Reliqua vero fabulose iam adducta sunt ad persuasionem multorum, et ad opportunitatem multorum, ad leges etiam conferens. Conformes enim hominibus hos, et aliorum animalium quibusdam similes dicunt, et his altera consequentia, et dictis similia: But the rest of the traditions have been added later in the form of a myth for the persuasion of the multitude, the general welfare, and the passing of laws (995a3). For they say that the gods have human form and are similar to some of the other animals, and they add other statements which follow upon these and are similar to the ones mentioned. a quibus, si quis separans id accipiat solum, quod primum Deos existimaverunt primas substantias esse, et divine utique dictum esse putabit, et secundum quamdam verisimilitudinem. Et saepe inventa ad possibile unaquaque, et arte, et philosophia, et iterum corruptis, et has opiniones eorum quasi reliquias usque nunc salvatas esse. Paterna quidem igitur opinio, et quae a primis, intantum nobis manifesta solum. Now, if anyone will separate these statements and accept only the first—that they thought the first substances to be gods—this will be considered to be a divine statement. And though every art and every philosophy has often been discovered and again lost, the opinions of these early thinkers have been preserved as relics to the present day. Therefore, the opinions of our forefathers and those which have come down to us from the first thinkers are evident only to this extent. 2567. Ponit opiniones astrologorum sui temporis de numero motuum planetarum. 2567. Aristotle states the opinions which the astronomers of his time held about the number of planetary motions. Et primo opinionem Eudoxi. First (1073b17; [2567]), he gives the opinion of Eudoxus; Secundo opinionem Calippi, ibi, Calippus autem. second (1073b32; [2578]), that of Callippus, at and Callippus. Sciendum est igitur circa primum, quod Plato caelestibus motibus attribuens indefectibiliter circularitatem et ordinationem, mathematicas suppositiones fecit, per quas suppositiones possent salvari quae circa erraticas apparent, sustinendo, quod motus planetarum sunt circulares et regulares ordinati. Et Pythagorici quidem ad reducendum in debitum ordinem irregularitatem, quae apparet in motibus planetarum ex statione et retrogradatione, velocitate, et tarditate, et diversa apparentia quantitatis, posuerunt motus planetarum esse in sphaeris eccentricis, et in circulis parvis qui dicuntur epicycli; quam etiam opinionem Ptolaemeus prosequitur. Now, in regard to the first opinion, it must be understood that Plato, in attributing unfailing circularity and order to the celestial motions, made mathematical hypotheses by which the apparent irregular motions of the planets can be explained, for he claimed that the motions of the planets are circular and arranged in an orderly way. And the Pythagoreans, with a view to putting into due order the irregularity which appears in the planetary motions on account of their standing still and moving backwards, and their rapidity and slowness, and their apparent differences in size, claimed that the motions of the planets involve eccentric spheres and small circles which they called epicycles. Ptolemy also subscribes to this view. 2568. Videtur autem ex huius suppositione sequi aliquid contrarium his quae demonstrantur in scientia naturali: non enim omnis motus erit vel ad medium vel a medio, vel circa medium mundi. Iterum sequitur, quod sphaera continens sphaeram eccentricam, vel non sit aequalis spissitudinis, vel quod sit aliquid vacuum inter unam sphaeram et aliam, vel quod sit aliquod corpus praeter substantiam sphaerarum intercidens, quod non erit corpus circulare, nec habebit aliquem motum proprium. 2568. However, something contrary to the points demonstrated in the philosophy of nature seems to follow from this hypothesis, for not every motion will be either towards or away from or around the center of the world. Furthermore, it follows that either a sphere containing an eccentric sphere is not of equal density or there is a vacuum between one sphere and another, or there is some body besides the substance of the spheres that lies between them, which will not be a circular body and will have no motion of its own. 2569. Ex positione autem epicyclorum ulterius sequitur, vel quod sphaera, per quam movetur epicyclus, non sit integra et continua, vel quod sit divisibilis et rarefactibilis et condensabilis ad modum quo aer dividitur et inspissatur et rarescit aliquo corpore moto. Sequitur etiam, quod ipsum corpus stellae movetur per seipsum, et non solum ad motum orbis; et quod ex motu corporum caelestium perveniat sonus, quod Pythagorici consenserunt. 2569. Further, from the hypothesis of epicycles, it follows either that the sphere by which the epicycle is moved is not whole and continuous, or that it is divisible, expansible, and compressible in the way in which air is divided, expanded, and compressed when a body is moved. It also follows that the body itself of a star is moved by itself and not merely by the motion of an orb, and that, from the motion of the celestial bodies, there will arise the sound about which the Pythagoreans agreed. 2570. Sed tamen omnia huiusmodi sunt contra ea quae determinata sunt in scientia naturali. Unde ad haec evitanda Eudoxus hoc videns, posuit cuique planetae sphaeras plures concentricas mundo, quarum unaquaque habet motum proprium, et ex omnibus illis motibus causatur id quod apparet de motu planetarum. Posuit igitur Eudoxus motum tam solis quam lunae esse in tribus sphaeris. 2570. Yet all conclusions of this kind are contrary to the truths established in the philosophy of nature. Therefore, Eudoxus, seeing this and seeking to avoid it, claimed that, for each planet in the world there are many concentric spheres, each of which has its proper motion, and that, as a result of all of these motions, the observable motion of the planets is accounted for. Hence, Eudoxus held that the motion of the sun, as well as that of the moon, involves three spheres. 2571. Primus enim tam solis quam lunae, qui est motus diurnus, quo revolvuntur ab oriente ad occidentem, et hunc motum dicit esse astrorum planorum, idest stellarum sine errore, scilicet fixarum; quia sicut supra dictum est, cum nondum esset deprehensus motus stellarum fixarum, qui est ab occidente in orientem, esse contrarium motui primo, putabatur, quod motus diurnus esset proprius octavae sphaerae, quae est sphaera stellarum fixarum. Non autem putabatur, quod sola prima sphaera sufficeret ad deferendas omnes sphaeras planetarum motu diurno, sicut Ptolemaeus ponit: sed ponebat quod quilibet planeta habeat propriam sphaeram, quae revolveret ipsum motu diurno. Ad hunc ergo motum causandum ponebat primam sphaeram solis et lunae. 2571. For the first motion of the sun, as well as that of the moon, which is the daily motion, is that by which they are moved from east to west, and he calls this motion that of the stars whose positions remain unchanged, that is, of the stars that do not wander, namely, the fixed stars. For, as was said above [2558], since the motion of the fixed stars, which is from west to east, was not yet discovered to be contrary to the first motion, it was thought that the daily motion was proper to the eighth sphere, which is the sphere of the fixed stars. It was not thought, however, that the first sphere alone might be sufficient to move all the spheres of the planets by a daily motion, as Ptolemy assumed, but he thought that each planet had its own sphere which would move it by a daily motion. Therefore, with a view to explaining this motion, he posited a first sphere for both the sun and the moon. 2572. Secundam autem sphaeram ponebat ad causandum motum solis et lunae, qui est per medium zodiaci, qui vocatur motus longitudinis, secundum quem movetur tam sol quam luna de occidente in orientem contra motum firmamenti. 2572. He also posited a second sphere to account for the motion of the sun and the moon. This passes through the middle of the zodiac with what is called longitudinal motion, according to which both the sun and the moon are moved from west to east in an opposite direction to the motion of the firmament. 2573. Tertiam autem sphaeram ponebat ad causandum illum motum, qui obliquatur secundum latitudinem animalium, quae figurantur in zodiaco, prout quandoque est australior, quandoque borealior videtur planeta a media linea zodiaci. Sed hic motus latitudinis magis apparet, et secundum maiorem diversitatem, in luna quam in sole. Et ideo subiungit, quod in maiori latitudine tam obliquatur motus secundum quem fertur luna, quam motus secundum quem fertur sol. Et quidem lunae Ptolaemeus ponit motum latitudinis, non autem solis. 2573. He posited a third sphere to account for the oblique motion across the latitude of the animals symbolized in the zodiac, inasmuch as a planet sometimes seems to be farther south and sometimes farther north of the middle line of the zodiac. But this motion is more apparent and has a broader spread in the case of the moon than in that of the sun. Hence he adds that the motion by which the moon is carried along is inclined at a greater angle than the sun’s motion. And Ptolemy attributed latitudinal motion to the moon but not to the sun. Posuit igitur Eudoxus tertium motum, ut Simplicius dicit, quia opinabatur quod etiam sol declinaret a media linea zodiaci versus duos polos; et hoc suspicabatur eo quia non semper in eodem loco sol oritur in tropicis aestivis et hiemalibus. Si autem in uno et eodem tempore fieret restitutio longitudinis et latitudinis sufficeret ad hoc una sphaera per obliquitatem maximi circuli, secundum quam sol movetur. Sed, quia non sic se habet, sed in alio tempore pertransit circulum per longitudinem, in alio vero tempore restitutio fit latitudinis, necesse fuit ad hoc ponere tertiam sphaeram. Hence Eudoxus posited a third motion, as Simplicius says, because he thought that the sun also deviated from the middle line of the zodiac towards the two poles, and he made this assumption because the sun does not always rise in the same place during the summer solstice and during the winter solstice. But, if it returned in latitude and in longitude at the same time by means of the declination of the great circle along which the sun travels, one sphere would suffice for this. Since this is not the case, however, but it passes through its course in longitude at one time and returns in latitude at another time, for this reason, it was necessary to posit a third sphere. Hanc autem tertiam sphaeram ponebat in sole revolvi versus eamdem partem cum secunda, sed circa axem alterum, et super alios polos. In luna autem ad eamdem cum prima sphaera. Sed in utroque ponebat motum huius tertiae sphaerae esse tardiorem, quam secundae. And he claimed that this third sphere of the sun is moved in the same direction as the second sphere, but about a different axis and on different poles. He also claimed that this third sphere of the moon is moved in the same direction as the first sphere. But in each case he claimed that the motion of this third sphere was slower than that of the second. 2574. Sed aliorum quinque planetarum motum cuiuslibet posuit in quatuor sphaeras; ita quod prima sphaera et secunda est eiusdem rationis cum prima et secunda solis et lunae; quia motus primus, quem ponebat esse stellarum fixarum, et motus secundus, qui est per medium zodiaci secundum longitudinem, apparet communiter in omnibus planetis. 2574. And he claimed that the motion of each of the other five planets involves four spheres, with the first and second sphere of each planet having the same function as the first and second sphere of the sun and of the moon, because the first motion, which he assumed to be that of the fixed stars, and the second motion, which passes in longitude through the middle line of the zodiac, appear to be common to all the planets. 2575. Deinde unicuique planetarum ponebat tertiam sphaeram ad causandum motum latitudinis, cuius polos, circa quos revolvitur, ponebat esse in media linea zodiaci. Sed quia ponebat omnes sphaeras esse concentricas, ex quo zodiacus transibat per polos circuli maximi tertiae sphaerae, sequebatur e converso, quod circulus maximus tertiae sphaerae transiret per polos zodiaci. Unde sequebatur quod motus tertiae sphaerae deferret planetam usque ad polos zodiaci, quod nunquam videtur. 2575. Next, he posited a third sphere for each of the planets in order to account for their latitudinal motion, and he assumed that the poles about which it is revolved were located in the middle line of the zodiac. But since he claimed that all spheres are concentric, it would follow from this that the zodiac would pass through the poles of the great circle of the third sphere, and it would follow in the opposite way that the great circle of the third sphere would pass through the poles of the zodiac. Hence, it would follow that the motion of the third sphere would carry a planet right up to the poles of the zodiac, which is never seen to occur. 2576. Et ideo necesse fuit quod poneret quartam sphaeram, quae ipsum planetam ferret, quae revolvitur in contrarium tertiae, ab oriente scilicet ad occidentem aequali tempore, unde impedit ne plus divertatur secundum latitudinem a zodiaco. Et hoc est quod dicit, quod quartum motum stellae dicebat esse secundum quemdam circulum obliquatum ad medium tertiae sphaerae, hoc est ad maximum circulum eius. 2576. Therefore, he had to posit a fourth sphere, which is the one that would carry the planet, and it would revolve in an opposite direction to the third sphere, namely, from east to west, in equal time, so as to prevent the planet from being diverted farther in latitude from the zodiac. This is what Aristotle means when he says that Eudoxus claimed that the fourth motion of the star is in a circle inclined at an angle to the middle of the third sphere, that is, to its great circle. 2577. Si igitur cum quolibet quinque planetarum posuerit quatuor sphaeras, sequitur quod quinque planetarum sunt viginti sphaerae. Quibus si addantur tres solis et tres lunae, erunt omnes viginti sex, ita quod intelligatur corpus cuiuslibet planetae esse defixum in ultima sphaerarum suarum. 2577. Therefore, if he posited four spheres for each of the five planets, it follows that there would be twenty spheres for these five planets. And if the three spheres of the sun and the three spheres of the moon are added to this number, there will be twenty-six spheres in all, granted that the body of each planet is understood to be fastened to the last of its own spheres. 2578. Calippus autem. Ponit opinionem Calippi de pluralitate sphaerarum. Fuit autem Calippus, ut Simplicius dicit, cum Aristotele Athenis conversatus, cum eo ea quae ab Eudoxo inventa fuerant, corrigens et supplens. Posuit ergo Calippus eamdem rationem sphaerarum sicut Eudoxus, et exposuit positiones sphaerarum per ordinem distantiarum, tum quia ordinabat planetas sicut Eudoxus, tum quia ordinabat motus et sphaeras sicut et ille. 2578. And Callippus assumed (1073b32). Then he gives the opinion of Callippus about the number of spheres. Now Callippus, as Simplicius tells us, was associated with Aristotle at Athens when the discoveries of Eudoxus were corrected and supplemented by him. Hence, Callippus maintained the same theory of the spheres as Eudoxus did, and he explained the positions of the spheres by the arrangement of their distances, because he gave to the planets and to their motions and spheres the same order as Eudoxus did. 2579. Conveniebat etiam cum Eudoxo in pluralitate sphaerarum Iovis et Saturni, quia utrisque eorum dabat quatuor sphaeras; sed ipse existimabat esse apponendas sphaeras duas tam soli quam etiam lunae, si quis velit reddere rationem eorum quae apparent de motibus eorum. Videtur autem has duas addidisse ad causandum velocitatem et tarditatem, quae apparet in motibus eorum; ita quod sol habeat quinque sphaeras, et luna similiter quinque. Et reliquis planetis Marti, Veneri et Mercurio, addebat singulis unam sphaeram, ita etiam quod quilibet eorum haberet quinque sphaeras. Forte autem addebant hanc sphaeram ad causandum retrogradationem et stationem, quae apparet in his stellis. Istae igitur sphaerae vocabantur ferentes, quia secundum eas ferebatur corpus planetae. 2579. And he agreed with Eudoxus as to the number of spheres of Jupiter and Saturn, because he assigned four spheres to each of these; but Callippus thought that two spheres must be added both to the sun and to the moon, if one wants to adopt a theory about them which accords with their motions. He seems to have added these two spheres in order to account for the rapidity and slowness which appears in their motions. The sun would then have five spheres, and the moon likewise would have five. He also added one sphere to each of the remaining planets—Mars, Venus, and Mercury—thus giving each of them also five spheres. Perhaps they added this fifth sphere to account for the backward motion and the standing still which appears in these stars. These spheres are called deferent spheres, then, because the body of a planet is carried along by them. 2580. Sed praeter has ponebant alias, quas vocabant revolventes. Ad ponendum autem eas hac necessitate videbantur induci, quia ultima sphaera superioris planetae, puta Saturni, participabat motum omnium superiorum, ita quod in aliquo deficiebat a motu primae sphaerae. Unde et prima sphaera Iovis, cuius poli infiguntur aliquo modo in ultima sphaera Saturni, participabat aliquid de motu sphaerarum Saturni, et sic non uniformiter movebantur motu diurno, sicut prima sphaera Saturni. Necessarium igitur videbatur ponere aliam sphaeram revolventem ipsam, ut restitueret id quod auferebatur ei de velocitate ex superioribus sphaeris. 2580. But in addition to these spheres they posited others, which they called revolving spheres. It would appear that they were led to posit these because the last sphere of a higher planet—for example, of Saturn—must share in the motion of all the higher planets, so that its motion gets away somewhat from that of the first sphere. Hence, the first sphere of Jupiter, whose poles are fastened in some way to the highest sphere of Saturn, shared to some extent in the motion of the spheres of Saturn, and thus it was not moved uniformly by the daily motion like the first sphere of Saturn. Therefore, it seemed necessary to posit another sphere that revolves this first sphere in order to restore the speed which it loses because of the higher planets. Et eadem ratione oportebat ponere aliam sphaeram revolventem secundam sphaeram Iovis, et tertiam sphaeram revolventem tertiam sphaeram Iovis. Non autem oportebat ponere aliquam revolventem quartam sphaeram, quia motus quartae sphaerae, in qua erat astrum infixum, debebat esse compositus ex omnibus superioribus motibus. Sic igitur Iupiter habet quatuor sphaeras deferentes et tres revolventes. Et similiter alii planetae habent tot sphaeras revolventes, quot deferentes, una minus. And by the same reasoning, it was necessary to posit another sphere that revolves the second sphere of Jupiter, and a third sphere that revolves the third sphere of Jupiter. But it was unnecessary to posit another sphere that revolves the fourth sphere, because the motion of the first sphere, to which the star is fixed, must be composed of all the higher motions. Hence, Jupiter has four deferent spheres and three revolving spheres. And in a similar way, the other planets have as many revolving spheres, minus one, as deferent spheres. 2581. Hoc est ergo quod dicit, quod necesse est, si omnes sphaerae simul ordinatae debeant reddere et causare illud quod apparet de motu planetarum secundum quemlibet planetarum, ponere praeter supra dictas deferentes alias sphaeras revolventes, et ad idem restituentes primam sphaeram inferius ordinati astri, una pauciores. Et sic solum convenit quod motus planetarum compleant omnia quae apparent de eis. 2581. Therefore, he says that, if all spheres taken together must account for and explain the apparent motion of the planets, it is necessary to posit, in addition to the deferent spheres mentioned above, other spheres, one fewer in number, which revolve and restore to the same place the first sphere of the star next in order below. For only in this way can the motions of the planets accord with all appearances. 2582. Quare igitur sphaerae deferentes, quae quidem sunt Saturni et Iovis, sunt octo, cum uterque eorum ponatur habere quatuor sphaeras: quae sunt aliorum quinque planetarum, viginti quinque, quia quilibet eorum habet quinque sphaeras: harum autem sphaerarum illae solae non revolvuntur, quae sunt in fine, in quibus ordinatur astrum, sequitur quod revolventes priorum duorum planetarum, scilicet Saturni et Iovis, sunt sex. Revolventes autem posteriorum quatuor sunt sexdecim. Sed cum post Saturnum et Iovem sint alii quinque, manifestum est quod unum eorum praetermittit, scilicet vel Martem, vel Mercurium: ut quod dicit posteriorum quatuor referatur ad quatuor infimos: vel praetermittit lunam, ut referatur ad quatuor immediate sequentes. Praetermittit autem, vel ex errore, qui interdum accidit in numeris; vel propter aliam rationem, quae nos latet: quia scripta Calippi non inveniuntur, ut Simplicius dicit. Sic igitur numerus omnium sphaerarum deferentium et revolventium sunt quinquaginta quinque. 2582. Therefore, since the deferent spheres that belong to Saturn and to Jupiter are eight in number, because each is assumed to have four spheres, and since those that belong to the other five planets are twenty-five in number, because each of these has five spheres, and of these, only those at the end which carry and regulate the star are not revolved, it follows that the revolving spheres of the first two planets, namely, of Saturn and Jupiter, are six in number, and that those of the last four planets are sixteen in number. But since after Saturn and Jupiter there are five other planets, he evidently omits one of them, namely, either Mars or Mercury, such that his statement regarding the last four refers to the four lowest; or he omits the moon, such that he refers to the four planets immediately following. Now, he omits this either by error, which sometimes happens in the case of numbers, or for some reason which is unknown to us, because the writings of Callippus are not extant, as Simplicius tells us. Hence the total number of deferent spheres and of revolving spheres together is fifty-five. 2583. Sed quia de hoc poterat esse dubium, utrum lunae et soli sint addendae duae sphaerae, quas Calippus addit: vel quod utrique sint dandae duae sphaerae solum, ut posuit Eudoxus, ideo dicit quod si aliquis non addit soli vel lunae illos duos motus quos addit Calippus, sequitur quod omnes sphaerae erunt quadraginta septem; subtraherentur enim a praedicto numero quatuor deferentes, duae solis, duae lunae, et totidem revolventes. Remotis autem octo de quinquaginta quinque, remanent quadraginta septem. 2583. But because the difficulty could arise concerning whether it is necessary to add two spheres to the sun and two to the moon, as Callippus did, or whether only two spheres must be given to each, as Eudoxus claimed, he therefore says that if one does not add two motions to the sun and two to the moon, as Callippus did, it follows that the total number of spheres will be forty-seven. For four deferent spheres would then be subtracted from the above number—two for the sun and two for the moon—and also the same number of revolving spheres, and when eight is subtracted from fifty-five, forty-seven remains. 2584. Sed attendendum quod si supra, cum dixit revolventes posteriores quatuor, esse sexdecim, praetermisit lunam, remotis duabus deferentibus lunae et duabus solis, non removebuntur quatuor revolventes, sed solum duae, si sphaerae lunae non habent revolventes: et sic a prima pluralitate sphaerarum subtrahuntur sex sphaerae, quatuor deferentes et duae revolventes: unde sequitur quod sphaerae omnes sint quadraginta novem. Et sic non videtur quod Aristoteles voluerit praetermittere lunam sed magis Martem: nisi aliquis dicat Aristotelem oblitum fuisse quod lunae posuerit sphaeras revolventes, idcirco errorem in numero accidisse, quod non videtur probabile. 2584. But it must be noted that, if he omitted the moon above (1073b32; [2582]) when he said that the revolving spheres of the last four planets are sixteen in number, then, if two deferent spheres are subtracted from the moon and two from the sun, four revolving spheres are not subtracted, but only two (granted that the spheres of the moon do not have revolving spheres), and thus six spheres are subtracted from the first number of spheres (four deferent and two revolving spheres), then it follows that the total number of spheres is forty-nine. Hence, it seems that Aristotle did not wish to omit the moon, but rather Mars, unless one says that Aristotle had forgotten that he had assigned revolving spheres to the moon, and that this is the reason the mistake was made, which does not seem likely. 2585. Ultimo ergo concludit tantam esse pluralitatem sphaerarum quanta dicta est. 2585. Last, he draws his conclusion that the number of spheres is that mentioned. 2586. Deinde cum dicit quare et substantias concludit ex numero motuum caelestium, numerum substantiarum immaterialium; et circa hoc tria facit. 2586. Hence it is reasonable (1074a15). Then he infers the number of immaterial substances from the number of celestial motions, and in regard to this, he does three things. Primo concludit propositum. First (1074a15; [2586]), he draws the conclusion at which he aims. Secundo excludit quaedam, quae possent debilitare illationem praemissam, ibi, si autem nullam possibile. Second (1074a17; [2587]), he rejects certain suppositions which could weaken the foregoing inference, at however, if there can be. Tertio comparat id quod ostensum est de substantiis separatis, ad opiniones antiquas, et ad opiniones vulgares, quae de his suo tempore habebantur, ibi, tradita autem sunt. Third (1074a38; [2597]), he compares the points demonstrated about separate substance with the opinions of the ancients and with the common opinions held about these things during his own time, at now, traditions have. Dicit ergo primo, quod cum tanta sit pluralitas sphaerarum et motuum caelestium, quanta dicta est, rationabile est opinari tot esse substantias immateriales et principia immobilia, et etiam tot esse principia sensibilia, idest corpora caelestia. Dicit autem rationabile, ut insinuet hoc probabiliter concludi, non autem ex necessitate. Unde subiungit quod ipse relinquit id quod est necessarium circa hoc, illis qui sunt fortiores et potentiores ad hoc inveniendum quam ipse esset. He first says (1074a15) that, since the number of celestial spheres and the number of celestial motions is as has been stated, it is reasonable to suppose that there are the same number of immaterial substances and immobile principles, and even the same number of perceptible principles, that is, celestial bodies. He uses the term “reasonable” in order to imply that this conclusion is a probable one, and not one that is necessary. Hence, he adds that he is leaving the necessity of this to those who are stronger and more capable of discovering it than he is. 2587. Deinde cum dicit si autem hic Philosophus excludit ea ex quibus praedicta conclusio debilitari posset; et sunt tria. 2587. However, if there can be (1074a17). Here the Philosopher rejects those suppositions by which the conclusion given above could be weakened, and there are three of these. Quorum primum est. Quia posset aliquis dicere quod sunt quaedam substantiae separatae, quibus non respondent aliqui motus in caelo. The first is that one could say that there are certain separate substances to which no celestial motion corresponds. 2588. Ad quod excludendum dicit, quod si non est possibile quod sint aliqui motus in caelo, qui non ordinentur ad motum alicuius astri, et iterum si oportet omnem impassibilem substantiam quae est sortita optimum secundum se, idest quae habet suam perfectionem sine motu, opinari esse finem alicuius motus, non erit aliqua natura impassibilis et immaterialis, praeter eas, quae sunt fines caelestium motuum; sed necesse erit hunc esse numerum substantiarum separatarum, qui est numerus caelestium motuum. 2588. In order to reject this, he says that, if there can be no celestial motions that are not connected with the motion of some star, and again if every immutable substance that has reached in itself the highest good, that is, which has reached its own perfection without motion, must be considered an end of some motion, there will be no immutable and immaterial nature besides those substances that are the ends of celestial motions; but the number of separate substances will correspond necessarily to the number of celestial motions. 2589. Sed tamen primum non est necessarium, scilicet quod omnis substantia immaterialis et impassibilis sit finis alicuius motus caelestis. Potest enim dici quod sunt aliquae substantiae separatae altiores, quam ut sint proportionatae quasi fines caelestibus motibus; quod ponere non est inconveniens. Non enim substantiae immateriales sunt propter corporalia, sed magis e converso. 2589. Yet the first assumption is not necessary—namely, that every immaterial and immutable substance is the end of some celestial motion. For it can be said that there are separate substances too high to be proportioned to the celestial motions as their ends. And this is not an absurd supposition. For immaterial substances do not exist for the sake of bodily things, but rather the other way around.