Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber1/lect12

Lecture 12

Latin	English
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 1 Postquam recitavit opiniones philosophorum de principiis, hic incipit eas improbare. Et dividitur in duas partes. Primo improbat singulas opiniones. Secundo recolligit ea quae dicta sunt, et continuat se ad sequentia, ibi, quoniam ergo dictas causas et cetera. Prima dividitur in duas partes. Primo reprobat opiniones eorum qui naturaliter locuti sunt. Secundo reprobat opiniones illorum qui non naturaliter sunt locuti, scilicet Pythagorae et Platonis, eo quod altiora principia posuerunt quam naturales, ibi, quicumque vero et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo improbat opiniones eorum qui posuerunt unam causam materialem. Secundo eorum qui posuerunt plures, ibi, idem quoque et si quis. Circa primum duo facit. Primo improbat opiniones praedictas in generali. Secundo in speciali, ibi, et ad hoc et cetera. Improbat autem in generali triplici ratione. Prima ratio talis est. Quia in rebus non solum sunt corporea, sed etiam quaedam incorporea, ut patet ex libro de anima. Sed ipsi non posuerunt principia nisi corporea: quod ex hoc patet, quia ipsi ponebant, unum omne idest universum esse unum secundum substantiam, et esse unam naturam quasi materiam, et eam esse corpoream, et habentem mensuram idest dimensionem: corpus autem non potest esse causa rei incorporeae; ergo patet quod in hoc deliquerunt insufficienter rerum principia tradentes. Et non solum in hoc, sed in multis, ut ex sequentibus rationibus apparet.	181. Having stated the opinions which the philosophers held about the principles of things, Aristotle begins here to criticize them; and this is divided into two parts. First, he criticizes each opinion. Second (272), he summarizes his discussion and links it up with what follows (“From the foregoing”). The first is divided into two parts. First, he criticizes the opinions of those who have treated things according to the method of natural philosophy. Second (201), he criticizes the opinions of those who have not treated things according to the method of natural philosophy, i.e., Pythagoras and Plato, because they posited higher principles than the natural philosophers did (“But all those”). In regard to the first part he does two things. First, he criticizes the opinions of those who posited one material cause; and second (190), the opinions of those who posited many (“The same consequence”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he criticizes the foregoing opinions in a general way; and second (183), in a special way (“And they were wrong”). He criticizes these opinions in a general way by means of three arguments. The first (86) is this: in the world there are not only bodies but also certain incorporeal things, as is clear from The Soul. But these men posited only corporeal principles, which is clear from the fact that they maintained that “the whole is one,” i.e., that the universe is one thing substantially, and that there is a single nature as matter, and that this is corporeal and has “measure,” i.e., dimension. But a body cannot be the cause of an incorporeal thing. Therefore it is evident that they were at fault in this respect that they treated the principles of things inadequately. And they were at fault not only in this respect but in many others, as is clear from the following arguments.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit de generatione hic ponit secundam rationem quae talis est. Quicumque habet necesse determinare de motu, oportet quod ponat causam motus: sed praedicti philosophi habebant necesse tractare de motu: quod ex duobus patet: tum quia ipsi conabantur dicere causas generationis et corruptionis rerum, quae sine motu non sunt: tum etiam quia de rebus omnibus naturaliter tractare volebant: naturalis autem consideratio requirit motum, eo quod natura est principium motus et quietis, ut patet secundo physicorum: ergo debebant tractare de causa, quae est principium motus. Et ita cum illam auferrent causam, nihil de ea dicendo, patet etiam quod in hoc deliquerunt.	182. And in attempting (87). Here he gives the second argument, which runs thus: whoever feels obliged to establish the truth about motion must posit a cause of motion. But these philosophers felt obliged to treat motion, which is clear for two reasons: first, because they tried to state the causes of generation and corruption in the world, which do not occur without motion; and second, because they wanted to treat things according to the method of natural philosophy. But since a treatment of things according to this method involves motion (because nature is a principle of motion and rest, as is clear in Book II of the Physics), they should therefore have dealt with that cause which is the source of motion. And since they did away with the cause of motion by saying nothing about it, obviously they were also at fault in this respect.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit amplius autem hic ponit tertiam rationem. Quaelibet enim res naturalis habet substantiam, idest formam partis, et quod quid est, idest quidditatem quae est forma totius. Formam dicit, inquantum est principium subsistendi: et quod quid est, inquantum est principium cognoscendi, quia per eam scitur quid est res: sed praedicti philosophi formam non ponebant esse alicuius causam: ergo insufficienter de rebus tractabant, in hoc etiam delinquentes, quod causam formalem praetermittebant.	183. Furthermore, they did not (88). Here he gives the third argument: every natural being has “a substance,” i.e., a form of the part, “and whatness,” i.e., quiddity, which is the form of the whole.3 He says form inasmuch as it is a principle of subsistence, and whatness inasmuch as it is a principle of knowing, because what a thing is is known by means of this. But the foregoing philosophers did not claim that form is a cause of anything. They treated things inadequately, then, and were also at fault in neglecting the formal cause.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit nullus enim hic reprobat opiniones eorum in speciali: et hoc dupliciter. Primo quantum ad hoc quod ponebant elementa praeter ignem esse principia. Secundo quantum ad hoc quod praetermittebant terram, ibi, si vero est, quod est generatione et cetera. Primo ergo resumit eorum positionem, qui videlicet ponebant esse elementum quodlibet simplicium corporum praeter terram. Et rationem opinionis ostendit, quia ipsi videbant simplicia corpora ex invicem generari, ita quod quaedam fiunt ex illis per concretionem sive per inspissationem, sicut grossiora ex subtilioribus.	184. For none of the later (92). Here he criticizes their opinions in a special way; and he does this with respect to two things. First, he criticizes them for maintaining that all the elements with the exception of fire are the principles of things. Second (187), he criticizes them for omitting earth (“However, if”). First (92), he takes up once more the position of those who claimed that each of the simple bodies except earth is the [primary] element of things. The reason which he gives for this position is that these men saw that the simple bodies are generated from each other in such a way that some come from others by combination or compacting, as grosser things come from more refined ones.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 5 Ostendit etiam modum procedendi contra eorum opiniones ex eorum rationibus. Ponebant enim hac ratione aliquod istorum esse principium, quia ex eo generabantur alia concretione vel discretione. Qui duo modi multum differunt quantum ad prioritatem vel posterioritatem eius ex quo aliquid generatur. Nam secundum unum modum videtur esse prius id ex quo generatur aliquid per concretionem. Et hanc rationem primo ponit. Secundum vero alium modum videtur esse prius illud, ex quo generatur aliquid per rarefactionem; et ex hoc sumit secundam rationem.	185. He also explains how to proceed against their opinions from their own arguments. For they claimed that one of these elements is the principle of things by arguing that other things are generated from it either by combination or by separation. Now it makes the greatest difference as to which of these two ways is prior and which subsequent, for on this depends the priority or posteriority of that from which something is generated. For, on the one hand, that seems to be prior from which something is produced by combination; and he gives this argument first. Yet, on the other hand, that seems to be prior from which something is produced by rarefaction; and he bases his second argument on this.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 6 Quod enim illud ex quo generatur aliquid per concretionem sit primum, hoc attestatur opinioni, quae nunc habetur, quod illud sit elementum maxime omnium, ex quo alia fiunt per concretionem. Quod quidem patet per rationem, et eorum positiones. Per rationem quidem: quia id ex quo fiunt alia per concretionem est hoc quod est subtilissimum inter corpora, minutissimas partes habens. Et hoc esse videtur simplicius. Unde si simplex est prius composito, videtur quod hoc sit primum. Per eorum vero positiones: quia quicumque posuerunt ignem esse principium, posuerunt ipsum primum esse principium, quia est subtilissimum corporum. Similiter autem alii visi sunt hanc rationem sequi, existimantes tale esse elementum corporum, quod est subtiles partes habens. Quod ex hoc patet, quod nullus posteriorum prosecutus est poetas theologos, qui dixerunt terram esse elementum. Et manifestum est quod hoc renuerunt ponere, propter magnitudinem partialitatis idest propter grossitiem partium. Constat autem quod quodlibet aliorum trium elementorum accepit aliquem philosophorum, qui iudicavit ipsum esse principium. Sed quia non dixerunt terram principium esse, ideo non potest dici quod hoc non dixerunt, quia esset contra communem opinionem. Nam multitudo hominum hoc existimabat, quod terra esset substantia omnium. Et Hesiodus etiam, qui fuit unus de theologicis poetis, dixit quod inter alia corpora primum facta est terra. Et sic patet quod opinio quod terra esset principium, fuit antiqua, quia ab ipsis poetis theologicis posita, qui fuerunt ante naturales philosophos: et publica, quia in eam consenserunt plures. Unde restat quod hac sola ratione posteriores naturales evitaverunt ponere terram esse principium, propter grossitiem partium. Sed constat quod terra habet grossiores partes quam aqua, et aqua quam aer, et aer quam ignis, et si quid est medium inter ea grossius est quam ignis. Unde patet, sequendo hanc rationem, quod nullus eorum recte dixit, nisi qui posuit ignem esse principium. Nam ex quo ratione subtilitatis aliquid ponitur principium, necessarium est illud poni primum principium quod est omnium subtilissimum.	186. For the fact that the primary element is that from which something is produced by combination supports the opinion which is now held that the most basic element is that from which other things are produced by combination. This in fact is evident both from reason and from the things that they held. It is evident from reason, because that from which other things are produced by combination is the most refined type of body, and the one having the smallest parts; and this seems to be the simpler body. Hence, if the simple is prior to the composite, this body seems to be first. It is also evident from the things that they held, because all those who posited fire as the principle of things asserted that it is the first principle. Similarly, others have been seen to follow this argument, for they thought that the primary element of bodies is the one having the finest parts. This is evident from the fact that none of the later philosophers followed the theological poets, who said that earth is the primary element of things. Evidently they refused to do this “because of the size of its parts,” i.e., because of the coarseness of its parts. However, it is a fact that each of the other three elements finds some philosopher who judges it to be the principle of things. But their refusal to make earth a principle is not to be explained by a refusal to reject a common opinion; for many men thought that earth is the substance of things. Hesiod, who was one of the theological poets, also said that earth is the first of all bodies to come into being. Thus the opinion that earth is the principle of things is evidently an ancient one, because it was maintained by the theological poets, who preceded the philosophers of nature. It was also the common opinion, because many men accepted it. It follows, then, that the later philosophers avoided the position that earth is a principle only because of the coarseness of its parts. But it is certain that earth has coarser parts than water, and water than air, and air than fire; and if there is any intermediate element, it is evident that it is grosser than fire. Hence by following this argument it is clear that none of them spoke correctly, except him who held that fire is the first principle. For as soon as some element is held to be a principle by reason of its minuteness, the most minute element must be held to be the first principle of things.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit si vero hic ponit aliam rationem, per quam e converso videtur quod terra sit maxime elementum. Constat enim quod illud quod est in generatione posterius, est prius secundum naturam; eo quod natura in finem generationis tendit, sicut in id quod est primum in eius intentione. Sed quanto aliquid est magis densum et compositum, tanto est etiam posterius generatione: quia in via generationis ex simplicibus proceditur ad composita, sicut ex elementis fiunt mixta, et ex mixtis humores et membra: ergo illud quod est magis compositum et spissum illud est prius secundum naturam. Et sic sequitur contrarium eius quod prima ratio concludebat, scilicet quod aqua sit prior aere, et terra prior aqua quasi primum principium.	187. However, if that which (93). Here he gives another argument, and according to it the opposite seems to be true, namely, that earth is the most basic element of things. For it is evident that whatever is subsequent in generation is prior in nature, because nature tends to the goal of generation as the first thing in its intention. But the denser and more composite something is, the later it appears in the process of generation; for the process of generation proceeds from simple things to composite ones, Just as mixed bodies come from the elements, and the humors and members [of a living body] from mixed bodies. Hence, whatever is more composite and condensed is prior in nature. In this way a conclusion is reached which is the opposite of that following from the first argument; i.e., water is now prior to air and earth to water as the first principle of things.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 8 Est autem attendendum quod differt quaerere illud quod est prius in uno et eodem, et illud quod est prius simpliciter. Si enim quaeratur quid est prius simpliciter, oportet perfectum esse prius imperfecto, sicut et actum potentia. Nihil enim reducitur de imperfecto ad perfectum, vel de potentia in actum, nisi per aliquod perfectum ens actu. Et ideo, si loquamur de primo universi, oportet ipsum esse perfectissimum. Sed respectu unius particularis, quod procedit de potentia in actum perfectum, potentia est prius tempore actu, licet posterius natura. Constat etiam quod primum omnium oportet esse simplicissimum, eo quod composita dependent a simplici et non e converso. Necessarium ergo erat antiquis naturalibus quod utrumque attribuerent primo principio totius universi, scilicet cum summa simplicitate maximam perfectionem. Haec autem duo non possunt simul attribui alicui principio corporali. Nam in corporibus generabilibus et corruptibilibus sunt simplicissima imperfecta; ideo cogebantur quasi rationibus contrariis diversa principia ponere. Praeeligebant autem rationem simplicitatis, quia non considerabant res nisi secundum modum, secundum quem aliquid exit de potentia in actum; in cuius ordine non oportet id quod est principium esse perfectius. Huiusmodi autem contrarietatis dissolutio haberi non potest, nisi ponendo primum entium principium incorporeum: quia hoc erit simplicissimum, ut de eo inferius Aristoteles probabit.	188. It should be noted, however, that it is a different thing to look for what is prior in one and the same entity and for what is prior without qualification. For if one seeks what is prior without qualification, the perfect must be prior to the imperfect, just as actuality is prior to potentiality; because a thing is brought from a state of imperfection to one of perfection, or from potentiality to actuality, only by something completely actual. Therefore, if we speak of what is first in the whole universe, it must be the most perfect thing. But in the case of one particular thing which goes from potentiality to. complete actuality, potentiality is prior to actuality in time, although it is subsequent in nature. It is also clear that the first of all things must be one that is simplest; for the composite depends on the simple, and not the reverse. It was necessary, then, that the ancient philosophers should attribute both of these properties (the greatest perfection along with the greatest simplicity) to the first principle of the whole universe. However, these two properties cannot be attributed simultaneously to any corporeal principle, for in bodies subject to generation and corruption the simplest entities are imperfect. They were Compelled, then, as by contrary arguments, to posit different principles. Yet they preferred the argument of simplicity, because they considered things only insofar as something passes from potentiality to actuality, and in this order it is not necessary that anything which is a principle should be more perfect. But this kind of opposition can be resolved only by maintaining that the first principle of things is incorporeal, because this principle will be the simplest one, as Aristotle will prove below (2548).
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 9 Concludit autem in fine quod de positionibus eorum, qui dixerunt unam causam materialem, ea sufficiant quae ad praesens dicta.	189. Last of all he concludes that for the purpose of the present discussion enough has been said about the positions of those who affirm one material cause.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit idem quoque hic ponit rationes contra ponentes plures causas materiales. Et primo contra Empedoclem. Secundo contra Anaxagoram, ibi, Anaxagoram et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod idem accidit Empedocli qui posuit quatuor corpora esse materiam, quia patiebatur eamdem difficultatem ex praedicta contrarietate. Nam ex ratione simplicitatis, ignis videbatur esse maxime principium, alia vero ratione terra, ut dictum est. Quaedam etiam inconvenientia accidunt Empedocli eadem cum praedictis. Sicut de hoc quod non posuit causam formalem, et de praedicta contrarietate simplicitatis et perfectionis in corporalibus, licet contra eum non sit ratio de ablatione causae moventis. Sed quaedam alia inconvenientia accidunt ei, propria praeter ea quae accidunt ponentibus unam causam materialem.	190. The same consequence (94). Here he gives the arguments against those who posited many material causes. First, he argues against Empedocles; and second (194), against Anaxagoras (“But if anyone”). First (94), he says that the same consequence faces Empedocles, who held that the four [elemental] bodies are the matter of things, because he experienced the same difficulty with regard to the above contrariety. For according to the argument of simplicity fire would seem to be the most basic principle of bodies; and according to the other argument earth would seem to be such, as has been stated (187). And while Empedocles faced some of the same absurd conclusions as the preceding philosophers (i.e., he did not posit either a formal cause or the aforesaid contrariety of simplicity and perfection in corporeal things), there is no argument against him for doing away with the cause of motion. But he did face certain other absurd conclusions besides those that confronted the philosophers who posited one material cause.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 11 Et hoc patet tribus rationibus. Quarum prima talis est. Quia prima principia non generantur ex invicem, eo quod principia semper oportet manere, ut dictum est primo physicorum. Sed ad sensum videmus quod quatuor elementa ex invicem generantur, unde et de eorum generatione in scientia naturali determinatur. Ergo inconvenienter posuit quatuor elementa prima rerum principia.	191. This is shown by three arguments, of which the first is as follows. First principles are not generated from each other, because a principle must always remain in existence, as is pointed out in Book I of the Physics. But we perceive that the four elements are generated from each other, and for this reason their generation is dealt with in natural philosophy. Hence his position that the four elements are the first principles of things is untenable.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit et de moventium hic ostendit secundum inconveniens quod pertinet ad causam moventem. Ponere enim plures causas moventes et contrarias non omnino dictum est recte, nec omnino rationabiliter. Si enim causae moventes accipiantur proxime, oportet eas esse contrarias, cum earum effectus contrarii appareant. Si autem accipiatur prima causa, tunc oportet esse unum, sicut apparet in duodecimo huius scientiae, et in octavo physicorum. Cum igitur ipse intendat ponere primas causas moventes, inconvenienter posuit eas contrarias.	192. And concerning the cause (95). Here he gives the second absurdity, which has to do with the cause of motion. For to posit many and contrary causes of motion is not at all correct or reasonable; because if the causes of motion are understood to be proximate ones, they must be contraries, since their effects seem to be contraries. But if the first cause is understood, then it must be unique, as is apparent in Book XII (2492) of this work, and in Book VIII of the Physics. Therefore, since he intends to posit the first causes of motion, his position that they are contraries is untenable.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 13 Deinde cum dicit et ex toto hic ponit tertiam rationem quae ducit ad inconveniens, et est talis. In omni alteratione oportet esse idem subiectum quod patitur contraria. Et hoc ideo, quia ex uno contrario non fit alterum, ita quod unum contrarium in alterum convertatur, sicut ex calido non fit frigidum, ita quod ipse calor fiat frigus vel e converso, licet ex calido fiat frigidum suppositum uno subiecto tantum, inquantum unum subiectum quod suberat calori, postea subest frigori. Empedocles vero non posuit unum subiectum contrariis, immo contraria in diversis subiectis posuit, sicut calidum in igne, et frigidum in aqua. Nec iterum posuit istis duobus unam naturam subiectam; ergo nullo modo potuit alterationem ponere. Et hoc est inconveniens quod alteratio totaliter auferatur.	193. And in general (96). Here he gives the third argument which leads to an absurdity: in every process of alteration it must be the same subject which undergoes contraries. This is true because one contrary does not come from another in such a way that one is converted into the other; for example, the cold does not come from the hot in such a way that heat itself becomes cold or the reverse, although the cold does come from the hot when the underlying subject is one only inasmuch as the single subject which is now the subject of heat is afterwards the subject of cold. But Empedocles did not hold that contraries have one subject. In fact he held that they are found in different subjects, as heat in fire and cold in water. Nor again did he hold that there is one nature underlying these two. Therefore he could not posit alteration in any way. Yet it is absurd that alteration should be done away with altogether.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 14 Deinde cum dicit Anaxagoram vero hic prosequitur de opinione Anaxagorae: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit qualiter opinio Anaxagorae est suscipienda quasi vera, et quomodo quasi falsa in generali. Secundo explicat utrumque in speciali, ibi, nam absurdo existente et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod si quis vult suscipere opinionem Anaxagorae veram de eo quod posuit duo principia, scilicet materiam et causam agentem, accipiat eam secundum rationem quam videtur ipse secutus, quasi quadam necessitate veritatis coactus, ut sequeretur eos, qui hanc rationem exprimunt. Ipse vero non articulavit eam, idest non expresse distinxit. Eius ergo opinio est vera quantum ad hoc quod non expressit, falsa quantum ad hoc quod expressit.	194. But if anyone (97). Here he deals with Anaxagoras’ opinion; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he shows in general in what respect Anaxagoras’ opinion should be accepted as true, and in what respect not. Second (97), he explains each of these in particular (“For to say”). He says, first, that if anyone wishes to maintain that Anaxagoras’ opinion is true insofar as he posited two principles, i.e., matter and efficient cause, let him understand this according to the reasoning which Anaxagoras himself seems to have followed, as if compelled by some need for truth, inasmuch as he would have followed those who expressed this theory. But “he himself has not stated it articulately”; i.e., he has not expressed it distinctly. Therefore, with reference to what he has not expressly stated his opinion is true; but with reference to what he has expressly stated his opinion is false.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 15 Et hoc in speciali patet sic. Quia si totaliter accipiatur eius opinio secundum quod in superficie apparebat ex eius dictis, apparebit maior absurditas propter quatuor rationes. Primo, quia hoc ipsum quod est, omnia in principio mundi fuisse permixta, est absurdum, cum distinctio partium mundi aestimetur secundum sententiam Aristotelis sempiterna. Secunda ratio est, quia impermixtum se habet ad permixtum sicut simplex ad compositum: sed simplicia praeexistunt compositis, et non e converso: ergo impermixta oportet praeexistere mixtis, cuius contrarium Anaxagoras dicebat. Tertia ratio est, quia non quodlibet natum est misceri cuilibet in corporibus; sed illa sola nata sunt adinvicem misceri, quae nata sunt adinvicem transire per aliquam alterationem, eo quod mixtio est miscibilium alteratorum unio. Anaxagoras vero ponebat quodlibet esse mixtum cuilibet. Quarta ratio est, quia eorumdem est permixtio et separatio: non enim dicuntur misceri nisi illa quae apta nata sunt separata existere: sed passiones et accidentia sunt permixta substantiis, ut Anaxagoras dicebat: ergo sequeretur quod passiones et accidentia possent a substantiis separari, quod est manifeste falsum. Istae igitur absurditates apparent, si consideretur opinio Anaxagorae superficialiter.	195. This is made clear in particular as follows. If his opinion is taken in its entirety according to a superficial understanding of his statements, a greater absurdity will appear for four reasons. First, his opinion that all things were mixed together at the beginning of the world is absurd; for in Aristotle’s opinion the distinction between the parts of the world is thought to be eternal. The second reason is this: what is unmixed is related to what is mixed as the simple to the composite. But simple bodies are prior to composite ones, and not the reverse. Therefore what is unmixed must be prior to what is mixed. This is the opposite of what Anaxagoras said. The third reason is this: in the case of bodies not anything at all is naturally disposed to be mixed with anything else, but only those things are naturally disposed to be mixed which are naturally inclined to pass over into each other by some kind of alteration; for a mixture is a union of the altered things which are capable of being mixed. But Anaxagoras held that anything is mixed with just anything. The fourth reason is this: there is both mixture and separation of the same things; for only those things are said to be mixed which are naturally disposed to exist apart. But properties and accidents are mixed with substances, as Anaxagoras said. Therefore it follows that properties and accidents can exist apart from substances. This is evidently false. These absurdities appear then, if Anaxagoras’ opinion is considered in a superficial way.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 16 Tamen si quis exequatur articulariter, idest distincte et manifeste perquirat quod Anaxagoras vult dicere, idest ad quod eius intellectus tendebat, licet exprimere nesciret, apparebit eius dictum mirabilius et subtilius praecedentium philosophorum dictis. Et hoc propter duo. Primo, quia magis accessit ad veram materiae cognitionem. Quod ex hoc patet, quia in illa permixtione rerum quando nihil erat ab alio discretum, sed omnia erant permixta, de illa substantia sic permixta, quam ponebat rerum materiam, nihil vere poterat de ea praedicari, ut patet de coloribus; non enim poterat de ea praedicari aliquis specialis color, ut diceretur esse alba, vel nigra, vel secundum aliquem alium colorem colorata; quia secundum hoc oporteret illum colorem non esse aliis permixtum. Et similiter color in genere non poterat de ea praedicari, ut diceretur esse colorata; quia de quocumque praedicatur genus, necesse est aliquam eius speciem praedicari, sive sit praedicatio univoca sive denominativa. Unde si illa substantia esset colorata, de necessitate haberet aliquem determinatum colorem, quod est contra praedicta. Et similis ratio est de humoribus idest saporibus, et de omnibus aliis huiusmodi. Unde nec ipsa genera prima poterant de ipso praedicari, ut scilicet esse qualis vel quanta vel aliquid huiusmodi. Si enim genera praedicarentur, oportet quod aliqua specierum particularium inesset ei; quod est impossibile, si ponantur omnia esse permixta; quia iam ista species, quae de illa substantia diceretur, esset ab aliis distincta. Et haec est vera natura materiae, ut scilicet non habeat actu aliquam formam, sed sit in potentia ad omnes; quia et ipsum mixtum non habet actu aliquid eorum quae in eius mixtionem conveniunt, sed potentia tantum. Et propter hanc similitudinem materiae primae ad mixtum, videtur posuisse mixtionem praedictam, licet aliqua differentia sit inter potentiam materiae et potentiam mixti. Nam miscibilia, etsi sint in potentia in mixto, tamen non sunt in eo in potentia pure passiva. Manent enim virtute in mixto. Quod ex hoc potest patere, quia mixtum habet motum et operationes ex virtute corporum miscibilium; quod non potest dici de his, quae sunt in potentia in materia prima. Est et alia differentia: quia mixtum etsi non sit actu aliquod miscibilium, est tamen aliquid actu: quod de materia prima dici non potest. Sed hanc differentiam videtur removere Anaxagoras ex hoc, quod non posuit particularem aliquam mixtionem, sed universalem omnium.	196. Yet if anyone were to follow him up “and articulate,” i.e., investigate clearly and distinctly, the things which Anaxagoras “means,” i.e., what he intended, although he did not know how to express this, his statement would appear to be more astonishing and subtler than those of the preceding philosophers. This will be so for two reasons. First, he came closer to a true understanding of matter. This is clear from the fact that in that mixture of things, when nothing was distinguished from anything else but all things were mixed together, nothing could be truly predicated of that substance which is so mixed, which he held to be the matter of things. This is clear in the case of colors; for no special color could be predicated of it so that it might be said to be white or black or have some other color; because, according to this, that color would necessarily be unmixed with other things. Nor, similarly, could color in general be predicated of it so that it might be said to be colored; because everything of which a generic term is predicated must also have a specific term predicated of it, whether the predication be univocal or denominative. Hence, if that substance were colored, it would necessarily have some special color. But this is opposed to the foregoing statement. And the argument is similar with respect to “humors,” i.e., savors, and to all other things of this kind. Hence the primary genera themselves could not be predicated of it in such a way that it would have quality or quantity or some attribute of this kind. For if these genera were predicated of it, some particular species would necessarily belong to it. But this is impossible, if all things are held to be mixed together. For this species which would be predicated of that substance would already be distinguished from the others. And this is the true nature of matter, namely, that it does not have any form actually but is in potentiality to all forms. For the mixed body itself does not have actually any of the things which combine in its mixture, but has them only potentially. And it is because of this likeness between prime matter and what is mixed that he seems to have posited the above mixture; although there is some difference between the potentiality of matter and that of a mixture. For even though the elements which constitute a mixture are present in the mixture potentially, they are still not present in a state of pure passive potency; for they remain virtually in the mixture. This can be shown from the fact that a mixture has motion and operations as a result of the bodies of which the Mixture is composed. But this cannot be said of the things which are present potentially in prime matter. And there is also another difference, namely, that even though a mixture is not actually any of the mixed bodies which it contains, yet it is something actual. This cannot be said of prime matter. But Anaxagoras seems to do away with this difference, because he has not posited any particular mixture but the universal mixture of all things.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 17 Secundo, subtilius caeteris dixit, quia magis accessit ad verum cognitionem primi principii agentis. Dixit enim omnia esse permixta praeter intellectum; et hunc dixit solum esse impermixtum et purum.	197. The second reason is this: he spoke more subtly than the others, because he came closer to a true understanding of the first active principle. For he said that all things are mixed together except intellect, and that this alone is unmixed and pure.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 18 Ex quibus patet, quod ipse posuit duo esse principia, et ipsum intellectum posuit esse unum, secundum quod ipse est simplex et impermixtus; et alterum principium posuit materiam primam, quam ponimus sicut indeterminatam, antequam determinetur, et antequam aliquam speciem participet. Materia enim, cum sit infinitarum formarum, determinatur per formam, et per eam consequitur aliquam speciem.	198. From these things it is clear that he posited two principles: one of these he claimed to be the intellect itself, insofar as it is simple and unmixed with other things; and the other is prime matter, which we claim is like the indeterminate before it is limited and participates in a form. For since [prime] matter is [the subject] of an infinite number of forms, it is limited by a form and acquires some species by means of it.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 19 Patet igitur quod Anaxagoras secundum illa quae exprimit, nec dixit recte, nec plene. Tamen videbatur directe dicere aliquid propinquius opinionibus posteriorum, quae sunt veriores, scilicet opinioni Platonis et Aristotelis qui recte de materia prima senserunt, quae quidem opiniones tunc erant magis apparentes.	199. It is clear, then, that, in regard to the things which he stated expressly, Anaxagoras neither spoke correctly nor clearly. Yet he would seem to say something directly which comes closer to the opinions of the later philosophers, which are truer (namely, to those of Plato and Aristotle, whose judgments about prime matter were correct) and which were then more apparent.
lib. 1 l. 12 n. 20 Ultimo excusat se Aristoteles a perscrutatione diligentiori harum opinionum, quia sermones dictorum philosophorum sunt proprii sermonibus naturalibus, ad quos pertinet tractare de generatione et corruptione. Ipsi enim fere posuerunt principia et causas talis substantiae, scilicet materialis et corruptibilis. Dicit autem fere, quia de aliis substantiis non tractabant, quamvis quaedam principia ab eis posita possent ad alia etiam extendere, ut patet de intellectu maxime. Quia igitur non posuerunt principia communia omnibus substantiis, quod pertinet ad istam scientiam, sed principia solum substantiarum corruptibilium, quod pertinet ad scientiam naturalem; ideo diligens inquisitio de praedictis opinionibus magis pertinet ad scientiam naturalem quam ad istam.	200. In concluding Aristotle excuses himself from a more diligent investigation of these opinions, because the statements of these philosophers belong to the realm of physical discussions, which treat of generation and corruption. For these men usually posited principles and causes of this kind of substance, i.e., of material and corruptible substance. He says “usually,” because, while they did not treat other substances, certain of the principles laid down by them can also be extended to other substances. This is most evident in the case of intellect. Therefore, since they have not posited principles common to all substances, which pertains to this science, but only principles of corruptible substances, which pertains to the philosophy of nature, a diligent study of the foregoing opinions belongs rather to the philosophy of nature than to this science.