178 JAMES A. WEISHEIPL 



beings are not affected by celestial movement; rather, such 

 spiritual activities are productive of celestial motion. 



There are for Kilwardby two types of celestial motion. The 

 first emanates from celestial bodies in the form of energy and 

 light rays affecting all the active and passive powers of ter- 

 restrial bodies, both elementary and composite. This cosmic 

 influence is produced by the celestial bodies, but the influence is 

 subjectively located in terrestrial bodies. " And perhaps if this 

 influence of light and energy were withdrawn from elements 

 and composites, all active and passive powers of bodies would 

 cease to act or react; hence this influence seems to be the 'per se 

 cause of natural activity and movement in the elements." ^'^ 

 There is, however, another motion located in the celestial body 

 itself; this is the continual rotation of the sphere. Kilwardby 

 does not consider this rotational movement of the spheres to 

 have any direct or proper bearing on natural terrestrial motion. 

 Such motions do provide variations of temperature, humidity 

 and the like, but this is secondary to the direct cosmic influence 

 affecting natural changes. 



Finally Kilwardby proceeds to discuss the crucial question 

 of celestial movers. He notes that there are three opinions 

 concerning the motion of celestial bodies. The first is that of 

 Aristotle and certain other philosophers. Kilwardby 's inter- 

 pretation of Aristotle's view is essentially that of St. Albert: 

 " celestial bodies are animated, having animal life and intelli- 

 gence by which they perceive the will of the first cause, and 

 motion in place by which they fulfill the known will of God; 

 by this motion of theirs they conserve things and preserve 

 generation and the limited being of generable natures." ^^ In 

 this view celestial bodies are moved by spirits which are their 

 " souls " just as man is moved by his spirit, or soul. It is inter- 

 esting to note in passing that the author of Errores philoso- 

 phorum does not attribute animation of the heavens to Aristotle 

 or Averroes, but exclusively to Avicenna: 



80 



Ibid., q. 2, ed. dt., p. 196. 

 *^ Responsio, q. 2 § De tertio. For this part of the reply we rely on the emended 

 edition published by Chenu in Revue des Sc. Phil, et Theol. XXIX (1940), 211. 



