Dist. 14, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/2/d/14/q/bon-sent-II-d14-p1-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### QUESTION II.
#### *Whether the firmament is the same as the element of fire.*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*To the opposite* there is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Conclusion.

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

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

*The opinion of the philosophers.* For commonly the philosophers, besides the four

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---