Now it will not be superfluous to weigh well the arguments of those who say the Earth does not move; that we may be better able to satisfy the crowd of philosophizers who assert that this constancy and stability of the Earth is confirmed by the most convincing arguments. Aristotle does not allow that the Earth moves circularly, on the ground that each several part of it would be affected by this particular motion; that whereas now all the separate parts of the Earth are borne toward the middle in straight lines, that circular motion would be violent, and strange to nature, and not enduring. But it has been before proved that all actual portions of the Earth move in a circle, and that all magnetick bodies (fitly disposed) are borne around in an orbe. They are borne, however, toward the centre of the Earth in a {226} straight line (if the way be open) by a motion of aggregation as though to their own origin: they move by various motions agreeably to the conformation of the whole: a terrella is moved circularly by its innate forces. "Besides" (says he), "all things which are borne in an orbe, afterwards would seem to be abandoned by the first motion, and to be borne by several motions besides the first. The Earth must also be borne on by two sorts of motion, whether it be situate around a mid-point, or in the middle site of the universe: and if this were so, there must needs be at one time an advance, at another time a retrogression of the fixed stars: This, however, does not seem to be the case, but they rise and set always the same in the same places." But it by no means follows that a double motion must be assigned to the Earth. But if there be but one diurnal motion of the Earth around its poles, who does not see that the stars must always in the same manner rise and set at the same points of the horizon, even although there be another motion about which we are not disputing: since the mutations in the smaller orbit cause no variation of aspect in the fixed stars owing to their great distance, unless the axis of the Earth have varied its position, concerning which we raise a question when speaking of the cause of the præcession of the æquinoxes. In this argument are many flaws. For if the Earth revolve, that we asserted must needs occur not by reason of the first sphære, but of its innate forces. But if it were set in motion by the first sphære, there would be no successions of days and nights, for it would continue its course along with the _Primum Mobile_. But that the Earth is affected by a double movement at the time when it rotates around its own centre, because the rest of the stars move with a double motion, does not follow. Besides, he does not well consider the argument, nor do his interpreters understand the same. [Greek: toutou de sumbainontos, anankaion gignesthai parodous kai tropas tôn endedemenôn astrôn.] (Arist. _de Coelo_, ii. chap. 14.) That is, "If this be so, there