihil plus potest.*

en: Supply: *to be produced.* — Codex cc and ed. 1 [read] *he could have*, namely God [could have] produced. Somewhat below, not a few codices, for *and to the infinite nothing more can [be added]*, put *and the infinite nothing more can [add].*

la: Cfr. Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 36. (c. 7.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, III *On the Soul*, text 36 (c. 7).

la: Quae sumta est ex Bedae Exposit. in Gen. 1, et ex Quaestionibus super Gen. (cfr. August., 1. de Gen. contra Manich. c. 2.). — Vat. post *materia* adiungit *prima.*

en: Which is taken from Bede's *Exposition on Genesis* 1, and from the *Questions on Genesis* (cf. Augustine, 1 *On Genesis against the Manichees* c. 2). — The Vatican edition, after *matter*, adds *first.*

la: In cod. 1 adiungitur *existentiae.* — Cfr. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

en: In codex 1 there is added *of existence.* — Cf. p. II, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Plurimi codd. cum Vat. *coepit,* cod. cc autem et ed. 1 *incepit.*

en: Most codices, with the Vatican edition, [read] *coepit* (began), but codex cc and ed. 1 [read] *incepit* (began).

en: Chapter 29, n. 40.

la: Cod. A *durationis sive temporis.*

en: Codex A [reads] *of duration or of time.*

la: Id est, non asserendo. — Vat. adiungit *aliorum.*

en: That is, not asserting [it]. — The Vatican edition adds *of others.*

la: Cfr. 1. Sent. d. 43. q. 1. 3. 4. — Vat. omittit *in* ante *infinitum*, quae etiam paulo superius post *potest* [codd. F T *potest facere*] *tot, quin* supplet *possit.*

en: Cf. 1 *Sent.* d. 43, q. 1, 3, 4. — The Vatican edition omits *in* before *infinitum*, [the edition] which also a little above, after *potest* [codices F T *potest facere*], supplies *possit* in *tot, quin.* ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Inter doctores Latinos ad quaestionem communiter affirmative respondetur, praesertim post Concil. Lateranense IV., in quo (Cap. *Firmiter*) definitur, quod Deus «*simul ab initio temporis* utramque de nihilo condidit creaturam spiritualem et corporalem». Sed inter Patres, praecipue Graecos, non desunt, qui contrariam sententiam tenent; unde multi opinantur, per dicta verba Concilii contrariam sententiam non esse reprobatam. Etiam S. Thom. in Summa theolog. (loc. cit.) dicit: «Quamvis contrarium non sit reputandum erroneum, praecipue propter sententiam Gregorii Nazianzeni, cuius *tanta est in doctrina* christiana auctoritas, ut nullus unquam eius dictis calumniam inferre praesumserit, sicut nec Athanasii documentis, ut Hieronymus dicit».

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 19. m. 1. — Loci Scoti collecti a Montefortino, S. tom. II. p. I. q. 61. a. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; S. I. q. 61. a. 3; de Potent. q. 3. a. 18. 19. — B. Albert., hic a. 1; S. p. II. tr. 3. q. 11. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Among the Latin doctors the question is commonly answered affirmatively, especially after the Fourth Lateran Council, in which (chapter *Firmiter*) it is defined that God «*at once, from the beginning of time*, founded each creature, the spiritual and the corporeal, out of nothing». But among the Fathers, especially the Greeks, there are not lacking those who hold the contrary opinion; whence many think that, by the said words of the Council, the contrary opinion was not reproved. Even St. Thomas in the *Summa theologiae* (loc. cit.) says: «Although the contrary is not to be reckoned erroneous, especially because of the opinion of Gregory Nazianzen, whose *authority in Christian doctrine is so great* that no one ever presumed to bring a calumny against his sayings, just as neither against the writings of Athanasius, as Jerome says».

**II.** Alexander of Hales, S. p. II, q. 19, m. 1. — The passages of Scotus collected by Montefortino, S. tom. II, p. I, q. 61, a. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3; S. I, q. 61, a. 3; *de Potentia* q. 3, a. 18, 19. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1; S. p. II, tr. 3, q. 11. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3, quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here q. 1, a. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Source discipline.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi column-band PDF (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 67-68 --dpi 450` + `tools/colcrop.py vol2 {67,68}`) over the IA djvu OCR base (raw lines 5334–5449), per the Vol II override. Each page read Left column top→bottom, then Right column; body bands then footer bands. R-column footer notes' clipped far-left edges (the known colcrop L/R split artifact) recovered from the full-width cascade IA OCR.

**Page span / structure.** a2-q3 opens in normal type **partway down p.67**, beneath a2-q2's small-type Scholion I–III (which fills the top of p.67 in two-column small type). Body: 4 *videtur* (quod sic) arguments + 4 *Contra* arguments; a connexa fifth question on p.68 (`5. Item, quaeritur: quare tantum ista quatuor dicuntur primo esse creata?`); a *Conclusio* (the four first-created: empyrean heaven, angelic nature, matter, time) with a twofold-reason Respondeo; four numbered *Solutio* replies (replies 1 and 2 merged: «1. 2. Quod ergo obiicitur…»); **Scholion I–II** (I = the doctrinal note on Lateran IV *Firmiter* + the Greek-Fathers caveat; **II = a bibliographic source-list — there is no Scholion III**). The Scholion has no numbered apparatus (references inline). Marginal glosses trimmed per CLAUDE.md (`Fundamenta`, `Ad oppositum`, `Conclusio`, `Ratio 1/2`, `Solutio oppositorum`, `Prius dicitur 4 modis`, `Aliter`, `Notandum`).

**Apparatus crosswalk (per-page footer → continuous renumber).** Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each printed page; renumbered continuously 1–15:
- **p. 67** footer: L col notes 1–5 → `[^1]`–`[^5]`; R col notes 6–8 → `[^6]`–`[^8]`. (8 notes total.)
- **p. 68** footer: L col notes 1–3 → `[^9]`–`[^11]`; R col notes 4–7 → `[^12]`–`[^15]`. (7 notes total.)

**Cross-chunk footer boundary — CLEAN (no split).** a2-q2's Scholion I–III occupies the *top* of p.67 in small two-column type and carries **no apparatus**; a2-q3 (`QUAESTIO III`) then begins in normal type below it on p.67 and owns p.67's entire footer apparatus (notes 1–8, all body-anchored in a2-q3's *videtur*/*Contra*). The a2-q2→a2-q3 boundary is therefore **CLEAN — no split, no backfill**; committed `d2-p1-a2-q2` (its 9 apparatus entries: p.65 n.7 inherited + p.66 n.1–8) is untouched and correct. This confirms the session-20 rule precisely: a q→q+1 boundary splits the shared page's footer *iff q's scholion is short enough that q+1's body begins on the same printed page as q's footer* — a2-q1's one-paragraph scholion → split into a2-q2; a2-q2's full I–III scholion fills to a page top → a2-q3 gets its own page/footer → clean. (Same principle as the a1 clean boundaries.) On the far side, a2-q3's own Scholion I–II ends on p.68 with no spill; p.69 opens with the **DUBIA** running head (`DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI`, raw 5450+), which is the next chunk `d2-p1-dubia` — p.69's footer is the dubia's, not q3's. **ARTICULUS II is now closed** (a2-q1/q2/q3 all Tier-2); pars 1 needs only `d2-p1-dubia`.

**Decade polish (d.10 blocker).** No inline `[?]` flags — the 450 dpi crops were clean throughout; the only reconstruction was the routine R-col-footer left-edge recovery from the cascade IA OCR (notes 6–8 on p.67, notes 4–7 on p.68), which is full-width and faithful for footnote prose. One low-confidence item for the 600 dpi d.1–d.10 pass: `[^5]` (p.67 L footer note 5) opens `Num. 37:` in both the 450 dpi crop and the IA OCR — likely the Hilary *XII de Trin.* locus (book 12, n. 37) given as a textual-variant note on the body's `«Quid magnum, ut ante omnem creaturam…»`; rendered verbatim (`Num. 37`), the abbreviation is non-blocking and the sense (a variant of the Hilary quotation) is clear. **RESOLVED 2026-05-22** — 600 dpi p.67 L footer note 5 confirms `Num. 37:` exactly as transcribed.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 70 -->

### ARTICULUS I.

### *De natura caeli empyrei in se.*

### Quaestio I. *Utrum caelum empyreum sit, et cuiusmodi sit.*

Quaeritur ergo primo de caelo empyreo quantum ad qualitatem naturae, et quaeritur, utrum caelum empyreum sit, et si sit, cuiusmodi sit. Et quod sit, videtur.

1. In quolibet genere mobile praesupponit immobile[^1], quia omne fluxibile ad fixum terminatur; sed corpus caeli siderei est mobile: ergo supra illud de necessitate est ponere ulterius corpus, quod sit *immobile*; hoc autem dico empyreum. *Si tu dicas*, quod non requiritur, quia motus circularis est circa locum et non requirit immobilitatem nisi a parte medii[^2]; *contra*: totum caelum movetur;

<!-- page 71 -->

tunc ergo quaero de ultima superficie caeli, utrum moveatur; constat quod sic; sed omne mobile est in loco[^3], quia «non quaereretur locus, nisi esset motus»: ergo etc.

2. Item, in quolibet genere multiforme praesupponit uniforme, sicut multa praesupponunt unum[^4]; sed caelum sidereum est multiforme: ergo ultra illud et supra est corpus *uniforme*; hoc autem dicimus empyreum: ergo etc.

3. Item, in quolibet genere, in quo est ponere infimum et medium, est ponere supremum; sed gradus in corporibus attenditur secundum gradus perspicui et lucis; sed invenitur corpus opacum simpliciter, ut terra, et simpliciter[^5] secundum totum opacum: ergo si complementum est in corporibus, debet esse corpus simpliciter et secundum totum *luminosum*; hoc dico empyreum: ergo etc.

4. Item, habitatio habitatori debet respondere: ergo cum aliquis locus tenebrosus damnatis debeatur, ergo per oppositum videtur, quod lucidus debeatur Beatis[^6].

**Contra:**

1. Quod non conveniat universo, quod illud sit corpus *uniforme*, videtur, quia corpora mundi principalia creata sunt ordinata et ornata: ergo cum ornatus consistat in maiori distinctione et pulcritudinis additione, impossibile est, corpus illud esse uniforme.

2. Item, lux se diffundit secundum omnem differentiam positionis, ergo sursum et deorsum; sed lux solis maxime est diffusionis inter corpora mundi: ergo sursum se diffundit, cum non habeat obstaculum. Ergo cum non se habeat semper uniformiter, modo illuminat unam partem empyrei, modo aliam: ergo corpus illud non est uniforme in luminositate, ut videtur.

3. Item, quod non conveniat esse aliquod caelum *immobile*, videtur, quia omne caelum necessario est sphaericae figurae, sicut probat Philosophus[^7], et rei veritas est; sed sphaerica figura apta est omnino motui: ergo omne caelum, eo ipso quod caelum, est mobile: ergo etc.

4. Item, quod propinquius est motori citius et velocius movetur[^8]; sed corpus supremum est tale: ergo non solum moveri, sed etiam velocissime moveri competit sibi.

5. Item, hoc nobilitatis est in caelo, ut moveatur — unde orbis primus, scilicet caeli stellati, movetur velocius, et ratio huius est, ut assimiletur suo motori[^9] — sed quanto aliquod corpus superius, tanto nobilius et motori similius et tanto mobilius: ergo si empyreum est ultra firmamentum, non est ergo immobile.

### Conclusio

> Est caelum empyreum, et quidem uniforme, immobile et perfecte luminosum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quamvis Sancti parum loquantur de hoc caelo, quia latet nostros sensus, et philosophi adhuc minus, tamen ponere est caelum empyreum, sicut dicit sacra Scriptura: *In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram*[^10]. Strabus exponit de empyreo, et hoc probat per litteram sequentem, quia firmamentum et caelum aqueum facta sunt secundo die. Et Damascenus[^11] hoc exponit: *In principio creavit Deus caelum*, id est «sine stellis sphaericae formae».

Ponendum est etiam illud caelum, quia persuadet ratio finis triplex. Una est *perfectio universi*, alia est propter *motum firmamenti*, et tertia principalis propter *habitationem hominis beati*. Et quoniam finis imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem, propter *perfectionem*[^12] *universi* necesse est, ipsum esse *uniforme*, quia, cum sit caelum luminosum difforme, si non esset uniforme, non esset universum completum. Propter *motum firmamenti* ponendum est ipsum *immobile*, ut motus mobilis fiat circa immobile, scilicet centrum, et intra continens immobile et locans[^13], scilicet empyreum.

<!-- page 72 -->

Propter *habitationem hominis beati* ponendum est ipsum *luminositatis* perfectae, ut habitatio congruat suo habitatori. — Ex his igitur colligitur, quare sit factum, et cuius sit dispositionis inter alios caelos, quia *uniforme, immobile et luminositatis perfectae*.

1. Quod obiicitur, quod non est uniforme, quia[^14] ornatum; dicendum, quod ipsa lux propter sui nobilitatem est sibi ornatus; quoniam ergo corpus illud est luminosum per totum, alio ornatu non indiget. — Vel potest dici, quod, sicut illud caelum decoratum est *astris*, ita istud Angelis, qui sunt quasi astra caeli empyrei, iuxta illud Iob trigesimo octavo[^15]: *Cum me laudarent astra matutina.* Et iterum, *astra* eius erunt homines beati, et quasi *sol* eius erit Agnus Dei.

2. Quod obiicitur, quod sol diffundit lumen in ipsum empyreum; dicendum, quod illius corporis non est recipere lumen, ad minus[^16] ab inferioribus. Et ratio huius est limitatio virtutis a parte solis, quia nihil agit ultra terminum sibi a Deo constitutum. Unde sicut ignis stat, cum pervenit ad horizontem, nec ultra progreditur, et terra, cum pervenit ad centrum; ita solis radii non protenduntur extra firmamentum, quia lucerna est huius visibilis orbis. — Alia ratio est, quia maior influentia absorbet minorem; et ideo tanta est illius caeli influentia, quod ad ipsum non pervenit minor, sicut candela non illuminat solem.

3. 4. Quod obiicitur, quod est mobile, quia sphaericum et propinquum[^17]; dicendum, quod ad motum non sufficit sphaerica figura, sed etiam necessarius est, ut dicunt aliqui, locus continens; et rationabile videtur. Necessarius est etiam absque dubio effectus, vel utilitas mobilis vel alterius. Quoniam ergo caelum illud non est in alio, et quoniam est uniforme per totum, per sui motum nihil faceret; et ideo est immobile. Similiter, quia est uniforme, non habet moveri, quia non habet dextrum et sinistrum. — Sed prima ratio de immobilitate non habet multam necessitatem, cum motus circularis secundum Philosophum[^18] non requirat locum *in quo*, sed *circa quem*. Secunda de utilitate similiter, quia similiter posset dici de aqueo; eodem modo de tertia[^19]. Praeterea, dextrum et sinistrum sunt in caelo non ratione diversitatis partium, sed ratione influentiae motoris; et illud satis faciliter probatur, quia dextrum et sinistrum non mutatur, quamvis omnes partes caeli mutentur.

Et ideo ratio, quare non movetur, est, quia Deus nihil influit super ipsum ad motum, sed ad quietem tantum; et sicut influentia Dei movet firmamentum, sic quietat empyreum. — Ratio autem huius est, quia locus ille est regio deputata his qui omni modo in statu sunt et quiete; et ita patet, quod non magis appropinquat motori, ut *motor* est, sed ut est *stabiliens*. — Ex hac ratione, scilicet quia est, ut sit locus Beatorum, accipitur triplex eius proprietas[^20], scilicet *immobilitas, uniformitas* et *luminositas*. Et haec est ratio magis catholica, quia etiam motus caeli stellati non est nisi propter obsequium hominis viatoris; unde numero electorum completo, non erit amplius revolutio. Rationes autem philosophicae[^21], quae assignantur de motu caeli, apud fideles plus habent vanitatis quam veritatis, si quis diligenter aspiciat.

5. Quod enim obiicit de assimilatione, responderi potest, quod illa causa est nulla, sed impletio numeri electorum. — Vel dicendum, quod est assimilatio in *essendo*, et est assimilatio in *causando*. Verbum Philosophi non habet veritatem primo modo, quia Deus et motor caeli est immobilis; sed secundo modo, quia per sui motum est causa generationis[^22]. Quia ergo empyreum non assimilaretur in *causando*, si moveretur, et esset minus simile in *essendo*; ideo simpliciter dicendum, ipsum esse immobile. Et sic patent omnia.

<!-- page 73 -->

english:
### ARTICLE I.

### *On the nature of the empyrean heaven in itself.*

### Question I. *Whether the empyrean heaven exists, and of what kind it is.*

It is asked, therefore, first concerning the empyrean heaven as to the quality of [its] nature, and it is asked whether the empyrean heaven exists, and, if it exists, of what kind it is. And that it exists, it seems.

1. In every genus the mobile presupposes the immobile[^1], because everything flowing terminates at something fixed; but the body of the starry heaven is mobile: therefore above it of necessity one must posit a further body, which is *immobile*; and this I call the empyrean. *If you say* that [this] is not required, because circular motion is around a place and does not require immobility except on the part of the center[^2]; *on the contrary*: the whole heaven moves;

<!-- page 71 -->

then therefore I ask concerning the outermost surface of the heaven, whether it moves; it is established that [it does] so; but everything mobile is in a place[^3], because «a place would not be sought, were there not motion»: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in every genus the multiform presupposes the uniform, just as the many presuppose the one[^4]; but the starry heaven is multiform: therefore beyond and above it there is a *uniform* body; and this we call the empyrean: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, in every genus in which there is something lowest and something intermediate to posit, there is something highest to posit; but grade in bodies is reckoned according to the grades of the transparent and of light; but a body is found wholly opaque, like earth, and wholly[^5] opaque throughout: therefore if there is a completion in bodies, there must be a body wholly and throughout *luminous*; and this I call the empyrean: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the dwelling ought to correspond to the dweller: therefore since some dark place is owed to the damned, then by the opposite it seems that a bright [place] is owed to the Blessed[^6].

**On the contrary:**

1. That it does not befit the universe that it be a *uniform* body, seems [so], because the principal bodies of the world were created ordered and adorned: therefore since adornment consists in greater distinction and the addition of beauty, it is impossible that that body be uniform.

2. Likewise, light diffuses itself according to every difference of position, therefore upward and downward; but the light of the sun is of the greatest diffusion among the bodies of the world: therefore it diffuses itself upward, since it has no obstacle. Therefore since it does not behave always uniformly — now it illumines one part of the empyrean, now another: therefore that body is not uniform in luminosity, as it seems.

3. Likewise, that it does not befit there to be any *immobile* heaven, seems [so], because every heaven is necessarily of spherical figure, as the Philosopher proves[^7], and the truth of the matter is [so]; but a spherical figure is apt for motion entirely: therefore every heaven, by the very fact that it is a heaven, is mobile: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, what is nearer to the mover moves more quickly and more swiftly[^8]; but the highest body is such: therefore not only to be moved, but also to be moved most swiftly, befits it.

5. Likewise, it belongs to [the] nobility in a heaven that it be moved — whence the first orb, namely that of the starry heaven, moves more swiftly, and the reason for this is that it may be assimilated to its mover[^9] — but the higher some body [is], the nobler and the more like the mover and the more mobile [it is]: therefore if the empyrean is beyond the firmament, it is therefore not immobile.

### Conclusion

> The empyrean heaven exists, and indeed [it is] uniform, immobile, and perfectly luminous.

**I respond:** It must be said that although the Saints speak little of this heaven, because it is hidden from our senses, and the philosophers [speak of it] still less, nevertheless one must posit that there is an empyrean heaven, as Scripture itself says: *In the beginning God created heaven and earth*[^10]. Strabus expounds [this] of the empyrean, and he proves this by the following text, since the firmament and the watery heaven were made on the second day. And Damascene[^11] expounds it [thus]: *In the beginning God created heaven*, that is, «without stars, of spherical form».

That heaven must also be posited because a threefold reason of end persuades [it]. One is the *perfection of the universe*, another is on account of the *motion of the firmament*, and the third [and] principal is on account of the *dwelling of blessed man*. And since the end imposes necessity on the things which are for the end, on account of the *perfection*[^12] *of the universe* it is necessary that it be *uniform*, because, since [if] it were a non-uniform luminous heaven, were it not uniform, the universe would not be complete. On account of the *motion of the firmament* it must be posited *immobile*, so that the motion of the mobile may take place around the immobile, namely the center, and within a containing immobile and locating [body][^13], namely the empyrean.

<!-- page 72 -->

On account of the *dwelling of blessed man* it must be posited of perfect *luminosity*, so that the dwelling may be congruous to its dweller. — From these [things], therefore, it is gathered why it was made and of what disposition it is among the other heavens, namely *uniform, immobile, and of perfect luminosity*.

1. To what is objected, that it is not uniform because[^14] adorned; it must be said that the light itself, on account of its nobility, is its own adornment; since therefore that body is luminous throughout, it needs no other adornment. — Or it can be said that, just as that [starry] heaven is adorned with *stars*, so this [empyrean is adorned] with the Angels, who are as it were the stars of the empyrean heaven, according to that [text] of Job thirty-eight[^15]: *When the morning stars praised me.* And again, its *stars* will be the blessed men, and as it were its *sun* will be the Lamb of God.

2. To what is objected, that the sun diffuses light into the empyrean itself; it must be said that it does not belong to that body to receive light, at least[^16] from things below. And the reason for this is the limitation of power on the part of the sun, because nothing acts beyond the term set for it by God. Hence, just as fire stops when it reaches the horizon, nor goes further, and earth [stops] when it reaches the center; so the sun's rays are not extended beyond the firmament, because [the sun] is the lamp of this visible orb. — Another reason is that a greater influence absorbs a lesser one; and therefore so great is the influence of that heaven that a lesser one does not reach it, just as a candle does not illumine the sun.

3. 4. To what is objected, that it is mobile because spherical and near[^17]; it must be said that for motion a spherical figure does not suffice, but there is also necessary, as some say, a containing place; and [this] seems reasonable. There is also necessary, without doubt, an effect, or the utility of the mobile or of another. Since therefore that heaven is not in another, and since it is uniform throughout, by its motion it would do nothing; and therefore it is immobile. Likewise, since it is uniform, it does not have [the property] to be moved, because it does not have right and left. — But the first reason concerning immobility does not have much necessity, since circular motion, according to the Philosopher[^18], does not require a place *in which*, but [a place] *around which*. The second, concerning utility, likewise, because the same could be said of the watery [heaven]; in the same way concerning the third[^19]. Moreover, right and left are in the heaven not by reason of a diversity of parts, but by reason of the influence of the mover; and that is proved easily enough, because right and left do not change, although all the parts of the heaven change.

And therefore the reason why it does not move is that God infuses nothing into it toward motion, but only toward rest; and just as the influence of God moves the firmament, so it brings the empyrean to rest. — But the reason for this is that that place is a region deputed for those who are in every way in [a state of] stability and rest; and so it is clear that it does not approach the mover more [in so far] as it is *mover*, but [in so far] as it is *stabilizing*. — From this reason, namely because it is [there] so that it may be the place of the Blessed, its threefold property is taken[^20], namely *immobility, uniformity*, and *luminosity*. And this is the more catholic reason, because even the motion of the starry heaven is only on account of the service of wayfaring man; whence, the number of the elect being completed, there will be no further revolution. But the philosophical reasons[^21] which are assigned concerning the motion of the heaven, among the faithful have more of vanity than of truth, if one looks diligently.

5. As to what he objects concerning assimilation, it can be answered that that cause is null, but [the cause is] the filling-up of the number of the elect. — Or it must be said that there is an assimilation in *being*, and there is an assimilation in *causing*. The saying of the Philosopher does not have truth in the first way, because God and the mover of the heaven is immobile; but [it has truth] in the second way, because by its motion it is the cause of generation[^22]. Since therefore the empyrean would not be assimilated in *causing*, if it were moved, and would be less similar in *being*; therefore it must be said simply that it is immobile. And so all [the objections] are clear.

<!-- page 73 -->

la: Cfr. tom. 1. pag. 78, nota 2. et pag. 157, nota 11. — Paulo superius Vat. *cuiusmodi naturae* pro *cuiusmodi*.

en: Cf. tom. 1, p. 78, note 2, and p. 157, note 11. — A little above, the Vatican edition [reads] *cuiusmodi naturae* ["of what kind of nature"] for *cuiusmodi* ["of what kind"].

la: Vide Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 76. (c. 9.), ubi probat, motum circularem ex sua natura esse continuum, quia in ipso per se non distinguitur principium, medium et finis; haec enim tria pertinent ad centrum, *circa quod*, non *ad quod* movetur.

en: See Aristotle, VIII *Physics* text 76 (c. 9), where he proves that circular motion is of its nature continuous, because in it of itself beginning, middle, and end are not distinguished; for these three pertain to the center, *around which*, not *toward which*, [the thing] moves.

la: Aristot., V. Phys. text. 8. (c. 1.): «Omne quod movetur, in loco est». Sequens prop. est Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 32. (c. 4.), quam Vat. invertit *non quaereretur motus, nisi esset locus.* Nonnulli codd. *nisi esset locus motus (localis motus?)* quod respondet Aristot. textui.) — Notamus, quod in hoc argumento proponitur solutio difficultatis, quae animos Commentatorum Aristotelis, IV. Phys. text. 43. (c. 5.), diu agitabat, et quam Averroes ita proponit: «Accidit in eo magna quaestio, quoniam manifestum est, ipsum (totum orbem) moveri, et cum omne motum sit in loco, necesse est, ut totus orbis sit in loco: ergo sumus inter duo: aut ponere, quod aliquid motum non est in loco, aut ponere, quod locus est inane (vacuum) et dimensio». Refutatis dein opinionibus Ioannis Grammatici, Themistii, Alfarabii, Avempacis, ipse tenet, quod ultima sphaera seu caelum dicatur esse *in loco* per accidens, in quantum centrum terrae, *circa quod* revolvitur et cuius indiget tanquam quiescentis et fixi, habet *esse in loco*.

en: Aristotle, V *Physics* text 8 (c. 1): «Everything that is moved is in a place». The following proposition is Aristotle, IV *Physics* text 32 (c. 4), which the Vatican edition inverts: *motion would not be sought, were there not a place.* Some codices [read] *nisi esset locus motus (localis motus?)*, which corresponds to Aristotle's text). — We note that in this argument is proposed the solution of a difficulty which long agitated the minds of the Commentators on Aristotle, IV *Physics* text 43 (c. 5), and which Averroes proposes thus: «There arises in this a great question, since it is manifest that it (the whole orb) is moved, and since everything moved is in a place, it is necessary that the whole orb be in a place: therefore we are between two [alternatives]: either to posit that something moved is not in a place, or to posit that a place is something empty (a void) and dimension». Then, the opinions of John the Grammarian, Themistius, Alfarabi, [and] Avempace having been refuted, he himself holds that the outermost sphere or heaven is said to be *in a place* per accidens, in so far as it has *being in a place* [through] the center of the earth, *around which* it revolves and which it needs as something at rest and fixed.

la: Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 22. (c. 4.): Prius natura in unoquoque genere est unum multis.

en: Aristotle, II *On the Heaven and the World*, text 22 (c. 4): Prior by nature in each genus is the one to the many.

la: In nonnullis codd. ut X Z deest *simpliciter.* Vat. legit *Sed invenitur corpus opacum simpliciter et secundum totum, ut terra.* Ed. 4, retenta lectione codd., ultimam propositionis partem sic exhibet *ut terra, et simpliciter et secundum totum opacum, ut firmamentum.*

en: In some codices, as X Z, *simpliciter* is lacking. The Vatican edition reads *But a body is found wholly opaque and throughout, like earth.* Ed. 4, the reading of the codices being retained, presents the last part of the proposition thus: *like earth, both wholly and throughout opaque, like the firmament.*

la: Aristot., de Mundo, c. 7. (c. 6.) de habitatione Dei loquens ait: *Quem locum tum Uranon ab origine vocis dicimus quasi terminum extimum supremorum corporum, tum etiam Olympum ut usquequaque lucidum, ab omni caligine secretum motuque omni incondito* etc.

en: Aristotle, *On the World*, c. 7 (c. 6), speaking of the dwelling of God, says: *Which place we call both Uranon from the origin of the word, as it were the outermost term of the highest bodies, and also Olympus as everywhere bright, secluded from all darkness and from all disordered motion* etc.

la: Libr. II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 22. seqq. (c. 4.).

en: Book II *On the Heaven and the World*, text 22 and following (c. 4).

la: Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 84. (c. 10.): Celerrime moventur quae proxima sunt moventi. Cfr. de Mundo, c. 7. (c. 6.).

en: Aristotle, VIII *Physics* text 84 (c. 10): Most swiftly move the things which are nearest to the mover. Cf. *On the World*, c. 7 (c. 6).

la: Averroes super XII. Metaph. text. 37: Primum enim caelum movetur ab isto motore secundum desiderium, ut assimiletur ei secundum suum *posse*, sicut amatum movetur, ut assimiletur suo amato; alia autem corpora caelestia moventur secundum desiderium ad motum primi corporis etc. Cfr. etiam Avicenna, IX. Metaph. c. 2. seqq.

en: Averroes on XII *Metaphysics* text 37: For the first heaven is moved by that mover according to desire, that it may be assimilated to it according to its *capacity*, just as the beloved is moved that it may be assimilated to its lover; but the other celestial bodies are moved according to desire toward the motion of the first body etc. Cf. also Avicenna, IX *Metaphysics* c. 2 and following.

la: Gen. 1, 1. — Verba Strabi vide hic, lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: Genesis 1:1. — For the words of Strabus see here, the text of the Master, c. 4.

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

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

la: Cod. Z *propter perfectam rationem*, qui subinde post *si non esset* adiungit *empyreum quod est.*

en: Codex Z [reads] *on account of [its] perfect character*, which thereupon, after *si non esset*, adds *empyreum quod est.*

la: Plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 *et locum*, in aliquibus tamen codd., ed. 1 et in anecdoto compendio Commentarii S. Bonaventurae, scripto a Fr. Gulielmo de Mara, habetur *locans.*

en: Most codices, with ed. 1, [read] *et locum* ["and place"]; in some codices, however, [in] ed. 1, and in the unpublished compendium of the Commentary of St. Bonaventure written by Fr. William de la Mare, is found *locans* ["locating"].

la: Vat. cum nonnullis codd. perperam addit *non.*

en: The Vatican edition, with some codices, wrongly adds *non.*

la: Vers. 7, in cuius expositione Gregor., XXVIII. Moral. c. 14. n. 34, Angelos vocat astra matutina, homines redemtos autem astra vespertina. — In fine solutionis alluditur ad Apoc. 21, 23.

en: Verse 7, in the exposition of which Gregory, XXVIII *Morals*, c. 14, n. 34, calls the Angels morning stars, but redeemed men evening stars. — At the end of the solution allusion is made to Apocalypse 21:23.

la: Vat. *lumen maius.* Paulo inferius cod. H *ad suam sphaeram* pro *ad horizontem* (in codd. et primis edd. *horizonta*; codd. N aa adiungunt *suum*). Dein post *progreditur* in codd. A U additur *et mare cum pervenit ad littus.*

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *lumen maius* ["greater light"]. A little below, codex H [reads] *ad suam sphaeram* ["to its sphere"] for *ad horizontem* ["to the horizon"] (in the codices and the first editions *horizonta*; codices N aa add *suum*). Then after *progreditur*, in codices A U is added *and the sea, when it reaches the shore.*

la: Supple cum Vat. *motori*, quae etiam aliquanto inferius pro *vel utilitas* ponit *videlicet utilitas.*

en: Supply, with the Vatican edition, *motori* ["to the mover"], which also a little below, for *vel utilitas* ["or the utility"], puts *videlicet utilitas* ["namely the utility"].

la: Cfr. supra pag. 70, nota 4, et l. de Caelo et mundo, text. 5. (c. 2.), ubi ait: «Circularis igitur [motus] est, qui circa medium fit». Libr. II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 27. (c. 4.) probat, caelum esse sphaericae figurae, ex hoc quod in omnibus aliis motibus accideret, et locum et vacuum esse extra lationem caeli, quod est impossibile. — Cfr. in eodem libro text. 7. seqq. (c. 2. seqq.) cum Comment. Averrois, quae spectant ad ea quae sequuntur de dextro et sinistro in caelo et de eius influentia.

en: Cf. above p. 70, note 4, and the book *On the Heaven and the World*, text 5 (c. 2), where he says: «Circular [motion], therefore, is that which takes place around the middle». Book II *On the Heaven and the World*, text 27 (c. 4), proves that the heaven is of spherical figure, from the fact that in all other motions there would result both a place and a void outside the bearing of the heaven, which is impossible. — Cf. in the same book text 7 and following (c. 2 and following) with the Commentary of Averroes, [the things] which pertain to what follows concerning right and left in the heaven and concerning its influence.

la: Intellige: dici posset respectu caeli aquei. — Vat., interpunctione variata, sic: *Secunda de utilitate non similiter, quia similiter posset dici de aqueo: eodem modo de tertia, quia dextrum* etc. Codd. sunt divisi inter se quoad primam propositionis partem; nam aliqui ut T Y aa cc cum ed. 1 pro *utilitate* substituunt *inutilitate*, retinentes particulam *non*, excepto cod. aa, quem in hoc sumus secuti; alii consentiunt lectioni Vat., quae explicatur ex cod. 1: *Secunda de utilitate non valeret similiter.* Quoad alteram partem codd. et primae edd. sunt contra Vat., quae etiam paulo inferius cum nonnullis mss. ponit *non mutantur* pro *non mutatur.*

en: Understand: it could be said with respect to the watery heaven. — The Vatican edition, with the punctuation varied, [reads] thus: *The second, concerning utility, not similarly, because the same could be said of the watery [heaven]: in the same way concerning the third, because right* etc. The codices are divided among themselves as to the first part of the proposition; for some, as T Y aa cc with ed. 1, for *utilitate* substitute *inutilitate*, retaining the particle *non*, except codex aa, which we have followed in this; others agree with the reading of the Vatican edition, which is explained from cod. 1: *The second, concerning utility, would not similarly hold.* As to the other part the codices and the first editions are against the Vatican edition, which also a little below, with some manuscripts, puts *non mutantur* for *non mutatur.*

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 *accipitur triplex ratio, secundum quod est triplex eius proprietas.*

en: Codex cc and ed. 1 [read] *a threefold reason is taken, according as its property is threefold.*

la: Vat. *Philosophi.* Aliquanto inferius cod. cc et ed. 1 *inspiciat* pro *aspiciat.*

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *Philosophi* ["of the Philosopher"]. A little below, codex cc and ed. 1 [read] *inspiciat* for *aspiciat.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Gener. et corrupt., text. 56. seqq. (c. 10.). — Mox Vat. *non magis assimilaretur* pro *non assimilaretur.*

en: Cf. Aristotle, II *On Generation and Corruption*, text 56 and following (c. 10). — Shortly after, the Vatican edition [reads] *non magis assimilaretur* for *non assimilaretur.* ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** S. Bonav. (Breviloq. p. II. c. 3.) distinguit «tres caelos principales, scil. empyreum, crystallinum et firmamentum. Intra firmamentum autem, quod est caelum stellarum, continentur septem orbes planetarum, qui sunt saturnus, iupiter, mars, sol, venus, mercurius, luna... et sic procedendo a summo cardine caeli usque ad centrum terrae, decem concurrunt orbes caelestes et quatuor sphaerae elementares». Plura de his vide hic dub. 2, infra d. 14. per totam, d. 12. a. 2. q. 1. 2. 3. — Ex sacra Scriptura satis constat, esse aliquem locum ut habitaculum statui Beatorum congruum, qui ab antiquis doctoribus vocabatur *caelum empyreum*. De natura eius, sicut et de numero, motu et qualitatibus caelorum in genere, illa aetate exortae sunt non paucae quaestiones, quae pro conditione scientiae de rebus physicis et astronomicis tunc vigentis a theologis non sine multis controversiis solvebantur. Non tamen est opinandum, illos doctores multas de istis rebus assertiones habuisse ut spectantes ad fidem, vel ut certas. Ipse S. Bonav. pluries observat, suas conclusiones videri tantum probabiliores. Nemo negare potest, nostra aetate, mediante accuratiore observatione, rerum naturalium scientias progressum fecisse maximum, multasque assertiones Aristotelis de hac re omnium calculo nunc iure reprobari, quae tunc omnium doctorum sententia approbatae erant. Quare non paucae sententiae et multa argumenta de rebus physicis, quae hic et in nonnullis aliis quaestionibus sequentibus occurrunt, nunc obsoleta sunt. Hinc superfluum videtur singulorum magistrorum de his sententias annotare, sed sufficiat indicare auctores de hac et seq. quaest. tractantes.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 19. m. 3. a. 1. 2. 3, et q. 47. m. 1-5. — Scot., II. Sent. d. 14. q. 1. 2. 3, et Report. d. 14. q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1-3; S. I. q. 61. a. 4, q. 66. a. 3., q. 68. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 3-5; S. p. II. tr. 3. q. 12. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. 2. 3. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. 3. 4. — Durand., hic q. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3. 4. — Biel, II. Sent. d. 14. q. unic.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** St. Bonaventure (*Breviloquium* p. II, c. 3) distinguishes «three principal heavens, namely the empyrean, the crystalline, and the firmament. Within the firmament, however, which is the heaven of the stars, are contained the seven orbs of the planets, which are Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, the Moon... and so proceeding from the highest hinge of the heaven down to the center of the earth, ten celestial orbs and four elemental spheres concur». More on these see here dub. 2, below d. 14 throughout, d. 12, a. 2, q. 1, 2, 3. — From sacred Scripture it is sufficiently established that there is some place as a dwelling congruous to the state of the Blessed, which by the ancient doctors was called the *empyrean heaven*. Concerning its nature, as also concerning the number, motion, and qualities of the heavens in general, in that age there arose not a few questions, which, given the condition of the science of physical and astronomical matters then flourishing, were resolved by the theologians not without many controversies. Yet it is not to be supposed that those doctors held many of their assertions about these matters as pertaining to faith, or as certain. St. Bonaventure himself repeatedly observes that his conclusions seem only [the] more probable. No one can deny that in our age, by means of more accurate observation, the natural sciences have made the greatest progress, and that many assertions of Aristotle on this matter are now by everyone's reckoning rightly rejected, which then by the opinion of all the doctors were approved. Hence not a few opinions and many arguments about physical matters, which occur here and in some other following questions, are now obsolete. Hence it seems superfluous to annotate the opinions of the individual masters on these [matters], but let it suffice to indicate the authors treating of this and the following question.

**II.** Alexander of Hales, S. p. II, q. 19, m. 3, a. 1, 2, 3, and q. 47, m. 1-5. — Scotus, II *Sent.* d. 14, q. 1, 2, 3, and *Reportatio* d. 14, q. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1-3; S. I, q. 61, a. 4, q. 66, a. 3, q. 68, a. 4. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3-5; S. p. II, tr. 3, q. 12. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1, 2, 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3, q. 1, 2, 3. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 1, 2, 3, 4. — Durandus, here q. 1, 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3, 4. — Biel, II *Sent.* d. 14, q. unic.

---

translators_notes:
**Source discipline.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi column-band PDF (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 70-73 --dpi 450` + `tools/colcrop.py vol2 {70,71,72,73}`) over the IA djvu OCR base (raw lines 5555–5743), per the Vol II override. Each page read Left column top→bottom, then Right column; body bands then footer bands. The Respondeo + five-reply Solutio are heavily cascade-shattered in the IA OCR (raw 5652–5663 are diagonal one-token-per-line garble) — the 450 dpi column-band crops are authoritative there. R-column footer notes' clipped far-left edges (the known colcrop L/R split artifact) recovered from the full-width cascade IA OCR.

**Page span / structure.** ARTICULUS I (`De natura caeli empyrei in se`) opener folded into this q1 (Vol II convention, CLAUDE.md override step 5 — no standalone `d2-p2-a1-divisio`). QUAESTIO I spans printed pp. **70–73**: opens on p.70 (beneath the divisio's TRACTATIO) with 4 *videtur* (quod sit) arguments + 5 *Contra* arguments; a *Conclusio* (the empyrean exists, and is uniform, immobile, perfectly luminous) + a triple-reason Respondeo (perfection of the universe / motion of the firmament / dwelling of blessed man → uniform / immobile / luminous); five numbered *Solutio* replies (replies 3 and 4 merged: «3. 4. Quod obiicitur…»); **Scholion I–II** (I = the *Breviloquium* three-heavens note + the Quaracchi editors' observation that the scholastic physics here is obsolete; **II = a bibliographic source-list — no Scholion III**). The Scholion carries no numbered apparatus (references inline). Marginal glosses trimmed per CLAUDE.md (`Fundamenta`, `Ad oppositum`, `Conclusio 1/2/3/4`, `Ratio finis triplex`, `Solutio oppositorum`, `Alia solutio`, `Ratio 1/2/3/4`, `Ratio 4 principalis`, `Hae rationes pariter probant`, `Hinc colliguntur triplex proprietas`).

**Apparatus crosswalk (per-page footer → continuous renumber).** Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each printed page; renumbered continuously 1–22:
- **p. 70** footer: **notes 3–4 only** → `[^1]`–`[^2]` (the inherited 3-way split — see below). n.3 anchors fundamentum 1's *immobile¹*; n.4 anchors *a parte medii²*.
- **p. 71** footer: L col notes 1–3 + R col notes 4–10 → `[^3]`–`[^12]` (10 notes; n.1, n.3 are long L→R runover notes whose left edges were recovered from the IA OCR).
- **p. 72** footer: L col notes 1–6 + R col notes 7–10 → `[^13]`–`[^22]` (10 notes; n.7 a long L→R runover).

**Cross-chunk footer boundaries.**
- *Incoming (divisio → a1-q1): SPLIT at p.70, three-way — INHERITED.* Printed p.70's footer has four notes: n.1 (`Cfr. 1. Sent. d. 30. q. 1. seqq.`) → committed `d2-p1-dubia` (`[^13]`); n.2 (`Vat. … hic et in principio principalis quaestionis quidditatem.`) → committed `d2-p2-divisio` (`[^1]`); **n.3–4 → this chunk** (`[^1]`–`[^2]`). **No backfill** to either committed chunk (both are complete and correct).
- *Outgoing (a1-q1 → a1-q2): CLEAN, no split.* q1's body (through reply 5) ends on p.72; q1's Scholion I–II occupies the top of p.73 in two-column small type and carries **no numbered apparatus**; `QUAESTIO II` then begins on p.73 in normal type, and p.73's footer apparatus (notes 1–3 visible: `Vide Dionys. de Caelest. Hierarch. c. 11…`; `Cfr. supra pag. 46, nota 1…`; `Aristot., de Mundo, c. 7…`) is **q2's**, anchored in q2's body. So the a1-q1→a1-q2 boundary is **CLEAN** — the no-apparatus-scholion-tail clean-boundary pattern (same as d2-p1 a1-q1/q2/q3 and a2-q3). When `d2-p2-a1-q2` is built (session 25), start its apparatus at **p.73 footer note 1**, by body anchor; **no backfill to this chunk.** (The p.73 running head reads `DIST. II. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II.` because q2 begins on that page — the head names the forward quaestio; q1's scholion still owns the top of p.73.)

**Decade polish (d.10 blocker).** No inline `[?]` flags — the 450 dpi crops were clean throughout; the only reconstruction was the routine R-col-footer left-edge recovery from the cascade IA OCR (p.71 n.4–10, p.72 n.7–10), which is full-width and faithful for footnote prose. No low-confidence numerals this chunk.

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. 2, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 73 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum caelum empyreum influat in haec inferiora.*

Secundo quaeritur de empyreo quantum ad virtutem influentiae. Et quaeritur, utrum empyreum influat in haec inferiora, an non. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. In quolibet creato, quod est perfectum et completum, est substantia, virtus et operatio[^1]: ergo in ipso empyreo. Si ergo habet virtutem, aut operatur in id quod supra, vel in id quod iuxta, vel in id quod infra. Non in id quod supra, planum est; nec in id quod iuxta, quia ipsum est supra omnia corpora: ergo videtur, quod per illam virtutem influit in id quod infra; aut virtus et substantia eius erit otiosa, quod est plane inconveniens.

2. Item, omnia corpora propter humanum obsequium sunt facta, unde «sumus nos finis quodam modo omnium eorum quae sunt[^2]»: ergo si empyreum aliquid est, de aliquo servit homini; sed hoc non faceret, nisi aliquid in haec inferiora influeret: ergo etc.

3. Item, quanto aliquod corpus situ est superius, tanto inter corpora nobilius est[^3], et quanto nobilius, tanto potentius et melius, et quanto potentius et melius, tanto in agendo et influendo efficacius: si ergo caelum empyreum est supremum, ergo videtur, quod sit maxime influens in haec inferiora.

4. Item, quanto lumen[^4] est maius, tanto magis se diffundit et multiplicat: si ergo empyreum inter corpora est luminosum maxime, ergo maxime diffusivum; sed lumen illud non privatur efficacia vegetandi et conservandi, quemadmodum nec lumen firmamenti: ergo videtur, quod empyreum in haec inferiora magis sit influens.

**Contra:**

1. Influentia caelestis corporis maxime consistit in diffusione luminis et caloris; sed empyreum non calefacit[^5], nec ista corpora inferiora irradiat: ergo videtur, quod nulla sit influentia empyrei in haec inferiora.

2. Item, corpora, quae sunt infra firmamentum, sufficienter influunt ad vegetationem et generationem in his inferioribus faciendam: ergo «si natura nihil frustra facit[^6]», videtur, quod alterius caeli influentia nulla sit, cum nullius sit opportunitatis.

3. Item, influentia caeli debet esse conformis ei a quo est, debet etiam nihilominus esse conformis ei a quo recipitur; sed caelum empyreum est

<!-- page 74 -->

incorruptibile, uniforme, quietissimum, statui et quieti gloriae deputatum, haec autem, quae infra sunt, habent omnino oppositas conditiones: ergo videtur, quod nullo modo super corpora inferiora influere habeat[^7].

4. Item, si influit super corpora, aut ergo ad nobiliorem effectum, quam sit influentia octavae sphaerae, aut ad *minus nobilem*, aut ad *eundem* effectum. Ad *eundem* non *oportet*; ad *minus nobilem* non *decet*, cum illud corpus sit nobilius; ad *magis nobilem* non *potest*: ergo nullo modo influit. *Probatio*: quod non *possit* in magis nobilem, videtur. Nam, sicut volunt philosophi et communiter tenent viri physici[^8], influentia caeli est operans ad productionem animae sensibilis; sed supra animam sensibilem non est nisi rationalis, haec autem nulli corpori est subiecta, immo est a creatione pura: ergo nullo modo potest eminentior esse influentia quam supra animam sensibilem; et supra hanc influit firmamentum sufficienter cum his quae sunt infra: ergo videtur, quod nulla sit influentia empyrei existentis supra. *Si tu dicas*, quod influit non ratione animae in se, sed ratione dispositionis a parte corporis; *contra*: anima rationalis unitur mediante vi sensitiva et vegetativa, et corpus disponitur ad susceptionem animae mediante complexione aequali et spiritu triplici, scilicet vitali, naturali et animali[^9]; et ad haec omnia influit hoc caelum sidereum sufficienter: ergo redit idem quod prius.

### Conclusio

> Caelum empyreum in corpora inferiora aliquam habet influentiam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circa hoc duplex fuit opinio.

Quidam namque dixerunt, quod caelum empyreum influit in haec inferiora, et influentia nobilissima. — Cum enim sit corpus, necesse est, *influentiam* suam, si qua est, esse corporalem. *Rursus*, cum sit excellentissimum inter corpora caelestia, influit super corpora nobilissima, et talia sunt corpora humana, quae sunt ordinata ad nobilissimam formam, scilicet animam rationalem, quae maiorem et nobiliorem dispositionem exigit in sua materia. Cum igitur natura lucis disponat ad vitam, et triplex sit vita secundum triplicem differentiam animae, differens gradu et dignitate; tres Deus condidit caelos ordinatos inter se gradu et dignitate, non solum naturae, sed etiam influentiae, ita quod caelum *sidereum* de se ordinatur ad conciliationem elementorum, ad susceptionem vegetabilis, *crystallinum* ad susceptionem sensibilis, sed *empyreum* ad susceptionem rationalis.

Et hoc quidem rationabile videtur non solum ratione *ordinis influentiae*, sed etiam ratione *conformitatis naturae*. Caelum enim empyreum est locus spiritualium substantiarum, locus etiam corporum glorificatorum. Et quoniam convenientia est loci ad locatum vel manifesta vel occulta, videtur influentia illius caeli esse consona corporibus nostris et animabus amica, non ratione sui, sed ratione suorum corporum, quae perficiunt et informant[^10].

Alia vero opinio fuit circa hoc omnino isti contraria, quae dixit, quod caeli empyrei in haec inferiora nulla est omnino influentia, quia non habent corpora influentiam nisi secundum ordinem Conditoris, habito respectu ad finem. Quoniam igitur empyreum ad perfectionem universi est conditum, et ut sit locus Beatorum, ideo regio illa[^11] et lux est a nobis remota et occulta, sicut et ipsa gloria, quam per gratiam exspectamus et amamus et credimus, licet non videamus. Et ideo dicunt, quod empyreum non est ad obsequium hominis in praesenti, sed ad obsequium perpetuum; nec melioratur, sed uniformiter in sua dignitate subsistit. Et ideo rationes adductae ad ostendendam influentiam[^12] in haec inferiora secundum hos non valent, quia ordinatio illius corporis ad aliud officium secundum dictamen et imperium Conditoris huiusmodi influentiam non admittit; et hoc solum omnes illas rationes dissolvit.

Quaelibet harum opinionum satis probabilis est; quae autem sit magis vera, non plane apparet. Quis enim novit, si Deus illi caelo hanc occultam influentiam dedit super corpora nostra tum ratione nobilitatis, tum ratione conformitatis? Hoc non est, ut credo, facile refellere nec per violentiam auctoritatis, nec per efficaciam rationis. *Rursus*, quae sit necessitas huius influentiae, nec ratio nec auctoritas manifestat, cum satis videatur sufficere aliorum inferiorum corporum influentia. — Ideo in neutram partem omnino declinando, dicendum videtur, quod cum caelum empyreum sit primum creatum inter corpora, quod est maximum *mole* et *virtute*: quia est maximum *mole*, omnia corpora[^13] locat per ambitum et continentiam; quia maximum

<!-- page 75 -->

*virtute*, cetera vegetat et conservat per suam influentiam. Omittendo igitur illam influentiam, quam dicitur habere super humana corpora, sustineri potest, quod aliquem effectum et aliquam influentiam habeat super corpora inferiora, tanquam primum creatum super sequentia. Et rationes ad hoc inductae sunt concedendae.

1. 2. Quod ergo obiicitur de influentia luminis et caloris, dicendum, quod influentia luminis potest esse dupliciter: vel *manifesta*, vel *occulta*. *Manifesta* influentia est per diaphanum corpus, maxime quando sensu percipitur. *Occulta* influentia est non solum per diaphanum corpus, sed etiam per opacum, sicut virtus stellarum est in mineralia, quae latent sub terra. — Vel potest dici, quod est influentia *mediata* et *immediata*; et possibile est, quod influentia caeli siderei vigoratur ex adiumento luminis superiorum caelorum, et virtutem susceptam desuperius derivat et transmittit ad haec inferiora; et videtur nobis esse propria illorum[^14], cum tamen non sit propria, sed etiam aliena. — Et per hoc patet aliud, quod non est causa sufficiens virtus inferiorum caelorum nisi per adiumentum superiorum.

3. Quod obiicitur de conformitate, dicendum, quod conformis est natura spiritus, qui disponit ad vitam, ipsi luci caelesti quantum ad puritatem; et hac ratione nata est recipere; sed non oportet in omnibus consonare.

4. Quod obiicitur, utrum ad nobiliorem effectum; dicendum secundum primam opinionem, quod ad nobiliorem effectum, quia ad generationem spirituum, qui sunt dispositio ad susceptionem[^15] animae rationalis. — Et si tu obiicias, quod non sunt alii, quam illi qui disponunt ad sensibilem: dicendum, quod etsi non sint omnino alii secundum formam, tamen sunt puriores et excellentioribus et nobilioribus potentiis nati ministrare, secundum quam etiam rationem nobiliorem oportet esse complexionem et organizationem tam humani corporis quam brutalis. — Potest tamen sustineri, quod ad eosdem effectus influunt, nec tamen alterum eorum superfluit, quia virtus caeli inferioris et influentia adiuvatur per virtutem superioris, et virtus superioris operatur mediante virtute et influentia inferioris; ideo neutrum superfluit, sed ad haec inferiora conservanda et perficienda virtus utriusque concurrit[^16].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the empyrean heaven influences these lower things.*

Secondly it is asked concerning the empyrean as to the power of [its] influence. And it is asked whether the empyrean influences these lower things, or not. And that [it does] so, it seems.

1. In everything created which is perfect and complete there is substance, power, and operation[^1]: therefore [also] in the empyrean itself. If therefore it has power, it either operates on what is above, or on what is alongside, or on what is below. Not on what is above — that is plain; nor on what is alongside, because it itself is above all bodies: therefore it seems that through that power it influences what is below; or [else] its power and substance will be idle, which is plainly unfitting.

2. Likewise, all bodies were made for the service of man, whence «we are in a certain way the end of all the things which exist[^2]»: therefore if the empyrean is anything, in some respect it serves man; but it would not do this unless it influenced something into these lower things: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the higher in position some body is, the nobler it is among bodies[^3], and the nobler, the more powerful and better, and the more powerful and better, the more efficacious in acting and influencing: if therefore the empyrean heaven is the highest, then it seems that it is most of all influencing into these lower things.

4. Likewise, the greater the light[^4] is, the more it diffuses and multiplies itself: if therefore the empyrean among bodies is most of all luminous, then [it is] most of all diffusive; but that light is not deprived of the efficacy of vivifying and conserving, just as neither [is] the light of the firmament: therefore it seems that the empyrean influences these lower things more.

**On the contrary:**

1. The influence of a celestial body consists chiefly in the diffusion of light and heat; but the empyrean does not heat[^5], nor does it irradiate these lower bodies: therefore it seems that there is no influence of the empyrean into these lower things.

2. Likewise, the bodies which are below the firmament influence sufficiently for the vivification and generation to be done in these lower things: therefore «if nature does nothing in vain[^6]», it seems that the influence of another heaven is null, since it is of no opportuneness.

3. Likewise, the influence of a heaven ought to be conformed to that from which it is, and ought nonetheless to be conformed to that by which it is received; but the empyrean heaven is

<!-- page 74 -->

incorruptible, uniform, most quiet, deputed to the state and rest of glory; but these [things] which are below have wholly opposite conditions: therefore it seems that it has in no way [the property] to influence over the lower bodies[^7].

4. Likewise, if it influences over bodies, then [it does so] either toward a nobler effect than the influence of the eighth sphere is, or toward a *less noble*, or toward the *same* effect. Toward the *same* — [that] is not *fitting*; toward a *less noble* — [that] is not *becoming*, since that body is nobler; toward a *more noble* — [that it] *cannot*: therefore in no way does it influence. *Proof*: that it *cannot* [influence] toward a more noble [effect], seems [so]. For, as the philosophers hold and the natural scientists commonly maintain[^8], the influence of a heaven is operative toward the production of the sensible soul; but above the sensible soul there is only the rational [soul], and this is subject to no body, indeed is from a pure creation: therefore in no way can there be an influence more eminent than over the sensible soul; and over this the starry [heaven] influences sufficiently with the things which are below: therefore it seems that there is no influence of the empyrean existing above. *If you say* that it influences not by reason of the soul in itself, but by reason of the disposition on the part of the body; *on the contrary*: the rational soul is united by means of the sensitive and vegetative power, and the body is disposed for the reception of the soul by means of an equal complexion and a threefold spirit, namely vital, natural, and animal[^9]; and into all these the starry heaven influences sufficiently: therefore the same [conclusion] returns as before.

### Conclusion

> The empyrean heaven has some influence into the lower bodies.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning this there was a twofold opinion.

For some said that the empyrean heaven influences these lower things, and [with] a most noble influence. — For since it is a body, its *influence*, if it has any, must necessarily be corporeal. *Again*, since it is the most excellent among the celestial bodies, it influences over the noblest bodies, and such are human bodies, which are ordered to the noblest form, namely the rational soul, which demands a greater and nobler disposition in its matter. Since therefore the nature of light disposes toward life, and life is threefold according to the threefold difference of the soul, differing in grade and dignity; God founded three heavens ordered among themselves in grade and dignity, not only of nature but also of influence, so that the *starry* heaven of itself is ordered to the conciliation of the elements, to the reception of the vegetable [soul], the *crystalline* to the reception of the sensible, but the *empyrean* to the reception of the rational.

And this indeed seems reasonable not only by reason of the *order of influence*, but also by reason of the *conformity of nature*. For the empyrean heaven is the place of spiritual substances, the place also of glorified bodies. And since the suitability of the place to what is located [there] is either manifest or hidden, the influence of that heaven seems to be consonant with our bodies and friendly to [our] souls, not by reason of itself, but by reason of their bodies, which perfect and inform[^10] [them].

But there was another opinion concerning this wholly contrary to that one, which said that of the empyrean heaven there is no influence at all into these lower things, because bodies do not have influence except according to the order of the Creator, regard being had to the end. Since therefore the empyrean was founded for the perfection of the universe, and that it might be the place of the Blessed, therefore that region[^11] and [its] light is remote and hidden from us, just as also is glory itself, which through grace we await and love and believe, although we do not see [it]. And therefore they say that the empyrean is not for the service of man in the present, but for perpetual service; nor is it bettered, but uniformly subsists in its dignity. And therefore the reasons adduced to show an influence[^12] into these lower things, according to these [men], do not hold, because the ordination of that body to another office, according to the dictate and command of the Creator, does not admit such an influence; and this alone dissolves all those reasons.

Each of these opinions is sufficiently probable; but which is the truer does not plainly appear. For who knows whether God gave to that heaven this hidden influence over our bodies both by reason of [its] nobility and by reason of conformity? This is not, as I believe, easy to refute, neither by the force of authority nor by the efficacy of reason. *Again*, what is the necessity of this influence, neither reason nor authority makes manifest, since the influence of the other lower bodies seems sufficiently to suffice. — Therefore, declining wholly to neither part, it seems it must be said that, since the empyrean heaven is the first thing created among bodies, which is the greatest in *mass* and *power*: because it is greatest in *mass*, it locates all bodies[^13] by encompassing and containing [them]; because [it is] greatest

<!-- page 75 -->

in *power*, it vivifies and conserves the rest by its influence. Omitting therefore that influence which it is said to have over human bodies, it can be maintained that it has some effect and some influence over the lower bodies, as the first thing created [influences] over the things following. And the reasons adduced for this are to be granted.

1. 2. To what then is objected concerning the influence of light and heat, it must be said that the influence of light can be twofold: either *manifest* or *hidden*. *Manifest* influence is through a transparent body, especially when it is perceived by sense. *Hidden* influence is not only through a transparent body but also through an opaque one, just as the power of the stars is in the minerals which lie hidden under the earth. — Or it can be said that there is a *mediate* and an *immediate* influence; and it is possible that the influence of the starry heaven is strengthened by the help of the light of the higher heavens, and derives the power received from above and transmits it to these lower things; and it seems to us to be proper to them[^14], although it is not proper [to them], but also from another. — And through this another [point] is clear, that the power of the lower heavens is not a sufficient cause except by the help of the higher ones.

3. To what is objected concerning conformity, it must be said that the nature of the spirit, which disposes toward life, is conformed to the celestial light itself as to purity; and by this reason it is born to receive; but it is not necessary to be consonant in all [respects].

4. To what is objected, whether toward a nobler effect; it must be said, according to the first opinion, that [it influences] toward a nobler effect, because toward the generation of the spirits which are the disposition for the reception[^15] of the rational soul. — And if you object that there are no others than those which dispose toward the sensible [soul]: it must be said that, although they are not wholly other according to form, yet they are purer and born to minister to more excellent and nobler powers, according to which reason also the complexion and organization both of the human body and of the brute [body] must be nobler. — Yet it can be maintained that they influence toward the same effects, nor does either of them become superfluous, because the power and influence of the lower heaven is aided by the power of the higher, and the power of the higher operates by means of the power and influence of the lower; therefore neither becomes superfluous, but for these lower things to be conserved and perfected the power of both concurs[^16].

---

la: Vide Dionys. de Caelest. Hierarch. c. 11, ex quo quaedam invenies tom. 1. pag. 79, nota 5. — Paulo inferius cod. N *aut per illam operatur*, plures alii codd. cum ed. 1 incongrue *aut per quam operatur* pro *aut operatur.*

en: See Dionysius, *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, c. 11, from which you will find some [things] in tom. 1, p. 79, note 5. — A little below codex N [reads] *aut per illam operatur*, several other codices with ed. 1 incongruously *aut per quam operatur* for *aut operatur.*

la: Cfr. supra pag. 46, nota 1. — In Vat. sequens propositio sic sonat: *ergo si empyreum aliquid est, in aliquo servit huiusmodi.*

en: Cf. above p. 46, note 1. — In the Vatican edition the following proposition runs thus: *therefore if the empyrean is anything, in some respect it serves [a being] of this kind.*

la: Aristot., de Mundo, c. 7. (c. 6.), recitato consensu mortalium, qui Deo summam regionem mundi tribuit et nos ipsos elevare manus facit sursum inter vota concipienda, ait: Quin etiam quae maxime eximia sunt inter res sensu perceptas eundem illa locum obtinent, ut sidera, ut sol et luna.

en: Aristotle, *On the World*, c. 7 (c. 6), the consensus of mortals being recited, which attributes the highest region of the world to God and makes us ourselves raise [our] hands upward while conceiving [our] prayers, says: Indeed even the things which are most excellent among the things perceived by sense obtain that same place, like the stars, like the sun and moon.

la: Non pauci codd. perperam *bonum.* In fine argumenti cod. cc cum ed. 1 ponit *maxime sit influens* pro *magis sit influens*, ubi cod. 1 addit *quam alia corpora.*

en: Not a few codices wrongly [read] *bonum* ["good"]. At the end of the argument codex cc with ed. 1 puts *maxime sit influens* ["is most of all influencing"] for *magis sit influens* ["is more influencing"], where cod. 1 adds *quam alia corpora* ["than the other bodies"].

la: Vat. cum paucis mss. prosequitur *quia non est in motu, nec ista corpora inferiora, sicut patet, irradiat.*

en: The Vatican edition, with a few manuscripts, continues *because it is not in motion, nor does it irradiate these lower bodies, as is plain.*

la: Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 45. (c. 9.). — Aliquanto superius plures codd. cum ed. 1 *intra firmamentum* pro *infra firmamentum.*

en: Aristotle, III *On the Soul*, text 45 (c. 9). — Somewhat above, several codices with ed. 1 [read] *intra firmamentum* ["within the firmament"] for *infra firmamentum* ["below the firmament"].

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 *infima.* In fine argumenti cod. bb *influentiam habeat* pro *influere habeat.*

en: Codex cc and ed. 1 [read] *infima* ["lowest"]. At the end of the argument codex bb [reads] *influentiam habeat* ["has an influence"] for *influere habeat* ["has [the property] to influence"].

la: Sufficiat hic adducere Averroem, qui in suo libro de Substantia orbis (c. 1.) ait: *Calor vero corporum caelestium largitur vitam vegetabilem, sensibilem et animalem.* — Vat. cum nonnullis mss. *viri philosophici.* Paulo superius codd. cum ed. 1 post *quod* subiiciunt *autem*, omissa vel male transposita voce *Probatio* post *ad magis nobilem non potest.* Cod. aa *non mutat* post *immo a creatore est pure* pro *immo est a creatione pura.*

en: Let it suffice here to adduce Averroes, who in his book *On the Substance of the Orb* (c. 1) says: *But the heat of the celestial bodies bestows vegetable, sensible, and animal life.* — The Vatican edition, with some manuscripts, [reads] *viri philosophici* ["philosophical men"]. A little above the codices with ed. 1, after *quod*, subjoin *autem*, the word *Probatio* being omitted or badly transposed after *ad magis nobilem non potest.* Codex aa [reads] *non mutat* [...], *immo a creatore est pure* for *immo est a creatione pura.*

la: De his cfr. supra d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. ad 2. 3.

en: On these [things] cf. above d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, ad 2, 3.

la: Cod. L *conformant.*

en: Codex L [reads] *conformant* ["they conform"].

la: Ex cod. cc et ed. 1 supplevimus *illa*, pro quo cod. N *eius.* Aliquanto superius cod. A *secundum ordinationem Conditoris* pro *secundum ordinem Conditoris.*

en: From codex cc and ed. 1 we have supplied *illa* ["that"], for which codex N [reads] *eius* ["its"]. Somewhat above codex A [reads] *secundum ordinationem Conditoris* for *secundum ordinem Conditoris.*

la: In cod. aa additur *eius.* Paulo ante plures codd. ut U V Z *consistit* pro *subsistit.*

en: In codex aa is added *eius* ["its"]. A little before, several codices, as U V Z, [read] *consistit* for *subsistit.*

la: Non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 *corporalia.*

en: Not a few codices, with ed. 1, [read] *corporalia* ["corporeal [things]"].

la: In Vat. deest *illorum.* Dein nonnulli codd. *cum non tantum* pro *cum tamen non.* Melius esset *cum tamen non tantum.*

en: In the Vatican edition *illorum* ["of them"] is lacking. Then some codices [read] *cum non tantum* for *cum tamen non.* It would be better [to read] *cum tamen non tantum.*

la: Cod. T *receptionem.*

en: Codex T [reads] *receptionem* ["the receiving"].

la: Vide Scholion praecedentis quaestionis.

en: See the Scholion of the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Source discipline.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi column-band PDF (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 73-75 --dpi 450` + `tools/colcrop.py vol2 {73,74,75}`) over the IA djvu OCR base (raw lines 5744–5886), per the Vol II override. Each page read Left column top→bottom, then Right column; body bands then footer bands. The Respondeo (two-opinion) + four-reply Solutio are cascade-shattered in the IA OCR — the 450 dpi crops are authoritative there. R-column footer left edges recovered from the full-width cascade IA OCR.

**Page span / structure.** QUAESTIO II spans printed pp. **73–75**: opens on p.73 (in normal type, beneath q1's small-type Scholion I–II) with 4 *videtur* (quod sic) + 4 *Contra* arguments; a *Conclusio* (the empyrean has some influence into the lower bodies) + a two-opinion Respondeo (it influences most nobly / it has no influence at all) with the author declining to neither part; four numbered *Solutio* replies (replies 1 and 2 merged: «1. 2. Quod ergo obiicitur…»). **No scholion** — Quaracchi's p.75 footer note 3 reads *Vide Scholion praecedentis quaestionis* (q2 shares q1's scholion); `has_scholion: false`. Marginal glosses trimmed per CLAUDE.md (`Fundamenta`, `Ad oppositum`, `Conclusio`, `Duplex opinio`, `Opinio 1 cum 1 ratione`, `Ratio 2`, `Opinio 2`, `Utraque opinio probabilis`, `Sententia auctoris`, `Solutio oppositorum`, `Alia solutio`).

**Apparatus crosswalk (per-page footer → continuous renumber).** Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each printed page; renumbered continuously 1–16:
- **p. 73** footer: notes 1–6 → `[^1]`–`[^6]` (q2's, anchored in *videtur*/*Contra*; the q1→q2 boundary is clean — see below).
- **p. 74** footer: L col notes 1–2 + R col notes 3–7 → `[^7]`–`[^13]` (7 notes).
- **p. 75** footer: **notes 1–3 only** → `[^14]`–`[^16]` (the outgoing split — see below).

**Cross-chunk footer boundaries.**
- *Incoming (a1-q1 → a1-q2): CLEAN, no split.* Committed `d2-p2-a1-q1` owns p.70 (n.3–4) + p.71 (n.1–10) + p.72 (n.1–10); its Scholion I–II topped p.73 with no apparatus, so **p.73's entire footer (notes 1–6) is q2's**. No backfill to committed `d2-p2-a1-q1` (its 22 entries are complete).
- *Outgoing (a1-q2 → a2-q1): SPLIT at p.75.* q2's body (Solutio replies 1.2 and 3, then reply 4) ends partway down p.75; the `ARTICULUS II` opener + `QUAESTIO I` of the next chunk begin lower on p.75. p.75's footer splits by body anchor: **notes 1–3 → this chunk** (`[^14]` *illorum*; `[^15]` *susceptionem* → *receptionem*; `[^16]` q2's terminal *concurrit* → the *Vide Scholion praecedentis quaestionis* note); **notes 4–5 → `d2-p2-a2-q1`** (n.4 `Ita plures codd. ut U W Y bb; alii multi omittunt hoc loco simul…` → the ART. II opener's *in pluribus locis simul*; n.5 `Cfr. lit. Magistri, hic c. 4.` → a2-q1's arg 1 *Strabus*). When `d2-p2-a2-q1` is built, **start its apparatus at p.75 footer note 4**, by body anchor; **no backfill to this chunk.**

**Decade polish (d.10 blocker).** No inline `[?]` flags — the 450 dpi crops were clean throughout; the only reconstruction was the routine R-col-footer left-edge recovery from the cascade IA OCR. No low-confidence numerals this chunk.