Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber1/lect4

Lecture 4

Latin	English
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 1 Posito prooemio, in quo ostendit intentionem huius scientiae et dignitatem et terminum, incipit prosequi scientiam praefatam: et dividitur in duas partes. Primo ostendit quid priores philosophi de causis rerum tradiderunt. Secundo veritatem huius scientiae incipit prosequi in secundo libro, ibi, de veritate quidem theoria et cetera. Prima autem pars dividitur in duas. Primo ponit opiniones philosophorum de causis rerum. Secundo improbat eas quantum ad hoc quod male dixerunt ibi, ergo quicumque et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo resumit enumerationem causarum, quam in secundo physicorum diffusius fuerat prosecutus. Secundo prosequitur opinionem philosophorum, ibi, accipiemus tamen et cetera.	69. Having set forth a preface in which he indicates the aim of this science, its dignity and goal, Aristotle begins to deal with this science; and this is divided into two parts. In the first (70), he explains what the first philosophers had to say about the causes of things. In the second (274), he begins to pursue the truth of this science. He does this in Book II (“Theoretical, i.e., speculative, knowledge”). The first part is divided into two members. First, he gives the opinions of the philosophers about the causes of things. Second (181), he criticizes them insofar as their statements are unsatisfactory (“Therefore all those”). In regard to the firsthe does two things. First, he takes up again the enumeration of causes which was treated in greater detail in Book II of the Physics. Second (72), he presents the opinions of the philosophers (“However, let us examine”). The four causes, & three characteristics of final cause
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 2 Dicit ergo, quod quia hoc manifestum est, scilicet quod sapientia est causarum speculatrix, debemus incipere a causis rerum scientiam sumendo. Quod etiam ex ratione scientiae congruum videtur; quia tunc unumquodque scire dicimus aliquem, quando putamus non ignorare causam. Causae autem quadrupliciter dicuntur: quarum una est ipsa causa formalis, quae est ipsa substantia rei, per quam scitur quid est unaquaeque res. Constat enim, ut dictum est secundo physicorum, quod non dicimus aliquid esse alicuius naturae priusquam acceperit formam. Et quod forma sit causa, patet; quia quaestionem qua dicitur quare est aliquid, reducimus tamquam ad rationem ultimam ad causam formalem, incipiendo a formis proximis et procedendo usque ad ultimam. Patet autem, quod quare quaerit de causa et principio. Unde patet quod forma est causa. Alia vero causa est materialis. Tertia vero causa est efficiens, quae est unde principium motus. Quarta causa est finalis, quae opponitur causae efficienti secundum oppositionem principii et finis. Nam motus incipit a causa efficiente, et terminatur ad causam finalem. Et hoc est etiam cuius causa fit aliquid, et quae est bonum uniuscuiusque naturae.	70. Accordingly, he says, first, that since it is evident that wisdom speculates about causes, we ought to begin by acquiring knowledge from the causes of things. This also seems to be in keeping with the intelligible structure of science, because we say that we know each thing scientifically when we think we are not ignorant of its cause. Now causes are spoken of in four ways. (1) One of these is the formal cause, which is the very substance of a thing by which we know what each thing is. For it is well known, as is stated in Book II of the Physics, that we do not say that anything has a nature before it has received a form. Now it is clear that a form is a cause, because the question “Why is something so?” we reduce to its formal cause as its ultimate explanation, beginning with proximate forms and proceeding to the ultimate form. But evidently the “why?” asks about a cause and principle. Hence it is evident that a form is a cause. (2) A second cause is the material cause. (3) A third is the efficient cause, which is the source of motion. (4) A fourth is the final cause, which is opposite to the efficient cause as a goal is to a starting-point; for motion begins with the efficient cause and terminates with the final cause. This [latter] cause is also that for the sake of which a thing comes to be, and the good of each nature.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 3 Sic igitur causam finalem per tria notificat; scilicet quia est terminus motus, et per hoc opponitur principio motus, quod est causa efficiens: et quia est primum in intentione, ratione cuius dicitur cuius causa: et quia est per se appetibile, ratione cuius dicitur bonum. Nam bonum est quod omnia appetunt. Unde exponens quo modo causa finalis efficienti opponatur, dicit quod est finis generationis et motus, quorum principium est causa efficiens. Per quae duo videtur duplicem finem insinuare. Nam finis generationis est forma ipsa, quae est pars rei. Finis autem motus est aliquid quaesitum extra rem quae movetur. De his dicit sufficienter se tractasse in libro physicorum, ne ab eo ad praesens diffusior expositio causarum quaereretur.	71. He makes the final cause known by three considerations: (1) It is the goal of motion, and thus is opposite to the source of motion, which is the efficient cause. (2) It is first in intention, and for this reason is said to be that for the sake of which [something is done]. (3) It is desirable of itself, and for this reason is called a good; for the good is what all desire. Hence, in explaining how the final cause is opposite to the efficient cause, he says that it is the goal [or end] of every process of generation and motion, whose starting-point is the efficient cause. By these two types of change he seems to imply that there is a twofold goal: (1) For the goal of a process of generation is the form itself, which is a part of a thing. (2) But the goal of motion is something sought for outside the thing moved. He says that he has treated these causes at sufficient length in the Physics, lest he should be asked to make a more extensive treatment of them.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit accipiemus tamen hic ponit opinionem philosophorum de causis. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo assignat rationem, quare hoc faciendum sit. Secundo incipit prosequi suam intentionem, ibi, primum igitur et cetera. Dicit ergo, quod quamvis de causis tractatum sit in physicis, tamen nunc accipiendum est opiniones philosophorum, qui prius venerunt ad perscrutandum naturam entium, qui prius philosophati sunt de veritate quam Aristoteles; quia et ipsi causas et principium ponunt. Nobis igitur, qui eis supervenimus, considerare eorum opiniones, erit aliquid prius, idest aliquod praeambulum, methodo, idest in arte, quae nunc a nobis quaeritur. Unde et litera Boetii habet, accedentibus igitur ad opus scientiae prae opere viae quae nunc est aliquid erit: alia litera habet, supervenientibus igitur quae nunc est aliquid erit vitae opus via, et legenda est sic, nobis igitur supervenientibus ei, quae nunc est via, idest in praesenti methodo et arte, consideranda erit horum opinio, quasi aliquod vitae opus, idest necessarium sicut opera quae sunt ad vitae conservationem, ut intelligatur quasi quadam metaphora uti in loquendo, per vitae opus, quodlibet necessarium accipiens. Utilitas autem est illa, quia aut ex praedictis eorum inveniemus aliud genus a causis praenumeratis, aut magis credemus his, quae modo diximus de causis, quod, scilicet sint quatuor.	72. However, let us examine (35). Here he states what the philosophers had to say about the causes; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he gives the reasons why this must be done; and, second (36:C 73), he begins to carry out his plan ("Most of those"). Accordingly, he says that even though there is a treatise on the causes in the Physics it is still necessary to consider the opinions of the philosophers who first undertook an investigation of the natures of existing things, and have philosophized about the truth before him; because they too set down causes and principles. Therefore, for us who have come later, a consideration of their opinions will be "a first [step]," or preamble, "to the investigation," i.e., to the art which we are now seeking. Hence the text of Boethius also says: "Therefore as we enter upon the task of this science, their opinions will constitute a prearn ble to the road that is now to be travelled." Another text has: "Therefore to us who are beginning this inquiry it will be a certain vital work in the investigation that now confronts us, " and it must be read in this way: "Therefore, as we enter upon our present course," i.e., upon the present study and art, it will be necessary to consider the opinion of these men "as a work of life," that is to say, as necessary, like works which are done for the preservation of life, so that this reading is interpreted as a metaphorical way of speaking, meaning by "work of life" anything necessary. Now this is useful, because from the opinions of these men we will either discover another class of causes over and above those already enumerated, or be more convinced of the things that have just been stated about the causes, namely, that there are four classes of them.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit primum igitur hic incipit antiquorum philosophorum opiniones prosequi; et circa hoc duo facit. Primo recitat aliorum opiniones. Secundo reprobat, ibi, ergo quicumque. Circa primum duo facit. Primo recitat singulorum opinionem de causis. Secundo colligit in summa quae dicta sunt, ibi, breviter igitur et cetera. Prima pars dividitur in duas. Prima ponit opiniones praetermittentium causam formalem. Secundo ponit opinionem Platonis, qui primo causam formalem posuit, ibi, post dictas vero philosophias et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit opinionem illorum, qui posuerunt principia aliquas res manifestas. Secundo illorum, qui adinvenerunt extrinseca principia, ibi, Leucippus et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo tangit opiniones antiquorum de causa materiali. Secundo de causa efficiente, ibi, procedentibus autem sic. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit quid senserunt de causa materiali. Et primo ponit opiniones ponentium causam materialem in generali. Secundo prosequitur eorum opiniones in speciali, ibi, Thales et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit quid senserunt de causa materiali. Secundo quid senserunt de rerum generatione, quod ex primo sequebatur, ibi, et propter hoc nec generari et cetera.	73. Most of those (36). Here he begins to deal with the opinions of the ancient philosophers; and in regard to this he does two things. First (36), he states their opinions; and, second (86:C 181) he finds fault with them ("Therefore all those"). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he states the opinions which each one of the philosophers held about the causes. Second (79:C 170, he summarizes the discussion ("We have examined"). The first part is divided into two members. In the first (36:C 74), he gives the opinions of those who omitted the formal cause. In the second (69:C 151), he gives the opinion of Plato, who was the first to posit a formal cause ("After the philosophies"). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he gives the opinion of those who claimed that certain evident things are principles. Second (55:C , 12), he gives the opinions of those who devised extrinsic principles ("Leucippus"). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he touches on the opinions which the ancient philosophers held about the material cause; and, second (45:C 93), on their opinions about the efficient cause ("But as men"). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he states in a general way the views of those who posited a material cause. Second (38:C 77), he examines their views in detail ("Thales, the originator"). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he states their opinions about the material cause. Second (37:C 75), he states their opinions about the generation of things, which follow from the first ("And for this reason").
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 6 Dicit ergo primo, quod plurimi eorum qui primo philosophati sunt de rerum naturis, posuerunt principia omnium esse sola illa, quae reducuntur ad speciem causae materialis. Et ad hoc dicendum accipiebant quatuor conditiones materiae, quae ad rationem principii pertinere videntur. Nam id ex quo res est, principium rei esse videtur: huiusmodi autem est materia; nam ex materia dicimus materiatum esse, ut ex ferro cultellum. Item illud ex quo fit aliquid, cum sit et principium generationis rei, videtur esse causa rei, quia res per generationem procedit in esse. Ex materia autem primo res fit, quia materia rerum factioni praeexistit. Et ex ipsa etiam non per accidens aliquid fit. Nam ex contrario vel privatione aliquid per accidens dicitur fieri, sicut dicimus quod ex nigro sit album. Tertio illud videtur esse rerum principium, in quod finaliter omnia per corruptionem resolvuntur. Nam sicut principia sunt prima in generatione, ita sunt ultima in resolutione. Et hoc etiam materiae manifeste contingit. Quarto, cum principia oportet manere, id videtur esse principium, quod in generatione et corruptione manet. Materia autem, quam dicebant esse substantiam rei, manet in omni transmutatione; sed passiones mutantur, ut forma, et omnia quae adveniunt supra substantiam materiae. Et ex his omnibus concludebant, quod materia est elementum et principium omnium eorum quae sunt.	74. Accordingly he says, first (36), that most of those who first philosophized about the natural world held that the principles of all things are merely those which are referred to the class of material cause. In regard to this it must be said that they took the four conditions of matter which seem to belong to the notion of a principle. For, (1) that of which a thing is composed seems to be a principle of that thing. But matter is such a thing; for we say that a thing that has matter is of its matter, as a knife is of iron. (2) That from which a thing comes to be, being also a principle of the process of generation of that thing, seems to be one of its causes, because a thing comes into being by way of generation. But a thing first comes to be from matter, because the matter of things precedes their production. And a thing does not come from matter in an accidental way; for a thing is generated in an accidental way from its contrary or privation, as when we say that white comes from black. (3) Third, that into which all things are ultimately dissolved by corruption seems to be a principle of things. For just as principles are first in the process of generation, in a similar way they are last in the process of dissolution; and obviously this too pertains to matter. (4) Fourth, since a principle must remain in existence, then that which remains throughout the process of generation and corruption seems to be a principle. Now the matter which they said is the substance of a thing remains throughout every transmutation, although its attributes, such as its form and everything that accrues to it over and above its material substance, are changed. From all these considerations they concluded that matter is the element and principle of all beings.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit et propter hic ponit secundarium quod ponebant quasi ex praecedentibus sequens, scilicet nihil simpliciter generari vel corrumpi in entibus. Nam quando fit aliqua mutatio circa passiones substantia manente, non dicimus aliquid esse generatum vel corruptum simpliciter, sed solum secundum quid: sicut cum Socrates fit bonus aut musicus, non dicitur fieri simpliciter, sed fieri hoc. Et similiter quando deponit huiusmodi habitum, non dicitur corrumpi simpliciter sed secundum quid. Materia autem quae est rerum substantia secundum eos, semper manet. Omnis autem mutatio fit circa aliqua quae adveniunt ei, ut passiones. Et ex hoc concludebant quod nihil generatur vel corrumpitur simpliciter, sed solum secundum quid.	75. And for this reason (37). Then he gives, as a secondary point, what they held as following from the above, namely, that in the world nothing is generated or corrupted in an absolute sense. For when some change occurs with regard to a thing’s attributes, and its substance remains unchanged, we do not say that it is generated or corrupted in an absolute sense, but only in a qualified one; for example, when Socrates becomes good or musical, we do not say that he simply comes to be, but comes to be this. And similarly when he loses a state of this kind, we do not say that he is corrupted in an absolute sense, but only in a qualified one. But matter, which is the substance of things according to them, always remains; and every change affects some of a thing’s accidents, such as its attributes. From this they concluded that nothing is generated or corrupted in an absolute sense, but only in a qualified one.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 8 Quamvis autem sic convenirent in ponendo causam materialem, tamen differebant in eius positione quantum ad duo: scilicet quantum ad pluralitatem: quia quidam ponebant unam, quidam plures: et quantum ad speciem, quia quidam ponebant ignem, quidam aquam et cetera. Similiter ponentium plura, quidam haec, quidam illa principia materialia rebus attribuebant.	76. Yet even though they all agreed on this point, in positing a material cause, nevertheless they differed in their position in two respects: first, with respect to the number of material causes, because some held that there is one, and others many; and second, with respect to its nature, because some held that it is fire, others water, and so on. Similarly, among those who posited many material causes, some assigned certain ones as the material principles of things, and some the others.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit Thales quidem. Hic incipit recitare opiniones singulorum, de causa materiali. Et primo ponit opinionem ponentium unam causam materialem. Secundo ponentium plures, ibi, Empedocles vero. Circa primum tria facit. Quia primo ponit opinionem ponentium aquam esse principium omnium. Secundo ponentium aerem, ibi, Anaximenes et cetera. Tertio ponentium ignem, ibi, Hyppasus et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit opinionem Thaletis, qui dicebat aquam esse rerum principium. Secundo ponit opinionis probationem, ibi, forsan enim et cetera. Dicit ergo, quod Thales princeps talis philosophiae, idest speculativae, dixit aquam esse primum rerum principium. Dicitur autem Thales speculativae philosophiae princeps fuisse, quia inter septem sapientes, qui post theologos poetae fuerunt, ipse solus ad considerandum rerum causas se transtulit, aliis sapientibus circa moralia occupatis. Nomina septem sapientum sunt ista. Primus Thales Milesius tempore Romuli, et apud Hebraeos tempore Achaz regis Israel. Secundus fuit Pittacus Mitylenaeus, apud Hebraeos regnante Sedechia, et apud Romanos Tarquinio prisco. Alii quinque fuerunt Solon Atheniensis, Chilon Lacedaemonius, Periander Corinthius, Cleobulus Lydius, Bias Priennensis, qui fuerunt omnes tempore Babylonicae captivitatis. Quia igitur inter hos solus Thales rerum naturas scrutatus est, suasque disputationes literis mandans emicuit, ideo hic princeps huius scientiae dicitur.	77. Thales, the originator (38). Here he begins to give the opinions of each of the philosophers about the material cause. First, he gives the opinions of those who posited one material cause; and second (88), the opinions of those who posited many (“Empedocles”). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he gives the opinions of those who claimed that water is the principle of all things; second (86), he gives the opinion of those who made air the principle of things (“Anaximenes”); and third (87), the opinion of those who claimed that fire is the principle of things (“Hippasus”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he gives the opinion of Thales, who said that water is the principle of things; and second (79), the reason for this opinion (“For presumably”). He says then that Thales, the originator of this kind of philosophy, i.e., speculative philosophy, said that water is the first principle of all things. Thales is said to have been the originator of speculative philosophy because he was the only one of the seven wise men, who came after the theological poets, to make an investigation into the causes of things, the other sages being concerned with moral matters. The names of the seven wise men are as follows. The first was Thales of Miletus, who lived during the time of Romulus and when Achaz, King of Israel, was reigning over the Hebrews. The second was Pittacus of Mitylene, who lived when Sedecias was reigning over the Hebrews and when Tarquinius Priscus was reigning over the Romans. The other five sages were Solon of Athens, Chilo of Lacedaemon, Periander of Corinth, Cleobulus of Lydia, and Bias of Prienne, all of whom lived during the period of the Babylonian captivity. Hence, since Thales alone among these men investigated the natures of things and distinguished himself by committing his arguments to writing, he is described here as the originator of this science.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 10 Nec debet inconveniens videri, si opiniones hic tangit eorum, qui solum de scientia naturali tractaverunt; quia secundum antiquos qui nullam substantiam cognoverunt nisi corpoream et mobilem, oportebat quod prima philosophia esset scientia naturalis, ut in quarto dicetur. Ex hac autem positione ulterius procedebat ad hoc, quod terra esset super aquam fundata, sicut principiatum supra suum principium.	78. Nor should it be thought unfitting if he touches here on the opinions of those who have treated only the philosophy of nature; because according to the ancients, who knew no other substance except the corporeal and mobile, it was necessary that first philosophy be the philosophy of nature, as is stated in Book IV. And from this position Thales next adopted this one, that the earth rests upon water, as anything having a principle is based on its principle.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit forsan enim hic ponit rationes quibus Thales potuit induci ad praedictam positionem. Et primo ostendit quomodo ad hoc inducebatur ratione. Secundo quomodo inducebatur primorum auctoritate, ibi, sunt et aliqui antiquiores et cetera. Inducebatur autem duplici ratione. Una quae sumitur ex consideratione causae ipsius rei. Alia quae sumitur ex consideratione generationis rerum, ibi, et quia cunctorum et cetera. Haec ergo media sunt ordinata. Nam ex primo sequitur secundum. Quod enim est aliis principium essendi, est etiam primum principium ex quo res generantur. Tertium sequitur ex secundo. Nam unumquodque per corruptionem resolvitur in id ex quo generatum est. Quartum autem sequitur ex secundo et tertio. Nam quod praecedit generationem rerum, et remanet post corruptionem, oportet esse semper manens.	79. For presumably he took (39). Here he gives the reasons by which Thales could be led to the above position. First, he shows how he was led to this position by his own reasoning; and second (82), by the authority of his predecessors (“Moreover, there are some”). Now he was led by two lines of reasoning; one is taken from the cause itself of a thing, and the other from a consideration of the generation of things (“And on the fact”). Therefore these premises are related. For the second follows from the first, because that which is a principle of being of other things is also the first principle from which things are generated. The third follows from the second, because by corruption each thing is dissolved into that from which it was generated. The fourth follows from the second and the third; for that which precedes the generation of things and remains after they have been corrupted must always remain in being.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 12 Primo modo utebatur tribus signis ad ostendendum aquam esse principium essendi rebus: quorum primum est, quia nutrimentum viventium oportet esse humidum. Ex eodem autem viventia nutriuntur et sunt; et sic humor videtur esse principium essendi. Secundum signum est, quia esse cuiuslibet rei corporeae, et maxime viventis, per proprium et naturalem calorem conservatur: calor autem ex humore fieri videtur, cum ipse humor sit quasi caloris materia: unde ex hoc videtur quod humor sit rebus principium essendi. Tertium signum est, quia vita animalis in humido consistit. Unde propter desiccationem naturalis humidi, animal moritur, et per eius conservationem, animal sustentatur. Vivere autem viventibus est esse. Unde ex hoc etiam patet quod humor sit rebus principium essendi. Et haec etiam tria signa seinvicem consequuntur. Ideo enim animal humido nutritur, quia calor naturalis humido sustentatur; et ex his duobus sequitur, quod vivere animalis sit semper per humidum. Id autem ex quo aliquid fit, idest ex quo aliquid esse consequitur, est principium omnibus quae ex illo esse habent. Et propter hoc accepit hanc opinionem quod humor esset omnibus principium.	80. In the first line of reasoning he uses three indications to show that water is the principle of being of things. The first of these is that the nutriment of living things must be moist. But living things derive nourishment and being from the same principle; and thus moisture appears to be the principle of being of things. The second indication is that the being of any physical thing, and especially of a living one, is conserved by its proper and natural heat. But heat seems to be generated from moisture, since moisture itself is in a sense the matter of heat. Hence from this it appears that moisture is a principle of being of things. The third indication is that animal life depends on moisture. Hence an animal dies as a result of its natural moisture being dried up and is kept in existence as a result of its moisture being preserved. But in living things to live is to be. Hence it is also evident from this that moisture is a principle of being of things. These three indications also have a natural connection with one another. For an animal is nourished by moisture, because its natural heat is sustained by moisture. And from these two it follows that animal life is always due to moisture. But that from which a thing comes to be, i.e., from which a thing gets its being, is a principle of everything that derives being from it. And for this reason he adopted this opinion that moisture is the principle of all things.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 13 Similiter etiam accepit signum ex rerum generatione, quia generationes viventium, quae sunt nobilissima in entibus, fiunt ex seminibus. Semina autem sive spermata omnium viventium habent humidam naturam. Unde ex hoc etiam apparet, quod humor est generationis rerum principium. Si autem omnibus praedictis coniungatur quod aqua est humiditatis principium, sequitur quod aqua sit primum rerum principium.	81. In a similar way he also draws an indication of this from the generation of things, because the processes of generation of living things, which are the noblest of [natural] beings, come from seed. But the seed or spermata of all living things have a moist nature. Hence from this it also appears that moisture is a principle of generation of things. Again, if we add to all of the above points the fact that water is the principle of moisture, it follows that water is the first principle of things.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 14 Deinde cum dicit sunt autem hic ostendit quomodo Thales inducebatur ad praedictam positionem per auctoritates antiquorum. Et dicit quod aliqui fuerunt antiquiores Thalete et multum ante generationem hominum qui erant tempore Aristotelis, qui fuerunt primo theologizantes, qui visi sunt hanc opinionem de natura habuisse, scilicet quod aqua est principium omnium.	82. Moreover, there are (40). Here he shows how Thales was led to the above position by the authority of the ancients. He says that prior to Thales and many years before the men of Aristotle’s time there were some men, the first to speculate about the gods, who seem to have held this opinion about nature, namely, that water is the principle of all things.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 15 Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum est, quod apud Graecos primi famosi in scientia fuerunt quidam poetae theologi, sic dicti, quia de divinis carmina faciebant. Fuerunt autem tres, Orpheus, Museus et Linus, quorum Orpheus famosior fuit. Fuerunt autem tempore, quo iudices erant in populo Iudaeorum. Unde patet, quod diu fuerunt ante Thaletem, et multo magis ante Aristotelem qui fuit tempore Alexandri. Isti autem poetae quibusdam aenigmatibus fabularum aliquid de rerum natura tractaverunt. Dixerunt enim quod Oceanus, ubi est maxima aquarum aggregatio, et Thetis, quae dicitur dea aquarum, sunt parentes generationis: ex hoc sub fabulari similitudine dantes intelligere aquam esse generationis principium.	83. With a view to making this clear, we must bear in mind that among the Greeks the first who were famous for their learning were certain theological poets, so called because of the songs which they wrote about the gods. These poets, who were three in number, Orpheus, Museus and Linus, of whom Orpheus was the more famous, lived during the time when the judges ruled over the Jewish people. Hence it is dear that they lived long before Thales and much longer before Aristotle, who lived during the time of Alexander. These poets dealt to some extent with the nature of things by means of certain figurative representations in myths. For they said that Oceanus [i.e., the ocean], where the greatest aggregation of waters is found, and Tethys, which is the name they gave to the goddess of the waters, are the parents of generation, implying by this, under the form of a myth, that water is the principle of generation.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 16 Hanc sententiam alia fabulosa narratione velaverunt, dicentes, quod sacramentum vel iuramentum deorum erat per aquam quamdam, quam poetae dicunt Stygem, et dicunt eam esse paludem infernalem. Ex hoc autem quod deos dicebant iurare per aquam, dederunt intelligere, quod aqua erat nobilior ipsis deis, quia sacramentum vel iuramentum fit id quod est honorabilius. Hos autem quod est prius, est honorabilius. Perfectum enim praecedit imperfectum natura et tempore simpliciter, licet in uno aliquo imperfectio perfectionem praecedat tempore. Unde per hoc patet quod aquam existimabant priorem esse ipsis diis, quos intelligebant esse corpora caelestia. Et quia isti antiquissimi aquam dixerunt esse rerum principium, si aliqua opinio fuit prior ista de naturalibus, non est nobis manifesta. Sic igitur patet quid Thales de prima causa rerum dicitur existimasse.	84. They cloaked this view in another fabulous story, saying that the oath or vow of the gods was by a certain body of water, which the poets call Styx and describe as an underground swamp. And when they said that the gods swore by water, they implied that water was nobler than the gods themselves, because an oath or vow is taken on what is most honorable. Now that which is prior is more honorable; for the perfect is prior absolutely to the imperfect, both in nature and in time, although in a particular being imperfection is prior temporally to perfection. Hence, from this it is evident that they thought that water is prior to the gods themselves, whom they thought to be celestial bodies. And since these earliest thinkers said that water is the principle of things, if there was any opinion about natural bodies prior to theirs, we do not know what it was. Thus what Thales is said to have thought about the first cause of things is now clear.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 17 Quidam autem philosophus, qui vocatur Hyppon, non fuit dignatus aliquid superaddere his propter suae scientiae vel intelligentiae imperfectionem. Unde in libro de anima ponitur inter grossiores, ubi dicitur quod posuit aquam esse animam et principium rerum, sumens argumentum ex rerum seminibus, ut hic dictum est de Thalete. Unde patet quod nihil addit supra Thaletis sententiam. Vel potest intelligi quod quia imperfecte dixit, non reddidit se dignum, ut eius sententia hic contineretur cum aliis.	85. A certain philosopher named Hippo was not credited with adding anything to those mentioned because of the imperfection of his knowledge or understanding. Hence, in The Soul, Hippo is placed among the ruder [thinkers]; for in that work it is stated that Hippo, basing his argument on the seeds of things, as was said here of Thales, held water to be the soul and principle of things. Hence it is clear that he adds nothing to Thales’ view. Or the statement can mean that, since he spoke imperfectly, he did not make himself worthy to have his doctrine included here with the others.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 18 Deinde cum dicit Anaximenes autem hic ponuntur opiniones ponentium aerem esse principium, qui fuerunt Diogenes et Anaximenes ponentes aerem priorem aqua esse naturaliter, et principium omnium simplicium corporum, scilicet quatuor elementorum, et per consequens omnium aliorum. Fuit autem Anaximenes tertius a Thalete. Fuit autem discipulus Anaximandri, qui fuit discipulus Thaletis. Diogenes vero discipulus Anaximenis fuisse dicitur. Haec tamen differentia fuit inter opinionem Diogenis et Anaximenis: quia Anaximenes aerem simpliciter posuit principium rerum, Diogenes autem dixit quod aer rerum principium esse non posset, nisi quia compos erat divinae rationis. Ex quo provenit opinio quae tangitur primo de anima. Ratio autem quare aerem ponebat rerum principium, potuit sumi ex respiratione, per quam vita animalium reservatur; et quia ex immutatione aeris videntur variari generationes et corruptiones rerum.	86. Anaxinienes and Diogenes (41). Here he gives the opinions of those who held that air is the principle of things, namely, Diogenes and Anaximenes, who held that air is naturally prior to water and is the principle of all simple bodies, i.e., of the four elements, and thus of all other things. Anaximenes is the third philosopher after Thales and the disciple of Anaximander, who was the disciple of Thales; and Diogenes is said to have been the disciple of Anaximenes. Yet there is this difference between the opinion of Diogenes and that of Anaximenes: Artaximenes held that air is the principle of things in an absolute sense, whereas Diogenes said that air could be the principle of things only if it possessed a divine nature. From this comes the opinion which is touched on in The Soul, Book I. Now the reason why he held that air is the principle of things could be taken from the process of respiration, by which the life of animals is conserved, and because the processes whereby things are generated and corrupted seem to be modified as a result of changes in the air.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 19 Deinde cum dicit Hyppasus autem hic ponit quod duo philosophi Hyppasus et Heraclitus posuerunt ignem esse primum principium ut materiam. Et potuerunt moveri ex eius subtilitate, sicut infra dicetur.	87. Hippasus of Metopontium (42). Here he states that the two philosophers, Hippasus and Heraclitus, held that fire is the material principle of things. And they could have been influenced by its subtileness, as is said below.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 20 Deinde cum dicit Empedocles vero hic ponit opiniones ponentium plura principia materialia. Et primo Empedoclis, qui posuit plura finita. Secundo Anaxagorae, qui posuit plura infinita, ibi, Anaxagoras vero et cetera. Ponit ergo primo, opinionem Empedoclis quantum ad hoc quod tria praedicta elementa, scilicet aquam, aerem et ignem dicit esse rerum principia, addens eis quartum, scilicet terram.	88. Empedocles (43). Here he gives the opinions of those who posited many material principles. First, he gives the opinion of Empedocles, who held that there are a limited number of such principles; and second 90), that of Anaxagoras, who held that there are an infinite number (“Anaxagoras”). First (43), he gives Empedocles’ opinion regarding the three elements mentioned above, water, air, and fire, which he says are the principles of things, adding to them a fourth, earth.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 21 Secundo quantum ad hoc, quod ista etiam elementa dixit semper manere et non generari nec corrumpi, sicut illi qui posuerunt unam causam materialem; sed per congregationem horum et divisionem secundum multitudinem et paucitatem dixit ex eis alia generari et corrumpi, inquantum ista quatuor per concretionem in unum et disgregationem ex uno dividuntur.	89. Second, he gives Empedocles’ opinion about the permanence of these elements; for, like those who hold that there is one material cause, he holds that these elements always remain and are neither generated nor corrupted. However, he said that other things are generated from and dissolved into these elements according as a greater or smaller number of them are combined or separated out, i.e., inasmuch as these four are united by the process of combination and lose their unity by the process of separation.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 22 Deinde cum dicit Anaxagoras vero hic ponit opinionem Anaxagorae, qui fuit alter discipulus Anaximenis, qui fuit condiscipulus Diogenis: patria quidem Clazomenius, prior aetate quam Empedocles, sed factis sive operibus posterior, vel quia posterius philosophari incoepit, vel quia in numero principiorum minus bene dixit quam Empedocles. Dixit enim principia materialia esse infinita, cum sit dignius finita principia et pauciora accipere, quod fecit Empedocles, ut dicitur in primo physicorum. Non enim solum dixit principia rerum esse ignem et aquam et alia elementa, sicut Empedocles; sed omnia quae sunt consimilium partium, ut caro, os, medulla et similia, quorum infinitas minimas partes principia rerum posuit, ponens in unoquoque infinitas partes singulorum inesse propter id quod in inferioribus unum ex alio generari posse invenit, cum generationem rerum non diceret esse nisi per separationem a mixto, ut planius explicavit primo physicorum.	90. Anaxagoras (44). Here he gives the opinion of Anaxagoras, who was the other disciple of Anaximenes and the classmate of Diogenes. A native of Clazomenae, he was prior to Empedocles in years but later in his activity or work, either because he began to philosophize later, or because his explanation of the number of principles is less satisfactory than that of Empedocles. For he said that there are an infinite number of material principles, whereas it is better to take a limited and smaller number, as Empedocles did, as is stated in Book I of the Physics. For Anaxagoras not only said that fire, water, and the other elements are the principles of things, as Empedocles did, but also claimed that all things having like parts, such as flesh, bones, marrow and so forth, whose smallest parts are infinite in number, are the principles of things. For he claimed that in each being there are an infinite number of parts of each type of thing, because he found that in the case of inferior things one of these can be generated from another. He said, in fact, that things could be generated only by being separated out from a mixture, as Aristotle has explained more fully in the Physics, Book I.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 23 Secundo etiam Anaxagoras convenit cum Empedocle in hoc, scilicet quod generatio et corruptio rerum non est nisi per concretionem et discretionem partium praedictarum infinitarum, et quod aliter nec generari nec corrumpi contingit aliquid. Sed huiusmodi rerum principia infinita, ex quibus rerum substantiae efficiuntur, permanere dixit sempiterna.	91. Second, Anaxagoras also agrees with Empedocles on this point, namely, that things are generated and corrupted only insofar as the parts of these infinite principles are combined or separated out, and that if this were not the case nothing would be generated or corrupted. But he said that the infinite number of principles of this kind, from which the substances of things are produced, always remain in being.
lib. 1 l. 4 n. 24 Concludit ergo Aristoteles quod ex praedictis philosophorum opinionibus aliquis cognoscet solam causam, quae continetur sub specie causae materialis.	92. From the opinions of these philosophers, then, Aristotle concludes that the only cause which these men recognized was the one which belongs to the class of material cause.