Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber5/lect14

Lecture 14

Latin	English
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 1 Postquam distinxit nomina significantia partes unius, hic incipit distinguere nomina significantia partes entis. Et primo secundum quod ens dividitur per actum et potentiam. Secundo, prout dividitur ens in decem praedicamenta, ibi, quantum vero dicitur quod est divisibile. Circa primum distinguit hoc nomen potentia vel potestas. Nomen autem actus praetermittit, quia eius significationem sufficienter explicare non poterat, nisi prius natura formarum esset manifesta, quod faciet in octavo et nono. Unde statim in nono simul determinat de potentia et actu. Dividitur ergo pars ista in partes duas: in prima ostendit quot modis dicitur potentia. In secunda reducit omnes ad unum primum, ibi, quae vero secundum potentiam. Circa primum duo facit. Primo distinguit hoc nomen, potentia. Secundo hoc nomen, impotentia, ibi, impotentia autem. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit modos potentiae. Secundo modos possibilis, ibi, dicta vero potestate.	954. Having treated the various senses of the terms which signify the parts of unity, here Aristotle begins to treat those which signify the parts of being. He does this, first, according as being is divided by act and potency; and second (977), according as it is divided by the ten categories “Quantity means”). In regard to the first, he gives the various senses in which the term potency or power (potestas) is used. But he omits the term act, because he could explain its meaning adequately only if the nature of forms had been made clear first, and he will do this in Books VIII (1703) and IX (1823). Hence in Book IX he immediately settles the question about potency and act together. This part, then, is divided into two members. In the first he explains the various senses in which the term potency is used; and in the second (975), he reduces all of them to one primary sense (“But those senses”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he gives the various senses in which the term potency is used; and second (967), the various senses in which the term incapacity is used (“Incapacity”). In treating the first he does two things. First, he gives the senses in which the term potency is used; and second (961), those in which the term capable or potent is used (“And since the term”).
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 2 Ponit ergo in prima parte quatuor modos potentiae vel potestatis. Quorum primus est, quod potentia dicitur principium motus et mutationis in alio inquantum est aliud. Est enim quoddam principium motus vel mutationis in eo quod mutatur, ipsa scilicet materia: vel aliquod principium formale, ad quod consequitur motus, sicut ad formam gravis vel levis sequitur motus sursum aut deorsum. Sed huiusmodi principium non potest dici de potentia activa, ad quam pertinet motus ille. Omne enim quod movetur ab alio movetur. Neque aliquid movet seipsum nisi per partes, inquantum una pars eius movet aliam, ut probatur in octavo physicorum. Potentia igitur, secundum quod est principium motus in eo in quo est, non comprehenditur sub potentia activa, sed magis sub passiva. Gravitas enim in terra non est principium ut moveat, sed magis ut moveatur. Potentia igitur activa motus oportet quod sit in alio ab eo quod movetur, sicut aedificativa potestas non est in aedificato, sed magis in aedificante. Ars autem medicinalis, quamvis sit potentia activa, quia per eam medicus curat, contingit tamen quod sit in aliquo sanato, non inquantum est sanatum, sed per accidens, inquantum accidit eidem esse medicum et sanatum. Sic igitur universaliter loquendo, potestas dicitur uno modo principium mutationis aut motus in alio, inquantum est aliud.	955. In dealing with the first part, then, he gives four senses in which the term potency or power is used: First, potency means an [active] principle of motion or change in some other thing as other. For there is some principle of motion or change in the thing changed, namely, the matter, or some formal principle on which the motion depends, as upward or downward motion is a result of the forms of lightness or heaviness. But a principle of this kind cannot be designated as the active power on which this motion depends. For everything which is moved is moved by another; and a thing moves itself only by means of its parts inasmuch as one part moves another, as is proved in Book VIII of the Physics. Hence insofar as a potency is a principle of motion in that in which motion is found, it is not included under active power but under passive potency. For heaviness in earth is not a principle causing motion but rather one which causes it to be moved. Hence active power must be present some other thing than the one moved, for example, the power of building is not in the thing being built but rather in the builder. And while the art of medicine is an active power, because the physician heals by means of it, it may also be found in the one who is healed, not inasmuch as he is healed, but accidentally, i.e., inasmuch as the physician and the one who is healed happen to be the same. So therefore generally speaking potency or power means in one sense a principle of motion or change in some other thing as other.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 3 Secundum modum ponit ibi, alia diverso dicit, quod quodam alio modo dicitur potestas principium motus vel mutationis ab altero inquantum est aliud. Et haec est potentia passiva, secundum quam patiens aliquid patitur. Sicut enim omne agens et movens, aliud a se movet, et in aliud a se agit; ita omne patiens, ab alio patitur: et omne motum, ab alio movetur. Illud enim principium, per quod alicui competit ut moveatur vel patiatur ab alio, dicitur potentia passiva.	956. (2)Here he gives a second sense in which the term potency is used. He says that in another sense the term potency means the principle whereby something is moved or changed by another thing as other. Now this is passive potency, and it is by reason of it that a patient undergoes some change. For just as every agent or mover moves something other than itself and acts in something other than itself, so too every patient is acted upon by something other than itself, i.e., everything moved is moved by another. For that principle whereby one thing is properly moved or acted upon by another is called passive potency.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 4 Posse autem pati ab alio dicitur dupliciter. Aliquando quidem, quicquid sit illud, quod aliquid potest pati, dicimus ipsum esse possibile ad illud patiendum, sive sit bonum, sive malum. Aliquando vero non dicitur aliquid potens ex eo quod potest pati aliquod malum, sed ex hoc quod potest pati aliquod excellentius. Sicut, si aliquis potest vinci, non dicimus potentem; sed si aliquis potest doceri vel adiuvari, dicimus eum potentem. Et hoc ideo, quia posse pati aliquem defectum quandoque attribuitur impotentiae; et posse non pati idem, attribuitur potentiae, ut infra dicetur.	957. Now there are two ways in which we can say that a thing has the potency to be acted upon by another. Sometimes we attribute such a potency to something, whatever it may be, because it is able to undergo some change, whether it be good or bad. And sometimes we say that a thing has such a potency, not because it can undergo something evil, but because it can be changed for the better. For example, we do not say that one who can be overpowered has a potency [in this last sense], but we do attribute such a potency to one who can be taught or helped. And we speak thus because sometimes an ability to be changed for the worse is attributed to incapacity, and the ability not to be changed in the same way is attributed to potency, as will be said below (965).
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 5 Alia tamen litera habet, aliquando autem non secundum omnem passionem, sed utique in contrarium. Quod quidem sic debet intelligi. Improprie enim dicitur pati, quicquid recipit aliquam perfectionem ab aliquo, sicut intelligere dicitur quoddam pati. Proprie autem pati dicitur quod recipit aliquid cum sui transmutatione ab eo quod est ei naturale. Unde et talis passio dicitur esse abiiciens a substantia. Hoc autem non potest fieri nisi per aliquod contrarium. Unde, quando aliquid patitur, secundum quod est contrarium suae naturae vel conditioni, proprie pati dicitur. Secundum quod etiam aegritudines passiones dicuntur. Quando vero aliquis recipit id quod est ei conveniens secundum suam naturam, magis dicitur perfici quam pati.	958. Another text reads, “And sometimes this is not said of every change which a thing undergoes but of change to a contrary”; and this should be understood thus: whatever receives a perfection from something else is said in an improper sense to undergo a change; and it is in this sense that to understand is said to be a kind of undergoing. But that which receives along with a change in itself something other than what is natural to it is said in a proper sense to undergo a change. Hence such undergoing is also said to be a removing of something from a substance. But this can come about only by way of some contrary. Therefore, when a thing is acted upon in a way contrary to its own nature or condition, it is said in a proper sense to undergo a change or to be passive. And in this sense even illnesses are called undergoings. But when a thing receives something which is fitting to it by reason of its nature, it is said to be perfected rather than passive.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 6 Tertium modum ponit ibi amplius alia dicit, quod alia potestas dicitur, quae est principium faciendi aliquid non quocumque modo, sed bene, aut secundum praevoluntatem, idest secundum quod homo disponit. Quando enim aliqui progrediuntur vel loquuntur, sed non bene, aut non secundum quod volunt, dicuntur non posse loqui aut progredi. Et similiter est in pati. Dicitur enim aliquid posse pati illud quod bene potest pati. Sicut dicuntur aliqua ligna combustibilia, quia de facili comburuntur, et incombustibilia, quae non possunt de facili comburi.	959. And in another sense (469). (3) He now gives a third sense in which the term potency is used. He says that in another sense potency means the principle of performing some act, not in any way at all, but well or according to “intention,” i.e., according to what a man plans. For when men walk or talk but not well or as they planned to do, we say that they do not have the ability to walk or to talk. And “the same thing applies when things are being acted upon,” for a thing is said to be able to undergo something if it can undergo it well; for example, some pieces of wood are said to be combustible because they can be burned easily, and others are said to be incombustible because they cannot be burned easily.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 7 Quartum modum ponit ibi amplius quicumque dicit, quod etiam potestates dicuntur omnes habitus sive formae vel dispositiones, quibus aliqua dicuntur vel redduntur omnino impassibilia, vel immobilia, aut non de facili mobilia in peius. Quod enim in peius mutentur, sicut quod frangantur, vel curventur, vel conterantur, vel qualitercumque corrumpantur, non inest corporibus per aliquam potentiam, sed magis per impotentiam et defectum alicuius principii, quod corrumpenti resistere non potest. Nunquam enim corrumpitur aliquid nisi propter victoriam corrumpentis supra ipsum. Quod quidem contingit ex debilitate propriae virtutis. Illis vero, quae non possunt tales defectus pati, aut vix aut paulatim, idest tarde vel modicum patiuntur, accidit eis propter potentiam, et in eo quod habent aliquo modo posse, idest cum quadam perfectione, ut non superentur a contrariis. Et per hunc modum dicitur in praedicamentis, quod durum vel sanativum significat potentiam naturalem non patiendi a corrumpentibus. Molle autem et aegrotativum impotentiam.	960. Further, all states (470). (4) He gives a fourth sense in which the term potency is used. He says that we designate as potencies all habits or forms or dispositions by which some things are said or made to be altogether incapable of being acted upon or changed, or to be not easily changed for the worse. For when bodies are changed for the worse, as those which are broken or bent or crushed or destroyed in any way at all, this does not happen to them because of some ability or potency but rather because of some inability and the weakness of some principle which does not have the power of resisting the thing which destroys them. For a thing is destroyed only because of the victory which the destroyer wins over it, and this is a result of the weakness of its proper active power. For those things which cannot be affected by defects of this kind, or can “hardly or only gradually” be affected by them (i.e., they are affected slowly or to a small degree) are such “because they have the potency and the ability to be in some definite state”; i.e., they have a certain perfection which prevents them from being overcome by contraries. And, as is said in the Categories, it is in this way that hard or healthy signifies a natural power which a thing has of resisting change by destructive agents. But soft and sickly signify incapacity or lack of power.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit dicta vero ponit modos possibilis correspondentes praedictis modis potestatis. Primo autem modo potestatis respondent duo modi possibilis. Secundum potestatem enim activam aliquid dicitur potens agere dupliciter. Uno modo, quia ipse per seipsum agit immediate. Alio modo, quia agit mediante altero, cui potentiam suam communicat, sicut rex agit per ballivum. Dicit ergo, quod, cum potentia tot modis dicatur, possibile etiam et potens pluribus modis dicetur. Uno quidem modo, quod habet principium activum mutationis in seipso sicut stativum vel sistitivum, idest id quod facit aliud stare, dicitur esse potens ad sistendum aliquid aliud diversum ab eo. Alio vero modo, quando ipse non immediate operatur, sed aliud habet ab eo talem potestatem, ut possit immediate agere.	961. And since the term (471). Here he gives the senses of the term capable or potent, which correspond to the above senses of potency. And there are two senses of capable which correspond to the first sense of potency. (1) For according to its active power a thing is said to be capable of acting in two ways: in one way, because it acts immediately of itself; and in another way, because it acts through something else to which it communicates its power, as a king acts through a bailiff. Hence he says that, since the term potency is used in this number of senses, the term capable or potent must also be used in the same number of senses. Thus in one sense it means something which has an active principle of change in itself, as what brings another to rest or to a stop”; i.e., what causes some other thing to stand still is said to be capable of bringing something different from itself to a state of rest. And it is used in another sense when a thing does not act directly but another thing receives such power from it that it can act directly.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit alio si secundo ponit secundum modum respondentem secundo modo potentiae, idest potentiae passivae; dicens, quod alio modo a praedicto dicitur possibile sive potens, quod potest mutari in aliquid, quicquid sit illud; scilicet sive possit mutari in peius, sive in melius. Et secundum hoc, aliquid dicitur corruptibile, quia potest corrumpi, quod est in peius mutari: vel non corruptibile, quia potest non corrumpi, si sit impossibile illud ipsum corrumpi.	962. And in still another (472). (2) Next, he gives a second sense in which the term capable is used, and this corresponds to the second sense of the term potency, i.e., passive potency. He says that, in a different way from the foregoing, a thing said to be capable or potent when it can be changed in some respect, whatever it may be, i.e., whether it can be changed for the better or for the worse. And in this sense a thing is said to be corruptible because “it is capable of being corrupted,” which is to undergo change for the worse, or it is not corruptible because it is capable of not being corrupted, assuming that it is impossible for it to be corrupted.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 10 Oportet autem illud, quod est possibile ad aliquid patiendum, habere in se quamdam dispositionem, quae sit causa et principium talis passionis; et illud principium vocatur potentia passiva. Principium autem passionis potest inesse alicui passibili dupliciter. Uno modo per hoc, quod habet aliquid; sicut homo est possibilis pati infirmitatem propter abundantiam alicuius inordinati humoris in ipso. Alio vero modo est aliquid potens pati per hoc, quod privatur aliquo, quod posset repugnare passioni; sicut si homo dicatur potens infirmari propter subtractionem fortitudinis et virtutis naturalis. Et haec duo oportet esse in quolibet potente pati. Nunquam enim aliquid pateretur, nisi esset in eo subiectum, quod esset receptivum dispositionis, vel formae, quae per passionem inducitur; et nisi esset debilitas virtutis in patiente ad resistendum actioni agentis.	963. And what is capable of being acted upon in some way must have within itself a certain disposition which is the cause and principle of its passivity, and this principle is called passive potency. But such a principle can be present in the thing acted upon for two reasons. First, this is because it possesses something; for example, a man is capable of suffering from some disease because he has an excessive amount of some inordinate humor. Second, a thing is capable of being acted upon because it lacks something which could resist the change. This is the case, for example, when a man is said to be capable of suffering from some disease because his strength and natural power have been weakened. Now both of these must be present in anything which is capable of being acted upon; for a thing would never be acted upon unless it both contained a subject which could receive the disposition or form induced in it as a result of the change and also lacked the power of resisting the action of an agent.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 11 Hi enim duo modi principii patiendi possunt reduci in unum, quia potest privatio significari ut habitus. Et sic sequetur, quod privari sit habere privationem. Et ita uterque modus erit in aliquid habendo. Quod autem privatio possit significari ut habitus, et ut aliquid habitum, ex hoc contingit, quod ens aequivoce dicitur. Et secundum unum modum et privatio et negatio dicitur ens, ut habitum est in principio quarti. Et sic sequitur quod etiam negatio et privatio possunt significari ut habitus. Et ideo possumus universaliter dicere, quod aliquid possibile sit pati propter hoc quod habet in se quemdam habitum et quoddam principium passionis; cum etiam privari sit habere aliquid, si contingat privationem habere.	964. Now these two ways in which the principle of passivity is spoken of can be reduced to one, because privation can be designated as “a having.” Thus it follows that to lack something is to have a privation, and so each way will involve the having of something. Now the designation of privation as a having and as something had follows from the fact that being is used in two different ways; and both privation and negation are called being in one of these ways, as has been pointed out at the beginning of Book IV (564). Hence it follows that negation and privation can also be designated as “havings.” We can say, then, that in general something is capable of undergoing because it contains a kind of “having” and a certain principle that enables it to be acted upon; for even to lack something is to have something, if a thing can have a privation.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit alio in tertium modum ponit hic; et respondet quarto modo potentiae, secundum quod potentia dicebatur inesse alicui, quod non potest corrumpi, vel in peius mutari. Dicit ergo, quod alio modo dicitur possibile vel potens, inquantum non habet potestatem vel principium aliquod ad hoc quod corrumpatur. Et hoc dico ab alio inquantum est aliud; quia secundum hoc aliquid dicitur potens et vigorosum, quod ab exteriori vinci non potest, ut corrumpatur.	965. An in another sense (474). (3) Here he gives a third sense in which the term capable is used; and this sense corresponds to the fourth sense of potency inasmuch as a potency was said to be present in something which cannot be corrupted or changed for the worse. Thus he says that in another sense a thing is said to be capable because it does not have some potency or principle which enables it to be corrupted. And I mean by some other thing as other. For a thing is said to be potent or powerful in the sense that it cannot be overcome by something external so as to be corrupted.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 13 Deinde cum dicit amplius autem quartum modum ponit, qui respondet tertio modo potentiae, secundum quem dicebatur potentia ad bene agendum vel patiendum. Dicit ergo, quod secundum praedictos modos, qui pertinent ad agendum vel patiendum, potest dici aliquid potens vel ex eo solum, quod aliquid accidit fieri vel non fieri, vel ex eo quod accidit etiam bene fieri. Sicut etiam dicitur potens agere, quia potest bene et faciliter agere, vel quia potest agere simpliciter. Et similiter potens pati et corrumpi, quia de facili hoc pati potest. Et iste modus potestatis etiam invenitur in rebus inanimatis ut in organis, idest in lyra et musicis instrumentis. Dicitur enim quod aliqua lyra potest sonare, quia bene sonat; alia non potest sonare, quia non bene sonat.	966. Again, all these (475). (4) He gives a fourth sense in which the term capable is used, and this corresponds to the third sense of potency inasmuch as potency designated the ability to act or be acted upon well. He says that according to the foregoing senses of potency which pertain both to acting and to being acted upon, a thing can be said to be capable either because it merely happens to come into being or not or because it happens to come into being well. For a thing is said to be capable of acting either because it can simply act or because it can act well and easily. And in a similar way a thing is said to be capable of being acted upon and corrupted because it can be acted upon easily. And this sense of potency is also found in inanimate things “such as instruments,” i.e., in the case of the lyre and other musical instruments. For one lyre is said to be able to produce a tone because it has a good tone, and another is said not to because its tone is not good. Incapacity
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 14 Deinde cum dicit impotentia autem ostendit quot modis dicitur impotentia; et circa hoc duo facit. Primo distinguit hoc nomen impotentia. Secundo hoc nomen impossibile, ibi, impossibilia vero. Circa primum duo facit. Primo enim ostendit communem rationem huius nominis impotentia. Secundo ostendit quot modis dicatur, ibi, amplius autem. Dicit ergo primo, quod impotentia est privatio potentiae. Ad rationem autem privationis duo requiruntur; quorum primum est remotio habitus oppositi. Id autem, quod opponitur impotentiae, est potentia. Unde, cum potentia sit quoddam principium, impotentia erit sublatio quaedam talis principii, qualis dicta est esse potentia. Secundum quod requiritur, est quod privatio proprie dicta sit circa determinatum subiectum et determinatum tempus. Improprie autem sumitur absque determinatione subiecti et temporis. Non enim caecum proprie dicitur nisi quod est aptum natum habere visum, et quando est natum habere visum.	967. Incapacity (476). Then he gives the different senses of the term incapacity, and in regard to this he does two things. First, he gives the various senses in which we speak of incapacity; and second (970), he treats the different senses in which the term impossible is used (“And some things”). In treating the first part he does two things. First, he gives the common meaning of the term incapacity. Second (969), he notes the various ways in which it is used (“Again, there is”). He accordingly says, first, that incapacity is the privation of potency. Now two things are required in the notion of privation, (1) and the first of these is the removal of an opposite state. But the opposite of incapacity is potency. Therefore, since potency is a kind of principle, incapacity will be the removal of that kind of principle which potency has been described to be. (2) The second thing required is that privation properly speaking must belong to a definite subject and at a definite time; and it is taken in an improper sense when taken without a definite subject and without a definite time. For properly speaking only that is said to be blind which is naturally fitted to have sight and at the time when it is naturally fitted to have it.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 15 Impotentia autem sic dicta dicit remotionem potentiae, aut omnino, idest universaliter, ut scilicet omnis remotio potentiae impotentia dicatur, sive sit aptum natum habere, sive non: aut dicitur remotio in eo quod est aptum natum habere quandocumque, aut solum tunc quando aptum natum est habere. Non enim similiter accipitur impotentia, cum dicimus puerum non posse generare, et cum virum et eunuchum simul. Puer enim dicitur impotens generare, quia subiectum est aptum ad generandum, non tamen pro illo tempore. Vir autem eunuchus dicitur impotens ad generandum, quia pro illo tempore esset quidem aptus, non tamen potest, quia caret principiis activis generationis. Unde hic magis salvatur ratio privationis. Mulus autem vel lapis dicitur impotens ad generandum, quia non potest nec etiam habet aptitudinem in subiecto existentem.	968. And he says that incapacity, such as it has been described, is the removal of a potency, (1) “either altogether,” i.e., universally, in the sense that every removal of a potency is called incapacity, whether the thing is naturally disposed to have the potency or not; or (2) it is the removal of a potency from something which is naturally fitted to have it at some time or other or only at the time when it is naturally fitted to have it. For incapacity is not taken in the same way when we say that a boy is incapable of begetting, and when we say this of a man and of an eunuch. For to say that a boy is incapable of begetting means that, while the subject is naturally fitted to beget, it cannot beget before the proper time. But to say that an eunuch is incapable of begetting means that, while he was naturally fitted to beget at the proper time, he cannot beget now; for he lacks the active principles of begetting. Hence incapacity here retains rather the notion of privation. But a mule or a stone is said to be incapable of begetting because neither can do so, and also because neither has any real aptitude for doing so.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 16 Deinde cum dicit amplius autem dat intelligere impotentiae modos per oppositum ad modos potentiae. Sicut enim potentia est duplex, scilicet activa et passiva: et iterum utraque aut ad agendum et patiendum simpliciter, aut ad bene agendum et patiendum; ita secundum utramque potentiam est impotentia opposita. Et solum mobili et bene mobili idest potentiae activae, quae est ad movendum simpliciter, vel bene movendum: et potentiae passivae, quae est ad moveri simpliciter, vel bene moveri.	969. Again, there is (477). Then he explains the various senses of incapacity by contrasting them with the senses of potency. For just as potency is twofold, namely, active and passive, and both refer either to acting and being acted upon simply, or to acting and being acted upon well, in a similar fashion there is an opposite sense of incapacity corresponding to each type of potency. That is to say, there is a sense of incapacity corresponding “both to that which can merely produce motion and to that which can produce it well,” namely, to active potency, which is the potency to simply move a thing of to move it well, and to passive potency, which is the potency to simply be moved or to be moved well.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 17 Deinde cum dicit impossibilia vero ostendit quot modis dicitur impossibile: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo distinguit modos impossibilis. Secundo reducit illos modos ad unum, ibi, quae vero secundum. Circa primum tria facit. Primo dicit, quod uno modo dicuntur aliqua impossibilia secundum quod habent impotentiam praedictam, quae opponitur potentiae. Et huiusmodi modus in quatuor dividitur, sicut et impotentia.	970. And some things (478). Then he explains the various senses in which the term impossible is used; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he gives the various senses in which the term impossible is used; and then (975) he reduces them to one (“But those senses”). In regard to the first he does three things: (1) First, he says that in one sense some things are said to be impossible because they have the foregoing incapacity which is opposed to potency. And impossible in this sense is used in four ways corresponding to those of incapacity.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 18 Ideo cum dicit alio modo, ponit alium modum, quo dicuntur aliqua impossibilia, non propter privationem alicuius potentiae, sed propter repugnantiam terminorum in propositionibus. Cum enim posse dicatur in ordine ad esse, sicut ens dicitur non solum quod est in rerum natura, sed secundum compositionem propositionis, prout est in ea verum vel falsum; ita possibile et impossibile dicitur non solum propter potentiam vel impotentiam rei: sed propter veritatem et falsitatem compositionis vel divisionis in propositionibus. Unde impossibile dicitur, cuius contrarium est verum de necessitate, ut diametrum quadrati esse commensurabilem eius lateri, est impossibile, quia hoc tale est falsum, cuius contrarium non solum est verum, sed etiam necessarium, quod quidem est non commensurabilem esse. Et propter hoc esse commensurabilem est falsum de necessitate, et hoc est impossibile.	971. (2) Accordingly, when he says “in a different sense, he gives another way in which some things are said to be impossible. And they are said to be such not because of the privation of some potency but because of the opposition existing between the terms in propositions. For since potency is referred to being, then just as being is predicated not only of things that exist in reality but also of the composition of a proposition inasmuch as it contains truth and falsity, in a similar fashion the terms possible and impossible are predicated not only of real potency and incapacity but also of the truth an falsity found in the combining or eparating of terms in propositions. ence the term impossible means that of which the contrary is necessarily true. For example, it is impossible that the diagonal of a square should be commensurable with a side, because such a statement is false whose contrary is not only true but necessarily so, namely, that it is not commensurable. Hence the statement that it is commensurable is necessarily false, and this is impossible.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 19 Tertio ibi, contrarium vero manifestat quid sit possibile oppositum impossibili secundo modo dicto. Impossibile enim opponitur possibili secundo modo dicto, sicut dictum est. Dicit ergo, quod possibile contrarium huic secundo impossibili est, cuius contrarium non est de necessitate falsum: sicut sedere hominem est possibile, quia non sedere, quod est eius oppositum, non est de necessitate falsum.	972. And the contrary (479). Here he shows that the possible is the opposite of the impossible in the second way mentioned; for the impossible is opposed to the possible in the second way mentioned. He says, then, that the possible, as the contrary of this second sense of the impossible, means that whose contrary is not necessarily false; for example, it is possible that a man should be seated, because the opposite of this—that he should not be seated—is not necessarily false.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 20 Ex quo patet, quod ille modus possibilis in tres modos dividitur. Dicitur enim uno modo possibile quod falsum est, sed non ex necessitate: sicut hominem sedere dum non sedet, quia eius oppositum non est verum ex necessitate. Alio modo dicitur possibile quod est verum, sed non de necessitate, quia eius oppositum non est falsum de necessitate, sicut Socratem sedere dum sedet. Tertio modo dicitur possibile, quia licet non sit verum, tamen contingit in proximo verum esse.	973. From this it is clear that this sense of possible has three usages. (1) For in one way it designates what is false but is not necessarily so; for example, it is possible that a man should be seated while he is not seated, because the opposite of this is not necessarily true. (2) In another way possible designates what is true but is not necessarily so because its opposite is not necessarily false, for example, that Socrates should be seated while he is seated. (3) And in a third way it means that, although a thing is not true now, it may be true later on.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 21 Deinde cum dicit secundum metaphoram ostendit quomodo potentia sumatur metaphorice; et dicit, in geometria dicitur potentia secundum metaphoram. Potentia enim lineae in geometria dicitur quadratum lineae per hanc similitudinem: quia sicut ex eo quod est in potentia fit illud quod est in actu, ita ex ductu alicuius lineae in seipsam, resultat quadratum ipsius. Sicut si diceremus, quod ternarius potest in novenarium, quia novenarius consurgit ex ductu ternarii in seipsum. Nam ter tria sunt novem. Sicut autem impossibile secundo modo acceptum non dicitur secundum aliquam impotentiam, ita et modi possibilis ultimo positi, non dicuntur secundum aliquam potentiam, sed secundum similitudinem, vel secundum modum veri et falsi.	974. And what is called a “power” (480). He shows how the term power is used metaphorically. He says that in geometry the term power is used metaphorically. For in geometry the square of a line is called its power by reason of the following likeness, namely, that just as from something in potency something actual comes to be, in a similar way from multiplying a line by itself its square results. It would be the same if we were to say that the number three is capable of becoming the number nine, because from multiplying the number three by itself the number nine results; for three times three makes nine. And just as the term impossible taken in the second sense does not correspond to any incapacity, in a similar way the senses of the term possible which were given last do not correspond to any potency, but they are used figuratively or in the sense of the true and the false.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 22 Deinde cum dicit quae vero reducit omnes modos possibilis et impossibilis ad unum primum: et dicit, quod possibilia, quae dicuntur secundum potentiam, omnia dicuntur per respectum ad unam primam potentiam, quae est prima potentia activa, de qua supra dictum est, quod est principium mutationis in alio inquantum est aliud. Nam omnia alia possibilia dicuntur per respectum ad istam potentiam. Aliquid enim dicitur possibile per hoc, quod aliquid aliud habet potentiam activam in ipsum, secundum quod dicitur possibile secundum potentiam passivam. Quaedam vero dicuntur possibilia in non habendo aliquid aliud talem potentiam in ipsa: sicut quae dicuntur potentia, quia non possunt corrumpi ab exterioribus agentibus. Quaedam vero potentia in sic habendo, idest in hoc quod habent potentiam, ut bene aut faciliter agant vel patiantur.	975. But those senses (481). He now reduces all senses of capable and incapable to one primary sense. He says that those senses of the term capable or potent which correspond to potency all refer to one primary kind of potency—the first active potency which was described above (955) as the principle of change in some other thing as other; because all the other senses of capable or potent are referred to this kind of potency. For a thing is said to be capable by reason of the fact that some other thing has active power over it, and in this sense it is said to be capable according to passive potency. And some things are said to be capable because some other thing does not have power over them as those which said to be capable because they cannot be corrupted by external agents. And others are said to be capable because they have it “in some special way,” i.e., because they have the power or potency to act or be acted upon well or easily.
lib. 5 l. 14 n. 23 Et sicut omnia possibilia, quae dicuntur secundum aliquam potentiam, reducuntur ad unam primam potentiam; ita omnia impossibilia, quae dicuntur secundum aliquam impotentiam, reducuntur ad unam primam impotentiam, quae est opposita primae potentiae. Patet igitur, quod propria definitio potentiae primo modo dictae est principium permutationis in alio inquantum est aliud, quod est ratio potentiae activae.	976. And just as all things which are said to be capable because of some potency are reduced to one primary potency, in a similar way all things which are said to be incapable because of some impotency are reduced to one primary incapacity, which is the opposite of the primary potency. It is clear, then, that the proper notion of potency in the primary sense is this: a principle of change in some other thing as other; and this is the notion of active potency or power.