← Back to Distinction 14

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

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 14

Textus Latinus
p. 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 primo1: 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 superficiem2: 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 occidens3: 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 continui4; 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 sphaeram5: ergo impossibile est, ad invicem continuari.

3. Item, Damascenus6 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.

p. 352

4. Item, si omnia luminaria essent in firmamento posita, ita quod in uno corpore continuo, tunc omnino stellae essent fixae, et nullae erraticae7: 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 erraticae8.

### 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 proposito9.

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 Rabanus10 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, qui11 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 Philosophus12 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.

p. 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 Translation
p. 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 11: 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 surface2: 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 west3: 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 continuum4; 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 sphere5: therefore it is impossible that they should be continuous with one another.

3. Likewise, Damascene6 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.

p. 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 erratic7: 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 ones8.

### 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 hand9.

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 Rabanus10 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, which11 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 Philosopher12 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.

p. 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.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 14.
    Verse 14.
  2. 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.
    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.
  3. Vide Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 70. (c. 12.) cum expositione Averrois.
    See Aristotle, II. de Caelo et mundo, text 70 (c. 12) with Averroes' exposition.
  4. Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam., c. de Quantitate; V. Metaph. text. 18. (IV. c. 13). Vide tom. I. pag. 363, nota 11.
    Cf. Aristotle, Categories, chapter On Quantity; V. Metaph., text 18 (IV, c. 13). See Vol. I, p. 363, note 11.
  5. 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.
    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.
  6. Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 6. seq.
    Book II. de Fide orthodoxa, c. 6 and following.
  7. Vide Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 60. (c. 12.). — Vat. omnes pro omnino.
    See Aristotle, II. de Caelo et mundo, text 60 (c. 12). — The Vatican edition reads omnes in place of omnino.
  8. Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 61. (c. 12.).
    Aristotle, II. de Caelo et mundo, text 61 (c. 12).
  9. 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.
    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.
  10. 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.
    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.
  11. 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.).
    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).
  12. Libr. II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 68. seqq. (c. 12.). — Nonnulli codd. cum ed. I unitatem.
    Book II. de Caelo et mundo, text 68 ff. (c. 12). — Some codices, together with the first edition, read unitatem.
← Dist. 14, Part 1, Art. 3, Q. 2Dist. 14, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2→