[Margin: Is the heaven single, or, for Aristotle, several?]

[I.] First, it is wont to be asked whether the heaven is single, or several are to be asserted—to which question occasion was given both by Moses, naming a single heaven in the beginning (about which, St. Thomas, Summa part 1, q. 68, art. 4, and we below at num. 2 and 3), and by Aristotle (bk. 1 On the Heaven, ch. 6, or text 76), saying: “But let us state why it is not possible that there be several heavens.” Yet the same [Aristotle], in the same place, by the name “heaven” understands the World, the denomination being taken from the chief and by far greatest part of the World; for he concludes (text 80): “But since this is absurd, it is impossible that the worlds be more than one.” And this he tries to show: both from the name “Universe,” which is commonly attributed to the World—but if there were several worlds, the name “Universe” would be attributed to one of them badly, or equivocally; and because, if any worlds were of the same species, the earth of one would strive to tend, by its weight and its own nature, toward the earth of another, and fire toward fire, or else the single elements would be restrained within their single worlds by perpetual violence. But it is necessary that the elements of any world be of the same species—say, fire compared with fire—because the simple motion which is owed to simple bodies is either circular (and this belongs to the heaven), or straight (and this is either upward simply, or upward in a certain respect, or downward simply, or downward in a certain respect); and the element which tends upward simply we call fire, and that [which tends] downward, earth, etc. Wherefore, since another division of simple motion according to species is impossible, it seems impossible too that there be given other elements of a diverse species. From which discourse it appears that he speaks of the unity of the World composed of the heavens and the elements. Yet above (ch. 4, text 22) he had distinguished the heaven from the elements, saying: “Wherefore, there being, as it were, a certain other first body besides earth and fire and air and water, they called the supreme place ‘aether’—imposing on it the name from ‘running always’ in everlasting time [Greek aei thein, ἀεὶ θεῖν, ‘to run always,’ whence αἰθήρ, aithēr]. But Anaxagoras misuses this name, and not rightly, for he names ‘aether’ for fire.” Hence it came about that he entitled four books On the Heaven, although in [bks.] 3 and 4 he treats only of the elements. But in the heaven—taken strictly for the place of the stars, or that simple body to which circular motion belongs—Aristotle acknowledges several spheres (Physics 8, and Metaphysics 12), as we shall show below, explaining the Aristotelian system. Now we must treat of the opinions of others.

[Margin: 1. Opinion — on a single heaven.]

[II.] The First Opinion posited a single heaven, but not in the same sense. For St. Chrysostom—because in Genesis 1 it is said, “In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth,” and [because] he otherwise knew that it is therefore said Samaim or Hasamaim (Hebrew שָׁמַיִם / הַשָּׁמַיִם, šāmayim / haššāmayim, “heaven[s]”) in the plural number, since among the Hebrews “heaven” lacks a name of the singular number (just as, among the Latins, Athenæ and Venetiæ [are plural in form]); and [because] he otherwise thought that this heaven, named on the first day, is not distinct from the heaven, or Firmament, made on the second day; and finally judged that the whole heaven is immobile, and that the stars are not moved at the motion of the heaven, but move per se within the heaven—for these reasons, I say, he thought the heaven to be single, taking “heaven,” however, more strictly, and not comprehending the aerial [heaven]. And so, in homily 4 on Genesis, he concludes: “Who, then, after such great doctrine, will bear those who dare to speak from their own brain, and, against the divine scripture, to assert many heavens?”—to which [statements] he has similar ones in homily 12 to the people of Antioch, and homily 25 on the Epistle to the Hebrews.

[Margin: St. John Chrysostom. Tertullian. St. Bonaventure.]

And of the same opinion was Tertullian (in the book Against Hermogenes). But, speaking of the starry heaven, St. Bonaventure acknowledges it single (on [the Sentences] bk. 2, dist. 14, art. 1, q. 1)—and indeed by a unity of continuation, although he admits that several tracts can be designated in it, according to the plurality of motions; for he says: “According to the common opinion, whether of the Natural [Philosophers] or of the Mathematicians, the Luminaries are placed in diverse orbs; but this distinction or diversity of orbs, according to those who understand [it] better, does not come from a distinction of forms, as air and water are distinguished; nor does it come from a discontinuation of surface, as stone is distinguished from stone; but it comes from a diversity of motions; and a diversity of motions does not remove continuity in that which is subtle and apt for motion, as plainly appears in water, and likewise in air, etc.” Wherefore the conclusion is this: “According to this position, then, it must be said that the Luminaries of the heaven are placed in several orbs, yet in one continuous body, which Scripture calls by the name of ‘Firmament.’”

[Margin: Téllez. The Tychonics. The Copernicans.]

And indeed, whoever posit the starry heaven to be everywhere fluid have no reason to divide it into several heavens, but ought to confess it single—as Tycho teaches (in the Epistle, p. 149), and as Oviedo remarks (in the single controversy On the Heaven, point 4, conclusion 5), asserting: “If the heavens are liquid, only one heaven, of the wandering and non-wandering stars, is to be admitted.” For which cause Téllez (disp. 44 of the Philosophy, sect. 3, num. 5) affirms a single star-bearing heaven. And such [holders] are Tycho, Longomontanus, Kepler, Bullialdus, and probably Copernicus, as we shall say at num. 14.

[Margin: A single heaven, even though solid. Giles [of Rome]. Hurtado.]

But even if the whole starry heaven were posited [to be] solid, Giles [Aegidius] and Hurtado nonetheless assert it to be single. For he [Giles] (part 2 of the Hexaemeron, ch. 32), because Scripture says the stars are placed not “in firmaments” but “in the firmament,” says: “If, therefore, the Luminaries and stars are in the firmament of the Heaven, and the Planets are reckoned among the Luminaries of the heaven, it seems that all the Planets are in the firmament of the heaven—which could not be, unless the spheres of the planets made one sphere with the firmament, or with the starry heaven.” And a little after: “Yet, positing Eccentrics and Epicycles, nothing prevents all the aforesaid spheres from being one and the same sphere.” And finally he concludes that the deferents of the Planets are seven, and that, with respect to these, the place of the Fixed [stars] can be called the eighth sphere—but that all these are enclosed in a single heaven, nay, are a single sphere; and that it is done in vain through many [things] which can be done through one. But Hurtado (disp. 2 On the Heaven, sect. 1) so maintains a single heaven, notwithstanding [its] solidity, that in it he admits, with some of the more ancient [writers], vari—

[…continues on p. 272 (PDF 307): “…ous canals, through which the Planets are carried up and down, to the right and to the left; nor does he admit these [to be] void, because a vacuum is a place lacking a body but apt for having one, whereas those canals are not apt to be filled with a body.” — then the rebuttal of the canals (Pererius, Oviedo, Arriaga), the single-sphere-with-interwoven-rings view (Cæsalpinus, Aversa, Tanner), and the start of the Second and Third Opinions.]

(printed p. 272 — The page completes the First Opinion (a single heaven) and proceeds through the Second Opinion (several heavens, absolutely) and the Third Opinion (only two heavens), before opening the Fourth Opinion, that there are three heavens.)

…[with some of the more ancient writers] various canals, through which the Planets are carried up and down, to the right and to the left; nor does he [Hurtado] admit these [to be] void, because (he says) a vacuum is a place lacking a body but apt for having a body, whereas those canals are not apt to be filled with a body. Against which canals there rise up, with several [arguments], Pererius (bk. 2 on Genesis, q. 9), Oviedo (above), and Arriaga (the single disputation On the Heaven, sect. 4, num. 49). And certainly, if there be considered the innumerable bendings and windings of the Planets—especially of Mars, Mercury, and Venus—it would be necessary that their whole heaven be hollowed out [excavated]; nor does it appear how light could be transmitted to us, from the whole hemisphere of the Planet’s body, through those cavities (if it [light] is an accident needing a subject), and so we would see [only] a single point of them.

[Margin: Cæsalpinus. Aversa. Tanner.]

But in another way, Andreas Cæsalpinus (bk. 3 of the Peripatetic Questions, q. 4) and Raphael Aversa (q. 32 of the Physics, sect. 6 and 7) said the heaven is single—nor did Tanner think it improbable (vol. 1 of the Theology, disp. 6, q. 3, dist. 3, num. 78)—namely, that the starry heaven is a single sphere, in which, however, there are diverse circles joined together among themselves like rings, or Zones, within the Zodiac, conveying the Planets forward and backward, up and down, without fluidity or vacuity. Finally, all those who receive three heavens taken broadly—namely the Empyrean, the Starry, and the Aerial (about which we shall speak at num. 5)—would seem to favor the unity of the starry heaven; for by this very [fact] they would seem to make the Starry [heaven] single, and Téllez uses this argument too. But, as we shall see (partly at num. 5, partly at num. 7), many of them subdivide the Starry [heaven] into several heavens really distinct.

[Margin: 2. Opinion — for a plurality of heavens.]

[III.] The Second Opinion affirms absolutely that there are several heavens. Against these [are] certain Mathematicians—I know not whom—[whom] St. Basil [opposes] (homily 3 of the Hexaemeron): “Although those,” he says, “who are wont to use demonstrations are of much graver weight [authority], and by the force of Geometrical proofs necessarily concluding confirm [their view]—that nature cannot bear that, besides this one heaven, it should constitute another—then truly we shall the more freely laugh at the linear trifles of those Mathematicians, contrived with however much artifice and ingenuity, etc.” But perhaps they were using the Aristotelian arguments proposed at num. 1, to show that there are not several worlds. Surely the divine scripture indicates that there are several heavens, when (1 Chronicles [Paralipomenon], ch. 2) it says, “If heaven and the heavens of heavens do not contain thee”; and Psalm 113, “The heaven of heaven [is] the Lord’s”; and Psalm 148, “Praise him, ye heavens of heavens”; and Ecclesiasticus 16, “Behold the heaven, and the heavens of heavens.” Moreover, the sacred Genesis commemorates two heavens, according to the more common opinion of the Fathers (about which [we treated] in sect. 1, ch. 1 and 2)—namely, the Empyrean (or even the Starry) created on the 1st day, [and] the Firmament made on the 2nd day; and St. Paul (2 Corinthians 12) [names] three heavens.

[Margin: St. Athanasius.]

Indicating which arguments, St. Athanasius (in the Questions to Antiochus, q. 5) said: “What are the heavens? I answer: this question is in doubt among many. For the book of Genesis commemorates two heavens. But the divine Paul says that he himself saw even a third heaven; and the prophet David speaks of a fourth heaven: ‘praise him, ye heavens of heavens.’ But it must be known that, just as human nature is called one, and one man, yet there are likewise many men, so too the nature of the heavens [is] one, and ‘one heaven’ is said in the divine scripture, and [also] ‘many heavens.’” And [that] this [opinion] does not in fact differ from those positing one heaven, but [only] in name, St. Thomas teaches (part 1, q. 68, art. 4): for [he teaches] that St. Chrysostom takes, by the name “heaven,” the whole space which is up above the earth and water, but that others distinguish in it several heavens.

[Margin: The error of Basilides, of the 365 heavens.]

It is not permitted, however, to multiply heavens at will; and therefore the error of Basilides—who posited as many heavens as there are days in a year, namely 365—is numbered among the heresies by St. Irenaeus (bk. 2 Against Heresies, ch. 21 and 22), Tertullian (the book On Prescriptions against the Heretics), St. Epiphanius (in the Panarion, bk. 1, heresy 24 and 26), and St. Augustine (the book On Heresies, heresy 4)—though this heresy consisted not so much in the multitude of the number as in the [mode of] production; since indeed, as St. Irenaeus relates, he [Basilides] imagined the second heaven [procreated] from the first, and the third from the second, and likewise the others procreated by successive birth. Wherefore our Téllez wittily said (disp. 44 of his Philosophy, sect. 3, num. 4): “Although he admits so many heavens, into none [of them], as I rather think, will he have to be admitted.” For he was a heresiarch, and therefore deserved to be banished not into heaven, but into the infernal Tartarus. This, then, being dismissed, let us see how many heavens others have reckoned.

[Margin: 3. Opinion — on two heavens. St. Clement. Acacius. Theodoret.]

[IV.] The Third Opinion enumerates only two heavens, but not in the same sense. For indeed St. Clement (bks. 1 and 2 of the Recognitions), Acacius (in Lippomanus, in the Catena), and Theodoret (on ch. 9 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and q. 11 on Genesis) affirm one heaven [to be] the Empyrean, or [the heaven] created on the first day, but the other [to be] made on the second day. Let us hear Theodoret: “Since the divine scripture teaches that, in the beginning, God created heaven and earth, and then, after the creation of light, says that on the second day the firmament was made—a question of this kind (about the number of the heavens) seems to be full of inexperience [ignorance]. For it behooved [one] to know, from the reckoning of time and the very mode of creation, the diversity of the heavens—both [that] one [was made] before the light, the other after the light; and [that] the former, indeed, [was] founded not from another matter, but the latter from the waters, etc. Whoever, then, does not believe there to be a second heaven, transgresses the straight path; but whoever tries to enumerate several, cleaves to fables, the doctrine of the divine Spirit having been set aside.”

[Margin: Claudianus Mamertus. Suidas.]

And in the same sense Claudianus Mamertus (bk. 2 On the State of the Soul, ch. 13) said there are two heavens. Likewise Suidas, in his historical work: “There are two heavens—one procreated with the earth, the other which was bidden to subsist in the midst of the waters, which they also called the firmament.”

[Margin: Procopius. St. Bruno. Anastasius.]

And, speaking of the heaven made on the second day, Procopius (on ch. 1 of Genesis) says: “Some deny that the generation of a second heaven is here depicted; for they think that the present series of words is a brief repetition of the [first] heaven, of which [it spoke] above. These and such things they dare to prate, although the scripture of this second heaven brings [with it] another name and another use.” And the same acceptation of these two heavens [is found] in St. Bruno (in the book On the Novelties [De Novis], ch. 2). But most elegantly, and joining the mystical with the literal sense, [is] Anastasius Sinaita (bk. 2 of the Commentary on the Hexaemeron): “On the first day was made the veil of the higher heaven, which approaches the Holy of Holies, whither Christ, our forerunner, entered for us. For this cause, moreover, on the second day is made the second, outer veil, which is called the firmament in the midst of the water—which indeed is the firmament of faith in Christ.” Hence, after a few [words]: “We have learned, therefore, from sacred scripture, only the fabrication of two heavens, as a type and figure of the two veils of the Temple, which signify the two natures of Jesus, and of two peoples, and of two Churches, etc.”

[Margin: Mastrius and Bellutus. St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. Justin.]

Lastly, Mastrius and Bellutus (disp. 2 On the Heaven, q. 1, art. 2, num. 30) so admit a Prime Mobile really distinct from the starry heaven, that they say the starry heaven [itself] is single and continuous, and maintain the various motions of the Planets not through whole heavens or spheres, but through circles—or rings and Zones—contained within the Zodiac. But in another way, St. Gregory of Nyssa (in his Hexaemeron, especially toward the end) teaches that on the second day a single heaven was made—namely, the fiery element [being] segregated from the others—and that this was divided into two regions: one for the non-wandering [fixed] stars, the other for the wandering [stars]. And finally, in another sense, St. Justin (q. 57 of the [Questions] of the Orthodox) says that there are truly two heavens, but that these are disjoined into various spaces, which the scripture calls “heavens”; but he speaks of the ethereal heaven, and of the aerial. For he says, inquiring: “If Moses had set forth to us the creation of a twofold heaven, how does the scripture teach that there are several—sometimes saying ‘the heavens of heavens,’ sometimes ‘and the heavens were opened’?” Then he answers: “Moses indeed spoke of heavens; but as to number, he handed down neither one, nor two, nor several. Furthermore, the divine scripture is wont to name the higher interstices [interspaces] of the parts ‘heavens’—as ‘the birds of heaven,’ and ‘the eagle in heaven,’ and ‘the stars of heaven.’ From these sayings, therefore, it follows that we should understand the heavens to be, in substance, indeed two, but, by [their] interstices, several. And if we take ‘heavens’ in this manner, there will be no contradiction in the words.” And so [they posit] two heavens: Theodoret, Claudianus, Suidas, Procopius, Bruno, [and] Anastasius—the Empyrean and the starry; and Nyssen[us]—[the heaven] of the Fixed [stars] and [that] of the Planets; but St. Justin—the Ethereal and the Aerial; Mastrius and Bellutus—the Prime Mobile and the Starry heaven. But if you call in the aerial [heaven], St. Nyssen will acknowledge a third heaven, as we shall show in the following number.

[Margin: 4. Opinion — on three heavens.]

[V.] The Fourth—and most celebrated among the sacred writers—Opinion was, and still is, [the one] about three heavens, arisen from that saying of St. Paul (2 Corinthians, ch. 12): “I know a man in Christ—fourteen years ago, whether in the body or out of the body, I know not, God knows—caught up in this manner even to the third heaven”; which words St. Thomas most learnedly expounds (2-2, q. 175, art. 3 and 4, etc.). But although, as Oviedo notes (at the end of the controversy On the Heaven), some have believed that “three heavens” is put for “many” or “all”—in that manner in which, in Amos 1, it is sa—

[…continues on p. 273 (PDF 308): “…id [that for three and four transgressions of Damascus I will not turn away…]” — Riccioli continues expounding the Fourth Opinion (three heavens), distinguishing the literal three from the figurative use of “three” for an indefinite multitude.]

(printed p. 273 — The Fourth Opinion (three heavens) is completed, followed by the Fifth (four), Sixth (five), and Seventh (six or seven) Opinions. The page then opens the Eighth Opinion, which posits eight starry heavens.)

[Margin: Three heavens metaphorically = three visions.]

…[in that manner in which, in Amos 1, it is] said, “for three transgressions of Damascus,” that is, “for very many”; and 2 Corinthians 11, “Thrice I besought the Lord,” namely, several times. Yet the common opinion is that three heavens are enumerated, because in reality, in its whole amplitude, there are three, properly speaking. For metaphorically, as St. Augustine interprets (tome 3, bk. 12 [On Genesis to the Letter], ch. 29 & 34), there can be understood three kinds of supernatural visions—namely the Corporeal, the Imaginary, and the Intellectual; and so St. Paul, transcending the corporeal and imaginary vision, was elevated to the intellectual—and indeed to the intuitive [vision] of God; which some call the heaven of the Trinity. To which heaven—that is, to the Beatific vision, as owed to his natural excellence—Lucifer tried not to be elevated, but to elevate himself, when he said, “I will ascend into heaven,” as Martinengo thinks (in the Great Gloss, p. 623), and before him St. Thomas (1 p., q. 68, art. 4). But to the letter, these three heavens are either the Aerial, the Sidereal, and the Empyrean; or the first, which was made on the first day, the second, on the second day, and the third, to which St. Paul was caught up. But let us recite the words of the Fathers.

[Margin: St. Basil.]

St. Basil (homily 3 of the Hexaemeron): “In the second place there offers itself to be inquired into, whether this firmament is diverse from that heaven which was made in the beginning—since this too has obtained the name of ‘heaven’; and accordingly, whether two heavens are absolutely to be posited.” And at length he answers: “We, on the contrary, are so far from doubting at all about two, that we [rather] inquire about a third, of the contemplation of which that admirable Paul was held worthy. Moreover, when the Psalm by name commemorates ‘the heavens of heavens,’ it has surely served us a clear understanding not of one heaven only, but of several.”

[Margin: St. Ambrose. Cassiodorus.]

To whom, as is usual, St. Ambrose accords (bk. 2 of the Hexaemeron, ch. 3), where at last he thus establishes: “And so we cannot deny that there is not only a second, but even a third heaven, since the Apostle confirms, by the testimony of his writings, that he was caught up to the third heaven. David too sets ‘the heavens of heavens’ in that choir of those praising the Lord.” With whom Cassiodorus also agrees (on Psalm 148).

[Margin: St. [John] Damascene.]

But of what kind these three heavens are, St. [John] Damascene taught more openly (bk. 2 of the Orthodox Faith, ch. 6): for when he had said, “Since, therefore, the scripture says ‘heaven,’ and ‘the heaven of heaven,’ and ‘the heavens of heavens’; and affirms that blessed Paul was caught up even to the third heaven: we say that, in the procreation of the whole world, by the making of ‘heaven’ is understood by us that sphere which certain of the wise (who are not of our own) call the ‘starless,’ making those dogmas of theirs which are Moses’s; then God also called the Firmament ‘heaven.’” He subjoined: “There is, therefore, the heaven of heaven, the first heaven placed above the firmament: behold two heavens—for God called the firmament too ‘heaven.’ It is also the custom of the divine scripture to call the air ‘heaven,’ from the fact that it is seen above. For ‘Bless [the Lord],’ it says, ‘all ye birds of heaven’—meaning the air; for the air is the path of flying things, and not ‘heaven’: behold three heavens, which the divine Apostle spoke of.”

[Margin: St. Gregory of Nyssa.]

Yet with another notion St. Gregory of Nyssa distinguished these three heavens (in the History of the six days, in these words): “I think, therefore, that the extreme part of the sensible World was called the ‘third heaven’ by St. Paul, dividing indeed whatever appears into three parts, etc. One heaven the scripture names the terminus of the thicker air, as far as the winds and clouds also pertain, and the nature of high-flying birds is borne, etc.; then it names another both ‘heaven’ and ‘firmament,’ that which is beheld within, after the sphere of the non-wandering [fixed] stars, in which the wandering stars are conversant. And it names the very extremity also of the sensible World—which is the confine of that creature of His which is perceived by thought—‘firmament’ and ‘heaven.’” Wherefore, for Nyssen the first heaven is the Aerial, the second the Planetary, the third the Firmament of the non-wandering [stars].

[Margin: St. Thomas. Cajetan.]

Otherwise St. Thomas (1 p., q. 68, art. 4): for he says these three heavens are the Empyrean, which is wholly luminous; the Aqueous or crystalline, which is totally diaphanous [transparent]; and the Sidereal, partly luminous, partly diaphanous. Again otherwise Cajetan (on Genesis, & on 2 Corinthians, ch. 12) took these three heavens, for in the third place, instead of the Empyrean, he substituted the aqueous heaven, saying: “In sacred scripture mention is made of three heavens. The lowest is the aerial heaven, according to that [text], ‘the birds of heaven’; the middle is the Starred heaven, of which in the beginning of Genesis, ‘and he placed them in the firmament of heaven’; the third and highest is [that] of all the waters which are above the heavens—of which scripture makes mention several times—which we call the aqueous heaven, but the Philosophers call the Prime Mobile: the Empyrean heaven indeed, handed down by the later [writers], is nowhere found in scripture.” But how falsely they exclude the Empyrean, we have said enough (sect. 1, ch. 1, from num. 24).

But to the Damascene’s acceptation most of the more recent [writers] have subscribed—chiefly Suárez (On the work of the six days, bks. 1 & 2), Oviedo (the single controversy On the Heaven, point 4, num. 12), Tanner (in the dissertation On the heavens, q. 10), Christopher Borrus (folio 260 of his New Astronomy), and Genebrardus [cited] in him; Hurtado (disp. 2 On the Heaven, sect. 1)—namely, that the heaven is divided into Empyrean, Sidereal, and Aerial. Not all, however, deny a subdivision of the sidereal [heaven] into several heavens; nay, Sts. Basil, Ambrose, and Damascene subdivide it into eight heavens, as we shall see below. And that the air too is marked with the name of “heaven,” even among the Ethnic [pagan] and Profane writers, I have already taught (sect. 1, ch. 1, num. 14).

[Margin: 5. Opinion — on 4 heavens.]

[VI.] The Fifth Opinion, on four heavens, is hinted at by St. Athanasius (q. 5 to Antiochus, whose words I have already transcribed at num. 3); he seems, however, to understand the Empyrean, the Firmament of the non-wandering [stars], the heaven of the Planets, and the Ethereal heaven—but he does not sufficiently express his meaning.

[Margin: 6. Opinion — on five heavens. 7 heavens.]

[VII.] The Sixth Opinion is of 5 heavens—namely that of Oviedo (the single controversy On the Heaven, point 4, num. 10), where, not absolutely, but on the supposition that the heaven of the stars is solid, [he holds that] it must be divided into five heavens: namely [the heavens] of the Fixed [stars], of Saturn, of Jupiter, of the Sun, and of the Moon. For since Mars, Venus, and Mercury are sometimes above the Sun, sometimes below, he reckons them to be enclosed within one and the same heaven of the Sun, as [a heaven] common to these four planets. Absolutely, however, he inclines toward liquid heavens, and therefore at num. 12 he posits three heavens—the Empyrean, the Sidereal (single, without subdivision), and the Aerial; wherefore, if to five solid heavens he had added the Empyrean and the Aerial, he would surely have made 7 heavens aggregated from solid and liquid [ones]. But we below, in another way, shall assert 5 heavens—namely the Empyrean; the Aqueous or crystalline; the Firmament of the Fixed [stars], solid; the Ether or heaven of the Planets, liquid; and the Aerial.

[Margin: 7. Opinion — on 6 or 7 heavens. Philastrius. Bede.]

[VIII.] The Seventh Opinion is of 6 heavens, which, together with these opinions, Philastrius heaps up (in the book On Heresies), saying: “Concerning the diversity of the heavens, there is a heresy which is in doubt”; and a little after: “Whether, therefore, one will take six heavens according to David, and this Firmament as the seventh, he does not err. For Solomon speaks of three heavens thus: ‘the heaven, and the heaven of heaven’; Paul equally, the Apostle, confesses himself caught up even to the third heaven: whether, therefore, one takes seven as David, or three, or two, he does not err, etc.” Otherwise Bede (on Genesis, ch. 1), when he had adduced that verse, “The golden-colored ether of the sevenfold heaven is cleft,” immediately adds: “Since these are the names—Air, Aether, Olympus, the fiery Space, the Firmament, the heaven of the Angels, the heaven of the Trinity.”

[Margin: Rabanus.]

And the same order of heavens, reversed [in inverse order], Rabanus reckons, as St. Thomas too reckons (on [the Sentences] 2, dist. 14, q. 4, and 1 part of the Summa, q. 68, art. 4)—namely Empyrean, Crystalline, Sidereal, Fiery, Olympic, Ethereal, Aerial. And in the same place [Aquinas] says, according to Rabanus (on ch. 1 of Genesis), that the space which is from the earth to the Moon is divided into four regions, as it were four heavens: and that the supreme [region] of Fire is called the fiery heaven; the lowest of Fire, the Olympic heaven; the supreme of air, the Ethereal heaven; the lowest of air, the Aerial heaven.

[Margin: Eclogue 2.]

And perhaps to here someone may draw that [saying] about the Heptachord [seven-stringed lyre] of the World, indicated by Virgil in those verses: “I have a pipe compacted of seven unequal hemlock-stalks [reeds], etc.”; and that: “It echoes the seven distinctions of tones by [its] numbers.”

[Margin: 8. Opinion — on 8 heavens, but of the starry [heaven]. Babylonians. Egyptians. Eudoxus. Calippus. Plato. Aristotle. Cicero. Philo. St. Damascene. St. Bonaventure. The Carthusian. Aben Ezra.]

[IX.] The Eighth Opinion was of Eight starry heavens, in which were all those who reckoned that the Fixed [stars] are moved by no other motion than [that] of the Prime Mobile; wherefore, since for the 7 Planets they posited just as many heavens, the sphere of the Fixed [stars], or the “Aplanes” [ἀπλανής, aplanēs, “non-wandering”], remained with them the supreme and eighth sphere—which by many later Catholics was called the Firmament. Not all the Catholics, however, excluded the Empyrean heaven or the crystalline, or even the aerial; but, speaking of the subdivision of the sidereal, they distributed it into 8 total spheres. Of this opinion were the most ancient Babylonians and Egyptians, Eudoxus, Calippus, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Philo, St. Damascene, St. Bonaventure, Denis the Carthusian, [and] Aben Ezra—as I have already taught (sect. 2, ch. 3, num. 2), the verses of Plato, Cicero, Philo, and Damascene having been adduced; who—

[…continues on p. 274 (PDF 309): “…indeed (bk. 2 of the Faith, ch. 6), when Damascene had received three heavens—Empyrean, Sidereal, and Aerial—subjoins about the sidereal heaven of the Planets: ‘But if you should wish to take the seven circles for seven heavens, you will in nothing offend against the reason of truth’…” — then the eight-heaven dossier (Basil, Ambrose, Remigius, Aquinas, Lyra, Tostado, Denis, Burgos, Riccius, Orontius, Arriaga, Amici, Aversa, Cremonini, Rubius, Hurtado), and Opinions 9–11 (nine, ten, eleven heavens).]

(printed p. 274 — The Eighth Opinion (eight starry heavens) is completed, followed by the Ninth Opinion (nine heavens) and the Tenth Opinion (ten). The page closes by opening the Eleventh Opinion, which counts eleven heavens.)

[Margin: St. Basil.]

…who [Damascene] indeed (bk. 2 of the Faith, ch. 6), when he had received three heavens—Empyrean, Sidereal, and Aerial—subjoins, about the sidereal [heaven] of the Planets: “But if you should wish to take the seven circles for seven heavens, you will in nothing offend against the reason of truth.” Likewise St. Basil, on the seven heavens of the Planets (homily 3 of the Hexaemeron), asserts the most common opinion: “Nor is this other [view] to be believed with any less faith than that by which we believe there to be seven orbs, in which the seven stars are proclaimed, by the consonant mouth of almost all, to accomplish their course: which heavens indeed they assert to be neatly inserted one within another, just as if [heated vessels], or little vessels, were inserted one within another.” But he had admitted three heavens on account of the authority of St. Paul, and among them the Empyrean and the Firmament; as also St. Ambrose (bk. 2 of the Hexaemeron, ch. 2), and then he subjoins: “David too set ‘the heavens of heavens’ in that choir of those praising the Lord.” Imitating whom, the Philosophers introduced a consonant motion of the seven stars—of the Sun, the Moon, etc.—which [stars], inserted into and as it were inlaid in [their orbs], they judge to be turned backward [retrograde], and to be borne by a motion contrary to the rest.

[Margin: St. Ambrose. Remigius.]

To whom must be added Remigius of Auxerre (on Psalm 148), explaining that [verse], “Praise him, ye heavens of heavens”: “The heavens, that is, the firmament and the ether, namely the force of the [things] embraced; the heavens of heavens, that is, of the seven circles, where the ‘aplanes’ [fixed] and the Planets are fixed—let them be to you matter for praising the Lord.”

[Margin: St. Thomas. Lyra. Tostado.]

By a like reasoning St. Thomas, an asserter of three heavens—the Empyrean, the Crystalline, and the Sidereal—speaks thus of the Sidereal (1 p., q. 68, art. 4): “The third, partly diaphanous and partly luminous from the stars, which they call the sidereal heaven; and it is divided into eight spheres, namely into the sphere of the fixed stars, and the seven spheres of the Planets, which can be called seven heavens, or seven spheres.” Hither comes [Nicholas of] Lyra (in the Postils on Genesis), saying: “The firmament was made according to the specific form of the sidereal heaven. In which production are understood also to be produced the orbs of the seven Planets, which are comprehended under the name of ‘firmament.’” Nor otherwise Tostado [Tostatus] (on ch. 1 of Genesis): “By the name of ‘Firmament’ is understood the whole magnitude, or celestial mass, containing eight orbs: namely the starred heaven, the heaven of Saturn, of Jupiter, of Mars, of the Sun, of Venus, of Mercury, and of the Moon.”

[Margin: Denis the Carthusian. Burgos [Paul of]. Riccius. Orontius.]

Likewise Denis the Carthusian (in the Commentaries on Genesis, art. 10): “The firmament was made, that is, the starred heaven, which is the eighth sphere, because under it are seven spheres or orbs and heavens of the Planets.” With whom agreed Burgensis [Paul of Burgos] (in the Additions on Genesis, ch. 1): “The Firmament, of which here it treats, is the sidereal heaven, which is divided into the eighth sphere, which is [that] of the fixed stars, and into the seven orbs of the Planets.” But Augustine Riccius (in the treatise On the motion of the Eighth sphere, ch. 13 & 14) and Orontius [Finé] (bk. 1 of the Sphere, ch. 5) acknowledge indeed an apparent motion of the Fixed [stars] from the East, but teach that it is from the aggregate of 8 heavens.

[Margin: Arriaga. Amici. Aversa. Cremonini. Rubius. Hurtado.]

But our Roderick Arriaga (the single disputation On the Heaven, sect. 4, num. 52), on the hypothesis that the starry heavens are solid, teaches that they are eight: for he thinks that the eighth sphere can be so moved by Intelligences, that there appears to be in it a twofold motion, one toward the West, the other toward the East. Which Amici also thinks more probable (tract. 4 On the Heaven, q. 5, dub. 8), and Aversa (q. 32 of the Philosophy, sect. 4). Eight heavens equally affirm Cremonini (On the motion of the heaven, sect. 2, ch. 13), Rubius (bk. 2 On the Heaven, ch. 5, q. 1), and Hurtado (disp. 1 On the Heaven, sect. 1)—because they think it uncertain whether the Fixed [stars] have a proper and peculiar motion. Arriaga, however, above the sidereal [heaven] acknowledges a ninth heaven, namely the Empyrean.

[Margin: 9. Opinion — on 9 heavens. Macrobius. Alpetragius. Rabbi Isaac. Rabbi Moses. Zacut. Haly. Scotus. Sacrobosco.]

[X.] The Ninth Opinion, on nine heavens, does not number them in the same way. For Arriaga, as I just said, numbers the Empyrean and eight sidereal heavens. But others wished the Ninth heaven to be the Prime Mobile, moving with itself the eight lower spheres—of the Fixed [stars] and of the 7 Planets—to each of which singly they attributed its own proper motion toward the East, but a very slow [motion] to the Fixed [stars]: thus Macrobius (bk. 1 on the Dream of Scipio, ch. 17); thus Rabbi Isaac, Alpetragius (in the Celestial Physics), Abraham Zacut, Rabbi Moses [cited] in Riccius (in the treatise On the motion of the eighth sphere, ch. 4), Haly (ch. 11); the fourfold [partition] of Scotus (on [the Sentences] 2, dist. 14, q. 2, & Metaphysics 12, comm. 44), John of Sacrobosco (on ch. 1 of the Sphere); and that this was common in Scotus’s time say Mastrius and Bellutus, the Scotists (disp. 2 On the Heaven, q. 1, art. 2, num. 30)—who indeed admit a Prime Mobile distinct from the sidereal heaven, although in place of [several] sidereal [heavens] they posit a single solid and continuous heaven, with various circles or Zones carrying the Planets—following Aversa and Cæsalpinus, as also Chiaramonti (bk. 2 On the Universe).

[Margin: Whether Hipparchus & Ptolemy [belong to this class]?]

The Authors of this opinion, Averroes thinks Hipparchus and Ptolemy to have been (2 On the Heaven, comm. 67), [as do] Albertus Magnus (2 On the Heaven, tract. 3, ch. 11), Clavius (on the Sphere, p. 43), the Conimbricenses (2 On the Heaven, ch. 5, q. 1)—attributing the same [opinion] to Menelaus, or Mileus, [of] Agria, to Alexander, and to Alfraganus; Scheiner (in the Mathematical Disquisitions, p. 50), Tanner (dissert. On the Heaven, q. 10), Mastrius and Bellutus (disp. 2 On the Heaven, q. 1, art. 2, num. 19). Because, namely, the first, Hipparchus and Ptolemy, having compared their observations about the Fixed [stars]—Hipparchus indeed with those of Timocharis and Aristyllus, Ptolemy with the observations of Hipparchus—detected and confirmed that the Fixed stars, besides the apparent motion over the poles of the Equator toward the West, are slowly advanced in consequence [eastward] over the poles of the Ecliptic. But if you read Ptolemy (bk. 1 of the Almagest, ch. 8, and bk. 7, ch. 2 and 3) and Alfraganus (diff. 5 & 18), where they treat of these motions, you will nowhere find that they posited two distinct spheres, but only distinct poles, around which those motions [occur]: and Tanner himself concedes that the argument for a distinction of heavens, drawn from the distinction of motions, is not necessary, but that [the heaven] can be so moved by one Intelligence or by several, by a single real motion, that nevertheless a twofold [motion] appears. Nay, Ptolemy and Alfraganus seem to describe the Equator and the Ecliptic in the same heaven.

[Margin: 10. Opinion — on 10 heavens. Alfonso. Amici. Fernel. Peurbach. Regiomontanus. Apianus. Maurolyco. Langius. Thebit. Arzachel. Isaac. [William of] Paris.]

[XI.] The Tenth Opinion asserted 10 heavens: namely seven for the seven planets; an Eighth for the motion of trepidation, or of the accession and recession of the Fixed [stars] toward Rising and Setting; a Ninth for the motion of the Fixed [stars] and of the Auges, or Apogees, of any Planet (except the Moon); and a Tenth for the motion of the Prime Mobile. Thus King Alfonso in his Tables, John Baptist Amici (On the celestial motions, last chapter), John Fernel (bk. 2 of the Cosmotheoria, ch. 1 & 7), Peurbach (in the Theorica of the eighth sphere, with his followers), Regiomontanus (there, & on the Almagest 7, prop. 7), Maurolyco (dialogue 1 of the Cosmography, p. 24, & dialogue 3, p. 89), Apianus (in the Caesarean work), Joseph Langius (in the Astronomical Elements, ch. 4). The same number, but otherwise, received Thebit, Arzachel, and Isaac the Israelite, but they attributed the motion of trepidation in longitude rather to the ninth sphere, and the continuous motion in longitude of itself to the Eighth. To this class could be reduced those authors who posited 11 heavens in such a way that they called the eleventh the Empyrean—namely the Conimbricenses, Martinengo, Clavius, and before these d’Ailly [Alliacensis], as we shall presently say; for in the number of 10 mobile spheres they agree with the Alfonsines. But William of Paris (1st part On the Universe, ch. 34 & 37) admits a first heaven, most quiet and immobile, that is, the Empyrean; and nine other mobile heavens—namely the prime mobile and the eight remaining spheres: the same holds John Anthony Delphinus (in the book On the celestial globes and motions, ch. 30 & 32).

[Margin: Delphinus. 11. Opinion — on 11 spheres. d’Ailly. Clavius. Conimbricenses. Martinengo. Polaccus.]

[XII.] The Eleventh Opinion is of Eleven heavens, but not in the same way. For some number, with the Alfonsines, ten mobile spheres according to what was said a little before (num. 11), but above this they acknowledge an eleventh, immobile: namely the Empyrean, or supreme immobile heaven, influencing into the diverse regions of the Earth diverse and stable properties; thus Pierre d’Ailly (q. 2 on the Sphere), Clavius (on the Sphere, p. 45), the Conimbricenses (2 On the Heaven, ch. 5, q. 1), Ascanio Martinengo (in the Great Gloss, p. 1021), Georgius Polaccus (in the Anti-Copernicus, assertion 172).

[Margin: Polaccus.]

But among these, d’Ailly reports the opinion of 10 mobile heavens, and does not repudiate it, and adds that, besides those, an eleventh immobile heaven is required, on account of the diverse influences—which Clavius too thinks probable; again, Clavius thinks this same heaven to be that Empyrean of which Strabo and Bede [speak]; but the aqueous or crystalline heaven he thinks to be an aggregate from the ninth and tenth heaven of the Alfonsines. But others posited eleven heavens, yet mobile—namely the eleventh, or Prime Mobile; and the tenth for the first trepidation or libration in latitude, by force of which, by alternating turns, the obliquity of the Ecliptic is varied; the Ninth for the second libration or trepidation in longitude, by force of which the Equinoctial points advance and recede, and so the motion of the Fixed [stars] in longitude seems to be hastened and retarded; the Eighth for the proper and equal motion of the Fixed [stars] in consequence [eastward]; and the remaining seven for the motion of the seven Planets in longitude, etc. Thus John Werner (in Erasmus Oswald[‘s] Theorica of the Eighth sphere)—

[…continues on p. 275 (PDF 310): ”…Leopold of Austria (in his Compilation); Magini; and Clavius (in the last edition of the Sphere)—whence Scheiner calls this the ‘Clavian System’; so that Clavius, having admitted the Empyrean, admitted in all 12 heavens.” — then ¶XIII (Riccioli corrects the ascription of “eleven heavens” to Copernicus, who in fact rejected the multiplication of spheres).]

(printed p. 275 — The page shows that Copernicus was wrongly cited for eleven heavens, his actual view being a two-heaven, fluid one. Riccioli then states his own Conclusion — five heavens broadly counted, two strictly — and introduces the Synopsis table, which begins here and continues on p. 276.)

[Margin: 12 heavens. Tanner’s lapse.]

…Leopold of Austria (in his Compilation); John Anthony Magini (in the Theorics, bk. 1, and in the Secondary Mobiles), and—on account of the aforesaid motions asserted by Copernicus, but transferred to the hypothesis of a quiescent earth—Clavius (in the last edition of the Sphere), whence Scheiner calls this the “Clavian System” (in the Mathematical Disquisitions, p. 36). This same number, not from their own but from others’ opinion, expound Antony Deusing and Pierre Gassendi (in their Astronomical Institutions). Wherefore, since Clavius admitted the Empyrean heaven, he admitted in all 12 heavens.

[XIII.] But since the assertion of eleven heavens is attributed to Copernicus by Tanner (dissert. On the heavens, q. 10, & tome 1 of the theological Summa, disp. 6, q. 4, dist. 4, num. 6), it must be known that Copernicus acknowledged this number not from his own, but from others’ opinion: for he says (bk. 3 of the Revolutions, ch. 1): “For the cause of which [motions] some devised a ninth sphere, others a tenth, by which they judged those [appearances] to come about thus; nor yet could they perform what they promised. Now too an eleventh sphere had begun to come to light—which number of circles, as superfluous, we shall easily refute in [treating] the motion of the earth.” And so Copernicus attributes all the apparent motions in the Fixed [stars], and the very motion of the prime mobile, and the variation of the obliquity of the Ecliptic, to motions of the earth, as I shall teach more fully in Section 4.

[Margin: 2 heavens in Copernicus’s hypothesis, or a single one.]

Nor in his hypothesis are the heavens distinct, except into two classes—namely into the immobile sphere of the Fixed [stars], and into the liquid heaven of the Planets, among which Planets is the Earth with the sphere of the elements. For although he did not express that liquidity, yet from those [things] which he teaches (bk. 1, from ch. 8 to 11) it is gathered, by no light conjectures: for in chapter 8 he teaches that not the whole air is carried around together with the earth by the annual motion, but only that [air] which is near to us; just as, therefore, the earth, which is one of the Planets, is rolled with the near air through the rest of the air—liquid, but unmoved—so it is fitting that the same befall the other Planets, namely that they be moved in the liquid ethereal aura. Again, in the same place he says that immobility befits the World, as the place of the stars and Planets, and that it is absurd to ascribe motion to the container, or [the thing] placing, and not rather to the contained and placed, which is the earth; but if this reasoning holds, it holds also of any heaven with respect to its Planet, whose place it is; nor by the name “World” can the sphere of the Fixed [stars] alone be understood. Lastly, in ch. 10 he names indeed the sphere of the Fixed [stars], but never the spheres of the Planets, while he inquires into the order of the celestial orbs; but he names the Planets themselves, and their revolutions—indicating sufficiently that these revolve not at the motion of orbs, but per se. But he indicates this most of all [by the fact] that the earth with the Moon is carried through the annual orb, and yet the Moon does not cut it [the orb]: by which argument Bullialdus (bk. 1, ch. 8) gathers that the Moon and the Planets are moved freely through the fluid ether. Accordingly, we acknowledge two heavens in reality in Copernicus’s system—one of the Fixed [stars], the other of the Planets—distinguishable, however, by reason and designation into seven heavens: although Longomontanus (bk. 1 of the Theorics, ch. 1) thinks that Copernicus, the Ptolemaic Epicycles being removed, nonetheless retained the Eccentricity of the orbs, their reality being safe; and Tycho (tome 5 of the Progymnasmata, p. 439) thought the same of Copernicus, but timidly.

[Margin: A corollary of Pererius.]

From what has been said it is sufficiently clear how prudently Pererius said (bk. 2 on Genesis, q. 4) that none of the aforesaid opinions, the error of Basilides excepted, is repugnant to Scripture or to the Fathers.

CONCLUSION

[XIV.] Heavens taken broadly are Five—namely the Empyrean, the Aqueous or Crystalline, the Firmament of the Fixed [stars], the Ether of the Planets, and the Air. But strictly, only Two, if the discourse be of heavens really distinct—namely the Firmament and the Ether, that is, the heaven of the Fixed and the heaven of the Planets. For that there is, above all the heavens, the Empyrean, we showed sufficiently (sect. 1, q. 6, from num. 24). That there is, besides, an Aqueous or crystalline heaven—whether it be fluid or solid—above the whole Firmament, I taught (sect. 1, ch. 2, q. 1 & 3, & ch. 3, concl. 4). Moreover, that the Firmament of the Fixed [stars] is solid, and the Ether of the Planets fluid, I taught likewise (sect. 1, ch. 3, concl. 4, & ch. 7, n. 21). And so the heaven of the Fixed is indeed to be distinguished from the Planetary; but of the Planetary—as being continuous—there is no cause to distinguish [it] really, no more than to distinguish the Air or Water into several individuals, from the fact that diverse birds or fishes move in them. Finally, that the Aerial heaven, or Air, is called “heaven” broadly indeed but properly, both by the sacred and by the profane writers, is clear from what was said (sect. 1, ch. 1, num. 9, & sect. 3, this chapter, n. 5). But if you take “heaven” strictly for the simple visible body in which the stars are conversant, it follows that there are only two—namely the solid heaven of the Fixed, and the aerial [heaven] of the Planets; which heavens too are distinguished from each other in species, since the Firmament is from water, and the Ether of the Planets from fire, as I taught (sect. 1, ch. 3, concl. 4).

[Margin: The specific difference of the heavens.]

If, however, anyone wishes to distribute the fluid heaven into one region for the new phenomena—into the heaven of Saturn, the heaven of Jupiter, the heaven of the Sun with its satellites Mars, Venus, Mercury, and into the heaven of the Moon—I do not refuse; nay, I admitted it (bk. 7, sect. 6, ch. 4, scholium 5). But about the specific difference of the heavens, others [hold] otherwise, as may be seen in Suárez (disp. 13 of the Metaphysics, sect. 11), Amici (tract. 4 On the Heaven, q. 7, dub. 1), the Conimbricenses (2 On the Heaven, ch. 5, q. 3, & ch. 7, q. 1), Pontius [Punch] (disp. 22, q. 7), Mastrius and Bellutus (disp. 2 On the Heaven, q. 2, art. 4), Arriaga (the single disp. On the Heaven, sect. 1), Tanner (tome 1 of the theology, disp. 6, q. 4, dub. 4).

[XV.] Now, since this disputation about the number of the heavens, and their distribution, is greatly diminished or confused among other Writers, it has seemed [good] to compose a brief synopsis of the preceding opinions, and to gather it into the following catalogue—with a brief little explanation added for the subdivision of the opinions into their classes; but their Authors I have already reviewed in their places, from num. 1.

SYNOPSIS — The Number of the heavens according to diverse Authors

[…the Synopsis continues on p. 276 (PDF 311): the Five-heavens-broadly entry (Riccioli’s own), then Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, and Fourteen heavens — after which Chapter II opens: “What and How Manifold the System of the World is.”]

(printed p. 276 — The Synopsis table concludes Chapter I. Chapter II then opens, “What and How Manifold the System of the World is,” giving the definition of a World-system and beginning an account of the alternating history of the ancient systems.)

SYNOPSIS — The Number of the heavens according to diverse Authors (continued)