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

source_text:
<!-- page 347 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum motus caeli sit a propria forma, vel ab Intelligentia.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum motus caelorum sit a propria forma, vel ab Intelligentia. Et quod sit a propria forma, videtur:

*Ad oppositum.*

1. Sicut vult Philosophus[^1]: « Natura est principium motus et quietis in eo, in quo est »: ergo omnis motus naturalis est a forma intrinseca; sed « motus caeli est naturalis », sicut probat Philosophus: ergo est a propria forma.

2. Item, leve sua levitate et virtute potest sursum ascendere, nullo impellente, et similiter grave descendere absque aliqua Intelligentia movente[^2]. Si ergo forma caeli perfectior est quam elementaris, et figura eius aptissima ad motum circularem, videtur, quod moveri possit a propria forma absque omni Intelligentia.

3. Item, plus est movere se ipsum exeundo locum proprium quam non exeundo; sed virtus lucis est se diffundere per corpora alterius naturae, et etiam diffundendo redire: ergo videtur, quod multo fortius corpus caeli per naturam lucis possit se in suo orbe movere absque influentia alicuius spiritualis substantiae.

4. Item, motus animalium est a forma propria et intrinseca, et hoc spectat ad complementum motus: ergo cum motus caeli sit multo completior, erit a forma propria et intrinseca: ergo vel caeli non moventur ab Intelligentia, vel Intelligentia est ipsius caeli perfectio et forma. Sed Intelligentia aliqua non est perfectio caeli, sicut dicit Damascenus secundo libro, capitulo sexto[^3]: « Caeli sunt inanimati et insensibiles »: ergo etc.

5. Item, nullus motus necessarius pendet a voluntate creaturae tanquam a principali motore; sed motus caeli est uniformis et necessarius secundum Sanctos et philosophos[^4]: ergo non est a voluntate alicuius Angeli vel Intelligentiae.

6. Item, virtus illius Angeli vel Intelligentiae est finita; sed virtus finita in movendo recipit fatigationem et laborem, maxime cum movet illud quod non est per se mobile: aut ergo[^5] caelum movetur propria forma, aut si movetur virtute Intelligentiae, necesse est, illam laborare et lassari.

*Fundamenta.*

**Contra:** 1. « Omne quod movetur, ab alio movetur[^6] »; sed caelum secundum se totum movetur: ergo videtur, quod praeter materiam et formam eius sit ponere aliquid, a quo moveatur; hoc autem non est nisi Angelus vel Intelligentia: ergo etc.

2. Item, « omnis motor est in actu respectu mobilis »[^7], sed totum caelum est mobile; sed nihil idem est simul in actu et potentia: ergo caelum non potest moveri a se sive propria virtute.

<!-- page 348 -->

3. Item, « omnis motor sufficiens distat a mobili[^8] »: cum ergo nulla forma extensa distet a materia, nulla forma extensa potest esse motor sufficiens. Sed forma caeli est forma corporalis et extensa, et motus eius, cum sit praecipuus inter alios motus, est a motore sufficiente: ergo non potest esse a virtute propriae formae.

4. Item, omne quod naturaliter movetur ad locum aliquem, si movetur ab illo loco, movetur praeter naturam[^9]: ergo si caelum movetur naturaliter ab oriente in occidens, ab occidente in oriens non regyratur per naturam: ergo videtur, quod caelum habeat motorem alium quam formam propriam.

5. Item, omne quod movetur propria forma, movetur propter propriam indigentiam; natura enim formae non movet nisi propter appetitum rei, qua naturaliter indiget[^10]; sed caelum, sicut dicunt Sancti et philosophi, non movetur propter propriam indigentiam: ergo non movetur a propria forma et natura.

6. Item, quod movetur a propria forma naturaliter movente nunquam quiescit nisi violenter, ipso existente in eadem dispositione[^11]; sed caelum, quantum ad naturam suae formae, semper erit in eadem dispositione: ergo aut non movetur a propria forma et natura, aut nunquam quiescit, vel si quiescit, violenter quiescit. Si igitur caelum aliquando quietabitur, et non violenter, ergo motus eius non est a virtute formae intrinsecae.

> **Conclusio.** Caelum non est animatum, sed vel movetur a propria forma, Deo defectum virtutis supplente, vel a Deo mediante Angelo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in hac quaestione duae sunt positiones probabiles, concordes rationi et Scripturae, praeter illam tertiam viam, quam quidam philosophi[^12] posuisse videntur, scilicet quod caeli haberent animas, et quod caelum esset magnum animal, et quod moveretur a propria forma perfectiva, sicut movetur animal; et hanc animam motricem posuerunt regi et dirigi a Deo mediante Intelligentia. — *Opinio Avicennae.*

*Reprobatur.* Sed haec positio falsa est et erronea. Sicut enim dicit Damascenus, « caeli sunt inanimati et insensibiles »; et quod dicuntur Deum aliquando benedicere[^13], hoc est dictum per prosopopeiam. Et ista est communis sententia Sanctorum.

*Retractatio Augustini.* Ideo Augustinus retractat illud verbum, quod dixerat in libro de Immortalitate animae[^14], quod mundus animatur; et si aliqui Sancti videantur hoc dicere, sicut Hieronymus super Ecclesiastem, hoc totum intelligendum est dictum metaphorice. Non solum autem haec positio est contra catholicos doctores, sed etiam contra philosophicos tractatores, qui ponunt, quod substantia intellectualis non unitur corpori nisi mediante vegetabili et sensibili; et ita, si caelum perficeretur a substantia spirituali, haberet *sentire* et *vegetari*, et ita naturaliter posset corrumpi[^15]. — Et propter hoc, ista positione omnino eiecta, intelligendum est, quod duplex est hic modus dicendi satis catholicus.

*Opinio catholica 1.* Quidam enim dicunt, quod caelum movetur a propria forma hoc modo. Caelum habet quantitatem et figuram et per hanc est ad motum habile; habet nihilominus lucis perfectionem et formam, quae inter ceteras formas corporales est maxime activa, et quasi medium tenens inter formas spirituales et corporales[^16]; et per virtutem huius formae moventur corpora caelestia orbiculariter multo sufficientius, quam elementa moveantur motu recto; nec oportet, ad motum caeli adhiberi ministerium Angeli vel animae, sicut nec ad motum cuiuslibet elementaris naturae. Nec obstat illud, quod movens debet esse aliud a mobili; quia, sicut animal secundum aliud sui *movet*, secundum aliud sui est *mobile*, et tamen totum

<!-- page 349 -->

est *movens* et *mobile*[^17]; sic et in caelo intelligendum est, quod est *mobile* per naturam quantitatis et figurae, et *movens* per naturam lucis activae. Nec obstat illud, quod recedit ab eodem loco, ad quem movetur; caelum enim proprie non habet moveri *ad locum,* sed potius *circa locum;* nec pars, quae est in oriente, movetur ad occidens, quia illum situm intendat determinate, sed quia intendit moveri orbiculariter, qui est motus competens suae naturae. Unde sicut dicitur in radio, quod procedit et retrocedit per virtutem suam, cum fit repercussio, ad aliquod corpus splendidum; sic est in proposito. Et per hoc respondent ad omnes obiectiones. — *Difficultates eiusdem.* Difficile tamen est secundum hanc positionem sustinere, quomodo caelum moveatur a propria forma et naturali, et illa permanente, quiescat[^18] praeter violentiam. Difficile est etiam intelligere, quomodo non moveatur propter propriam indigentiam, si appetitus ille est in forma intrinseca. Et ideo isti compelluntur ad hoc redire, ut dicant, quod ad motum caeli non sufficit virtus propriae formae, sed simul cum ea requiritur influxus divinae potentiae, secundum quem caelum habet moveri et quiescere. — *Oritur alia quaestio.* Sed tunc remanet quaestio, *quid* sit ille influxus, utrum dicat quid *creatum,* vel *increatum;* et sive hoc dicat, sive illud, non est facile explicare, quare Deus illum motum exerceat sine ministerio spiritualis creaturae, cum illi sit natus convenire. — *Non tamen improbatur.* Nec tamen de facili potest hoc improbari, si quis hoc dicat, quod defectum istius creaturae corporalis velit Deus per semetipsum supplere, ut ostendat, se esse *Deum caeli et terrae*[^19]; et ita dicatur caelum moveri virtute propria, quod, si aliquid desit sibi ad movendi sufficientiam, suppleatur ab ipsa virtute divina. Et sic sustinendo hanc positionem, responsio ad obiecta est satis plana.

*Opinio et conclusio 2.* Alia vero positio est, quod Deus movet caelum mediante Intelligentia creata sive mediante Angelo; et hoc competebat ordini, quem Deus constituit universo, de quo dicit Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram[^20], quod Deus sic mundum ordinavit, ut spiritum praeficeret omni corpori. Et ideo, sicut congruum est, Angelos deputari ad ministerium hominum, sic etiam congruum est, deputari ad motum et regimen caelorum, cum in hoc etiam ministrent homini viatori et divinae subserviant maiestati. Et hoc videtur Augustinus sentire in tertio de Libero Arbitrio[^21], loquens de angelica natura, de qua dicit, quod « non sua maiestate continet omnia, sed inhaerendo illi maiestati et eius imperiis devotissime obtemperando, a quo et per quem et in quo facta sunt omnia ». — *Notandum.* Et haec positio magnorum est tam in theologia quam in philosophia, quia concors pietati fidei et rationi plurimum esse videtur. Si igitur hanc positionem sustinere velimus, de facili potest ad obiecta in contrarium responderi.

*Solutio obiectorum.*

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur primo, quod motus ille est naturalis; dicendum, quod motus ille per comparationem ad primum mobile naturalis esse dicitur, quia natura eius et figura illi motui concordat; nec oportet, quod omne quod est naturale, sit a principio intrinseco, sicut a tota causa, sed sufficit, quod virtus intrinseca cooperetur virtuti activae.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de gravi et levi, dicendum, quod ad motum gravis non sufficit solummodo gravitas sive qualitas propria, immo concurrit virtus loci attrahentis et virtus loci expellentis et virtus corporis quinti, praeter illa duo moventia, quae ponit Philosophus[^22], scilicet *generans* grave et leve, et *removens* prohibens; et quia haec ad motum caeli non possunt concurrere, oportet, quod concurrat virtus spiritualis substantiae.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de diffusione lucis, dicendum, quod ille non est motus *localis* proprie, sed magis motus *alterationis.* — *Notandum.* Unde sicut ignis potest calorem suum diffundere deorsum, tamen virtute propria non se movet de loco, in quo est; sic in caelesti corpore intelligendum est esse.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ad completionem motus facit, quod aliquid moveatur a principio intrinseco; dicendum, quod hoc accidit. Non enim hoc est propter unionem motoris ad mobile, sed propter sufficientiam motoris, qui quidem est substantia spiritualis, distans a materia; unde distantia motoris a mobili et completio motoris illa est, quae facit ad motoris[^23] perfectionem. Hoc autem multo magis reperitur in motu caeli, quod movetur ab Angelo sive ab Intelligentia, separata secundum substantiam, unita secundum virtutem, quam si moveretur a propria forma.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod necessarium non pendet a voluntario; dicendum, quod verum est de voluntate vertibili. Quamvis autem voluntas Angeli sit per naturam vertibilis, tamen per gloriam omnino invertibilis efficitur; et talem substantiam intelligendum est esse caeli motricem, quae, ut dicit Augustinus[^24], summae maiestati continenti

<!-- page 350 -->

perfecte inhaereat. Et quod talis substantia sit motrix caeli, ostendit ipsius motus nobilitas et uniformitas et necessitas; *Notandum.* ostendit nihilominus quies futura, cum perfecta erit superna civitas, ad quam consummandam finaliter ordinatur ministratio angelica.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod cum sit virtutis finitae, lassatur; dicendum, quod lassationem non facit finitas, sed improportio motoris ad mobile, vel contrarietas, vel ineptitudo ex parte mobilis; quorum nullum est in proposito. Et sic patent quaesita, et per hoc etiam manifestantur quae dicuntur in littera[^25].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the motion of the heaven is from its own form or from an Intelligence.*

Secondly it is asked whether the motion of the heavens is from its own form or from an Intelligence. And that it is from its own form, it seems:

*To the opposite.*

1. As the Philosopher holds[^1]: "Nature is the principle of motion and of rest in that in which it is": therefore every natural motion is from an intrinsic form; but "the motion of the heaven is natural," as the Philosopher proves: therefore it is from its own form.

2. Likewise, the light [body] by its lightness and power can ascend upward, with nothing impelling, and similarly the heavy can descend without any moving Intelligence[^2]. If therefore the form of the heaven is more perfect than the elemental, and its figure most fit for circular motion, it seems that it can be moved by its own form without any Intelligence.

3. Likewise, it is more to move oneself by going out from one's own place than by not going out; but it is the power of light to diffuse itself through bodies of another nature, and even, in diffusing, to return: therefore it seems that much more strongly the body of the heaven can, through the nature of light, move itself within its orb without the influence of any spiritual substance.

4. Likewise, the motion of animals is from a proper and intrinsic form, and this pertains to the completion of motion: therefore since the motion of the heaven is much more complete, it will be from a proper and intrinsic form: therefore either the heavens are not moved by an Intelligence, or the Intelligence is the very perfection and form of the heaven. But no Intelligence is the perfection of the heaven, as Damascene says in book II, chapter 6[^3]: "The heavens are inanimate and insensible": therefore etc.

5. Likewise, no necessary motion depends upon the will of a creature as upon a principal mover; but the motion of the heaven is uniform and necessary according to the Saints and the philosophers[^4]: therefore it is not from the will of some Angel or Intelligence.

6. Likewise, the power of that Angel or Intelligence is finite; but a finite power in moving incurs fatigue and labor, especially when it moves that which is not of itself movable: therefore either[^5] the heaven is moved by its own form, or, if it is moved by the power of an Intelligence, it is necessary that that Intelligence grow weary and tired.

*Foundations.*

**On the contrary:** 1. "Everything that is moved is moved by another"[^6]; but the heaven according to itself as a whole is moved: therefore it seems that besides its matter and its form one must posit something by which it is moved; but this is nothing other than an Angel or Intelligence: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, "every mover is in act with respect to the movable"[^7], but the whole heaven is movable; but the same thing is not at once in act and potency: therefore the heaven cannot be moved by itself, that is, by its own power.

3. Likewise, "every sufficient mover stands at a distance from the movable"[^8]: since therefore no extended form stands at a distance from matter, no extended form can be a sufficient mover. But the form of the heaven is a corporeal and extended form, and its motion, since it is the chief among the other motions, is from a sufficient mover: therefore it cannot be from the power of its own form.

4. Likewise, everything that is naturally moved toward some place, if it is moved from that place, is moved against nature[^9]: therefore if the heaven is moved naturally from east to west, from west to east it is not turned back by nature: therefore it seems that the heaven has some mover other than its own form.

5. Likewise, everything that is moved by its own form is moved on account of its own need; for the nature of a form moves only on account of the appetite for the thing it naturally needs[^10]; but the heaven, as the Saints and philosophers say, is not moved on account of its own need: therefore it is not moved by its own form and nature.

6. Likewise, that which is moved by its own form naturally moving never rests except violently, while that form remains in the same disposition[^11]; but the heaven, as to the nature of its form, will always be in the same disposition: therefore either it is not moved by its own form and nature, or it never rests, or, if it rests, it rests violently. If therefore the heaven shall at some time be brought to rest, and not violently, then its motion is not from the power of an intrinsic form.

> **Conclusion.** The heaven is not animate, but either is moved by its own form, with God supplying the defect of its power, or by God by the mediation of an Angel.

**I respond:** It must be said that in this question there are two probable positions, in accord with reason and Scripture, besides that third way which certain philosophers[^12] seem to have held — namely, that the heavens had souls, and that the heaven was a great animal, and that it was moved by a perfective proper form, just as an animal is moved; and they held this moving soul to be ruled and directed by God by the mediation of an Intelligence. — *The opinion of Avicenna.*

*It is refuted.* But this position is false and erroneous. For as Damascene says, "the heavens are inanimate and insensible"; and as for the fact that they are said sometimes to bless God[^13], this is said by prosopopoeia. And this is the common opinion of the Saints.

*Augustine's retractation.* Hence Augustine retracts that word which he had said in the book *On the Immortality of the Soul*[^14] — that the world is animated; and if any of the Saints seem to say this, as Jerome on Ecclesiastes [does], this is wholly to be understood as said metaphorically. Not only, moreover, is this position against the catholic doctors, but also against the philosophical treatises, which lay down that an intellectual substance is not united to a body except by the mediation of the vegetative and the sensitive; and so, if the heaven were perfected by a spiritual substance, it would have *sensation* and *vegetation,* and so naturally it could be corrupted[^15]. — And on account of this, that position being altogether cast out, it is to be understood that here there is a twofold sufficiently catholic way of speaking.

*First catholic opinion.* For some say that the heaven is moved by its own form in this way. The heaven has quantity and figure and through this is fit for motion; it has nonetheless the perfection and form of light, which among other corporeal forms is the most active, and as it were holds a middle place between spiritual and corporeal forms[^16]; and through the power of this form the celestial bodies are moved circularly much more sufficiently than the elements are moved with rectilinear motion; nor is it necessary that the ministry of an Angel or a soul be applied to the motion of the heaven, just as neither to the motion of any elemental nature. Nor does it stand in the way that the mover must be other than the movable; for, just as an animal *moves* by one part of itself, and is *movable* by another part of itself, and yet the whole

is *mover* and *movable*[^17]; so also it is to be understood in the heaven, that it is *movable* by the nature of quantity and figure, and *mover* by the nature of active light. Nor does it stand in the way that it recedes from the same place to which it is moved; for the heaven properly speaking does not move *to a place,* but rather *around a place;* nor is the part that is in the east moved toward the west because it intends that location determinately, but because it intends to be moved circularly, which is the motion befitting its nature. Hence just as it is said of a ray that it goes forth and returns by its own power, when a reflection occurs onto some bright body; so it is in the matter at hand. And by this they respond to all the objections. — *Difficulties of the same [opinion].* It is nevertheless difficult, according to this position, to maintain how the heaven is moved by its own and natural form, and how, with it remaining, it should rest[^18] apart from violence. It is also difficult to understand how it is not moved on account of its own need, if that appetite is in its intrinsic form. And therefore they are compelled to return to this: that they say that for the motion of the heaven the power of its own form is not sufficient, but together with it is required the influx of the divine power, according to which the heaven has its being-moved and being-at-rest. — *Another question arises.* But then there remains the question, *what* that influx is — whether it designates something *created* or *uncreated;* and whether one says this or that, it is not easy to explain why God should exercise that motion without the ministry of a spiritual creature, since it is fitting for such a creature. — *Not, however, refuted.* Nor yet can this be easily refuted, if someone should say that God wills by Himself to supply the defect of this corporeal creature, in order to show that He is the *God of heaven and of earth*[^19]; and so that the heaven be said to be moved by its own power, in such a way that, if something is lacking to it for the sufficiency of moving, it be supplied by the divine power itself. And thus, holding this position, the response to the objections is fairly plain.

*Second opinion and conclusion.* But there is another position: that God moves the heaven by the mediation of a created Intelligence or by the mediation of an Angel; and this befits the order which God established in the universe, concerning which Augustine says, on Genesis according to the letter[^20], that God so ordered the world that He set spirit over every body. And therefore, just as it is fitting that Angels be deputed to the ministry of men, so also it is fitting that they be deputed to the motion and governance of the heavens, since in this also they minister to wayfaring man and serve the divine majesty. And Augustine seems to hold this in the third [book] of *On Free Choice*[^21], speaking of the angelic nature, of which he says that "it does not by its own majesty contain all things, but by clinging to that majesty and most devoutly obeying its commands, by whom and through whom and in whom all things have been made." — *To be noted.* And this position is of great [authors] both in theology and in philosophy, since it seems most in harmony with the piety of the faith and with reason. If therefore we wish to maintain this position, it is easy to respond to the objections to the contrary.

*Solution of the objections.*

1. To that which is objected in the first place — that that motion is natural — it must be said that that motion is called natural by comparison to the prime movable, because its nature and its figure are in accord with that motion; nor is it necessary that everything which is natural be from an intrinsic principle as from a total cause, but it suffices that an intrinsic power cooperate with the active power.

2. To that which is objected concerning the heavy and the light, it must be said that for the motion of the heavy gravity or its proper quality alone does not suffice — rather, the power of the attracting place and the power of the expelling place and the power of the quintessential body concur, besides those two movers which the Philosopher posits[^22], namely the *generator* of the heavy and light, and that which *removes* the impediment; and because these cannot concur for the motion of the heaven, it is required that the power of a spiritual substance concur.

3. To that which is objected concerning the diffusion of light, it must be said that that is not properly a motion *of place,* but rather a motion *of alteration.* — *To be noted.* Hence, just as fire can diffuse its heat downward, yet by its own power does not move itself from the place in which it is; so it is to be understood [to be] in the celestial body.

4. To that which is objected — that it makes for the completion of motion that something be moved from an intrinsic principle — it must be said that this is accidental. For this is not on account of the union of the mover with the movable, but on account of the sufficiency of the mover, which is indeed a spiritual substance, distant from matter; whence the distance of the mover from the movable and the completion of the mover is what makes for the mover's[^23] perfection. But this is found much more in the motion of the heaven, which is moved by an Angel or Intelligence — separate as to substance, united as to power — than if it were moved by its own form.

5. To that which is objected — that the necessary does not depend on the voluntary — it must be said that this is true of a changeable will. Although, however, the will of an Angel is by nature changeable, yet through glory it is rendered altogether unchangeable; and such a substance is to be understood to be the mover of the heaven, which, as Augustine says[^24], cleaves perfectly to the supreme containing majesty. And that such a substance is the mover of the heaven is shown by the very nobility and uniformity and necessity of its motion; *To be noted.* it is shown nonetheless by the future rest, when the heavenly city shall be perfected, for whose final consummation the angelic ministry is ordered.

6. To that which is objected — that since it is of a finite power, it grows weary — it must be said that weariness is not caused by finitude, but by disproportion of the mover to the movable, or by contrariety, or by ineptitude on the part of the movable; none of which is present in the matter at hand. And thus what was sought is clear, and through this also are manifested those things which are said in the text[^25].

---

la: Libr. II. Phys. text. 3. (c. 1.). — Sequens textus est I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 8. seqq. (c. 2.).

en: Book II of the *Physics,* text 3 (c. 1). — The following text is from *On the Heaven and the World* I, text 8 ff. (c. 2).

la: Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 28. (c. 4.) et IV. de Caelo et mundo, text. 6. (c. 1).

en: Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 28 (c. 4) and *On the Heaven and the World* IV, text 6 (c. 1).

la: De Fide orthod.: « Ἄψυχοι γάρ εἰσι καὶ ἀναίσθητοι. »

en: *On the Orthodox Faith:* "For they are without soul and insensible."

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 35. seqq. (c. 6.); XII. Metaph. text. 38. (XI. c. 7.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Heaven and the World* II, text 35 ff. (c. 6); *Metaphysics* XII, text 38 (XI, c. 7).

la: Plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 perperam *enim.* — De hoc arg. cfr. Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 3.

en: Very many codices, with editions 1 and 2, wrongly [read] *enim.* — On this argument cf. Aristotle, *On the Heaven and the World* II, text 3.

la: Aristot., VII. Phys. text. 1. seqq.; VIII. text. 34. seqq. (c. 5.).

en: Aristotle, *Physics* VII, text 1 ff.; VIII, text 34 ff. (c. 5).

la: Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 40. (c. 5.) et IX. Metaph. text. 13. (VIII. c. 8.). Primo loc. cit. docetur etiam, quod nihil idem esse potest simul in actu et potentia.

en: Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 40 (c. 5) and *Metaphysics* IX, text 13 (VIII, c. 8). In the first place cited it is also taught that nothing can be the same at once in act and in potency.

la: Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 28. (c. 4.) vult, quod motor differt a moto. Ibid. text. 86. (c. 10.) et XII. Metaph. text. 41. (XI. c. 7.) ponit, quod primus motor non habeat magnitudinem, sed sit separatus ab ipsa.

en: Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 28 (c. 4) holds that the mover differs from the moved. *Ibid.* text 86 (c. 10) and *Metaphysics* XII, text 41 (XI, c. 7) lays down that the first mover has no magnitude but is separated from it.

la: Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 27. seqq. (c. 4.) et I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 9. seqq. (c. 2.). — Cfr. de hoc arg. Avicenna, de Caelo et mundo, c. 7.

en: Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 27 ff. (c. 4) and *On the Heaven and the World* I, text 9 ff. (c. 2). — Cf. on this argument Avicenna, *On the Heaven and the World,* c. 7.

la: Avicenna, IX. Metaph. c. 2: *Omne quod movetur motu non violento, ad aliquid est et desiderium alicuius est, adeo quod naturae etiam est desiderium rei naturalis; et haec est perfectio essentialis corpori vel in sua* forma, *vel in suo* ubi, *vel in suo* situ. — Quod caelum non moveatur propter suam indigentiam, insinuat Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 21. seq. (c. 3.) et II. text. 17. (c. 3.), ubi etiam indicat finem motus caeli, scil. actionem divinam.

en: Avicenna, *Metaphysics* IX, c. 2: *Everything which is moved by non-violent motion is for something and is the desire of something, so that even of nature there is a desire of a natural thing; and this is the essential perfection of a body either in its* form, *or in its* where, *or in its* situation. — That the heaven is not moved on account of its own need is intimated by Aristotle, *On the Heaven and the World* I, text 21 f. (c. 3) and II, text 17 (c. 3), where he also indicates the end of the heaven's motion, namely the divine action.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 76. seqq. (c. 8.); Avicenna, IX. Metaph. c. 2.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Heaven and the World* I, text 76 ff. (c. 8); Avicenna, *Metaphysics* IX, c. 2.

la: Praecipue Arabes, quorum antesignanus Avicenna (IX. Metaph. c. 1.) suam opinionem his verbis complectitur: *Oportet autem, ut causa propinqua primi motus sit anima, non Intelligentia, et quod caelum est animal obediens Deo.* Cfr. Averroes, de Substantia orbis, c. 2; Epitomes in libros Metaph. tr. 4; Destr. destr. disp. metaph. 14. (alias 13.) seqq., ubi collecta sunt quae ipse hac de re in Commentario super Aristotelis opera sparsim dixit; ac simul impugnatur opinio Avicennae, qui vult, caelum informatum esse anima *sensitiva.*

en: Chiefly the Arabs, whose standard-bearer Avicenna (*Metaphysics* IX, c. 1) sums up his opinion in these words: *It is necessary that the proximate cause of the first motion be a soul, not an Intelligence, and that the heaven is an animal obedient to God.* Cf. Averroes, *On the Substance of the Orb,* c. 2; *Epitome of the books of the Metaphysics,* tr. 4; *Destructio destructionum,* metaphysical disp. 14 (alias 13) ff., where are collected the things which he himself said scattered through his Commentary on the works of Aristotle on this matter; and at the same time the opinion of Avicenna is impugned, who holds that the heaven is informed by a *sensitive* soul.

la: Dan. 3, 59: *Benedicite caeli Domino.* — Prosopopeia, ex Graeco πρόσωπον i. e. *persona* et ποιέω i. e. *facio* sive *fingo,* est figura rhetorica, qua personas fingimus, quae non sunt, iisque verba et actiones accommodamus. Cfr. Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 6.

en: Daniel 3:59: *Bless the Lord, O heavens.* — Prosopopoeia, from the Greek πρόσωπον i. e. *person* and ποιέω i. e. *I make* or *I fashion,* is the rhetorical figure by which we feign persons who are not, and accommodate to them words and actions. Cf. Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* II, c. 6.

la: Cap. 15. n. 24: « *Per animam ergo corpus subsistit, et eo ipso est quo animatur, ut universaliter, ut mundus, sive particulariter, ut unumquodque animal intra mundum.* » Quae verba retractat, I. Retract. c. 5. n. 3. dicens: *Hoc totum prorsus temere dictum est.* Sed cfr. ibid. c. 11. n. 4, ex quo infra p. II. huius dist. dub. 3. quaedam afferuntur, et scholion pag. 347. — Verba Hieronymi, Comment. in Eccle. 1, 6. sunt: *Gyrans gyrando vadit spiritus et in circulos suos revertitur* sive ipsum solem spiritum nominavit, quod animet et spiret et vigeat et annuos orbes suo cursu expleat etc. Cfr. Ambros., II. Hexaëm. c. 4. n. 17.

en: Cap. 15, n. 24: "*Through the soul therefore the body subsists, and by that very thing is by which it is animated — whether universally, as the world, or particularly, as each animal within the world.*" Which words he retracts, *Retractations* I, c. 5, n. 3, saying: *This whole thing was said altogether rashly.* But cf. *ibid.* c. 11, n. 4, from which below in Part II of this distinction, dub. 3, certain things are adduced, and the scholion of page 347. — The words of Jerome, *Commentary on Ecclesiastes* 1:6, are: *The spirit goes round and round and returns to its circles* — that is, either he named the sun itself spirit, because it animates and breathes and grows strong and fills its yearly orbits by its course etc. Cf. Ambrose, *Hexaemeron* II, c. 4, n. 17.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 30. seq. (c. 3.). Avicenna, de Anima sive libri Sexti Naturalium, p. I. c. 1. hanc obiectionem sibi facit et nititur solvere.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 30 f. (c. 3). Avicenna, *On the Soul* or of the books of the Sixth Naturals, p. I, c. 1, makes this objection to himself and strives to resolve it.

la: Vide supra d. 13. a. 2. q. 1. fundam. 2. et 3.

en: See above, d. 13, a. 2, q. 1, foundation 2 and 3.

la: Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 28. et 31. seq. (c. 4. et 5.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 28 and 31 f. (c. 4 and 5).

la: In cod. A additur *scilicet post iudicium.* Aliquanto inferius codd. cum ed. 1 bis *fluxus* pro *influxus.*

en: In codex A is added *scilicet post iudicium* ["namely after the judgment"]. A little further down the codices with edition 1 [read] *fluxus* twice for *influxus.*

en: Genesis 24:3; Judith 6:15.

la: Libr. VIII. c. 23. n. 44: *Ergo Dei providentia regens atque administrans universam creaturam... subdit primitus omnia sibi, deinde creaturam corporalem creaturae spirituali, irrationalem rationali* etc. Cfr. 83. Qq. q. 79. n. 1, ubi dicit: *Unaquaeque res visibilis in hoc mundo habet potestatem angelicam sibi praepositam.*

en: Book VIII, c. 23, n. 44: *Therefore the providence of God ruling and administering the whole of creation... subjects all things first to itself, then the corporeal creature to the spiritual creature, the irrational to the rational,* etc. Cf. *83 Questions,* q. 79, n. 1, where he says: *Each visible thing in this world has an angelic power set over it.*

la: Cap. 11. n. 33, ubi textus originalis *illius maiestati* pro *illi maiestati.*

en: Cap. 11, n. 33, where the original text [reads] *illius maiestati* for *illi maiestati.*

la: Libr. VIII. Phys. text. 32. (c. 4.). — Vat. omittit *generans.*

en: Book VIII of the *Physics,* text 32 (c. 4). — The Vatican [edition] omits *generans.*

la: Vat. *motus,* et paulo inferius *unitam* pro *unita.*

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *motus,* and a little further down *unitam* for *unita.*

la: Libr. III. de Lib. Arb. c. 11. n. 33. Vide hic in corp. q. circa finem. — Vat. cum pluribus codd. *incontinenti,* et paulo inferius *conservandam* pro *consummandam,* ubi ed. 3 cum pluribus codd. *fruendam.*

en: Book III of *On Free Choice,* c. 11, n. 33. See here in the body of the question near the end. — The Vatican [edition] with very many codices [reads] *incontinenti,* and a little further down *conservandam* for *consummandam,* where edition 3 with very many codices [reads] *fruendam.*

la: In Vat. desiderantur verba *et per hoc etiam... littera.* Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: In the Vatican [edition] the words *et per hoc etiam... littera* are wanting. See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF crops at `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p{347,348,349,350}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` per the Vol II PDF-priority inversion (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters the Respondeo and footers across both columns); OCR consulted only for clean argumentation prose and for footnote-marker spacing. Raw range: lines 24561 → 24755 of `raw/bonaventure_vol2_raw.txt`.

**Page-split map (continuous footnote numbering across page footers per cross-chunk split convention).**
- p. 347 L footer notes 1–4 → `[^1]`–`[^4]` (handed forward from `d14-p1-a3-q1`, which flagged these as belonging to q2's affirmative *Ad oppositum* args. Verified body-anchored: note 1 *Phys. II text. 3* anchors arg 1; note 2 *Phys. VIII text. 28 / IV de Caelo text. 6* anchors arg 2; note 3 *De Fide orthod. ἄψυχοι γὰρ εἰσι* anchors arg 4 Damascenus citation; note 4 *Cfr. Aristot. II de Caelo text. 35* anchors arg 4 closing).
- p. 347 R footer notes 5–7 → `[^5]`–`[^7]` (note 5 *Plurimi codd... perperam enim* on arg 6 *aut ergo*; note 6 *Phys. VII text. 1 / VIII text. 34* anchors *Contra* arg 1 *Omne quod movetur ab alio movetur*; note 7 *Phys. VIII text. 40* anchors *Contra* arg 2 *omnis motor est in actu*).
- p. 348 L+R footer notes 1–9 → `[^8]`–`[^16]` (notes 1–4 from L col footer covering *Contra* 3–6; notes 5–9 from R col footer covering Respondeo *Arabes* (note 5), *Dan. 3, 59 prosopopeia* (note 6), Augustine *De Immortalitate animae* (note 7), Aristotle *De Anima* + Avicenna (note 8), forward cross-reference *Vide supra d. 13 a. 2 q. 1* (note 9)).
- p. 349 L+R footer notes 1–8 → `[^17]`–`[^24]` (notes 1–4 from L col footer covering Respondeo *Opinio catholica 1* continuation; notes 5–8 from R col footer covering *Solutio obiectorum* 1–5).
- p. 350 L footer note 1 → `[^25]` only (closing anchor of *Ad 6* / *in littera*; codex variant *In Vat. desiderantur verba et per hoc etiam… litteram. Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*). Notes 2–4 of p. 350 L footer belong to `d14-p1-dubia` (the chunk that follows this one — they anchor *Dub. I* and *Dub. II* bodies on the same printed page).

**Hand-offs picked up.** All four p. 347 L footer notes from `d14-p1-a3-q1` consumed here as `[^1]`–`[^4]` (this chunk's affirmative args 1, 2, 4). No further parked footers from prior chunks remain unresolved for q2.

**Hand-offs forward.** p. 350 L footer notes 2–4 (*Scil. mutationes inferiorum corporum… Aristot. I de Caelo text. 20*; *Cfr. a. 1. q. 1. huius dist.*; *Magister Petrus Comestor († 1178)*) hand forward to `d14-p1-dubia`, anchoring Dub. I and Dub. II bodies on p. 350. Confirmed body-anchored in the dubia chunk's raw range.

**Scholion.** No scholion in this q2 — Article III's scholion was already attached to `d14-p1-a3-q1` and is the article-level scholion per Vol II convention (which permits a `pro quaest. seq.` style article-scholion). The closing Vat. variant `[^25]` *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* is the editors' own back-pointer to that p. 347 R scholion, not an indication of a missing q2 scholion.

**Conclusio.** Two probable positions held compatible with reason and Scripture, against the rejected Avicennan view of a celestial animal-soul: (a) heaven moved by its own form, with divine power supplying any defect; (b) heaven moved by God by the mediation of an Angel/Intelligence. Bonaventure prefers (b) but does not condemn (a). The *Solutio obiectorum* is structured to answer the *Ad oppositum* args 1–6 (from the second position's standpoint).

**Marginal labels preserved inline (Vol II convention).** *Ad oppositum,* *Fundamenta,* *Opinio Avicennae,* *Reprobatur,* *Retractatio Augustini,* *Opinio catholica 1,* *Difficultates eiusdem,* *Oritur alia quaestio,* *Non tamen improbatur,* *Opinio et conclusio 2,* *Notandum,* *Solutio obiectorum.*

**Polish-blocker resolution 2026-05-25 (600 dpi).** `[?]` on `[^25]` closed: at 600 dpi (`raw/vision/vol2/r600/p-350-r600.png`, L-footer crop) the printed text reads *In Vat. desiderantur verba* **et per hoc etiam... littera.** (not *litteram*) — corrected in both Latin and English of `[^25]`. Body anchor placement at *in littera[^25]* (close of Ad 6) confirmed correct.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 14, 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 351 -->

### ARTICULUS I.

#### *De luminaribus in comparatione ad corpus, in quo locantur.*

### QUAESTIO I.

#### *Utrum omnia luminaria caeli locentur in uno corpore continuo.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum omnia luminaria caeli locentur in uno corpore continuo. Et quod sic, videtur:

*Fundamenta.* 1. Per textum sacrae Scripturae, quae dicit, omnia luminaria in firmamento posita esse, Genesis primo[^1]: *Fiant,* inquit, *luminaria in firmamento caeli* etc.

2. Item, hoc videtur ratione. Quaecumque corpora distinguuntur ab invicem, distinguuntur aut forma, aut superficie; sed corpus caeli a luna usque ad caelum stellatum est uniforme, et iterum non est corpus habens terminatam superficiem[^2]: ergo impossibile est, ipsum habere pluralitatem sive distinctionem: ergo omnia luminaria sita sunt in eodem corpore.

3. Item, si aliqua corpora sunt distincta ab invicem, ad motum unius non sequitur motus alterius; sed ultima sphaera movet totum, quod infra ipsam est, ab oriente in occidens[^3]: ergo necesse est, totam naturam caelestem esse unum corpus continuum.

4. Item, sicut aves sunt productae ad ornatum aeris, ita luminaria ad ornatum caeli; sed unum est corpus aeris, quod ornatur omnibus avibus: ergo pari ratione unum est corpus caeli, quod ornatur omnibus luminaribus.

*Ad oppositum* arguitur sic. 1. Numerus venit in corporibus eiusdem naturae ex divisione continui[^4]; sed orbes planetarum dicuntur esse septem tam a naturalibus quam a mathematicis: ergo sunt discontinui: ergo luminaria caeli non sunt in eodem corpore continuo.

2. Item, impossibile est, duo corpora, quae moventur diversis omnino et disparatis motibus, secundum suum totum esse continua; sed orbes planetarum, sicut dicunt astronomi, moventur contra ultimam sphaeram[^5]: ergo impossibile est, ad invicem continuari.

3. Item, Damascenus[^6] in enumeratione caelorum distinguit caelum septem planetarum a caelo stellarum; sed hoc non esset, si corpus illud, in quo sunt planetae et stellae, esset continuum: ergo etc.

<!-- page 352 -->

4. Item, si omnia luminaria essent in firmamento posita, ita quod in uno corpore continuo, tunc omnino stellae essent fixae, et nullae erraticae[^7]: si ergo aliae dicuntur esse fixae, et aliae erraticae: videtur, quod positae sint in alio et alio corpore.

*Quaestio incidens.* Iuxta hoc quaeritur, quare Deus plures fecit stellas, quam faceret planetas, sive quare plures sunt stellae fixae quam erraticae[^8].

> ### CONCLUSIO.
>
> *Caeli luminaria posita sunt in pluribus orbibus, in corpore tamen uno continuo, quod Scriptura vocat firmamentum.*

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam *praenotandum* est, quod secundum communem positionem loquentium circa hanc materiam, sive naturalium sive mathematicorum, luminaria locantur in diversis orbibus. — Haec autem distinctio orbium secundum melius intelligentes non venit ex distinctione *formarum,* sicut distinguuntur aer et aqua, nec venit ex discontinuatione *superficiei,* sicut distinguitur lapis a lapide, sed venit ex diversitate *motuum.* Diversitas autem *motuum* non tollit continuitatem in eo quod est subtile et ad motum habile; sicut manifeste apparet in aqua, quando secundum diversas sui partes ad diversas movetur positiones, et similiter in aëre; ex hoc tamen non discontinuantur. — *Conclusio.* Secundum hanc igitur positionem dicendum est, luminaria caeli posita esse in pluribus orbibus, in corpore tamen uno continuo, quod Scriptura vocat nomine firmamenti; et ideo dicit, omnia luminaria posita esse in firmamento caeli. — Unde rationes ad hanc partem inductae sunt concedendae.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod numerus est ex divisione continui; dicendum, quod verum est de illo numero, quo numerantur corpora eiusdem naturae in genere entium; sed non est verum de numero, quo numerantur corpora in genere mobilium. Ad hunc igitur numerum faciendum sufficit sola motuum distinctio; et sic est in proposito[^9].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod orbes planetarum moventur contrariis motibus ultimae sphaerae, ergo discontinuantur; dicendum, quod non sequitur; *notandum,* hoc enim non habet veritatem nisi in corpore solido. In corpore enim subtili et raro, sicut est aqua et aer, manifestam habet instantiam. In his enim distinctio potest venire a virtute motoris, salva continuitate mobilis, propter hoc quod est maxime obediens motori; nec habent superficiem sic terminatam, sicut habent corpora solida. Et illud patet plane, cum duo venti oppositi perflant in aëre, ita quod unus de super et alter de subter.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Damasceno, quod caelum planetarum distinguitur a firmamento; dicendum, quod distinctio caelorum plus attenditur secundum diversitatem *proprietatum* et *motuum,* quam attendatur secundum *discontinuationem* corporum, licet utroque modo possit attendi. Unde et Rabanus[^10] in distinctione caelorum caelum sidereum et caelum planetarum sub eodem caelo comprehendit.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si planetae sunt in firmamento, non sunt stellae erraticae; dicendum, quod non sequitur, quia in eodem corpore possunt contenta diversimode collocari, ita quod unum alligatur inseparabiliter, reliquum vero minime. Et stellae *fixae* dicuntur immediate positae in octava sphaera, cuius motu moventur; *planetae* vero sunt in orbibus inferioribus, qui[^11] moventur motu alio; et ideo aspectui nostro errare videntur, dum contra viam superioris orbis incedunt.

*Ad quaestionem incidentem.* Ad illud quod quaeritur, quare in ultima sphaera luminaria plura posuit Deus; ad hoc assignat Philosophus[^12] tres *rationes.* Et prima ratio est, quia sphaera octava maxime est causa vitae inferiorum prae ceteris sphaeris; et hoc non potest esse nisi per diversum lumen in diversis stellis. — Secunda ratio est, quia natura temperavit, ut daret inferioribus sphaeris, quae plures habent motus, stellam unam; et superiori, quae habet pauciores, daret stellas multas. — Tertia ratio est, quia motus influit a superioribus orbibus in inferiores. Quia ergo praedominantia in influente debet esse, ut orbis ille ceteris praecelleret inferioribus, quos movet; abundavit in corporum luminarium multiformitate. — *Iudicium de his.* Inter has autem rationes media ratio videtur esse probabilior, in qua ostenditur divina sapientia, quae multiformitatem ad unitatem reducit; et ideo illi sphaerae, quae plus accedit ad uniformitatem motus, dedit multiformitatem corporum; illis vero, quae habent motuum multiformitatem, dedit luminarium unitatem.

<!-- page 353 -->

### SCHOLION.

**I.** De hac et seq. quaestione, quae ad astronomiam spectant, alii commentatores plerumque vel tacent, praesertim de prima, vel paucis verbis rem absolvunt. — Contra doctrinam in I. quaest., solut. ad 2. positam Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 3.) hanc miram facit obiectionem: « Quod inviolabili auctoritate Scripturae canonicae caeli *solidissimi sunt, quasi aere fusi* [ita Iob 37, 18.]. Propter quod unum et idem caelum in diversis partibus suis non videtur sic posse moveri contrariis motibus instar aquae et aëris, seu consimilium subtilium, mollium ac divisibilium corporum ». — De I. quaest. tractant Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. et Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1.

**II.** Quoad controversiam in 2. quaest. notatam, quae est inter Aristotelem aliosque physicos et mathematicos, iam observavit Durand. (hic q. 3.): « *De planetis* autem quamquam dicat idem [scil. quod de stellis fixis] Aristoteles (II. de Caelo et mundo), tamen verius dicunt astrologi, ponendo, ipsas moveri secundum excentricos et epicyclos »; quod ibi pluribus probatur.

**III.** De 2. quaestione: S. Thom., S. I. q. 70. a. 1. ad 3. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 2. — B. Albert., Comment. in II. de Caelo et mundo, tr. 2. c. 3, et tr. 3. c. 7. 11. 14. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

---

english:
<!-- page 351 -->

### ARTICLE I.

#### *On the luminaries by comparison with the body in which they are placed.*

### QUESTION I.

#### *Whether all the luminaries of heaven are placed in one continuous body.*

Concerning the first [article] one proceeds thus and it is asked whether all the luminaries of heaven are placed in one continuous body. And that they are so [placed] seems [to be the case]:

*Grounds.* 1. From the text of sacred Scripture, which says that all the luminaries are placed in the firmament, Genesis 1[^1]: *Let there be,* it says, *luminaries in the firmament of heaven,* etc.

2. Likewise, this seems [to follow] by reason. Whatever bodies are distinguished from one another are distinguished either by form or by surface; but the body of the heaven from the moon up to the starry heaven is uniform, and again is not a body having a terminated surface[^2]: therefore it is impossible that it should have plurality or distinction: therefore all the luminaries are situated in one and the same body.

3. Likewise, if any bodies are distinguished from one another, the motion of the one does not follow upon the motion of the other; but the outermost sphere moves the whole that is beneath it from east to west[^3]: therefore it is necessary that the whole celestial nature be one continuous body.

4. Likewise, just as the birds were produced for the adornment of the air, so the luminaries [were produced] for the adornment of heaven; but there is one body of air which is adorned by all the birds: therefore by parity of reason there is one body of heaven, which is adorned by all the luminaries.

*On the contrary* one argues thus. 1. Number arises in bodies of the same nature from the division of a continuum[^4]; but the orbs of the planets are said to be seven both by natural philosophers and by mathematicians: therefore they are discontinuous: therefore the luminaries of heaven are not in one and the same continuous body.

2. Likewise, it is impossible that two bodies which are moved by altogether diverse and disparate motions should be continuous according to their whole [extent]; but the orbs of the planets, as the astronomers say, are moved contrary to the outermost sphere[^5]: therefore it is impossible that they should be continuous with one another.

3. Likewise, Damascene[^6] in his enumeration of the heavens distinguishes the heaven of the seven planets from the heaven of the stars; but this would not be so if that body in which the planets and the stars are were continuous: therefore etc.

<!-- page 352 -->

4. Likewise, if all the luminaries were placed in the firmament, namely so that [they were] in one continuous body, then the stars would all be fixed, and none would be erratic[^7]: if therefore some are said to be fixed and others erratic, it seems that they are placed in one body and another.

*Incidental question.* In addition to this it is asked why God made more stars than he made planets, or why there are more fixed stars than erratic ones[^8].

> ### CONCLUSION.
>
> *The luminaries of heaven are placed in several orbs, yet in one continuous body, which Scripture calls* firmamentum.

**I respond:** For the understanding of what has been said it must be *premised* that according to the common position of those who speak about this matter, whether natural philosophers or mathematicians, the luminaries are placed in diverse orbs. — But this distinction of the orbs, according to the better understanding, does not come from a distinction of *forms,* as air and water are distinguished, nor does it come from a discontinuity of *surface,* as one stone is distinguished from another, but it comes from a diversity of *motions.* Now the diversity of *motions* does not destroy continuity in that which is subtle and apt for motion; as is plainly evident in water, when according to its diverse parts it is moved into diverse positions, and likewise in the air; nevertheless on this account they are not made discontinuous. — *Conclusion.* According to this position, therefore, it must be said that the luminaries of heaven are placed in several orbs, yet in one continuous body, which Scripture calls by the name of *firmamentum*; and so it says that all the luminaries are placed in the firmament of heaven. — Whence the arguments adduced for this part must be conceded.

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].* 1. To that which is objected, that number comes from the division of a continuum; it must be said that this is true of that number by which bodies of the same nature are numbered in the genus of beings; but it is not true of the number by which bodies are numbered in the genus of movables. For the production of this latter number the distinction of motions alone suffices; and so it is in the case at hand[^9].

2. To that which is objected, that the orbs of the planets are moved by motions contrary to [that of] the outermost sphere, therefore they are discontinuous; it must be said that the consequence does not follow; *it is to be noted,* for this does not hold true except in a solid body. For in a subtle and rare body, such as water and air, there is a manifest counter-example. For in these the distinction can come from the power of the mover, with the continuity of the movable being preserved, because [the movable] is most obedient to the mover; nor do they have a surface so terminated as solid bodies have. And this is plainly evident, when two opposite winds blow in the air, namely so that one [blows] from above and the other from below.

3. To that which is objected from Damascene, that the heaven of the planets is distinguished from the firmament; it must be said that the distinction of the heavens is more attended to according to the diversity of *properties* and *motions* than it is attended to according to the *discontinuity* of bodies, although it can be attended to in either way. Whence also Rabanus[^10] in the distinction of the heavens comprehends the starry heaven and the heaven of the planets under one and the same heaven.

4. To that which is objected, that if the planets are in the firmament, they are not erratic stars; it must be said that the consequence does not follow, because in one and the same body things contained can be variously arranged, namely so that the one is fastened inseparably while the other [is] not at all. And the *fixed* stars are said to be placed immediately in the eighth sphere, by whose motion they are moved; the *planets,* however, are in lower orbs, which[^11] are moved by another motion; and therefore to our sight they appear to wander, while they advance contrary to the way of the higher orb.

*To the incidental question.* To that which is asked, why in the outermost sphere God placed many luminaries; for this the Philosopher[^12] assigns three *reasons.* And the first reason is that the eighth sphere is most of all the cause of life for inferior things beyond the other spheres; and this cannot be except by diverse light in diverse stars. — The second reason is that nature so tempered things that to the lower spheres, which have more motions, it gave one star; and to the higher one, which has fewer [motions], it gave many stars. — The third reason is that motion flows in from the higher orbs into the lower. Since therefore there ought to be a pre-dominance in that which flows in, so that that orb might excel the other lower ones which it moves, it abounded in the multiformity of luminary bodies. — *Judgment on these.* Among these reasons, however, the middle reason seems to be the more probable, in which is shown the divine wisdom, which reduces multiformity to unity; and therefore to that sphere which approaches more nearly to uniformity of motion it gave multiformity of bodies; but to those which have multiformity of motions it gave unity of luminaries.

<!-- page 353 -->

### Scholion.

**I.** Concerning this and the following question, which pertain to astronomy, the other commentators for the most part either remain silent, especially concerning the first, or dispatch the matter in a few words. — Against the doctrine set down in the first question, in the reply to the second [objection], Dionysius the Carthusian (here q. 3.) makes this remarkable objection: « That by the inviolable authority of canonical Scripture the heavens *are most solid, as it were fused of bronze* [so Job 37, 18]. On account of which one and the same heaven in its various parts does not seem to be able to be moved by contrary motions in the manner of water and air, or of similar subtle, soft, and divisible bodies ». — On the first question treat Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2, quaestiuncula 1, and Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 1.

**II.** As to the controversy noted in the second question, which is between Aristotle and other physicists and mathematicians, Durandus has already observed (here q. 3): « *Concerning the planets,* however, although Aristotle says the same [namely, as he says concerning the fixed stars] (II. de Caelo et mundo), nevertheless the astrologers say more truly, positing that they are moved according to eccentrics and epicycles »; which he there proves at greater length.

**III.** On the second question: St. Thomas, S. I, q. 70, a. 1, ad 3. — Scotus, in each Scriptum here, q. 2. — B. Albert, Commentary on the II. de Caelo et mundo, tr. 2, c. 3, and tr. 3, c. 7, 11, 14. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 3, quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.

---

la: Vers. 14.

en: Verse 14.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 41. 49. 51. 59. (c. 7. seq.). In text. 49. 59. expositione Averroes impugnat Avicennam opinantem, corpora caelestia « esse idem genere et diversa specie propter diversitatem partium suorum motuum et diversitatem suorum centrorum ». — De maiori cfr. Aristot., III. de Caelo et mundo, text. 60. seqq. (c. 7.) et supra pag. 303, nota 2.

en: Cf. Aristotle, II. de Caelo et mundo, text 41. 49. 51. 59. (c. 7 seq.). In text 49 and 59, in his exposition, Averroes attacks Avicenna who held that the celestial bodies « are the same in genus and diverse in species on account of the diversity of the parts of their motions and the diversity of their centers ». — For the major premise cf. Aristotle, III. de Caelo et mundo, text 60 ff. (c. 7) and above p. 303, note 2.

la: Vide Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 70. (c. 12.) cum expositione Averrois.

en: See Aristotle, II. de Caelo et mundo, text 70 (c. 12) with Averroes' exposition.

la: Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam., c. de Quantitate; V. Metaph. text. 18. (IV. c. 13). Vide tom. I. pag. 363, nota 11.

en: Cf. Aristotle, Categories, chapter On Quantity; V. Metaph., text 18 (IV, c. 13). See Vol. I, p. 363, note 11.

la: Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 58. (c. 10.) et Averroes, Epit. Metaph. tract. 4. — Paulo superius post *secundum suum totum* in cod. cc et ed. 1 additur *situm.*

en: Aristotle, II. de Caelo et mundo, text 58 (c. 10) and Averroes, Epitome of the Metaphysics, tract 4. — A little earlier, after *secundum suum totum,* the word *situm* is added in codex cc and the first edition.

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

en: Book II. de Fide orthodoxa, c. 6 and following.

la: Vide Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 60. (c. 12.). — Vat. *omnes* pro *omnino.*

en: See Aristotle, II. de Caelo et mundo, text 60 (c. 12). — The Vatican edition reads *omnes* in place of *omnino.*

la: Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 61. (c. 12.).

en: Aristotle, II. de Caelo et mundo, text 61 (c. 12).

la: In cod. A additur: *Vel dicendum, quod numerus circulorum in aqua non est ex divisione, sed ex generatione et motoris virtute; ideo* etc. Cfr. supra d. 13. a. 3. q. 1. ad 2.

en: In codex A there is added: *Or it must be said that the number of circles in water is not from division, but from generation and the power of the mover; therefore* etc. Cf. above d. 13, a. 3, q. 1, ad 2.

la: B. Albert., S. p. II. tract. 11. q. 54. agens de numero caelorum ait: « Sed quaerendum est quod dicitur Deut. 10, 14: *En Domini Dei tui caelum est et caelum caeli* etc., ubi dicit Rabanus in Glossa: *Quidam enim dicunt, tres esse caelos,* scilicet aereum, aethereum et sidereum. Nonnulli septem: primum aereum, secundum aethereum, tertium olympium, quartum igneum, quintum firmamentum, sextum aqueum, septimum Angelorum ». Haec Glossa refertur iam a Strabo, loc. cit. Cfr. Rabanus, Comment. in Gen. c. 1-6, et X. de Universo, c. 3. seqq.

en: B. Albert, Summa, pars II, tract 11, q. 54, treating of the number of the heavens, says: « But it must be inquired, as is said at Deuteronomy 10, 14: *Behold, the heaven of the Lord thy God is heaven and the heaven of heavens,* etc., where Rabanus says in the Gloss: *For some say that there are three heavens,* namely the airy, the ethereal, and the starry. Some [say there are] seven: first the airy, second the ethereal, third the Olympian, fourth the fiery, fifth the firmament, sixth the watery, seventh of the Angels ». This Gloss is already referred to by Strabo, loc. cit. Cf. Rabanus, Commentary on Genesis c. 1–6, and X. de Universo, c. 3 ff.

la: Non pauci codd. cum Vat. *quae.* Cfr. Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 44. 58. 69. (c. 8. seqq.); de Mundo, c. 2; XII. Metaph. text. 45. seqq. (XI. c. 8.).

en: Not a few codices, together with the Vatican edition, read *quae.* Cf. Aristotle, II. de Caelo et mundo, text 44, 58, 69 (c. 8 ff.); de Mundo, c. 2; XII. Metaph., text 45 ff. (XI, c. 8).

la: Libr. II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 68. seqq. (c. 12.). — Nonnulli codd. cum ed. I *unitatem.*

en: Book II. de Caelo et mundo, text 68 ff. (c. 12). — Some codices, together with the first edition, read *unitatem.*

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column-band crops at `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p351-{L,R}-{1,2}.png`, `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p352-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, and `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p353-{L,R}-0.png`. Running heads: p. 352 = `SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.`; p. 353 = `DIST. XIV. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II.` (the page-353 running head names QUAEST. II because the SCHOLION block sits at the top of p. 353 followed immediately by QUAESTIO II's opener; per Vol II convention the SCHOLION is the article/q1-level scholion and belongs here, not in `d14-p2-a1-q2`).
- **Page-split map.**
  - p. 351 L (forwarded from `d14-p2-divisio`): ARTICULUS I header + rubric *De luminaribus in comparatione ad corpus, in quo locantur.* + QUAESTIO I header + opener + affirmative args 1, 2, 3 (mid).
  - p. 351 R: tail of arg 3 (continuation) + arg 4 + *Ad oppositum* args 1, 2, 3 (head). Footer L+R notes 1–6.
  - p. 352 L: *Ad oppositum* arg 4 + *Quaestio incidens* + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo through *Solutio oppositorum* arg 1.
  - p. 352 R: *Solutio* args 1 (continuation), 2, 3, 4 + *Ad quaestionem incidentem* through the *Iudicium de his* / *unitatem* close. Footer L+R notes 1–7.
  - p. 353 L+R top: SCHOLION sections I, II, III (3 sections). The QUAESTIO II opener (*Secundo quaeritur…*) immediately follows on the same page below the SCHOLION block and belongs to `d14-p2-a1-q2`; p. 353 footer notes are NOT consumed here (none anchor in q1 body or SCHOLION — SCHOLION I's `[ita Iob 37, 18.]` and the Petr. a Tar. / Richard. citations are inline bracket-references, not numbered footer anchors).
- **Apparatus split.** 12 apparatus entries.
  - p. 351 footer notes 1–6 (split across L and R columns by Quaracchi's two-column footer convention; here printed-page numbering, not column numbering) = [^1]–[^6]. All six were forward-handed from `d14-p2-divisio` per that chunk's Notes and are body-anchored in q1's affirmative args ([^1] at *Genesis primo¹*; [^2] at *terminatam superficiem²*; [^3] at *ab oriente in occidens³*) and *Ad oppositum* args ([^4] at *ex divisione continui⁴*; [^5] at *contra ultimam sphaeram⁵*; [^6] at *Damascenus⁶*).
  - p. 352 footer notes 1–7 = [^7]–[^12] with the following marker convention: note 1 = [^7] at p. 352 *erraticae¹* in Ad opp. 4; note 2 = [^8] at *quam erraticae²* in *Quaestio incidens*; note 3 = [^9] at *in proposito³* close of *Solutio* 1; note 4 = [^10] at *Rabanus⁴* in *Solutio* 3 (the long B. Albert. + Strabo + Rabanus Glossa block); note 5 = [^11] at *qui⁵* in *Solutio* 4 (variant-reading note); note 6 = [^12] at *Philosophus⁶* in *Ad quaestionem incidentem*; note 7 was consumed inside [^12] (it carries the variant *unitatem* for the closing word *unitatem* of *Iudicium de his* — appended to [^12] as the editorial cluster on the *Ad quaestionem incidentem* / Philosophus footer pair, per the Quaracchi practice of bundling closely-spaced variant-readings into the prior numbered note rather than separate-anchoring them mid-clause).
- **Hand-offs picked up.** 6 notes from `d14-p2-divisio` (p. 351 L+R footer 1–6) — all consumed here as [^1]–[^6].
- **Hand-offs forwarded.** None. p. 353 carries no q1-body footer anchors; the SCHOLION's inline references (Iob 37, 18; Petr. a Tar.; Richard. a Med.) are scholion-internal bracket citations, not Quaracchi numbered footer notes. The next chunk `d14-p2-a1-q2` opens its own footer sequence at p. 353's QUAESTIO II body, with notes 1–4 anchoring fully in q2.
- **Folded-forward headers.** ARTICULUS I header + rubric *De luminaribus in comparatione ad corpus, in quo locantur.* + QUAESTIO I header (all from p. 351 L, immediately after the p2-divisio TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM sub-divisio closes) are held in this chunk per the locked Vol II convention (CLAUDE.md Vol II Override step 5: ARTICULUS opener is folded into that article's q1).
- **SCHOLION attribution.** Per Vol II convention the SCHOLION sits at the end of the article (immediately above QUAESTIO II on p. 353) but is logically the article/q1-level scholion: SCHOLION I cites *I. quaest., solut. ad 2.*; SCHOLION II references *controversiam in 2. quaest. notatam* (i.e., the *Sed contra* / Aristotle-vs-mathematicians thread that opens here in q1 and continues in q2); SCHOLION III is a bibliography for *2. quaestione* (the next chunk) — so this is a 3-section article-level scholion that gathers commentator references for all three questions of Article I; it lives here and `d14-p2-a1-q2` carries no fresh scholion (consistent with the locked Vol II convention "a quaestio with no scholion is normal if the article's q1 scholion says *pro quaest. seq.* — check the sibling").
- **Marginal labels preserved inline.** *Fundamenta.* (Ad opp.), *Ad oppositum.*, *Quaestio incidens.*, *Praenotanda.*, *Conclusio.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Notandum.*, *Ad quaest. incidentem.*, *Rationes 3*, *Iudicium de his.* — kept inline per Vol II convention, NOT promoted to headings.
- No `[?]` flags. All OCR garbles (`proeeditur`, `damenu.onmia`, `Inminaria`, `distingnuntur`, `liabens`, `^uperficiem`, `Inminaria sita`, `corporitms`, `dum su`, `tinnari`, `eciileiu`, `praedielorum`, `praedictoraii`, `secimdiim`, `comnaiem`, `posilionein`, `inathematicorum`, `diveisis`, `melitis`, `disliuctione`, `superficiei.`, `lapide.`, `liabile`, `couiplecti`, `motuiu`, `motuum.`, `Iuminaria`, `f.ainentiim`, `iiifernu`, `subterabnndavit`, `sphacrae`, `Coiicliisio.`, `iudicium`, `praecelleret`) silently corrected against the 450 dpi crops; all readings unambiguous.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


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

source_text:
<!-- page 353 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum luminaria in suis orbibus moveantur motibus propriis.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum luminaria moveantur in orbibus suis motibus propriis. Et quod sic, videtur.

*Ad oppositum.*
1. Aves enim, quae sunt ad ornatum aëris, motu proprio moventur in illo, et pisces in aquis: ergo et pari ratione luminaria in caelis.

2. Item, motus orbium non ponitur nisi propter motum luminarium: quia, circumscripto corpore, de se aequaliter habent influere, sive moveantur sive stent; sed natura non facit per plura quod potest facere per pauciora, nec facit cum maiori difficultate quod potest facere cum minori[^1]: si ergo idem facit motus sideris, quod facit motus totius orbis, videtur, quod naturae sit consonum ponere, quod stellae moveantur propriis motibus.

3. Item, si luminaria moventur motu suorum orbium, cum moveantur motibus disparatis et quasi in oppositum caelo stellato; tunc videtur, quod fiat ibi obviatio et retardatio, cum illud in quo moventur, sit unum corpus continuum.

4. Item, manifeste videmus ad oculum, in planetis esse elevationes et depressiones, progressiones et retrogradationes; sed hoc non posset esse, nisi propriis motibus moveri habeant: ergo etc.

*Fundamenta.*
**Sed contra:** 1. Si motibus propriis moventur planetae, ergo vel duo corpora erunt in eodem loco, vel necesse est, vacuam esse viam, per quam transit planeta, vel necesse est, corpus caeli rarefieri et condensari, et ita corrumpi: sed quodlibet horum est manifeste impossibile[^2]: ergo etc.

2. Item, «natura non deficit in necessariis[^3]», maxime circa ea quae sunt in ipsa nobiliora: ergo si in his quae moventur motu proprio, providit instrumenta, utpote pedes et alas vel pennas, videtur, quod in caelestibus corporibus debuerit dare ista; sed ista non habent, sicut patet ad sensum: ergo vel natura in eis deficit, vel non moventur motibus propriis.

3. Item, stellae in octava sphaera non moventur nisi motu illius sphaerae: ergo si ita collocatur unusquisque planeta in suo orbe, sicut stellae in octava sphaera, videtur, quod nullum luminare proprio motu habeat moveri.

4. Item, si luminaria aliqua moverentur motu proprio ad faciendum progressionem vel retrogradationem, impossibile esset, motum caeli esse uniformem: si ergo motus est uniformis et perpetuus[^4], videtur, quod nihil sit, planetas moveri motibus propriis et aliquando retrocedere, aliquando progredi.

> **Conclusio.** Luminaria coeli probabilius non moventur propriis motibus, sed ad motum orbium, in quo ipsa sita sunt.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod de hac quaestione controversia est inter naturales et mathematicos[^5].

*Opinio mathematicorum.* Mathematici enim, maxime considerantes apparentia, ut illa possent salvare simul cum motus

<!-- page 354 -->

perpetuitate et uniformitate, posuerunt excentricos et epicyclos, et planetas moveri motibus propriis in epicyclis; et secundum hoc, salvata motus uniformitate, aliquando contingit planetam deprimi, aliquando elevari secundum motum ipsius planetae in epicyclo, et epicycli in excentrico, et excentrici circa centrum proprium, quod est extra centrum mundi. — Ad obiectionem autem naturalium de corporis illius continuitate respondent diversimode, dicentes, quod non est inconveniens, si corpus illud scinditur motu planetae, quia est naturae igneae. Alii dicunt, quod corpus illud non scinditur, et planetae pertranseunt; corpus enim lucis simul potest esse cum alio corpore.

*Opinio Philosophi et conclusio.* Positio vero naturalium est, sicut Aristotelis et Commentatoris, quod planetae non moventur nisi motu suorum orbium, sicut clavus fixus in rota movetur motu rotae, non proprio; et hoc ponunt propter illius corporis incorruptibilitatem, propter quam non potest scindi nec transitum praebere alii corpori. Ponunt etiam, idem esse centrum orbium superiorum et inferiorum, scilicet centrum mundi, propter rotunditatem perfectam ipsorum orbium, qui circulariter moventur, ita quod unus non subintrat alterum. Ponunt etiam cum hoc maiorem et minorem velocitatem in orbibus; et ex hoc habere modo retrogradationes, modo progressiones, quia, cum unum corpus multum praecedit alterum sua velocitate, alterum videtur retrocedere. Et haec omnia valde videntur rationi consona.

*Iudicium de his.* Et ideo, licet positio mathematicorum secundum *iudicium sensuum* videatur esse verior, quia secundum illam viam procedendo et iudicando non falluntur circa motus corporum superiorum; secundum *rem* tamen non oportet esse verius, quia falsum frequenter est via inveniendi verum; sed rationabilius videtur procedere et ponere naturalis philosophus. — Ideo si illam positionem sustinere velimus, potest responderi ad ea quae obiiciuntur in oppositum.

*Solutio oppositorum.*
1. Ad illud enim quod obiicitur, quod aves in aëre, et pisces in aquis motibus propriis moventur; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia tam aër quam aqua sunt corpora, quae possunt rarefieri et condensari. Et praeterea, ista elementa non sunt sic nata moveri, ut corpora, quae ad eorum ornatum spectant, ipsorum[^6] motu sufficienter possint transmutari localiter, secundum quod exigit decor universi. Praeterea, ipsis animalibus competit motus progressivus propter sui indigentiam, et qui est ad assequendum aliquod delectabile; et hoc in luminaribus caeli nec competere potest nec debet.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod motus orbium est propter motum luminarium; dicendum, quod verum est; tamen ex hoc non sequitur, quod sola luminaria debeant moveri. Non enim sic salvatur integritas corporis quinti, si stellae moveantur motibus propriis, sicut si moveantur in orbibus suis, quia ibi per talem motum corporum caelestium non fit aliqua mutatio de loco ad locum secundum totalitatem mobilis, sed circa locum, nec alicuius corporis divisio; et hoc totum perfectio et incorruptibilitas caeli exigebat.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod, si moventur motu orbium, videtur, quod sit retardatio et obviatio; dicendum, quod non est obviatio, nisi quando directe secundum eandem lineam corpora moventia sibi obviant. Hic autem non est sic, quia orbes inferiores sunt sub superioribus; ideo motus eorum eis non repugnat nec etiam retardat propter maximam mobilis ad motorem obedientiam.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de illis retrogradationibus et progressionibus, dicendum, sicut tactum est, quod etsi videantur fieri ad sensum, hoc non est nisi propter maiorem et minorem velocitatem ipsorum orbium, quam si quis bene sciret explicare, hac via unica posset salvare illud, ad quod salvandum mathematici ponunt circulorum et centrorum multitudinem: sed hoc ad aliam scientiam spectat[^7].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the luminaries are moved in their own orbs by their own motions.*

Secondly it is asked whether the luminaries are moved in their orbs by their own motions. And that they are so, seems [the case].

*To the opposed view.*
1. For birds, which are for the adornment of the air, are moved in it by their own motion, and fishes in the waters: therefore by parallel reasoning the luminaries also in the heavens.

2. Likewise, the motion of the orbs is not posited except on account of the motion of the luminaries: for, the body being set aside, of themselves they have power to influence equally, whether they be moved or stand still; but nature does not do through many what it can do through fewer, nor does it do with greater difficulty what it can do with less[^1]: if therefore the motion of the star does the same as the motion of the whole orb does, it seems that it accords with nature to posit that the stars are moved by their own motions.

3. Likewise, if the luminaries are moved by the motion of their orbs, since they are moved by disparate motions and as if contrary to the starry heaven, then it seems that there would be there meeting and retardation, since that in which they are moved is one continuous body.

4. Likewise, we manifestly see by sight, that in the planets there are elevations and depressions, progressions and retrogradations; but this could not be, unless they had to be moved by their own motions: therefore etc.

*The foundations.*
**On the contrary:** 1. If the planets are moved by their own motions, then either two bodies will be in the same place, or it is necessary that the way by which the planet passes be empty, or it is necessary that the body of the heaven be rarefied and condensed, and so corrupted: but any of these is manifestly impossible[^2]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, «nature does not fail in necessaries[^3]», especially with respect to those things that are nobler in itself: therefore if for those things which are moved by their own motion, it provided instruments, namely feet and wings or pinions, it seems that it ought to have given these to the celestial bodies; but they do not have them, as is plain to sense: therefore either nature fails in them, or they are not moved by their own motions.

3. Likewise, the stars in the eighth sphere are not moved except by the motion of that sphere: therefore if each planet is so placed in its orb, just as the stars in the eighth sphere, it seems that no luminary has [the power] to be moved by its own motion.

4. Likewise, if any luminaries were to be moved by their own motion to make progression or retrogradation, it would be impossible that the motion of the heaven be uniform: if therefore the motion is uniform and perpetual[^4], it seems that there is nothing to it that the planets are moved by their own motions and sometimes retrocede, sometimes progress.

> **Conclusion.** The luminaries of heaven, more probably, are not moved by their own motions, but to the motion of the orbs in which they themselves are set.

**I respond:** It must be said that on this question there is controversy between the natural philosophers and the mathematicians[^5].

*Opinion of the mathematicians.* For the mathematicians, considering above all the appearances, that they might save them together with the perpetuity and uniformity of motion, posited eccentrics and epicycles, and that the planets are moved by their own motions in the epicycles; and according to this, the uniformity of motion being preserved, sometimes it happens that the planet is depressed, sometimes elevated according to the motion of the planet itself in the epicycle, and of the epicycle in the eccentric, and of the eccentric about its own center, which is outside the center of the world. — But to the objection of the natural philosophers concerning the continuity of that body, they respond in various ways, saying that it is not unfitting if that body is split by the motion of the planet, since it is of fiery nature. Others say that that body is not split, and the planets pass through; for the body of light can be together with another body.

*Opinion of the Philosopher and conclusion.* But the position of the natural philosophers is, as of Aristotle and the Commentator, that the planets are not moved except by the motion of their orbs, just as a nail fixed in a wheel is moved by the motion of the wheel, not by its own; and they posit this on account of the incorruptibility of that body, on account of which it cannot be split nor afford passage to another body. They posit also that the center of the higher and lower orbs is the same, namely the center of the world, on account of the perfect roundness of those orbs themselves, which are moved circularly, so that one does not enter under the other. They posit also together with this a greater and lesser velocity in the orbs; and from this [that they] have now retrogradations, now progressions, because, when one body much precedes another by its velocity, the other seems to retrocede. And all these things seem very consonant to reason.

*Judgment about these.* And therefore, although the position of the mathematicians according to the *judgment of the senses* seems to be truer, because proceeding and judging in that way they are not deceived concerning the motions of the higher bodies; according to *the thing* however it need not be truer, because the false is frequently a way of finding the true; but the natural philosopher seems to proceed and posit more reasonably. — Therefore, if we should wish to sustain that position, it can be replied to those things which are objected on the opposite side.

*Solution of the opposed [arguments].*
1. To that, then, which is objected, that birds in the air and fishes in the waters are moved by their own motions; it must be said that it is not similar, because both air and water are bodies which can be rarefied and condensed. And besides, these elements are not so constituted by nature to be moved, like the bodies which pertain to their adornment, that by their[^6] motion [those bodies] can be sufficiently transmuted locally, according to what the beauty of the universe demands. Besides, to animals themselves progressive motion belongs on account of their indigence, and which is for attaining some delectable thing; and this neither can nor ought to belong to the luminaries of heaven.

2. To that which is objected, that the motion of the orbs is on account of the motion of the luminaries; it must be said that it is true; nevertheless from this it does not follow that the luminaries alone ought to be moved. For the integrity of the fifth body is not so preserved, if the stars are moved by their own motions, as if they are moved in their orbs, because there through such motion of celestial bodies there is no change from place to place according to the totality of the mobile, but about a place, nor any division of any body; and the whole perfection and incorruptibility of heaven required this.

3. To that which is objected, that, if they are moved by the motion of the orbs, it seems that there is retardation and meeting; it must be said that there is no meeting, except when bodies in motion meet one another directly along the same line. But here it is not so, because the lower orbs are under the higher; therefore their motion is not repugnant to them nor even retards [them], on account of the very great obedience of the mobile to the mover.

4. To that which is objected concerning those retrogradations and progressions, it must be said, as has been touched on, that although they seem to come about to sense, this is only on account of the greater and lesser velocity of the orbs themselves, which if anyone knew well how to explain, by this single way he could save that for the saving of which the mathematicians posit the multitude of circles and centers: but this pertains to another science[^7].

---

la: Vide supra pag. 44, nota 5. — Aristot. hanc quaestionem proponit II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 43–52. (c. 8.), ubi etiam insinuantur plura argg. quae hic afferuntur.

en: See above p. 44, note 5. — Aristotle proposes this question, *On the Heavens and the World* II, text 43–52 (c. 8), where also several of the arguments which are here adduced are insinuated.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 324, nota 9. et hic p. I. dub. 2.

en: Compare above p. 324, note 9, and here pars I, dubium 2.

la: Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 45. (c. 9.). Cfr. II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 50. et 59. (c. 8. et 11.), ubi etiam dicitur, quod stella non movetur motu proprio, propterea quod nullum habet organum ad motum.

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* III, text 45 (c. 9). Compare *On the Heavens and the World* II, text 50 and 59 (c. 8 and 11), where also it is said that the star is not moved by its own motion, because it has no organ for motion.

la: Ut ponit Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 35. seqq. (c. 6.). — Paulo inferius plures codd. *non sit*, cod. Q *non sit ponere*, cod. cc et ed. 1 *non sinit* pro *nihil sit*.

en: As Aristotle posits, *On the Heavens and the World* II, text 35 ff. (c. 6). — A little below, several codices [read] *non sit*, codex Q *non sit ponere*, codex cc and edition 1 *non sinit* in place of *nihil sit*.

la: Vide Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, cum Comment. Averrois, text. 35. 47. 58. seq. (c. 6. 8. 10.); III. text. 61. (c. 7.); I. Metaph. text. 19. seqq. et XII. text. 44. seqq. (l. c. 8. et XI. c. 8.), ubi etiam sententia Aristotelis et Averrois, de qua paulo inferius mentio fit, invenitur. — *Epicyclus*, a Graeco ἐπί i. e. *in* vel *super*, et κύκλος i. e. *circulus*, est circulus in alio circulo vel super alium circulum; et mathematici hoc termino nominant orbiculum, per cuius circumferentiam planeta defertur, ipsumque ponunt propter varios planetarum motus, ad quos explicandos non sufficit circulus excentricus in planetis, praeter solem.

en: See Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* II, with the Commentary of Averroes, text 35, 47, 58 ff. (c. 6, 8, 10); III, text 61 (c. 7); *Metaphysics* I, text 19 ff. and XII, text 44 ff. (l. c. 8 and XI c. 8), where also the opinion of Aristotle and of Averroes, which is mentioned a little below, is found. — *Epicyclus*, from the Greek ἐπί i.e. *in* or *upon*, and κύκλος i.e. *circle*, is a circle in another circle or upon another circle; and the mathematicians name by this term the small orb through whose circumference the planet is carried, and they posit it on account of the various motions of the planets, for explaining which the eccentric circle in the planets, besides the sun, does not suffice.

la: Vat. *quae ipsorum*. Aliquando inferius plures codd. *et hic* pro *et hoc*.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *quae ipsorum*. Sometimes below several codices [read] *et hic* in place of *et hoc*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF crops at `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p35{3,4}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. Body OCR (raw lines 24965–25064 in `raw/bonaventure_vol2_raw.txt`) used as base for the affirmative *Ad oppositum* args 1–4 and *Sed contra*/Fundamenta args 1–4 (clean prose); the Respondeo, *opinio mathematicorum* / *opinio philosophi* / *iudicium de his* / *solutio oppositorum* blocks were re-set from the PDF column bands per the Vol II override (cascade-shattered OCR around mid-quaestio marginalia and column gutters).

**Page-split map.**
- p. 353 L+R: ARTICULUS I rubric and q1 SCHOLION block (handled in `d14-p2-a1-q1`); q2 opener (QUAESTIO II header + rubric + *Secundo quaeritur*) begins L mid-bottom, runs through *Ad oppositum* args 1–4 (L col), *Sed contra*/Fundamenta args 1–4 (L bottom → R top), Conclusio + Respondeo + opening of *opinio mathematicorum* (R mid-bottom). Footer carries 5 numbered notes; all 5 anchor in q2's body — note 1 at *minori¹*, note 2 at *impossibile²*, note 3 at *necessariis³*, note 4 at *perpetuus⁴*, note 5 at *mathematicos⁵*. No q1 hand-back required (q1's apparatus closed at p. 353 L top before the SCHOLION block; q1's footer notes were on pp. 351–352).
- p. 354 L+R: continuation of *opinio mathematicorum* + *opinio Philosophi et conclusio* + *Iudicium de his* + *Solutio oppositorum* args 1–4. Footer carries 3 numbered notes: notes 1 (Vat. *quae ipsorum* + *et hic*/*et hoc* variants) and 2 (Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.) anchor in q2 at *ipsorum¹* (Solutio op. arg. 1) and *spectat²* (closing of Solutio op. arg. 4) — captured here as [^6] and [^7]. **Note 3** (Cfr. supra d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.) anchors in QUAESTIO III's *opinio* on p. 354 R bottom and **hands forward to `d14-p2-a1-q3`** per the locked Vol II cross-chunk footer-split convention.

**Hand-offs picked up.** None — q1 forwarded no apparatus into q2 (confirmed against the q1 chunk's `## Notes` page-split map).

**Hand-offs forwarded.** p. 354 footer note 3 (*Cfr. supra d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.*) → `d14-p2-a1-q3` as its first numbered apparatus entry, body-anchored at the *caelum empyreum* / *Sanctis* cross-reference in q3's first affirmative argument.

**Scholion.** None for q2. The article-level 3-section SCHOLION (incl. Scholion III's *De 2. quaestione* bibliography) is attached to `d14-p2-a1-q1` per the locked Vol II convention (q1's SCHOLION III is the *pro quaest. seq.* forward-pointer for q2). Verified against the q1 chunk before omitting here.

**[?] flags.** None.

**Apparatus-count audit expectation.** Chunk holds 7 entries; raw OCR line range 24965–25064 contains all 5 p. 353 footer notes (which all anchor here) and the partial p. 354 footer tail (notes 1–2 within range; note 3 sits at line 25068 which falls in the next chunk). Expect audit diff ≈ 0 to +1.