Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber5/lect5

Lecture 5

Latin	English
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 1 Hic distinguit hoc nomen natura: cuius quidem consideratio, licet non videatur ad primum philosophum, sed magis ad naturalem pertinere, ideo tamen hic hoc nomen natura distinguitur, quia natura secundum sui quamdam acceptionem de omni substantia dicitur, ut patebit. Et per consequens cadit in consideratione philosophi primi, sicut et substantia universalis. Circa hoc autem duo facit. Primo distinguit diversos modos, quibus natura dicitur. Secundo reducit omnes ad unum primum, ibi, ex dictis igitur. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit quinque modos principales. Secundo ponit duos alios adiunctos duobus ultimis, ibi, natura autem prima materia. Dicit ergo primo, quod natura dicitur uno modo generatio generatorum, vel ut alia litera habet melius, nascentium. Non enim omnia generata nascentia dici possunt; sed solum in viventibus, sicut in plantis, sive in animalibus, et in partibus eorum. Non autem generatio rerum non viventium potest dici natura proprie loquendo secundum communem usum vocabuli, sed solum generatio viventium; ut dicatur natura ipsa nativitas vel ipsa nascentia, quod ipsum nomen sonare videtur. Ut si quis porrigens dicat naturam. Litera ista corrupta est. Quod ex alia translatione patet, quae sic habet ut si quis producens dicat ypsilon. Physis enim, quod apud Graecos naturam significat, si pro generatione viventium accipiatur, habet primum ypsilon productum; si vero pro principio, sicut communiter utitur, habet primum ypsilon breve. Posset tamen per hanc literam intelligi quod hoc nomen natura de generatione viventium dicatur secundum quamdam porrectionem idest extensionem.	808. Here he gives the different meanings of the term nature. And even though an investigation of the term nature appears not to belong to first philosophy but rather to the philosophy of nature, he nevertheless gives the different meanings of this term here, because according to one of its common meanings nature is predicated of every substance, as he will make clear. Hence it falls under the consideration of first philosophy just as universal substance does. In regard to the first he does two things. First (808), he distinguishes the different senses in which the term nature is used. Second (824), he reduces all of these to one primary notion (“Hence, from what”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he gives five principal senses in which the term, nature is used. Second (821), he gives two additional senses connected with the last two of these (“Again, nature”). (1) He accordingly says, first, that in one sense nature means the process of generation of things that are generated, or, according to another text which states this in a better way, “of things that are born.” For not everything that is generated can be said to be born but only living things, for example, plants and animals and their parts. The generation of non-living things cannot be called nature, properly speaking, according to the common use of the term, but only the generation of living things inasmuch as nature may mean the nativity or birth of a thing... Yet even from this text it can be understood that the term nature means the generation of living things by a certain lengthening or extension of usage.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 2 Ex hoc autem quod ipsa nativitas primo natura dicta est, secutus est modus secundus, ut scilicet generationis principium, ex quo aliquid generatur, sive ex quo illud, quod nascitur generatur primo, sicut ex intrinseco principio, dicatur natura.	809. Again, from the fact that nature was first used to designate the birth of a thing there followed a second use of the term, so that nature came to mean the principle of generation from which a thing comes to be, or that from which as from an intrinsic principle something born is first generated.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 3 Et per similitudinem nativitatis ad alios motus, ulterius processit huius nominis significatio, ut natura tertio modo dicatur id, unde est principium motus in quolibet entium secundum naturam, dummodo sit in eo inquantum huiusmodi, et non per accidens. Sicut in medico, qui infirmatur, inest principium sanationis, scilicet ars medicinae, non tamen inquantum est infirmus, sed inquantum medicus. Sanatur autem non inquantum est medicus, sed inquantum infirmus: et sic principium motus non est in eo inquantum movetur. Et haec est definitio naturae posita in secundo physicorum.	810. And as a result of the likeness between birth and other kinds of motion the meaning of the term nature has been extended farther, so that in a third sense it means the source from which motion begins in any being according to its nature, provided that it is present in it insofar as it is such a being and not accidentally. For example, the principle of health, which is the medical art, is not present in a physician who is ill insofar as he is ill but insofar as he is a physician. And he is not healed insofar as he is a physician but insofar as he is ill; and thus the source of motion is not in him insofar as he is moved. This is the definition of nature given in Book II of the Physics.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 4 Et, quia de nascentibus mentionem fecit, ostendit quid sit proprie nasci, ut habet alia litera, loco cuius haec litera improprie habet generari. Differt enim generatio in viventibus a generatione inanimatorum, quia inanimatum generatur, non ut coniunctum sive unitum generanti, ut ignis ab igne, et aqua ab aqua. In viventibus autem fit generatio per quamdam unionem ad generationis principium. Et, quia additio quanti ad quantum facit augmentum, ideo in generatione viventium videtur esse quoddam augmentum, sicut est cum ex arbore nascitur fructus, aut folium. Et ideo dicit, quod nasci dicuntur quaecumque augmentum habent, idest quoddam augmentum cum generationis principio.	811. And because he mentioned things that are born, he also shows what it means in the proper sense “to be born,” as another text says, and in place of which this text incorrectly says “to be generated.” For the generation of living things differs from that of non-living things, because a non-living thing is not generated by being joined or united to its generator, as fire is generated by fire and water by water. But the generation of a living thing comes about through some kind of union with the principle of generation. And because the addition of quantity to quantity causes increase, therefore in the generation of living things there seems to be a certain increase, as when a tree puts forth foliage and fruit. Hence he says that those things are said to be born which “increase,” i.e., have some increase together with the principle of generation [i.e. multiply].
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 5 Differt autem hoc augmentum a specie motus quae augmentum dicitur, qua moventur iam nata. Nam in augmento aliquid augetur in seipso per hoc, quod id quod additur transit in substantiam eius cui additur, sicut nutrimentum in substantiam nutriti: id autem, quod nascitur apponitur ei ex quo nascitur, tamquam alterum et diversum, non sicut in eius substantiam transiens. Et ideo dicit, quod habet augmentum per diversum sive per alterum: quasi dicat, quod hoc augmentum fit per appositionem alicuius alterius, vel diversi.	812. But this kind of increase differs from that class of motion which is called increase [or augmentation], by which things that are already born are moved or changed. For a thing that increases within itself does so because the part added passes over into the substance of that thing, as food passes over into the substance of the one nourished. But anything that is born is added to the thing from which it is born as something other and different, and not as something that passes over into its substance. Hence he says that it increases “through something distinct” or something else, as if to say that this increase comes about through the addition of something that is other or different.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 6 Sed appositio augmentum faciens potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo tangendo, idest per solum contactum. Alio modo per hoc quod est simul idest aliqua duo simul producuntur adinvicem coaptata, sicut brachium et nervus et aliquid esse apte, idest quod aliquid adaptetur ad alterum iam praeexistens, sicut capilli capiti, et dentes gingivis. Loco autem huius alia litera habet melius connasci et adnasci. In hac autem generatione viventium non solum fit appositio per tactum, sed etiam per quamdam coaptationem sive connascentiam; ut patet in embryonibus, qui non solum tanguntur in matrice, sed etiam alligantur in principio suae generationis.	813. But addition that brings about increase can be understood to take place in two ways: in one way, “by touching,” i.e., by contact alone; in another way, “by existing together,” i.e., by the fact that two things are produced together and naturally connected with each other, as the arms and sinews; “and by being joined,” i.e., by the fact that something is naturally adapted to something else already existing, as hair to the head and teeth to the gums. In place of this another text reads, more appropriately, “by being born together with,” and “by being connected with at birth.” Now in the generation of living things addition comes about not only by contact but also by a kind of joining together or natural connection, as is evident in the case of embryos, which are not only in contact in the womb, but are also bound to it at the beginning of their generation.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 7 Ostendit autem quid inter duo praedicta differat; dicens, quod conflatio, idest colligatio sive connascentia, ut alia litera habet, differt a tactu, quia in tactu non est necessarium aliquid esse praeter tangentia, quod ea faciat unum. In colligatis autem sive coaptatis sive connatis vel adnatis oportet esse quid unum in ambobus quod pro tactu, idest loco tactus faciat ea simul apta esse idest coaptata vel ligata sive simul nasci. Intelligendum est autem quod id, quod facit ea unum, facit esse unum secundum quantitatem et continuitatem, et non secundum qualitatem; quia ligamentum non alterat ligata a suis dispositionibus.	814. Further, he indicates the difference between these two, saying that “being fused,” i.e., being bound together, or “being connected at birth,” as another text says, differs from contact, because in the case of contact there need be nothing besides the things in contact which makes them one. But in the case of things which are bound together, whether naturally connected or born together and joined at birth, there must be some one thing “instead of contact,” i.e., in the place of contact, which causes them “to be naturally joined,” i.e., joined or bound together or born together. Moreover, it must be understood that the thing which causes them to be one makes them one in quantity and continuity but not in quality; because a bond does not alter the things bound from their own dispositions.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 8 Ex hoc autem apparet, quia quod nascitur semper est coniunctum ei ex quo nascitur. Ideo natura numquam dicit principium extrinsecum, sed secundum omnes suas acceptiones dicit principium intrinsecum.	815. And from this it is evident that anything that is born is always connected with the thing from which it is born. Hence nature never means an extrinsic principle, but in every sense in which it is used it is taken to mean an intrinsic principle.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 9 Ex hac autem tertia ratione naturae sequitur quarta. Si enim principium motus rerum naturalium natura dicitur, principium autem motus rerum naturalium quibusdam videbatur esse materia, consequens fuit ut materia natura diceretur, quae quidem est principium rei, et quantum ad esse et quantum ad fieri. Ipsa etiam absque omni forma consideratur, nec a seipsa movetur, sed ab alio. Et ideo dicit quod natura dicitur ex quo aliquod entium primo est aut fit.	816. (4) And from this third meaning of nature there follows a fourth. For if the source of motion in natural bodies is called their nature, and it seemed to some that the principle of motion in natural bodies is matter, it was for this reason that matter came to be called nature, which is taken as a principle of a thing both as to its being and as to its becoming. And it is also considered to be without any form, and is not moved by itself but by something else. He accordingly says that nature is spoken of as that primary thing of which any being is composed or from which it comes to be.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 10 Quod ideo dicit, quia materia essendi et fiendi est principium. Ex quo, dico, existente inordinato idest absque forma. Unde alia litera habet cum informe sit. In quibusdam enim ipse ordo habetur pro forma, sicut in exercitu et civitate. Ex quo, dico, immutabili ex sua potestate, idest, quod moveri non potest per suam potestatem, sed secundum potestatem sui superioris agentis. Nam materia non movet seipsam ad formam, sed movetur a superiori exteriori agente. Sicut si diceremus aes materiam statuae et vasorum aereorum, et ligna ligneorum, si huiusmodi vasa, naturalia corpora essent. Similiter est in omnibus aliis quae ex materia sunt vel fiunt. Unumquodque enim eorum fit ex sua materia, ea salvata. Dispositiones autem formae non salvantur in generatione; una enim forma introducitur altera abiecta. Et propter hoc formae videbantur esse quibusdam accidentia, et sola materia substantia et natura, ut dicitur secundo physicorum.	817. He says this because matter is a principle both of being and of becoming. Hence he says that “it is without order,” i.e., form; and for this reason another text says “when it is unformed”; for in the case of some things their order (or arrangement) is regarded as their form, as in the case of an army or of a city. And for this reason he says that it is “immutable by its own power,” i.e., it cannot be moved by its own power but by that of a higher agent. For matter does not move itself to acquire a form but is moved by a higher and extrinsic agent. For instance, we might say that “bronze is the nature of a statue or of bronze vessels” or “wood of wooden,” as if such vessels were natural bodies. The same is true of everything else that is composed of or comes to be from matter; for each comes to be from its matter though this is preserved. But in the process of generation the dispositions of a form are not preserved; for when one form is introduced another is cast out. And for this reason it seemed to some thinkers that forms are accidents and that matter alone is substance and nature, as he points out in the Physics, Book II
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 11 Et hoc ideo, quia similiter existimabant formam et materiam in rebus naturalibus, sicut in rebus artificialibus, in quibus formae sunt accidentia, et sola materia substantia. Unde isto modo naturales dixerunt elementa esse materiam existentium secundum naturam, vel aquam, vel aerem, vel ignem aut terram, quam nullus elementum naturalium posuit solam, sed aliqui non naturales, ut in primo libro est habitum. Quidam autem posuerunt aliqua eorum esse elementa et naturam rerum, sicut Parmenides. Quidam vero omnia quatuor, sicut Empedocles. Quidam vero aliquid aliud, sicut Heraclitus vaporem.	818. They held this view because they considered the matter and form of natural bodies in the same way as they did the matter and form of things made by art, in which forms are merely accidents and matter alone is substance. It was in this sense that the philosophers of nature said that the elements are the matter of things which come to be by nature, i.e., water, air, or fire, or earth, which no philosopher has held to be the element of natural beings all by itself, although some of those who were not philosophers of nature did hold this, as was stated in Book I (134). And some philosophers, such as Parmenides, held that some of these are the elements and natures of things; others, such as Empedocles, held that all four are the elements of things; and still others, such as Heraclitus, held that something different is the element of things, for he claimed that vapor plays this role.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 12 Quia vero motus rerum naturalium magis causatur ex forma quam ex materia, ideo supervenit quintus modus quo ipsa forma dicitur natura. Et sic alio modo natura dicitur ipsa substantia, idest forma rerum existentium secundum naturam, sicut naturam rerum dixerunt esse ipsam compositionem mixtorum; sicut Empedocles dixit, quod non est aliquid entium absolutum, sed solummodo commutatio seu relaxatio vel commixtio permixtorum, secundum aliam translationem, natura apud homines dicitur. Dicuntur enim quae sunt permixtionis diversae, naturam diversam habere.	819. (5) Now because motion is caused in natural bodies by the form rather than by the matter, he therefore adds a fifth sense in which the term nature is used: that in which nature means the form of a thing. Hence in another sense nature means “the substance of things,” i.e., the form of things, which are by nature. It was in this sense that some said that the nature of things is the composition of mixed bodies, as Empedocles said that there is nothing absolute in the world, but that only the alteration or loosening (or mixing, according to another text) of what has been mixed is called nature by men. For they said that things composed of different mixtures have different natures.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 13 Ad ponendum autem formam esse naturam, hac ratione inducebantur, quia quaecumque sunt et fiunt naturaliter non dicuntur habere naturam, existente materia ex qua nata sunt fieri vel esse, nisi habeant speciem propriam et formam, per quam speciem consequantur. Videtur autem nomen speciei poni pro forma substantiali, et forma pro figura quae consequitur speciem, et est signum speciei. Si igitur forma est natura, nec aliquid potest dici habere naturam nisi quando habet formam, illud ergo quod compositum est ex materia et forma dicitur esse natura, idest secundum naturam, ut animalia et partes eorum, sicut caro et os et huiusmodi.	820. Now they were led to hold that form is nature by this process of reasoning: whatever things exist or come to be by nature are not said to have a nature, even though the matter from which they are naturally disposed to be or to come to be is already present, unless they have a proper species and a form through which they acquire their species. Now the term species seems to be given in place of substantial form and the term form in place of figure, which is a natural result of the species and a sign of it. Hence, if form is nature, a thing cannot be said to have a nature unless it has a form. Therefore, that which is composed of matter and form “is said to be by nature,” i.e., according to nature, as animals and the parts of animals, such as flesh and bones and the like.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 14 Deinde cum dicit natura autem ponit duos modos adiunctos duobus ultimis praecedentibus, quorum primus additur quarto modo quo materia dicebatur natura. Et dicit, quod materia dicitur natura non quaecumque, sed prima. Quod potest intelligi dupliciter aut quantum ad id quod est genus; aut ex toto vel simpliciter prima. Sicut operum artificialium quae fiunt ex aere, prima materia secundum genus illud est aes. Prima vero simpliciter est aqua. Nam omnia quae liquescunt calido et indurantur frigido sunt aquea magis, ut dicitur quarto Meteororum.	821. Again, nature (414). Then he gives two meanings of nature which are connected with the last two preceding ones, and the first of these is added to the fourth sense of nature, in which it means the matter of a thing. And he says that not every kind of matter is said to be the nature of a thing but only first matter. This can be understood in two senses: either with reference to something generic, or with reference to something that is first absolutely or without qualification. For example, the first matter generically of artificial things produced from bronze is bronze; but their first matter without qualification is water; for all things which are liquefied by heat and solidified by cold have the character of water, as he says in Book IV of the Meteors.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 15 Secundus modus adiacet quinto modo praedicto quo forma dicebatur natura. Et secundum hunc modum non solum forma partis dicitur natura, sed species ipsa est forma totius. Ut si dicamus quod hominis natura non solum est anima, sed humanitas et substantia quam significat definitio. Secundum hoc enim Boetius dicit, quod natura est unumquodque informans specifica differentia. Nam specifica differentia est, quae complet substantiam rei et dat ei speciem. Sicut autem forma vel materia dicebatur natura, quia est principium generationis, quae secundum primam nominis impositionem natura dicitur; ita species et substantia dicitur natura, quia est finis generationis. Nam generatio terminatur ad speciem generati, quae resultat ex unione formae et materiae.	822. He links up the second of these additional meanings with the fifth sense of nature mentioned above, according to which nature means form. And in this sense not only the form of a part (forma partis) is called nature but the species is the form of the whole (forma totius). For example, we might say that the nature of man is not only a soul but humanity and the substance signified by the definition. For it is from this point of view that Boethius says that the nature of a thing is the specific difference which informs each thing, because the specific difference is the principle that completes a thing’s substance and gives it its species. And just as form or matter is called nature because it is a principle of generation, which is the meaning of nature according to the original use of the term, in a similar way the species or substance of a thing is called its nature because it is the end of the process of generation. For the process of generation terminates in the species of the thing generated, which is a result of the union of matter and form.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 16 Et ex hoc secundum quamdam metaphoram et nominis extensionem omnis substantia dicitur natura; quia natura quam diximus quae est generationis terminus, substantia quaedam est. Et ita cum eo quod natura dicitur, omnis substantia similitudinem habet. Et hunc modum etiam ponit Boetius. Ratione autem istius modi distinguitur hoc nomen natura inter nomina communia. Sic enim commune est sicut et substantia.	823. And because of this every substance is called nature according to a kind of metaphorical and extended use of the term; for the nature which we spoke of as the terminus of generation is a substance. Thus every substance is similar to what we call nature. Boethius also gives this meaning of the term. Moreover, it is because of this meaning that the term nature is distinguished from other common terms. For it is common in this way just as substance also is.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 17 Deinde dum dicit ex dictis reducit omnes modos praedictos ad unum. Sciendum est autem, quod reductio aliorum modorum ad unum primum, fieri potest dupliciter. Uno modo secundum ordinem rerum. Alio modo secundum ordinem, qui attenditur quantum ad nominis impositionem. Nomina enim imponuntur a nobis secundum quod nos intelligimus, quia nomina sunt intellectuum signa. Intelligimus autem quandoque priora ex posterioribus. Unde aliquid per prius apud nos sortitur nomen, cui res nominis per posterius convenit: et sic est in proposito. Quia enim formae et virtutes rerum ex actibus cognoscuntur, per prius ipsa generatio vel nativitas, naturae nomen accepit, et ultimo forma.	824. Hence, from what (415). Then he reduces all of the foregoing senses of the term nature to one common notion. But it must be noted that the reduction of the other senses to one primary sense can happen in two ways: in one way, with reference to the order which things have; and in another way, with reference to the order which is observed in giving names to things. For names are given to things according as we understand them, because names are signs of what we understand; and sometimes we understand prior things from subsequent ones. Hence something that is prior for us receives a name which subsequently fits the object of that name. And this is what happens in the present case; for since the forms and powers of things are known from their activities, the process of generation or birth of a thing is the first to receive the name of nature and the last is the form.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 18 Sed secundum rerum ordinem, formae prius competit ratio naturae, quia, ut dictum est, nihil dicitur habere naturam, nisi secundum quod habet formam.	825. But with reference to the order which things have in reality the concept of nature primarily fits the form, because, as has been said (808), nothing is said to have a nature unless it has a form.
lib. 5 l. 5 n. 19 Unde patet ex dictis, quod primo et proprie natura dicitur substantia, idest forma rerum habentium in se principium motus inquantum huiusmodi. Materia enim dicitur esse natura, quia est formae susceptibilis. Et generationes habent nomen naturae, quia sunt motus procedentes a forma, et iterum ad formas. Et idipsum, scilicet forma est principium motus rerum existentium secundum naturam, aut in actu, aut in potentia. Forma enim non semper facit motum in actu, sed quandoque in potentia tantum: sicut quando impeditur motus naturalis ab aliquo exteriori prohibente, vel etiam quando impeditur actio naturalis ex materiae defectu.	826. Hence from what has been said it is evident that “in its primary and proper sense nature is the substance,” i.e., the form, of those things which have within themselves as such the source of their motion. For matter is called nature because it is receptive of form; and processes of generation get the name of nature because they are motions proceeding from a form and terminating in further forms. And this, namely, the form, is the principle of motion in those things which are by nature, either potentially or actually. For a form is not always the cause of actual motion but sometimes only of potential motion, as when a natural motion is prevented by an external obstacle, or even when a natural action is prevented by a defect in the matter.