Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber5/lect22

Lecture 22

Latin	English
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 1 Hic determinat de quodam toto, scilicet de genere. Et primo ostendit quot modis dicitur genus. Secundo quot modis dicuntur aliqua diversa, ibi, diversa vero genere. Dicit ergo primo, quod genus dicitur quatuor modis. Primo generatio continua aliquorum habentium eamdem speciem. Sicut dicitur dum erit genus hominum, idest dum durabit generatio continua hominum. Iste est primus modus positus in Porphyrio, scilicet multitudo habentium relationem adinvicem et ad unum principium.	1119. Here he gives his views about a particular kind of whole, namely, a genus. First, he gives the different senses in which the term genus is used; and second (1124), he treats the different senses in which things are said to be diverse (or other) in genus (“Things are said”). He accordingly says, first, that the term genus is used in four senses: First, it means the continuous generation of things that have the same species; for example, it is said, “as long as ‘the genus of man’ will exist,” i.e., “while the continuous generation of men will last.” This is the first sense of genus given in Porphyry, i.e., a multitude of things having a relation to each other and to one principle.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 2 Secundo modo dicitur genus illud a quo primo movente ad esse, idest a generante procedunt aliqua; sicut dicuntur Hellenes genere, quia descendunt a quodam Hellene nomine, et aliqui dicuntur Iones genere, quia descendunt a quodam Ione, sicut a primo generante. Magis autem denominantur aliqui a patre, qui est generans, quam a matre, quae dat materiam in generatione: et tamen aliqui denominantur genere a matre, sicut a quadam femina nomine Pleia, dicuntur aliquae Pleiades. Et iste est secundus modus generis in Porphyrio positus.	1120. In a second sense genus (race) means that from which “things are first brought into being,” i.e., some things proceed from a begetter. For example, some men are called Hellenes by race because they are descendants of a man called Hellen; and some are called Ionians by race because they are descendants of a certain Ion as their first begetter. Now people are more commonly named from their father, who is their begetter, than from their mother, who produces the matter of generation, although some derive the name of their race from the mother; for example, some are named from a certain woman called Pleia. This is the second sense of genus given in Porphyry.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 3 Tertio modo dicitur genus, sicut superficies est genus figurarum superficialium, et solidum, idest corpus, dicitur esse genus figurarum solidarum, idest corporearum. Genus autem hoc non est quod significat essentiam speciei, sicut animal est genus hominis; sed quod est proprium subiectum, specie differentium accidentium. Superficies enim est subiectum omnium figurarum superficialium. Et habet similitudinem cum genere; quia proprium subiectum ponitur in definitione accidentis, sicut genus in definitione speciei. Unde subiectum proprium de accidente praedicatur ad similitudinem generis. Unaquaeque enim figurarum haec quidem, idest superficialis, est talis superficies. Hoc autem, idest figura solida, est tale solidum, ac si figura sit differentia qualificans superficiem vel solidum. Superficies enim se habet ad figuras superficiales, et solidum ad solidas, sicut genus quod subiicitur contrariis. Nam differentia praedicatur in eo quod quale. Et propter hoc, sicut cum dicitur animal rationale significatur tale animal, ita cum dicitur superficies quadrata, significatur talis superficies.	1121. The term genus is used in a third sense when the surface or the plane is called the genus of plane figures, “and the solid,” or body, is called the genus of solid figures, or bodies. This sense of genus is not the one that signifies the essence of a species, as animal is the genus of man, but the one that is the proper subject in the species of different accidents. For surface is the subject of all plane figures. And it bears some likeness to a genus, because the proper subject is given in the definition of an accident just as a genus is given in the definition of a species. Hence the proper subject of an accident is predicated like a genus. “For each of the figures,” i.e., plane figures, is such and such a surface. “And this,” i.e., a solid figure, is such and such a solid, as though the figure were a difference qualifying surface or solid. For surface is related to plane (surface) figures, and solid to solid figures, as a genus, which is the subject of contraries; and difference is predicated in the sense of quality. And for this reason, just as when we say rational animal, such and such an animal is signified, so too when we say square surface, such and such a surface is signified.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 4 Quarto modo genus dicitur, quod primo ponitur in definitione, et praedicatur in eo quod quid, et differentiae sunt eius qualitates. Sicut in definitione hominis primo ponitur animal, et bipes sive rationale, quod est quaedam substantialis qualitas hominis.	1122. In a fourth sense genus means the primary element given in a definition, which is predicated quidditatively, and differences are its qualities. For example, in the definition of man, animal is given first and then two-footed or rational, which is a certain substantial quality of man.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 5 Patet ergo quod tot modis dicitur genus. Uno modo secundum generationem continuam in eadem specie, quod pertinet ad primum modum. Alio modo secundum primum movens, quod pertinet ad secundum. Alio modo sicut materia, quod pertinet ad tertium et quartum modum. Hoc enim modo se habet genus ad differentiam, sicut subiectum ad qualitatem. Et ideo patet quod genus praedicabile, et genus subiectum, quasi sub uno modo comprehenduntur, et utrumque se habet per modum materiae. Licet enim genus praedicabile non sit materia, sumitur tamen a materia, sicut differentia a forma. Dicitur enim aliquid animal ex eo quod habet naturam sensitivam. Rationale vero ex eo, quod habet rationalem naturam, quae se habet ad sensitivam sicut forma ad materiam.	1123. It is evident, then, that the term genus is used in so many different senses: (1) in one sense as the continuous generation of the same species, and this pertains to the first sense; (2) in another as the first moving principle, and this pertains to the second sense; (3&4) and in another as matter, and this pertains to the third and fourth senses. For a genus is related to a difference in the same way as a subject is to a quality. Hence it is evident that genus as a predicable and genus as a subject are included in a way under one meaning, and that each has the character of matter. For even though genus as a predicable is not matter, still it is taken from matter as difference is taken from form. For a thing is called an animal because it has a sentient nature; and it is called rational because it has a rational nature, which is related to sentient nature as form is to matter.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit diversa vero hic ostendit quot modis dicuntur aliqua diversa genere; et ponit duos modos respondentes ultimis duobus modis generis. Primi enim duo modi non multum pertinent ad philosophicam considerationem. Primo igitur modo dicuntur aliqua genere diversa, quia eorum primum subiectum est diversum. Sicut primum subiectum colorum est superficies, primum autem subiectum saporum est humor. Unde quantum ad genus subiectum, sapor et color sunt diversa genere.	1124. Things are said (525). Here he explains the different senses in which things are said to be diverse (or other) in genus; and he gives two senses of this corresponding to the last two senses of genus. For the first two senses are of little importance for the study of philosophy. In the first sense, then, some things are said to be diverse in genus because their first subject is diverse; for example, the first subject of color is surface, and the first subject of flavors is something moist. Hence, with regard to their subject-genus, flavor and color are diverse in genus.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 7 Oportet autem quod duo diversa subiecta, talia sint, quorum unum non resolvatur in alterum. Solidum enim quodammodo resolvitur in superficies. Unde figurae solidi, et figurae superficiales non sunt diversorum generum. Et iterum oportet quod ambo non resolvantur in aliquod idem. Sicut species et materia sunt diversa genere, si secundum suam essentiam considerentur, quod nihil est commune utrique. Et similiter corpora caelestia et inferiora sunt diversa genere, inquantum non habent materiam communem.	1125. Further, the two different subjects must be such that one of them is not reducible to the other. Now a solid is in a sense reducible to surfaces, and therefore solid figures and plane figures do not belong to diverse genera. Again, they must not be reducible to the same thing. For example, form and matter are diverse in genus if they are considered according to their own essence, because there is nothing common to both. And in a similar way the celestial bodies and lower bodies are diverse in genus inasmuch as they do not have a common matter.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 8 Alio modo dicuntur diversa genere, quae dicuntur secundum diversam figuram categoriae, idest praedicationis entis. Alia namque entia significant quid est, alia quale, alia aliis modis, sicut divisum est prius, ubi tractavit de ente. Istae enim categoriae nec resolvuntur invicem, quia una non continetur sub alia. Nec resolvuntur in unum aliquid, quia non est unum aliquod genus commune ad omnia praedicamenta.	1126. In another sense those things are said to be diverse in genus which are predicated “according to a different figure of the category of being,” i.e., of the predication of being. For some things signify quiddity, some quality, and some signify in other ways, which are given in the division made above where he dealt with being (889-94). For these categories are not reducible one to the other, because one is not included under the other. Nor are they reducible to some one thing, because there is not some one common genus for all the categories.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 9 Patet autem ex dictis quod aliqua continentur sub uno praedicamento, et sunt unum genere hoc modo secundo, quae tamen sunt diversa genere primo modo. Sicut corpora caelestia et elementaria, et colores, et sapores. Primus autem modus diversitatis secundum genus consideratur magis a naturali, et etiam a philosopho, quia est magis realis. Secundus autem modus consideratur a logico, quia est rationis.	1127. Now it is clear, from what has been said, that some things are contained under one category and are in one genus in this second sense, although they are diverse in genus in the first sense. Examples of this are the celestial bodies and elemental bodies, and colors and flavors. The first way in which things are diverse in genus is considered rather by the natural scientist and also by the philosopher, because it is more real. But the second way in which things are diverse in genus is considered by the logician, because it is conceptual.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit falsum dicitur hic distinguit nomina, quae significant defectum entis, vel ens incompletum. Et primo hoc nomen falsum. Secundo hoc nomen accidens. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit quomodo dicatur falsum in rebus. Secundo quomodo in definitionibus, ibi, ratio vero falsa. Tertio quomodo sit falsum in hominibus, ibi, sed et homo falsus. Dicit ergo primo, quod falsum dicitur uno modo in rebus, per hoc quod oratio significans rem non congrue componitur. Quod quidem contingit dupliciter. Uno modo per hoc, quod aliquid componitur quod non debet componi, sicut est in falsis contingentibus. Alio modo per hoc quod est impossibile componi, sicut est in falsis impossibilibus. Si enim dicamus diametrum esse commensurabilem quadrati lateri, est falsum impossibile, quia impossibile est commensurabile componi diametro. Si autem dicatur te sedere, te stante, est falsum contingens, quia praedicatum non inest subiecto, licet non sit impossibile inesse. Unde unum istorum, scilicet impossibile, est falsum semper; sed aliud, scilicet contingens, non est falsum semper. Sic igitur falsa dicuntur, quae omnino sunt non entia. Nam oratio tunc esse falsa dicitur, quando non est id quod oratione significatur.	1128. “False” means (526). Here he gives the various senses of the terms which signify a lack of being or incomplete being. First, he gives the senses in which the term false is used. Second (1139), he deals with the various senses of accident. In regard to the first he does three things. First, he shows how the term false is used of real things; and second (1130), how it is used of definitions (“A false notion”); and third (1135), how men are said to be false (“A false man”). He accordingly says, first, that the term false is applied in one sense to real things inasmuch as a statement signifying a reality is not properly composed. And there are two ways in which this can come about: In one way by forming a proposition which should not be formed; and this is what happens, for instance, in the case of false contingent propositions. In another way by forming a proposition about something impossible; and this is what happens in the case of false impossible propositions. For if we say that the diagonal of a square is commensurable with one of its sides, it is a false impossible proposition; for it is impossible to combine “commensurable” and “diagonal.” And if someone says that you are sitting while you are standing, it is a false contingent proposition; for the predicate does not attach to the subject, although it is not impossible for it to do so. Hence one of these—the impossible—is always false; but the other—the contingent is not always so. Therefore those things are said to be false which are non-beings in their entirety; for a statement is said to be false when what is signified by the statement is nonexistent.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 11 Secundo modo dicitur falsum in rebus ex eo, quod aliqua quidem sunt entia in se, sed tamen sunt apta nata videri aut qualia non sunt, aut quae non sunt, sicut schiagraphia, idest umbrosa descriptio. Umbrae enim quandoque videntur res, quarum sunt umbrae, sicut umbra hominis videtur homo. Et eadem ratio est de somniis, quae videntur res verae, tamen non sunt nisi rerum similitudines. Et similiter dicitur aurum falsum, quod habet similitudinem auri veri. Differt autem hic modus a primo: quia in primo dicebatur aliquod falsum, ex eo quod non erat. Hic autem dicuntur aliqua falsa quae quidem in se sunt aliquid, sed non sunt illa quorum faciunt phantasiam, idest quorum habent apparentiam. Patet ergo quod res dicuntur falsae, aut quia non sunt, aut quia ab eis est apparentia eius quod non est.	1129. The term false is applied to real things in a second way inasmuch as some things, though beings in themselves, are fitted by nature to appear either to, be other than they are or as things that do not exist, as “a shadowgraph,” i.e., a delineation in shadow. For sometimes shadows appear to be the things of which they are the shadows, as the shadow of a man appears to be a man. The same applies to dreams, which seem to be real things yet are only the likenesses of things. And one speaks in the same way of false gold, because it bears a resemblance to real gold. Now this sense differs from the first, because in the first sense things were said to be false because they did not exist, but here things are said to be false because, while being something in themselves, they are not the things “of which they cause an image,” i.e., which they resemble. It is clear, then, that things are said to be false (1) either because they do not exist or (2) because there arises from them the appearance of what does not exist.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit ratio vero ostendit quomodo est falsum in definitionibus: et dicit quod ratio, idest definitio, inquantum est falsa, est non entium. Dicit autem inquantum est falsa, quia definitio dicitur falsa dupliciter. Aut secundum se; et sic non est definitio alicuius, sed penitus non entis. Aut est definitio vera in se, sed falsa est prout attribuitur alteri quam proprio definito, et sic dicitur falsa inquantum non est eius.	1130. A “false” notion (527). He indicates how the term false applies to definitions. He says that “a notion,” i.e., a definition, inasmuch as it is false, is the notion of something non-existent. Now he says “inasmuch as it is false” because a definition is said to be false in two ways: It is either a false definition in itself, and then it is not the definition of anything but has to do entirely with the nonexistent; or it is a true definition in itself but false inasmuch as it is attributed to something other than the one properly defined; and then it is said to be false inasmuch as it does not apply to the thing defined.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 13 Unde patet, quod omnis definitio, quae est vera definitio alicuius rei, est falsa definitio alterius; ut definitio quae est vera de circulo, est falsa de triangulo. Definitio autem cuiuslibet rei significans quod quid est, quodam modo est una tantum unius, et quodam modo sunt multae unius. Aliquo enim modo ipsum subiectum per se sumptum, et ipsum passum, idest cum passione sumptum, est idem, sicut Socrates et Socrates musicus. Aliquo modo non: est enim idem per accidens, sed non per se. Patet autem, quod eorum sunt definitiones diversae. Alia enim est definitio Socratis et Socratis musici; et tamen ambae sunt quodammodo eiusdem.	1131. It is clear, then, that every definition which is a true definition of one thing is a false definition of something else; for example, the definition which is true of a circle is false when applied to a triangle. Now for one thing there is, in one sense, only one definition signifying its quiddity; and in another sense there are many definitions for one thing. For in one sense the subject taken in itself and “the thing with a modification,” i.e., taken in conjunction with a modification, are the same, as Socrates and musical Socrates. But in another sense they are not, for it is the same thing accidentally but not in itself. And it is clear that they have different definitions. For the definition of Socrates and that of musical Socrates are different, although in a sense both are definitions of the same thing.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 14 Sed illa definitio, quae est falsa secundum se, non potest esse definitio alicuius rei. Definitio autem falsa secundum se vel simpliciter, dicitur ex eo, quod una pars definitionis non potest stare cum altera; sicut si diceretur, animal inanimatum.	1132. But a definition which is false in itself cannot be a definition of anything. And a definition is said to be false in itself, or unqualifiedly false, by reason of the fact that one part of it cannot stand with the other; and such a definition would be had, for example, if one were to say “inanimate living thing.”
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 15 Patet autem ex hoc, quod stulta fuit opinio Antisthenis. Volebat enim, quod quia voces sunt signa rerum, quod sicut res non habet aliam essentiam nisi propriam, ita in propositione nihil posset praedicari de aliquo, nisi propria eius definitio, ut simpliciter vel semper de uno subiecto dicatur unum praedicatum. Et ex hoc sequitur, quod non sit contradictio; quia, si de homine praedicatur animal, quod est in eius ratione, non poterit de ipso praedicari non animal; et ita non poterit formari negativa propositio. Et ex hac positione etiam sequitur, quod non contingit aliquem mentiri: quia propria definitio rei vere praedicatur de re. Unde, si de nullo potest praedicari nisi propria definitio, nulla propositio erit falsa.	1133. Again, it is clear from this that Antisthenes’ opinion was foolish. For, since words are the signs of things, he maintained that, just as a thing does not have any essence other than its own, so too in a proposition nothing can be predicated of a subject but its own definition, so that only one predicate absolutely or always may be used of one subject. And from this position it follows that there is no such thing as a contradiction; because if animal, which is included in his notion, is predicated of man, non-animal can not be predicated of him, and thus a negative proposition cannot be formed. And from this position it also follows that one cannot speak falsely, because the proper definition of a thing is truly predicated of it. Hence, if only a thing’s own definition can be predicated of it, no proposition can be false.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 16 Est autem eius opinio falsa, quia contingit praedicari de unoquoque non solum suam definitionem, sed etiam alterius. Quod quando fit, universaliter et omnino, est falsa praedicatio. Aliquo tamen modo potest esse vera praedicatio; sicut octo dicuntur dupla, inquantum habent rationem dualitatis, quia ratio dupli est ut se habeat sicut duo ad unum. Octo autem, inquantum sunt duplum, sunt quodammodo duo, quia dividuntur in duo aequalia. Haec ergo dicuntur falsa modo praedicto.	1134. But his opinion is false, because of each thing we can predicate not only its own definition but also the definition of something else. And when this occurs in a universal or general way, the predication is false. Yet in a way there can be a true predication; for example, eight is said to be double inasmuch as it has the character of duality, because the character of duality is to be related as two is to one. But inasmuch as it is double, eight is in a sense two, because it is divided into two equal quantities. These things, then, are said to be false in the foregoing way.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 17 Deinde cum dicit sed homo ostendit quomodo falsum dicatur de homine: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit duos modos, quibus homo dicitur falsus: quorum primus est, quod homo dicitur falsus, qui est promptus vel gaudens in huiusmodi rationibus, scilicet falsis, et qui est electivus talium rationum non propter aliquod aliud, sed propter se. Unicuique enim habenti habitum fit delectabilis et in promptu operatio, quae est secundum habitum illum; et sic habens habitum operatur secundum habitum illum, non propter aliquod extrinsecum. Sicut luxuriosus fornicatur propter delectationem coitus: si autem fornicetur propter aliquid aliud, puta ut furetur, magis est fur quam luxuriosus. Similiter et qui eligit falsum dicere, propter lucrum, magis est avarus quam falsus.	1135. Then he shows how the term false may be predicated of a man; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he gives two ways in which a man is said to be false. (1) In one way a man is said to be false if he is ready to think, or takes pleasure in thinking, thoughts of this kind, i.e., false ones, and chooses such thoughts not for any other reason but for themselves. For anyone who has a habit finds the operation relating to that habit to be pleasurable and readily performed; and thus one who has a habit acts in accordance with that habit and not for the sake of anything extrinsic. For example, a debauched person commits fornication because of the pleasure resulting from coition; but if he commits fornication for some other end, for instance, that he may steal, he is more of a thief than a lecher. And similarly one who chooses to speak falsely for the sake of money is more avaricious than false.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 18 Secundus modus est prout homo dicitur falsus, qui facit aliis falsas rationes; quasi consimili modo sicut supra dicebamus res esse falsas quae faciunt falsam phantasiam. Patet autem ex praemissis, quod falsum pertinet ad non ens; ex quo homo dicitur falsus per respectum ad rationes falsas: et ratio dicitur falsa, inquantum est non entis.	1136. (2) In a second way a man is said to be false if he causes false notions in others, in much the same way as we said above that things are false which cause a false image or impression. For it is clear from what has been said that the false has to do with the non-existent. Hence a man is said to be false inasmuch as he makes false statements, and a notion is said to be false inasmuch as it is about something nonexistent.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 19 Secundo ibi, quare in excludit ex praemissis duas falsas opiniones: de quarum prima concludit ex praemissis, dicens, quod ex quo falsus homo est electivus et factivus falsarum opinionum, rationabiliter refutatur et reprobatur in Hippia, qui est liber quidam Platonis, oratio quaedam, quae dicebat, eamdem rationem esse veram et falsam. Haec enim opinio accipiebat illum hominem esse falsum qui potest mentiri; et sic, cum idem homo possit mentiri et verum dicere, idem homo esset verus et falsus. Similiter eadem oratio esset vera et falsa, quia eadem oratio vera et falsa potest esse, ut haec, Socrates sedet, eo sedente est vera, non sedente, est falsa. Constat autem, quod hic inconvenienter accipit, quia etiam homo sciens et prudens potest mentiri; non tamen est falsus, quia non est factivus vel electivus falsarum rationum vel opinionum, ex qua ratione dicitur homo falsus, ut dictum est.	1137. Hence, the speech (529). Second, he excludes two false opinions from what has been laid down above. He draws the first of these from the points made above. He says that, since a false man is one who chooses and creates false opinions, one may logically refute or reject a statement made in the Hippias, i.e., one of Plato’s works, which said that the same notion is both true and false. For this opinion considered that man to be false who is able to deceive, so that, being able both to deceive and to speak the truth, the same man is both true and false. And similarly the same statement will be both true and false, because the same statement is able to be both true and false; for example, the statement “Socrates sits” is true when he is seated, but is false when he is not seated. Now it is evident that this is taken unwarrantedly, because even a man who is prudent and knowing is able to deceive; yet he is not false, because he does not cause or choose false notions or opinions, and this is the reason why a man is said to be false, as has been stated (1135).
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 20 Deinde cum dicit amplius volentem secundam falsam opinionem excludit. Dicebat haec opinio, quod homo, qui facit turpia et prava volens, melior est eo qui facit nolens, quod est falsum. Nam quilibet vitiosus ex hoc definitur quod est promptus vel electivus malorum. Et tamen hoc falsum vult accipere per quamdam inductionem ex simili. Ille enim qui claudicat voluntarie, melior et dignior est eo, qui, claudicat non voluntarie. Et ita dicit, quod prava agere imitatur hoc quod est claudicare, ut scilicet sit eadem ratio de utroque. Et hoc quodammodo verum est. Nam claudicans voluntarie deterior est quantum ad morem, licet sit perfectior quantum ad virtutem gressivam. Et similiter qui agit prava voluntarie, deterior est quantum ad morem, licet forte non sit deterior quantum ad aliquam aliam potentiam. Sicut ille qui dicit falsum voluntarie, licet sit peior secundum morem, est tamen intelligentior eo qui credit se verum dicere, cum falsum dicat non voluntarie.	1138. And further (530). Then he rejects the second false opinion. This opinion maintained that a man who does base things and wills evil is better than one who does not But this is false. For anyone is defined as being evil on the grounds that he is ready to do or to choose evil things. Yet this opinion wishes to accept this sense of false on the basis of a sort of induction from a similar case. For one who voluntarily limps is better and nobler than one who limps involuntarily: Hence he says that to do evil is like limping inasmuch as the same notion applies to both. And in a sense this is true; for one who limps voluntarily is worse as regards his moral character, although he is more perfect as regards his power of walking. And similarly one who voluntarily does evil is worse as regards his moral character, although perhaps he is not worse as regards some other power. For example, even though that man is more evil, morally speaking, who voluntarily says what is false, still he is more intelligent than one who believes that he speaks the truth when he in fact speaks falsely, though not wilfully.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 21 Deinde cum dicit accidens est hic ultimo, distinguit nomen accidentis: et ponit duos modos, quibus dicitur hoc nomen accidens: quorum primus est, quod accidens dicitur id quod inest alicui, et quod contingit vere affirmare, non tamen ex necessitate, nec secundum magis idest ut in pluribus, sed ut in paucioribus; sicut, si aliquis fodiens aliquam fossam ad plantandum aliquam plantam, inveniat thesaurum. Hoc ergo, quod est fodientem fossam invenire thesaurum, est quoddam accidens. Neque enim unum est causa alterius ex necessitate, ut hoc sit ex hoc necessario. Neque etiam de necessitate se comitantur, ut hoc sit post hoc, sicut dies consequitur noctem, quamvis unum non sit causa alterius. Neque etiam secundum magis hoc contingit, sive ut in pluribus, hoc contingit, ut ille qui plantat, inveniat thesaurum. Et simili modo musicus dicitur esse albus, sed tamen hoc non est ex necessitate, nec fit ut in pluribus; ideo dicimus hoc per accidens. Differt autem hoc exemplum a primo. Nam in primo exemplo sumebatur accidens quantum ad fieri; in secundo vero quantum ad esse.	1139. An “accident” (531). Here, finally, he gives the different senses in which the term accident is used; and there are two of these: (1) First, an accident means anything that attaches to a thing and is truly affirmed of it, although not necessarily or “for the most part,” i.e., in the majority of cases, but in a minority; for example, if one were to find a treasure while digging a hole to set out a plant. Hence, finding a treasure while (digging a hole is an accident. For the one is not necessarily the cause of the other so that the one necessarily comes from the other. Neither do they necessarily accompany each other so that the latter comes after the former as day follows night, even though the one is not the cause of the other. Neither does it happen for the most part, or in the majority of cases, that this should occur, i.e., that one who sets out a plant finds a treasure. And similarly a musician is said to be white, although this is not necessarily so nor does it happen for the most part. Hence our statement is accidental. But this example differs from the first; for in the first example the term accident is taken in reference to becoming, and in the second example it is taken in reference to being.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 22 Quia ergo sicut aliquid inest alicui subiecto determinate, ita et aliquid consideratur esse alicubi, idest in aliquo loco determinato, et quandoque, idest in aliquo tempore determinato, in omnibus contingit inesse per accidens, si non insit secundum quod huiusmodi. Sicut si album dicitur de musico, hoc est per accidens, quia non inest musico inquantum huiusmodi. Et similiter si sit abundantia pluviae in aestate, hoc est per accidens, quia non accidit in aestate inquantum est aestas; et similiter si grave sit sursum, hoc est per accidens, non enim est in tali loco secundum quod talis locus est, sed per aliquam causam extraneam.	1140. Now just as something belongs to some definite subject, so too it is considered “to belong somewhere,” i.e., in some definite place, “and at some time,” i.e., at some definite time. And therefore it happens to belong to all of these accidentally if it does not belong to them by reason of their own nature; for example, when white is predicated of a musician, this is accidental, because white does not belong to a musician as such. And similarly if there is an abundance of rain in summer, this is accidental, because it does not happen in summer inasmuch as it is summer. And again if what is heavy is high up, this is accidental, for it is not in such a place inasmuch as the place is such, but because of some external cause.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 23 Et sciendum, quod accidentis hoc modo dicti, non est aliqua causa determinata, sed contingens, idest qualiscumque contingat, vel quia forte, idest causa fortuita, quae est causa indeterminata. Sicut accidit alicui quod veniat Aeginam, idest ad illam villam, si non propter hoc advenit ut illuc veniat, idest si non propter hoc incepit moveri ut ad hunc terminum perveniret, sed ab aliqua extranea causa illuc adductus est, sicut quia impulsus est ab hieme concitante tempestatem in mari, aut etiam captus est a latronibus, et illuc perductus praeter intentionem. Unde patet, quod hoc est per accidens, et causari potest ex diversis causis; sed tamen quod iste navigans ad hunc locum perveniat non est inquantum ipsum, idest inquantum erat navigans, cum intenderet ad alium locum navigare; sed hoc contingit inquantum alterum, idest secundum aliquam aliam causam extraneam. Hiems enim est causa veniendi quo non navigabat, idest ad Aeginam, aut latrones, aut aliquid aliud huiusmodi.	1141. And it should be borne in mind that there is no determinate cause of the kind of accident here mentioned, “but only a contingent cause,” i.e., whatever one there happens to be, or “a chance cause,” i.e., a fortuitous one, which is an indeterminate cause. For example, it was an accident that someone “came to Aegina,” i.e., to that city, if he did not come there “in order to get there,” i.e., if he began to head for that city not in order that he might reach it but because he was forced there by some external cause; for example, because he was driven there by the winter wind which caused a tempest at sea, or even because he was captured by pirates and was brought there against his will. It is clear, then, that this is accidental, and that it can be brought about by different causes. Yet the fact that in sailing he reaches this place occurs “not of itself,” i.e., inasmuch as he was sailing (since he intended to sail to another place), but “by reason of something else,” i.e., another external cause. For a storm is the cause of his coming to the place “to which he was not sailing,” i.e., Aegina; or pirates; or something else of this kind.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 24 Secundo modo dicitur accidens, quod inest alicui secundum se, et tamen non est de substantia eius. Et hic est secundus modus dicendi per se, ut supra dictum est. Nam primus erat prout secundum se dicitur de aliquo quod in eius definitione ponitur, ut animal de homine, quod nullo modo est accidens. Sed triangulo inest per se duos rectos habere, et non est de substantia eius; unde est accidens.	1142. (2) [property] In a second sense accident means whatever belongs to each thing of itself but is not in its substance. This is the second mode of essential predication, as was noted above (1055); for the first mode exists when something is predicated essentially of something which is given in its definition, as animal is predicated of man, which is not an accident in any way. Now it belongs essentially to a triangle to have two right angles, but this does not belong to its substance. Hence it is an accident.
lib. 5 l. 22 n. 25 Differt autem hic modus a primo, quia accidentia hoc secundo modo contingit esse sempiterna. Semper enim triangulus habet tres angulos aequales duobus rectis. Accidentium vero secundum primum modum, nullum contingit esse sempiternum, quia sunt semper ut in paucioribus: et huius ratio habetur in aliis, sicut infra in sexto huius, et in secundo physicorum. Accidens ergo secundum primum modum opponitur ad secundum se. Accidens vero secundo modo opponitur ad substantialiter. Et haec de quinto.	1143. This sense of accident differs from the first, because accidents in this second sense can be eternal. For a triangle always has three angles equal to two right angles. But none of those things which are accidents in the first sense can be eternal, because they are always such as occur in the minority of cases. The discussion of this kind of accident is undertaken in another place, for example in Book VI of this work (1172), and in Book II of the Physics. Accident in the first sense, then, is opposed to what exists in itself; but accident in the second sense is opposed to what is substantial. This completes Book V.