Dist. 14, Part 1, Art. 2, 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-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether right and left are to be posited in heaven.*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

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

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

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

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

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

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

---