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

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 2

Textus Latinus

p. 70

ARTICULUS I.

De natura caeli empyrei in se.

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

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

1. In quolibet genere mobile praesupponit immobile¹, quia omne fluxibile ad fixum terminatur; sed corpus caeli siderei est mobile: ergo supra illud de necessitate est ponere ulterius corpus, quod sit immobile; hoc autem dico empyreum. Si tu dicas, quod non requiritur, quia motus circularis est circa locum et non requirit immobilitatem nisi a parte medii²; contra: totum caelum movetur;

p. 71

tunc ergo quaero de ultima superficie caeli, utrum moveatur; constat quod sic; sed omne mobile est in loco³, quia «non quaereretur locus, nisi esset motus»: ergo etc.

2. Item, in quolibet genere multiforme praesupponit uniforme, sicut multa praesupponunt unum⁴; sed caelum sidereum est multiforme: ergo ultra illud et supra est corpus uniforme; hoc autem dicimus empyreum: ergo etc.

3. Item, in quolibet genere, in quo est ponere infimum et medium, est ponere supremum; sed gradus in corporibus attenditur secundum gradus perspicui et lucis; sed invenitur corpus opacum simpliciter, ut terra, et simpliciter⁵ secundum totum opacum: ergo si complementum est in corporibus, debet esse corpus simpliciter et secundum totum luminosum; hoc dico empyreum: ergo etc.

4. Item, habitatio habitatori debet respondere: ergo cum aliquis locus tenebrosus damnatis debeatur, ergo per oppositum videtur, quod lucidus debeatur Beatis⁶.

Contra:

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

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

3. Item, quod non conveniat esse aliquod caelum immobile, videtur, quia omne caelum necessario est sphaericae figurae, sicut probat Philosophus⁷, et rei veritas est; sed sphaerica figura apta est omnino motui: ergo omne caelum, eo ipso quod caelum, est mobile: ergo etc.

4. Item, quod propinquius est motori citius et velocius movetur⁸; sed corpus supremum est tale: ergo non solum moveri, sed etiam velocissime moveri competit sibi.

5. Item, hoc nobilitatis est in caelo, ut moveatur — unde orbis primus, scilicet caeli stellati, movetur velocius, et ratio huius est, ut assimiletur suo motori⁹ — sed quanto aliquod corpus superius, tanto nobilius et motori similius et tanto mobilius: ergo si empyreum est ultra firmamentum, non est ergo immobile.

Conclusio

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

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quamvis Sancti parum loquantur de hoc caelo, quia latet nostros sensus, et philosophi adhuc minus, tamen ponere est caelum empyreum, sicut dicit sacra Scriptura: In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram¹⁰. Strabus exponit de empyreo, et hoc probat per litteram sequentem, quia firmamentum et caelum aqueum facta sunt secundo die. Et Damascenus¹¹ hoc exponit: In principio creavit Deus caelum, id est «sine stellis sphaericae formae».

Ponendum est etiam illud caelum, quia persuadet ratio finis triplex. Una est perfectio universi, alia est propter motum firmamenti, et tertia principalis propter habitationem hominis beati. Et quoniam finis imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem, propter perfectionem¹² universi necesse est, ipsum esse uniforme, quia, cum sit caelum luminosum difforme, si non esset uniforme, non esset universum completum. Propter motum firmamenti ponendum est ipsum immobile, ut motus mobilis fiat circa immobile, scilicet centrum, et intra continens immobile et locans¹³, scilicet empyreum.

p. 72

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

1. Quod obiicitur, quod non est uniforme, quia¹⁴ ornatum; dicendum, quod ipsa lux propter sui nobilitatem est sibi ornatus; quoniam ergo corpus illud est luminosum per totum, alio ornatu non indiget. — Vel potest dici, quod, sicut illud caelum decoratum est astris, ita istud Angelis, qui sunt quasi astra caeli empyrei, iuxta illud Iob trigesimo octavo¹⁵: Cum me laudarent astra matutina. Et iterum, astra eius erunt homines beati, et quasi sol eius erit Agnus Dei.

2. Quod obiicitur, quod sol diffundit lumen in ipsum empyreum; dicendum, quod illius corporis non est recipere lumen, ad minus¹⁶ ab inferioribus. Et ratio huius est limitatio virtutis a parte solis, quia nihil agit ultra terminum sibi a Deo constitutum. Unde sicut ignis stat, cum pervenit ad horizontem, nec ultra progreditur, et terra, cum pervenit ad centrum; ita solis radii non protenduntur extra firmamentum, quia lucerna est huius visibilis orbis. — Alia ratio est, quia maior influentia absorbet minorem; et ideo tanta est illius caeli influentia, quod ad ipsum non pervenit minor, sicut candela non illuminat solem.

3. 4. Quod obiicitur, quod est mobile, quia sphaericum et propinquum¹⁷; dicendum, quod ad motum non sufficit sphaerica figura, sed etiam necessarius est, ut dicunt aliqui, locus continens; et rationabile videtur. Necessarius est etiam absque dubio effectus, vel utilitas mobilis vel alterius. Quoniam ergo caelum illud non est in alio, et quoniam est uniforme per totum, per sui motum nihil faceret; et ideo est immobile. Similiter, quia est uniforme, non habet moveri, quia non habet dextrum et sinistrum. — Sed prima ratio de immobilitate non habet multam necessitatem, cum motus circularis secundum Philosophum¹⁸ non requirat locum in quo, sed circa quem. Secunda de utilitate similiter, quia similiter posset dici de aqueo; eodem modo de tertia¹⁹. Praeterea, dextrum et sinistrum sunt in caelo non ratione diversitatis partium, sed ratione influentiae motoris; et illud satis faciliter probatur, quia dextrum et sinistrum non mutatur, quamvis omnes partes caeli mutentur.

Et ideo ratio, quare non movetur, est, quia Deus nihil influit super ipsum ad motum, sed ad quietem tantum; et sicut influentia Dei movet firmamentum, sic quietat empyreum. — Ratio autem huius est, quia locus ille est regio deputata his qui omni modo in statu sunt et quiete; et ita patet, quod non magis appropinquat motori, ut motor est, sed ut est stabiliens. — Ex hac ratione, scilicet quia est, ut sit locus Beatorum, accipitur triplex eius proprietas²⁰, scilicet immobilitas, uniformitas et luminositas. Et haec est ratio magis catholica, quia etiam motus caeli stellati non est nisi propter obsequium hominis viatoris; unde numero electorum completo, non erit amplius revolutio. Rationes autem philosophicae²¹, quae assignantur de motu caeli, apud fideles plus habent vanitatis quam veritatis, si quis diligenter aspiciat.

5. Quod enim obiicit de assimilatione, responderi potest, quod illa causa est nulla, sed impletio numeri electorum. — Vel dicendum, quod est assimilatio in essendo, et est assimilatio in causando. Verbum Philosophi non habet veritatem primo modo, quia Deus et motor caeli est immobilis; sed secundo modo, quia per sui motum est causa generationis²². Quia ergo empyreum non assimilaretur in causando, si moveretur, et esset minus simile in essendo; ideo simpliciter dicendum, ipsum esse immobile. Et sic patent omnia.

p. 73

Scholion

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

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

---

English Translation

ARTICLE I.

On the nature of the empyrean heaven in itself.

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

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

1. In every genus the mobile presupposes the immobile¹, because everything flowing terminates at something fixed; but the body of the starry heaven is mobile: therefore above it of necessity one must posit a further body, which is immobile; and this I call the empyrean. If you say that [this] is not required, because circular motion is around a place and does not require immobility except on the part of the center²; on the contrary: the whole heaven moves;

p. 71

then therefore I ask concerning the outermost surface of the heaven, whether it moves; it is established that [it does] so; but everything mobile is in a place³, because «a place would not be sought, were there not motion»: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in every genus the multiform presupposes the uniform, just as the many presuppose the one⁴; but the starry heaven is multiform: therefore beyond and above it there is a uniform body; and this we call the empyrean: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, in every genus in which there is something lowest and something intermediate to posit, there is something highest to posit; but grade in bodies is reckoned according to the grades of the transparent and of light; but a body is found wholly opaque, like earth, and wholly⁵ opaque throughout: therefore if there is a completion in bodies, there must be a body wholly and throughout luminous; and this I call the empyrean: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the dwelling ought to correspond to the dweller: therefore since some dark place is owed to the damned, then by the opposite it seems that a bright [place] is owed to the Blessed⁶.

On the contrary:

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

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

3. Likewise, that it does not befit there to be any immobile heaven, seems [so], because every heaven is necessarily of spherical figure, as the Philosopher proves⁷, and the truth of the matter is [so]; but a spherical figure is apt for motion entirely: therefore every heaven, by the very fact that it is a heaven, is mobile: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, what is nearer to the mover moves more quickly and more swiftly⁸; but the highest body is such: therefore not only to be moved, but also to be moved most swiftly, befits it.

5. Likewise, it belongs to [the] nobility in a heaven that it be moved — whence the first orb, namely that of the starry heaven, moves more swiftly, and the reason for this is that it may be assimilated to its mover⁹ — but the higher some body [is], the nobler and the more like the mover and the more mobile [it is]: therefore if the empyrean is beyond the firmament, it is therefore not immobile.

Conclusion

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

I respond: It must be said that although the Saints speak little of this heaven, because it is hidden from our senses, and the philosophers [speak of it] still less, nevertheless one must posit that there is an empyrean heaven, as Scripture itself says: In the beginning God created heaven and earth¹⁰. Strabus expounds [this] of the empyrean, and he proves this by the following text, since the firmament and the watery heaven were made on the second day. And Damascene¹¹ expounds it [thus]: In the beginning God created heaven, that is, «without stars, of spherical form».

That heaven must also be posited because a threefold reason of end persuades [it]. One is the perfection of the universe, another is on account of the motion of the firmament, and the third [and] principal is on account of the dwelling of blessed man. And since the end imposes necessity on the things which are for the end, on account of the perfection¹² of the universe it is necessary that it be uniform, because, since [if] it were a non-uniform luminous heaven, were it not uniform, the universe would not be complete. On account of the motion of the firmament it must be posited immobile, so that the motion of the mobile may take place around the immobile, namely the center, and within a containing immobile and locating [body]¹³, namely the empyrean.

p. 72

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

1. To what is objected, that it is not uniform because¹⁴ adorned; it must be said that the light itself, on account of its nobility, is its own adornment; since therefore that body is luminous throughout, it needs no other adornment. — Or it can be said that, just as that [starry] heaven is adorned with stars, so this [empyrean is adorned] with the Angels, who are as it were the stars of the empyrean heaven, according to that [text] of Job thirty-eight¹⁵: When the morning stars praised me. And again, its stars will be the blessed men, and as it were its sun will be the Lamb of God.

2. To what is objected, that the sun diffuses light into the empyrean itself; it must be said that it does not belong to that body to receive light, at least¹⁶ from things below. And the reason for this is the limitation of power on the part of the sun, because nothing acts beyond the term set for it by God. Hence, just as fire stops when it reaches the horizon, nor goes further, and earth [stops] when it reaches the center; so the sun's rays are not extended beyond the firmament, because [the sun] is the lamp of this visible orb. — Another reason is that a greater influence absorbs a lesser one; and therefore so great is the influence of that heaven that a lesser one does not reach it, just as a candle does not illumine the sun.

3. 4. To what is objected, that it is mobile because spherical and near¹⁷; it must be said that for motion a spherical figure does not suffice, but there is also necessary, as some say, a containing place; and [this] seems reasonable. There is also necessary, without doubt, an effect, or the utility of the mobile or of another. Since therefore that heaven is not in another, and since it is uniform throughout, by its motion it would do nothing; and therefore it is immobile. Likewise, since it is uniform, it does not have [the property] to be moved, because it does not have right and left. — But the first reason concerning immobility does not have much necessity, since circular motion, according to the Philosopher¹⁸, does not require a place in which, but [a place] around which. The second, concerning utility, likewise, because the same could be said of the watery [heaven]; in the same way concerning the third¹⁹. Moreover, right and left are in the heaven not by reason of a diversity of parts, but by reason of the influence of the mover; and that is proved easily enough, because right and left do not change, although all the parts of the heaven change.

And therefore the reason why it does not move is that God infuses nothing into it toward motion, but only toward rest; and just as the influence of God moves the firmament, so it brings the empyrean to rest. — But the reason for this is that that place is a region deputed for those who are in every way in [a state of] stability and rest; and so it is clear that it does not approach the mover more [in so far] as it is mover, but [in so far] as it is stabilizing. — From this reason, namely because it is [there] so that it may be the place of the Blessed, its threefold property is taken²⁰, namely immobility, uniformity, and luminosity. And this is the more catholic reason, because even the motion of the starry heaven is only on account of the service of wayfaring man; whence, the number of the elect being completed, there will be no further revolution. But the philosophical reasons²¹ which are assigned concerning the motion of the heaven, among the faithful have more of vanity than of truth, if one looks diligently.

5. As to what he objects concerning assimilation, it can be answered that that cause is null, but [the cause is] the filling-up of the number of the elect. — Or it must be said that there is an assimilation in being, and there is an assimilation in causing. The saying of the Philosopher does not have truth in the first way, because God and the mover of the heaven is immobile; but [it has truth] in the second way, because by its motion it is the cause of generation²². Since therefore the empyrean would not be assimilated in causing, if it were moved, and would be less similar in being; therefore it must be said simply that it is immobile. And so all [the objections] are clear.

p. 73

Scholion

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

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

---

Apparatus Criticus

1
Cfr. tom. 1. pag. 78, nota 2. et pag. 157, nota 11. — Paulo superius Vat. cuiusmodi naturae pro cuiusmodi.
Cf. tom. 1, p. 78, note 2, and p. 157, note 11. — A little above, the Vatican edition [reads] cuiusmodi naturae ["of what kind of nature"] for cuiusmodi ["of what kind"].
2
Vide Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 76. (c. 9.), ubi probat, motum circularem ex sua natura esse continuum, quia in ipso per se non distinguitur principium, medium et finis; haec enim tria pertinent ad centrum, circa quod, non ad quod movetur.
See Aristotle, VIII Physics text 76 (c. 9), where he proves that circular motion is of its nature continuous, because in it of itself beginning, middle, and end are not distinguished; for these three pertain to the center, around which, not toward which, [the thing] moves.
3
Aristot., V. Phys. text. 8. (c. 1.): «Omne quod movetur, in loco est». Sequens prop. est Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 32. (c. 4.), quam Vat. invertit non quaereretur motus, nisi esset locus. Nonnulli codd. nisi esset locus motus (localis motus?) quod respondet Aristot. textui.) — Notamus, quod in hoc argumento proponitur solutio difficultatis, quae animos Commentatorum Aristotelis, IV. Phys. text. 43. (c. 5.), diu agitabat, et quam Averroes ita proponit: «Accidit in eo magna quaestio, quoniam manifestum est, ipsum (totum orbem) moveri, et cum omne motum sit in loco, necesse est, ut totus orbis sit in loco: ergo sumus inter duo: aut ponere, quod aliquid motum non est in loco, aut ponere, quod locus est inane (vacuum) et dimensio». Refutatis dein opinionibus Ioannis Grammatici, Themistii, Alfarabii, Avempacis, ipse tenet, quod ultima sphaera seu caelum dicatur esse in loco per accidens, in quantum centrum terrae, circa quod revolvitur et cuius indiget tanquam quiescentis et fixi, habet esse in loco.
Aristotle, V Physics text 8 (c. 1): «Everything that is moved is in a place». The following proposition is Aristotle, IV Physics text 32 (c. 4), which the Vatican edition inverts: motion would not be sought, were there not a place. Some codices [read] nisi esset locus motus (localis motus?), which corresponds to Aristotle's text). — We note that in this argument is proposed the solution of a difficulty which long agitated the minds of the Commentators on Aristotle, IV Physics text 43 (c. 5), and which Averroes proposes thus: «There arises in this a great question, since it is manifest that it (the whole orb) is moved, and since everything moved is in a place, it is necessary that the whole orb be in a place: therefore we are between two [alternatives]: either to posit that something moved is not in a place, or to posit that a place is something empty (a void) and dimension». Then, the opinions of John the Grammarian, Themistius, Alfarabi, [and] Avempace having been refuted, he himself holds that the outermost sphere or heaven is said to be in a place per accidens, in so far as it has being in a place [through] the center of the earth, around which it revolves and which it needs as something at rest and fixed.
4
Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 22. (c. 4.): Prius natura in unoquoque genere est unum multis.
Aristotle, II On the Heaven and the World, text 22 (c. 4): Prior by nature in each genus is the one to the many.
5
In nonnullis codd. ut X Z deest simpliciter. Vat. legit Sed invenitur corpus opacum simpliciter et secundum totum, ut terra. Ed. 4, retenta lectione codd., ultimam propositionis partem sic exhibet ut terra, et simpliciter et secundum totum opacum, ut firmamentum.
In some codices, as X Z, simpliciter is lacking. The Vatican edition reads But a body is found wholly opaque and throughout, like earth. Ed. 4, the reading of the codices being retained, presents the last part of the proposition thus: like earth, both wholly and throughout opaque, like the firmament.
6
Aristot., de Mundo, c. 7. (c. 6.) de habitatione Dei loquens ait: Quem locum tum Uranon ab origine vocis dicimus quasi terminum extimum supremorum corporum, tum etiam Olympum ut usquequaque lucidum, ab omni caligine secretum motuque omni incondito etc.
Aristotle, On the World, c. 7 (c. 6), speaking of the dwelling of God, says: Which place we call both Uranon from the origin of the word, as it were the outermost term of the highest bodies, and also Olympus as everywhere bright, secluded from all darkness and from all disordered motion etc.
7
Libr. II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 22. seqq. (c. 4.).
Book II On the Heaven and the World, text 22 and following (c. 4).
8
Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 84. (c. 10.): Celerrime moventur quae proxima sunt moventi. Cfr. de Mundo, c. 7. (c. 6.).
Aristotle, VIII Physics text 84 (c. 10): Most swiftly move the things which are nearest to the mover. Cf. On the World, c. 7 (c. 6).
9
Averroes super XII. Metaph. text. 37: Primum enim caelum movetur ab isto motore secundum desiderium, ut assimiletur ei secundum suum posse, sicut amatum movetur, ut assimiletur suo amato; alia autem corpora caelestia moventur secundum desiderium ad motum primi corporis etc. Cfr. etiam Avicenna, IX. Metaph. c. 2. seqq.
Averroes on XII Metaphysics text 37: For the first heaven is moved by that mover according to desire, that it may be assimilated to it according to its capacity, just as the beloved is moved that it may be assimilated to its lover; but the other celestial bodies are moved according to desire toward the motion of the first body etc. Cf. also Avicenna, IX Metaphysics c. 2 and following.
10
Gen. 1, 1. — Verba Strabi vide hic, lit. Magistri, c. 4.
Genesis 1:1. — For the words of Strabus see here, the text of the Master, c. 4.
11
Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 6.
Book II On the Orthodox Faith, c. 6.
12
Cod. Z propter perfectam rationem, qui subinde post si non esset adiungit empyreum quod est.
Codex Z [reads] on account of [its] perfect character, which thereupon, after si non esset, adds empyreum quod est.
13
Plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 et locum, in aliquibus tamen codd., ed. 1 et in anecdoto compendio Commentarii S. Bonaventurae, scripto a Fr. Gulielmo de Mara, habetur locans.
Most codices, with ed. 1, [read] et locum ["and place"]; in some codices, however, [in] ed. 1, and in the unpublished compendium of the Commentary of St. Bonaventure written by Fr. William de la Mare, is found locans ["locating"].
14
Vat. cum nonnullis codd. perperam addit non.
The Vatican edition, with some codices, wrongly adds non.
15
Vers. 7, in cuius expositione Gregor., XXVIII. Moral. c. 14. n. 34, Angelos vocat astra matutina, homines redemtos autem astra vespertina. — In fine solutionis alluditur ad Apoc. 21, 23.
Verse 7, in the exposition of which Gregory, XXVIII Morals, c. 14, n. 34, calls the Angels morning stars, but redeemed men evening stars. — At the end of the solution allusion is made to Apocalypse 21:23.
16
Vat. lumen maius. Paulo inferius cod. H ad suam sphaeram pro ad horizontem (in codd. et primis edd. horizonta; codd. N aa adiungunt suum). Dein post progreditur in codd. A U additur et mare cum pervenit ad littus.
The Vatican edition [reads] lumen maius ["greater light"]. A little below, codex H [reads] ad suam sphaeram ["to its sphere"] for ad horizontem ["to the horizon"] (in the codices and the first editions horizonta; codices N aa add suum). Then after progreditur, in codices A U is added and the sea, when it reaches the shore.
17
Supple cum Vat. motori, quae etiam aliquanto inferius pro vel utilitas ponit videlicet utilitas.
Supply, with the Vatican edition, motori ["to the mover"], which also a little below, for vel utilitas ["or the utility"], puts videlicet utilitas ["namely the utility"].
18
Cfr. supra pag. 70, nota 4, et l. de Caelo et mundo, text. 5. (c. 2.), ubi ait: «Circularis igitur [motus] est, qui circa medium fit». Libr. II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 27. (c. 4.) probat, caelum esse sphaericae figurae, ex hoc quod in omnibus aliis motibus accideret, et locum et vacuum esse extra lationem caeli, quod est impossibile. — Cfr. in eodem libro text. 7. seqq. (c. 2. seqq.) cum Comment. Averrois, quae spectant ad ea quae sequuntur de dextro et sinistro in caelo et de eius influentia.
Cf. above p. 70, note 4, and the book On the Heaven and the World, text 5 (c. 2), where he says: «Circular [motion], therefore, is that which takes place around the middle». Book II On the Heaven and the World, text 27 (c. 4), proves that the heaven is of spherical figure, from the fact that in all other motions there would result both a place and a void outside the bearing of the heaven, which is impossible. — Cf. in the same book text 7 and following (c. 2 and following) with the Commentary of Averroes, [the things] which pertain to what follows concerning right and left in the heaven and concerning its influence.
19
Intellige: dici posset respectu caeli aquei. — Vat., interpunctione variata, sic: Secunda de utilitate non similiter, quia similiter posset dici de aqueo: eodem modo de tertia, quia dextrum etc. Codd. sunt divisi inter se quoad primam propositionis partem; nam aliqui ut T Y aa cc cum ed. 1 pro utilitate substituunt inutilitate, retinentes particulam non, excepto cod. aa, quem in hoc sumus secuti; alii consentiunt lectioni Vat., quae explicatur ex cod. 1: Secunda de utilitate non valeret similiter. Quoad alteram partem codd. et primae edd. sunt contra Vat., quae etiam paulo inferius cum nonnullis mss. ponit non mutantur pro non mutatur.
Understand: it could be said with respect to the watery heaven. — The Vatican edition, with the punctuation varied, [reads] thus: The second, concerning utility, not similarly, because the same could be said of the watery [heaven]: in the same way concerning the third, because right etc. The codices are divided among themselves as to the first part of the proposition; for some, as T Y aa cc with ed. 1, for utilitate substitute inutilitate, retaining the particle non, except codex aa, which we have followed in this; others agree with the reading of the Vatican edition, which is explained from cod. 1: The second, concerning utility, would not similarly hold. As to the other part the codices and the first editions are against the Vatican edition, which also a little below, with some manuscripts, puts non mutantur for non mutatur.
20
Cod. cc et ed. 1 accipitur triplex ratio, secundum quod est triplex eius proprietas.
Codex cc and ed. 1 [read] a threefold reason is taken, according as its property is threefold.
21
Vat. Philosophi. Aliquanto inferius cod. cc et ed. 1 inspiciat pro aspiciat.
The Vatican edition [reads] Philosophi ["of the Philosopher"]. A little below, codex cc and ed. 1 [read] inspiciat for aspiciat.
22
Cfr. Aristot., II. de Gener. et corrupt., text. 56. seqq. (c. 10.). — Mox Vat. non magis assimilaretur pro non assimilaretur.
Cf. Aristotle, II On Generation and Corruption, text 56 and following (c. 10). — Shortly after, the Vatican edition [reads] non magis assimilaretur for non assimilaretur. ---