Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber5/lect21

Lecture 21

Latin	English
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 1 Hic incipit prosequi de his quae pertinent ad rationem totius et partis. Et primo de his quae pertinent ad partem. Secundo de his, quae pertinent ad totum, ibi, totum dicitur. Et quia ex partibus constituitur totum; ideo circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quot modis dicitur aliquid esse ex aliquo. Secundo quot modis dicitur pars, ibi, pars dicitur uno quidem modo. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit modos, quibus aliquid ex aliquo fieri dicitur proprie et primo. Secundo quo modo fit aliquid ex aliquo, sed non primo, ibi, alia vero si secundum partem. Tertio quo modo fit aliquid ex aliquo non proprie, ibi, alia vero. Circa primum ponit quatuor modos. Quorum primus est, secundum quod aliquid dicitur esse ex aliquo, ut ex materia. Quod quidem contingit dupliciter. Uno modo secundum quod accipitur materia primi generis, scilicet communis; sicut aqua est materia omnium liquabilium, quae omnia dicuntur esse ex aqua. Alio modo secundum speciem ultimam, idest specialissimam; sicut haec species, quae est statua, dicitur fieri ex aere.	1085. Here he begins to treat the things which pertain to the notion of whole and part. First, he deals with those which pertain to the notion of part; and second (1098), with those which pertain to the notion of whole (“Whole means”). And because a whole is constituted of parts, he therefore does two things in dealing with the first member of this division. First, he explains the various ways in which a thing is said to come from something; and second (1093), he considers the different senses in which the term part is used (“Part means”). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he considers the ways in which a thing is said to come from something in the primary and proper sense. Second (1090), he indicates the ways in which one thing comes from another but not in the primary sense (“But other things”). Third (1091), he considers the ways in which one thing comes from another but not in the proper sense (“And some things”). In dealing with the first part he gives four ways in which a thing is said to come from something: First, a thing is said to come from something as from matter, and this can happen in two ways: (a) In one way, inasmuch as matter is taken to be “the matter of the first genus,” i.e., common matter; as water is the matter of all liquids and liquables, all of which are said to come from water. (b) In another way, “in reference to the ultimate species,” i.e., the lowest species; as the species statue is said to come from bronze.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 2 Secundo modo dicitur aliquid fieri ex alio ut ex primo principio movente, sicut pugna ex convitio, quod est principium movens animum convitiati ad pugnandum. Et sic etiam dicitur, quod domus est ex aedificante, et sanitas ex medicina.	1086. In a second way a thing is said to come from something as “from a first moving principle,” as a fight comes from a taunt, which is the principle moving the soul of the taunted person to fight. And it is in this way too that a house is said to come from a builder, and health from the medical art.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 3 Tertio modo dicitur fieri ex aliquo, sicut simplex, ex composito ex materia et forma. Et hoc est in via resolutionis, sicut dicimus quod partes fiunt ex toto, et versus ex Iliade, idest ex toto tractatu Homeri de Troia; resolvitur enim Ilias in versus, sicut totum in partes. Et similiter dicitur quod lapides fiunt ex domo. Ratio autem huius est, quia forma est finis in generatione. Perfectum enim dicitur quod habet finem, ut supra habitum est. Unde patet, quod perfectum est quod habet formam. Quando igitur ex toto perfecto fit resolutio partium, est motus quasi a forma ad materiam; sicut e converso, quando partes componuntur, est motus a materia in formam. Et ideo haec praepositio ex quae principium designat, utrobique competit: et in via compositionis, quia determinat principium materiale; et in via resolutionis, quia significat principium formale.	1087. In a third way one thing is said to come from another as something simple “comes from the composite of matter and form.” This pertains to the process of dissolution; and it is in this way that we say parts come from a whole, “and a verse from the Iliad” (i.e., from the whole treatise of Homer about Troy); for the Iliad is divided into verses as a whole is divided into parts. And it is in the same way that stones are said to come from a house. The reason for this is that the form is the goal or end in the process of generation; for it is what has attained its end that is said to be perfect or complete, as was explained above (500:C 1039). Hence it is evident that that is perfect which has a form. Therefore, when a perfect whole is broken down into its parts, there is motion in a sense from form to matter; and in a similar way when parts are combined, there is an opposite motion from matter to form. Hence the preposition from, which designates a beginning, applies to both processes: both to the process of composition, because it signifies a material principle, and to that of dissolution, because it signifies a formal principle.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 4 Quarto modo dicitur aliquod fieri ex aliquo sicut species ex parte speciei. Pars autem speciei potest accipi dupliciter: aut secundum rationem, aut secundum rem. Secundum rationem, sicut bipes est pars hominis, quia est pars definitionis eius, quamvis secundum rem non sit pars, quia aliter non praedicaretur de toto. Toti enim homini competit habere duos pedes. Secundum rem vero, sicut syllaba est ex elemento, idest ex litera sicut ex parte speciei. Hic autem quartus modus differt a primo. Nam ibi dicebatur aliquid esse ex parte materiae sicut statua ex aere. Nam haec substantia quae est statua, est composita ex sensibili materia tamquam ex parte substantiae. Sed haec species componitur ex parte speciei.	1088. In a fourth way a thing is said to come from something as “a species comes from a part of a species.” And part of a species can be taken in two ways: either in reference to the conceptual order or to the real order. (a) It is taken in reference to the conceptual order when we say, for example, that two-footed is a part of man; because while it is part of his definition, it is not a real part, otherwise it would not be predicated of the whole. For it is proper to the whole man to have two feet. (b) And it is taken in reference to the real order when we say, for example, that “a syllable comes from an element,” or letter, as from a part of the species. But here the fourth way in which the term is used differs from the first; for in the first way a thing was said to come from a part of matter, as a statue comes from bronze. For this substance, a statue, is composed of sensible matter as a part of its substance. But this species is composed of part of the species.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 5 Sunt enim partium, quaedam partes speciei, et quaedam partes materiae. Partes quidem speciei dicuntur, a quibus dependet perfectio speciei, et sine quibus esse non potest species. Unde et tales partes in definitione totius ponuntur, sicut anima et corpus in definitione animalis, et angulus in definitione trianguli, et litera in definitione syllabae. Partes vero materiae dicuntur ex quibus species non dependet, sed quodammodo accidunt speciei; sicut accidit statuae quod fiat ex aere, vel ex quacumque materia. Accidit etiam circulo quod dividatur in duos semicirculos: et angulo recto, quod angulus acutus sit eius pars. Unde huiusmodi partes non ponuntur in definitione totius speciei, sed potius e converso, ut in septimo huius erit manifestum. Sic ergo patet quod sic quaedam dicuntur ex aliquo fieri primo et proprie.	1089. For some parts are parts of a species and some are parts of matter. Those which are called parts of a species are those on which the perfection of the species depends and without which it cannot be a species. And it is for this reason that such parts are placed in the definition of the whole, as body and soul are placed in the definition of an animal, and an angle in the definition of a triangle, and a letter in the definition of a syllable. And those parts which are called parts of matter are those on which the species does not depend but are in a sense accidental to the species; for example, it is accidental to a statue that it should come from bronze or from any particular matter at all. And it is also accidental that a circle should be divided into two semi-circles; and that a right angle should have an acute angle as part of it. Parts of this sort, then, are not placed in the definition of the whole species but rather the other way around, as will be shown in Book VII of this work (1542). Hence it is clear that in this way some things are said to come from others in the primary and proper sense.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 6 Aliqua vero dicuntur ex aliquo fieri non primo, sed secundum partem. Et hoc secundum quaecumque praedictorum modorum; sicut puer dicitur fieri ex patre, sicut principio motivo, et matre sicut ex materia; quia quaedam pars patris movet, scilicet sperma, et quaedam pars matris est materia, scilicet menstruum. Et plantae fiunt ex terra; non tamen quidem ex toto, sed ex aliqua eius parte.	1090. But some things are said to come from something not in the (~) primary sense but (+)according to a part of that thing in “any of the aforesaid senses.” For example, a child is said to come from its father as an efficient principle, and from its mother as matter; because a certain part of the father causes motion, i.e., the sperm, and a certain part of the mother has the character of matter, i.e., the menstrual fluid. And plants come from the earth, although not from the whole of it but from some part.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 7 Alio vero modo dicitur fieri aliquid ex aliquo non proprie, scilicet ex hoc ipso quod importat solum ordinem; et sic aliquid fieri dicitur ex aliquo, post quod fit, sicut nox fit ex die, idest post diem: et imber ex serenitate, idest post serenitatem. Hoc autem dicitur dupliciter. Quandoque enim inter ea, quorum unum dicitur fieri ex altero, attenditur ordo secundum motum, et non solum secundum tempus; quia vel sunt duo extrema eiusdem motus, ut cum dicitur quod album fit ex nigro: vel consequuntur aliqua extrema motus, sicut nox et dies consequuntur diversa ubi solis. Et similiter hiems et aestas. Unde in quibusdam dicitur hoc fieri post hoc, quia habent transmutationem adinvicem, ut in praedictis patet.	1091. And in another way a thing is said to come from something in an improper sense, namely, from the fact that this implies order or succession alone; and in this way one thing is said to come from another in the sense that it comes after it, as “night comes from day,” i.e., after the day, “and a storm from a calm,” i.e., after a calm. And this is said in reference to two things. For in those cases in which one thing is said to come from another, order is sometimes noted in reference to motion and not merely to time; because either they are the two extremes of the same motion, as when it is said that white comes from black, or they are a result of different extremes of the motion, as night and day are a result of different locations of the sun. And the same thing applies to winter and summer. Hence in some cases one thing is said to come from another because one is changed into the other, as is clear in the above examples.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 8 Quandoque vero attenditur ordo secundum tempus tantum; sicut dicitur quod ex aequinoctio fit navigatio, idest post aequinoctium. Haec enim duo extrema non sunt duo extrema unius motus, sed ad diversos motus pertinent. Et similiter dicitur, ex Dionysiis fiunt Thargelia, quia fiunt post Dionysia. Haec autem sunt quaedam festa, quae apud gentiles celebrabantur, quorum unum erat prius et aliud posterius.	1092. But sometimes order or succession is considered in reference to time alone; for example, it is said that “a voyage is made from the equinox,” i.e., after the equinox. For these two extremes are not extremes of a single motion but pertain to different motions. And similarly it is said that the Thargelian festival [of Apollo and Artemis] comes from the Dionysian because it comes after the Dionysian, these being two feasts which were celebrated among the gentiles, one of which preceded the other in time.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit pars dicitur hic ponit quatuor modos, quibus aliquid dicitur esse pars. Primo modo pars dicitur, in quam dividitur aliquid secundum quantitatem: et hoc dupliciter. Uno enim modo quantumcumque fuerit quantitas minor, in quam quantitas maior dividitur, dicitur eius pars. Semper enim id quod aufertur a quantitate, dicitur pars eius; sicut duo aliquo modo sunt partes trium. Alio modo dicitur solum pars quantitas minor, quae mensurat maiorem. Et sic duo non sunt pars trium; sed sic duo sunt pars quatuor, quia bis duo sunt quatuor.	1093. “Part” means (515). He now gives four senses in which something is said to be a part: In one sense part means that into which a thing is divided from the viewpoint of quantity; and this can be taken in two ways. (a) For, in one way, no matter how much smaller that quantity may be into which a larger quantity is divided, it is called a part of this quantity. For anything that is taken away from a quantity is always called a part of it; for example, the number two is in a sense a part of the number three. (b) And, in another way, only a smaller quantity which measures a larger one is called a part. In this sense the number two is not a part of the number three but a part of the number four, because two times two equals four.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 10 Secundo modo ea dicuntur partes, in quae dividitur aliquid sine quantitate: et per hunc modum species dicuntur esse partes generis. Dividitur enim in species, non sicut quantitas, in partes quantitatis. Nam tota quantitas non est in una suarum partium. Genus autem est in qualibet specierum.	1094. In a second sense parts mean those things into which something is divided irrespective of quantity; and it is in this sense that species are said to be parts of a genus. For a genus is divided into species, but not as a quantity is divided into quantitative parts. For a whole quantity is not in each one of its parts, but a genus is in each one of its species.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 11 Tertio modo dicuntur partes, in quas dividitur, aut ex quibus componitur aliquod totum; sive sit species, sive aliquid habens speciem, scilicet individuum. Sunt enim, sicut dictum est, quaedam partes speciei, et quaedam partes materiae, quae sunt partes individui. Aes enim est pars sphaerae aereae, aut cubi aerei, sicut materia, in qua species est recepta. Unde aes non est pars speciei, sed pars habentis speciem. Est autem cubus corpus contentum ex superficiebus quadratis. Angulus autem est pars trianguli sicut speciei, sicut supra dictum est.	1095. In a third sense parts mean those things into which some whole is divided or of which it is composed, whether the whole is a species or the thing having a species, i.e., the individual. For, as has been pointed out already (1089), there are parts of the species and parts of matter, and these (species and matter) are parts of the individual. Hence bronze is a part of a bronze sphere or of a bronze cube as the matter in which the form is received, and thus bronze is not a part of the form but of the thing having the form. And a cube is a body composed of square surfaces. And an angle is part of a triangle as part of its form, as has been stated above (1099).
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 12 Quarto modo dicuntur partes, quae ponuntur in definitione cuiuslibet rei, quae sunt partes rationis sicut animal et bipes sunt partes hominis.	1096. In a fourth sense parts mean those things which are placed in the definition of anything, and these are parts of its intelligible structure; for example, animal and two-footed are parts of man.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 13 Ex quo patet, quod genus quarto modo est pars speciei: aliter vero, scilicet secundo modo, species est pars generis. In secundo enim modo sumebatur pars pro parte subiectiva totius universalis; in aliis autem tribus pro parte integrali. Sed in primo pro parte quantitatis, in aliis autem duobus pro parte substantiae; ita tamen, quod pars secundum tertium modum est pars rei; sive sit pars speciei, sive pars individui. Quarto autem modo est pars rationis.	1097. From this it is clear that a genus is part of a species in this fourth sense, but that a species is part of a genus in a different sense, i.e., in the second sense. For in the second sense a part was taken as a subjective part of a universal whole, whereas in the other three senses it was taken as an integral part. And in the first sense it was taken as a part of quantity; and in the other two senses as a part of substance; yet in such a way that a part in the third sense means a part of a thing, whether it be a part of the species or of the individual. But in the fourth sense it is a part of the intelligible structure.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 14 Deinde cum dicit totum dicitur hic prosequitur de his quae pertinent ad totum. Et primo de toto in communi. Secundo de toto quodam, scilicet de genere, ibi, genus dicitur. Circa primum duo facit. Primo prosequitur de ipso nomine totius. Secundo de eius opposito, scilicet de colobon, ibi, colobon autem dicitur. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit rationem communem totius, quae consistit in duobus. Primo in hoc quod perfectio totius integratur ex partibus. Et significat hoc, cum dicit quod totum dicitur cui nulla suarum partium deest, ex quibus scilicet partibus dicitur totum natura, idest totum secundum suam naturam constituitur. Secundum est quod partes uniuntur in toto. Et sic dicit quod totum continens est contenta, scilicet partes, ita quod illa contenta sunt aliquid unum in toto.	1098. “Whole” means (516). He proceeds to treat the things which pertain to a whole. First, he considers a whole in a general way; and second (1119), he deals with a particular kind of whole, namely a genus. In regard to the first part he does two things. First, he proceeds to deal with the term whole; and second 1109), with its opposite, mutilated. In regard to the first he does three things. First, he states the common meaning of whole, which involves two things. (1) The first is that the perfection of a whole is derived from its parts. He indicates this when he says “a whole means that from which none of the things,” i.e., the parts, “of which it is said to consist by nature,” i.e., of which the whole is composed according to its own nature, “are missing.” (2) The second is that the parts become one in the whole. Thus he says that a whole is “that which contains the things contained,” namely, the parts, in such a way that the things contained in the whole are some one thing.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 15 Secundo ibi, hoc autem ponit duos modos totius; dicens quod totum dicitur dupliciter; aut ita quod unumquodque contentorum a toto continente, sit ipsum unum, scilicet ipsum totum continens, quod est in toto universali de qualibet suarum partium praedicato. Aut ex partibus constituatur unum, ita quod non quaelibet partium sit unum illud. Et haec est ratio totius integralis, quod de nulla suarum partium integralium praedicatur.	1099. But this occurs. (517). Second, he notes two ways in which a thing is a whole. He says that a thing is said to be a whole in two ways: (1) either in the sense that each of the things contained by the containing whole is “the one in question,” i.e., the containing whole, which is in the universal whole that is predicated of any one of its own parts; or (2) in the sense that it is one thing composed of parts in such a way that none of the parts are that one thing. This is the notion of an integral whole, which is not predicated of any of its own integral parts.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 16 Tertio ibi, universale quidem exponit praedictos modos totius; et primo primum, dicens quod universale et quod totaliter idest quod communiter praedicatur, dicitur quasi sit aliquod unum totum ex hoc quod praedicatur de unoquoque, sicut universale, quasi multa continens ut partes, in eo quod praedicatur de unoquoque. Et omnia illa sunt unum in toto universali, ita quod unumquodque illorum est illud unum totum. Sicut animal continet hominem et equum et Deum, quia omnia sunt animalia, idest quia animal praedicatur de unoquoque. Deum autem hic dicit aliquod corpus caeleste, ut solem vel lunam, quae antiqui animata corpora esse dicebant et deos putabant. Vel animalia quaedam aerea, quae Platonici dicebant esse Daemones, et pro diis colebantur a gentibus.	1100. For a whole (518). Third, he explains the foregoing senses of whole. First, he explains the first sense. He says that a whole is a universal “or what is predicated in general,” i.e., a common predicate, as being some one thing as a universal is one, in the sense that it is predicated of each individual just as the universal, which contains many parts, is predicated of each of its parts. And all of these are one in a universal whole in such a way that each of them is that one whole; for example, living thing contains man and horse and god, because “all are living things,” i.e., because living thing is predicated of each. By a god he means here a celestial body, such as the sun or the moon, which the ancients said were living bodies and considered to be gods; or he means certain ethereal living beings, which the Platonists called demons, and which were worshipped by the pagans as gods.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 17 Secundo ibi, continuum vero exponit modum secundum totius qui pertinet ad totum integrale; et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit rationem communem huius totius, et praecipue de toto quod dividitur in partes quantitativas, quod est manifestius; dicens, quod aliquid dicitur continuum et finitum, idest perfectum et totum. Nam infinitum non habet rationem totius, sed partis, ut dicitur in tertio physicorum; quando scilicet unum aliquod fit ex pluribus quae insunt toti. Et hoc dicit ad removendum modum quo aliquid fit ex aliquo sicut ex contrario.	1101. A whole is something (519). Second, he explains the meaning of whole in the sense of an integral whole; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he gives the common meaning of this kind of whole, and particularly of that which is divided into quantitative parts, which is more evident to us. He says that a whole is something “continuous and limited,” i.e., perfect or complete (for what is unlimited does not have the character of a whole but of a part, as is said in Book III of the Physics when one thing is composed of many parts which are present in it. He says this in order to exclude the sense in which one thing comes from another as from a contrary.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 18 Partes autem ex quibus constituitur totum dupliciter possunt esse in toto. Uno modo in potentia, alio modo in actu. Partes quidem sunt in potentia in toto continuo; actu vero in toto non continuo, sicut lapides actu sunt in acervo. Magis autem est unum, et per consequens magis totum, continuum, quam non continuum. Et ideo dicit quod oportet partes inesse toti, maxime quidem in potentia sicut in toto continuo. Et si non in potentia, saltem energia, idest in actu. Dicitur enim energia, interior actio.	1102. Now the parts of which a whole is composed can be present in it in two ways: in one way potentially, and in another actually. Parts are potentially present in a whole which is continuous, and actually present in a whole which is not continuous, as stones are actually present in a heap. But that which is continuous is one to a greater degree, and therefore is a whole to a greater degree, than that which is not continuous. Hence he says that parts must be present in a whole, especially potential parts, as they are in a continuous whole; and if not potentially, then at least “in activity,” or actually. For “activity” means interior action.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 19 Licet autem magis sit totum quando partes sunt in eo in potentia, quam quando sunt actu, tamen si respiciamus ad partes, magis sunt ipsae partes, quando sunt actu, quam quando sunt in potentia. Unde alia litera habet maxime quidem perfectione et actu. Sin autem, et potestate. Et subiungit etiam quod prius dictum est et maxime potestate. Sin autem, et energia. Unde videtur quod translator duas invenit literas et utramque transtulit, et errore factum est, sic ut coniungantur ambae quasi una litera. Et hoc patet ex alia translatione quae non habet nisi alterum tantum. Sic enim dicit continuum autem et finitum est, cum unum aliquod sit ex pluribus inhaerentibus, maxime quod potentia. Si autem non, actu sunt.	1003. Now although a thing is a whole to a greater degree when its parts are present potentially than when they are present actually, nonetheless if we look to the parts, they are parts to a greater degree when they exist actually than when they exist potentially. Hence another text reads, “especially when they are present perfectly and actually; but otherwise, even when they are present potentially.” And it also adds the words given above: “particularly when they are present potentially; but if not, even when they are present in activity.” Hence it seems that the translator found two texts, which he translated, and then made the mistake of combining both so as to make one text. This is clear from another translation, which contains only one of these statements; for it reads as follows: “And a whole is continuous and limited when some one thing, is composed of many intrinsic parts, especially when they are present potentially; but if not, when they are present actually.”
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 20 Secundo ibi, horum vero ostendit duas diversitates in isto secundo modo totius: quarum prima est, quod continuorum quaedam sunt continua per artem, quaedam per naturam. Et illa quae sunt continua per naturam, magis sunt talia, idest tota, quam quae sunt per artem. Sicut de uno dictum est supra; scilicet quod illa quae sunt continua per naturam, magis sunt unum, ac si totalitas sit aliqua unio: ex quo patet quod, quod est magis unum, est magis totum.	1104. And of these same things (520). Second, he indicates two differences within this second sense of whole. The first is that some continuous things are such by art and some by nature. Those which are continuous by nature are “such,” i.e., wholes, to a greater degree than those which are such by art. And since we spoke in the same way above (848) about things which are one, saying that things which are continuous by nature are one to a greater degree, as though wholeness were oneness, it is clear from this that anything which is one to a greater degree is a whole to a greater degree.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 21 Deinde cum dicit amplius quanto secundam diversitatem ponit. Cum enim ita sit quod in quantitate sit ordo partium, quia est ibi principium, medium et ultimum, in quo ratio positionis consistit, oportet quod omnia tota ista continuam habeant positionem in suis partibus. Sed ad positionem partium totum continuum tripliciter se invenitur habere. Quaedam enim tota sunt in quibus diversa positio partium non facit diversitatem, sicut patet in aqua. Qualitercumque enim transponantur partes aquae, nihil differunt: et similiter est de aliis humidis, sicut de oleo, vino et huiusmodi. In his autem significatur totum per hoc quod dicitur omne, non autem ipso nomine totius. Dicimus enim, omnis aqua, vel omne vinum, vel omnis numerus; non autem totus, nisi secundum metaphoram: et hoc forte est secundum proprietatem Graeci idiomatis. Nam apud nos dicitur proprie.	1105. Again, since a quantity (521). He gives the second difference. For since it is true that there is an order of parts in quantity, because a quantity has a beginning, a middle point and an end, and the notion of position involves these, the positions of the parts in all these quantities must be continuous. But if we consider the position of the parts, a whole is found to be continuous in three ways. (1) For there are some wholes which are unaffected by a difference of position in their parts. This is evident in the case of water, for it makes no difference how the parts of water are interchanged. The same thing is true of other liquids, as oil and wine and the like. And in these things a whole is signified by the term all and not by the term whole. For we say all the water or all the wine or all the numbers, but not the whole, except metaphorically. This perhaps applies to the Greek idiom, but for us it is a proper way of speaking.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 22 Quaedam vero sunt in quibus positio differentiam facit, sicut in homine, et in quolibet animali, et in domo et huiusmodi. Non enim est domus qualitercumque partes ordinentur, sed secundum determinatum ordinem partium: et similiter nec homo nec animal; et in his dicimus totum, et non omne. Dicimus enim de uno solo animali loquentes, totum animal, non omne animal.	1106. (2) And there are some things to which the position of the parts does make a difference, for example, a man and any animal and a house and the like. For a thing is not a house if its parts are arranged in just any way at all, but only if they have a definite arrangement; and of these we use the term whole and not the term all. And similarly a thing is not a man or an animal if its parts are arranged in just any way at all. For when we speak of only one animal, we say the whole animal and not all the animal.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 23 Quaedam vero sunt in quibus contingunt ambo, quia positio quodammodo facit differentiam in eis. In his autem dicimus utrumque, scilicet et omne et totum; et ista sunt in quibus facta transpositione partium manet eadem materia, sed non eadem forma sive figura; ut patet in cera, cuius qualitercumque transponantur partes, nihilominus est cera, licet non eiusdem figurae: et similiter est de vestimento, et de omnibus quae sunt similium partium, retinentium diversam figuram. Humida enim, etsi sunt similium partium, non tamen figuram possunt habere propriam, quia non terminantur terminis propriis, sed alienis: et ideo transpositio in eis nihil variat quod sit ex parte eorum.	1107. (3) And there are some things to which both of these apply, because in a sense the position of their parts accounts for their differences; and of these we use both terms—all and whole. And these are the things in which, when the parts are interchanged, the matter remains the same but not the form or shape. This is clear, for example, in the case of wax; for no matter how its parts are interchanged the wax still remains, but it does not have the same shape. The same is true of a garment and of all things which have like parts and take on a different shape. For even though liquids have like parts, they cannot have a shape of their own, because they are not limited by their own boundaries but by those of other things. Hence when their parts are interchanged no change occurs in anything that is proper to them.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 24 Ratio autem huius diversitatis est, quia omne, distributivum est: et ideo requirit multitudinem in actu, vel in potentia propinqua: et quia ea sunt similium partium, dividuntur in partes consimiles toti, fitque ibi multiplicatio totius. Nam si quaelibet pars aquae est aqua, in unaquaque aqua sunt multae aquae, licet in potentia; sicut in uno numero sunt multae unitates in actu. Totum vero significat collectionem partium in aliquo uno: et ideo in illis proprie dicitur totum in quibus, ex omnibus partibus acceptis simul, fit unum perfectum, cuius perfectio nulli partium competit, sicut domus et animal. Unde omne animal, non dicitur de uno animali, sed de pluribus: et ideo in fine dicit, quod in illis totis in quibus dicitur omne, ut de uno referente ad totum, potest dici omnia in plurali, ut in diversis referendo ad partes: sicut dicitur, omnis hic numerus et omnes hae unitates et omnis haec aqua, demonstrato toto, et omnes hae aquae, demonstratis partibus.	1108. The reason for this difference is that the term all is distributive and therefore requires an actual multitude or one in proximate potency to act; and because those things have like parts, they are divided into parts entirely similar to the whole, and in that manner multiplication of the whole takes place. For if every part of water is water, then in each part of water there are many waters, although they are present potentially, just as in one number there are many units actually. But a whole signifies a collection of parts into some one thing; and therefore in those cases in which the term whole is properly used, one complete thing is made from all the parts taken together, and the perfection of the whole belongs to none of the parts. A house and an animal are examples of this. Hence, “every animal” is not said of one animal but of many. Therefore at the end of this part of his discussion he says that those wholes of which the term every is used, as is done of one thing when reference is made to a whole, can have the term all (in the plural) used of them, as is done of several things when reference is made to them as parts. For example, one says “all this number,” and “all these units,” and “all this water,” when the whole has been indicated, and “all these waters” when the parts have been indicated.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 25 Deinde cum dicit colobon vero hic determinat de eo, quod est oppositum toti, quod est colobon, pro quo alia translatio habet diminutum membro, sed non usquequaque convenienter. Nam colobon non dicitur solum in animalibus, in quibus solis sunt membra. Videtur autem esse colobon quod nos dicimus truncatum. Unde Boetius transtulit mancum, id est defectivum. Est ergo intentio philosophi ostendere quid requiratur ad hoc quod aliquid dicatur colobon. Et primo quid requiratur ex parte totius; secundo quid requiratur ex parte partis deficientis, ibi, adhuc autem neque quaelibet.	1109. It is not any quantity (522). Here he clarifies the issue about the opposite of “whole,” which is mutilated, in place of which another translation reads “diminished (or reduced) by a member”; but this does not always fit. For the term mutilated is used only of animals, which alone have members. Now mutilated seems to mean “cut off,” and thus Boethius translated it “maimed,” i.e., “defective.” Hence the Philosopher’s aim here is to show what is required in order that a thing may be said to be mutilated: and first, what is required on the side of the whole; and second (1117), what is required on the side of the part which is missing (“Further, neither”).
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 26 Ad hoc autem, quod aliquod totum dici possit colobon, septem requiruntur. Primum est, ut illud totum sit quantum habens partes in quas dividatur secundum quantitatem. Non enim totum universale potest dici colobon si una species eius auferatur.	1110. Now in order that a whole can be said to be mutilated, seven things are required. First, the whole must be a quantified being having parts into which it may be divided quantitatively. For a universal whole cannot be said to be mutilated if one of its species is removed.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 27 Secundum est quod non quodlibet quantum potest dici colobon, sed oportet quod sit partibile, idest distinctionem habens, et totum, idest ex diversis partibus integratum. Unde ultimae partes, in quas aliquod totum resolvitur, licet habeant quantitatem, non possunt dici colobae, sicut caro vel nervus.	1111. Second, not every kind of quantified being can be said to be mutilated, but it must be one that is “divisible into parts,” i.e., capable of being separated, and be “a whole,” i.e., something composed of different parts. Hence the ultimate parts into which any whole is divided, such as flesh and sinew, even though they have quantity, cannot be said to be mutilated.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 28 Tertium est, quod duo non sunt coloba, vel aliquid habens duas partes, si altera earum auferatur. Et hoc ideo quia nunquam colobonium, idest quod aufertur a colobon, est aequale residuo, sed semper oportet residuum esse maius.	1112. Third, (~) two things are not mutilated, i.e., anything having two parts, if one of them is taken away from the other. And this is true because a “mutilated part,” i.e., whatever is taken away from the mutilated thing, is never equal to the remainder, but the remainder must always be larger.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 29 Quartum est, quod numerus nullus potest esse colobus quotcumque partes habeat; quia substantia colobi manet parte subtracta; sicut si calix truncetur, adhuc manet calix; sed numerus non manet idem, ablata quacumque parte. Quaelibet enim unitas addita vel subtracta, variat numeri speciem.	1113. Fourth, no (~) number can be mutilated no matter how many parts it may have, because the substance of the mutilated thing remains after the part is taken away. For example, when a goblet is mutilated it still remains a goblet; but a number does not remain the same no matter what part of it is taken away. For when a unit is added to or subtracted from a number, it changes the species of the number.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 30 Quintum est, quia oportet quod habeat partes dissimiles. Ea enim, quae sunt similium partium, non possunt dici coloba, quia ratio totius salvatur in qualibet parte: unde, si auferatur aliqua partium, altera pars non dicitur coloba. Nec tamen omnia, quae sunt dissimilium partium, possunt dici coloba: numerus enim non potest dici colobus, ut dictum est, quamvis quodammodo habeat dissimiles partes, sicut duodenarius habet pro partibus dualitatem et Trinitatem. Aliquo tamen modo omnis numerus habet partes similes, prout omnis numerus ex unitatibus constituitur.	1114. Fifth, the thing mutilated must have unlike parts. For those things which have like parts cannot be said to be mutilated, because the nature of the whole remains verified in each part. Hence, if any of the parts are taken away, the others are not said to be mutilated. Not all things having unlike parts, however, can be said to be mutilated; for a number cannot, as has been stated, even though in a sense it has unlike parts; for example, the number twelve has the number two and the number three as parts of it. Yet in a sense every number has like parts because every number is constituted of units.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 31 Sextum est quod nullum eorum potest dici colobon, in quibus positio non facit differentiam, sicut aqua aut ignis. Oportet enim coloba talia esse, quod in suae ratione substantiae habeant determinatam positionem, sicut homo vel domus.	1115. Sixth, none of those things (~) in which the position of the parts makes no difference can be said to be mutilated, for example, water or fire. For mutilated things must be such that the intelligible structure of their substance contains the notion of a determinate arrangement of parts, as in the case of a man or of a house.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 32 Septimum est quod oportet esse continua coloba. Harmonia enim musicalis non potest dici coloba voce vel chorda subtracta, licet sit dissimilium partium: quia constituitur ex vocibus gravibus, et acutis; et licet partes eius habeant determinatam positionem: non enim qualitercumque voces graves et acutae ordinatae, talem constituunt harmoniam.	1116. Seventh, mutilated things must be continuous. For a musical harmony cannot be said to be mutilated when a note or a chord is taken away, even though it is made up of low and high pitched sounds, and even though its parts have a determinate position, it is not any low and high pitched sounds arranged in any way at all that constitute such a harmony.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 33 Deinde cum dicit adhuc autem ostendit quae sunt conditiones colobi ex parte partis diminutae; et ponit tres: dicens quod sicut non quaelibet tota possunt dici coloba, ita nec cuiuslibet particulae ablatione potest aliquid dici colobon. Oportet enim primo quod pars ablata non sit pars substantiae principalis, quae scilicet rei substantiam constituit, et sine qua substantia esse non possit; quia, ut supra dictum est, colobon oportet manere ablata parte. Unde homo non potest dici colobus, capite abscisso.	1117. Further, neither is (523). Then he indicates the conditions which must prevail with regard to the part cut off in order that a thing may be mutilated; and there are three of these. He says that, just as not every kind of whole can be said to be mutilated, so neither can there be mutilation by the removal of every part. For, first, the part which is removed must not be a (~) principal part of the substance, that is, one which constitutes the substance of the thing and without which the substance cannot be, because the thing that is mutilated must remain when a part is removed, as has been stated above (1113). Hence a man cannot be said to be mutilated when his head has been cut off.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 34 Secundo, ut pars subtracta non sit ubique, sed sit in extremitate. Unde si perforatur calix circa medium aliqua parte eius ablata, non potest dici colobus; sed, si accipiatur auris calicis, idest particula, quae est ad similitudinem auris, aut quaecumque alia extremitas. Et similiter homo non dicitur colobus, si amittat aliquid de carne, vel in tibia, vel in brachio, vel circa medium corporis; aut si amittens splenem, vel aliquam eius partem; sed si amittat aliquam eius extremitatem, ut manum aut pedem.	1118. Second, the part removed should not be everywhere, but in some extremity. Thus, if a goblet is perforated about the middle by removing some part of it, it cannot be said to be mutilated; but this is said if someone removes “the ear of a goblet,” i.e., a part which is similar to an ear, or any other extremity. Similarly a man is not said to be mutilated if he loses some of his flesh from his leg or from his arm or from his waist, or if he loses his spleen or some part of it, but if he loses one of his extremities, such as a hand or a foot.
lib. 5 l. 21 n. 35 Tertio vero, ut non omni particula in extremitate existente ablata, aliquid dicatur colobum; sed, si sit talis pars, quae non regeneratur iterum, si tota auferatur, sicut manus, aut pes. Capillus autem totus incisus iterum regeneratur. Unde per eorum subtractionem, licet in extremitate sint, non dicitur colobus. Et propter hoc calvi non dicuntur colobi.	1118a. Third, a thing is not said to be mutilated if just any part that is an extremity is removed, but if it is such a part which does not regenerate if the whole of it is removed, as a hand or a foot. But if a whole head of hair is cut off, it grows again. So if such parts are removed, the man is not said to be mutilated, even though they are extremities. And for this reason people with shaven heads are not said to be mutilated.