Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber5/lect7

Lecture 7

Latin	English
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 1 Postquam philosophus distinxit nomina quae significant causas, hic distinguit nomina quae significant id quod est subiectum aliquo modo in ista scientia. Et dividitur in duas partes. Primo ponit sive distinguit nomina, quae significant subiectum huius scientiae. Secundo ea, quae significant partes subiecti, ibi, eadem dicuntur. Subiectum autem huius scientiae potest accipi, vel sicut communiter in tota scientia considerandum, cuiusmodi est ens et unum: vel sicut id de quo est principalis intentio, ut substantia. Et ideo primo distinguit hoc nomen unum. Secundo hoc nomen ens, ibi, ens dicitur et cetera. Tertio hoc nomen substantia, ibi, substantia dicitur et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo distinguit unum in per se et per accidens; et ostendit quot modis dicitur unum per accidens. Secundo quot modis dicitur unum per se, ibi secundum se vero unum et cetera.	842. Having given the various senses of the terms which signify causes, the Philosopher now proceeds to do the same thing with those terms which signify in some way the subject of this science. This is divided into two parts. In the first (423)C 843) he gives or distinguishes the different senses of the terms which signify the subject of this science; and in the second (445:C 908) he distinguishes the different senses of the terms which signify the parts of this subject ("Things are said to be the same"). Now the subject of this science can be taken either as that which has to be considered generally in the whole science, and as such it is unity and being, or as that with which this science is chiefly concerned, and this is substance. Therefore, first (423), he gives the different senses of the term one; second (435:C 885) of the term being ("The term being"); and third (440:C 898), of the term substance ("The term substance"). In regard to the first part of this division he does two things. First, he makes a distinction between what is essentially one and what is accidentally one, and he also indicates the various senses in which things are said to be accidentally one. Second (42VC 848), he notes the various senses in which things are said to be essentially one ("But in the case").
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 2 Dicit ergo, quod unum dicitur et per se et per accidens. Per accidens autem unum docet considerare primo in terminis singularibus; et hoc dupliciter. Uno modo secundum quod accidens comparatur ad subiectum. Alio modo secundum quod unum accidens comparatur ad aliud. In utroque autem istorum tria est accipere; scilicet unum compositum et duo simplicia. Si enim unum per accidens accipiatur secundum comparationem accidentis ad subiectum, sic sunt ista tria: primum est Coriscus, secundum est musicus, tertium Coriscus musicus. Et haec tria sunt unum per accidens. Nam idem subiecto est Coriscus et musicus. Et similiter, quando comparatur accidens ad accidens, tria est accipere; quorum primum est musicum, secundum est iustum, tertium est musicus iustus Coriscus. Et omnia praedicta dicuntur esse unum secundum accidens; tamen alia et alia ratione.	843. He says (423), then, that the term one signifies both what is essentially one and what is accidentally one. And he tells us that what is accidentally one we should consider first in the case of singular terms. Now singular terms can be accidentally one in two ways: in one way according as an accident is related to a subject; and in another way according as one accident is related to another. And in both cases three things have to be considered—one composite thing and two simple ones. For if what is accidentally one is considered to be such according as an accident is related to a subject, then there are, for example, these three things: first, Coriscus; second, musical; and third, musical Coriscus. And these three are accidentally one; for Coriscus and what is musical are the same in subject. Similarly when an accident is related to an accident, three terms must be considered: first, musical; second, just; and third, just musical Coriscus. And all these atle said to be accidentally one, but for different reasons.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 3 Iustum enim et musicum, quae sunt duo simplicia in secunda acceptione, dicuntur unum per accidens, quia accidunt uni subiecto. Musicus vero et Coriscus, quae sunt duo simplicia in prima acceptione, dicuntur unum per accidens, quia alterum eorum, scilicet musicum accidit alteri, scilicet Corisco. Et similiter quantum ad aliquid musicus Coriscus cum Corisco, quod est compositum cum uno simplicium, in prima acceptione dicuntur unum per accidens, quia inter partes istas quae sunt in hac oratione, idest in hoc termino complexo, scilicet, Coriscus musicus, altera pars termini complexi, scilicet musicus, accidit alteri parti per se signatae, scilicet Corisco. Et eadem ratione potest dici, quod musicus Coriscus est unum cum iusto Corisco, quae sunt duo composita in secunda acceptione, quia ambae partes utriusque compositi accidunt uni, scilicet Corisco. Si enim idem est musicus et musicus Coriscus, et iustus et iustus Coriscus, cuicumque accidit musicum accidit musicus Coriscus; et quicquid accidit Corisco accidit Corisco iusto. Unde, si musicum accidit Corisco, sequitur, quod musicus Coriscus accidit iusto Corisco. Et sic nihil differt dicere musicum Coriscum accidere iusto Corisco, quam musicum accidere Corisco.	844. For just and musical, which are two simple terms in the second way, are said to be accidentally one because both are accidents of one and the same subject. But musical and Coriscus, which are two simple terms in the first way, are said to be accidentally one because "the one," namely, musical, "is an accident of the other," namely, of Coriscus. And similarly in regard to the relationship of musical Coriscus to Coriscus (which is the relationship of a composite term to one of two simple terms), these are said to be accidentally one in the first way, because in this expression, i.e., in the complex term, musical Coriscus, one of the parts, namely, musical, is an accident of the other, which is designated as a substance, namely, Coriscus. And for the same reason it can be said that musical Coriscus is one with just Coriscus, which are two composites in the second way, because two of the parts of each composite are accidents of one subject, Coriscus. For if musical and musical Coriscus, and just and just Coriscus, are the same, then whatever is an accident of musical is also an accident of musical Coriscus; and whatever is an accident of Coriscus is also an accident of just Coriscus. Hence, if musical is an accident of Coriscus, it follows that musical Coriscus is an accident of just Coriscus. Therefore it makes no difference whether we say that musical Coriscus is an accident of just Coriscus, or that musical is an accident of Coriscus.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 4 Quia vero huiusmodi praedicata per accidens per prius praedicantur de singularibus, et per posterius de universalibus, cum tamen e converso sit de praedicatis per se, manifestat consequenter in terminis universalibus quod in singularibus ostenderat; dicens, quod similiter accipitur unum per accidens, si aliquod accidens dicatur cum aliquo nomine alicuius generis, vel cuiuscumque universalis, sicut accipitur unum per accidens in praedictis, quando accidens adiungitur nomini singulari; sicut cum dicitur, quod homo et musicus homo sunt unum per accidens, licet quantum ad aliquid differant.	845. But because accidental predicates of this kind are first applied to singular things and then to universals (although the reverse is true of essential predicates), he therefore makes clear that what he showed in the case of singular terms also applies in that of universal terms. He says that, if an accident is used along with the name of a genus or of any universal term, accidental unity is taken in the same way as it is in the above cases when an accident is joined to a singular term; for example, when it is said that man and musical man are accidentally one, although they differ in some respect.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 5 Singulares enim substantiae nec sunt in subiecto, nec de subiecto praedicantur. Unde tantum substant et nihil eis substat. Substantiae quidem universales dicuntur de subiecto, sed non sunt in subiecto. Unde non substant accidentibus, et eis aliquid substat. Cum ergo accidens adiungitur particulari substantiae, non potest esse alia ratio dicti, nisi quia accidens inest substantiae particulari, ut quia musicum inest Corisco cum dicitur Coriscus musicus.	846. For singular substances are neither present in a subject nor predicated of a subject, so that while they are the subject of other things, they themselves do not have a subject. Now universal substances are predicated of a subject but are not present in a subject, so that while they are not the subjects of accidents, they have something as their subject. Hence, when an accident is joined to a singular substance, the expression stating this can only mean that an accident belongs to a singular substance, as musical belongs to Coriscus when Coriscus is said to be musical.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 6 Sed, cum dicitur homo musicus, potest esse duplex ratio dicti. Aut enim hoc dicitur, quia musicum accidit homini, per quod significatur substantia, et ex hoc competit sibi quod possit substare accidenti. Aut hoc ideo dicit, quia ambo, scilicet homo et musicus, insunt alicui singulari, sicut Corisco: sicut musicum dicebatur iustum, quia eidem singulari insunt, et eodem modo, scilicet per accidens. Sed forsan hoc non eodem modo; sed universalis substantia inest singulari ut genus, sicut hoc nomen animal; aut si non sit genus, saltem est in substantia subiecti, idest ut substantiale praedicatum, sicut hoc nomen homo. Sed aliud, scilicet musicum, non est ut genus vel essentiale praedicatum, sed ut habitus vel passio subiecti, vel qualecumque accidens. Ponit autem haec duo, habitum et passionem, quia quaedam accidentia sunt manentia in subiecto, sicut habitus, qui sunt difficile mobiles; quaedam autem sunt accidentia pertranseuntia et non manentia, sicut passiones. Patet igitur quod isti sunt modi, quibus aliqua dicuntur unum per accidens.	847. But when we say musical man, the expression can mean one of two things: either that musical is an accident of man, by which substance is designated, and from this it derives its ability to be the subject of an accident; or it means that both of these, man and musical, belong to some singular thing, for example, Coriscus, in the way that musical was predicated of just, because these two belong to the same singular thing and in the same way, i.e., accidentally. But perhaps the one term does not belong to the other in the same way, but in the way that universal substance belongs to the singular as a genus, as the term animal, or if it is not a genus, it at least belongs to the substance of the subject, i.e., as an essential predicate, as the term man. But the other term, namely, musical, does not have the character of a genus or essential predicate, but that of a habit or modification of the subject, or whatever sort of accident it may be. He gives these two, habit and modification, because there are some accidents which remain in their subject, such as habits, which are moved with difficulty, and others which are not permanent but transient, such as modifications. It is clear, then, that these are the ways in which things are said to be accidentally one. Kinds of unity
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit secundum se ponit modos unius per se; et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit quot modis dicitur unum. Secundo quot modis dicuntur multa, ibi, palam autem, et quia multa. Circa primum duo facit. Primo distinguit modos unius naturaliter, idest secundum conditiones in rebus inventas. Secundo vero logice, idest secundum intentiones logicales, ibi, amplius autem alia et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo distinguit modos unius. Secundo vero ponit quamdam proprietatem consequentem ad unum, ibi, uni vero esse, est principium. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit modos unius. Secundo reducit eos omnes ad unum, ibi, universaliter enim quaecumque. Ponit autem in prima parte quinque modos unius.	848. But in the case (424). Then he gives the ways in which things are essentially one, and in regard to this he does two things. First, he indicates the different senses in which the term one is used; and second (880), the different senses in which the term many is used (“Moreover, it is evident”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he gives the different senses in which things arc one from the viewpoint of nature, i.e., according to the conditions found in reality; and second (876), from the viewpoint of logic, i.e., according to the considerations of logic (“Further, some things”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he distinguishes the different senses in which things are said to be one. Second (872), he indicates a property which accompanies unity (“But the essence of oneness”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he sets down the different senses in which things are said to be one. Second (866), he reduces all of them to a single sense (“For in general”). In the first part he gives five senses in which the term one is used.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 8 Quorum primus est, quod eorum quae secundum se dicuntur unum, quaedam dicuntur unum esse natura continuitatis, idest essendo continua: vel eo quod sunt continua, sicut dicit alia translatio. Sed continua dicuntur aliqua dupliciter. Quaedam enim sunt continua, sicut dicit alia litera, per aliud, quaedam secundum se.	849. (1) The first is this: some of the things which are said to be essentially one are such “by nature of their continuity,” i.e., by being continuous, or “because they are continuous,” as another translation says. But things are said to be continuous in two ways; for, as another text says, some things are continuous by reason of something other than themselves, and some in themselves.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 9 Prosequitur ergo primo continua secundum aliud, dicens, quod continua per aliud sunt, sicut onus lignorum continuum est ratione ligaminis vel vinculi: et hoc modo ligna adinvicem conviscata dicuntur unum per viscum. Quod etiam contingit dupliciter: quia quandoque continuatio alligatorum fit secundum lineam rectam, quandoque autem secundum lineam indirectam, sicut est linea reflexa angulum continens, quae fit ex contactu duarum in una superficie, quarum applicatio non est directa. Per hunc enim modum partes animalis dicuntur unum et continuum. Sicut tibia, quae habet reflexionem, et angulum continet ad genu, dicitur una et continua, et similiter brachium.	850. First, he proceeds to deal with those things which are continuous (a) by reason of something other than themselves. He says that there are things which are continuous as a result of something else; for example, a bundle of sticks is continuous by means of a cord or binding; and in this way too pieces of wood which have been glued together are said to be one by means of the glue. Now there are also two ways in which this occurs, because the continuity of things which are fastened together (i) sometimes takes the form of a straight line, and (ii) sometimes that of a line which is not straight. This is the case, for example, with a bent line having an angle, which results from the contact of two lines in one surface in such a way that they are not joined in a straight line. And it is in this way that the parts of an animal are said to be one and continuous; for example, the leg, which is bent, and contains an angle at the knee, is said to be one and continuous; and it is the same with the arm.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 10 Sed, cum talis continuatio, quae est per aliud, possit esse vel fieri naturaliter et arte, magis unum sunt quae sunt continua per naturam, quam quae sunt continua per artem: quia in his quae sunt continua per naturam, illud unum, per quod fit continuatio, non est extraneum a natura rei quae per ipsum continuatur, sicut accidit in his quae sunt unum per artificium, in quibus vinculum, vel viscus, vel aliquid tale est omnino extraneum a natura colligatorum. Et ita ea quae sunt naturaliter colligata, prius accedunt ad ea quae sunt secundum se continua, quae sunt maxime unum.	851. But since this kind of continuity which comes about by reason of something else can exist or come to be both by nature and by art, (b) those things which are continuous by nature are one to a greater degree than those which are continuous by art; for the unity that accounts for the continuity of things which are continuous by nature is not extrinsic to the nature of the thing which is made continuous by it, as happens in the case of things which are one by art, in which the binding or glue or something of the sort is entirely extrinsic to the nature of, the things which are joined together. Hence those things which are joined by nature hold the first place among those which are essentially continuous, which are one in the highest degree.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 11 Et ad evidentiam huius, definit continuum, dicens, quod continuum dicitur id cuius est secundum se unus motus tantum, et non est possibile aliter. Non enim possibile est in continuo, ut diversae partes diversis motibus moveantur, sed totum continuum movetur uno motu. Dicit autem secundum se, quia possibile est ut continuum moveatur uno modo per se, et uno alio vel pluribus per accidens; sicut si homo movetur in navi per se contra motum navis, movetur nihilominus motu navis per accidens.	852. In order to make this clear he defines the continuous. He says that that is said to be continuous which has only one motion essentially and cannot be otherwise. For the different parts of any continuous thing cannot be moved by different motions, but the whole continuous thing is moved by one motion. He says “essentially” because a continuous thing can be moved in one way essentially and in another or others accidentally. For example, if a man in a ship moves against the motion of the ship essentially, he is still moved accidentally by the motion of the ship.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 12 Ad hoc autem quod sit unus motus, oportet quod sit indivisibilis: et hoc dico secundum tempus, ut videlicet simul dum movetur una pars continui, moveatur et alia. Non enim contingit in continuo quod una pars moveatur et alia quiescat, vel quod una quiescat et alia moveatur, ut sic motus diversarum partium continui sint in diversis partibus temporis.	853. Now in order for motion to be one it must be indivisible; and by this I mean from the viewpoint of time, in the sense that at the same time that one part of a continuous thing is moved another is also moved. For it is impossible that one part of a continuous thing should be in motion and another at rest, or that one part should be at rest and another in motion, so that the motion of the different parts should take place in different parts of time.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 13 Ideo autem hic definit philosophus continuum per motum et non per unitatem termini, ad quem partes continui coniunguntur, sicut in praedicamentis et in libro physicorum habetur, quia ex ista definitione potest sumi diversus gradus unitatis in diversis continuis, sicut postea patebit, non autem ex definitione ibi data.	854. Therefore the Philosopher defines the continuous here by means of motion, and not by means of the oneness of the boundary at which the parts of the continuous things are joined, as is stated in the Categories, and in the Physics; because from this definition he can consider different grades of unity in different continuous things (as will be made clear later on [856]), but he cannot do this from the definition given there.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 14 Sciendum est autem, quod hoc quod hic dicitur, quod motus continui indivisibilis est secundum tempus, non est contrarium ei quod probatur in sexto physicorum, scilicet, quod tempus motus dividitur secundum partes mobilis. Hic enim loquitur philosophus quantum ad motum absolute, quia scilicet non ante incipit moveri una pars continui quam alia: ibi autem loquitur referendo ad aliquod signum, quod signatur in magnitudine, per quam fit motus. Illud enim signum, quod est prior pars magnitudinis, in priori tempore transitur, licet etiam in illa priori parte temporis aliae partes mobilis continui moveantur.	855. Moreover, it should be noted that what is said here about the motion of a continuous thing being indivisible from the viewpoint of time is not opposed to the point proved in Book VI of the Physics, that the time of a motion is divided according to the parts of the thing moved. For here the Philosopher is speaking of motion in an unqualified sense, because one part of a continuous thing does not begin to be moved before another part does; but there he is speaking of some designation which is made in the continuous quantity over which motion passes. For that designation, which is the first part of a continuous quantity, is traversed in a prior time, although in that prior time other parts of the continuous thing that is in motion are also moved.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 15 Deinde cum dicit secundum se prosequitur de illis quae sunt secundum se continua, dicens, quod illa sunt secundum se continua quae non dicuntur unum per contactum. Quod sic probat. Illa enim, quae se tangunt, ut duo ligna, non dicuntur unum lignum, nec unum corpus, nec unum aliquid aliud quod pertineat ad genus continui. Et sic patet quod alia est unitas continuorum, et alia tangentium. Quae enim sunt se tangentia non habent unitatem continuitatis per seipsa, sed per aliquod vinculum quod ea coniungit. Sed illa quae sunt continua, dicuntur unum secundum se, quamvis habeant reflexionem. Duae enim lineae reflexae continuantur ad unum communem terminum, qui est punctus in loco ubi constituitur angulus.	856. Again, all those (425). Then he proceeds to deal with things which are essentially continuous. He says that those things are essentially continuous which are said to be one not by contact. He proves this as follows: things which touch each other, as two pieces of wood, are not said to be one piece of wood or one body or any other kind of one which belongs to the class of the continuous. Hence it is evident that the oneness of things which are continuous differs from that of things which touch each other. For those things which touch each other do not have any unity of continuity of themselves but by reason of some bond which unites them; but those things which are continuous are said to be essentially one even though they are bent. For two bent lines are continuous in relation to one common boundary, which is the point at which the angle is formed.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 16 Sed tamen magis sunt unum quae per se sunt continua sine reflexione. Cuius ratio est, quia linea recta non potest habere nisi unum motum in omnibus partibus suis. Linea vero reflexa potest habere unum motum, et duos motus. Potest enim intelligi linea reflexa tota moveri in unam partem: et iterum potest intelligi quod una parte quiescente, alia pars, quae cum parte quiescente continet angulum, appropinquet per suum motum ad partem quiescentem, sicut quando tibia vel crus applicatur ad coxam, quae hic dicitur femur. Unde utrumque eorum, scilicet tibia vel coxa, sunt magis unum quam scelos, ut habetur in Graeco, idest quam id quod est compositum ex tibia et coxa.	857. Yet those things are one to a greater degree which are essentially continuous and without a bend. The reason is that a straight line can have only one motion in all of its parts, whereas a bent line can have one or two motions. For the whole of a bent line can be understood to be moved in one part; and it can also be understood that when one part is at rest, the other part, which makes an angle with the part at rest, can come closer by its motion to the unmoved part; for example, when the lower leg or shin is bent in the direction of the upper leg, which here is called the thigh. Hence each of these—the shin and thigh—is one to a greater degree “than the scelos,” as the Greek text says, i.e. the whole composed of the shin and thigh.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 17 Sciendum autem, quod litera quae habet curvitatem loco reflexionis, falsa est. Constat enim quod partes lineae curvae angulum non continentes, oportet quod simul moveantur et simul quiescant, sicut partes lineae rectae; quod non accidit in reflexa, ut dictum est.	858. Further, it must be noted that the text which reads “curved” instead of “bent” is false. For, since the parts of a curved line do not contain an angle, it is evident that they must be in motion together or at rest together, just as the parts of a straight line are; but this does not happen in the case of a bent line, as has been stated (857).
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 18 Secundum modum ponit ibi, amplius alio dicit, quod secundo modo dicitur unum, non tantum ratione continuae quantitatis, sed ex eo quod subiectum totum est indifferens forma secundum speciem. Quaedam enim esse possunt continua quae tamen in subiecto sunt diversa secundum speciem; sicut si continuetur aurum argento, vel aliqua huiusmodi. Et tunc talia duo erunt unum si attendatur sola quantitas, non autem si attendatur natura subiecti. Si vero totum subiectum continuum sit unius formae secundum speciem, erit unum et secundum rationem quantitatis et secundum rationem naturae.	859. Again, a thing (426). (2) Here he gives the second way in which things are one. He says that a thing is said to be one in a second way not merely by reason of continuous quantity but because of the fact that the whole subject is uniform in species. For some things can be continuous even though they differ in species; for example, when gold is continuous with silver or something of this kind. And then two such things will be one if quantity alone is considered but not if the nature of the subject is considered. But if the whole continuous subject is uniform in species, it will be one both from the viewpoint of quantity and from that of nature.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 19 Subiectum autem dicitur esse indifferens secundum speciem, quando eadem species sensibilis non dividitur, ita quod sint diversae formae sensibiles in diversis partibus subiecti, sicut quandoque contingit quod unius corporis sensibilis una pars est alba, et alia nigra. Hoc autem subiectum indifferens potest accipi dupliciter. Uno modo subiectum primum. Alio modo subiectum finale sive ultimum, ad quod pervenitur in fine divisionis. Sicut patet quod totum vinum dicitur unum esse, quia partes eius communicant in uno primo subiecto quod est indifferens secundum speciem. Et similiter est de aqua. Omnes enim liquores sive humores dicuntur unum in uno ultimo. Nam oleum et vinum et omnia huiusmodi resolvuntur ultimo in aquam vel aerem, qui in omnibus est radix humiditatis.	860. Now a subject is said to be uniform in species when the same sensible form is not divided in such a way that there are different sensible forms in different parts of the subject, as it sometimes happens, for example, that one part of a sensible body is white and another black. And this subject, which does not differ in species, can be taken in two ways: in one way as the first subject, and in another as the last or ultimate subject which is reached at the end of a division. It is evident, for example, that a whole amount of wine is said to be one because its parts are parts of one common subject which is undifferentiated specifically. The same is true of water. For all liquids or moist things are said to be one insofar as they have a single ultimate subject. For oil and wine and the like are ultimately dissolved into water or air, which is the root of moistness in all things.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 20 Tertium modum ponit ibi, dicuntur autem dicit, quod aliqua dicuntur unum, quorum genus est unum, oppositis differentiis divisum. Et ille modus habet aliquam similitudinem cum praecedenti. Ibi enim aliqua dicebantur esse unum, quia genus subiectum est unum: hic etiam aliqua dicuntur esse unum, quia eorum genus, quod est subiectum differentiis, est unum; sicut homo et equus et canis dicuntur unum, quia communicant in animali, quasi in uno genere, subiecto differentiis. Differt tamen hic modus a praedicto, quia in illo modo subiectum erat unum non distinctum per formas; hic autem genus subiectum est unum distinctum per diversas differentias quasi per diversas formas.	861. And those things (427). (3) Then he indicates the third way in which things are said to be one. He says that those things are said to be one whose genus is one, even though it is divided by opposite differences. And this way resembles the preceding one; for some things were said to be one in the preceding way because their subject-genus is one, and now some things are said to be one because their genus, which is the subject of differences, is one; for example, a man and a horse and a dog are said to be one because they have animality in common as one genus, which is the subject of differences. Yet this way differs from the preceding, because in the preceding way the subject was one thing which was not differentiated by forms; but here the subject-genus is one thing which is differentiated by various differences, as though by various forms.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 21 Et sic patet quod propinquissimo modo dicuntur aliqua esse unum genere, et similiter sicut aliqua dicuntur esse unum materia. Nam illa etiam quae dicuntur esse unum materia, distinguuntur per formas. Genus enim, licet non sit materia, quia non praedicaretur de specie, cum materia sit pars, tamen ratio generis sumitur ab eo quod est materiale in re; sicut ratio differentiae ab eo quod est formale. Non enim anima rationalis est differentia hominis, cum de homine non praedicetur; sed habens animam rationalem, quod significat hoc nomen rationale. Et similiter natura sensitiva non est genus hominis, sed pars. Habens etiam naturam sensitivam, quod nomine animalis significatur, est hominis genus. Similiter ergo et propinquus modus est quo aliqua sunt unum materia et unum genere.	862. Thus it is evident that some things are said to be one in genus in a most proximate sense, and in a way similar to that in which some things are said to be one in matter. For those things which are said to be one in matter are also differentiated by forms. For even though a genus is not matter, because it would then not be predicated of a species since matter is part of a thing, still the notion of a genus is taken from what is material in a thing, just as the notion of a difference is taken from what is formal. For the rational soul is not the difference of man (since it is not predicated of man), but something having a rational soul (for this is what the term rational signifies). Similarly, sensory nature is not the genus of man but a part. But something having a sensory nature, which the term animal Signifies, is the genus of man. In a similar fashion, then, the way in which things are one in matter is closely related to that in which they are one in genus.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 22 Sed sciendum est, quod unum ratione generis dicitur dupliciter. Quandoque enim aliqua dicuntur ita unum in genere sicut dictum est, quia scilicet eorum unum est genus qualitercumque. Quandoque vero non dicuntur aliqua esse unum in genere, nisi in genere superiori, quod cum adiunctione unitatis vel identitatis praedicatur de ultimis speciebus generis inferioris, quando sunt aliquae aliae superiores species supremi generis, in quarum una infinitae species conveniunt. Sicut figura est unum genus supremum continens sub se multas species, scilicet circulum, triangulum, quadratum, et huiusmodi. Et triangulus etiam continet diversas species, scilicet aequilaterum, qui dicitur isopleurus, et triangulum duorum aequalium laterum, qui dicitur aequitibiarum vel isosceles. Isti igitur duo trianguli dicuntur una figura, quod est genus remotum, sed non unus triangulus, quod est genus proximum. Cuius ratio est, quia hi duo trianguli non differunt per differentias quibus dividitur figura. Differunt autem per differentias quibus dividitur triangulus. Idem autem dicitur a quo aliquid non differt differentia.	863. But it must be borne in mind that to he one in generic character has two meanings. For sometimes some things are said to be one in genus, as has been stated, because they belong to one genus, whatever it may be. But sometimes some things are said to be one in genus only in reference to a higher genus, which, along with the designation “one” or “the same,” is predicated of the last species of a lower genus when there are other higher species in one of which the lower species agree. For example, figure is one supreme genus which has many species under it, namely, circle, triangle, square, and the like. And triangle also has different species, namely, the equilateral, which is called iso-pleural and the triangle with two equal sides, which is called equi-legged or isosceles. Hence these two triangles are said to be one figure, which is their remote genus, but not one triangle, which is their proximate genus. The reason for this is that these two triangles do not differ by any differences which divide figure, but by differences which divide triangle. And the term same means that from which something does not differ by a difference.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 23 Quartum modum ponit ibi, amplius autem dicit quod unum etiam dicuntur, quaecumque ita se habent quod definitio unius, quae est ratio significans quid est esse, non dividitur a definitione alterius, quae significat etiam quid est esse eius. Ipsa enim definitio, scilicet secundum se, oportet quod sit divisibilis, cum constet ex genere et differentia. Sed potest esse quod definitio unius sit indivisibilis a definitione alterius, quando duo habent unam definitionem; sive illae definitiones significent totum hoc quod est in definito, sicut tunica et indumentum: et tunc sunt simpliciter unum, quorum definitio est una: sive illa communis definitio non totaliter comprehendat rationem duorum, quae in ea conveniunt, sicut bos et equus conveniunt in una definitione animalis. Unde numquam sunt unum simpliciter, sed secundum quid, in quantum scilicet utrumque eorum est animal. Et similiter augmentum et diminutio conveniunt in una definitione generis, quia utraque est motus secundum quantitatem. Similiter in omnibus superficiebus est una definitio huius speciei quae est superficies.	864. (4) He now describes the fourth way in which things are said to be one. He says that things such that the definition of one (which is the concept signifying its quiddity) is not distinguished from the definition of the other (which also signifies its quiddity) are also said to be one. For while every definition must be divisible or distinguishable in itself, or essentially, since it is composed of genus and difference, it is possible for the definition of one thing to be indistinguishable from that of another when the two have one definition. And this applies (a) whether those definitions signify the total [intelligible structure] of the thing defined, as tunic and clothing (and then things whose definition is one are one in an absolute sense), or (b) whether that common definition does not totally comprehend the intelligible structure of the two things which have it in common, as an ox and a horse have in common the one definition of animal. Hence they are never one in an absolute sense, but only in a relative sense inasmuch as each is an animal. The same applies in the case of increase and decrease; for there is one common definition of the genus, because each is a motion relating to quantity. And the same thing is true of plane figures, for there is one definition of the species, plane figure.
lib. 5 l. 7 n. 24 Quintum modum ponit ibi, omnino vero dicit, quod omnino idest perfecte et maxime sunt unum, quorum intellectus intelligens quidditatem eorum est omnino indivisibilis, sicut simplicia, quae non componuntur ex principiis materialibus et formalibus. Unde intellectus accipiens quidditatem eorum, non comprehendit ea, quasi componens definitionem eorum ex diversis principiis; sed magis per modum negationis, sicut punctus est, cuius pars non est: vel etiam per modum habitudinis ad composita, sicut si dicatur quod unitas est principium numeri. Et, quia talia habent intellectum indivisibilem in seipsis, ea autem quae sunt quocumque modo divisa, possunt intelligi separatim, ideo sequitur quod huiusmodi sunt inseparabilia, et secundum tempus, et secundum locum, et secundum rationem. Et propter hoc sunt maxime unum; praecipue illud quod est indivisibile in genere substantiae. Nam quod est indivisibile in genere accidentis, etsi ipsum in se non sit compositum, est tamen alteri compositum, idest subiecto in quo est. Indivisibilis autem substantia, neque secundum se composita est, nec alteri componitur. Vel ly substantia, potest esse ablativi casus. Et tunc est sensus, quod licet aliqua dicantur unum quia sunt indivisibilia secundum locum vel tempus vel rationem, tamen inter ea illa maxime dicuntur unum, quae non dividuntur secundum substantiam. Et redit in eumdem sensum cum priore.	865. And those things (429). (5) He gives the fifth way in which things are one. He says that those things are “altogether” one, i.e., perfectly, and in the highest degree, whose concept, which grasps their quiddity, is altogether indivisible, like simple things, which are not composed of material and formal principles. Hence the concept which embraces their quiddity does not comprehend them in such a way as to form a definition of them from different principles, but (a) rather grasps them negatively, as happens in the case of a point, which has no parts; or (b) it even comprehends them by relating them to composite things, as happens, for example, when someone defines the unit as the principle of number. And because such things have in themselves an indivisible concept, and things which are divided in any way at all can be understood separately, it therefore follows that such things are indivisible both in time and in place and in their intelligible structure. Hence these things are one in the highest degree, and especially those which are indivisible in the genus of substance. For even though what is indivisible in the genus of accident is not composite in itself, nonetheless it does form a composite with something else, namely, the subject in which it inheres. But an indivisible substance is neither composite in itself nor does it form a composite with something else. Or the term substance can be taken in the ablative case, and then the sense is that, even though some things are said to be one because they are indivisible in time and in place and in definition, still those things in this class which are indivisible in substance are said to be one in the highest degree. This sense is reduced to the preceding one.