Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber5/lect10

Lecture 10

Latin	English
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 1 Hic ostendit quot modis dicitur substantia: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit diversos modos substantiae. Secundo reducit omnes ad duos, ibi, accidit itaque. Circa primum ponit quatuor modos; quorum primus est secundum quod substantiae particulares dicuntur substantiae, sicut simplicia corpora, ut terra et ignis et aqua et huiusmodi. Et universaliter omnia corpora, etiam si non sint simplicia, sicut mixta similium partium, ut lapis, sanguis, caro, et huiusmodi. Et iterum animalia quae constant et huiusmodi corporibus sensibilibus, et partes eorum, ut manus et pedes et huiusmodi, et Daemonia, idest idola, quae in templis posita colebantur pro diis. Vel Daemonia dicit quaedam animalia rationabilia secundum Platonicos, quae Apuleius sic definit: Daemones sunt animalia corpore aerea, mente rationalia, animo passiva, tempore aeterna. Haec enim omnia praedicta dicuntur substantia, quia non dicuntur de alio subiecto, sed alia dicuntur de his. Et haec est descriptio primae substantiae in praedicamentis.	898. Aristotle now explains the various senses in which the term substance is used; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he gives the various senses in which the term substance is used. Second (903), he reduces all of these to two (“It follows”). In treating the first part he gives four senses of the term substance. (1) First, it means particular substances, such as the simple bodies: earth, fire, water and the like. And in general it means all bodies, even though they are not simple, i.e., compound bodies of like parts, such as stones, blood, flesh and the like. Again, it means animals, which are composed of such sensible bodies, and also their parts, such as hands and feet and so on; “and demons,” i.e., the idols set up in temples and worshipped as gods. Or by demons he means certain animals which the Platonists claimed are capable of reasoning, and which Apuleius defines thus: demons are animals composed of an ethereal body, rational in mind, passive in soul, and eternal in time. Now all of the foregoing things are called substances because they are not predicated of another subject but other things are predicated of them. This is the description of first substance given in the Categories.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 2 Secundum modum ponit ibi alio vero dicit quod alio modo dicitur substantia quae est causa essendi praedictis substantiis quae non dicuntur de subiecto; non quidem extrinseca sicut efficiens, sed intrinseca eis, ut forma. Sicut dicitur anima substantia animalis.	899. In another sense (441). (2) He says that in another sense substance means the cause of the being of the foregoing substances which are not predicated of a subject; and it is not extrinsic to them like an efficient cause but is intrinsic like a form. It is in this sense that the soul is called the substance of an animal.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit amplius quaecumque ponit tertium modum, secundum opinionem Platonicorum et Pythagoricorum, dicens, quod quaecumque particulae sunt in praedictis substantiis, quae sunt termini earum, et significant hoc aliquid secundum opinionem eorum, in quibus destructis destruitur totum, dicuntur etiam substantiae. Sicut superficie destructa destruitur corpus, ut quidam dicunt, et destructa linea destruitur superficies. Patet etiam, quod superficies est terminus corporis, et linea terminus superficiei. Et secundum dictorum positionem, linea est pars superficiei, et superficies pars corporis. Ponebant enim corpora componi ex superficiebus et superficies ex lineis, et lineas ex punctis. Unde sequebatur, quod punctum sit substantia lineae, et linea superficiei, et sic de aliis. Numerus autem secundum hanc positionem videtur esse substantia totaliter omnium rerum, quia remoto numero nihil remanet in rebus: quod enim non est unum, nihil est. Et similiter quae non sunt plura, non sunt. Numerus etiam invenitur terminare omnia, eo quod omnia mensurantur per numerum.	900. Again, substance (442). (3) He gives a third meaning of substance, which is the one used by the Platonists and Pythagoreans. He says that all those parts of the foregoing substances which constitute their limits and designate them as individuals, according to the opinion of these thinkers, and by whose destruction the whole is destroyed, are also termed substances. For example, body is destroyed when surface is, as some say, and surface when line is. It is also clear that surface is the limit of body and line the limit of surface. And according to the opinion of the philosophers just mentioned the line is a part of surface and surface a part of body. For they held that bodies are composed of surfaces, surfaces of lines, and lines of points; and thus it would follow that the point is the substance of the line, the line the substance of surface, and so on for the rest. And according to this position number seems to constitute the entire substance of all things, because when number is destroyed nothing remains in the world; for what is not one is nothing. And similarly things which are not many are non-existent. And number is also found to limit all things, because all things are measured by number.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 4 Iste autem modus non est verus. Nam hoc quod communiter invenitur in omnibus, et sine quo res esse non potest, non oportet quod sit substantia rei, sed potest esse aliqua proprietas consequens rei substantiam vel principium substantiae. Provenit etiam eis error specialiter quantum ad unum et numerum, eo quod non distinguebant inter unum quod convertitur cum ente, et unum quod est principium numeri.	901. But this sense of substance is not a true one. For that which is found to be common to all things and is something without which they cannot exist does not necessarily constitute their substance, but it can be some property flowing from the substance or from a principle of the substance. These philosophers also fell into error especially regarding unity and number because they failed to distinguish between the unity which is interchangeable with being and that which is the principle of number.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 5 Quartum modum ponit ibi amplius quod dicit quod etiam quidditas rei, quam significat definitio, dicitur substantia uniuscuiusque. Haec autem quidditas sive rei essentia, cuius definitio est ratio, differt a forma quam dixit esse substantiam in secundo modo, sicut differt humanitas ab anima. Nam forma est pars essentiae vel quidditatis rei. Ipsa autem quidditas vel essentia rei includit omnia essentialia principia. Et ideo genus et species dicuntur esse substantia eorum, de quibus praedicantur, hoc ultimo modo. Nam genus et species non significant tantum formam, sed totam rei essentiam.	902. Again, the quiddity (443). (4) He says that the quiddity of each thing, which the definition signifies, is also called its substance. Now the quiddity or essence of a thing, whose intelligible expression is the definition, differs from a form, which he identified with the second meaning of substance, just as humanity differs from a soul, for a form is part of a thing’s essence or quiddity, but the essence or quiddity itself of a thing includes all its essential principles. It is in this last sense, then, that genus and species are said to be the substance of the things of which they are predicated; for genus and species do not signify the form alone but the whole essence of a thing.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit accidit itaque reducit dictos modos substantiae ad duos; dicens, quod ex praedictis modis considerari potest, quod substantia duobus modis dicitur: quorum unus est secundum quod substantia dicitur id quod ultimo subiicitur in propositionibus, ita quod de alio non praedicetur, sicut substantia prima. Et hoc est, quod est hoc aliquid, quasi per se subsistens, et quod est separabile, quia est ab omnibus distinctum et non communicabile multis. Et quantum ad haec tria differt substantia particularis ab universali. Primo quidem, quia substantia particularis non praedicatur de aliquo inferiori, sicut universalis. Secundo, quia substantia universalis non subsistit nisi ratione singularis quae per se subsistit. Tertio, quia substantia universalis est in multis, non autem singularis, sed est ab omnibus separabilis et distincta.	903. It follows (444). Then he reduces the foregoing senses of substance to two. He says that from the above-mentioned ways in which the term substance is used we can understand that it has two meanings. (1) It means the ultimate subject in propositions, and thus is not predicated of something else. This is first substance, which means a particular thing which exists of itself and is capable of existing apart because it is distinct from everything else and cannot be common to many. (2) And a particular substance differs from universal substance in these three respects: first, a particular substance is not predicated of inferiors, whereas a universal substance is; second, universal substance subsists only by reason of a particular substance, which subsists of itself; and third, universal substance is present in many things, whereas a particular substance is not but is distinct from everything else and capable of existing apart.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 7 Sed etiam forma et species uniuscuiusque rei, dicitur tale, idest substantia. In quo includit et secundum et quartum modum. Essentia enim et forma in hoc conveniunt quod secundum utrumque dicitur esse illud quo aliquid est. Sed forma refertur ad materiam, quam facit esse in actu; quidditas autem refertur ad suppositum, quod significatur ut habens talem essentiam. Unde sub uno comprehenduntur forma et species, idest sub essentia rei.	904. And the form and species of a thing also “is said to be of this nature,” i.e., substance. In this he includes the second and fourth senses of substance; for essence and form have this note in common that both are said to be that by which something is. However, form, which causes a thing to be actual, is related to matter, whereas quiddity or essence is related to the supposit, which is signified as having such and such an essence. Hence “the form and species” are comprehended under one thing—a being’s essence.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 8 Tertium autem modum praetermittit, quia falsus est, vel quia reducibilis est ad formam, quae habet rationem termini. Materiam vero, quae substantia dicitur, praetermittit, quia non est substantia in actu. Includitur tamen in primo modo, quia substantia particularis non habet quod sit substantia et quod sit individua in rebus materialibus, nisi ex materia.	905. He omits the third sense of substance because it is a false one, or because it is reducible to form, which has the character of a limit. And he omits matter, which is called substance, because it is not substance actually. However, it is included in the first sense of substance, because a particular substance is a substance and is individuated in the world of material things only by means of matter.