Secundo considerandum est quod circa motus planetarum quaedam anomaliae, idest irregularitates, apparent; prout scilicet planetae quandoque velociores, quandoque tardiores, quandoque stationarii, quandoque retrogradi videntur. Quod quidem non videtur esse conveniens caelestibus motibus, ut ex supra dictis patet. Et ideo Plato primus hanc dubitationem Eudoxo, sui temporis astrologo, proposuit; qui huiusmodi irregularitates conatus est ad rectum ordinem reducere, assignando diversos motus planetis; quod etiam posteriores astrologi diversimode facere conati sunt. Illorum tamen suppositiones quas adinvenerunt, non est necessarium esse veras: licet enim, talibus suppositionibus factis, apparentia salvarentur, non tamen oportet dicere has suppositiones esse veras; quia forte secundum aliquem alium modum, nondum ab hominibus comprehensum, apparentia circa stellas salvantur. Aristoteles tamen utitur huiusmodi suppositionibus quantum ad qualitatem motuum, tanquam veris. Secondly, we must keep in mind that certain anomalies, i.e., irregularities, appear with respect to the motions of the planets. For the planets seem to be now swifter, now slower, now stationary, now retrogressing. Now this does not seem to be appropriate to heavenly motions, as is evident from what has been said above. Therefore, Plato first proposed this problem to an astronomer of his time, named Eudoxus, who tried to reduce these irregularities to a right order by assigning diverse motions to the planets; a project also undertaken by later astronomers in various ways. Yet it is not necessary that the various suppositions which they hit upon be true—for although these suppositions save the appearances, we are nevertheless not obliged to say that these suppositions are true, because perhaps there is some other way men have not yet grasped by which the things which appear as to the stars are saved. Aristotle nevertheless uses suppositions of this kind, in what regards the quality of the motions, as true. Tertio considerandum est quod circa solem et lunam non apparent tot irregularitatum genera, sicut circa alios planetas: nam in sole et luna nunquam apparet statio vel retrogradatio, sicut in aliis planetis, sed solum velocitas et tarditas. Et ideo Eudoxus, qui primo conatus est has irregularitates dirigere, ad instantiam Platonis, pauciores motus assignavit soli et lunae, quos dicebat esse infimos planetas, quam superioribus planetis. Quorum unicuique assignabat quatuor motus, secundum quatuor sphaeras volventes corpus stellae infixum in infima earum: ita scilicet quod prima sphaera movet corpus stellae ab oriente in occidentem, secundum motum diurnum; secunda movet corpus stellae e converso ab occidente in orientem in zodiaco, qui dicitur motus longitudinis; tertia autem sphaera movet corpus stellae motu latitudinis, secundum quod contingit quod stella quandoque est Australior, quandoque borealior in zodiaco. Ponebat autem polos huius tertiae sphaerae esse in zodiaco; unde sequebatur quod circulus maior, aeque distans ab utroque polo, transiret per polos zodiaci; ex quo sequi videbatur quod planetae, secundum motum latitudinis, quandoque pervenirent usque ad polos zodiaci; quod tamen nunquam apparet. Unde ponebat quartam sphaeram, quae moveret stellam in oppositum huius motus, ita quod nunquam pervenit ad polos zodiaci. Soli autem et lunae non attribuit motum huius quartae sphaerae; sed apparentia eorum conatus est salvare, solum ponendo tres sphaeras, proportionales primis tribus sphaeris aliorum planetarum; ita tamen quod luna habet maiorem motum latitudinis quam sol, sicut expositum est in XII Metaphys. The third thing that must be considered is that not as many kinds of irregularities appear with respect to the sun and moon as with the other planets: for the sun and moon never appear to be stationary or to undergo retrograde movement as do the other planets, but present only swiftness and slowness. Accordingly, Eudoxus, who at Plato's request first tried to straighten out these irregularities, assigned fewer motions to the sun and moon, which he called the lowest planets, than to the higher ones. To each of these he assigned four movements, according to the four spheres that revolved the stellar body fixed in the lowest of them. Thus the first sphere moves the stellar body from east to west according to the diurnal motion; the second moves the stellar body in the opposite direction of west to east in the Zodiac—and this is called longitudinal motion; the third sphere moves a stellar body latitudinally, according to which a star is now in a more southerly, now a more northerly, position in the Zodiac. Now he placed the poles of this third sphere in the Zodiac; hence it followed that a major circle, equidistant from the poles, would go through the poles of the Zodiac. From this it seemed to follow that the planets in their latitudinal motion would sometimes reach the very poles of the Zodiac—a situation that never appears. Hence, he posited a fourth sphere that would move a star in an opposite direction to this movement and thus prevent it from ever reaching the poles of the Zodiac. He did not, however, attribute the motion of this fourth sphere to the sun and the moon, but tried to save their appearances by positing only three spheres, proportional to the first three of the other planets, but in such a way that the latitudinal motion of the moon would be greater than the sun's, as is explained in Metaphysics XII. 452. Secundum hanc ergo positionem, Aristoteles hic quaestionem format. Et dicit quod, cum multa sint talia dubitabilia circa stellas, non minime videtur mirabile, propter quam causam non semper astra quae plus distant a motu primae sphaerae moventur pluribus motibus, sed intermedia moventur plurimis, scilicet quinque planetae, qui, secundum positionem Eudoxi, moventur quatuor motibus. Rationabile enim utique esse videtur quod, cum prima sphaera moveatur uno solo motu, quod astrum ei propinquissimum moveatur paucissimis motibus, puta duobus; habitum autem, idest consequenter se habens, moveatur tribus, vel quocumque tali ordine progrediatur. Sed nunc accidit contrarium, secundum positionem Eudoxi, secundum quem sol et luna moventur paucioribus motibus, idest solis tribus, quam quaedam stellarum errantium, quas ponebat habere quatuor motus; quamvis quinque planetae longius distent a medio mundi, idest terrae, et propinquiores sint primo corpori, idest supremae sphaerae, ipsis, idest sol et luna, secundum opinionem quae habebatur tempore Aristotelis et Platonis. 452. With these considerations in mind Aristotle here formulates a question. And he says that while there are many such doubtful matters about the stars, not the least to be wondered at is why the stars farther from the motion of the first sphere are not always moved with a greater number of motions, but rather the intermediate ones are moved with the most, namely, the five planets, which, according to Eudoxus' theory, are moved with four motions. For it seems to be reasonable, if the first sphere is moved with one motion alone, that the star nearest it should be moved with the fewest motions, say two, and the had, i.e., the next, with three or in some such progression. But now it is the contrary that happens according to Eudoxus' theory, which attributes fewer motions, i.e., only three, to the sun and moon than to some of the wandering stars which he posits as having four motions, although the five planets are farther from the middle [center] of the universe, i.e., from the earth, and closer to the first body, i.e., the outermost sphere, than they, i.e., than the sun and moon are, according to the opinion prevalent in Plato's and Aristotle's time. 453. Est autem ulterius sciendum quod, quia secundum suppositiones Eudoxi non poterant omnia apparentia circa stellas salvari, quidam alius astrologus, Callippus nomine, ad instantiam Aristotelis, correxit Eudoxi suppositiones; addens quidem Marti et Veneri et Mercurio, unicuique unam sphaeram et unum motum; soli autem et lunae, unicuique duos. Et sic Saturno et Iovi assignavit quatuor motus, unicuique autem inferiorum planetarum quinque: et sic non haberet locum dubitatio quam hic movet Aristoteles, quia superiores planetae, secundum hunc modum, paucioribus motibus moventur quam inferiores. Ponebat etiam unicuique planetarum quasdam alias sphaeras revolventes, ut expositum est in XII Metaphys. 453. One should further know that, since the suppositions of Eudoxus could not save all the appearances concerning the stars, another astronomer named Callippus, at Aristotle's behest, corrected Eudoxus' suppositions. He added to Mars and Venus and Mercury one sphere and one motion apiece, and to the Sun and Moon two apiece. Thus to Saturn and Jupiter four motions were now assigned, and to each of the lower planets five. Consequently, the problem raised here by Aristotle would no longer be a problem, because the higher planets, according to this supposition, are now moved with fewer motions than the lower ones. Moreover, to each of the planets he also assigned certain other revolving spheres, as is explained in Metaphysics XII. 454. Sed nec secundum hanc positionem poterant omnia apparentia circa stellas salvari, praecipue quantum ad propinquitatem et remotionem stellarum a nobis; quae deprehenditur ex hoc quod planetae, eadem dispositione aeris existente, quandoque maiores, quandoque minores videntur. Similiter etiam inconveniens videbatur quod tanta multitudo sphaerarum ad movendum planetas concurreret; et praecipue videbatur superfluum quod cuilibet planetae attribueretur una sphaera quae ipsum revolveret ab oriente in occidentem motu diurno, cum hoc causari possit suprema sphaera, totum caelum hoc motu revolvente. 454. But even this theory could not account for all the appearances about the stars, especially as to their being near and far away from us—which is grasped from the fact that under the same disposition of the air, the planets are seen at one time larger and at another time smaller. Also it seemed unacceptable that such a multitude of spheres should concur in order to move the planets. It seemed especially superfluous to assign to each planet a sphere to revolve it from east to west with its diurnal motion when this could be caused by the highest sphere revolving the entire heaven with this motion. Et ideo Hipparchus et Ptolomaeus posuerunt unicuique planetae unam solam sphaeram; quam tamen posuerunt non esse supremae sphaerae concentricam, sed habere aliud centrum praeter terram; ita quod, cum planeta est in parte sphaerae magis distante a nobis, corpus planetae minus videtur et tardioris motus; cum autem est in opposita parte, videtur maius et velocioris motus. Praeter hoc autem posuerunt quosdam parvos circulos, quos epicyclos dicunt, qui moventur super huiusmodi sphaeris; ita quod corpora planetarum in huiusmodi epicyclis moventur, non tanquam infixa in huiusmodi circulis, sed quasi motu progressivo eos regyrant. Sic igitur praeter motum diurnum, quem toti caelo attribuunt ex motu primae sphaerae, quatuor planetis, scilicet Saturno, Iovi, Marti et Veneri, attribuunt tres motus: quorum unus est secundum quem corpus stellae circuit epicyclum; secundus est secundum quem centrum epicycli circuit sphaeram; tertius autem est secundum quem ipsa sphaera movetur ab occidente in orientem, quibuslibet centum annis gradu uno, secundum motum stellarum fixarum, qui quidem dicitur motus augis vel apogaei, idest maximae distantiae in circulo excentrico. Super hos autem tres motus addunt quartum motum Mercurio, quo dicunt centrum sphaerae ipsius moveri in quodam circulo parvo circa centrum mundi. Quos etiam quatuor motus attribuunt lunae, superaddentes ei quintum. Cum enim circulus sphaerae lunaris, super quem intelligitur moveri centrum epicycli eius, declinet a zodiaco ad meridiem et Septentrionem, necesse est quod huiusmodi circulus secet zodiacum in duobus punctis, qui dicuntur nodi, sive caput et cauda; in quibus tantum locis luna existente, possunt contingere eclipses lunares et solares; quae non semper contingunt in eadem parte circuli. Et ideo ex hoc ponunt quintum motum in luna, secundum quem praedicti nodi moventur; qui dicitur motus capitis et caudae. Corpus autem solis non dicunt moveri in aliquo epicyclo, sed in suo excentrico. Unde non attribuunt soli nisi duos motus: unum scilicet quo corpus solis movetur in excentrico; et alius est motus augis, quem attribuunt sphaerae solis, sicut attribuunt sphaeris aliorum planetarum. Therefore Hipparchus and Ptolemy posited for each planet a single sphere which however was not concentric with the supreme sphere but had a center other than the earth, [i.e., an "eccentric"], in such a way that when the planet is in that portion of the sphere that is farther from us, the body of the planet is seen as smaller and slower moving; but when it is in the opposite region, it is seen as larger and faster. In addition to this, they posited certain small circles which they call epicycles, which are in motion upon these spheres in such a way that the bodies of the planets are in motion in these epicycles, not as though fixed in such circles, but as though turning through them with a progressive motion. Thus, in addition to the diurnal motion which they attribute to the entire heaven as due to the motion of the first sphere, they attribute to four planets, namely, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and Venus, three motions apiece: according to one, the stellar body makes the circuit of its epicycle; according to the second, the center of the epicycle circles the sphere; according to the third, the sphere itself is moved from west to east, every hundred years, the distance of one degree in relation to the motion of the fixed stars. This last motion [the precession of the equinox], is called the motion of the increase [augus], or of the apogee, i.e., of the maximum distance in the eccentric circle. Now they add to Mercury, in addition to these motions, a fourth, according to which they say that the center of its sphere is moved in a small circle about the center of the world. They also attribute these four to the Moon with the addition of a fifth. For since the circle of the lunar sphere, along which the center of its epicycle is thought to be in motion, declines from the Zodiac to the south and to the north, it is necessary for this circle to intersect the Zodiac at two points called nodes or head and tail. It is only when the moon is present at these points that eclipses of the sun and of the moon can occur; and these do not always occur at the same place on the circle. This, therefore, caused them to posit a fifth motion in the moon according to which the aforesaid nodes are moved, and this is called the movement of the head and tail. But they do not say the body of the sun to be moved in any epicycle, but in its own eccentric. Hence, they endowed the sun with just two motions: one, whereby the body of the sun is moved in the eccentric; the other is the motion of apogee which they assign to the sphere of the sun, just as they assign it to the spheres of the other planets. Et sic patet quod vere secundum hanc positionem procedit dubitatio quam hic Aristoteles movet. Nam secundum hanc positionem Mercurius et luna, qui sunt infimi planetarum, habent plurimos motus; sol autem, quem ponunt medium, habet paucissimos; alii vero planetae medio modo se habent. Thus it is evident that the problem Aristotle raises, arises also from the above position. For according to this supposition, Mercury and the Moon, the lowest of the planets, have the most motions, whereas the sun, which they place as intermediate, has the fewest, with the remaining planets being in between. 455. Deinde cum dicit: palam autem hoc de quibusdam etc., probat quoddam quod supposuerat, scilicet ordinem planetarum esse qualem dixerat. Et primo quidem probat hoc quantum ad aliquid, per id quod ipse viderat: et dicit quod ordo quorundam planetarum manifestus est etiam visu. Dicit enim se vidisse quod luna, dichotoma existens, idest ex media parte illuminata, subintravit stellam Martis (nam ipsa est velocioris motus quam Mars); et luna secundum nigrum suum, idest secundum illam partem in qua erat obscura, occultavit Martem; et quod Mars exivit de sub luna pertranseunte ipsum, secundum partem lunae claram et lucidam. 455. Then, at as observation has itself revealed [320], he proves something he had supposed, namely, that the order of the planets is as he had described. First he proves it in one respect by means of something he had witnessed. And he says that the order of certain of the planets is evident even to sight. For he says that he saw the moon when it was dichotomous, i.e., with half its face illumined, move in under the star of Mars (for its motion is swifter than Mars'), and the moon according to its blackness, i.e., according to that side which was darkened, concealed Mars, and Mars came out from under the moon passing it according to the bright and shining side of the moon. Secundo, cum dicit: similiter autem etc., manifestat ordinem planetarum quantum ad alia, per ea quae alii viderunt. Et dicit quod similiter de ordine planetarum aliorum dicunt se vidisse illi, qui a multis temporibus retro talia observaverunt per multos annos, scilicet Aegyptii et Babylonii, quorum studium maxime fuit circa astrologiam; ex quorum dictis habemus multas credulitates de unaquaque stellarum, scilicet observationes eorum. Secondly, at similar accounts [321] he shows other details about the order of the planets through observations which others have made. And he says that others state themselves to have witnessed similar things concerning the order of the other planets, namely, those who from much time back have observed such things for many years, i.e., the Egyptians and Babylonians, whose study was concerned most with astronomy. From what they say we have many trustworthy statements about each of the stars, based on their observations. 456. Deinde cum dicit: et hoc itaque etc., movet secundam dubitationem. Et dicit quod merito potest aliquis dubitare quare in prima sphaera, quae movetur primo motu, est tanta multitudo astrorum, ut omnis ordo eorum videatur arithmeticorum esse, idest innumerabilium (non enim potest numerus eorum comprehendi a nobis); in aliis autem inferioribus orbibus invenitur singulariter una sola stella, ita quod non videntur duae vel plures de stellis erraticis infixae esse uni sphaerae mobili. 456. Then, at a second difficulty [322], he raises the second difficulty. And he says that with good reason one can wonder why it is that in the first sphere, which is moved by the first motion, there is such a great multitude of stars that their whole order appears to be of the arithmetical, i.e., of things innumerable (for their number cannot be comprehended by us), whereas in the lower orbs we find one solitary star in each so that two or more of the wandering stars are not seen fixed in one mobile sphere. Est autem hic considerandum quod tempore Aristotelis nondum erat deprehensus motus stellarum fixarum; quas Ptolomaeus ponit moveri ab occidente in orientem super polos zodiaci, quibuslibet centum annis gradu uno, ita quod tota revolutio earum compleatur in triginta sex millibus annorum. Et ideo antiqui ponebant sphaeram stellarum fixarum esse primum mobile, et eius esse tantum unum motum, qui est motus diurnus. Sed supposito motu stellarum fixarum, oportet ipsam moveri duobus motibus: scilicet motu proprio, qui est motus stellarum fixarum; et motu diurno, qui est motus supremae sphaerae, quae est sine stellis. Here one should note that in Aristotle's time no motion had yet been discovered in the fixed stars, which Ptolemy posits as moved from west to east upon the poles of the Zodiac one degree every 100 years, so that they complete one full revolution in 36,000 years. Hence the ancients posited the sphere of the fixed stars as the first mobile and as endowed with but one motion, the diurnal. But if we assume a motion of the fixed stars, then this sphere must be moved by two motions: by its own motion, which is the motion of the fixed stars, and by the diurnal motion, which is the motion of the outermost sphere, which is without stars. 457. Deinde cum dicit: de his quidem etc., ostendit difficultatem harum quaestionum. Et dicit bonum esse inquirere de his dubitationibus: subdit autem: et ad eam quae ad plus intelligentiam. Quam quidem litteram Alexander dicit esse defectivam; et est subintelligendum quod ea quae circa hoc excedunt nostram intelligentiam, oportet magis suscipere, quam amplius quaerere per nos ipsos. Non autem est consuetudo Aristotelis, quamvis sit breviloquus, defectivis locutionibus uti, ut Simplicius dicit. Et ideo ipse sic exponit: quod de his bene se habet quaerere, sed hoc non ad quoslibet pertinet, sed solum ad eos qui plus intelligunt. Averroes autem in suo commento exponit secundum hoc, ut intelligamus quod inquirere de his quaestionibus et in se bonum est, et etiam ad hoc est utile quod homo magis ac magis intelligat: qui enim se exercitat circa intellectum difficilium, magis potest intelligere alia, ut dicitur in III De anima. 457. Then, at on these questions, I say [323], he shows the difficulty of these questions. He says that it is good to investigate these doubtful matters, and adds, for a greater understanding. This text, says Alexander, is defective, and one should understand it as meaning that whatever in these matters is too much for our intelligence one must simply accept, rather than make them a subject of further investigation by ourselves. But it is not Aristotle's custom, in spite of his laconic style, to employ defective language, as Simplicius says. Hence he explains it to the effect that, while it is good to investigate such things, it is not a task suited to just anyone but only those of wider understanding. However, Averroes in his Commentary explains it this way: namely, that we should understand that to investigate these matters is both good in itself, and also contributes to man's growth in understanding Therefore a person who exercises his mind by trying to understand difficult matters, can better understand others, as is said in On the Soul III. Ista autem quae inquirenda sunt, difficultatem habent: quia modicum de causis eorum percipere possumus, et accidentia eorum magis sunt remota a cognitione nostra, quam etiam ipsa corpora elongentur a nobis secundum corporalem situm. Et tamen, si ex his quae dicentur contemplemur harum dubitationum veritatem, apparebit non esse irrationabile id quod inquirendo dubitabile videbatur. Now the matters to be investigated are difficult, because we can perceive only a little about their causes; and their accidents are further removed from our ken than the bodies themselves are physically distant from us. Yet, if what we shall say enables us to contemplate the truth of these doubtful matters, then what seemed to be doubtful at the beginning of our inquiry will be seen not to be devoid of all explanation. Lectio 18 Lecture 18 Solvitur prima dubitatio lect. praec. posita, de numero motuum caelestium corporum: quem etiam a modernis astrologis convenienter assignari ostenditur The first difficulty, concerning the number of motions of the stars, is solved. The number shown to agree with modern astronomers Sed nos ut de corporibus ipsis solis et solitariis, ordinem quidem habentibus, inanimatis autem omnino, perquirimus. Oportet autem tanquam participantia existimare actione et vita: sic enim nihil videtur praeter rationem accidere. 234 We may object that we have been thinking of the stars as mere bodies, and as units with a serial order indeed but entirely inanimate; but should rather conceive them as enjoying life and action. On this view the facts cease to appear surprising. Videtur autem optime quidem habenti existere quod bene sine actione, propinquissimo autem per paucam et unam, his autem qui longius per plures. 235 For it is natural that the best-conditioned of all things should have its good without action, that which is nearest to it should achieve it by little and simple action, and that which is farther removed by a complexity of actions, Quemadmodum in corpore hoc quidem neque exercitatum bene habere, hoc autem modicum deambulans; hoc autem et cursu indiget et lucta et pugna. 236 just as with men's bodies one is in good condition without exercise at all, another after a short walk, while another requires running and wrestling and hard training, Iterum autem alteri neque quantumcumque laboranti hoc utique adhuc existet bonum, sed alterum aliquid. 237 and there are yet others who however hard they worked themselves could never secure this good, but only some substitute for it. Est autem dirigere difficilc aut multa aut multoties. 238 To succeed often or in many things is difficult. Puta myrios astragalos Chios iacere difficile, sed unum aut duo facile. Et iterum, quando hoc quidem indiguerit huius gratia operari, hoc autem alterius, et hoc alterius; in uno quidem aut duobus facile adipisci, quanto autem utiqueper plura, difficilius. 239 For instance, to throw ten thousand Coan throws with the dice would be impossible, but to throw one or two is comparatively easy. In action, again, when A has to be done to get B, B to get C, and C to get D, one step or two present little difficulty, but as the series extends the difficulty grows. Propter quod oportet putare astrorum actionem esse talem, qualis quidem animalium et plantarum. Etenim hic hominis plurimae operationes: multorum enim eorum quae bene possunt adipisci, ut et multa operentur et aliorum gratia. Quod autem est ut optime habens, nihil indiget actione: est enim ipsum quod cuius gratia; actio autem semper est in duobus, cum et cuius gratia sit, et quod huius gratia. Aliorum autem animalium pauciores; plantarum autem parva quaedam et una forte. Aut enim unum aliquid est quo sortietur utique, quemadmodum et homo; aut et multa omnia praevia sunt ad optimum. 331 We must, then, think of the action of the lower stars as similar to that of animals and plants. For on our earth it is man that has the greatest variety of actions—for there are many goods that man can secure; hence his actions are various and directed to ends beyond them—while the perfectly conditioned has no need of action, since it is itself the end, and action always requires two terms, end and means. The lower animals have less variety of action than man; and plants perhaps have little action and of one kind only. For either they have but one attainable good (as indeed man has), or, if several, each contributes directly to their ultimate good. Hoc quidem igitur habet et participat optimo, hoc autem attingit prope per paucos motus, hoc autem per multos; hoc autem neque participat, sed sufficiens ad prope extremo venire. Puta si sanitas finis, hoc quidem utique semper sanum est, hoc quidem extenuatum, hoc autem currens et extenuatum, hoc autem et aliud aliquid operans currendi gratia: quare plures motus. Alterum autem non potest ad sanari pervenire, sed ad currere solum aut extenuari: et horum alterum finis ipsis. Maxime quidem enim illo sortiri fine optimum omnibus: si autem non, semper melius erit quanto utique propinquius sit optimo. Et propter hoc terra quidem totaliter non movetur; propinqua autem paucis motibus (non enim attingunt ad extremum, sed usque quo possunt sortiri divinissimo principio); primum autem caelum confestim sortitur per unum motum; quae autem in medio primi et extremorum, attingunt quidem, per plures autem attingunt motus. 332 One thing then has and enjoys the ultimate good, other things attain to it, one immediately by few steps, another by many, while yet another does not even attempt to secure it but is satisfied to reach a point not far removed from that consummation. Thus, taking health as the end, there will be one thing that always possesses health, others that attain it, one by reducing flesh, another by running and thus reducing flesh, another by taking steps to enable himself to run, thus further increasing the number of movements, while another cannot attain health itself, but only running or reduction of flesh, so that one or other of these is for such a being the end. For while it is clearly best for any being to attain the real end, yet, if that cannot be, the nearer it is to the best the better will be its state. It is for this reason that the earth moves not at all and the bodies near to it with few movements. For they do not attain the final end, but only come as near to it as their share in the divine principle permits. But the first heaven finds it immediately with a single movement, and the bodies intermediate between the first and last heavens attain it indeed, but at the cost of a multiplicity of movement. 458. Praemissis duabus dubitationibus, hic ad earum solutiones accedit: 458. Having proposed the two doubts, the Philosopher here starts to solve them. et primo solvit primam quaestionem; First he solves the first question; secundo secundam, ibi: de dubitatione autem et cetera. secondly, the second one, at as to the difficulty (L. 19). Circa primum duo facit: As to the first he does two things: primo ostendit quid oporteat supponere, ad hoc ut de facili solvatur quaestio primo mota; first he shows what ought to be assumed in order to make the first question easier to resolve; secundo ponit solutionem, ibi: videtur autem et cetera. secondly, he gives the solution, at for it is natural 459. Dicit ergo primo quod ideo prima quaestio difficilis videtur, quia nos inquirimus de corporibus caelestibus ac si essent sola corpora habentia quendam ordinem, absque hoc quod sint animata; et sic videtur nobis quod debeat in eis esse ordo motuum secundum ordinem numerorum, et secundum situm corporum. Sed ad hoc quod praedicta dubitatio solvatur, oportet opinionem habere de eis quod participent non solum vitam quamcumque, sed etiam actionem; quod est proprium habentium animam rationalem, quae agunt propter finem, tanquam habentia dominium sui actus, et non agunt ex solo naturae impetu, sicut omnia irrationalia. Hoc autem supposito, nihil videtur praeter rationem accidere, si multitudo motuum non procedat secundum corporum situm: quia magis est accipienda diversitas motuum et multitudo eorum secundum habitudinem ad bonum finale, quod est principium in omnibus agibilibus, ut patet per philosophum in VII Ethic. et II Physic. Et est attendendum quod, quantum ad hoc, non refert utrum ponamus corpora caelestia moveri a substantiis intellectualibus coniunctis per modum animae, vel etiam separatis. Non autem esset via solvendi, si moverentur per solum naturae impetum, sicut corpora gravia et levia. He says therefore first [324] that the reason why the first question is difficult is that we investigate the heavenly bodies as though they were merely an orderly system of bodies without being animated. As a consequence, it seems to us that the order of their motions should be in accord with the order of numbers and according to the position of the bodies. But if the problem at hand is to be settled, we must assume that they have not only some sort of life but also actions — this being proper to things with a rational soul, which act for an end as being masters of their act, and do not act by the sole impulse of nature as do all irrational things. If this is assumed, nothing is seen to be occurring unreasonably if the number of their motions does not proceed according to the position of the bodies. For the diversity and number of the motions is to be taken more in terms of a relation to the final good, which is the principle in all things able to be done [i.e., voluntary actions], as is plain from the words of the Philosopher in Ethics VII and Physics II. One should note in this regard that it makes no difference whether we suppose that the heavenly bodies are moved by intellectual substances united to them after the manner of a soul, or by these as separated. But there would be no way to solve this question if they were moved by the sole impulse of nature, as heavy and light bodies are. 459. Deinde cum dicit: videtur autem etc., ponit solutionem. 459. Then, at for it is natural [235], he presents his solution. Et primo ponit solutionis principia; First he states the principles of the solution; secundo applicat ad propositum, ibi: hoc quidem igitur habet et cetera. secondly, he applies them to the question at hand, at one thing then has 463. Circa primum duo facit: With respect to the first he does two things: primo ponit principia, ex quibus assignatur ratio quare superiores planetae moventur pluribus motibus, primum autem mobile uno solo motu; first he states the principles from which we obtain the reason why the higher planets are moved with a number of motions, while the first mobile is moved with only one; secundo ponit principia, ex quibus assignatur ratio quare superiores planetae moventur pluribus motibus, inferiores autem paucioribus, secundum suppositionem Eudoxi, ibi: iterum autem alteri et cetera. secondly, he states the principles from which we obtain the reason why the higher planets are moved with a number of motions while the lower planets with fewer, according to the theory of Eudoxus, at and there are yet others 460.