Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber11/lect8

Lecture 8

Latin	English
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 1 Postquam philosophus recollegit ea quae praedicta erant de consideratione huius scientiae, hic incipit recolligere ea quae dicta sunt tam in sexto huius, quam in libro physicorum de ente imperfecto. Et primo de ente per accidens. Secundo de motu, ibi, est autem. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit ea quae dicta sunt de ente per accidens. Secundo ea quae dicta sunt de causa per accidens, ibi, quod autem gratiae huius. Circa primum duo facit. Primo dicit de quo est intentio; dicens quod quia ens simpliciter, idest communiter acceptum multis modis dicitur, inter quos unus modus est secundum quod dicitur ens per accidens, ut puta cum dicimus musicum esse album, quae quidem in quinto superius manifesta sunt: prius quam dicatur de ente per se, considerandum est de ente per accidens; ut huiusmodi ente remoto, absolutior fiat sermo de ente per se.	2268. After having restated in a summary way the points that were discussed before with regard to this science’s field of study, here the Philosopher begins to summarize the things that were said about imperfect being both in Book VI (543-559:C 1171-1244) of this work and in the Physics. He does this, first (963:C 2268), with regard to accidental being; and second (974:C 2289), with regard to motion (“One thing”). In treating the first member of this division he does two things. First, he states the things that have been said about accidental being. Second (969:C 2284), he states those that pertain to an accidental cause (“And that for the sake”). In regard to the first he does two things. First (963), he points out what he intends to do. He says that, since, “being in its unqualified sense,” i.e., taken in general, has many meanings, of which one is the accidental (as when we say, for example, that the musician is white), and these have been explained above in Book V (435-39:C 885-97), we ought to consider accidental being before we deal with essential being, so that when this kind of being has been disposed of we may speak in a more positive way of essential being.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit quod quidem secundo prosequitur quod proposuit. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit quod ad nullam scientiam pertinet considerare de ente per accidens. Secundo removet huiusmodi ens, et ens quod significat veritatem propositionis, a consideratione huius scientiae, ibi, quod autem ut vere. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quod nulla scientia considerat de ente per accidens. Secundo, quod nec considerare potest, ibi, quod autem neque contingens. Circa primum duo facit. Primo inducendo manifestat quod nulla scientia considerat de ente per accidens; dicens manifestum esse quod nulla scientia tradita a nobis negociatur circa accidens.	2269. Now it is evident (964). Second, he proceeds to carry out his plan; and in regard to this he does two things. First (964:C 2269), he shows that the consideration of accidental being belongs to no science. Second (968:C 2283), he excludes both this kind of being and the being which signifies the truth of a proposition from this science’s field of study (“Regarding being”). In treating the first he does two things. First, he shows that no science considers accidental being; and second (966:C 2276), that none can do so (“That it is impossible”). In regard to the first he does two things. First (964), he shows by a process of elimination that no science considers accidental being. He says that no one of the sciences treated by us is concerned with the accidental.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 3 Non autem accipitur hic accidens pro eo quod est in aliquo genere accidentis, sicut albedo est quoddam accidens. Sunt enim multae scientiae quae circa huiusmodi accidentia sunt; quia huiusmodi accidentia, et secundum se habent speciem quamdam et causas determinatas in subiecto; et accidentia dicuntur, quia non per se, sed in alio habent esse. Accipitur autem hic accidens pro ente per accidens; sicut album esse musicum est per accidens. Huiusmodi enim neque aliquam speciem habent in se, neque aliquam causam determinatam. Et circa huiusmodi ens non negociatur aliqua scientia. Et hoc manifestat inducendo.	2270. Now accidental here does not mean something in one of the categories of accidents, in the sense that whiteness is an accident; for there are many sciences which deal with accidents of this kind, because such accidents have a certain species of themselves and certain determinate causes in their subject. And they are called accidents because they do not have being of themselves but exist in something else.—But here accidental means what happens accidentally; for example, it is accidental that a musician is white. For accidents of this kind do not have any species or any determinate cause. And no science is concerned with this kind of being. He proves this by induction.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 4 Ars enim aedificativa non considerat quid per accidens eveniat habitantibus in domo quam facit, utrum accidat eis aliquod triste, aut habitabunt ibi contrarie, idest prospere. Hoc enim accidit domui. Similiter ars textiva non considerat quid accidat utentibus panno texto; neque coriaria quid accidat utentibus calceis; neque coquinaria de his quae per accidens se habent ad cibum, puta quis eo utatur ad superfluitatem vel ad necessitatem tantum. Sed unaquaeque harum scientiarum considerat id quod solum est proprium sibi, et subiectum, et per se accidentia eius. Et in hoc est finis considerationis cuiuslibet scientiae.	2271. For the art of building does not consider what happens accidentally to the occupants of the house which it builds, whether they happen to experience some unhappiness there or live there “in the opposite way,” i.e., happily; for this is accidental to a house. Similarly, the art of weaving does not consider what happens to those who use the cloth which has been woven; nor does the art of shoemaking consider what happens to those who use shoes; nor does the art of cooking consider what happens to the food, for example, whether someone uses too much of it or just what is necessary. But each of these sciences considers only what is proper to itself, i.e., its subject and the properties of its subject. This is the goal of any science.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 5 Secundo ibi, neque inquantum assignat causam quare nulla scientia considerat ea quae per accidens sunt. Ratio enim est, quia quod per accidens est, non est proprie ens, sed magis non ens, sicut non est per se et proprie unum. Nam unum et ens convertuntur. Omnis autem scientia est de ente. Unde relinquitur quod nulla scientia sit de eo quod est per accidens.	2272. Further, no science (965). Second, he gives the reason why no science considers things which are accidental. It is because the accidental is not a being in the proper sense but is rather a non-being inasmuch as it is not essentially and properly one; for one and being are convertible. Now every science deals with being, and therefore it follows that no science is concerned with the accidental.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 6 Dicit ergo, quod musicus est etiam grammaticus, non inquantum est musicus. Et si contingat de aliquo qui sit musicus, quod fiat grammaticus, non simul factus est ambo, grammaticus scilicet et musicus, cum prius non fuerit utrumque. Sed si aliquod ens est modo, et non fuit semper ens, oportet quod sit factum. Si igitur hoc quod dico - musicus est grammaticus - est quoddam ens, cum non semper fuerit, sequitur quod simul sit utrumque factum, scilicet musicum et album; quia cuiuslibet entis est aliqua generatio. Unde, cum non simul facta sint, manifestum est quod hoc totum quod est musicum grammaticum, non est aliquod unum et ens.	2273. Hence he says that a musician is also a grammarian, but not inasmuch as he is a musician. And if it happens that one who is a musician becomes a grammarian, he has become both at the same time, i.e., both a grammarian and a musician, although he was not so before. But if some being exists now and was not always a being, it must have come to be. Therefore, if “a musician grammarian” is a kind of being, since it did not always exist it must have become both at the same time, i.e., both a musician and a grammarian, because any being admits of some generation. Hence, since these have not come to be at the same time, it is evident that this whole—a musician-grammarian—is not one being.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 7 Nec est instantia de hoc quod in generatione substantiarum praeexistit materia, quae est ingenita; quia forma non fit proprie, sed compositum, ut in septimo probatum est. Materia autem praeexistit non quasi ens actu, sed potentia tantum. Hic autem musicus praeexistit in actu. Cum igitur ille qui erat musicus fit grammaticus, est generatio grammatici tantum, non autem totius, quod est musicum grammaticum. Unde hoc totum non est aliquid unum et ens.	2274. Nor should it be urged that matter, which is ungenerated, has existence prior to the generation of substances; for it is not the form that properly comes to be but the composite, as has been proved in Book VII (611:C 1423). Now matter does not have prior existence as an actual being but only as a potential one. But here the musician has actual prior existence. Therefore, since he who was a musician has become a grammarian, only a grammarian has come to be, and not the whole-a grammarian musician. Hence this whole is not one being.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 8 Et propter hoc, nulla scientia, quae est vere scientia, et certitudinem habet, considerat de ente per accidens. Sed sola sophistica circa ipsum negociatur, et ad decipiendum utitur eo quod est per accidens, ac si per se esset. Unde fit fallacia accidentis, quae est efficacissima ad decipiendum etiam sapientem, ut dicitur in primo elenchorum. Unde Plato non male dixit, dicens quod versatur circa non ens, quia versatur circa ens per accidens.	2275. For this reason no science that is truly a science and attains certainty is concerned with accidental being. Only sophistry deals with it; and it uses the accidental as though it were something of itself in order to deceive. From this there arises the fallacy of accident, which is most effective in deceiving even those who are wise, as is stated in Book I of the Sophistical Refutations. Hence Plato was not wrong in saying that sophistry is concerned with non-being, because it deals with the accidental.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit quod autem ostendit, quod etiam non possit esse consideratio alicuius scientiae de ente per accidens; et hoc dupliciter facit. Primo ex definitione de ente per accidens; dicens quod manifestum erit, quod non contingit esse scientiam de ente per accidens, si consideremus quid sit ens per accidens. Ad quod considerandum utitur quadam divisione trimembri: dicens quod eorum quae dicuntur esse, quaedam sunt semper et ex necessitate: non quidem secundum quod necessitas pro violentia sumitur, sed secundum quod utimur necessitate in demonstrationibus, puta dicentes necessarium esse quod triangulus habet tres angulos aequales duobus; sic enim necessarium dicimus quod impossibile est non esse. Quaedam vero sunt ut in pluribus, sicut quod homo nascatur cum quinque digitis in manibus: hoc enim non semper est ex necessitate, cum contingat aliquem nasci cum sexto digito; sed est ut in pluribus. Quaedam vero nec sunt ut in pluribus, neque semper ex necessitate, sed contingenter eveniunt; sicut si frigus fiat sub cane, idest in diebus canicularibus. Sed non semper et ex necessitate neque in pluribus, sed tamen quandoque accidit etiam huiusmodi ens. Quia autem raro accidit, et non semper et ex necessitate, neque ut in pluribus, vocatur ens per accidens.	2276. That it is impossible (966). He shows that it is impossible for any science to consider accidental being, and he does this in two ways. First, he proceeds from the definition of accidental being. He says that, if we consider what accidental being is, it will be evident that there can be no science of it. With a view to proving his point he makes a tripartite division. He says that of things which are said to be there are some which are always and of necessity (not necessity in the sense of force, but in the sense used in demonstrations, as when we say that a triangle necessarily has three angles equal to two right angles; for we use the term necessary in this way to mean what cannot be otherwise). There are others which are for the most part; for example, a man is born with five fingers on each hand. This does not happen always, since it does happen that some are born with six fingers, but it does happen for the most part. And there are others which are neither always and of necessity nor for the most part but are such as occur by chance; for example, “there might be cold weather during the dog days,” i.e., during the days of the dog-star. This occurs neither always and of necessity nor for the most part, though even this kind of being sometimes occurs. But since it happens rarely, and not always and of necessity or for the most part, it is called accidental being.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 10 Quae enim semper vel in pluribus contingunt, vel ita se habent quod unum est causa alterius; vel ambo reducuntur in unam causam quae per se est causa utriusque. Et utroque modo contingunt. Si quidem causa indeficienter producit effectum suum, erit quod dicitur ex necessitate. Si autem possunt deficere propter aliquod impedimentum, erit ut in pluribus.	2277. For things which occur either always or for the most part are such that one is the cause of the other or both are referred to one cause which is the proper cause of each. And they occur in both ways. If a cause produces its effect without fail, the effect will be one that is said to be of necessity. But if a cause can fail because of some obstacle, the effect will be one that occurs for the most part.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 11 Si autem ita sit quod duorum unum non sit causa alterius, neque habeant unam causam per se communem, quae coniungat ea simul, eorum coniunctio erit raro. Sicut in hoc quod dico musicum aedificare. Nam aedificationis causa non est a musica, sed ab arte aedificativa, quae est omnino alia a musica. Similiter est in praemisso exemplo. Nam quod sit fervor caloris sub cane, est a sole appropinquante nobis. Quod autem sit frigus, est ex aliqua alia causa, puta ex Saturno, aliquo modo coniuncto soli. Unde hoc est per accidens, quod sole dies caniculares faciente, frigus sit.	2278. But if it so happens in the case of two things that one is not the cause of the other and there is no single common proper cause which links them together, they will seldom be combined. Such is the case, for example, when we say “the musician builds”; for the cause of building is not the art of music but that of building, which differs completely from the art of music. The same thing is true of the previous example; for excessive heat during the dog days is a result of the sun moving closer to the earth; but that there should be cold weather at this time is a result of some other cause, such as Saturn’s being somehow connected with the sun. Hence, if there is cold weather during the dog days, which are caused by the sun, this is accidental.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 12 Sic igitur manifestum est quod est ens per accidens; quia neque quod est in maiori parte, neque quod est semper. Omnis autem scientia est de eo quod semper, aut in plus, ut probatum est in primo posteriorum. Unde manifestum est, quod scientia non potest esse de eo quod est per accidens.	2279. It is evident, then, that the accidental is what occurs neither always nor for the most part. But every science is concerned with what occurs either always or for the most part, as has been proved in Book I of the Posterior Analytics. Thus it is clear that there can be no science of the accidental.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 13 Secundo ibi, quod autem inducit, ad idem manifestandum, quod ens per accidens non habet causas et principia talia, qualia habet ens per se; et sic de eo non potest esse scientia, cum omnis scientia sit ex principiis et causis. Quod quidem sic probat. Quia si ens per accidens haberet per se causas, omnia essent ex necessitate. Entia enim per se talem causam habent, qua posita, de necessitate sequitur effectus. Et si aliqua causa sit ad quam non de necessitate sequitur effectus, sed ut in pluribus, hoc est propter impedimentum, quod per accidens contingit. Et sic, si ens per accidens tollatur a rebus, omnis causa per se, de necessitate inducet suum effectum. Sic ergo si ens per accidens de necessitate habet causam per se, qua posita ex necessitate sequitur effectus, licet forte eam poni non sit necessarium, nihilominus tamen sequitur quod omnia ex necessitate eveniant. Quod sic patet.	2280. It is also evident (967). Second, with a view to making the same point he says that accidental being has no causes and principles such as essential being has; and thus there can be no science of it, since every science is concerned with principles and causes.’He proves this as follows: if accidental being should have proper causes, everything would happen of necessity; for essential beings have a cause such that when it is placed the effect necessarily follows. And if there were some cause from which an effect did not follow of necessity but only for the most part, this would be a result of some obstacle, which can be accidental. If, then, accidental being had a necessary proper cause, so that when this cause is placed its effect necessarily follows (although perhaps it is not necessary to place it), the result would be that everything happens of necessity. He proves this as follows.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 14 Sit enim aliquid praeteritum vel praesens quod sit causa futuri effectus. Hoc quidem iam positum est. Sed posita causa, ut tu dicis, ex necessitate sequitur effectus. Si igitur hoc praesens vel praeteritum, quod iam positum est, est causa huius entis futuri, et illud alterius, non quocumque modo, sed ita quod ex necessitate sequatur effectus. Posita enim causa, ex necessitate erit illud cuius causa iam posita est, et hoc usque ad ultimum causatum. Sed hoc ponebatur esse per accidens. Et sic quod ponebatur per accidens, erit ex necessitate. Unde sequitur quod omnia sint ex necessitate, et quod a rebus auferatur, quod ad utrumque contingit, idest quod est casuale fortuitum, et accidere, idest ens per accidens. Et fieri et non fieri, idest possibile esse et non esse, vel fieri et non fieri.	2281. Let us suppose that something past or present is the cause of a future effect, and that this cause has already been placed. But when the cause has been placed, as you say, the effect necessarily follows. Therefore, if this past or present thing which has already been placed is the cause of this future effect, and this in turn is the cause of another, the effect will follow not in just any way at all but necessarily. For once the cause has been placed, that whose cause has been placed will necessarily follow, and so on right down to the last thing caused. But this was assumed to be accidental. Therefore that which was assumed to be accidental will happen of necessity. Consequently, everything will happen of necessity; and “the possibility of anything happening by chance,” i.e., any fortuitous event, “or being contingent,” i.e., being accidental, and “of coming to be or not coming to be,” i.e., the possibility of anything being or not being, or being generated or not being generated, will be completely removed from the world.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 15 Sed quia posset aliquis obviare huic rationi, dicendo, quod causa futurorum contingentium non est iam posita ut praesens et praeterita, sed adhuc est contingens ut futura, et propter hoc effectus sunt adhuc contingentes, consequenter hanc obviationem removet, ibi, et si non existens, dicens quod eadem inconvenientia accident, si ponatur quod causa futurorum contingentium non sit iam ens quasi praesens vel praeterita, sed quae in fieri et quasi futura. Sequitur enim quod omnia ex necessitate accidant sicut et prius. Si enim causa illa futura sit, oportet quod sit futura in aliquo tempore determinato, et determinate distincto a praesenti nunc; puta cras. Si ergo eclipsis, quae est per se causa quorumdam futurorum accidentium, sit futura cras, et omne quod fit, fit ex aliqua causa, oportet quod ipsa eclipsis, quae est futura cras, fiat si hoc fuerit, idest propter aliquid praeexistens, et hoc iterum propter aliud; et sic semper propter anticipationem, vel ablationem causarum, auferetur aliquid a tempore, quod est inter praesens nunc et eclipsim futuram. Unde, cum illud tempus sit finitum, et omne finitum consumatur ablato quodam, quandoque erit devenire ad aliquam causam nunc existentem. Quare, si illa iam ponitur, omnes futuri effectus consequuntur ex necessitate. Et ita omnia ex necessitate evenient. Ergo, cum hoc sit impossibile, manifestum est quod ea quae sunt per accidens, non habent causam determinatam, qua posita, ex necessitate consequantur. Ea autem omnia quae circa hoc dici possunt, supra in sexto posita sunt.	2282. But because one can meet this argument by saying that the cause of future contingent events has not yet been placed as either present or past but is still contingent and future, and that for this reason its effects are still contingent, he therefore throws out this objection (“And if the cause”). He points out that the same unreasonable conclusion follows if it is held that the cause of future contingent events is not something that already exists in the present or in the past but is something that is coming to be and is future, because it will follow that everything happens of necessity, as has been stated before. For if that cause is future, it must be going to be at some definite time, tomorrow say, and must be quite distinct from the present. Therefore, if an eclipse, which is the proper cause of certain future events, will occur tomorrow, and everything that occurs is a result of some cause, tomorrow’s eclipse must occur “if something else does,” i.e., because of something that existed before, and this in turn because of something else. Thus by always anticipating or subtracting causes some part of the time between the present moment and the future eclipse will be removed. And since that time is limited, and every limited thing is used up when some part of it is removed, we shall therefore reach at some point some cause which exists now. Hence, if that cause is already posited, all future effects will follow of necessity; and thus everything will occur of necessity. But since this is impossible, it is therefore evident that things which are accidental have no determinate cause from which they necessarily follow once it has been placed. Everything that can be said about this has been given in Book VI (543-552:C 1171-90).
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 16 Deinde cum dicit quod autem ostendit, quod ens per accidens, et ens quod significat veritatem propositionis, praetermittendum est in ista scientia; dicens, quod est quoddam ens quod est ut vere ens, idest quod significat veritatem propositionis, quae in compositione consistit, et est per accidens. Sed primum consistit in compositione intellectus, et est quaedam passio circa operationem animae. Unde huiusmodi entis non quaeruntur principia in scientia, quae considerat de ente quod est extra animam, et est separabile, ut supra dictum est. Aliud autem, scilicet ens per accidens, non est necessarium, sed indeterminatum; et ideo non habet causam ordinatam; sed eius sunt infinitae causae et non habentes ordinem adinvicem. Et ideo de tali ente non considerat ista scientia.	2283. Regarding being (968). Then he shows that accidental being and the being which signifies the truth of a proposition must be omitted from this science. He says that there is one kind of being, “being in the sense of what is true,” or being as signifying the truth of a proposition, and it consists in combination; and there is accidental being.’ The first consists in the combination which the intellect makes and is a modification in the operation of the intellect. Hence the principles of this kind of being are not investigated in the science which considers the kind of being that exists outside of the mind and is separable, as has been stated. The second, i.e., accidental being, is not necessary but indeterminate. Hence it does not have a related cause but an infinite number of causes that are not related to one another. Therefore this science does not consider such being.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 17 Deinde cum dicit quod autem colligit hoc quod dictum est de causa per accidens, scilicet de fortuna, in secundo physicorum. Et dicit hic quatuor circa fortunam. Primo quid sit. Et ad hoc investigandum praemittit, quod id quod est gratia huius, idest aliquid esse propter finem, invenitur et in his quae sunt secundum naturam, et in his quae sunt ab intellectu. Et hoc manifestum est in secundo physicorum. Et adiungit quod fortuna est in his quae fiunt propter aliquid, sed secundum accidens. Sicut enim invenitur ens per se et ens per accidens, ita et causa per se et causa per accidens. Sic igitur fortuna est causa per accidens in his quae fiunt gratia huius, idest propter finem, non quidem a natura, sed secundum electionem. Sicut si aliquis eligat fodere in agro ut plantet arborem, et invenit thesaurum, hoc dicimus esse per accidens, quia est praeter intentionem. Et hoc est a fortuna.	2284. And that for the sake (969). Here he summarizes the things that have been said about an accidental cause, or luck, in Book II of the Physics. There are four points. First, he states what it is; and with a view to investigating this he prefaces his remarks with the statement, “And that for the sake of which,” i.e., what exists for the sake of some end, is found both in those things which exist by nature and in those which are a result of mind. This is evident in Book II of the Physics. He adds that luck is found in those things which occur for the sake of some end, but that it is accidental. For just as we find both essential being and accidental being, so too we find essential causes and accidental causes. Luck, then, is an accidental cause “of those things which come to be for the sake of some end,” i.e., some goal, not by nature but by choice. For example, when someone chooses to dig in a field in order to plant a tree and thereupon discovers a treasure, we say that this is accidental because it is unintended. And this happens by luck.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 18 Secundo ibi, propter quod ostendit in quibus sit fortuna; et dicit, quod cum electio non sit nisi a mente vel intellectu, oportet, quod circa eadem sit fortuna et intellectus. Unde in rebus carentibus ratione non est fortuna, sicut plantae, lapides et bruta animalia. Neque etiam est in pueris qui carent usu rationis.	2285. And for this reason (970). Second, he shows in what instances luck exists. He says that, since there is choice only where there is mind or thought, luck and thought must be concerned with the same thing. Hence luck is not found in those things which lack reason, such as plants, stones and brute animals, or in children who lack the use of reason.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 19 Tertio ibi, causae autem ostendit, quod fortuna est incerta; dicens, quod infinitae sunt causae, a quibus aliquid potest fieri a fortuna, sicut patet in exemplo posito. Potest enim aliquis invenire thesaurum fodiens in terra, vel ad plantandum, vel ad faciendum sepulchrum, et propter infinita alia. Et quia omne infinitum est ignotum, ideo fortuna est incerta humanae cognitioni. Et dicitur esse causa secundum accidens. Nullius autem est causa simpliciter et per se.	2286. However, the causes (971). Third, he shows that luck is uncertain. He says that there are an infinite number of causes by which something can happen by luck, as is evident in the examples given; for one can find a treasure by digging in the earth either to plant something or to make a grave or for an infinite number of other reasons. And since everything infinite is unknown, luck is therefore uncertain for human knowledge. And it is called an accidental cause, although absolutely and of itself it is the cause of nothing.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 20 Quarto ibi, bona autem ostendit qualiter fortuna dicitur bona vel mala; et dicit quod dicitur bona vel mala ex eo quod bonum et malum fortuito evenit. Sed si sit magnum bonum quod fortuito evenit, dicitur eufortunium. Si sit magnum malum, dicitur infortunium.	2287. There is good (972). Fourth, he explains why luck is said to be good or bad. He points out that luck is said to be good or bad because the accidental result is good or bad. And if the accidental result is a great good, it is then called prosperity; and if a great evil, it is then called misfortune.
lib. 11 l. 8 n. 21 Quinto ibi, quoniam autem ostendit quod fortuna non est prima causa rerum. Nullum enim per accidens est prius his quae sunt secundum se. Unde neque causa per accidens est prior ea quae est per se. Et sic, si fortuna et casus quae sunt causae per accidens, sint causa caeli, oportet quod per prius sint causae intellectus et natura, quae sunt causae per se.	2288. And since nothing (973). Fifth, he shows that luck is not the primary cause of things; for nothing that is accidental is prior to things that are essential. Hence an accidental cause is not prior to a proper cause. Thus, if luck and chance, which are accidental causes, are the causes of the heavens, mind and nature, which are proper causes, must be prior causes.