de motu cordis - before I knew of the translation.

Quia omne quod movetur, necesse est habere motorem, dubitabile videtur quid moveat cor, et qualis motus eius sit. Non enim videtur eius motus esse ab anima. Ab anima enim nutritiva non movetur, animae enim nutritivae opera sunt generare, alimento uti, et augmentum et diminutio: quorum nullum motus cordis esse videtur. Et anima quidem nutritiva etiam plantis inest; motus autem cordis animalium proprius est. Neque sensitivae animae motus esse videtur, sed nec intellectivae, intellectus enim et sensus non movent nisi mediante appetitu: motus autem cordis involuntarius est. Sed neque naturalis esse videtur. Est enim ad contrarias partes: componitur enim ex pulsu et tractu; motus autem naturalis ad unam partem est, ut ignis sursum, et terrae deorsum. Dicere autem motum cordis esse violentum, est omnino extra rationem. Manifeste enim hoc motu subtracto, moritur animal, nullum autem violentum conservat naturam. Videtur quidem igitur hic motus maxime naturalis esse, vita enim animalis et hic motus se inseparabiliter consequuntur. Dicunt autem quidam hunc motum naturalem esse non ab aliqua particulari natura intrinseca animali, sed ab aliqua natura universali, vel etiam ab intelligentia. Sed hoc ridiculum apparet. In omnibus enim rebus naturalibus propriae passiones alicuius generis vel speciei aliquod principium intrinsecum consequuntur. Naturalia enim sunt quorum principium motus in ipsis est. Nihil autem est magis proprium animalibus quam motus cordis; quo cessante, perit eorum vita. Oportet igitur inesse ipsis animalibus aliquod principium huius motus. Adhuc, si aliqui motus corporibus inferioribus ex natura universali causentur, non semper eis adsunt: sicut in fluxu et refluxu maris apparet quod consequitur motum lunae, et secundum ipsum variatur. Motus autem cordis semper adest animali. Non igitur est ab aliqua causa separata tantum, sed a principio intrinseco. Dicunt igitur alii principium huius motus in animali esse ipsum calorem, qui per spiritus generatos movet cor. Sed hoc irrationabile est. Illud enim quod est principalius in aliqua re, oportet esse causam. Principalius autem videtur esse in animali motus cordis et magis contemporaneum vitae, quam quaecumque alteratio secundum calorem.

Because for everything that is changed, it is necessary to have a mover, it seems dubious as to (what) moves the heart, and what kind of motion is it. For it does not seem to be a motion from the soul. For the nutritive soul does not/is not moved, the works of the nutritive soul are to generate, by the use of food, and to grow and diminish: none of which seems to be a movement of the herat. And the nutritive soul is even in plants (remember souls seem to be distinguished by their powers as well as principle of being - two inseparable); but the motion of the heart is proper to animals. Neither does it seem to be a motion of the sensitive soul, neither also the the intellective, for the intellect and sense do not move except by the mediation of the appetite: but the motion of hte heart is involuntary. And neitehr does it seem to be of nature. For it is towards contrary parts: it is composed of beating and drawing (expanding, stretching - tractu); but hte natural motion is to one part, as fire upwards and earth downwards. Now to say that the motion of the heart is violent, is in every way outside of reason. For it is clear that to remove this motion, kills the animal, and nothing violent preserves nature. It seems therefore that this motion is maximally natural, for the life of the animal and this motion depend inseparably upon each other. Some say that this natural motion does not come from some particuilar intrinsic nature of the animal, but from some other universal nature, or even from intelligence. But this seems ridiculous. For in all natural things, the proper passions of some genus or species follow upon an intrinsihc principle. Now natural things are from some principle of motion within themselves (in ipsis est). Now nothing is more proper to an animal than the motion of its heart; which, ceasing, causes the death of the animal (perit eorum vita). It is necessary therefore that there be in some animals some principle of this motion. Til now, if some motion of inferior bodies (corpibus inferioribus) were caused by a universal nature, they are not always present to it; as in the flow and return of the tides seems to follow the moon's motion, and varies with it. But the motion of the heart is always present to the animal. There it is not from some separated cause, but from some intrinsic principle. Therefore they say the principle of this motion in inamls is heat (calorem) which through the generated breath (spiritus) moves the heart. But this is irrational. For that which is more chiefly in something, would be its cause. Now the motion of the heart in the animal seems to be contemporaneous with life, than some alteration in heat (secundum calorem - temperature? I would say "temperature" except that I think "heat" had more of the nature of actuality for them). Therefore this alteration in heat is not the cause of the heart's movement, but on the contrary the movement of the heart is the cause of the alteration in heat. Whence aristotle says "on the motion of the osul"It is necessary that the future is to change, not only by alteratio of esse (?). Likewise the perfect animal (?), that is one moving itself, maximally approaches to the likeness of the whole universe: whence men who is the most perfect of the animals, is said to be a microcosm - little world - it's cuter in Latin - "minor mundus". Now in the universe the first (kind of?)motion is local motion, which is the cause of alteration and of other motions. (Interesting. Haven't heard this elsewhere)> Whence and in animals local motion seems to be more the principle of alteration than the converse. Whence Aristotle in 8 Phys. following this similitude, says that motion is like a kind of life existing by nature in all ("motus est ut vita quaedam natura existentibus omnibus". Besides, what is per se is prior than that which is per accidens.

Non igitur alteratio secundum calorem est causa motus cordis, sed magis e converso motus cordis est causa alterationis secundum calorem. Unde et Aristoteles dicit in Lib. de motu Anim.: oportet quod futurum est movere, non alteratione tale esse. Item animal perfectum, quod est movens seipsum, maxime accedit ad similitudinem totius universi: unde et homo qui est perfectissimum animalium, dicitur a quibusdam minor mundus. In universo autem primus motus est motus localis, qui est causa alterationis et aliorum motuum. Unde et in animali magis videtur motus localis esse alterationis principium, quam e converso. Unde et Aristoteles in octavo Physic., hanc similitudinem sequens, dicit quod motus est ut vita quaedam natura existentibus omnibus. Adhuc, quod est per se, prius est eo quod est per accidens.


Now the first motion of animals is the motion of the heart; for heat doesn't move locally except per accidens - for per se it belongs to heat to alter (per se enim caloris est alterare), per accidens (for it) to move locally. It is ridiculous, therefore, to say that heat is the principle of the heart's movement, but that it is necessary to assign to it a cuase which per se can be a prnicple of local motion. Therefoe the principle of this consideration it is neessary to accept, as Arist. did in 8 phys - "whatever principles of motions are in themselves, these are what we say to be moved/move? moveri - by nature. Whence some animal moves himself by his whole nature; nevertheless his body borders on being moved both by nature and outside of (its?) nature (corpus tamen eius contingit et natura et extra naturam moveri). For it differs according to the kind of motion by which it happens to be moved, and from which elements it depends on (constet). For since an animal moves downward, which is its natural motion and that of every animal and body, therefore a heavy element predominates in animal bodies. Now when an animal moves/is moved upwards, it is also a natural movement of hte animal, because it comes from its intrinsic principle, that is its soul; nevertheless it is not natural to a heavy body, whence an animal is more wearied by this movement (upwards).

Primus autem motus animalis est motus cordis; calor autem non movet localiter nisi per accidens: per se enim caloris est alterare, per accidens autem movere secundum locum. Ridiculum igitur est dicere, quod calor sit principium motus cordis, sed oportet ei assignare causam quae per se possit esse principium motus localis. Principium igitur huius considerationis hinc oportet accipere quod, sicut Aristoteles dicit in octavo Physic., quorumcumque principium motus in seipsis est, haec natura dicimus moveri. Unde animal quidem totum natura ipsum seipsum movet; corpus tamen eius contingit et natura et extra naturam moveri. Differt enim secundum qualem motum quod movetur eveniat, et ex quali elemento constet. Cum enim animal movetur deorsum, quidem est motus eius naturalis et toti animali et corpori, eo quod in corpore animalis elementum grave praedominatur. Cum autem animal movetur sursum, est quidem naturalis motus animali, quia est a principio intrinseco ipsius quod est anima; non tamen est naturale corpori gravi; unde et magis fatigatur animal in hoc motu.

Now motion according to place is caused in animals from the apetite and the sensitive or intellective apprehension, as Aristotle teaches in 3 de anima. Indeed in some animals every process of motion is natural; they do not act by intention (proposito), but by nature, as it is natural for a swallow to make a nest and a spider a web. But to man alone does it belong to act fro intention, nad not from nature. But nevertheless every principle of operation is natural. For although one does not know the conclusions of specualtive and practical scienes naturally, but discovers them by reasoning process, yet the first indemonstrable principles are naturalley known to him, from which he proceeds to sciences. Similarly on the part of the appetite - to desire (appetere) the ultimate end, which is felicity (sic), is natural to man, and to flee misery (sic), but to desire (appet.) such things (alia) is not natural, but proceeds from the appetite for the ultimate end to the appetite for others, for so is the end among appetble things, as the indemonstrable principles in intellectual things, as is said in teh second book of Physics.

Motus autem secundum locum in animalibus causatur ex appetitu et apprehensione sensitiva vel intellectiva, ut Aristoteles docet in tertio de anima. In aliis quidem animalibus totus processus motus naturalis est: non enim agunt a proposito, sed a natura: naturaliter enim et hirundo facit nidum et aranea telam. Solius autem hominis est a proposito operari, et non a natura. Sed tamen cuiuslibet suae operationis principium naturale est. Quamvis enim conclusiones scientiarum speculativarum et practicarum non naturaliter sciat, sed ratiocinando inveniat, prima tamen principia indemonstrabilia sunt ei naturaliter nota, ex quibus ad alia scienda procedit. Similiter ex parte appetitus, appetere ultimum finem, qui est felicitas, est homini naturale, et fugere miseriam; sed appetere alia non est naturale, sed ex appetitu ultimi finis procedit in appetitum aliorum: sic enim est finis in appetibilibus, ut principium indemonstrabile in intellectualibus, ut dicitur in secundo Physic.


Sic igitur et cum motus omnium aliorum membrorum causentur ex motu cordis, ut probat Aristoteles in Lib. de Mot. Anim., motus quidem alii possunt esse voluntarii, sed primus motus qui est cordis, est naturalis. So therefore, and since the motions of all the memebrs are caused by the motion of the heart, as Arist. proves in de mot. anim., some motions can be voluntary, but the first motion which is of the heart, is natural. But it is necessary to consider that (with resepct to which) the upward motion is natural to fire so much as it follows its form: whence as the generating one, which gives fiorm, is moving per se locally. Now as the form of the origin (elementi) follows some natural form, nothing prevents other forms from following other natural motions. For we see that iron naturally moves toward a magnet, which motion nevertheless is not natural according to being "heavy" or "light", but according as it has "such" a form. So therefore an animal inasmuch as it has "such a form" which is hte soul, nothing prevents it from having a natural motion; and moving this motion is what gives form. Now I say that the natural motion of the animal is that which is of the heart; because as Arist. says (lib de mot anim) "it must be supposed to that an animal is put together (constare) in the same way (quemadmodum) a good (rectam) city is ordered (bene) by laws. For in the city when once an order should have become established, no work requires a separate monarch to attend to every single thing which is done, but each does whatever is his as ordered, and does this after that based on habit/custom/experience.

Oportet autem considerare quod motus sursum est naturalis igni eo quod consequitur formam eius: unde et generans, quod dat formam, est per se movens secundum locum. Sicut autem formam elementi consequitur aliquis motus naturalis, nihil prohibet et alias formas alios motus naturales sequi. Videmus enim quod ferrum naturaliter movetur ad magnetem, qui tamen motus non est ei naturalis secundum rationem gravis et levis, sed secundum quod habet talem formam. Sic igitur et animal inquantum habet talem formam quae est anima, nihil prohibet habere aliquem motum naturalem; et movens hunc motum est quod dat formam. Dico autem motum naturalem animalis eum qui est cordis: quia, ut Aristoteles dicit in Lib. de motu Anim., existimandum est constare animal quemadmodum civitatem bene legibus rectam. In civitate enim quando semel stabilitus fuerit ordo, nihil opus est separato monarcho quem oporteat adesse per singula eorum quae fiunt, sed ipse quilibet facit quae ipsius ut ordinatum est, et fit hoc post hoc propter consuetudinem.

Now in animals this same thing happens from nature: and because each one by nature (natum est) is structured (sic constantium) to do its proper work, so that no work in each one would be the soul,( WRONG TRANSLATION ) inasmuch as it is the principle of motion, but in a certain existing principle of the body seems to live ?
In animalibus autem idem hoc propter naturam fit: et quia natum est unumquodque sic constantium facere proprium opus, ut nihil opus sit in unoquoque esse animam, scilicet inquantum est principium motus, sed in quodam principio corporis existente alia quidem vivere, eo quod adnata sunt, facere autem proprium opus propter naturam.

So therefore the motion of the heart is natural as though following the soul, inasmuch as it is the form of such a body, and principally of the heart. And more strongly according to this understanding do same say the motion of the heart to arise from intelligence, inasmuch as they put the soul to be from intelligence, as Arisottle says the movement of the heavy and the light to be from the generating one, inasmuch as it gives form which is the principle of motion.
Sic igitur motus cordis est naturalis quasi consequens animam, inquantum est forma talis corporis, et principaliter cordis. Et forte secundum hunc intellectum aliqui dixerunt motum cordis esse ab intelligentia, inquantum posuerunt animam ab intelligentia esse, sicut Aristoteles dicit motum gravium et levium esse a generante, inquantum dat formam quae est principium motus.

Now every properity and change follows some form according to its oown condition, as the form of the most noble elements, think fire, follows the motion to the most noble place, which is above. Now the most noble form in inferior things i s the soul, which most (maxime) approaches to the likeness of the heavenly principles of movement.
Omnis autem proprietas et motus consequitur aliquam formam secundum conditionem ipsius, sicut formam nobilissimi elementi, puta ignis, consequitur motus ad locum nobilissimum, qui est sursum. Forma autem nobilissima in inferioribus est anima, quae maxime accedit ad similitudinem principii motus caeli.

Whence and its motion following is similar to the motion of the heavens: for so is the motion of the heart inthe animal, as the motion of the heaven in the world. But nevertheless it is necessary for the motion of the heaven to fail as the generated-from-theprinciple (principiatum) falls short of the principle. Now every movement of the heavens is circular and continuous, and this is adequate to it inasmuch as it is the principle of all the motions/changes in the world: for the approach and withdrawal of the heavenly body imposes the principle and the end of being (essendi) on things, and by its continuity conserves the order among changes, which are not always (semper).
Unde et motus ipsam consequens simillimus est motui caeli: sic enim est motus cordis in animali, sicut motus caeli in mundo. Sed tamen necesse est motum cordis a motu caeli deficere sicut et principiatum deficit a principio. Est autem motus caeli circularis et continuus, et hoc competit ei inquantum est principium omnium motuum mundi: accessu enim et recessu corpus caeleste imponit rebus principium et finem essendi, et sua continuitate conservat ordinem in motibus, qui non sunt semper.

Now the motion of the heart is the principle of all motions that are in the animal, whence Aristotle says in the third book de Part. Anim. that motion of delightful things and of sad things and wholly of every sense here seems to begin (hinc videntur incipientes) namely, in the heart, and here terminate.

Motus autem cordis principium quidem est omnium motuum qui sunt in animali; unde Aristoteles dicit in tertio de Part. Anim. quod motus delectabilium et tristium et totaliter omnis sensus hinc incipientes videntur, scilicet in corde, et ad hoc terminari.

Whence as the heart would be the principle and the end of all changes, it has a certain movement that is not quite (quidem) circular, but like a circular one, namely, composed of traction and pulsating (pulsu); whence Aristotle says in the third book of De Anima, that an organic mover (movens organice) is where there is both principle and the end together (est ubi est picnipium et finis idem).

Unde ad hoc quod cor esset principium et finis omnium motuum, habet quemdam motum non quidem circularem sed similem circulari, compositum scilicet ex tractu et pulsu; unde Aristoteles dicit in tertio de Anim., quod movens organice est ubi est principium et finis idem.

Now every pulsation and traction moventur; on which account it is necessary that something is in a circular manner and this to begin motion.

Omnia autem pulsu et tractu moventur; propter quod oportet sicut in circulo manere aliquid et hinc incipere motum. Est etiam motus iste continuus durante vita animalis, nisi inquantum necesse est intercidere morulam mediam inter pulsum et tractum, eo quod deficiat a motu circulari. Per hoc igitur de facili solvuntur quae in contrarium obiici possunt. Neque enim dicimus motum cordis esse naturalem cordi inquantum est grave vel leve, sed inquantum est animatum tali anima; et duo motus qui videntur contrarii sunt quasi partes unius motus compositi ex utroque, inquantum deficit a simplicitate motus circularis, quem tamen imitatur inquantum est ab eodem in idem. Et sic non est inconveniens si quodammodo sit ad diversas partes, quia et motus circularis aliqualiter sic est. Neque etiam oportet quod causetur ex apprehensione et appetitu, quamvis causetur ab anima sensitiva; non enim causatur ab anima sensitiva per operationem suam, sed inquantum est forma et natura talis corporis. Motus autem progressivus animalis causatur per operationem sensus et appetitus; et propter hoc medici distinguunt operationes vitales ab operationibus animalibus, et quod animalibus cessantibus remanent vitales, vitalia appellantes quae motum cordis concomitantur. Et hoc rationabiliter. Vivere enim viventibus est esse, ut dicitur in secundo de Anim.: esse autem unicuique est a propria forma. Hoc autem differt inter animam et principium motus caeli, quod illud principium non movetur neque per se neque per accidens, anima autem sensitiva etsi non moveatur per se, movetur tamen per accidens: unde proveniunt in ipsa diversae apprehensiones et affectiones. Unde motus caeli semper est uniformis, motus autem cordis variatur secundum diversas apprehensiones et affectiones animae. Non enim affectiones animae causantur ab alterationibus cordis, sed potius causant eas; unde in passionibus animae, utputa in ira, formale est, quod est ex parte affectionis, scilicet quod sit appetitus vindictae; materiale autem quod pertinet ad alterationem cordis, utpote quod sit accensio sanguinis circa cor. Non autem in rebus naturalibus forma est propter materiam, sed e converso, ut probatur in secundo Physic., sed in materia est dispositio ad formam. Non igitur propter hoc aliquis appetit vindictam quia sanguis accenditur circa cor, sed ex hoc aliquis est dispositus ad iram; irascitur autem ex appetitu vindictae. Quamvis autem aliqua variatio accidat in motu cordis ex apprehensione diversa et affectione, non tamen ista variatio motus est voluntaria, sed involuntaria, quia non fit per imperium voluntatis. Dicit enim Aristoteles in Lib. de causa Mot. Anim., quod multoties apparente aliquo, non tamen iubente intellectu, movetur cor et pudendum, et huius causam assignat quoniam necesse est alterari naturali alteratione animalia; alteratis autem partibus, haec quidem augeri, haec autem detrimentum pati, ut iam moveantur et permutentur natis haberi permutationibus invicem. Causae autem motuum caliditas et frigiditas, quae de foris et intus existentes naturales. Et praeter rationem utique facti motus dictarum partium, idest cordis et pudendi, alteratione incidente fiunt. Intellectus enim et phantasia factiva passionum afferunt, ut concupiscentiae, irae et huiusmodi, ex quibus cor calescit et infrigidatur. Et haec de motu cordis ad praesens dicta sufficiant.