This Content Downloaded From 128.103.147.149 On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC

The Planetary Theory of Ibn Rushd
Author(s): Francis J. Carmody

Source: Osiris , 1952, Vol. 10 (1952), pp. 556-586
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science
Society
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/301825
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The History of Science Society and The University of Chicago Press are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Osiris
This content downloaded from

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The planetary theory of Ibn Rushd
The metaphysical system of the Spanish philosopher MUHkAMMAD

B. RUSHD ABU)L-WAHID (AVERROES, I I26-1 i98) has been the subject
of a number of extensive studies; but the principal experts on
this topic, HORTEN (i), GAUTHIER (2), and VAN DEN BERGH (3),
have passed over the astronomical aspects of his work far too
hastily (4). This matter cannot be isolated from a general discussion
of IBN RUSHD'S metaphysics; but it is not entirely a development
of his central thought, for it reflects basic principles which come
from independent traditions, and leads to a contrast between pure
metaphysics and pure astronomy and the serious effort made by
several writers to combine them in a single system.
The Spanish astronomer NUtR AD-DIN AL-BITRUJI AL-ISHBILi (S),
sometime around i i85, composed a formal astronomical system
which deals with most of the technical problems raised by IBN
RUSHD. AL-BITRUtJI, as a champion of Aristotelian thought,
rejected the Ptolemaic system; but he was also a competent
mathematician, able to understand the implications of the problem
and push them farther than IBN RUSHD. The work of these two
contemporaries must be compared with respect first to their
sources, and second to the meaning of a number of their statements,
in which the terminology is not altogether clear.
(i) M. HORTEN, Die Hauptlehren des Averroes nach seiner Schrift: Die Wider-
legung des Gazali, Bonn, I9I3.
(2) L. GAUTHIER, La Thiorie d'ibn Rochd sur les rapports de la religion et de
la philosophie, Paris, i909; Ibn Rochd, Paris, I948; Ibn Thofail, sa vie, ses aiuvres,
Paris, I 909.
(3) S. VAN DEN BERGH, Die Epitome des Metaphysik des Averroes, Leyden, I924.
(4) P. DUHEM, inLe Systeme du monde, vol. 2 (Paris, i9i6), I33-9 gives a summary
outline of the celestial mechanics, and in vol. 4, 545-559, a treatment of his
metaphysics.
(5) All references to AL-BITRCJj are based on my Arabic and Latin texts (the
latter in the translation of MICHAEL SCOT, I2I7), in process of editing, and the
Latin translation from the Hebrew prepared by CALONYMOS BEN DAVID, the
only printed form, Venice, I53I.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
THE PLANETARY THEORY OF IBN RUSHD 557
An outline of the system developed by AL-BITRUJi will illustrate

the problems involved in an Aristotelian homocentric planetary
system; most of the principles are identical with those of IBN
RUSHD. The Ptolemaic system is untenable, not only because
it presumes contrary motions (those of a planet on its epicycle),
but also because it neglects the fact that motions have causes.
The causes postulated by AL-BITRUJ i are of a physical nature,
though, in the light of the philosophy of the times, they might
also be interpreted metaphysically as manifestations of desire, love,
or a world soul; we will return to this problem. The mechanics
of an Aristotelian single motion require the concept of rotating
poles: each planet lies on a sphere, at an indeterminate distance
from the earth; but the planets lie in a determined sequence
and at different distances from the sky, the lowest being the moon,
the highest Saturn, then the fixed stars, and finally the prime
movent; this last is a symbol of unit time value, and represents
the daily rotation of the earth. Celestial movements take their
origin in the rotation of the prime movent around its poles; around
these poles rotate those of the ecliptic, that is those of the sphere
of the fixed stars, thus accounting for the precession of the
equinoxes and the annual changes in latitude of the stars with
respect to the equator. The poles of the sphere of each planet
rotate around those of the fixed stars, thus explaining their in-
clination to the ecliptic and their forward and backward movement
in direction and retrogradation.
Mechanically, this system is no more than a projection of
PTOLEMY'S eccentrics and epicycles into the inner surface of
the sky; it is inferior to that of PTOLEMY, for it neglects
certain other variations (the resultant errors being visible to the
naked eye), and it does not explain changes in the apparent
diameter of the sun and moon. It offers a point of superiority
over Ptolemaic interpretations in that it is based on a transfer
of energy from one sphere to another. AL-BITRutJi elaborated
the whole system in valid trigonometric demonstrations ; he
ended by begging several fundamental questions (variations
in velocity and apparent diameter) ; but he made the best
attempt possible to prove metaphysical conceptions by use of
mathematics.
Less elaborate forms of the homocentric system are very ancient;

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
558 F. J. CARMODY
from the extensive studies made by DUHEM (6) it is evident that

we know very little about the documents by which the ancient
notions were transmitted to the later Middle Ages. In any event,
the general propositions were well enough known about II50 to
be available to any theorician. AL-BITRutJi presumably mentioned
all his sources by name; these include ARISTOTLE (quoted from
the Physica and De caelo) (7), the Almagest, the astronomy of
JABIR IBN AFLAH (8) (one of whose demonstrations he developed,
and whose numerous criticisms of PTOLEMY he echoed), and
AZ-ZARQALI (g) (to whom he merely refers concerning the trepi-
dation of the equinoxes). But AL-BITRUJI makes one important
acknowledgement, saying that he was inspired by the teachings
of AB U BAKR MUHAMMAD B. CABD AL-MALIK IBN AT-TUFAYL
(died i i85), well known in Latin as ABUBACER, and famous e
today for his philosophical romance, the Risdla Ijayy b.
Yaqzadn (io). There is indirect evidence that IBN AT-TUFAYL wrote
other tracts, now lost, which dealt with astronomy; but, according
to AL-BITRUJI, the really important treatise was never composed
You know, brother, that ABUf BAKR IBN AT-TUFAYL (may God
bless him) told us that he had been inspired with an astronomical
system and with principles of motion other than those principles
which PTOLEMY postulated; these avoid postulation of eccentrics
or epicycles. And he explained by this system all movements;
and nothing impossible arose from them. He also promised to
write on this; and his place in science is not unknown" (i i).
In short, AL-BITRUJI based his general plan. on the oral teachings
of IBN AT-TUFAYL.
According to the History of the Almohades of ABD AL-WAHID
AL-MARRAKASHi (I2), IBN AT-TUFAYL presented IBN RUSHD TO
(6) Op. cit., especially vol. 2, p. 117 seq.

(7) All references to all Aristotelian texts are identified according to the number
system used in the English translations published at Oxford by J. A. SMITH,
R. P. HARDIE, etc., i908 to 1930.
(8) Died about II45; JABIR made no attack on the epicyclic system as such;
his astronomy, the Kitdb al-hai'a, exists in print only in Latin translation,
Nuremberg, 1534.
(g) Active in Cordova sometime before io87, primarily a tabulator.
(io) See G. SARTON, Introduction to the History of Science, Baltimore, 1931,
vol. 2, 354.
(ii) AL-BITROJt, chap. 3, par. i.
(12) S. MUNK, Milanges de philosophie juive et arabe, Paris, i859, 411 seq.,

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
THE PLANETARY THEORY OF IBN RUSLID 559
YUJSUF ( I I 63 -I I 84) and suggested to him that he a

of ARISTOTLE; GAUTHIER (13) claims that these interviews occurred
in ii68-9. According to MUNK (14), IBN RUSHD exchanged letters
with IBN AT-TUFAYL, quoted him (as "his friend ") on habitable
places in the middle commentary on De meteore, book 2, and
(according to MOSES OF NARBONNE) mentioned his refutation of
epicycles in the middle commentary on Metaphysica book I 2. Yet,
in the Arabic and Latin texts of the Metaphysica and the Latin
of De caelo there is no mention of IBN AT-TUFAYL at all. Other
texts might clarify the matter, for example IBN RUSHD's abridge-
ment of the Almagest, which I have not seen.
It is my opinion, having weighed all the evidence, that both
IBN RUSHD and AL-BITRUJI derived the basic elements of their
system from IBN AT-TUFAYL. Any real interrelationship between
them on any other basis is most unlikely: AL-BITRUJi did so
much better with his material, and used so manv other sources,
all carefully acknowledged; and IBN RUSHD in no detail betrayed
any influence of AL-BITRUJi by copying any of his many attractive
excursions into historical matters or study of the movements of
the four elements. IBN RUSHD betrays himself; he takes full credit
for the invention, but admits he doesn't understand certain parts
of it. In his De caelo 2.6 comm. 35 (288a I4) he still hopes to
see the light: " Et si Deus prolongauerit nobis uitam, nos perscru-
tabimur de astrologia que erat in tempore Aristotelis: uidetur
enim quod illa non contradixerit phisice." Some years later, in
Metaphysica I2.8 comm. 45 (i073b io), he still claims the honors,
but admits he is now too old to develop the matter: " Et (astrologia)
est apud me fundata super motum eiusdem orbis et polos diuersos...
In iuuentute autem in ea speraui ut hec perscrutatio compleretur
per me, in senectute autem iam despero." Throughout both
these commentaries, he is constantly remarking that " perhaps"
this might be explained, or that " it is possible " that there is
a solution.
referring to Dozy's edition, Leyden, i847, 172-5 (compare the second edition,
Leyden, i88i, pp. 245-8).
(I 3) Ibn Rochd, pp. 6-7.
(14) Op. cit., p. 412.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
56o F. J. CARMODY
i. - Texts
The planetary system of IBN RUSHD is set forth in great detail

in his middle commentaries on De caelo and the Metaphysica.
The arguments are identical throughout, and are repeated many
times over; they are presented with little semblance of order,
for they were never organized to form an integrated system. In
De caelo, commonly dated about 1171, these ideas seem to have
been " revealed" to him very recently, for he is enthusiastic
about them; in the Metaphysica, of about i i 86, the ideas are
better formed and the enthusiasm diminished. Both texts,
nevertheless, are essential in a study of his celestial mechanics;
I shall try to set some order in them (i5).
De caelo is known to me only in the Latin translation made
by MICHAEL SCOT shortly after 1217 (the Arabic is not extant);
SCOT had already translated AL-BITRU I and other texts; his
linguistic experience gives some assurance that De caelo may be
considered as a faithful reflection of the theories of IBN RUSHD.
I quote this text from my collation of eight manuscripts and three
editions; of the numerous variants, only one is of interest in the
present discussion (i6). The Metaphysica was edited in Arabic
by BOUYGES, from two Arabic maniscripts compared with two
copies of the Latin translation (I7). BOUYGES failed to point
out that all Latin copies lack a number of complete sentences;
in many cases, these omissions are hapax legomena within the
Arabic copy used by the anonymous translator; in others they
represent unimportant parenthetical remarks already fully implied
by the remaining phrases; in any event they do no violence to
(IS) De substantia orbis, of I178 (edited in Latin in Aristotelis Stagyrite libri 4

de Celo, Lugduni, I529), the Physica (read in Latin manuscripts), and the Destructio
(according to the analysis made by DUHEM) contain nothing of interest in the
present study. The compendium of the Metaphysica (cdit. G. Quir6s Rodriguez,
Madrid, i919, Arabic and Spanish) touches on matters of present interest only
in very general terms (see par. i6, 20, 56, 6i, 62).
(i6) I have used Bibl. Nat. lat. 6504, 14385, 15453, i6I59, Mazarine 3473,
and the edition of Venice, 5574, for the Metaphysica, and the same for De Caelo,
adding B. N. lat. 16155 and X17I55 and the editions of Padua, 1473, Lyon, I529,
and Venice, I562.
(I7) Bibliotheca arabica scholastica, vol. 7, Beyrouth, I948, based on mss. Leyden
Or. 2074 and 2075, and Paris, libl. Nat. lot. 15453, and the edition of Lyon, 1542.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
THE PLANETARY THEORY OF IBN RUSHD 56i
the meaning of the text at the points quoted in the present

discussion The reader should note that book I 2 of the Metaphysica
was considered by IBN RUSHD as book i i.
The Arabic versions of the works of ARISTOTLE were already
corrupt in a few details when they came to the hands of IBN RUSHD.
Most of the corruptions are of little interest; for example, in
De caelo 2.6 comm. 35 (288a I4) is the interpolation " sicut res
mote ad latera scilicet animalium," and in 2IO comm. 58 (291a 34)
" mathematici et sunt auctores Almagesti." In one case, however,
the corruption falsifies ARISTOTLE'S intentions: in Metaphysica
I2.8 comm. 47 (i073b 32) appear a number of examples of the
adjective gyratiuus (Arabic lawlabi), for example " eis que reuoluun-
tur gyratiue " and " moueri in eis motu gyratiuo "; I discuss
the matter of the spiral below.
Certain copies of IBN RUSHD'S commentaries on De caelo and
the Metaphysica contain two different Latin translations of
ARISTOTLE's text; one of these can be shown to be by the translator
of the commentary, since the latter reproduces its wording in
the numerous lemmata. Most manuscripts of De caelo contain
the text and the commentary as translated by MICHAEL SCOT
(incipit: " Maxima cognitio nature..."), but several also include
an older translation possibly based on ARISTOTLE and not on IBN
RUSHD (inc.: " Summa cognitionis nature..."). In copies of the
Metaphysica are found a text translated from Greek (inc.: " Omnes
homines natura scire desiderant...") and another from Arabic,
presumably the text as given by IBN RUSHD (inc.: " Quoniam
quidem contingit intelligere et scire..."). In the case of De caelo,
the older translation uses terms absent from SCOT'S translation
of AL-BITRUJI (stella hesitans, extremus, ostendere, exponere), while
SCOT's standard usage is found in his text and in the lemmata
and the commentary (stella erratica, ultimus, declarare, declarare);
there is one notable exception, for the older translation uses uirtus,
as did SCOT in his AL-BITRUJi, instead of potentia, as in SCOT's
text and the commentary. Finally it is evident that one text
of the Metaphysica is from that of IBN RUSHD, and the other
from a different translation, by the presence of the adjective
giratiuus, mentioned above.
The Latin translations should be maintained for purposes of
quotation. They were prepared at an early date by experts whose
36

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
562 F. J. CARMODY
linguistic methods were identical with those of the author himself,

in which the choice of words was made instinctively though
competently. My English translation leads at once to a measure
of interpretation, which is precisely what should be avoided.
Placed side by side, when necessary, the Arabic and the Latin
offer a valid basis for a search into the intentions of the passage
in question. Furthermore, for De caelo for example, the known
practices of MICHAEL SCOT permit suppositions regarding the
wording of the lost Arabic original.
2. - The Nature of Motion
Disregarding the causes of motion for the time being, its nature
involves direction and velocity. In postulating epicycles, PTOLEMY
assumed that there were two motions, a primary one west to
east (that of the planet on its eccentric), and a secondary one east
to west (that of the planet on its epicycle during retrogradation).
Furthermore, for each planet, PTOLEMY assumed a real mean
distance in terrestrial diameters (the radius of the eccentric), and
variations in that distance due to eccentricity and to rotation around
the epicycle. In other words, the planet at any moment lay at
a determinable distance from the earth, and in its rotation it
passed through real space to be measured in real circular distances
on its arc of rotation.
The Aristotelian problem was to explain these apparent motions
in a single proposition. Following the Physica, books 7-8, IBN
RUSHD denied the possibility of contrary motions, which are not
a part of rational thought. In order to remain within a single
motion, he proceded from an inversion, that is he considered
that the rotation of Jupiter was faster than that of Mars; in fact,
in terms of angles, Jupiter does move faster toward the east than
does Mars; and since the homocentric system places bodies at
an indeterminate distance from the earth, angles and arcs are
equivalent. This point of view is expressed in De caelo 2.8 comm.- 44
(289b 3 par. d):
Quoniam cum imaginati fuerimus orbes continentes se ad inuicem et omnes
complentes unam reuolutionem ad inuicem, continget necessario ut maior sit
uleocior minori.
For if we imagine spheres lying one within the other, each completing the same
single revolution, the larger must rotate faster than the smaller.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
3. - Variations of Simple Motion
The motion imparted by the prime movent is simple; but,

in the process of its transmission to a planet, it is diminished
in proportion to the distance of that planet from the prime movent.
Just what is meant by distance is not clear. It is possible to assume
that all planets are so far from the earth that their distance is
indeterminate; in fact, this is the basic assumption of spherical
trigonometry. At the same time it is possible to conceive of the
planets as lying within real distances of each other; these distances
need not be expressed in linear values; it suffices to picture the
series of spheres as lying in immediate contact with each other,
and sliding about without space between and yet without friction.
Later we will discuss such variations in motion as can be attributed
to other causes. With the above principles in mind, IBN RUSHD
took PTOLEMY to task in De caelo 2.12 comm. 6o (29, b 25):
d. Et sermo eius est intellectus per se, et abbreuiatio eius est quod aliquis potest
querere quare orbes remoti a primo orbe mouentur paucis motibus (ut Sol et
Luna), propinqui autem illi moueantur multis motibus. Et estimandum est
econtrario, quoniam primus orbis quia mouetur uno motu estimandum est quod
illud quod est propinquum ei deberet moueri paucioribus motibus quam remotius.
e. Et hoc quod dixit fundatum est super hoc quod antiqui opinabantur ante
Tholomeum, quod Luna tantum habet 3 motus et quod Sol sequitur Lunam
in ordine. Tholomeus uero dedit Lune amplius duos motus quorum unus dicitur
distantia duplicata et alter motus uerificationis; et secundum hoc non completur
ista questio; sed tantum in hoc quod dixit Tholomeus non est famosum apud
nos; et forte accidit ei ex instrumentis.
d. Aristotle's statement is clear: in short, you might ask why spheres distant from
the prime sphere are moved by few motions (as are the sun and moon), while those
close to it are moved by many motions. But the contrary is to be supposed; for what
is nearest to the prime sphere, which is moved by one motion, must be moved by few
motions than are the more remote spheres. e. What Aristotle said is based on the
fact that the predecessors of Ptolemy believed that the moon has three motions and
that the sun comes next in order after the moon; Ptolemy added two motions to the
moon, one called the double distance and the other the adjusted motion (1 8); but
the problem is not resolved by these additions, and we do not agree with Ptolemy;
perhaps he arrived as these ideas by the use of instruments.
In a longer discussion of these same ideas, IBN RUSHD introduced

the matter of the relative distance of the lower planets and of
(I8) On the meaning of this term, compare motus respectiuus below (section 5),
which by inference might indicate the same phenomenon.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
564 F. J. CARMODY
the sun from the earth; the history of this problem was set forth
far more clearly by AL-BITRUJi (i6. I-3), who mentioned the
systems of HERMES, of PTOLEMY (Almagest 9.I) and others. AL-
BITRUJi arrived at a different conclusion from IBN RUSHD, who
accepted the sequence of planets proposed by PTOLEMY; in as
much as Venus moves faster than the sun, and Mercury slower,
AL-BITRuLJi established the series Mars, Venus, the sun, Mercury,
and the moon. This logical and novel detail would probably
have appealed to IBN RUSHD had he known of it. I reproduce
a passage from De caelo 2.10 comm. 58 (291a 34), including se
excursions, as a sample of IBN RuSHD'S methods of composition
and of the confusion of his thought at this point in his work.
In reading this passage one must be careful to distinguish between
what IBN RUSHD says about previous errors and what he recom-
mends as the truth, for he takes no pains to be specific
a. Uult declarare in hoc capitulo causam propter quam unus orbis est uelocior
alio; et dixit quod accidit cuilibet stelle " ut motus eius sit secundum suam
remotionem," id est recte accidit quod diuersitas motuum stellarum in uelocitate
et tarditate sit secundum distantiam ab orbe qui reuoluitur in motu diurno. Et
intendebat secundum quod apparet uelocitatem et tarditatem motum proprium
qui est ab oriente in occidente; uidemus enim quod orbis Saturni qui est superior
est tardior, et orbis Lune qui est posterior uelocior, et medii medii. Sed hoc
non currit secundum ordinem nisi secundum opinionem dicentis quod Sol est
sub Mercurio et sub Uenere, non supra; et hic in hoc diuersi sunt omnes astrologi
et adhuc non uerificatur quomodo est. b. Et potest intelligi sic quod motus
cuiuslibet stelle est secundum suam remotionem id est secundum duos motus
quos habet quelibet stella scilicet orientalem et occidentalem; quoniam que magis
propinqua fuerit primo orbi, eius motus orientalis est uelocior, et quanto magis
fuerit remota tanto magis erit tardior, sed quanto magis erit propinqua tanto
corpus eius erit maius, et quanto magis erit remota tanto corpus erit minus. Et
in hoc non accidit dubitatio, et dispositio earum in isto motu est econtrario in
dispositione motus accidentalis, scilicet quod quanto magis fuerit propinqua primo
orbi tanto magis erit tardior, et quanto magis remota tanto magis uelocior.
c. Deinde dixit: "Et dico quod earum quedam habent unum motum " etc.
et dico uniuersaliter quod uisum est de his stellis que se habent quod una est
sub altera quod diuersantur in uelocitate motus et in multitudine et paucitate
motus: que enim appropinquat magis est tardior et pauciorum motuum, et que
magis remouetur est uelocior et plurium motuum.
d. Deinde dedit causam in hoc scilicet causam primam remotam, et dixit quoniam
" quelibet stellarum mouetur in suo orbe econtrario motui celi," id est et prima
causa in hoc scilicet quare illud quod est propinquius primo est tardius et quod
est remotius est uelocius, est quia omnes mouentur econtrario motui primi...
f. Et incepit ita sermonem suum et dixit ' "Et dico quod stella posita " etc.,
id est " et hoc quod dico in dando hanc causam uerum est," scilicet causam de
qua dicitur quod mouetur econtrario primo moto; quia manifestum est in astrologia

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
quod motus istarum stellarurn sic est, scilicet quod Saturnus est tardior et medii
medii et Luna uelocior: et hoc significat quod ipse opinabatur Solem esse sub
Mercurio econtrario Tholomeo.
a. Aristotle planned in this chapter to explain why one sphere rotates faster than
another; he said that, for certain planets, " the motion depends on distance," that
is that the variations in velocity of their motions depend on their distance from the
sphere that revolves in daily motion. He apparently meant the velocity of proper
motion from east to west; but we see that the sphere of Saturn is higher and slower,
that of the moon lower and faster, and of the intermediate bodies middling. This
does not follow in perfect sequence unless you place the sun lower than Mercury and
Venus; and on this point astronomers are not agreed and the system has not yet been
proved. b. One may assume that the motion qf each planet varies according to its
distance, that is according to its two motions, to the east and to the west; for the
easterly motion of the body closest to the prime sphere is faster, and that of the more
distant proportionately slower: the closer it is, the greater its size, the farther away
the smaller. There is no doubt about this, and the arrangement on this basis is contrary
to accidental motion, for the latter supposes that the closer a body is to the prime
sphere, the slower its motion, and vice versa. c. Then he said: " I say that some
of them have a motion " etc., that is " I say generally that it is evident " that the
planets, in their sequence, differ in velocity and in number of motions: the closest
is slowest and shows the fewest motions, and vice versa.
d. Then he explained the basic reasons, saying that " each planet moves on its
sphere in a direction contrary to the motion of the heavens," that is, the reason why
things closer to the prime sphere are slower, and vice versa, is that all are moved
contrary to the prime motion...
f. He continues: " I say that a planet placed " etc., that is " what I say in presenting
this matter is true," that is that he said that a planet is moved contrary to the prime
motion; for it is well known in astronomy that the motions are thus, that is that Saturn
is slower, the intermediate planets middling, and the moon faster. This shows that
he considered that the sun lay below Mercury, contrary to Ptolemy.
4. - Single Motion Considered as Angular Loss in Motion
Since the motion imparted by the prime movent has a

diminishing effect on the planets as they lie farther from it, it
follows that there has been a loss, proportionate in some way
to distance and to size. This may be illustrated by considering
that, as the prime movent makes one complete revolution of 3600
from east to west daily, the planet, in its rotation from east to
west, loses some number of degrees and does not complete one
full revolution. THEON OF ALEXANDRIA, in his Commentary on the
Almagest 1.7, (19) explained that the sun, instead of covering 3600
in one day, lagged behind by IO, and the moon by 330, passing
(i9) Edition by N. Halma, Paris, i82i, p. IOo.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
566 F. J. CARMODY
over only 3270. THEON felt that " this explanation of their move-
ment seems to correspond well enough to the facts."
An obvious flaw in IBN RuSHD'S presentation lies in his failure
to represent this idea, essential in his conception of single motion
in one direction. In contrast, AL-BITRfJI developed the loss or
lag by trigonometric analyses, calling it incurtatio (qassar); his
presentation can be illustrated by a passage (i6. 7-8) in which
he explains why he has placed Venus above the sun and Mercury
below it precisely on a basis of lag or loss:
Sed uidetur de re Ueneris quod sit supra celum Solis et inter ipsum et inter
celum Martis, licet antiqui posuerunt ipsum sub celo Solis; et hoc quia inuenimus
incurtationem eius primam minus incurtatione celi Solis et maiorem. incurtatione
celi Martis. Tunc secundum nostras radices habet esse inter illos, et adhuc quia
mutationes [nuqldt] celorum quatuor scilicet Saturni louis Martis et Ueneris sunt
super uniusmodi rotationem et ordinationem conuenientem.
It is evident that Venus lies above the sun and below Mars, though the ancients
placed it below the sun; we see this because its anomaly (zo) is less than that of the
sun and greater than that of Mars; hence, according to our principles, it lies between
them, for the motions of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and Venus are of the same kind and
are properly to be interrelated.
5- Attacks against Epicycles
IBN RUSHD and AL-BITR u'JI denied epicycles on rational grounds,

for epicycles presumed contrary motion as well as variable distance
from the earth. Both consider that PTOLEMY was led into this
error as a mathematician; therefore they contrast this technology
with rational philosophy in a number of passages in which they
define both fields: De caelo I.I comm. I (268a I) " Mathematicus
enim considerat in eis secundum quod sunt abstracte a materia,
naturalis autem secundum quod sunt ultima materie, ut determi-
natum est in aliis locis "; 2.10 comm. 57 (29Ia 30) " Naturalis
dicit quia est corpus neque graue neque leue, astrologus uero
dicit quia linee exeuntes a centro ad circumferentiam sunt
equales "; and, in Metaphysica I2.8 comm. 44-45 (1O73b I,
Arabic p. x655-62):
o. ... Qui enim aliquantulum ingressus est in mathematicam ulidet quod quelibet
stellarum erraticarum habet plures motus uno. p. Et sciendum est quod isti
motus quos ponunt astrologi sunt tribus modis: est enim modus comprehensus
(20) By this AL-BIjtnJt means the mean daily motion of the sun less that of
the planet.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
a uulgo uisu, est etiam alius modus cuius motus non comprehenditur nisi in
instrumentis et considerationibus (et horum modorum quidam comprehenduntur
in longissimis temporibus et quidam in paruis), est etiam tertius cuius motus
sunt declarati ratione. Plures enim istorum motuum uidentur uisu simplices,
secundum autem rationem et naturalia opinandum est illos esse compositos ex
pluribus uno, uerbi, gratia quid (....) stelle erratice uidentur quandoque uelociores
quandoque tardiores et modo progredi et modo retrogradari; et hoc non potest
esse uerum secundum naturas corporum celestium. Declaratum est enim in
Naturalibus quod omnes motus sunt equales et quod impossibile est in eis uelocitas
et tarditas aut progressus aut retrogradatio; unde necessarium fuit astrologo ponere
astrologiam ex qua consequerentur hee dispositiones sine aliquo impossibili in
naturalibus.
q. Et hoc duobus modis accidit, aut ut ille motus (qui quandoque uidetur uelocior
quandoque tardior) sit compositus ex pluribus motibus, aut ut sint illic (....)
orbes ecentrici et epicicli ut dicunt moderni mathematici. Propter hoc igitur
differunt astrologi de numero motuum stellarum; et multotiens inueniunt per
considerationem temporum motuum stellarum secundum computationem, inue-
niunt eas in locis terminatis zodiaci; et cum considerant eas in instrumentis,
inueniunt eas in aliis ab illis locis et tunc addunt motum nouum illi stelle. r. Et
hoc modo posuit Tholomeus plures motus Lune et aliis stellis quod nullus de
antiquioribus posuit, uerbi gratia motus quem Tholomeus uocat motum respec-
tiuum (2I) Lune et motum polorum epiciclorum; istorum autem motuum non
potuit iste homo facere astrologiam. Et similiter hoc quod apparuit ei quod motus
stellarum erraticarum in suis orbibus ecentricis sunt secundum centra alia a centris
ecentricorum: non potuit ponere astrologiam secundum sua fundamenta, et omnia
ista manifesta sunt parum exercitantibus in astrologia.
[Com. 45 :] f. Mathematici autem huius temporis ponunt eundem motum
et est motus stelle in suo orbe decliui, propter quod accidit ei in respectu zodiaci
motus in longitudine et motus in latidudine. Quod autem sint duo motus a
duobus corporibus non indigetur, quod enim potest natura facere uno instrumento
non facit duobus; et secundum hoc Sol non habebit nisi duos motus tantum, nisi
sit necesse ponere tertium motum propter hoc quod apparet de uelocitate et
tarditate. g. Ecentricum enim aut epiciclum dicere est extra naturam: epiciclus
autem impossibile est ut sit omnino. Corpus enim quod circulariter mouetur non
mouetur nisi in circuitu centri totius cum ipsum faciat centrum; et si esset motus
circularis extra hunc centrum, contingeret alium centrum extra hunc centrum
esse; quapropter et alia terra extra istam est, et hoc impossibile est, ut dictum
est in Naturalibus.
Et similiter forte est de ecentrico quem ponit Tholomeus: si enim essent plura
centra, essent plura corpora grauia extra locum terre, et tunc medium non esset
unum et haberet latitudinem et esset diuisum; et omnia ista sunt impossibilia.
Amplius si essent ecentrici, necesse esset inuenire in corporibus celestibus corpora
superflua sine aliqua utilitate nisi ad implendum locum uacuum sicut in corporibus
animalium: sed nihil de eis que apparent in motibus istarum stellarum cogit
necessario dicere epiciclum esse aut ecentricum.
o. Whoever has worked with mathematics can see that each planet has several
motions. p. These motions are of three types: that determined vulgarly by the naked
eye, that possible only with instruments and study (sometimes requiring a very lon
(2i) For al-muhdhd'at, perhaps the equant.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
568 F. J. CARMODY
time, at others less), and that determined rationally. Many of these motions appear
to the eye to be simple, while rationally they must be considered as composite, that
is that the planets appear to move at times faster or slower, or to advance or recede;
considering the nature of heavenly bodies, this cannot be true. It is stated in the Physica
that all motions are equal and cannot be faster or slower or advance or recede; hence
the astronomer must present a theory for these phenomena free from rational
impossibilities.
q. This comes about it two ways: either the motion, sometimes apparently faster
or slower, is composed of a number of motions, or it involves eccentrics and epicycles,
as modern mathematicians say. Hence astronomers differ regarding the number of
motions of the planets, and they often find by observation and computation of the
periods of the asters that they lie at certain spots on the zodiac; studying them with
instruments, they find them in new positions and thereupon assume a new motion
for them. r. Thus, for the moon and the other planets, Ptolemy postulated a number
of motions not postulated by the ancients, for example a motion he called the respectiuus
and another for the poles of the epicycles; but he was not able to develop a theory
for these. Similarly he believed that the motions of the planets on their eccentrics
lay about centers other than those of the eccentrics, but could not build a theory
around these precepts; all this is evident to anyone who has practiced astronomy a bit.
f. Modern mathematicians suppose this same motion of a planet on its inclined
circle (the epicycle), thus giving it motion in longitude and latitude with respect
to the zodiac. It is inevitable that two motions rise from two bodies; for what nature
can do with one she does not do with two; whence the sun has only two motions, unless
we must suppose a third to explain variations in velocity. g. We claim that eccentrics
and epicycles are unnatural, and that epicycles are impossible. A body moved in
a circle can only be moved about the center of the universe; if there were circular
motion not associated with this center, we would have to suppose another and different
center, hence another and different earth, which is impossible, as stated in the Physica.
The same perhaps holds for Ptolemy's eccentrics: if there were many centers, there
would be many solid bodies different from the earth, and the center would not be unique,
for it would have breadth and be divided; all this is impossible. Furthermore, accepting
eccentrics, we would have to find among heavenly bodies some superfluous ones, useful
merely to fill spaces, as in the bodies of animals. Nothing in planetary motion leads
us to suppose epicycles or eccentrics.
6. - Rotating Poles
In discussing problems of motion, ARISTOTLE referred to the

systems of CALIPPUS and EUDOXUS (Metaphysica I 2.8 I 073 b 32),
in which the homocentric principle was justified by transfering
the movement of the epicycle into a circle placed on the inner
shell of the sky. In practical terms, the center of this circle cor-
responds to the center of the epicycle, that is it represents the
sidereal period of the planet. Carried a step further, the system
requires that this new center, conceived as a pole, revolve about
the pole of the eccentric, or, if this is not allowed, about the

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
pole of the universe. THEON OF ALEXANDRIA, in his Commentary

on the Almagest (22), assumed just such a series of revolving poles
in his development of spiral motion, which we shall discuss shortly.
AL-BITRu'Ji devoted a number of diagrams to a mathematical
explanation of this kind of motion; he was surprised, in fact
that PTOLEMY had not postulated this very idea. IBN RUSHD,
in his Metaphysica, showed some evidence of understanding the
locus problem involved in rotating poles; in De Caelo he was
far less sure of his ground; he returned frequently to the matter,
and seemed particularly proud of having invented it himself. A
typical passage is found in De caelo I.4 comm. 31 (27Ia 27):
e. ... Fundamentum eius [Aristotle's] demonstrationis est super duas proposi-
tiones quarum altera est quod si motus circulares essent contrarii, contingeret
quod essent super idem centrum et eosdem polos; et hec propositio est manifesta.
f. Spera enim que mouetur super diuersum centrum ab eo super quod mouetur
alia spera non est contraria illi, similiter et que mouentur super idem centrum
sed super polos diuersos, quoniam tales non prohibent se, et contraria sunt que
se prohibent. Et ex hoc declaratur quod illud quod Aristotelis intendebat per
hanc demonstrationem est ualde manifestum. g. Ego autem longo tempore feci
moram in quo non intellexi explanationem istius loci ultimam, sed Deus induxit
me ad ueritatem; et secundum hanc explanationem erit intentio sermonis Aristotelis
quod motus circularis non habet contrarium.
e. ... Aristotle's demonstration is based on two propositions; the first is that if

circular motions were contrary, they would have to be around the same center and
poles; and this is evident. f. Hence spheres moved about several different centers
are not contrary, nor are those moved about different poles, for they do not impede
each other, while contrary things do. Whence we state that Aristotle's intention
in this demonstration is obvious. g. For a long time I was perplexed by this last point;
but God led me to the truth and to an explanation of this passage and of Aristotle's
meaning in saying that circular motion has no contrary.
IBN RUSHD went so far as to state that, even from a mathematical

point of view, epicycles are idle presumptions; unlike AL-BITRUJI,
he made no attempt to prove this contention, and remained in
such generalities as that of De caelo 2.6 comm. 35 (288a 14):
f. In mathematicis uero nichil apparet ex quo estimandum esse epiciclos aut
ecentricos: isti enim orbes quos ponunt astrologi sunt res priores ex quibus
secuntur posteriores que uidentur per sensum; et non demonstratur illic quod
ab istis posterioribus secuntur necessario illa priora.
f. Nothing in mathematics justifies epicycles and eccentrics: as postulated by

astronomers, they are assumptions on which depend principles based on the senses;
and it has not been proven that the assumptions derive necessarily from the principles.
(22) Op. cit., p. 103.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
570 F. J. CARMODY
A further point of attack against eccentrics is the matter of

the vacuum, excluded by ARISTOTLE (for example in Physica
4.8 2i6b i6, De caelo 2.4 287a 2I); both IBN RUSHD and AL-BITRUJI
argue that if a planet varied in distance from the earth, it would
move from one place to another, and thus leave a vacuum; they
could not visualize the possibility of motion within a fluid contained
as it were within the thickness of a sphere; hence, in De caelo
2.6 comm. 35 (288a 14) the vacuum is invoked as part of the
argument that all motion must be around a single center:
d. Impossibile enim est corpus quod circulariter mouetur moueri nisi in circuitu
centri; et similiter impossibile est de ecentricis nisi esset possibile quod inter
corpora celestia esset aut uacuum aut corpora replentia non rotunda naturaliter
neque mota.
d. A body moving in a circle can only move about a center; hence eccentrics are
impossible unless between celestial bodies there is either a vacuum or filling-in bodies
which are neither naturally round nor naturally moved.
7. - Spiral Motion
As suggested above, in the case for example of THEON OF

ALEXANDRIA, planetary motion may be interpreted as single motion
by postulating it as a spiral. Both IBN RUSHD and AL-BITRUJI
proceed on this basis, using the term lawlab. As defined in great
detail in the diagrams of AL-BITRUJI, the lawlab is not a simple
spiral helix, that is the kind of curve traced on a barber pole
or by the thread of a screw; the various attempts to define the
lawlab as a spiral helix are all in error, having no doubt assumed
this interpretation as the common pseudo-Aristotelian definition
of " another kind of simple motion." The lawlab, as a represent-
ation of a curve traced by a planet whose course is directed by
rotating poles, may be visualized in two ways. It takes the form
of the graph of the declination of the sun, as plotted day by day
throughout the year, that is something like a sine curve; or it
takes the form of 365 curves traced across the sky in the course
of a year by the planet in its daily rotation, these curves lying
roughly within the 460 of latitude covered by the sun in the course
of the changing seasons. Even in the detailed locus problems
set forth by AL-BITRUJI, spiral motion does not account for all
planetary phenomena; but nowhere does IBN RUSHD show that

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
THE PLANETARY THEORY OF IBN RUSHD 57I
he understood exactly what the spiral would look like or how

it might be expressed graphically.
ARISTOTLE mentioned spiral motion as a kind of motion, but
he said that it could not be considered as regular (Physica 5.4
228b 24), and he did not apply it to celestial phenomena. It is
thought that APOLLONIUS proved that the cylindrical helix is
regular. The kind of spiral implied by IBN RUSHD, at any event,
was postulated by THEON OF ALEXANDRIA and illustrated by a
diagram (23). Finally, in the Arabic translation of the Metaphysica
used by IBN RUSHD, the adjective gyratiuus (lawlabi) had been
interpolated at several spots, so that spiral motion was legitimately
taken by him as really Aristotelian. IBN RUSHD deals with the
matter in Metaphysica I2.8 comm. 45 (I073' io, Arabic p. i662-63):
h. Et forte excusant utrumque motus leulab quos ponit Aristotelis et sicut
Tholomeus dicit in suo libro qui dicitur Liber Narrationis (24), in quo dicit
quod Aristotelis et antiqui ponebant loco istorum motuum motus girationis; et
dicit quod secundum hoc apud eos oporteret crescere motus secundum numerum.
Qui autem post uenerunt inuenerunt uiam simpliciorem ista et potuerunt ponere
ea que apparent in paucioribus corporibus. Et innuit epiciclum et ecentricum;
et dixit quod ista uia est nobilior quia concessurn est quoniam natura nihil facit
superflue et quoniam cum potuerit mouere aliquid instrumentis paucis non
mouebit pluribus.
k. Tholomeus autem ignorauit quid coegit antiquos ponere motus girationis,

et est quoniam epiciclus et ecentricus sunt impossibiles; necesse est igitur per-
scrutari rursus (....) de ista astrologia uera que est super fundamenta naturalia.
Et est apud me fundata super moturn eiusdem orbis et polos diuersos duos aut
plures secundum quod conuenit apparentibus: possibile est enim accidere stellis
ex talibus motibus uelocitatem et tarditatem et progressum et retrogrationem
et alios motus quibus non potuit Tholomeus ponere astrologiam; et apparet ex
hoc propinquitas et remotio ut accidit in Luna. In iuuentute autem in ea speraui
ut hec perscrutatio compleretur per me, in senectute autem iam despero; sed
forte iste sermo inducet aliquem ad perscrutandum de hoc. Astrologia enim
huius temporis nihil est in esse, sed est conueniens computationi non esse.
h. Perhaps spiral motion can explain both phenomena, as set forth by Aristotle
and also by Ptolemy in his Liber Narrationis, in which he says that Aristotle and
the ancients, in place of these motions, postulated spiral motion; and he says that
one should therefore increase the number of motions. Later scholars found a simpler
solution, and were able to explain appearances by fewer bodies: Ptolemy suggested
epicycles and eccentrics, claiming that this solution was better, for it is recognized
that nature does nothing superfluous and, when able to move something with few
means, does not use many.
(23) Halma, diagram i, to which add an M on the intersection between A

and E, an N on that between Z and E, and an L at the midpoint of the arc KT.
(24) For Kitdb al-ma'riaf bi'U-iqtivd, perhaps referring to the commentary
THBON OF ALEXANDRIA.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
572 F. J. CARMODY
k. But Ptolemy did not understand that the ancients postulated spiral motion
because epicycles and eccentrics are impossible; wherefore we must return to a study
of the true theories based on rational precepts. I have set up a system of motion on
a single sphere but about two or more different poles, as the appearances required;
by this motion one can, for the asters, explain speed, slowness, advance and recession,
and other motions for which Ptolemy was able to set up no theory; and from this,
also, lesser and greater distance, as for the moon. In my youth I hoped to complete
this study, but in my old age I despair of this; yet perhaps these statements will lead
someone to further study. Present-day astronomy does not deal with realities, and
is suitable merely for computing unrealities.
In De caelo 2.6 comm. 35 (288a I4) can be found IBN RUSHD'S

initial approach to the spiral, stated as a proposition worthy of
further study:
h. Et si Deus prolongauerit nobis uitam, nos perscrutabimur de astrologia
que erat in tempore Aristotelis: uidetur enim quod illa non contradixit physice,
et sunt motus qui dicuntur laulab ab Aristotele. Et iste motus secundum quod
reputo est quod polus unius orbis moueatur super polos alterius orbis: accidit
enim in suo ipso motu ut moueatur super lineam leulebie, sicut est motus Solis
cum motu diurno; et forte per istum motum possibile est dare hoc quod accidit
in planetis ex diuersitate motus.
h. If God deigns prolong my life, I shall study further the astronomy of the days
of Aristotle: it will be seen, then, that this astronomy does not conflict with the laws
of physics, that is in the motion that Aristotle calls spiral. As I interpret this motion,
it means that the poles of one sphere are moved about those of another; hence in this
single motion the asters are moved in a spiral, similar to that traced by the sun with
respect to daily motion. It is perhaps possible, with this spiral, to explain the variations
in motion of the planets.
8. - Motion Imparted Without Contact
PTOLEMY analysed planetary motion as a mathematical locus;

later astronomers supposed that his eccentrics and epicycles were
tangible and solid hoops or shells, carrying the planet along with
them physically. A homocentric system would not necessarily
have to deny the reality of the spheres as concrete things, nor
the reality of poles and axes attaching them to each other; both
IBN RUSHD and AL-BITRUJi insist that there is no real material
contact between the spheres, thereby emphasizing the fundamental
role of transmitted energy on a gravitational basis. IBN RUSHD
is specific on this matter in a number of passages: De caelo
2.12 comm. 70 par. d (293 a 4)
Necesse est ut omnes orbes stelle moueantur per motum orbis continentis
eos, quia iste orbis est quasi ligatus in omnibus orbibus qui mouentur consequentes
ipsum; et non debes intelligere nisi ligationem per moturn et consequentiam tantum.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
The spheres of all asters are perforce moved by the motion of the spheres inside
which they lie, for a sphere is bound in a measure (as it were ?) to all spheres and
causes them to follow it; and you must understand that they are bound merely in
their motion and by the mere act of following.
Again in De caelo 2.I2 comm. 7I par. b (293a IO)

Dixit quod primus orbis mouet alios orbes quoniam corpus non mouet corpus
nisi contactu; et iam declaratum est quod illa corpora non mouent se secundum
tactum neque expulsione neque abstractione sed secundum desiderium (25).
Aristotle said that the prime sphere moves all others, and a body can move another
only through contact; but it has already been stated that such bodies do not move
by physical contact nor expelled or derived energy but by desire.
AL-BITRuYJi uses more precise terms (8.8), speaking of the axis

as diuisus (munfasla) and the parts as separate (muftaraqin)
Dicemus tunc quod non erit tunc uniuersum unum cum isto motu neque
continuum, sed erit axis continuans totum diuisus, et erunt due partes eius separate.
Quid ergo continuat inter istos duos motus separatos, et non erit uirtus in eis,
quia est diuisum quod est inter ipsa ?
We state that the universe is not one and continuous in this motion, but that its
axis is discontinuous and its two parts separated. Since they are separated, what
joins these separated motions, unless it is energy ?
9. - Motion with Respect to Mass
Both IBN RUSHD and AL-BITRUJi state that motion is not pro-
portionate to mere distance from the prime movent, and illustrate
this by the behaviour of the sun. They do not state clearly exactly
what part of the nature of the sun causes this difference; at one
point (chap. i6), AL-BITRUJi seems to dismiss the matter by
claiming that the position of the sun is determined by its velocity
of rotation, on which basis he places it above Mercury and below
Venus. IBN RUSHD accepted the sequence of planets established,
with no great conviction, by PTOLEMY; his attempts to prove
this stand are very unsatisfactory; they depend on the meaning
of the word nobilitas. In the compendium of the Metaphysica,
IBN RUSHD stated (par. 55) that the sun had greater volume than
the other planets, yet fewer motions; in fact, his point of departure
lies precisely in the number of motions, that is the number of
different phenomena that need to be explained; hence his con-
(z5) These technical terms are discussed below; given SCOT'S usage, abstractione
is more likely thin its vawiant attractione, the latter word not being used by him.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
574 F. J. CARMODY
ception of motion is of its complexity, not of its velocity. He

conceives of the sun as being the most noble of the planets; this
cannot be taken in an astrological sense, for, like AL-BITRUJi, he
excludes this order of principles; on the other hand, the nobility
of the sun might be construed in Aristotelian terms, as in AL-
BITRUtJI, for its effects in generation and corruption, that is
primarily on seasonal changes. The remaining possibility, the
preeminent size of the sun, should not be excluded as a possible
element in its central position among the planets. Nobilitas very
probably translates sharaf, a common astronomical term with a
number of technical meanings. It is my opinion that nobilitas
refers merely to size, and that size accounts for fewness of motions
through its intrinsic quality of resistance to outside influences.
De caelo 2. I 2 comm. 62 (292a 22) mentions the multiplicity of
motions established by PTOLEMY; it might well have compared
these with the numbers established by ARISTOTLE (26); and one
should note that ARISTOTLE, in postulating such multiplicity of
motions, was merely recording a detail which had come to his
attention, but which he made no attempt to integrate into his
metaphysical system:
g. Sed iste sermo generalis non conuenit motibus orbium in ordine secundum
Tholomeum. Tholomeus enim dedit Lune 5 motus et Mercurio 9, et ceteris
preter Solem 8: et si ita esset, oportet credere quod successio eorurn in nobilitate
non sit secundurn ordinem eorum in situ sed secundum ordinem in motibus,
scilicet quod illud quod mouetur paucioribus motibus est nobilius ubicurnque
fuerit in ordine; quoniam si ita non fuerit, inopinabile erit ponere quod Sol non
adquirat nobilitatem perfectam neque pluribus motibus neque paucis (quod sequi-
tur a positione eius remota a primo orbe), scilicet si fuerit positus supra Lunam
neque etiam si fuerit positus in orbe quarto, quoniam supra ipsum erit Saturnus
Iupiter Mars que habent plures motus eo, et sub eo Mercurius et Uenus que
habent etiam plures motus eo; sed motus necessarii in istis rebus adhuc non sunt
demonstrati in hac scientia. Isti enim motus quod posuit Tholomeus fundantur
super duo fundamenta que non conueniunt scientie naturali, scilicet ecentricum
et epiciclum, quorum utrumque est falsum.
g. This general statement does not apply to the motion of the spheres as established
by Ptolemy. He assigned five motions to the moon and nine to Mprcury, and to the
other planets, except the sun, eight. If this were true, we should believe that their
arrangement by order of nobility is not by position but by motion, that is those moved
by fewer motions are more noble regardless of their position; otherwise one could
not deny that the sun might acquire perfect nobility and still have many or fewer
motions (as implied by its greater distance from the movent), that is if placed above
the moon, even if it were on the fourth sphere; for above it are Saturn, 3upiter, and
(z6) See Metaphysica I2.8 (0073b 23 seq.).

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
Mars, having more motions than it, and below it are Mercury and Venus, also having
more motions; but the motions needed for these phenomena have not yet been
demonstrated by astronomers. The motions postulated by Ptolemy are based on two
precepts strange to natural science, that is eccentrics and epicvcles, both of which
are false.
io. - Technical Terms Qualifying Motion
The abstract nouns and verbal nouns used by the Latin

translators of our two commentaries are practically identical in
each text; one must distinguish between those that merely indicate
abstract ideas or general expressions of motion in a given direction,
and those which contain real physical implications. In a study
of the latter, it is important to keep in mind that some are purely
Aristotelian, and that those in which IBN RUSHD has shown his
own particular intentions are found largely in short sentences or
paragraphs which give the impression of parenthetical remarks
or even of interpolations into a physical discussion.
In his translation of AL-BITRUJI, SCOT used uirtus (quwat) to
indicate energy, and potentia (imkan) to indicate likelihood; in
De caelo and the Metaphysica, uirtus indicates general capacity,
and potentia represents energy; Similarly fortitude means no more
than a marked degree or capacity. In De caelo 2.6 comm. 35
(288a 14) " habent unam intentionem " should be translated " lead
to a single result "; in 2.6 cdmm. 37 (288b 7) posse is contrasted
with actus. There are two terms, however, which certainly figure
in the basic idea of energy, potentia and prohibitio.
Potentia (quwat in the Metaphysica, and probably also in De
caelo) is that factor which causes the mere distance of a planet
from the prime movent to be an insufficient explanation of its
motions; hence, speaking of the sun, in De caelo 2.10 comm. 58
par. i (291a 34): " stella cuius motus sit uelocior motu eius quod
est sub ea propter habundantiam sue potentie supra potentiam
alterius." Potentia is qualified, according to the Aristotelian
principle of corruptibility, as finite or infinite, in De caelo
2.12 comm. 71 par. c (293a IO) " potentia cuiuslibet corporis
agentis aut patientis est finita."
The potentia of the several planets is said to be relative, and
to be one of the elements of their motion; in the case of the sun,
the potentia might depend on size or mass, as proven by its effects

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
576 F. J. CARMODY
or by its motions; hence, in De caelo 2.10 comm. 58 (29ia 34),

potentia is intrinsic and does not derive from the prime movent:
g. Deinde dixit: " Et hoc fuit recte " etc. id est ' et hoc fuit recte ex hac causa,'
quoniam hee stelle mouentur econtrario primo motui. Necesse est ut ille que
sunt propinque consequuntur primum motum forti consecutione ab oriente in
occidentem propter fortitudinem primi motus; quapropter illa consequentia
prohibet illas a suo motu ab oriente in occidentem; que autem sunt ualde remote
consequuntur primum motum debiliter propter suam remotionem ab eo, et media
inueniuntur in dispositione media. h. Et hoc significat quod astrologi dixerunt
in suo tempore quod Sol erat supra Lunam et Uenus et Mercurius supra Solem;
sed uerificatur apud me in dando causam quod Sol est supra Mercurium et
Uenerem: quoniam non sequitur ex hoc sermone nisi quod illud quod est remotum
sit uelox et quod est propinquum sit tardum, et non sequitur quod hoc sit secundum
ordinem ita ut quanto magis fuerit inferius tanto magis sit uelocius, sicut non
sequitur ut uelocitates earum sint proportionales, uerbi gratia ut proportio motus
Saturni ad motum Martis sit sicut proportio distantie Saturni ad distantiam
Martis, quoniam hoc non sequeretur nisi potentie illarum stellarum et corpora
earum essent proportionales. i. Non est igitur remotum ut sit in medio aliqua
stella cuius motus sit uelocior motu .eius quod est sub ea propter habundantiam
sue potentie supra potentiam alterius; et secundum hoc non est inconueniens
quod motus Solis sit uelocior motu Mercurii et Ueneris quamuis sit supra, et
hoc erit propter habundantiam sue potentie supra potentiam earum.
g. Then Aristotle said: " This is true..." etc., that is ' this is true for this reason,'
for these planets move contrary to the prime motion. Those closest to the prime motion
necessarily follow it closely from east to west, on account of its strength; whence
the act of following impedes their motion from east to west; those further away follow
more weakly on account of the distance, and the intermediate planets folow in middling
degree. h. This implies what astronomers said in his days, that the sun lies between
the moon and Mercury; but I have proved that the sun lies above Mercury and Venus;
for from the above statement it follows merely that remote bodies are rapid and close
ones slow, and it does not follow that the velocity is arithmetically proportionate to
the distance (for example that the motion of Saturn is to that of Mars as are their
distances), for this would only follow if the power of the planets and their size were
proportionate. i. It is not unlikely that among the intermediate planets one might
be of faster motion than one below it, on account of its greater power; and hence
it is reasonable that the motion of the sun is faster than that of Mercury and Venus,
even though it lies above them; and this is explained by its greater power.
The basis expression for counteraction or cancellation of energy

is prohibitio. In De caelo 2.12 comm. 70 (293 a 4) orbes prohibiti
postulates the intrinsic affectability of the lower spheres, that is
that they may be impeded, while the prime movent may not.
This passage is obscured by allusions to contrary motion, which
motion had long since been excluded; the argument in general
shows no signs of having been integrated into the system of
celestial mechanics:
a. Hec est alia causa a predicta, et est quod omnes orbes qui mouent unam
stellam erraticam habent orbem a quo continentur; et iste orbis mouet omnes

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
illos orbes econtrario suis motibus scilicet ex oriente in motu diurno. Et cum
ita sit, continget ut omnrles orbes qui mouent stellam erraticam sint quasi prohibiti
a suis motibus propter istum orbern moucntem eos econtrario suis motibus.
b. Et quia isti orbes sunt quasi prohibiti a suis motibus, non possunt omnes mouere
nisi unam stellatn; orbis autem stellatus se habet contra, cum non sit prohibitus
a suo motu, quia non habet alium motorem (27) a quo prohiberetur a suo motu.
a. This is a different matter, that is that all planetary spheres are contained in
another sphere, which moves them all in daily motion contrary to their own motion,
that is from east to west. Hence all plhnetary spheres are partly (as it were?) impeded
in their motions by the sphere th( t moves them contrary to their own motion. b. Since
theyv are partly (?) impeded in their motions, they can bear only one aster; on the
other hand, the sphere of the stars is not impeded, for there is no motor to impede
its motions.
In De caelo 2.12 cornm. 7I, quoted above, are the terms expulsio
and abstractio. The former, like impulsio (indifdc) in ScOT's
AL-BITRUJi, definitely suggests a physical concept pertinent to
energy. AL-BITRCtJI uses abstractio (mwnfapil) to indicate la
of physical contact; in De caelo this word appears to refer to
a source of energy, but might also be taken as showing direction
of motion with no particular implications.
i1. -- Technical Terms Used by al-Bitrujif
The technical terms used by AL-BITRuJI to represent physical

ideas are much more numerous than those of IBN RUSHD; they
are practically unique in having been presented with the double
intention of proving Aristotelian principles and applying them
to real astronomical phenomena. A number of verbal nouns must
be considered as non-technical; thus for example receptio (qabuzlat)
implies little more than the arrival of an impulsio in this passage
discussing the movement of the air (4.3): " quia in natura est
eius receptio impulsionis et uelocitas dissolutionis." Impulsio
indicates the effect of energy received from the prime movent
(9.25): " et inclinabitur spera propter eius impulsionem." The
principal reference to energy is uirtus (quwat); hence, speaking
of Saturn (I3.4): " acquirit motum superioris et pigritatur propter
(27) The sphere of the stars is of course not the prime movent; hence alium
motorem either suggests that IBN RUSHD forgot this fact, or that alium refers to
some secondary movent, as if for example Saturn had such a secondary movent
in the sphere of the fixed stars. I feel that this detail merely indicates the inter-
polation of asides that characterizes so many of IBN RUSHD'S statements.
37

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
5'78 F. J. CARMODY
debilitatem uirtutis eius respectu uirtutis superioris, et hoc secun-

dum remotionem motoris." Uirtus might be defined as capacity
to receive or dispense energy (i6.5): " et illud quod est pro-
pinquius motori habet maiorem uirtutem," and (8.9): " cum
uirtute receptiua (muqabuzl) que est in eis."
The class of words used by AL-BITRUJi to indicate the goal
or tendency of uirtus is also rich; it includes intentio (maqsud),
intendere (qasad), finis (ghayat), assimilari (tashbih), imitare
(shabbah), appetere (mutashabbih), and complementum (kamdli).
Thus finis, often meaning mere completion of action (ad finem
for al-akhir), may represent the ultimate state desired, for example
(7.25) " finis magis perfecta "; and complementum, another general
expression of completion, may indicate a goal, as in (8.9) " quod-
libet celum habet desiderium ad finem complementi sui." In
no case do these terms necessarily suggest any more complex
goal than that of a stone arriving on the ground; speaking of
the planets and the prime movent (3.13) " et uelocitantur ab
ipso, et ipsi intendunt facere quod ipsum facit, et finis eorum
est ad partem motus eius ut assimilentur ei, quod hoc est eis
finis "; (7.25): " Et intentio omnium est moueri prope supremum
et sequi ipsum et acquirere appropinquationem suo motui; tunc
illud quod appropinquat in motu suo attingere ipsum erit peruentio
ad suum finem magis perfecta et incurtatio minor, et remotioris
ab ipso erit econtra "; (I2.I2): " Et querit assimilari ei cum suo
motu "; (i6.6) " eius uirtus intensior uirtutibus inferioribus, et
illud quod sequitur ipsum diminuitur in uelocitate motus et habet
uirtutem ut assimiletur ipsi in motu sequenti ipsum."
I 2.- Desiderium
The crucial problem in the interpretation of the nature of energy

and the source of motion is the meaning of the term desiderium
(shawq), commonly used both by IBN RUSHD and AL-BITR i'.
In his translation from AL-BITRUJI, SCOT used desiderium to transla
other terms as well (for example in desiderio for muttasilah). The
word appears more often in clear context in AL-BITR'Ji, from
whom I take a few examples. The commonest inference is that
this word indicates that quality of a thing moved that makes

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
it follow the movent (8.2): " Et quilibet inferiorum est habens

desiderium ut assimiletur ei, et mouetur sequendo ipsum cum
quantitate uirtutis qua continuatur cum eo." It is contrasted
to natura (intrinsic uirtus) as an alternate explanation (7.I8): " Et
omnes celi inferiores eo mouentur per motum suum et intendunt
ire uia sua, aut per naturam aut per desiderium imitandi ipsum
ut ducantur suo motu." Desiderium renders muttasilah in this
passage (5.i6) " Sed isti celi mouentur in desiderio ad motum
supremi, et per illud appetunt assimilari (mutashshabihah mutam-
mathilah)."
The most significant treatment of the matter given by AL-
BITRUiJI (8.9-I2) contains the majority of the technical terms we
have been discussing. It ends with the example of the impulsion
retained by an arrow in flight, which diminishes until the arrow
comes to rest. The example of the arrow goes back to ARISTOTLE
(Physica 6.2 233 a 22 and 6.9 239b 5), who states further (De
caelo 2.6 288a 23) that missiles reach their maximum motion
midway between the starting point and the goal. Nothing in
ARISTOTLE, however, explains the intentions of AL-BITRUtJi nor
the actual application of a problem which suggests the late me-
diaeval idea of impetuositas (28); and the example is given here,
ostensibily, to show how the force of the prime movent diminishes
until no part of it at all arrives at the earth, which is motionless.
The whole passage, including the final argument, is on a purely
physical basis, without any shade of metaphysical doctrine:
9. Et quodlibet celum habet desiderium ad finem complementi sui; et corpus
superius mouetur per uirtutem; et profundatur eius uirtus in celos inferiores,
cum uirtute receptiua que est in eis ad illam uirtutem et illum motum et cum
desiderio, quia est complementum eis. IO. Tunc celi qui sunt sub. superiori
mouentur motu naturali non uiolento, sed mouentur super suos polos consequendo
motum superioris, et deferuntur cum eo cum proprio desiderio et quia diuiduntur
a superiori; et quodlibet habet duos polos; et habet uirtutem propriam aliam
que mouet cum uirtute etiam ueniente a superiori quod mouet uniuersum.
II. Tunc non est eius motus ueniens a celo superiori prohibens motum a uirtute
propria, sed mouetur motu super proprios polos motu associato motui quem
habet ex motu supremi, quia neque opponuntur sibi neque etiam secundum
(28) See E. BORCHERT, " Die Lehre von der Bewegung bei Nicolaus Oresme,"
Beitr. z. Gesch. der Philos. 31, part 3 (Munster, I934), P. 103. S. PINES, in his
" Les Precurseurs musulmans de la theorie de l'impetus," Archaion 21, 1938,
PP. 300, 305) considers, rather gratuitously, that this passage in AL-BITROJ? is
an outgrowth of certain ideas of IBN SXNA.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
580 F. J. CARMODY
partem. Et quia diminuitur uirtus proueniens ex superiori paulatim sicut in

lapide proiecto aut sagitta emissa (que paulatim diminuitur quousque desinat
esse et ttnc quiescit sagitta), sic in ista uirtute celi quousque perueniatur ad
terram que quiescit naturahlter.
9. Each sphere desires its own final completion; the highest sphere is moved by
energy; its energy descends to the lower spheres through the receptive energy they
possess toward it and its motions, and through desire, for it is their completion.
ie. Hence the spheres lying below the prime sphere are moved by a truly
?notion, but they follozw the prime motion about its poles and are carried with it by
their own desire, for they are physically detached from it. Each has two poles; and
each has another intrinsic energy which moves along with the universal energy coming
from above. i I. That part of its motion which comes from above does not impede
its intrinsic motion, but it is mnozed about its poles by the sum of the two motions,
for they are not opposite nor composed of sezeral parts. The motion from above
diminishes bit bv bit: as when a stone has been thrown or an arrow shot, diminishing
until it comes to rest, so this energv from above diminishes until it arrives at the earth,
which biy nature is at rest.
IBN RtSIID assigns to desideriurm a slightly different meaning.

It is usually qualified by the noun intellectus (ma'qul) or the
adjective rationale. In De caelo 2.10 comm. 58 par. j (29i, 34)
the discussion is Aristotelian; desiderium is proportionate to
distance; and that same prohibitio invoked above is excluded as
being contrary to nature, that is uiolens (kusri):
Et non debes intelligere ex hoc quod motus diurnus prohibet alios motus
prohibitio enirri fit uiolente et non est illic uiolentia omnino; sed illi motus sunt
ex desiderio rationali: quod igitur magis propinquum est primo orbi habebit
maius desiderium, quoniam propinquitas in loco illic est similis propinquitati
essentiarum ad inuicem que est propinquitas in scientia et intellectu rationali.
You must not say that daily motion impedes other motions: impeding would be
unnatural, and there is nothing unnatural here; instead, these motions rise from
rational desire: that sphere closest to the prime sphere has the greatest desire, for
proximity in position is like proximity in essence, that is in knowledge and by rational
intellect.
Such digressions as IBN RUSHD makes into the topic of intellectus

(for example in De caelo 2.12 comm. 6i, 292a io) are entirely
speculative; in one instance (De caelo 2.6 comm. 37 par. h, 288b 7)
the matter was prescntcd specifically in order to deny 1BN SiNA'S
postulation of phantasia as an element of planetary motion.
For IBN RUSHD, desiderium, unqualified, involves the senses and
is associated with uoluptas (ladhidhat), in contrast to intellectus,
which indicates rational choice. This latter seeks something
perfect, and hence applies to the heavenly bodies. This can be
illustrated by Metaphysica 12.7 comm. 36 (1O72a 28, Arabic

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
p. 1592-97); note that the word potentia (quwat) cannot be

translated as " energy " and seems to mean no more than " intrinsic
inclination " or " essence," indicating a different order of argu-
ment; it is difficult to distinguish here between desideriurn, appetunt,
and potentia:
b... Et uidetur (de istis principiis que sunt in corporibus celestibus) quod
desideratum in eis idem est cum intellectu; desideratum enim apud nos differt
ab intellecto, quia potentia qua comprehenditur desideratum differt ab ca qua
comprehenditur intellectum: desideratum enim comprehenditur sensu (et est
uoluptatum), intellectum autem intellectu (et est cuius actio uidetur bona). Corpora
quidem celestia non sentiunt, sensus autem non est in anirnalibus nisi ad salutem:
ideo desideratum in eis non differt ab intellectu... f.... Et dico potentia quemad-
modum dicimus quod forme artificiales habent esse in actu in materia et in potential
in anima artificis; unde hee forme uidentur habere duplex esse, abstractum et
materiale... h. ... Intellectus autem maius bonum ipso appetit: contingit necessario
quod corpora celestia appetunt in hoc motu aliquod magis bonum ipsis; et cum
illa sunt nobilissima corpora sensibilium et meliora, necesse est ut illud bonum
quod appetunt sit nobilissimum entium et maxime quod appetit totum celun
in motu diurno.
b... From these principles of heavenly bodies it is evident that in them desire is
associated with intellect; in man, however, they are not associated, for inclination
that explains desire differs from that which explains intellect: sensual desire is explained
by the senses, intellect (seeking the ultimate good) by the intellect. Heavenly bodies
do not have senses, which, in animals, tend toward self-preservation; hence in them
desire does not dzffer from intellect... f. ... I say inclination as one says that made
things exist in act, in material and inclination in the mind of the maker; whence
their double nature, abstract and material... h. ... The intellect seeks the ultimate
good; hence the heavenly bodies must, in their motion, seek something better than
themselves; since they are more noble and better than sensible things, the good they
seek must be the most perfect, that is that sought in daily motion by the heavens.
In Mletaphysica 1 2 .7 comm. 37 par. q (Io72a 30, Arabic p. i6o6)

is the expression desiderium ut assimiletur ei (shawq ilyah j'nl alan
tatashabah bih), " as one might speak of the lover seeking the
loved one," said as an illustration, not as an identity
q. Et intendit [Aristotle] per primum motum corpus celeste, et per alia mota
ea que sunt sub primo corpore (scilicet alias speras) et ea que sunt sub in generatione
et corruptione. Primum enim celum mouetur ab isto motore secundum desiderium
ut assimiletur ei secundum suum posse, sicut amans mouetur ut assimiletur suo
amato; alia autem corpora celestia mouentur secundum desiderium ad motum
primi corporis. Et ideo planete habent motum duplicem (....) ea autem que
sunt sub istis mouentur mediantibus istis motibus, generationem autem et cor-
ruptionem faciunt motus oppositi duplices, continuationem uero unus motus
eternus; et ex hoc uidetur Deum habere curam circa omnia entia.
By the prime motion Aristotle means the heavens, and by other motions those of
the spheres below it and of things subject to generation and corruption. The prime
sphere is moved by the motor through its desire to be assimilated to it, so far as possible;

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
582 F. J. CARMODY
just as a lover is moved to assimilation with the loved one, so celestial bodies are moved
by desire toward the motion of the prime body. Hence the planets have a double motion,
and bodies below them are moved by these motions; generation and corruption are
caused by these two opposite motions, permanency by the one eternal motion. In
this one sees God's concern for all things.
I 3.- Other Celestial Phenomena
Passing allusions to the trepidation of the equinoxes and to

problems of lunar motion prove that IBN RUSHD used unacknow-
ledged astronomical sources. In each instance, the allusion does
not really apply to matters under consideration, and IBN RUSHD
can do no more than hope that someday the phenomena mentioned
may be integrated into his system. One problem apparently
fascinated him, for he returns several times to the trepidation
of the equinoxes, motus accessus et reuersionis (harakat al-iqbal
wa 1-idbar), which, he says, had been " recently" developed by
Spanish astronomers; this can refer only to AZ-ZARQALI, commonly
considered to be the perpetrator of this theory; in fact, however,
AZ-ZARQALI did no more than compose rules for the use of tables
of trepidation; and these tables, with their original demonstration,
were the work of THABIT B. QURRA (died 90I), clearly set forth
in his well known De motu octaue spere (29). In Metaphysica
12.8 comm. 47 par. g (1073b 32, Arabic p. i675) IBN RUSHD

that astronomers are agreed on trepidation; this is very unlikely,
for AL-BITRuJIi, for example, stated specifically that the thing had
not yet been proven; IBN RUSHD wrote " Et iste motus gyratiuus
inuenitur in celo secundum convenientiam inter motum diurnum
et motum stellarum in suis orbibus decliuibus, scilicet quod omnes
astrologi conueniunt in hoc quod poli orbium decliuium reuoluun-
tur in motu diurno in circuitu polorum totius, et iste motus ut
mathematici Hispanie dicunt existit in orbe stellato et uocant ipsum
motus processus et reuersionis."
Mention of motus diurnus in connection with the spiral, in
the above passage, is interesting: in no place did IBN RuSHD
conceive of the spiral as a function of daily motion, that is as
365 curves traced across the motionless sky in the course of a
(29) Extant only in two Latin translations, edited by F. Carmody, Berkeley, 1943.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
year; yet this conception is worked out in great detail by AL-

BITRUJi. This suggests another passage in IBN RUSHD, who uses
the specious argument that trepidation would be imperfect motion;
it is specious because this phenomenon could very easily be
explained by rotating poles; in fact, the demonstration given by
THABIT B. QURRA does practically this. It must be admitted that
AL-BITRUJI was also worried about trepidation: on the one hand,
he claimed that it had not yet been proven, on the other he set
about (9.8-I3) to show that accessus et recessus was really a totally
different phenomenon, that is a progressive variation in velocity
taken from the projection of the longitude of a planet into the
equator as it rotates about the ecliptic. In De caelo 2.I2 comm. 67
par. b. (292b 26) IBN RUSHD makes the classical historical remark
on trepidation
Moderni Arabes dicunt quod iste motus est motus antecessus et recessus et
quod non est perfectus; et ponunt quod iste est dictus a Babilonicis antiquis
si igitur illud quod inuenimus in isto libro [De caelo] sit uerum, forte dixit ipsum
innuendo opinionem Babilonicorum; et eius questio est intellecta per se (30).
Modern Arabs say that this motion is trepidation, and that it does not trace complete
circles; and they claim that it was presented by the ancient Babylonians. If the remark
we find in De cealo is accurate, perhaps Aristotle was referring to the opinion of
the Babylonians; and this matter is evident.
IBN RUSHD showed greater diligence than AL-BITRUJi with respect

to the variations in the apparent diameter of the moon, for at
least he felt that the phenomenon should be explained, while
AL-BITRUJI glossed over the matter in cavalier fashion. The
variable visible diameter of the moon explains total and annular
eclipses; it can only be justified by postulating an epicycle or
an eccentric. In De caelo 2.4 comm. 32 par. e (287b I5) IBN
RUSHD shows little hope " Et nichil est in libris mathematicorum
nisi hoc quod apparet in Luna de eclipsibus; et forte possibile
est inuenire astrologiam conuenientem huic quod apparet de Luna
sine orbe ecentrico." In De caelo 2.6 comm. 35 (288a 14) are
hopes that rotating poles will solve the problem, which, of cou
they cannot do, for they exclude all real distance
g. Fingunt enim quod demonstrant eis Lunam habere ecentricum hoc quod
inueniunt ipsam in eodem loco zodiaci eclipsatam aliquando magis aliquando
minus, quapropter dicunt quod dicendum est quod causa in hoc est quod transit
(30) Compare the commentary of SIMPLICIUS, edit. Heiberg, vol. 2, chap. 8,

P. 462, line 15.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
584 F. J. CARMODY
per piramidem umbre per loca diuersa secundum eleuationem et depressionem.

Et potest accidere ei et hoc, propter diuersitatem sui situs ex loco, cum imaginati
fuerimus quod poli sui orbis mouentur super polos alterius orbis. h. Et si Deus
prolongauerit nobis uitam...
g. They claim that the moon can be shown to have an eccentric because, in the
same place in the zodiac, it is sometimes eclipsed more, sometimes less; they claim
that one should say that the reason for this is that it passes through the shadow at
different geocentric distances. However, this might occur, as in different distances,
if we assumed that its poles rotate about other poles. h. If God deigns prolong my
life,...
On this vexing matter, God was unkind; some fifteen years

later, IBN RUSHD'S hopes were practically dead, as he composed
Metaphysica I2.8 comm. 45 (IO73b IO, Arabic p. I663), quoted
above.
A cryptic passage in De caelo 2.8 comm. 49 par. d (290a 25)
mentions diuersitas aspectus, without comment, and may intend
to associate with that term the matter of shadows visible on the
face of the moon. This is another borrowing, and has no bearing
on any matter discussed elsewhere: " Declaratum est enim quod
Luna habeat diuersitatem aspectus; et contingit similiter si illa
nigredo que apparet in ea esset idolum forme alicuius corporis
corporum que sunt hic, sicut quidem fingunt quod illud est
idolum forme montium et marium." In one further passage,
Metaphysica 12.8 comm. 45 par. m (I073 b i o, Arabic p. I 664),
are mentioned other odd matters still to be explained, the rotations
of the lunar nodes (draco, jawzahar), PTOLEMY'S fourth motion
(perhaps the distantia duplicata mentioned above, section 3) and
his motus respectiuus (harakat al-muhadha'at, perhaps again the
motus uerificationis of sec. 3, either the equant or evection)
Lune autem inuenerunt antiqui post Aristotelem unum moturn scilicet motus
draconis; Ptolomeus autem inuenit ei in respectu Solis quartum motum, et in
respectu centri (secundum quem reuoluitur Luna equaliter) motum quintum
quem uocat motum respectiuum diametri epicicli, cui non potuit secundum suum
fundamenturn ponere astrologiam.
The movement of the lunar nodes was discovered after Aristotle; Ptolemy found
a fourth motion, with respect to the sun, and a fifth with respect to the center, causing
the moon to rotate in equal times; this he called the motion projecting the diameter
of the epicycle; but his principles did not suffice to form a theory.

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
Conclusion
IBN RUSHD learned, probably from IBN AT-TUFAYL, of a system

which would justify planetary motion without the use of epicycles
and which, thereby, could follow Aristotelian doctrines. He
developed the metaphysical implications in De caelo, and improved
them to some extent in the Metaphysica. While composing De
caelo, he had before him a technical treatise on astronomy, from
which he made notes, planning someday to explain other phe-
nomena according to his system; for his Metaphysica he made
similar notes, but by that time he had made no progress toward
explaining any of these added details. IBN RUSHD may have
acknowledged his sources in other works; that he failed to do
so in. his most ambitious commentaries must indicate that he hoped
that his " inspiration " would be taken literally, and that he would
be considered as the originator of this system. It should be added
that he possessed not the slightest capacity for mathematical
analysis.
Those passages in his astronomical discussion that deal with
the world soul, love, desire for perfection, and intelligences give
every appearance of being interpolated remarks. He developed
his conception of planetary souls in other texts, not in De caelo
and the Metaphysica. In the compendium of the latter, for
example (3 i), he proceeded on an entirely different basis; he
assigned to Jupiter three motions, that of its soul as its intrinsic
and independent part, that of the soul of Saturn, a part of whose
force is transmitted to Jupiter, and that of the soul of the prime
movent. This proposition, quite aside from the souls involved,
is very interesting, for it might have been applied to planetary
motion within his major system, and serve to explain the variable
velocity of the planets; this triple system of forces would have
solved a problem passed over rather hastily by AL-BITRUJi and
in De caelo and the Metaphysica, for variations in velocity cannot
be entirely explained by rotating poles, and a good part of the
difference between the theoretical and the real position of a planet

128.103.147.149 on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC
586 F. J. CARMODY
is due precisely to interplanetary influences, that is perturbations,

and to elliptical orbits, whose relation to circular motions can
be represented by changes in speed of rotation.
University of California, Berkeley. FRANCIS J. CARMODY.

fff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC

This Content Downloaded From 128.103.147.149 On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Content Downloaded From 128.103.147.149 On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:11:06 UTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Planetary Theory of Ibn Rushd

Author(s): Francis J. Carmody

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/301825

This content downloaded from

The metaphysical system of the Spanish philosopher MUHkAMMAD

This content downloaded from

An outline of the system developed by AL-BITRUJi will illustrate

This content downloaded from

from the extensive studies made by DUHEM (6) it is evident that

(6) Op. cit., especially vol. 2, p. 117 seq.

This content downloaded from

YUJSUF ( I I 63 -I I 84) and suggested to him that he a

This content downloaded from

The planetary system of IBN RUSHD is set forth in great detail

(IS) De substantia orbis, of I178 (edited in Latin in Aristotelis Stagyrite libri 4

This content downloaded from

the meaning of the text at the points quoted in the present

This content downloaded from

linguistic methods were identical with those of the author himself,

2. - The Nature of Motion

This content downloaded from

3. - Variations of Simple Motion

The motion imparted by the prime movent is simple; but,

In a longer discussion of these same ideas, IBN RUSHD introduced

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

4. - Single Motion Considered as Angular Loss in Motion

Since the motion imparted by the prime movent has a

(i9) Edition by N. Halma, Paris, i82i, p. IOo.

This content downloaded from

5- Attacks against Epicycles

IBN RUSHD and AL-BITR u'JI denied epicycles on rational grounds,

This content downloaded from

(2i) For al-muhdhd'at, perhaps the equant.

This content downloaded from

In discussing problems of motion, ARISTOTLE referred to the

This content downloaded from

pole of the universe. THEON OF ALEXANDRIA, in his Commentary

e. ... Aristotle's demonstration is based on two propositions; the first is that if

IBN RUSHD went so far as to state that, even from a mathematical

f. Nothing in mathematics justifies epicycles and eccentrics: as postulated by

(22) Op. cit., p. 103.

This content downloaded from

A further point of attack against eccentrics is the matter of

As suggested above, in the case for example of THEON OF

This content downloaded from

he understood exactly what the spiral would look like or how

k. Tholomeus autem ignorauit quid coegit antiquos ponere motus girationis,

(23) Halma, diagram i, to which add an M on the intersection between A

This content downloaded from

In De caelo 2.6 comm. 35 (288a I4) can be found IBN RUSHD'S

8. - Motion Imparted Without Contact

PTOLEMY analysed planetary motion as a mathematical locus;

This content downloaded from

Again in De caelo 2.I2 comm. 7I par. b (293a IO)

AL-BITRuYJi uses more precise terms (8.8), speaking of the axis

9. - Motion with Respect to Mass

This content downloaded from

ception of motion is of its complexity, not of its velocity. He

(z6) See Metaphysica I2.8 (0073b 23 seq.).

This content downloaded from

io. - Technical Terms Qualifying Motion