Authors/Aristotle/metaphysics/l12/c6

Chapter 6

Greek	Latin	English
ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἦσαν τρεῖς οὐσίαι, δύο μὲν αἱ φυσικαὶ μία δ᾽ ἡ ἀκίνητος, περὶ ταύτης λεκτέον ὅτι ἀνάγκη εἶναι ἀΐδιόν [5] τινα οὐσίαν ἀκίνητον. αἵ τε γὰρ οὐσίαι πρῶται τῶν ὄντων, καὶ εἰ πᾶσαι φθαρταί, πάντα φθαρτά: ἀλλ᾽ ἀδύνατον κίνησιν ἢ γενέσθαι ἢ φθαρῆναι (ἀεὶ γὰρ ἦν), οὐδὲ χρόνον. οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε τὸ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον εἶναι μὴ ὄντος χρόνου: καὶ ἡ κίνησις ἄρα οὕτω συνεχὴς ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ χρόνος: [10] ἢ γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ ἢ κινήσεώς τι πάθος. κίνησις δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι συνεχὴς ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἡ κατὰ τόπον, καὶ ταύτης ἡ κύκλῳ.	Quoniam autem tres erant substantiae, due quidem quae phisice et una quae immobilis, de hac dicendum * quia necesse ↵ * esse sempiternam aliquam substantiam immobilem. Nam substantiae prime entium, et si omnes corruptibiles, omnia corruptibilia. Sed impossibile motum aut fieri aut corrumpi (semper enim erat), nec tempus. Nec enim possibile prius et posterius esse, cum non sit tempus. Et motus ergo sic est continuus ↵ ut tempus; aut enim idem aut motus est aliqua passio. Motus autem non est continuus nisi qui secundum locum, et huius qui * circulo.	Chapter 6. Since there were three kinds of substance, two of them physical and one unmovable, regarding the latter we must assert that it is necessary that there should be an eternal unmovable substance. For substances are the first of existing things, and if they are all destructible, all things are destructible. But it is impossible that movement should either have come into being or cease to be (for it must always have existed), or that time should. For there could not be a before and an after if time did not exist. Movement also is continuous, then, in the sense in which time is; for time is either the same thing as movement or an attribute of movement. And there is no continuous movement except movement in place, and of this only that which is circular is continuous.
ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ ἔστι κινητικὸν ἢ ποιητικόν, μὴ ἐνεργοῦν δέ τι, οὐκ ἔσται κίνησις: ἐνδέχεται γὰρ τὸ δύναμιν ἔχον μὴ ἐνεργεῖν. οὐθὲν ἄρα ὄφελος οὐδ᾽ ἐὰν οὐσίας ποιήσωμεν ἀϊδίους, [15] ὥσπερ οἱ τὰ εἴδη, εἰ μή τις δυναμένη ἐνέσται ἀρχὴ μεταβάλλειν: οὐ τοίνυν οὐδ᾽ αὕτη ἱκανή, οὐδ᾽ ἄλλη οὐσία παρὰ τὰ εἴδη: εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἐνεργήσει, οὐκ ἔσται κίνησις.	At vero si erit motivum aut effectivum, non operans autem aliquid, non erit motus; contingit enim potentiam habens non agere. Nihil ergo prodest, nec si substantias facia↵mus sempiternas, quemadmodum * qui species, si non aliqua potens inerit principium transmutari. Non igitur neque ipsa sufficiens *, nec alia substantia praeter species; nam si non egerit, non erit motus.	But if there is something which is capable of moving things or acting on them, but is not actually doing so, there will not necessarily be movement; for that which has a potency need not exercise it. Nothing, then, is gained even if we suppose eternal substances, as the believers in the Forms do, unless there is to be in them some principle which can cause change; nay, even this is not enough, nor is another substance besides the Forms enough; for if it is not to act, there will be no movement.
ἔτι οὐδ᾽ εἰ ἐνεργήσει, ἡ δ᾽ οὐσία αὐτῆς δύναμις: οὐ γὰρ ἔσται κίνησις ἀΐδιος: ἐνδέχεται γὰρ τὸ δυνάμει ὂν μὴ εἶναι. δεῖ [20] ἄρα εἶναι ἀρχὴν τοιαύτην ἧς ἡ οὐσία ἐνέργεια.	Adhuc neque si aget, substantia autem ipsius potentia; non enim erit motus eternus; contingit enim ↵ quod potentia est non esse. Oportet igitur esse principium tale cuius substantia actus.	Further even if it acts, this will not be enough, if its essence is potency; for there will not be eternal movement, since that which is potentially may possibly not be. There must, then, be such a principle, whose very essence is actuality.
ἔτι τοίνυν ταύτας δεῖ τὰς οὐσίας εἶναι ἄνευ ὕλης: ἀϊδίους γὰρ δεῖ, εἴπερ γε καὶ ἄλλο τι ἀΐδιον.	Amplius igitur tales oportet esse subƿstantias sine materia; sempiternas enim esse oportet, si et aliud aliquid * sempiternum; actu igitur.	Further, then, these substances must be without matter; for they must be eternal, if anything is eternal. Therefore they must be actuality.
ἐνέργεια ἄρα. καίτοι ἀπορία: δοκεῖ γὰρ τὸ μὲν ἐνεργοῦν πᾶν δύνασθαι τὸ δὲ δυνάμενον οὐ πᾶν ἐνεργεῖν, ὥστε πρότερον εἶναι τὴν δύναμιν.	Quamvis * dubitatio; videtur enim * agens quidem omne posse, * potens vero* non omne agere, quare prius * esse potentiam.	Yet there is a difficulty; for it is thought that everything that acts is able to act, but that not everything that is able to act acts, so that the potency is prior.
[25] ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ τοῦτο, οὐθὲν ἔσται τῶν ὄντων: ἐνδέχεται γὰρ δύνασθαι μὲν εἶναι μήπω δ᾽ εἶναι. καίτοι εἰ ὡς λέγουσιν οἱ θεολόγοι οἱ ἐκ νυκτὸς γεννῶντες, ἢ ὡς οἱ φυσικοὶ ὁμοῦ πάντα χρήματά φασι, τὸ αὐτὸ ἀδύνατον. πῶς γὰρ κινηθήσεται, εἰ μὴ ἔσται ἐνεργείᾳ τι αἴτιον; οὐ γὰρ ἥ γε [30] ὕλη κινήσει αὐτὴ ἑαυτήν, ἀλλὰ τεκτονική, οὐδὲ τὰ ἐπιμήνια οὐδ᾽ ἡ γῆ, ἀλλὰ τὰ σπέρματα καὶ ἡ γονή.	At vero si hoc, nihil erit entium; contingit enim ↵ posse quidem esse nondum vero esse. Et etiam si ut dicunt theologi qui ex nocte * generant, aut ut phisici “ erant simul res omnes” dicunt, idem impossibile. Quomodo enim movebuntur, si non fuerit actu aliqua causa? Non enim materia ipsa ↵ se ipsam movebit, sed tectonica, nec menstrua nec terra, sed semina et genitura **.	But if this is so, nothing that is need be; for it is possible for all things to be capable of existing but not yet to exist. Yet if we follow the theologians who generate the world from night, or the natural philosophers who say that all things were together , the same impossible result ensues. For how will there be movement, if there is no actually existing cause? Wood will surely not move itself-the carpenter's art must act on it; nor will the menstrual blood nor the earth set themselves in motion, but the seeds must act on the earth and the semen on the menstrual blood.
διὸ ἔνιοι ποιοῦσιν ἀεὶ ἐνέργειαν, οἷον Λεύκιππος καὶ Πλάτων: ἀεὶ γὰρ εἶναί φασι κίνησιν. ἀλλὰ διὰ τί καὶ τίνα οὐ λέγουσιν, οὐδ᾽, <εἰ> ὡδὶ <ἢ> ὡδί, τὴν αἰτίαν. οὐδὲν γὰρ ὡς [35] ἔτυχε κινεῖται, ἀλλὰ δεῖ τι ἀεὶ ὑπάρχειν, ἕσπερ νῦν φύσει μὲν ὡδί, βίᾳ δὲ ἢ ὑπὸ νοῦ ἢ ἄλλου ὡδί. (εἶτα ποία πρώτη; διαφέρει γὰρ ἀμήχανον ὅσον). ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ Πλάτωνί γε οἷόν τε λέγειν ἣν οἴεται ἐνίοτε ἀρχὴν εἶναι, [1072α] [1] τὸ αὐτὸ ἑαυτὸ κινοῦν: ὕστερον γὰρ καὶ ἅμα τῷ οὐρανῷ ἡ ψυχή, ὡς φησίν.	Propter quod faciunt quidam semper actum, ut Leucippus et Plato; semper enim dicunt esse motum. Sed quare et quem non dicunt, nec sic nec causam. Nihil enim ut contingit movetur, sed oportet aliquid semper existere, quem↵admodum nunc natura quidem sic, vi vero aut ab intellectu aut alio sic. Deinde qualis prior? Differt enim inaptabile quantum *. At vero neque Platoni possibile dicere quod exjs↵timat aliquando principium esse, quod ipsum se ipsum movens; posterius enim et simul cum celo * anima, ut ait.	This is why some suppose eternal actuality-e.g. Leucippus and Plato; for they say there is always movement. But why and what this movement is they do say, nor, if the world moves in this way or that, do they tell us the cause of its doing so. Now nothing is moved at random, but there must always be something present to move it; e.g. as a matter of fact a thing moves in one way by nature, and in another by force or through the influence of reason or something else. (Further, what sort of movement is primary? This makes a vast difference.) But again for Plato, at least, it is not permissible to name here that which [72a] he sometimes supposes to be the source of movement-that which moves itself; for the soul is later, and coeval with the heavens, according to his account.
τὸ μὲν δὴ δύναμιν οἴεσθαι ἐνεργείας πρότερον ἔστι μὲν ὡς καλῶς ἔστι δ᾽ ὡς οὔ (εἴρηται δὲ πῶς):	Potentiam quidem igitur existimare priorem actu est quidem ut bene, est autem ut non; dictum est autem quomodo.	To suppose potency prior to actuality, then, is in a sense right, and in a sense not; and we have specified these senses.
ὅτι δ᾽ [5] ἐνέργεια πρότερον, μαρτυρεῖ Ἀναξαγόρας (ὁ γὰρ νοῦς ἐνέργεια) καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς φιλίαν καὶ τὸ νεῖκος, καὶ οἱ ἀεὶ λέγοντες κίνησιν εἶναι, ὥσπερ Λεύκιππος:	Quod autem actus * prius, testatur Anaxagoras (intellectus ↵ enim actus *), et Empedocles amicitiam et litem, et semper ƿ dicentes motum esse, ut Leucippus.	That actuality is prior is testified by Anaxagoras (for his reason is actuality) and by Empedocles in his doctrine of love and strife, and by those who say that there is always movement, e.g. Leucippus.
ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἦν ἄπειρον χρόνον χάος ἢ νύξ, ἀλλὰ ταὐτὰ ἀεὶ ἢ περιόδῳ ἢ ἄλλως, εἴπερ πρότερον ἐνέργεια δυνάμεως.	Quare non fuit * infinito tempore chaos aut nox, sed eadem semper * aut periodo aut ↵ aliter, si prius est actus potentia.	Therefore chaos or night did not exist for an infinite time, but the same things have always existed (either passing through a cycle of changes or obeying some other law), since actuality is prior to potency.
εἰ δὴ τὸ αὐτὸ [10] ἀεὶ περιόδῳ, δεῖ τι ἀεὶ μένειν ὡσαύτως ἐνεργοῦν. εἰ δὲ μέλλει γένεσις καὶ φθορὰ εἶναι, ἄλλο δεῖ εἶναι ἀεὶ ἐνεργοῦν ἄλλως καὶ ἄλλως. ἀνάγκη ἄρα ὡδὶ μὲν καθ᾽ αὑτὸ ἐνεργεῖν ὡδὶ δὲ κατ᾽ ἄλλο: ἤτοι ἄρα καθ᾽ ἕτερον ἢ κατὰ τὸ πρῶτον. ἀνάγκη δὴ κατὰ τοῦτο: πάλιν γὰρ ἐκεῖνο [15] αὐτῷ τε αἴτιον κἀκείνῳ. οὐκοῦν βέλτιον τὸ πρῶτον: καὶ γὰρ αἴτιον ἦν ἐκεῖνο τοῦ ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως: τοῦ δ᾽ ἄλλως ἕτερον, τοῦ δ᾽ ἀεὶ ἄλλως ἄμφω δηλονότι. οὐκοῦν οὕτως καὶ ἔχουσιν αἱ κινήσεις. τί οὖν ἄλλας δεῖ ζητεῖν ἀρχάς;	Si itaque idem semper periodo, oportet aliquid semper manere similiter agens. Si autem debeat fore generatio et corruptio, aliud oportet agens esse aliter et aliter. Necesse igitur sic quidem secundum se agere, sic vero secundum aliud; aut ergo secundum alterum aut secundum primum. Necesse itaque secundum hoc; iterum ↵ enim illud ipsique causa et illi. Rdignius ergo1 primum; et enim causa erat illud ipsius semper similiter; et ipsius aliter alterum, eius autem quod est semper aliter rpalam quod ambo1. Ergo si sic se habent motus, quid ergo alia oportet quaerere principia?	If, then, there is a constant cycle, something must always remain, acting in the same way. And if there is to be generation and destruction, there must be something else which is always acting in different ways. This must, then, act in one way in virtue of itself, and in another in virtue of something else-either of a third agent, therefore, or of the first. Now it must be in virtue of the first. For otherwise this again causes the motion both of the second agent and of the third. Therefore it is better to say the first . For it was the cause of eternal uniformity; and something else is the cause of variety, and evidently both together are the cause of eternal variety. This, accordingly, is the character which the motions actually exhibit. What need then is there to seek for other principles?