Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber7

Aquinas: Commentary on the Metaphysics Book 7. With English translation by John P. Rowan, Chicago, 1961

Lecture 1

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 1 Postquam philosophus removit a principali consideratione huius scientiae ens per accidens, et ens secundum quod significat verum, hic incipit determinare de ente per se, quod est extra animam, de quo est principalis consideratio huius scientiae. Dividitur autem pars ista in duas partes. Haec enim scientia et determinat de ente inquantum est ens, et de primis principiis entium, ut in sexto libro est habitum. In prima ergo parte determinatur de ente. In secunda de primis principiis entis, in duodecimo libro, ibi, de substantia quidem et cetera. Quia vero ens et unum se consequuntur, et sub eadem consideratione cadunt, ut in principio quarti est habitum, ideo prima pars dividitur in partes duas. In prima determinat de ente. In secunda de uno et de his quae consequuntur ad unum, in decimo libro, ibi, unum quia multis dicitur. Ens autem per se, quod est extra animam, dupliciter dividitur, ut in quinto libro est habitum. Uno modo per decem praedicamenta, alio modo per potentiam et actum. Dividitur ergo prima pars in duas. In prima determinat de ente secundum quod dividitur per decem praedicamenta. In secunda determinat de ente secundum quod dividitur per potentiam et actum, in nono libro, ibi, ergo de primo ente et cetera.	1245. Having dismissed both accidental being and being which signifies the true from the principal study of this science, here the Philosopher begins to establish the truth about essential being (ens per se), which exists outside the mind and constitutes the principal object of study in this science. This is divided into two parts; for this science discusses both being as being and the first principles of being, as has been stated in Book VI (532:C 1145). Thus in the first part (560:C 1245) he establishes the truth about being; and in the second (1023:C2416), about the first principles of being. He does this in Book XII (“The study”). But since being and unity accompany each other and come within the scope of the same study, as has been stated at the beginning of Book IV (301:C 548), the first part is therefore divided into two sections. In the first he establishes the truth about being as being; and in the second (814:C 1920), about unity and those attributes which naturally accompany it. He does this in Book X (“It was pointed out”). Now essential being, which exists outside the mind, is divided in two ways, as has been stated in Book V (437:C 889); for it is divided, first, into the ten categories, and second, into the potential and the actual. Accordingly, the first part is divided into two sections. In the first he establishes the truth about being as divided into the ten categories; and in the second (742:C 1768), about being as divided into the potential and the actual. He does this in Book IX (“We have dealt”).
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 2 Prima autem pars dividitur in duas. In prima ostendit quod ad determinandum de ente, prout in decem praedicamenta dividitur, oportet determinare de sola substantia. In secunda incipit de substantia determinare, ibi, dicitur autem substantia et si non multiplicius et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quod de substantia est determinandum. Secundo ostendit quid de ea sit tractandum, ibi, videtur autem substantia. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quod intendens tractare de ente, de sola substantia debet tractare per rationem. Secundo per consuetudinem aliorum, ibi, et quod olim, et nunc et cetera. Intendit ergo in prima parte talem rationem ponere. Illud quod est primum inter entia quasi ens simpliciter et non secundum quid, sufficienter demonstrat naturam entis: sed substantia est huiusmodi; ergo sufficit ad cognoscendum naturam entis determinare de substantia. Circa hoc autem duo facit. Primo ostendit, quod substantia sit primum ens. Secundo ostendit quomodo dicatur primum, ibi, multipliciter quidem igitur dicitur primum et cetera. Circa primum duo facit.	1246. The first part is divided again into two sections. In the first he shows that in order to establish the truth about being as divided into the ten categories, it is necessary to establish the truth about substance; and in the second (568)C 1270), he begins to do this (“The term substance”). In regard to the first he does two things. First (560:C 1247), he shows that it is necessary to settle the issue about substance. Second (565:C 1263), he indicates the things that have to be discussed about substance (“Now it seems”). In regard to the first he does two things. He shows that one who intends to treat being should investigate substances separately; and he does this, first, by giving an argument; and second (564:C 1260), by considering what others have been accustomed to do (“And the question”). Hence in the first part his aim is to give the following argument. That which is the first among the kinds of being, since it is being in an unqualified sense and not being with some qualification, clearly indicates the nature of being. But substance is being of this kind. Therefore to know the nature of being it suffices to establish the truth about substance. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he shows that substance is the first kind of being; and second (563:C 1257), he shows in what way it is said to be first (“Now there are several”). In regard to the first he does two things. Metaphysics is about substance
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 3 Primo proponit intentum quod ens dicitur multipliciter, ut dictum est in quinto libro, in quo diviserat quoties dicuntur huiusmodi nomina, quia quoddam ens significat quid est et hoc aliquid, idest substantiam; ut per quid, intelligatur essentia substantiae, per hoc aliquid suppositum, ad quae duo omnes modi substantiae reducuntur, ut in quinto est habitum. Illud vero significat qualitatem vel quantitatem, aut aliquid aliorum praedicamentorum. Et cum ens tot modis dicatur, palam est quod inter omnia entia, primum est quod quid est, idest ens quod significat substantiam.	1247. First, he explains his thesis. He says that the term being is used in many senses (as has been stated in Book V (885) where he distinguished the different senses in which terms of this kind are used); for (1) in one sense being signifies (a) the whatness of a thing and (b) this particular thing, i.e., substance, inasmuch as by “the whatness of a thing” is meant the essence of a substance, and by “this particular thing,” an individual substance; and the different senses of substance are reduced to these two, as has been stated in Book V (440:C 898). And in another sense (2) it signifies quality or quantity or any one of the other categories. And since being is used in many senses, it is evident that being in the primary sense is the whatness of a thing, i.e., the being which signifies substance.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 4 Secundo ibi, nam quando probat propositum; et utitur tali ratione. Quod est per se et simpliciter in unoquoque genere, est prius eo quod est per aliud et secundum quid. Sed substantia est ens simpliciter et per seipsam: omnia autem alia genera a substantia sunt entia secundum quid et per substantiam: ergo substantia est prima inter alia entia.	1248. For when we state (561). Second, he proves his thesis by using the following argument: in every class of things that which exists of itself and is a being in an unqualified sense is prior to that which exists by reason of something else and is a being in a qualified sense. But substance is a being in an unqualified sense and exists of itself, whereas all classes of beings other than substance are beings in a qualified sense and exist by reason of substance. Therefore substance is the primary kind of being.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 5 Minorem autem dupliciter manifestat. Primo ex ipso modo loquendi sive praedicandi; dicens, quod ex hoc palam est quod substantia sit primum entium, quia quando dicimus de aliquo quale quid sit, dicimus ipsum esse aut bonum aut malum. Haec enim significant qualitatem, quae aliud est a substantia et quantitate. Tricubitum autem significat quantitatem, et homo significat substantiam. Et ideo quando dicimus quale est aliquid, non dicimus ipsum esse tricubitum neque hominem. Sed quando dicimus quid est de aliquo, non dicimus ipsum esse album, nec calidum, quae significant qualitatem; nec tricubitum, quod significat quantitatem; sed hominem aut Deum, quae significant substantiam.	1249. He makes the minor premise clear in two ways. He does this, first, by considering the way in which we speak or make predications. He says that it is evident from this that substance is the primary kind of being, because when we state of what sort a thing is we say that it is either good or evil; for this signifies quality, which differs from substance and quantity. Now three cubits long signifies quantity and man signifies substance. Therefore when we state of what sort a thing is, we do not say that it is three cubits long or a man. And when we state what a thing is, we do not say that it is white or hot, which signify quality, or three cubits long, which signifies quantity, but we say that it is a man or a god, which signifies substance.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 6 Ex quo patet quod illa quae significant substantiam, dicunt quid est aliquid absolute. Quae autem praedicant qualitatem, non dicunt quid est illud de quo praedicatur absolute, sed quale quid. Et simile est in quantitate, et aliis generibus.	1250. From this it is clear that terms signifying substance express what a thing is in an unqualified sense, whereas those signifying quality do not express what a thing is in an unqualified sense, but what sort of thing it is. The same is true of quantity and the other genera.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 7 Et ex hoc patet quod ipsa substantia dicitur ens ratione suiipsius, quia absolute significantia substantiam significant quid est hoc. Alia vero dicuntur entia, non quia ipsa habeant secundum se aliquam quidditatem, quasi secundum se entia, cum non ita dicant absolute quid: sed eo quod sunt talis entis, idest eo quod habent aliquam habitudinem ad substantiam quae est per se ens; quia non significant quidditatem; inquantum scilicet quaedam sunt qualitates talis entis, scilicet substantiae, et quaedam quantitates, et aliae passiones, vel aliquid aliud tale, quod significatur per alia genera.	1251. From this it is clear that substance itself is said to be a being of itself, because terms which simply signify substance designate what this thing is. But other classes of things are said to be beings, not because they have a quiddity of themselves (as though they were beings of themselves, since they do not express what a thing is in an unqualified sense), but because “they belong to such a being,” i.e., because they have some connection with substance, which is a being of itself. For they do not signify quiddity, since some of them are clearly qualities of such a being, i.e., of substance, other quantities, other affections, or something of the sort signified by the other genera.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 8 Secundo ibi, unde et probat idem per quoddam signum. Quia enim alia entia non sunt entia nisi secundum quod referuntur ad substantiam, ideo potest esse dubitatio de aliis entibus in abstracto significatis, quando non significant cum aliqua habitudine ad substantiam: utrum sint entia vel non entia, scilicet utrum vadere, sanare et sedere et unumquodque istorum in abstracto significatorum sit ens aut non ens. Et similiter est in aliis talibus, quae in abstracto significantur; sive significentur per modum actionis, ut praedicta, sive non, ut albedo sive nigredo.	1252. Hence one may (562). Second he proves the same point by means of an example. The other kinds of beings are beings only inasmuch as they are related to substance. Therefore, since other beings when signified in the abstract do not designate any connection with substance, the question can arise whether they are beings or non-beings, for example, whether to walk, to be healthy, and to sit, and any one of these things which are signified in the abstract, is a being or a non-being. And it is similar in the case of other things such as these, which are signified in the abstract, whether they designate some activity, as the foregoing do, or whether they do not, as is the case with whiteness and blackness.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 9 Pro tanto autem videntur accidentia in abstracto significata esse non entia, quia nihil ipsorum est aptum natum secundum se esse; immo cuiuslibet eorum esse est alteri inesse, et non est possibile aliquid eorum separari a substantia; et ideo quando significantur in abstracto quasi sint secundum se entia et a substantia separata, videtur quod sint non entia. Licet modus significandi vocum non consequatur immediate modum essendi rerum, sed mediante modo intelligendi; quia intellectus sunt similitudines rerum, voces autem intellectuum, ut dicitur in primo perihermenias.	1253. Now accidents signified in the abstract seem to be non-beings, because no one of them is fitted by nature to exist of itself. In fact the being of each of them consists in their existing in something else, and no one of them is capable of existing apart from substance. Therefore when they are signified in the abstract as though they were beings of themselves and separate from substance, they seem to be non-beings. The reason is that words do not signify things directly according to the mode of being which they have in reality, but indirectly according to the mode in which we understand them; for concepts are the likenesses of things, and words the likenesses of concepts, as is stated in Book I of the Peri hermenias.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 10 Licet autem modus essendi accidentium non sit ut per se sint, sed solum ut insint, intellectus tamen potest ea per se intelligere, cum sit natus dividere ea quae secundum naturam coniuncta sunt. Et ideo nomina abstracta accidentium significant entia quae quidem inhaerent, licet non significent ea per modum inhaerentium. Essent autem significata per huiusmodi nomina non entia, si non inessent in re.	1254. Moreover, even though the mode of being which accidents have is not one whereby they may exist of themselves but only in something else, still the intellect can understand them as though they existed of themselves; for it is capable by nature of separating things which are united in reality. Hence abstract names of accidents signify beings which inhere in something else, although they do not signify them as inhering. And non-beings would be signified by names of this kind, granted that they would not inhere in something else.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 11 Et quia ista in abstracto significata videntur non entia, magis videntur entia nomina accidentium concreta. Magis autem videtur aliquid entium esse vadens et sedens et sanans quia determinatur eis aliquod subiectum per ipsam nominis significationem, inquantum significantur in concretione ad subiectum. Hoc autem subiectum est substantia. Et ideo unumquodque talium nominum, quae significant accidens in concreto, apparet in tali categoria, idest videtur importare praedicamentum substantiae; non ita quod praedicamentum substantiae sit pars significationis talium nominum (album enim, ut in praedicamentis dicitur, solam qualitatem significat); sed inquantum huiusmodi nomina significant accidentia ut inhaerentia substantiae. Bonum autem aut sedens non dicitur sine hoc, idest sine substantia. Significat enim accidens concretum substantiae.	1255. Further, since these accidents signified in the abstract appear to be non-beings, it seems rather to be the concrete names of accidents that signify beings. And “if anything is a being,” it seems rather to be “the thing that walks and sits and is healthy,” because some subject is determined by them by reason of the very meaning of the term, inasmuch as they designate something connected with a subject. Now this subject is substance. Therefore every term of this kind which signifies an accident in the concrete “appears in a definite category,” i.e., it seems to involve the category of substance, not in such a way that the category of substance is a part of the meaning of such terms (for white in the categorical sense indicates quality alone), but so that terms of this sort signify accidents as inhering in a substance. And we do not use the terms “good or sitting without this,” i.e., without substance; for an accident signifies something connected with substance.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 12 Et quia accidentia non videntur entia prout secundum se significantur, sed solum prout significantur in concretione ad substantiam, palam est quod singula aliorum entium sunt entia propter substantiam. Et ex hoc ulterius apparet, quod substantia est primum ens, et ens simpliciter, et non ens secundum aliquid, idest secundum quid, sicut est in accidentibus. Esse enim album non est simpliciter esse, sed secundum quid. Quod ex hoc patet, quia cum incipit esse albus, non dicimus quod incipiat esse simpliciter, sed quia incipiat esse albus. Cum enim Socrates incipit esse homo, dicitur simpliciter quod incipit esse. Unde patet quod esse hominem significat esse simpliciter. Esse autem album significat esse secundum quid.	1256. Again, since accidents do not seem to be beings insofar as they are signified in themselves, but only insofar as they are signified in connection with substance, evidently it is by reason of this that each of the other beings is a being. And from this it also appears that substance is “the first kind of being and being in an unqualified sense and not being of a special sort,” i.e., with some qualification, as is the case with accidents; for to be white is not to be in an unqualified sense but with some qualification. This is clear from the fact that when a thing begins to be white we do not say that it begins to be in an unqualified sense, but that it begins to be white. For when Socrates begins to be a man, he is said to begin to be in an unqualified sense. Hence it is obvious that being a man signifies being in an unqualified sense, but that being white signifies being with some qualification.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 13 Deinde cum dicit multipliciter quidem. Ostendit quomodo substantia dicatur primum; et dicit quod cum hoc quod dico primum dicatur multis modis, ut in quinto est habitum, tribus modis substantia est prima inter omnia entia: scilicet secundum cognitionem, et secundum definitionem et secundum tempus. Et quod sit prima tempore aliis, ex hoc probatur, quod nullum aliorum praedicamentorum est separabile a substantia, sola autem substantia est separabilis ab aliis: nullum enim accidens invenitur sine substantia, sed aliqua substantia invenitur sine accidente. Et sic patet, quod non quandocumque est substantia, est accidens, sed e contrario: et propter hoc substantia est prior tempore.	1257. Now there are several (563). Here he shows in what respect substance is said to be first. He says that, since the term first is used in several senses, as has been explained in Book V (936), then substance is the first of all beings in three respects: in the order of (1) knowing, in (2) definition, and in (3) time. (3) He proves that it is first in time by this argument: none of the other categories is capable of existing apart from substance, but substance alone is capable of existing apart from the others; for no accident is found without a substance, but some substance is found without an accident. Thus it is clear that an accident does not exist whenever a substance does, but the reverse is true; and for this reason substance is prior in time.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 14 Et quod etiam sit prima secundum definitionem, patet, quia in definitione cuiuslibet accidentium oportet ponere definitionem substantiae. Sicut enim in definitione simi ponitur nasus, ita in definitione cuiuslibet accidentis ponitur proprium eius subiectum; et ideo sicut animal est prius definitione quam homo, quia definitio animalis ponitur in definitione hominis, eadem ratione substantia est prior definitione accidentibus.	1258. (2) It is also evident that it is first in definition, because in the definition of any accident it is necessary to include the definition of substance; for just as nose is given in the definition of snub, so too the proper subject of any accident is given in the definition of that accident. Hence just as animal is prior to man in definition, because the definition of animal is given in that of man, in a similar fashion substance is prior to accidents in definition.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 15 Quod etiam sit prior ordine cognitionis, patet. Illud enim est primum secundum cognitionem, quod est magis notum et magis manifestat rem. Res autem unaquaeque magis noscitur, quando scitur eius substantia, quam quando scitur eius quantitas aut qualitas. Tunc enim putamus nos maxime scire singula, quando noscitur quid est homo aut ignis, magis quam quando cognoscimus quale est aut quantum, aut ubi, aut secundum aliquod aliud praedicamentum. Quare etiam de ipsis, quae sunt in praedicamentis accidentium, tunc scimus singula, quando de unoquoque scimus quid est. Sicut quando scimus quid est ipsum quale, scimus qualitatem, et quando scimus quid est ipsum quantum, scimus quantitatem. Sicut enim alia praedicamenta non habent esse nisi per hoc quod insunt substantiae, ita non habent cognosci nisi inquantum participant aliquid de modo cognitionis substantiae, quae est cognoscere quid est.	1259. (1) It is evident too that substance is first in the order of knowing, for that is first in the order of knowing which is better known and explains a thing better. Now each thing is better known when its substance is known rather than when its quality or quantity is known; for we think we know each thing best when we know what man is or what fire is, rather than when we know of what sort it is or how much it is or where it is or when we know it according to any of the other categories. For this reason too we think that we know each of the things contained in the categories of accidents when we know what each is; for example, when we know what being this sort of thing is, we know quality; and when we know what being how much is, we know quantity. For just as the other categories have being only insofar as they inhere in a substance, in a similar way they can be known only insofar as they share to some extent in the mode according to which substance is known, and this is to know the whatness of a thing.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 16 Deinde cum dicit et quod ostendit idem, scilicet quod de substantia sola est agendum, ex consuetudine aliorum philosophorum: dicens, quod cum sit quaesitum et semper dubitatum apud philosophos et olim quantum ad praeteritum, et nunc quantum ad praesens, quid est ens: hoc nihil aliud est quaerere et dubitare, quam quid est substantia rerum.	1260. And the question (564). Here he proves the same point, namely, that it is necessary to treat substance separately, by considering what other philosophers have been accustomed to do. He says that when one raises the question what being is (and this is a question which has always caused difficulty for philosophers both “formerly,” i.e., in the past, and “now,” i.e., in the present), this is nothing else than the question or problem what the substance of things is.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 17 Hoc enim ens, scilicet substantiam, quidam dixerunt esse unum vel immobile, sicut Parmenides et Melissus, vel mobile, sicut antiqui naturales ponentes unum tantum materiale principium rerum. Solam autem materiam putabant ens esse substantiam. Et sic patet, quod cum ponerent unum ens propter unum materiale principium, per unum ens intelligebant unam substantiam. Quidam vero posuerunt plura entia quam unum, qui scilicet posuerunt plura principia materialia, et per consequens plures rerum substantias. Quorum quidam posuerunt ea finita, ut Empedocles quatuor elementa; quidam vero infinita, ut Anaxagoras infinitas partes consimiles, et Democritus infinita indivisibilia corpora.	1261. For some men, such as Parmenides (65:C 138) and Melissus (65:C 140), said that “this being,” i.e., substance, is one and immobile, whereas others, such as the ancient philosophers of nature, who maintained (67:C 145) that there is only one material principle of things, said that it is mobile. And they thought that matter alone is being and substance. Hence when they claimed that there is one being because there is one material principle, they obviously understood by one being, one substance. Other men maintained that there are more beings than one, namely, those who posited (67:C 145) many material principles, and consequently, many substances of things. And some of this group held that these principles are limited in number, for example, Empedocles, who posited (68:C 148) four elements; and others held that they are unlimited in number, for example, Anaxagoras, who posited (44:C go) an unlimited number of like parts, and Democritus, who posited (55:C 113) an unlimited number of indivisible bodies.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 18 Et ideo si alii philosophi tractantes de entibus attendebant ad solas substantias, et nobis etiam speculandum est de sic ente, idest de substantia quid ipsa sit. Et hoc inquam maxime, quia de hac principaliter intendimus. Et primo, quia per eam alia cognoscuntur et solum, ut est dicere quia de substantia sola determinando, de omnibus aliis notitiam facit. Et ita quodam modo solum de substantia determinat, et quodam modo non solum. Hoc autem significat cum dicit ut est dicere vel ut ita dicatur, quod consuevimus dicere de his quae non usquequaque sunt vera.	1262. If, then, the other philosophers in treating of beings paid attention to substances alone, we too should investigate “what this kind of being is,” i.e., what substance itself is. And this we must do, I say, chiefly, because this is our principal aim; and primarily, because by means of it the other kinds of being are known; and solely, as we might say, because by establishing what is true about substance by itself, one acquires a knowledge of all the other kinds of being. Thus in one sense he deals with substance separately, and in another sense not. He indicates this when he says “as we might say” or inasmuch as we might speak in this way, as we are accustomed to say of things which are not true in every respect.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 19 Deinde cum dicit videtur autem ostendit quid determinandum sit de substantia: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit opiniones aliorum de substantia. Secundo dicit, quid de earum veritate est inquirendum, ibi, de his ergo et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quid sit manifestum circa substantias; dicens, quod esse substantiam manifestissime inest corporibus. Unde animalia et plantas et partes eorum dicimus esse substantias, et etiam alia naturalia corpora, ut ignem, terram, et aquam et talium singula, idest talia elementaria corpora, sicut aerem et vaporem secundum opinionem Heracliti, et alia media secundum opinionem aliorum. Et etiam omnes partes elementorum, et etiam corpora, quae sunt composita ex elementis, vel ex aliquibus partibus elementorum, sicut particularia corpora mixta aut ex omnibus elementis, idest totis, sicut tota ipsa sphaera activorum et passivorum et sicut etiam caelum quod et quoddam corpus naturale praeter elementa dicimus esse substantiam, et partes eius, ut astra et luna, et sol.	1263. Now it seems (565). Here he indicates the things that have to be discussed about substance; and in regard to this he does two things. First (565:C 1263), he gives the opinions that other men have held about substance. Second (567:C 1268), he states that it is necessary to determine which of their opinions are true (“Regarding these matters”). In regard to the first he does two things. First (565), he indicates the things that are evident about substance. He says that substantial being is found most obviously in bodies. Thus we say that animals and plants and their parts are substances, and also natural bodies such as fire, earth, water, “and particular things of this kind,” i.e., such elemental bodies as earth and fire, according to the opinion of Heraclitus (42:C 87), and other intermediate entities, according to the opinions of others. We also say that all parts of the elements are substances, as well as the bodies composed of the elements, whether of some of the elements, as particular compounds, or “of all the elements,” i.e., the whole of the various elements, as this whole sphere of active and passive beings; and as we also say that “a heaven,” which is a natural body distinct from the elements, is a substance, and also its parts, such as the stars, the moon and the sun.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 20 Sed utrum hae sensibiles substantiae sint solum substantiae secundum quod ponebant antiqui naturales, vel etiam sint aliquae aliae substantiae ab istis, sicut ponebant Platonici, vel etiam istae non sint substantiae, sed solum sint aliae substantiae ab istis, perscrutandum est.	1264. But whether these sensible substances are the only substances, as the ancient philosophers of nature claimed, or whether there are also some substances which differ from these, as the Platonists claimed, or whether these too are not substances but only certain things which differ from these, must be investigated.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 21 Secundo ibi, videntur quibusdam recitat opiniones philosophorum de substantiis non manifestis, dicens, quod quibusdam videtur, quod termini corporis sint rerum substantiae, ut scilicet superficies, et linea et punctus et unitas sint magis substantiae quam corpus et solidum. Et haec opinio dividitur: quia quidam nihil talium terminorum opinabantur esse separata a sensibilibus, scilicet Pythagorici. Alii vero ponebant quaedam entia sempiterna a sensibilibus separata, quae sunt plura et magis entia quam sensibilia: magis inquam entia, quia ista sunt incorruptibilia et immobilia, haec autem corruptibilia et mobilia; plura vero, quia sensibilia sunt unius ordinis tantum, separata vero duorum: sicut Plato posuit duas substantias separatas, idest duos ordines substantiarum separatarum, scilicet species vel ideas, et mathematica. Et tertium ordinem posuit substantias corporum sensibilium.	1265. Again, it seems (566). Second, he describes the philosophers’ opinions about those substances which are not evident. He says that it seems to some philosophers that the limits of bodies are the substances of things, i.e., that surface, line, point and unit are substances to a greater degree than a body or solid. And those who held this opinion differed in their views; because some, the Pythagoreans, thought that no limits of this kind are separate from sensible bodies, while others thought that there are certain eternal beings which are separate from and more numerous than sensible things and have being to a greater degree. I say “have being to a greater degree,” because they are incorruptible and immobile, whereas sensible bodies are corruptible and mobile; and “more numerous,” because while sensible bodies belong only to one order, these separate beings belong to two, inasmuch as “Plato claimed that there are two kinds of separate substances,” or two orders of separate substances, namely, the separate Forms or Ideas and the objects of mathematics; and he also posited a third order—the substances of sensible bodies.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 22 Sed Leucippus, qui successor fuit Platonis, et ex sorore nepos, posuit plures ordines substantiarum, et in unoquoque etiam inchoavit ab uno, quod ponebat esse principium in quolibet ordine substantiarum. Sed aliud quidem unum ponebat esse principium numerorum, quos ponebat esse primas substantias post species; aliud autem magnitudinum, quas ponebat esse secundas substantias; et demum ponebat substantiam animae; et hoc modo protendebat ordinem substantiarum usque ad corruptibilia corpora.	1266. But Speusippus, who was Plato’s nephew and his successor, posited many orders of substances, and in each order he also began with the unit, which he posited as the principle in each order of substance. But he posited one kind of unit as the principle of numbers, which he claimed to be the first substances after the Forms, and another as the principle of continuous quantities, which he claimed to be second substances; and finally he posited the substance of the soul. Hence by proceeding in this way he extended the order of substances right down to corruptible bodies.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 23 Sed quidam differebant a Platone et Leucippo, quia non distinguebant inter species, et primum ordinem mathematicorum, qui est numerorum. Dicebant enim species et numeros habere eamdem naturam, et omnia alia esse habita, idest consequenter se habentia ad numeros, scilicet lineas et superficies usque ad primam caeli substantiam, et alia sensibilia, quae sunt in ultimo ordine.	1267. But some thinkers differed from Plato and Speusippus, because they did not distinguish between the Forms and the first order of mathematical objects, which is that of numbers. For they said that the Forms and numbers have the same nature, and that “all other things depend on these,” i.e., are related successively to numbers, namely, lines and surfaces, right down to the first substance of the heavens and the other sensible bodies which belong to this last order.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 24 Deinde cum dicit de his igitur. Ostendit quid circa praedicta dicendum sit; dicens, quod dicendum est quid de praedictis dicitur bene aut non bene, et quae sunt substantiae, et utrum praedicta mathematica et species sint aliquid praeter res sensibiles, aut non. Et illae substantiae si sint praeter sensibiles, quem modum essendi habeant. Et si ista non sunt praeter sensibiles substantias, utrum sit aliqua alia substantia separabilis, et quare et quomodo; aut nulla est substantia praeter sensibiles.	1268. Regarding these matters (567). Here he explains what should be said about the foregoing opinions. He says that it is necessary to determine which of the above opinions are true and which are not; and what things are substances; and whether the objects of mathematics and the separate Forms are substances in addition to sensible ones, or not; and if they are substances, what mode of being they have; and if they are not substances in addition to sensible ones, whether there is any other separate substance, and [if so], why and how; or whether there is no substance in addition to sensible substances.
lib. 7 l. 1 n. 25 Hoc enim determinabit in duodecimo huius et infra. Sed tamen antequam haec determinentur, oportet primo ponere et describere quid sit substantia in istis sensibilibus, in quibus substantia manifesta invenitur. Quod quidem facit in hoc septimo et in octavo sequenti.	1269. For he will settle this issue below and in Book XII (1055:C 2488) of this work. Yet before this is done it is first necessary to posit and explain what it is that constitutes the substance of these sensible bodies in which substance is clearly found. He does this in the present book (568:C 1270) and in Book VIII (696:C 1687), which follows.

Lecture 2

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 1 Postquam ostendit, quod principalis intentio huius scientiae est considerare de substantia, hic incipit de substantia determinare; et dividitur haec pars in duas. In prima ostendit modum et ordinem tractandi de substantia. In secunda prosequitur tractatum substantiae, ibi, et primo dicemus quaedam de eo. Modum autem et ordinem tractandi de substantia ostendit dividendo substantias in suas partes; et docendo de qua partium eius primo et principalius est determinandum, et quae partium ipsius praetermittendae sunt, et quae prius vel posterius considerandae. Unde dividitur prima pars in partes tres, secundum divisiones et subdivisiones, quas ponit de substantia. Secunda incipit ibi, tale vero modo quodam. Tertia vero incipit ibi, confitentur autem et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod substantia ad minus dicitur quatuor modis, si non dicatur multiplicius, idest pluribus modis. Sunt enim plures modi, quibus aliqui substantiam nominant; ut patet de dicentibus terminos corporis esse substantias, qui modus hic praetermittitur. Quorum quidem modorum primus est secundum quod quod quid erat esse, idest quidditas, vel essentia, sive natura rei dicitur eius substantia.	1270. Having shown that the chief aim of this science is to study substance, he now begins to establish the truth about substance. This part is divided into two members. In the first (1270) he explains the method and order to be followed in treating of substance. In the second (1306), he goes ahead with his treatment of substance (“And first let us make”). He explains the method and order to be followed in treating of substance by distinguishing its different senses; and by explaining which of these senses must be dealt with primarily and principally, which of them must be omitted, and which must be considered to be prior or subsequent. Hence the first part is divided into three members, according to the divisions and subdivisions of substance which he gives. This second part (1276) begins where he says, “Now in one sense.” The third (1297) begins where he says, “Now some.” Accordingly he says, first, that the term substance is used at least of four things, if not “of more,” i.e., in more senses. For there are several senses in which some speak of substance, as is clear in the case of those who said that the limits of bodies are substances, which sense he dismisses here. (1) Now the first of these senses is that in which a thing’s essence, i.e., its quiddity, essential structure, or nature, is called its substance.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 2 Secundus modus est prout universale dicitur substantia esse, secundum opinionem ponentium ideas species, quae sunt universalia de singularibus praedicata, et sunt horum particularium substantiae.	1271. (2) The second sense is that in which “the universal” is called the substance of a thing, according to the opinion of those who maintain that the Ideas are separate Forms, which are the universals predicated of particular things and the substances of these particular things.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 3 Tertius modus est secundum quod primum genus videtur esse substantia uniuscuiusque. Et per hunc modum unum et ens ponebant substantias esse omnium rerum, tanquam prima omnium genera.	1272. (3) The third sense is that in which “the first genus seems to be the substance of each thing”; and in this sense they claim that unity and being are the substances of all things and their first genera.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 4 Quartus modus est secundum quod subiectum, idest substantia particularis dicitur esse substantia. Dicitur autem subiectum de quo alia dicuntur, vel sicut superiora de inferioribus, ut genera et species et differentiae; vel sicut accidens praedicatur de subiecto, ut accidentia communia et propria; sicut de Socrate praedicatur homo, animal, rationabile, risibile et album; ipsum autem subiectum non praedicatur de alio. Quod est intelligendum per se. Per accidens enim nihil prohibet Socratem de hoc albo praedicari, vel de animali, vel de homine; quia id, cui inest album, aut animal, aut homo, Socrates est. De seipso autem praedicatur per se, cum dicitur, Socrates est Socrates. Patet autem, quod subiectum hic dicitur, quod in praedicamentis nominatur substantia prima, ex hoc, quod eadem definitio datur de subiecto hic, et ibi de substantia prima.	1273. (4) The fourth sense is that in which “the subject,” i.e., a particular substance, is called a substance. Now a subject means that of which other things are predicated, either as superiors are predicated of inferiors, for example, genera, species and differences; or as common and proper accidents are predicated of a subject, for example, as man, animal, rational, capable of laughter and white are predicated of Socrates. However, a subject is not itself predicated of anything else, and this must be understood essentially. For nothing prevents Socrates from being predicated accidentally of this white thing or of animal or of man, because Socrates is the thing of which white or animal or man is an accident. For it is evident that the subject which is spoken of here is what is called first substance in the Categories, for the definition of subject given here and that of first substance given there are the same.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 5 Unde concludit quod determinandum est de hoc, idest de subiecto vel de substantia prima, quia tale subiectum maxime videtur substantia esse. Unde in praedicamentis dicitur quod talis substantia est quae proprie et principaliter et maxime dicitur. Huiusmodi enim secundum se omnibus aliis substant, scilicet speciebus et generibus et accidentibus. Substantiae vero secundae, idest genera et species, substant solis accidentibus. Et hoc etiam non habent nisi ratione primarum. Homo enim est albus inquantum hic homo est albus.	1274. Hence he concludes that it is necessary to establish the truth “about this,” i.e., about this subject or first substance, because such a subject seems in the truest sense to be substance. Therefore in the Categories it is said that such substance is said to be substance properly, principally and chiefly. For substances of this kind are by their very nature the subjects of all other things, namely, of species, genera and accidents; whereas second substance, i.e., genera and species, are the subjects of accidents alone. And they also have this nature only by reason of these first substances; for man is white inasmuch as this man is white.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 6 Unde patet quod fere eadem est divisio substantiae hic posita, cum illa quae ponitur in praedicamentis. Nam per subiectum intelligitur hic substantia prima. Quod autem dixit genus et universale, quod videtur ad genus et species pertinere, continetur sub substantiis secundis. Hoc autem quod quid erat esse hic ponitur, sed ibi praetermittitur, quia non cadit in praedicamentorum ordine nisi sicut principium. Neque enim est genus neque species neque individuum, sed horum omnium formale principium.	1275. Hence it is evident that the division of substance given here is almost the same as that given in the Categories, for by subject here is understood first substance. And what he called the genus and the universal, which seem to pertain to genus and species, are contained under second substances. However, the essence, which is given here, is omitted in that work, because it belongs in the predicamental order only as a principle; for it is neither a (~) genus nor a (~) species nor (~) an individual thing, but is (+) the formal principle of all these things.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit tale vero subdividit quartum modum praemissae divisionis; hoc scilicet quod dixerat subiectum: et circa hoc tria facit. Primo namque ponit divisionem. Secundo comparat partes divisionis adinvicem, ibi, quare si species et cetera. Tertio ostendit quomodo de istis partibus divisionis sit agendum, ibi, attamen eam quae nunc ex ambobus et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod subiectum, quod est prima substantia particularis, in tria dividitur; scilicet in materiam, et formam, et compositum ex eis. Quae quidem divisio non est generis in species, sed alicuius analogice praedicati, quod de eis, quae sub eo continentur, per prius et posterius praedicatur. Tam enim compositum quam materia et forma particularis substantia dicitur, sed non eodem ordine; et ideo posterius inquiret quid horum per prius sit substantia.	1276. Now in one sense (569). Here he subdivides the fourth sense of substance given in his original division, i.e., substance in the sense of a subject; and in regard to this he does three things. First, he gives this subdivision. Second (570:C 1278) he compares the parts of this subdivision with each other (“If, then”). Third (574:C 1294), he shows how the parts of this division must be treated (“Yet that substance”). Accordingly he says, first (569), that a subject in the sense of a first or particular substance is divided into three parts, i.e., into matter, form, and the thing composed of these. This division is not one of genus into species, but of an analogous predicate, which is predicated in a primary and in a derivative sense of those things which are contained under it. For both the composite and the matter and the form are called particular substances, but not in the same order; and therefore later on (573:C 1291) he inquires which of these has priority as substance.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 8 Exemplificat autem hic membra in artificialibus, in quibus aes est ut materia, figura ut forma speciei, idest dans speciem, statua compositum ex his. Quae quidem exemplificatio non est accipienda secundum veritatem, sed secundum similitudinem proportionis. Figura enim et aliae formae artificiales non sunt substantiae, sed accidentia quaedam. Sed quia hoc modo se habet figura ad aes in artificialibus, sicut forma substantialis ad materiam in naturalibus, pro tanto utitur hoc exemplo, ut demonstret ignotum per manifestum.	1277. To clarify this part of his division he draws an example from the field of artifacts, saying that bronze is as matter, the figure as “the specifying form,” i.e., the principle which gives a thing its species, and the statue as the thing composed of these. This example must not be understood to express the situation as it really is but only according to a proportional likeness; for figure and other forms produced by art are not substances but accidents. But since figure is related to bronze in the realm of artifacts as substantial form is to matter in the realm of natural bodies, he uses this example insofar as it explains what is unknown by means of what is evident.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit quare si species comparat partes divisionis praemissae adinvicem: et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit quod forma sit magis substantia quam compositum. Secundo ostendit, quod materia sit maxime substantia, quod erat opinio quorumdam, ibi, et adhuc materia substantia sit. Tertio ostendit quod tam forma quam compositum est magis substantia quam materia, ibi, sed impossibile et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod species, idest forma, prior est materia. Materia enim est ens in potentia, et species est actus eius. Actus autem naturaliter prior est potentia. Et simpliciter loquendo prior tempore, quia non movetur potentia ad actum nisi per ens actu; licet in uno et eodem quod quandoque est in potentia, quandoque in actu, potentia tempore praecedat actum. Unde patet, quod forma est prior quam materia, et etiam est magis ens quam ipsa, quia propter quod unumquodque et illud magis. Materia autem non fit ens actu nisi per formam. Unde oportet quod forma sit magis ens quam materia.	1278. If, then (570). Here he compares the parts of the foregoing division with each other; and in regard to this he does three things. First (570), he explains that the form is substance to a greater degree than the composite. Second (571:C 1281), he explains that some men were of the opinion that matter constitutes substance in the truest sense (“And from this”). Third (573:C 1291), he shows that the form and the composite are substance to a greater degree than matter (“But this is impossible”). He accordingly says, first (570), “that the specifying principle,” i.e., the form, is prior to matter. For matter is a potential being, and the specifying principle is its actuality; and actuality is prior to potentiality in nature. And absolutely speaking it is prior in time, because the potential is brought to actuality only by means of something actual; although in one and the same subject which is at one time potential and at another actual, potentiality is prior to actuality in time. Hence it is clear that form is prior to matter, and that it is also a being to a greater degree than matter; because that by reason of which anything is such, is more so, But matter becomes an actual being only by means of form. Hence form must be being to a greater degree than matter.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 10 Et ex hoc ulterius sequitur, quod eadem ratione forma sit prior composito ex utrisque, inquantum est in composito aliquid de materia. Et ita participat aliquid de eo quod est posterius secundum naturam, scilicet de materia. Et iterum patet, quod materia et forma sunt principia compositi. Principia autem alicuius sunt eo priora. Et ita, si forma est prior materia, erit prior composito.	1279. And from this it again follows for the same reason that form is prior to the thing composed of both, inasmuch as there is something having the nature of matter in the composite. Thus the composite shares in something which is secondary in nature, i.e., in matter. And it is also clear that matter and form are principles of the composite. Now the principles of a thing are prior to that thing. Therefore, if form is prior to matter, it will be prior to the composite.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 11 Et quia posset alicui videri, quod ex quo philosophus ponit omnes modos, quibus dicitur substantia, quod hoc sufficeret ad sciendum quid est substantia; ideo subiungit dicens, quod nunc dictum est quid sit substantia solum typo, idest dictum est solum in universali, quod substantia est illud, quod non dicitur de subiecto, sed de quo dicuntur alia; sed oportet non solum ita cognoscere substantiam et alias res, scilicet per definitionem universalem et logicam: hoc enim non est sufficiens ad cognoscendum naturam rei, quia hoc ipsum quod assignatur pro definitione tali, est manifestum. Non enim huiusmodi definitione tanguntur principia rei, ex quibus cognitio rei dependet; sed tangitur aliqua communis conditio rei per quam talis notificatio datur.	1280. And since it might seem to someone, from the fact that the Philosopher gives all the senses in which the term substance is used, that this suffices for a knowledge of what substance is, he therefore adds that “we have now merely sketched” what substance is; i.e., stated only in a universal way that substance is not what is predicated of a subject, but that of which other things are predicated. But one must not merely understand substance and other things in this way, namely, by means of a universal and logical definition; for this is not a sufficient basis for knowing the nature of a thing, because the very formula which is given for such a definition is evident. For the principles of a thing, on which the knowledge of a thing depends, are not mentioned in a definition of this kind, but only some common condition of a thing by means of which such acquaintance is imparted.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit et adhuc ostendit quod materia maxime sit substantia: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit rationem antiquorum per quam ponebant materiam maxime et solum esse substantiam. Secundo notificat quid sit materia, ibi, dico autem materiam quae secundum se. Dicit ergo primo, quod non solum forma est substantia, et compositum, sed et materia sit substantia secundum rationem praedictam. Si enim ipsa materia non sit substantia, fugit a nobis quae sit alia substantia praeter materiam. Quia si removeantur a rebus sensibilibus in quibus manifeste est substantia, alia quae planum est non esse substantiam, nihil remanet, ut videtur, nisi materia.	1281. And from this point (571). He examines the view that matter is in the truest sense substance; and in regard to this he does two things. First (571), he gives the argument by which the ancient philosophers maintained that matter most truly and solely is substance. Second (572:C 1285), he explains what matter is (“And by matter”). Hence he says, first, that not only the form and the composite are substance but so also is matter, according to the argument mentioned above, for if matter itself is not substance, it eludes us to say what other thing besides matter is substance. For if the other attributes, which clearly are not substance, are taken away from sensible bodies, in which substance is clearly apparent, it seems that the only thing which remains is matter.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 13 In istis enim corporibus sensibilibus, quae omnes confitentur esse substantias, quaedam sunt sicut corporum passiones, ut calidum, frigidum et huiusmodi; de quibus manifestum est, quod non sunt substantiae. Sunt etiam in eis quaedam factiones, idest generationes et corruptiones et motus; de quibus etiam planum est quod non sunt substantiae. Sunt etiam in eis potentiae, quae sunt principia praedictarum factionum et motuum; scilicet potentiae, quae sunt in rebus ad agendum et patiendum: has etiam patet non esse substantias, sed magis ponuntur sub genere qualitatis.	1282. For in these sensible bodies, which all men admit to be substances, there are certain attributes such as the affections of bodies, for example, hot and cold and the like, which are evidently not substances. And in these bodies there are also “certain activities,” i.e., processes of generation and corruption and motions, which are clearly not substances. And in them there are also potencies, which are the principles of these activities and motions, i.e., potencies of acting and being acted upon, which are present in things; and it is also clear that these are not substances, but that they rather belong to the genus of quality.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 14 Et post omnia ista inveniuntur in corporibus sensibilibus dimensiones, scilicet longitudo, latitudo et profunditas, quae sunt quantitates quaedam, et non substantiae. Quantitas enim manifestum est quod non est substantia; sed illud cui praedictae dimensiones insunt, ut primum subiectum earum, est substantia. Sed remotis istis dimensionibus nihil videtur remanere nisi subiectum earum, quod est determinatum et distinctum per huiusmodi dimensiones. Haec autem est materia. Quantitas enim dimensiva videtur inesse materiae immediate, cum materia non dividatur ad recipiendum diversas formas in diversis suis partibus, nisi per huiusmodi quantitatem. Et ideo per huiusmodi considerationem videtur necessarium esse non solum quod materia sit substantia, sed quod ipsa sola sit substantia.	1283. And, after all of these, we find dimensions in sensible bodies, namely, length, width and depth, which are quantities and not substances. For it is evident that quantity is not substance, but that substance is that to which the foregoing dimensions belong as their first subject. But when these dimensions are taken away, nothing seems to remain except their subject, which is limited and differentiated by dimensions of this kind. And this subject is matter; for dimensive quantity seems to belong immediately to matter, since matter is divided in such a way as to receive different forms in its different parts only by means of this kind of quantity. Therefore, from a consideration of this kind it seems to follow not only that matter is substance, but that it alone is substance.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 15 Decepit autem antiquos philosophos hanc rationem inducentes, ignorantia formae substantialis. Non enim adhuc tantum profecerant, ut intellectus eorum se elevaret ad aliquid quod est supra sensibilia; et ideo illas formas tantum consideraverunt, quae sunt sensibilia propria vel communia. Huiusmodi autem manifestum est esse accidentia, ut album et nigrum, magnum et parvum, et huiusmodi. Forma autem substantialis non est sensibilis nisi per accidens; et ideo ad eius cognitionem non pervenerunt, ut scirent ipsam a materia distinguere. Sed totum subiectum, quod nos ponimus ex materia et forma componi, ipsi dicebant esse primam materiam, ut aerem, aut aquam, aut aliquid huiusmodi. Formas autem dicebant esse, quae nos dicimus accidentia, ut quantitates et qualitates, quorum subiectum proprium non est materia prima, sed substantia composita quae est substantia in actu: omne enim accidens ex hoc est, quod substantiae inest, ut habitum est.	1284. Now it was their ignorance of substantial form that misled the ancient philosophers into giving this argument; for as yet they had not progressed in knowledge to the point where their mind might be elevated to something over and above sensible bodies. Hence they considered only those forms which are proper or common sensibles; and it is clear that such attributes as white and black, great and small, and the like, are accidents of this kind. But a substantial form is perceptible only indirectly, and therefore they did not acquire g knowledge of it so that they might know how to distinguish it from matter. In fact they said that the whole subject, which we maintain is composed of matter and form, is first matter, for example, air or water or something of the kind. And they called those things forms which we call accidents, for example, quantities and qualities, whose Proper subject is not first matter but the composite substance, which is an actual substance; for it is by reason of this that every accident is something inhering in a substance, as has been explained (562)C 1254-56).
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 16 Deinde cum dicit dico autem. Quia ratio praedicta ostendens solam materiam esse substantiam, videtur processisse ex ignorantia materiae, ut dictum est; ideo consequenter dicit, quid sit materia est secundum rei veritatem, prout declaratum in primo physicorum. Materia enim in se non potest sufficienter cognosci, nisi per motum; et eius investigatio praecipue videtur ad naturalem pertinere. Unde et philosophus accipit hic de materia, quae in physicis sunt investigata, dicens: dico autem materiam esse quae secundum se, idest secundum sui essentiam considerata, nullatenus est neque quid, idest neque substantia, neque qualitas, neque aliquid aliorum generum, quibus ens dividitur, vel determinatur.	1285. And by matter I mean (572). Now since the foregoing argument which shows that matter alone is substance seems to have come from their ignorance of matter, as has been pointed out, be therefore next states what matter really is, as is made clear in Book I of the Physics. For matter can be adequately known by itself only by means of motion, and the study of it seems to belong chiefly to the philosophy of nature. Hence the Philosopher also accepts here the characteristics of matter investigated in his physical treatises, saying that “by matter I mean that which in itself,” i.e., considered essentially, “is neither a quiddity,” i.e., a substance, “nor a quantity nor any of the other categories into which being is divided or by which it is made determinate.”
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 17 Et hoc praecipue apparet motu. Oportet enim subiectum mutationis et motus alterum esse, per se loquendo, ab utroque terminorum motus, ut probatum est primo physicorum. Unde, cum materia sit primum subiectum substans non solum motibus, qui sunt secundum qualitatem et quantitatem et alia accidentia, sed etiam mutationibus quae sunt secundum substantiam, oportet, quod materia sit alia secundum sui essentiam ab omnibus formis substantialibus et earum privationibus, quae sunt termini generationis et corruptionis; et non solum quod sit aliud a quantitate et qualitate et aliis accidentibus.	1286. This is especially evident in the case of motion; for, properly speaking, the subject of change and motion must differ from each of the limits of motion, as is proved in Book I of the Physics. Now matter is the first subject which underlies not only those motions which are qualitative and quantitative, and those which pertain to the other accidents, but also those which are substantial. Hence it must differ essentially from all substantial forms and their privations, which are the limits of generation and, corruption, and not just quantitatively or qualitatively or according to the other accidents.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 18 Attamen diversitatem materiae ab omnibus formis non probat philosophus per viam motus, quae quidem probatio est per viam naturalis philosophiae, sed per viam praedicationis, quae est propria logicae, quam in quarto huius dicit affinem esse huic scientiae. Dicit ergo, quod oportet aliquid esse, de quo omnia praedicta praedicentur; ita tamen quod sit diversum esse illi subiecto de quo praedicantur, et unicuique eorum quae de ipso praedicantur, idest diversa quidditas et essentia.	1287. Yet the Philosopher does not use motion to prove that matter differs from all forms (for this proof belongs to the philosophy of nature); but he uses the method of predication, which is proper to dialectics and is closely allied with this science, as he says in Book IV (311:C 574). Hence he says that there must be some subject of which all terms are predicated, yet in such a way that the being of that subject of which they are predicated differs from the being of each of the things which “are predicated of it”; i.e., they have a different quiddity or essence.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 19 Sciendum autem est, quod id, quod hic dicitur, non potest intelligi de univoca praedicatione secundum quod genera praedicantur de speciebus, in quarum definitionibus ponuntur; quia non est aliud per essentiam animal et homo; sed oportet hoc intelligi de denominativa praedicatione, sicut cum album praedicatur de homine; alia enim quidditas est albi et hominis. Unde subiungit, quod alia genera praedicantur hoc modo de substantia, scilicet denominative, substantia vero praedicatur de materia denominative.	1288. Now it must be noted that what has been said here cannot be understood to apply to univocal predication, according to which genera are predicated of the species in whose definitions they are given, because man and animal do not differ essentially; but this must be understood to apply to denominative predication, as when white is predicated of man, for the quiddity of white differs from that of man. Hence he adds that the other genera are predicated of substance in this way, i.e., denominatively, and that substance is predicated of matter denominatively.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 20 Non est ergo intelligendum, quod substantia actu existens (de qua hic loquimur) de materia praedicetur praedicatione univoca, sive quae est per essentiam. Iam enim supra dixerat, quod materia non est quid, neque aliquid aliorum. Sed intelligendum est de denominativa praedicatione, per quem modum accidentia de substantia praedicantur. Sicut enim haec est vera: homo est albus, non autem haec: homo est albedo, vel: humanitas est albedo, ita haec est vera: hoc materiatum est homo, non autem haec: materia est homo, vel: materia est humanitas. Ipsa ergo concretiva, sive denominativa praedicatio ostendit, quod sicut substantia est aliud per essentiam ab accidentibus, ita per essentiam aliud est materia a formis substantialibus. Quare sequetur quod illud quod est ultimum subiectum per se loquendo, neque est quid, idest substantia, neque quantitas, neque aliquid aliud quod sit in aliquo genere entium.	1289. It must not be understood, then, that actual substance (of which we are speaking here) is predicated of matter univocally or essentially; for he had already said above that matter is neither a quiddity nor any of the other categories. But it must be understood to be predicated denominatively, in the way in which accidents are predicated of substance. For just as the proposition “Man is white” is true, and the proposition “Man is whiteness” or “Humanity is whiteness” is not, in a similar way the proposition “This material thing is a man” is true, and the proposition “Matter is man” or “Matter is humanity” is not. Concretive or denominative predication, then, shows that, just as substance differs essentially from accidents, in a similar fashion matter differs essentially from substantial forms. Hence it follows that the ultimate subject, properly speaking, “is neither a quiddity,” i.e., a substance, nor a quantity nor any of the other things contained in any genus of beings.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 21 Neque ipsae negationes possunt per se praedicari de materia. Sicut enim formae sunt praeter essentiam materiae, et ita quodammodo se habent ad ipsam per accidens, ita et negationes formarum quae sunt ipsae privationes, secundum accidens insunt materiae. Si enim per se inessent materiae, nunquam formae in materia possent recipi salvata materia. Hoc autem dicit philosophus ad removendum opinionem Platonis, qui non distinguebat inter privationem et materiam, ut in primo physicorum habetur. Concludit etiam finaliter quod considerantibus secundum praedictas rationes accidit solam materiam esse substantiam, ut prius inducta ratio concludebat.	1290. Neither can negations themselves be predicated essentially of matter. For just as forms are something distinct from the essence of matter, and thus in a certain measure are related to it accidentally, in a similar way the different negations of forms, which are themselves privations, also belong to matter accidentally. For if they should belong essentially to matter, forms could never be received in matter without destroying it. The Philosopher says this in order to reject the opinion of Plato, who did not distinguish between privation and matter, as is said in Book I of the Physics.’ Last, he concludes that for those who ponder the question according to the foregoing arguments it follows that matter alone is substance, as the preceding argument also concluded.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 22 Deinde cum dicit sed impossibile ostendit contrarium huius conclusionis; dicens, quod impossibile est solam materiam esse substantiam, vel ipsam etiam esse maxime substantiam. Duo enim sunt, quae maxime propria videntur esse substantiae: quorum unum est, quod sit separabilis. Accidens enim non separatur a substantia, sed substantia potest separari ab accidente. Aliud est, quod substantia est hoc aliquid demonstratum. Alia enim genera non significant hoc aliquid.	1291. But this is impossible (573)He now proves the contrary of this conclusion, saying that matter alone cannot be substance or substance in the highest degree. For there are two characteristics which seem to belong most properly to substance. The first is that it is capable of separate existence, for an accident is not separated from a substance, but a substance can be separated from an accident. The second is that substance is a determinate particular thing, for the other genera do not signify a particular thing.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 23 Haec autem duo, scilicet esse reparabile et esse hoc aliquid, non conveniunt materiae. Materia enim non potest per se existere sine forma per quam est ens actu, cum de se sit in potentia tantum; ipsa etiam non est hoc aliquid nisi per formam per quam fit actu. Unde esse hoc aliquid maxime competit composito.	1292. Now these two characteristics—being separable and being a particular thing—do not fit matter; for matter cannot exist by itself without a form by means of which it is an actual being, since of itself it is only potential. And it is a particular thing only by means of a form through which it becomes actual. Hence being a particular thing belongs chiefly to the composite.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 24 Et ideo patet quod species, idest forma, et compositum ex ambobus, scilicet ex materia et forma, magis videtur esse substantia quam materia; quia compositum et est separabile, et est hoc aliquid. Forma autem, etsi non sit separabilis, et hoc aliquid, tamen per ipsam compositum fit ens actu, ut sic possit esse separabile, et hoc aliquid.	1293. It is clear, then, “that the specifying principle,” i.e., the form, and “the thing composed of both,” namely, of matter and form, seem to be substance to a greater degree than matter, because the composite is both separable and a particular thing. But even though form is not separable and a particular thing, it nevertheless becomes an actual being by means of the composite itself; and therefore in this way it can be both separable and a particular thing.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 25 Deinde cum dicit attamen eam ostendit quomodo sit procedendum circa partes huius divisionis substantiae, quam prosecutus est, prout scilicet dividitur in materiam et in formam et compositum: et dicit, quod licet tam species quam compositum sit magis substantia quam materia, tamen ad praesens dimittenda est substantia quae ex ambobus composita, scilicet ex materia et forma. Et hoc propter duas rationes.	1294. Yet that substance (574). He shows how one must proceed to deal with the parts of this division of substance which has been followed, i.e., the division of substance into matter, form and composite. He says that even though both the form and the composite are substance to a greater degree than matter, still it is now necessary to dismiss the kind of substance which “is composed of both,” i.e., of matter and form; and there are two reasons for doing this.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 26 Una ratio est, quia ipsa est posterior secundum naturam utraque, scilicet quam materia et quam forma; sicut compositum est posterius simplicibus, ex quibus componitur. Et ideo cognitio materiae et formae praecedit cognitionem substantiae compositae.	1295. One reason is that it is subsequent to both in nature, namely, to matter and form, just as the composite is subsequent to the simple elements of which it is composed. Hence a knowledge of matter and form precedes a knowledge of the composite substance.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 27 Alia ratio est, quia huiusmodi substantia est aperta, idest manifesta, cum sensui subiaceat. Et ideo circa eius cognitionem non oportet immorari. Materia autem, licet non sit posterior sed quodammodo prior, tamen aliqualiter est manifesta. Dicit autem aliqualiter quia secundum essentiam suam non habet unde cognoscatur, cum cognitionis principium sit forma. Cognoscitur autem per quamdam similitudinem proportionis. Nam sicut huiusmodi substantiae sensibiles se habent ad formas artificiales, ut lignum ad formam scamni, ita prima materia se habet ad formas sensibiles. Propter quod dicitur primo physicorum, quod materia prima est scibilis secundum analogiam. Et ideo restat de tertia perscrutandum, scilicet de forma, quia ista est maxime dubitabilis.	1296. The other reason is that this kind of substance “is open to view,” i.e., evident, since it is the object of sensory perception; and therefore it is not necessary to dwell on the knowledge of it. And even though matter is not subsequent but is in a sense prior, still in a sense it is evident. Hence he says “in a sense,” because it does not of itself have any traits by which it may be known, since the principle of knowing is form. But it is known by means of an analogy; for just as sensible substances of this kind are related to artificial forms, as wood is related to the form of a bench, so also is first matter related to sensible forms. Hence it is said in the Physics, Book I, that first matter is known by an analogy. It follows, then, that we must investigate the third kind of substance, namely, form, because this is the most perplexing.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 28 Deinde cum dicit confitentur autem ostendit modum et ordinem, et quomodo procedendum sit circa partes tertiae divisionis substantiae, prout substantia scilicet dividitur in substantias sensibiles et insensibiles. Et circa hoc tria facit.	1297. Now some admit (575). Here he explains the method and order and way in which the parts of the third division of substance must be dealt with, in which substance is distinguished into those which are sensible and those which are not. In regard to this he does three things.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 29 Primo ostendit, quod de substantiis sensibilibus prius est agendum, quia huiusmodi substantiae sensibiles sunt confessae apud omnes: omnes enim confitentur quasdam sensibiles esse substantias. Substantias autem non sensibiles, non omnes confitentur. Unde prius quaerendum est de substantiis sensibilibus sicut de notioribus.	1298. First, he shows what has to be done at the very beginning with regard to sensible substances, because sensible substances of this kind are admitted by all; for all admit that some sensible things are substances. But not all admit that there are substances which are not sensible. Hence it is first necessary to consider sensible substances as better known.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 30 Secundo ibi, quoniam autem ostendit quid de substantiis sensibilibus sit determinandum: et dicit, quod cum prius divisum sit, quot modis dicatur substantia, inter istos modos unus modus est prout quod quid erat esse, idest quidditas et essentia rei, dicitur substantia. Unde speculandum est de ista primo, ostendendo scilicet quidditates substantiarum sensibilium.	1299. Since we have established (576). Second, he shows what has to be established about sensible substances. He says that since substance has been divided above according to the different senses in which the term is used, of which one is the essence of a thing, i.e., its quiddity or essential structure, it is therefore first necessary to investigate this by showing what it is that constitutes the quiddities of sensible substances.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 31 Tertio ibi, praeopere enim assignat rationem praemissi ordinis; et dicit, quod ideo prius dicendum est de essentiis substantiarum sensibilium, quia hoc est praeopere, idest ante opus sicut praeparatorium et necessarium ad opus, ut ex his substantiis sensibilibus, quae sunt magis manifestae quo ad nos, transeamus ad illud, quod est notius simpliciter et secundum naturam, idest ad substantias intelligibiles, de quibus principaliter intendimus. Ita enim fit disciplina in omnibus rebus, sive omnibus hominibus, per ea quae sunt minus nota secundum naturam, procedendo ad ea quae sunt magis nota secundum naturam.	1300. For this is (577). Third, he gives the reason for the order of treatment mentioned above. He says that we must speak first of the essences of sensible substances, because this is “a preparatory task,” i.e., a work preparatory to and necessary for our undertaking, inasmuch as we pass from sensible substances, which are more evident to us, to what “is more knowable in an unqualified sense and by nature,” i.e., to intelligible substances, in which we are chiefly interested. For knowledge is acquired in all matters, or by all men, by proceeding from those things which are less knowable by nature to those which are more knowable by nature.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 32 Cum enim omnis disciplina fiat per ea quae sunt magis nota addiscenti, quem oportet aliqua praecognoscere ad hoc ut addiscat, oportet disciplinam nostram procedere per ea quae sunt magis nota quo ad nos, quae sunt saepe minus nota secundum naturam, ad ea quae sunt notiora secundum naturam, nobis autem minus nota.	1301. For since all learning proceeds from those things which are more knowable to the learner, who must have some prior knowledge in order to learn, we must proceed to learn by passing from those things which are more knowable to us, which are often less knowable by nature, to those which are more knowable by nature but less knowable to us.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 33 Nobis enim quorum cognitio a sensu incipit, sunt notiora quae sensui propinquiora. Secundum autem naturam sunt notiora, quae ex sui natura sunt magis cognoscibilia. Et haec sunt quae sunt magis entia, et magis actualia. Quae quidem sunt remota a sensu. Formae autem sensibiles sunt formae in materia.	1302. For with regard to the knowledge of those things which begins from the senses, it is those things which are closer to the senses that are more knowable. But those things are more knowable by nature which by reason of their own nature are capable of being known. Now these are the things which are more actual and are beings to a greater degree. And these lie outside the scope of sensation. But sensible forms are forms in matter.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 34 Et ideo in disciplinis oportet procedere ex minus notis secundum naturam ad magis nota, et hoc opus est, idest necessarium est hoc facere sicut in actibus hoc est in actibus vel potentiis activis, in quibus ex bonis uniuscuiusque, idest ex his quae sunt bona isti et illi, fiunt ea quae totaliter sunt, idest universaliter bona, et per consequens unicuique bona. Militaris enim pervenit ad victoriam totius exercitus, quae est quoddam bonum commune ex singularibus victoriis huius et illius. Et similiter aedificativa ex compositione horum lapidum et illorum, pervenit ad constitutionem totius domus. Et similiter oportet in speculativis, ex his quae sunt notiora ipsi, scilicet addiscenti, pervenire oportet ad ea quae sunt naturae nota, quae etiam fiunt ultimo ipsi addiscenti nota.	1303. In matters of learning, then, it is necessary to proceed from things which are less knowable by nature to those which are more knowable. “And one’s task is” the same here, i.e., it is necessary to act in the same way here, “as in practical matters,” i.e., in the arts ‘ and active potencies, in which we go “from things which are good for each individual,” i.e., from things which are good for this person and for that person, so as to reach those things which “are” totally good, or universally good, and therefore good for each individual. For the military art attains the victory of the whole army, which is a certain common good, from the victories of this and of that particular man. And similarly the art of building by combining particular stones succeeds in constructing a whole house. And so too in speculative matters we must proceed from those things which are more knowable to oneself, namely, to the one learning, in order to reach those which are knowable by nature, which also finally become known to the one learning.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 35 Hoc autem non est propter hoc, quod illa quae sunt magis nota huic vel illi, sint simpliciter magis nota, quia illa quae sunt singulis nota, idest quo ad hunc et illum, et prima in cognitione eorum, sunt multoties debiliter nota secundum naturam. Et hoc ideo, quia parum vel nihil habent de entitate. Secundum enim quod aliquid est ens, secundum hoc est cognoscibile. Sicut patet, quod accidentia et motus et privationes parum aut nihil habent de entitate; et tamen ista sunt magis nota quo ad nos quam substantiae rerum, quia sunt viciniora sensui, cum per se cadant sub sensu quasi sensibilia propria vel communia. Formae autem substantiales per accidens.	1304. Now this does not occur because the things which are more knowable to this person or to that person are more knowable in an unqualified sense; for those things which are “knowable to individual men,” i.e., to this or to that particular man, and are first in the process of knowing, are often only slightly knowable by nature. This happens because they have little or nothing of being; for a thing is knowable to the extent that it has being. For example, it is evident that accidents, motions and privations have little or nothing of being, yet they are more knowable to us than the substances of things; for they are closer to the senses, since of themselves they fall under sensory perception as proper or common sensibles. But substantial forms do so only accidentally.
lib. 7 l. 2 n. 36 Dicit autem multoties quia quandoque eadem sunt magis nota et quo ad naturam et secundum nos, sicut in mathematicis, quae abstrahunt a materia sensibili. Et ideo ibi semper proceditur a notioribus secundum naturam, quia eadem sunt notiora quo ad nos. Et licet illa, quae magis sunt nota quo ad nos, sint debiliter nota secundum naturam, tamen ex huiusmodi male notis secundum naturam, quae tamen sunt magis cognoscibilia ipsi discenti, tentandum est cognoscere illa quae sunt omnino, idest universaliter et perfecte cognoscibilia, procedentes ad ea cognoscenda per haec ipsa, quae sunt debiliter nota secundum se, sicut iam dictum est.	1305. And he says “often” because sometimes the same things are more knowable both to us and by nature, for example, the objects of mathematics, which abstract from sensible matter. Hence in such cases one always proceeds from things which are more knowable by nature, because the same things are more knowable to us. And while those things which are more knowable to us are only slightly knowable by nature, still from things of the kind which are only slightly knowable by nature (although they are more knowable to the one learning), one must attempt to know the things which are “wholly,” i.e., universally and perfectly, knowable, by advancing to a knowledge of such things by way of those which are only slightly knowable by nature, as has already been explained.

Lecture 3

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 1 Postquam determinavit philosophus ordinem procedendi circa substantias, hic incipit determinare de substantiis sensibilibus, sicut praedixerat; et dividitur in duas partes. In prima determinat de essentia substantiarum sensibilium per rationes logicas et communes. In secunda per principia substantiarum sensibilium in octavo libro, ibi, ex his itaque dictis syllogizare oportet. Prima pars dividitur in duas. In prima ostendit cuiusmodi sit essentia substantiarum sensibilium. In secunda ostendit, quod huiusmodi essentia habet rationem principii et causae, ibi, quod autem oportet. Prima autem pars dividitur in partes duas. In prima determinat de essentia substantiarum sensibilium. In secunda ostendit universalia non esse substantias rerum sensibilium, ut quidam dicebant, ibi, quoniam vero de substantia perscrutatur.	1306. Having settled the issue about the order to be followed in treating of substances, the Philosopher now begins to settle the issue about sensible substances, as he had said he would; and this is divided into two parts. In the first part (578)C 1308) he settles the issue about the essence of sensible substances, by using dialectical and common arguments; and in the second (691:C 101), by considering the principles of sensible substances. He does this in Book VIII (“It is necessary, then”). The first part is divided into two members. In the first he indicates the kind of essence which sensible substances have. In the second (682:C 1648) he shows that this kind of essence has the role of a principle and cause (“But let us state”). The first part is divided into two. In the first he settles the issue about the essences of sensible substances. In the second (650:C 1566) he shows that universals are not the substances of sensible things, as some said (“But since our investigation”).
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 2 Prima autem pars dividitur in duas. In prima ostendit cuiusmodi sit substantia rerum sensibilium. In secunda ex quibus constituatur, sicut ex partibus, ibi, quoniam vero definitio ratio est. Prima dividitur in duas. In prima inquirit cuiusmodi sensibilium sit essentia substantiarum. In secunda inquirit causam generationis earum, ibi, eorum autem quae fiunt natura. Prima dividitur in duas. In prima ostendit quid sit essentia rerum sensibilium. In secunda qualiter se habeat ad ipsa sensibilia; utrum scilicet ut idem, vel ut diversum, ibi, utrum autem idem. Prima dividitur in duas. In prima ostendit quid est quod quid erat esse. Secundo quorum est, ibi, quoniam vero sunt et secundum alias. Circa primum duo facit. Primo removet ab eo quod quid erat esse praedicata per accidens. Secundo ea, quae praedicantur per se, sicut propriae passiones de subiecto, ibi, neque etiam hoc et cetera.	1307. The first part is divided into two. In the first he shows what kind of substances sensible things have. In the second (622:C 1460) he shows what parts constitute their substance (“But since the definition”). The first part is divided into two. In the first he investigates the kind of essence which sensible substances have. In the second (598:C 1381) he inquires into the causes of their generation (“Now of those things”). The first part is divided into two. In the first he shows what constitutes the essence of sensible substances; and in the second (588:C 1356) he shows how essence is related to sensible substances, i.e., whether it is the same as these substances or different (“Moreover, it is necessary”). The first part is divided into two. In the first he shows what essence is. In the second (580:C 1315) he indicates to what things it belongs (“Now since there are”). In regard to the first he does two things. First (578), he dismisses from the essence of a thing any term that is predicated accidentally; and second (579:C 1311), any term that is predicated essentially (per se) in the way that properties are predicated of a subject (“But not even all”).
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 3 Dicit ergo primo, quod de substantiis sensibilibus primo dicendum est, et ostendendum est in eis quod quid erat esse: ideo primum dicemus de eo quod est quod quid erat esse quaedam logice. Sicut enim supra dictum est, haec scientia habet quandam affinitatem cum logica propter utriusque communitatem. Et ideo modus logicus huic scientiae proprius est, et ab eo convenienter incipit. Magis autem logice dicit se de eo quod quid est dicturum, inquantum investigat quid sit quod quid erat esse ex modo praedicandi. Hoc enim ad logicum proprie pertinet.	1308. He says, first (578), then, that it is first necessary to speak of sensible substances and to show what their essence is. Therefore, let us first make some dialectical comments about the essence of a thing; for this science has a connection with dialectics, as was stated above (311:C 574), because both are universal. Hence the dialectical method is proper to this science, and it is fitting that it should begin with the dialectical method. But he says that he is going to treat of essence in a way that is chiefly dialectical inasmuch as [in so doing] he investigates what essence is from the manner of predicating terms of a subject; for this belongs properly to dialectics.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 4 Hoc autem primo sciendum est de eo quod quid erat esse, quod oportet quod praedicetur secundum se. Illa enim quae praedicantur de aliquo per accidens, non pertinent ad quod quid erat esse illius. Hoc enim intelligimus per quod quid erat esse alicuius, quod convenienter responderi potest ad quaestionem de eo factam per quid est. Cum autem de aliquo quaerimus quid est, non possumus convenienter respondere ea quae insunt ei per accidens; sicut cum quaeritur quid est homo, non potest responderi, quod sit album vel sedens vel musicus. Et ideo nihil eorum, quae praedicantur per accidens de aliquo, pertinent ad quod quid erat esse illius rei: non enim musicum esse, est tibi esse.	1309. Regarding essence it should first of all be borne in mind that it must be predicated of a thing essentially; for those things which are predicated of a thing accidentally do not belong to its essence. For by the essence of a thing we mean the proper answer which can be given to the question asking what it is. And when we ask what a thing is we cannot give a proper answer by mentioning attributes which belong to it accidentally; for when someone asks what man is, one cannot answer that he is white or sitting or musical. Hence none of those attributes which are predicated of a thing accidentally belong to its essence; for being you is not being musical.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 5 Sciendum autem est, quod in omnibus sequentibus per hoc quod dicit hoc esse, vel huic esse, intelligit quod quid erat esse illius rei; sicut homini esse vel hominem esse, intelligit id quod pertinet ad quod quid est homo. Quod est autem musicum esse, idest hoc ipsum quod quid est musicus, non pertinet ad hoc quod quid es tu. Si enim quaeratur, tu quid sis, non potest responderi quod tu sis musicus. Et ideo sequitur quod musicum esse non est tibi esse; quia ea quae pertinent ad quidditatem musici, sunt extra quidditatem tuam, licet musicus de te praedicetur. Et hoc ideo, quia tu non secundum teipsum es musicus, idest quia musicum non praedicatur de te per se, sed per accidens. Illud ergo pertinet ad quod quid est tui, quod tu es secundum teipsum, idest quia de te praedicatur per se et non per accidens; sicut de te praedicatur per se homo, animal, substantia, rationale, sensibile, et alia huiusmodi, quae omnia pertinent ad quod quid est tui.	1310. Now throughout the whole of the following discussion it must be noted that by the phrase to be this or being this he understands the essence of a thing; for example, by to be man or being man he understands what pertains to the essence of man. Now the whatness of “being musical,” i.e., the very essence of musical, has nothing to do with your whatness. For if one were to ask what you are, one could not answer that you are musical. Hence it follows that being you is not being musical, because those things which pertain to the quiddity of music are extrinsic to your quiddity, although musical may be predicated of you. And this is so because “you are not musical essentially,” since musical is not predicated of you essentially but accidentally. Therefore what you are “essentially” pertains to your whatness, because it is predicated of you essentially and not accidentally; for example, man, animal, substance, rational, sensible, and other attributes of this kind, all of which belong to your whatness, are predicated of you essentially.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit neque etiam. Excludit ab eo quod est quod quid est, quod praedicatur secundum se, sicut passiones de subiectis; dicens: neque etiam hoc omne quod praedicatur secundum se de aliquo, pertinet ad hoc quod quid erat esse eius. Praedicatur enim per se passio de proprio subiecto, sicut color de superficie. Non tamen quod quid erat esse est, quod ita inest alicui secundum se, sicut superficiei inest album; quia non superficiei esse est album esse, idest hoc ipsum quod quid est superficies, non est quod quid est album. Alia enim est quidditas superficiei et albedinis.	1311. But not even (579). He excludes from the quiddity of a thing any attribute that is predicated essentially as properties are predicated of subjects. He says that not even everything that is predicated essentially of a thing belongs to its essence. For a property is predicated essentially of its proper subject as color is predicated of surface. Yet the essence of a thing is not something that is found in a thing essentially in the way that white is found in surface; because “being a surface” is not “being white”; i.e., the quiddity of surface is not that of whiteness; for the quiddity of surface differs from that of whiteness.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 7 Et non solum hoc quod est esse album non est quod quid est superficiei; sed nec ipsum compositum ex utrisque, scilicet superficie et albedine, quod est esse superficiem albam vel esse superficiei albae. Quidditas enim vel essentia superficiei albae, non est quidditas vel essentia superficiei. Et si quaeratur quare? Responderi potest quia hoc adest ei, idest, quia cum dico superficiem albam, dicitur aliquid quod adhaeret superficiei tamquam extrinsecum, et non tamquam intrans essentiam eius. Unde hoc totum quod est superficies alba, non est de essentia superficiei.	1312. And not only is being white not the quiddity of surface, but neither is the combination of the two, namely, of surface and whiteness, i.e., to be a white surface, or being a white surface. For the quiddity or essence of white surface is not the quiddity or essence of surface. And if we were asked why, we could answer, “Because white inheres in surface,” i.e., because when I say “white surface” I mean something which adheres to surface as extrinsic to its essence and not as intrinsic to its essence. Hence this whole which is white surface is not identical with the essence of surface.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 8 Praedicantur autem passiones de propriis subiectis ea ratione, quia propria subiecta in earum definitionibus ponuntur, sicut nasus ponitur in definitione simi, et numerus in definitione paris. Quaedam vero ita praedicantur per se, quod subiecta in eorum definitionibus non ponuntur, sicut animal per se de homine; nec homo ponitur in definitione animalis. Cum ergo ea quae praedicantur per accidens non pertineant ad quod quid est, nec illa quae praedicantur per se in quorum definitionibus ponuntur subiecta, relinquitur quod illa pertineant ad quod quid est, in quorum definitionibus non ponuntur subiecta. Et ideo concludit dicens, quod haec erit ratio in singulis, quod quid erat esse, in qua ratione dicente ipsum, idest describente praedicatum non inerit ipsum, idest subiectum; sicut in ratione animalis, non inest homo. Unde animal pertinet ad quod quid est homo.	1313. Now properties are predicated of their proper subjects in this way because their proper subjects are given in their definitions, as nose is given in the definition of snub and number in the definition of equal. And certain attributes are predicated essentially in such a way that subjects are not included in their definitions, as animal is predicated essentially of man, but man is not included in the definition of animal. Therefore since those attributes which are predicated accidentally do not belong to a thing’s quiddity, and neither do those which are predicated essentially in whose definitions subjects are given, it follows that those attributes belong to a thing’s quiddity in whose definitions subjects are not given. Hence he draws his conclusion, saying that the concept “which expresses what each thing is,” i.e., which describes the predicate, “but does not contain the thing itself,” i.e., the subject, will be the concept of the essence in each particular thing. Hence animal belongs to the essence of man.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 9 Probat autem deducendo ad inconveniens, quod ea quae praedicantur per se de aliquo sicut propria passio de subiecto, non pertineant ad quod quid est. Contingit enim de eodem subiecto plures passiones diversas per se praedicari; sicut per se praedicatur propria passio, coloratum et asperum et leve, quae sunt passiones superficiei. Eiusdem autem rationis est omnia huiusmodi praedicata ad quod quid est subiecti pertinere. Ergo si albedo pertinet ad quod quid est superficiei, pari ratione et levitas. Quae autem uni et eidem sunt eadem, sibiinvicem sunt eadem. Quare si superficiei album esse est superficiei esse semper, idest si semper et universaliter hoc verum est quod quidditas propriae passionis sit idem cum quidditate proprii subiecti, sequitur quod albo esse et levi esse, sit idem et unum, idest quod quidditas albedinis et levitas sit una et eadem. Hoc autem patet falsum esse. Relinquitur ergo quod quod quid erat esse propriae passionis et subiecti non est idem et unum.	1314. By a reduction to absurdity he proves that those things which are predicated essentially of a thing as a property is predicated of a subject, do not pertain to the whatness of a thing. For many different properties may be predicated essentially of the same subject, as the properties colored, rough and smooth, which are proper attributes of surface, are predicated essentially of a subject. And it is for the same reason that all predicates of this kind pertain to the quiddity of their subject. Therefore if whiteness pertains to the quiddity of surface, so also for a like reason will smoothness; for things identical with some third thing are identical with each other. “Hence, if being a white surface is always being a smooth surface,” i.e., if it is true always and universally that the quiddity of a property is the same as that of its proper subject, it follows that being white and being smooth will be “one and the same thing,” i.e., the quiddity of whiteness and that of smoothness will be one and the same. But this is obviously false. Therefore it follows that the essence of a property and that of its subject are not one and the same thing.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit quoniam vero. Inquirit quorum sit quod quid erat esse. Et primo movet quaestionem. Secundo solvit eam, ibi, at vero secundum se dictorum. Dicit ergo primo, quod sunt quaedam composita in aliis praedicamentis, et non solum in substantia. Quod quidem dicit propter hoc, quod substantiarum sensibilium, quae sunt compositae, quidditatem inquirit. Sicut enim in substantiis sensibilibus compositis est materia, quae subiicitur formae substantiali, ita etiam alia praedicamenta habent suum subiectum. Est enim aliquod subiectum unicuique eorum, sicut qualitati et quantitati et quando et ubi et motui, sub quo comprehenditur agere et pati. Unde sicut quoddam compositum est ignis ex materia et forma substantiali, ita est quaedam compositio ex substantiis et accidentibus.	1315. Now since there are (580). He inquires to what things essence belongs. First, he raises the question; and second (581:C 1318) he answers it (“But neither”). He accordingly says, first (580), that there are certain composites in the case of the other categories and not merely in that of substance. He says this because he is investigating the quiddity of sensible substances, which are composite. For just as composite sensible substances have matter, which is the subject of substantial forms, so also do the other categories have their own subject. For there is some subject of each of them, namely, of quality, quantity, when, where, and also of motion, in which are included both action and being acted upon. Hence just as fire is a composite of matter and substantial form, in a similar way there is a kind of composition of substance and accidents.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 11 Et ideo perscrutandum est, cum aliqua sit definitio substantiarum compositarum ex formis et materiis, si etiam cuiuscumque istorum compositorum ex accidentibus et subiectis est ratio eius quod quid erat esse, idest si habent definitionem quae est ratio significans quod quid erat esse. Et iterum si est in eis hoc ipsum quod quid erat esse quod significat definitio, idest si habent aliquam quidditatem sive aliquid quod potest responderi ad quid. Sicut hoc ipsum quod est albus homo, est quoddam compositum ex subiecto et accidente; utrum scilicet albo homini sit quod quid erat esse ei inquantum huiusmodi.	1316. Therefore, since there is a definition of substances which are composed of matters and forms, we must also inquire whether there is “a concept of the essence” of all those things which are composites of accidents and subjects, i.e., whether they have a definition which is a concept signifying their essence; and also whether “this essence,” which the definition signifies, is intrinsic to them, i.e., whether they have a quiddity or something that can answer the question “What?” For example, white man is a composite of subject and accident. The question, then, is whether there is an essence of white man as such.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 12 Et quia forte aliquis posset dicere quod albus homo sunt duae res et non una, ideo subiungit, quod hoc ipsum quod dico albus homo, habeat unum nomen quod causa exempli sit vestis. Et tunc quaestio erit de isto uno, scilicet de veste, utrum habeat quod quid est, ut possimus dicere quid est vestem esse? Tunc enim, sicut hoc nomen homo significat aliquid compositum, scilicet animal rationale, ita et vestis significat aliquid compositum, scilicet hominem album. Et ita sicut homo habet definitionem, ita vestis poterit habere definitionem, sicut videtur.	1317. And since someone might perhaps say that white man is two things and not one, he therefore adds that white man might have one name, say, garment. The question about this one thing, then, i.e., garment, will be whether it has any whatness, so that we can ask, “What is the essence of a garment?” For then just as this word man signifies some composite, namely, rational animal, in like manner the word garment signifies some composite, namely, white man. And thus just as man has a definition, in a similar way it seems that garment can have a definition.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 13 Deinde cum dicit at vero solvit praedictam quaestionem; et dividitur haec pars in duas partes secundum quod duas ponit solutiones. Secunda pars incipit ibi, aut et definitio sicut et quod quid. Dicit ergo primo, quod hoc ipsum quod dico, albus homo, sive vestis quae hoc ponitur significare, non est aliquod eorum quae dicuntur secundum se, immo est aliquid eorum quae dicuntur per accidens. Hoc enim, quod est, homo albus, est unum per accidens, et non per se, ut superius est habitum.	1318. But neither is this (581). Here he answers the preceding question; and this part is divided twofoldly inasmuch as he gives two solutions. The second part (582:C 1331) begins where he says, “Or another solution.” He says, first (581), then, that white man, or garment, which is supposed to stand for “white man,” is not one of those terms which are predicated essentially, but is rather one of those which are predicated accidentally; for the quiddity “white man” is one thing accidentally and not essentially, as was stated above (C 1313-14).
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 14 Quod autem aliquid dicatur alteri esse unum per accidens, est dupliciter, ut uno modo homo est albus, et alio modo album est homo. Horum enim aliud quidem est ex additione, aliud vero non. In definitione enim hominis non est necessarium quod addatur definitio albi, vel nomen eius; in definitione vero albi necesse est quod ponatur homo, vel nomen hominis, vel eius definitio, si homo proprium subiectum eius est, vel aliquid aliud quod est eius proprium subiectum.	1319. Now there are two ways in which a thing is said to be one accidentally or non-essentially: first, in the sense that we say “Man is white,” and second, in the sense that we say “This white thing is man”; because one of these is defined by addition, whereas the other is not. For in the definition of man it is not necessary to include the definition of white or the word white, but in the definition of white it is necessary to include man, or the word man, or his definition, provided that man is the proper subject of white, or whatever its proper subject happens to be.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 15 Et ideo ad hoc exponendum subiungit, quod istorum duorum, quae dicuntur non secundum se, unum adiungitur alteri, eo quod ipsum accidens additur illi subiecto, quod in accidentis definitione ponitur cum definitur. Sicut si aliquis definiat album, oportet quod dicat rationem hominis albi; quia oportet quod in definitione accidentis ponatur subiectum. Et tunc definitio complectitur hominem album. Et sic erit quasi ratio hominis albi, et non albi tantum. Et hoc intelligendum est, ut dictum est, si homo sit proprium et per se subiectum albi. Hoc autem adiungitur alteri per accidens; non quia ipsum apponatur in definitione alterius, sed quia aliud apponitur ipsi in sua definitione; sicut album adiungitur homini per accidens, non quod ponatur in definitione hominis, sed quia homo ponitur in definitione eius. Unde si hoc nomen vestis significat hominem album, sicut positum est, oportet quod ille, qui definit vestem, eodem modo definiat vestem sicut definitur album. Nam sicut in definitione vestis oportet quod ponatur et homo et album, ita in definitione albi oportet quod ponatur utrumque.	1320. Now in order to explain this he adds that when one thing is predicated of another in a non-essential way, it is added to the other, because an accident is added to the subject given in the definition of that accident when it is defined; for example, if someone were to define white thing, he would have to express the concept white man, because in the definition of an accident it is necessary to include its subject. And then the definition includes white man; and thus it will be, as it were, the concept of white man and not the concept of white alone. This must be understood to be the case, as has already been said, if man is the proper and essential subject of white. But the one is added to the other accidentally, not because it is added to the definition of the other, but because the other is added to it in its own definition, as white is added to man accidentally, not because it is placed in the definition of man, but because man is placed in the definition of white. Hence, if by supposition the word garment signifies white man, then anyone who defines garment must define it in the same way that white is defined; for just as man and white must be given in the definition of garment, so also must each be given in the definition of white.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 16 Itaque ex dictis patet quod album praedicatur de homine albo. Haec enim est vera, albus homo est albus, et e contrario. Tamen hoc ipsum quod est album esse hominem, non est quod quid erat esse albo. Sed neque vesti, quae significat compositum hoc quod est albus homo, ut dictum est. Sic igitur patet quod non potest esse idem quod quid erat esse eius quod est album, et eius quod est albus homo, sive vestis; per hoc quod album etiam si praedicetur de albo homine, non tamen est quod quid est esse eius.	1321. It is clear, then, from what has been said, that white is predicated of man; for this proposition “A white man is white” is true, and vice versa. Yet the essence of white man is not that of white; and neither is the essence of garment, which signifies the composite white man, as has been stated. Thus it is evident that the essence of white and that of white man, or “garment,” cannot be the same, by reason of the fact that, if white is also predicated of white man, it is still not its whatness.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 17 Item patet, quod si album habet quod quid erat esse et definitionem, non habet aliam quam illam quae est albi hominis: quia cum in definitione accidentis ponatur subiectum, oportet quod hoc modo definiatur album, sicut albus homo, ut dictum est. Et hoc sic patet: quia hoc quod est album non habet quod quid erat esse, sed solum hoc de quo dicitur, scilicet homo vel homo albus. Et hoc est quod dicit: ergo est quod quid erat esse aliquid aut totaliter, aut non: idest, ergo ex praedictis sequitur quod quod quid erat esse, non est nisi eius quod est aliquid, sive illud aliquid sit totaliter, id est compositum, ut homo albus, sive non totaliter, ut homo. Album autem non significat aliquid, sed aliquale.	1322. It is also evident that, if white has an essence and definition, it does not have a different one from that which belongs to white man; for since a subject is included in the definition of an accident, white must be defined in the same way that white man is, as has been stated. This is made clear as follows: white does not have a quiddity but only the thing of which it is predicated, man or white man. And this is what he means when he says: “Therefore the essence is what a thing of a definite sort is, whether it expresses that thing wholly or not”; i.e., from what has already been said it follows that essence belongs only to some definite thing, whether it expresses “that thing wholly,” i.e., the composite, as white man, or not, as man. But white does not signify that it is sonic definite thing, but that it is of some sort.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 18 Et quod id quod quid erat esse, non sit nisi eius quod est aliquid, ex hoc patet: quod quidem quid erat esse, est quod aliquid erat esse. Esse enim quid, significat esse aliquid. Unde illa quae non significant aliquid, non habent quod quid erat esse. Sed quando aliquid de aliquo dicitur, ut accidens de subiecto, non est hoc aliquid: sicut cum dico, homo est albus, non significatur quod sit hoc aliquid, sed quod sit quale. Esse enim hoc aliquid convenit solis substantiis. Et ita patet, quod album et similia non possunt habere quod quid erat esse.	1323. The fact that essence belongs only to some definite thing is shown as follows: the essence of a thing is what that thing is; for to have an essence means to be some definite thing. Hence those things which do not signify some definite thing do not have an essence. But when something is predicated of another as an accident is predicated of a subject, this is not some definite thing. For example, when I say “Man is white” I do not signify that it is some definite thing, but that it is of some special sort. For to be some definite thing belongs to substances alone. Hence it is clear that whiteness and the like cannot have an essence.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 19 Sed, quia aliquis posset dicere, quod sicut inveniuntur aliquae rationes nominum significantium substantiam, ita inveniuntur aliquae rationes nominum significantium accidentia; ideo concludit, quod quod quid erat esse non est omnium quae habent qualemcumque rationem notificantem nomen, sed eorum solum, quorum ratio est definitio.	1324. But because someone might say that there are concepts of words signifying accidents as well as concepts of words signifying substance, he therefore concludes that essence does not belong to all things which have any kind of concept at all that explains their name, but only to those whose concept is a definition.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 20 Ratio autem alicuius definitiva non est solum, si sit talis ratio, quae significat idem cum nomine; sicut hoc quod dico, arma gerens, significat idem cum armigero; quia sic sequeretur, quod omnes rationes essent termini, idest definitiones. Potest enim poni cuilibet rationi nomen, sicut potest poni huic rationi, quod est homo ambulans, vel homo scribens: nec tamen propter haec sequitur quod illa sint definitiones: quia secundum hoc sequeretur, quod etiam Ilias, idest poema factum de bello Troiano esset una definitio. Est enim totum illud poema una ratio exponens bellum Troianum. Patet igitur, quod non quaecumque ratio significans idem cum nomine est eius definitio, sed solum est definitio si fuerit alicuius primi, idest si significet aliquid per se dictum. Hoc enim est primum in praedicationibus quod per se praedicatur.	1325. Now the concept of a thing is not definitive if it is merely a concept of the sort which signifies the same thing as a name, as one bearing arms signifies the same thing as arms-bearer, because it would then follow that all concepts are “limiting terms,” i.e., definitions. For a name can be given to any concept (for example, a name can be given to the concept walking man or writing man), yet it does not follow for this reason that these are definitions, because according to this it would follow that “even the Iliad,” i.e., the poem written about the Trojan war, would be one definition; for that whole poem is a single account depicting the Trojan war. It is clear, then, that not every concept signifying the same thing as a name is a definition of it, but only if the concept “is of some primary thing,” i.e., if it signifies something that is predicated essentially. For that which is predicated essentially is first in the order of predication.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 21 Talia vero, scilicet prima, sunt quaecumque praedicantur per se, et non quia aliud de alio dicitur; sicut album praedicatur de homine non per se, quasi sit idem quod album et quod homo; sed praedicantur de seinvicem per accidens. Animal vero praedicatur de homine per se, et similiter rationale de animali. Et ideo hoc quod dico, animal rationale, definitio est hominis.	1326. But such things, i.e., primary ones, are all those which are predicated essentially, and such things do not involve predicating one thing of another; for example, white is not predicated essentially of man as though what white is and what man is are the same; but they are predicated of each other accidentally. For animal is predicated of man essentially, and in a similar way rational is predicated of animal. Hence the expression rational animal is the definition of man.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 22 Sic ergo patet quod quod quid erat esse non erit alicuius, quod non sit de numero specierum alicuius generis, sed solum his, idest solum speciebus. Species enim sola definitur, cum omnis definitio sit ex genere et differentiis. Illud autem, quod sub genere continetur et differentiis constituitur est species; et ideo solius speciei est definitio. Solae enim species videntur dici non secundum participationem et passionem, nec ut accidens.	1327. Thus it is clear that essence will not be found in any of those things which are not classed among the species of some genus, but “in these alone,” i.e., in the species alone. For species alone may be defined, since every definition is composed of genus and difference. But that which is contained under a genus and is constituted of differences is a species, and therefore definition pertains only to species. For species alone seem not to be predicated according to participation and affection or as an accident.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 23 In quo removet tria quae videntur impedire quod aliquid non definiatur per aliquod genus. Primo namque ea de quibus genus praedicatur secundum participationem, non possunt definiri per illud genus, nisi sit de essentia illius definiti. Sicut ferrum ignitum, de quo ignis per participationem praedicatur, non definitur per ignem, sicut per genus; quia ferrum non est per essentiam suam ignis, sed participat aliquid eius. Genus autem non praedicatur de speciebus per participationem, sed per essentiam. Homo enim est animal essentialiter, non solum aliquid animalis participans. Homo enim est quod verum est animal. Item subiecta praedicantur de propriis passionibus, sicut nasus de simo; et tamen essentia nasi non est essentia simi. Species enim non se habent ad genus sicut propria generis passio; sed sicut id quod est per essentiam idem generi. Potest etiam album praedicari de homine per accidens; nec essentia hominis est essentia albi, sicut essentia generis est essentia speciei. Unde videtur, quod sola ratio speciei quae ex genere et differentiis constituitur, sit definitio.	1328. In this statement he rejects three things which seem to make it impossible for anything to be defined by a genus. For, in the first place, those things of which a genus is predicated by participation cannot be defined by means of that genus, unless it belongs to the essence of the thing defined; for example, a fiery iron, of which fire is predicated by participation, is not defined by fire as its genus, because iron by its very essence is not fire but only participates to some degree in fire. However, a genus is not predicated of its species by participation but essentially; for man is an animal essentially and not merely something participating in animal, because man is truly an animal. Moreover, subjects are predicated of their properties, as nose is predicated of snub, yet the essence of nose is not the essence of snub; for species are not related to a genus as a property of that genus, but as something essentially the same as that genus. And white can be predicated of man accidentally, but the essence of man is not the essence of white, as the essence of a genus is the essence of its species. Hence it seems that only the concept of the species, which is constituted of genus and difference, is a definition.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 24 Sed in aliis quidem si est eis nomen positum, potest esse ratio declarans quid significat nomen. Quod quidem contingit dupliciter. Uno modo sicut quando nomen minus notum manifestatur per magis notum quod de eo praedicatur: ut si hoc nomen philosophia notificetur per hoc nomen sapientia. Et hoc est quod dicit quod autem huic inest, scilicet quando ratio exponens nomen accipitur ab aliquo nomine notiori quod praedicatur de eo.	1329. But if a name is given to other things, there can be a concept expressing what that name signifies, and this may occur in two ways. First, this occurs when a name that is less meaningful is explained by one that is more meaningful and is predicated of it, for example, when the name philosophy is explained by the name wisdom. And this is the meaning of his statement that “this accident inheres in this subject,” namely, that sometimes the concept explaining the name is taken from a more meaningful term which is predicated of it.
lib. 7 l. 3 n. 25 Alio modo quando accipitur ad expositionem nominis simplicis aliqua oratio notior; sicut si ad exponendum hoc nomen philosophus, accipitur haec oratio, amator sapientiae. Et hoc est quod dicit, aut pro sermone simplici quasi ad expositionem huius simplicis dictionis, certior oratio accipitur. Tamen talis ratio non erit definitio; nec id quod per eam significatur, erit quod quid erat esse.	1330. And, second, this occurs when a more meaningful phrase is used to explain a simple term; for example, a when the phrase lover of wisdom is taken to explain the term philosopher. And this is what he means when he says “or in place of a simple term,” as if in order to explain a simple term one might take “a more definite one.” Yet such a concept will not be a definition, nor will the thing signified by it be an essence.

Lecture 4

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 1 Hic ponit secundam solutionem propositae quaestionis: et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit solutionem. Secundo probat eam, ibi, illud autem palam, et cetera. Tertio removet quasdam dubitationes, quae possent ex praedictis oriri, ibi, habet autem dubitationem. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quomodo definitio et quod quid est invenitur in substantia et accidentibus. Secundo quomodo de utrisque praedicetur, ibi, oportet quidem igitur intendere. Dicit ergo primo, quod dicendum est, sicut in praedicta solutione est dictum, quod quod quid est et definitio non sit accidentium, sed substantiarum: aut oportet secundum alium modum solvendi dicere, quod definitio dicitur multipliciter sicut et quod quid est. Ipsum enim quod quid est, uno modo significat substantiam et hoc aliquid. Alio modo significat singula aliorum praedicamentorum, sicut qualitatem et quantitatem et alia huiusmodi talia. Sicut autem ens praedicatur de omnibus praedicamentis, non autem similiter, sed primum de substantia, et per posterius de aliis praedicamentis, ita et quod quid est, simpliciter convenit substantiae, aliis autem alio modo, idest secundum quid.	1331. Here he gives the second solution to the question which was raised; and in regard to this he does three things. First (582)C 1331), he gives the solution. Second (584:C 1339), he proves it (“Now it is evident”). Third (585:C 1342), he dispels certain difficulties which could arise from the previous discussion (“Now if one denies”). He accordingly says, first (582), that it is necessary to say, as was stated in the foregoing solution (581:C 1325) that there is no definition and whatness of accidents but only of substances; or according to another solution it is necessary to say that the terms definition and whatness are used in many senses. For in one sense whatness signifies substance and this particular thing, and in another sense it signifies each of the other categories, such as quantity, quality and the like. Moreover, just as being is said to belong to all the other categories, although not in the same way, but primarily to substance and secondarily to the others, similar fashion whatness belongs in an unqualified sense to substance, “but in another sense to the other categories,” i.e., in a qualified sense.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 2 Quod enim aliquo modo, idest secundum quid aliis conveniat quid est, ex hoc patet, quod in singulis praedicamentis respondetur aliquid ad quaestionem factam per quid. Interrogamus enim de quali sive qualitate quid est, sicut quid est albedo, et respondemus quod est color. Unde patet, quod qualitas est de numero eorum, in quibus est quod quid est.	1332. For the fact that it belongs to the others “in another sense,” i.e., in a qualified sense, is clear from the fact that in each of the other categories some reply may be made to the question “What is it?” For we ask of what sort a thing is, or what its quality is, as “What is whiteness?” And we answer, “Color.” Hence it is evident that quality is one of the many things in which whatness is found.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 3 Non tamen simpliciter in qualitate est quid est, sed quid est qualitatis. Cum enim quaero quid est homo, et respondetur, animal; ly animal, quia est in genere substantiae, non solum dicit quid est homo, sed etiam absolute significat quid, id est substantiam. Sed cum quaeritur quid est albedo, et respondetur, color, licet significet quid est albedo, non tamen absolute significat quid, sed quale. Et ideo qualitas non habet quid simpliciter, sed secundum quid. Invenitur enim in qualitate quid huiusmodi, ut cum dicimus quod color est quid albedinis. Et hoc quid, magis est substantiale quam substantia.	1333. However, quality does not have whatness in an unqualified sense but the whatness of quality. For when I ask what man is, and one answers ‘ “Animal,” the term animal, since it belongs in the genus of substance, not only designates what man is, but also designates a what, i.e., a substance, in an unqualified sense. But when one asks what whiteness is, and someone answers, “Color,” this word, even though it signifies what whiteness is, (foes not signify what something is in an unqualified sense, but of what sort it is. Hence quality (foes not have whatness in an unqualified sense, but with some qualification. For this kind of whatness is found in quality, as when we say that color is the whatness of whiteness; and this kind of whatness is substantial rather than substance.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 4 Propter hoc enim quod omnia alia praedicamenta habent rationem entis a substantia, ideo modus entitatis substantiae, scilicet esse quid, participatur secundum quamdam similitudinem proportionis in omnibus aliis praedicamentis; ut dicamus, quod sicut animal est quid hominis, ita color albedinis, et numerus dualitatis; et ita dicimus qualitatem habere quid non simpliciter, sed huius. Sicut aliqui dicunt logice de non ente loquentes, non ens est, non quia non ens sit simpliciter, sed quia non ens est non ens. Et simpliciter qualitas non habet quid simpliciter, sed quid qualitatis.	1334. For by reason of the fact that all the other categories get the notion of being from substance, the mode of being of substance, i.e., being a what, is therefore participated in by all the other categories according to a certain proportional likeness; for example, we say that, just as animal is the whatness of man, in a similar fashion color is the whatness of whiteness, and number the whatness of double; and in this way we say that quality has whatness, not whatness in an unqualified sense, but a whatness of this particular kind; just as some say, for example, in speaking of non-being from a logical point of view, that non-being is, not because non-being is in an unqualified sense, but because non-being is non-being. And in a similar way quality does not have whatness in an unqualified sense, but the whatness of quality.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit oportet igitur. Ostendit quomodo quod quid est et definitio praedicetur de eo quod invenitur in substantiis et accidentibus; et dicit, quod ex quo definitio et quod quid est invenitur aliquo modo in accidentibus et in substantia, oportet igitur intendere ad considerandum quomodo oportet dicere, idest praedicare definitionem circa singula; non tamen magis quam quomodo se habent; ut videlicet, non ea dicamus univoce praedicari quorum non est una ratio in essendo.	1335. Therefore it is also (583). He now shows that whatness and definition are predicated of the nature found in substance and in accidents. He says that, since definition and whatness are found in some way both in substance and in accidents, therefore one must try to consider how we should “predicate it,” i.e., predicate the definition, of each thing, yet no more than its condition warrants; so that, namely, we do not say that those predicates are applied univocally which do not have one essential character in reality.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 6 Quapropter id quod dictum est de definitione et quod quid est in substantia et accidentibus, est manifestum: scilicet quod quod quid erat esse primo et simpliciter inest substantiae, et consequenter aliis: non quidem ita quod in aliis sit simpliciter quod quid erat esse, sed quod quid erat esse huic vel illi, scilicet quantitati vel qualitati. Manifestum est enim quod oportet definitionem et quod quid est vel aequivoce praedicari in substantia et accidentibus, vel addentes et auferentes secundum magis et minus, sive secundum prius et posterius, ut ens dicitur de substantia et accidente. Et sicut dicimus, quod non scibile est scibile secundum quid, idest per posterius, quia de non scibili hoc scire possumus quod non scitur; sic et de non ente hoc dicere possumus, quia non est.	1336. And for this reason the things which have been said about definition and whatness in regard to substance and accidents is clear, namely, that whatness will belong primarily and unqualifiedly to substance, and secondarily to the other categories, not, of course, so as to be whatness in an unqualified sense, but the whatness of this or that particular category, namely, of quantity or quality. For it is evident that definition and whatness must be predicated of substance and accidents either equivocally or by adding or removing something to a greater or lesser degree; or in a primary or secondary way, as being is predicated of substance and accident, and as we say that “the unknowable is known” in a qualified sense, i.e., secondarily, because so far as the unknowable is concerned we can know that it is not an object of knowledge; and thus we can also say of non-being that it is not.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 7 Non enim est rectum quod quod quid est et definitio dicatur de substantia et de accidentibus, neque aequivoce, neque simpliciter et eodem modo, idest univoce. Sed sicut medicabile dicitur de diversis particularibus per respectum ad unum et idem, non tamen significat unum et idem de omnibus de quibus dicitur, nec etiam dicitur aequivoce. Dicitur enim corpus medicabile, quia est subiectum medicinae; et opus medicabile, quia exercetur a medicina, ut purgatio et vas medicinale, quia eo utitur medicina, ut clystere. Et sic patet quod non dicitur omnino aequivoce medicinale de his tribus, cum in aequivocis non habeatur respectus ad aliquod unum. Nec iterum univoce dicitur secundum unam rationem. Non enim est eadem ratio secundum quam dicitur medicinale id quo utitur medicina, et quod facit medicinam. Sed dicitur analogice per respectum ad unum, scilicet ad medicinam. Et similiter quod quid est et definitio, non dicitur nec aequivoce nec univoce, de substantia et accidente, sed per respectum ad unum. Dicitur enim de accidente in respectu ad substantiam, ut dictum est.	1337. For the truth is that whatness and definition are not predicated of substance and accidents either equivocally or unqualifiedly and according to the same meaning, i.e., univocally, but as the term medical is predicated of different particulars in reference to one and the same thing, although it does not signify one and the same thing in the case of all the things of which it is predicated; nor is it also predicated equivocally. For, a body is said to be medical because it is the subject of the art of medicine, and an activity is said to be medical because it is performed by the art of medicine, as purging; and an instrument, such as a syringe, is said to be medical because it is used by the art of medicine. Thus it is clear that the term medical is not used in a purely equivocal sense of these three things, since equivocal things have no relationship to some one thing. Nor again it is used univocally according to the same meaning, for the term medical is not predicated in the same sense of one who uses the art of medicine and of something that assists the art of medicine to produce its effect, but it is predicated analogically in reference to one thing, namely, to the art of medicine. And similarly whatness and definition are not predicated of substance and accident either equivocally or univocally, but in reference to one thing. For they are predicated of an accident in relation to substance, as has been explained.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 8 Et quia posuerat duas solutiones, subiungit quod nihil differt qualitercumque aliquis velit dicere de praemissa quaestione; sive dicatur quod accidentia non habent definitionem, sive quod habent, sed per posterius secundum quid. Quod tamen dicitur in prima solutione quod non habent definitionem accidentia, intelligitur per prius et simpliciter.	1338. And since he had given two solutions, he adds that it makes no difference as to the way in which one wishes to answer the above question, i.e., whether one says that accidents do not have a definition, or that they have one in a secondary and qualified sense. However, the statement made in the first solution, to the effect that accidents do not have a definition, is to be understood in a primary and unqualified sense.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit illud autem probat secundo positam solutionem dicens, illud palam esse quod definitio et quod quid erat esse, primo et simpliciter est substantiarum, non tamen solum et substantiarum, cum etiam accidentia aliquo modo habeant definitionem et quod quid erat esse, non tamen primum. Et hoc sic patet. Non enim omnis ratio, qua nomen per rationem exponitur, idem est quod definitio; nec nomen expositum per quamcumque rationem, semper est definitum; sed alicui determinatae rationi competit quod sit definitio; illi scilicet quae significat unum. Si enim dicam quod Socrates est albus et musicus et Crispus, ista ratio non significat unum, sed multa, nisi forte per accidens, et ideo talis ratio non est definitio.	1339. Now it is evident (584). Second he proves the solution which was given. He says that it is evident that definition and essence belong primarily and unqualifiedly to substances, yet not to substances alone since in a sense accidents also have a definition and essence, though not in the first way. This is made clear as follows: not every concept by which a word is explained is the same as a definition, nor is the word explained by each concept always something defined; but it is proper that there should be a definition of any determinate concept, namely, of one that signifies one thing. For if I say that Socrates is white and musical and curly-headed , this concept does not signify one thing, except perhaps accidentally, but signifies many; and therefore such a concept is not a definition.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 10 Non tamen sufficit quod sit unum in continuitate illud quod per rationem significatur, ad hoc quod sit definitio. Sic enim Ilias, idest poema de bello Troiano esset definitio, quia illud bellum in quadam continuitate temporis est peractum. Aut etiam non sufficit quod sit unum per colligationem; sicut haec ratio non esset definitio domus, si dicerem, quod domus est lapides et cementum et ligna. Sed tunc ratio significans unum erit definitio, si significet unum aliquod illorum modorum, quorum quoties unum per se dicitur. Unum enim dicitur multipliciter sicut et ens. Ens autem hoc quidem significat hoc aliquid, aliud quantitatem, aliud qualitatem, et sic de aliis; et tamen per prius substantiam et consequenter alia. Ergo simpliciter unum per prius erit in substantia, et per posterius in aliis.	1340. However, it is not enough that the thing signified by a concept should be one thing from the viewpoint of continuity in order that there may be a definition of it; for then the “Iliad,” i.e., the poem about the Trojan war, would be a definition, because that war was waged over a continuous period of time. Nor again is it enough that the thing should be one by connection; for example, if I were to say that a house is stones and mortar and wood, this concept would not be a definition of a house. But a concept that signifies one thing will be a definition if it signifies in some one of those senses in which the term one is predicated essentially; for the term one is used in as many senses as being is. And in one sense being signifies this particular thing, and in another, quantity, and in another, quality, and so on for the other categories. Yet it is predicated primarily of substance and secondarily of the other categories. Therefore the term one in an unqualified sense will apply primarily to substance and secondarily to the other categories.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 11 Si igitur ad rationem definitionis pertinet quod significet unum, sequitur quod erit ratio albi hominis definitio, quia albus homo est quodammodo unum. Sed alio modo erit definitio ratio albi, et ratio substantiae; quia ratio substantiae erit definitio per prius, ratio albi per posterius, sicut unum per prius et posterius de utroque dicitur.	1341. If, then, it is characteristic of the notion of definition that it should signify one thing, it follows that there will be a definition of white man, because white man is in a sense one thing. But the concept of white will be a definition in a different sense than the concept of substance, because the concept of substance will be a definition in a primary sense, and the concept of white will be a definition in a secondary sense, just as the term one is predicated of each in a primary and in a secondary sense.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit habet autem removet quasdam dubitationes circa praedeterminata; et dividitur in duas, secundum duas dubitationes quas removet. Secunda, ibi, est autem et alia dubitatio. Praenotanda autem sunt duo ad evidentiam primae particulae. Quorum primum est, quod quidam dicebant nullam definitionem esse ex additione, idest quod in nulla definitione ponitur aliquid, quod sit extra essentiam definiti. Et videbantur pro se habere hoc, quod definitio significat essentiam rei. Unde illud quod est extra essentiam rei, non debet poni in eius definitione, ut videtur.	1342. Now if one denies (585). He clears up some of the difficulties pertaining to the point established above; and this is divided into two parts corresponding to the two difficulties which he removes. The second (586:C 1347) begins where he says “And there is also.” Now there are two things which have to be noted first of all in order to make the first part of this division evident. The first is that some said that no definition comes about “by way of addition,” i.e., no definition contains anything extrinsic to the essence of the thing defined. And they seemed to have in mind the fact that the definition signifies the essence of a thing. Hence it would seem that whatever is extrinsic to the essence of a thing should not be given in its definition.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 13 Secundum est, quod quaedam accidentia sunt simplicia, et quaedam copulata. Simplicia dicuntur, quae non habent subiectum determinatum, quod in eorum definitione ponatur, sicut curvum et concavum et alia mathematica. Copulata autem dicuntur, quae habent determinatum subiectum, sine quo definiri non possunt.	1343. The second thing which has to be noted is that some accidents are simple and some compound. Those are said to be simple which have no determinate subject included in their definition, for example, curved and concave and other mathematical entities; and those are said to be compound which have a determinate subject without which they cannot be defined.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 14 Est ergo dubitatio, si aliquis velit dicere quod ratio, quae est ex additione, non est definitio illorum accidentium quae sunt simplicia, sed copulatorum erit definitio. Videtur enim, quod nullius eorum possit esse definitio. Palam est ergo, quod si illa definiuntur, necesse est eorum definitionem ex additione facere, cum sine propriis subiectis definiri non possint. Sicut si accipiamus haec tria, idest nasus, et concavitas, et simitas: concavitas est simpliciter accidens, praecipue in comparatione ad nasum, cum non sit nasus de intellectu concavi. Simitas autem est accidens compositum, cum sit nasus de intellectu eius. Et ita simitas erit quoddam dictum ex duobus, inquantum significat hoc in hoc, idest determinatum accidens in determinato subiecto, et nec concavitas nec simitas est passio nasi secundum accidens, sicut album inest Calliae et homini per accidens, inquantum Callias est albus, cui accidit hominem esse. Sed simum est passio nasi secundum se. Naso enim inquantum huiusmodi competit esse simum. Alia autem translatio loco eius quod est concavum, habet aquilinum. Et est planior sensus; quia in definitione aquilini ponitur nasus, sicut in definitione simi. Sed sicut masculinum per se competit animali, et aequale quantitati, et omnia alia quaecumque secundum se dicuntur existere in aliquo, quia de omnibus est eadem ratio, et huiusmodi sunt in quibus, idest in quorum rationibus existit nomen eius cuius est passio, idest substantia, aut etiam ratio eius. Semper enim in definitionibus potest poni ratio loco nominis: sicut si dicimus quod homo est animal rationale mortale, potest poni loco nominis animalis definitio, ut dicatur quod homo est substantia animata sensibilis rationalis mortalis. Similiter si dicam quod masculus est animal potens generare in alio, possum etiam dicere quod masculus est substantia animata sensibilis potens generare in aliquo alio.	1344. Hence a problem arises if someone wants to say that a concept which is formed by addition is not a definition of those accidents which are simple, but of those which are compound; for it seems that none of these can have a definition. It is clear, then, that if compound accidents are defined, their definition must be formed by addition, since they cannot be defined without their proper subject. For example, if we take the following three things: nose, concavity, and snubness, then concavity is an accident in an unqualified sense, especially in relation to nose, since nose is not contained in the concept of concavity. And snubness is a compound accident, since nose is a part of its concept. Thus snubness will be an expression of both inasmuch as it signifies that “the one is found in the other,” i.e., a definite accident in a definite subject, and neither concavity nor snubness is an attribute of nose in an accidental way, as white belongs accidentally to Callias and to man, inasmuch as Callias, who happens to be a man, is white. But snubness is an essential quality of nose, for it is proper to nose as such to be snub. Another translation has aquiline in place of concave, and its meaning is more evident, because nose is given in the definition of aquiline just as it is in the definition of snub. Concavity or snubness, then, belongs to nose essentially, just as male belongs to animal essentially, and equality to quantity, and all other things which are said to be present essentially in something else, because the concept of all is the same; and “these attributes are those in which,” i.e., in the concepts of which, there is found either the name of the thing “to which this attribute belongs,” namely, substance, or its concept. For in definitions the concept can always be given in place of the name; for example, when we say that man is a mortal rational animal, the definition can be given in place of the term animal, just as it may be said that man is a mortal rational sensory animated substance. And similarly if I say that a male is an animal capable of generating in another, I can also say that a male is a sensory animated substance capable of generating in another.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 15 Et sic patet, quod non contingit separatim ostendere, idest notificare aliquod praedictorum accidentium quae diximus copulata, sicut contingit notificare album sine hoc quod in eius definitione sive ratione ponatur homo. Sed non contingit ita notificare femininum sine animali; quia oportet quod animal ponatur in definitione feminini sicut et in definitione masculini. Quare patet, quod non est alicuius praedictorum accidentium copulatorum quod quid erat esse et definitio vera, si nulla definitio est ex additione, sicut contingit in definitionibus substantiarum.	1345. Thus it is clearly impossible “to explain” this, i.e., to convey knowledge of, one of the accidents mentioned above which we called compound, apart from its subject, as it is possible to convey knowledge of whiteness without giving man in its definition or concept. But it is not possible to convey knowledge of female without mentioning animal, because animal must be given in the definition of female just as it must be given in the definition of male. Hence it is evident that none of the compound accidents mentioned above have a whatness and real definition if there is no definition by way of addition, as happens in the definitions of substances.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 16 Aut si est aliqua definitio eorum, cum non possint nisi ex additione definiri, aliter erit definitio eorum quam substantiarum, quemadmodum diximus in solutione secunda. Et sic in hac conclusione innuit solutionem dubitationis praemissae. Quod enim dicebatur, quod nulla definitio est ex additione, verum est de definitione prout invenitur in substantiis. Sic autem praedicta accidentia non habent definitionem, sed alio modo per posterius.	1346. Or if they have some kind of definition, since they can be defined only by way of addition, they will have a definition in a different way than substances do, as we said in the second solution. Hence in this conclusion he states the solution to the foregoing difficulty; for the statement which he made there, namely, that there is no definition by way of addition, is true of definition insofar as it applies to substances. Hence the accidents mentioned above do not have a definition in this way but differently, i.e., in a secondary sense.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 17 Deinde cum dicit est autem ponit secundam dubitationem: circa quam duo facit. Primo movet dubitationem. Secundo ponit solutionem, ibi, sed latet et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod est alia dubitatio de praedictis. Aut enim est idem dicere nasus simus et nasus concavus, aut non. Si idem, sequetur quod idem sit simum et concavum: quod patet esse falsum, cum alia sit definitio utriusque.	1347. And there is (586). Here he states the second difficulty; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he raises the difficulty; and second (587:C 1350), he gives its solution (“But this is hidden”). He accordingly says, first (586), that there is another problem concerning the points discussed above. For to say “snub nose” and “concave nose” is either to say the same thing or not. If it is the same, it follows that snub and concave are the same; but this is clearly false since the definition of each is different.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 18 Si autem non est idem dicere nasum simum et nasum concavum, propter hoc quod simum non potest intelligi sine re cuius est per se passio, idest sine naso, cum simum sit concavitas in naso, concavum vero potest dici sine naso; sequetur, si hoc quod dico simum plus habet quam concavum, quod hoc, scilicet quod est nasus, vel non possit dici nasus simus, vel si dicatur, erit bis idem dictum, ut dicamus, quod nasus simus est nasus nasus concavus. Semper enim loco nominis potest poni definitio illius nominis. Unde cum dicitur nasus simus, poterit removeri nomen simi, et addi naso definitio simi, quae est nasus concavus. Sic ergo videtur dicere, quod nasum simum, nihil aliud est quam dicere, nasum nasum concavum, quod est inconveniens. Propter quod, inconveniens videtur dicere quod in talibus accidentibus sit quod quid erat esse.	1348. But if to say snub nose and concave nose is not to say the same thing, because snub cannot be understood “without the thing of which it is a proper attribute,” i.e., without nose, since snubness is concavity in a nose (although concave can be spoken of without nose being involved), and if what I call snub involves more than concave, then it follows that this thing which I call nose either cannot be called a snub nose, or if it is called such, the word will be used twice, namely, inasmuch as we might say that a snub nose is “a concave nose nose”; for the definition of a word can always be given in place of that word. Hence when the word snub nose is used, the word snub can be removed and the definition of snub, which is a concave nose, can be added to the definition of nose. Thus it would seem that to speak of a snub nose is merely to speak of a concave nose nose, which is absurd. And for this reason it would seem absurd to say that such accidents have an essence.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 19 Quod si hoc non est verum, quod in eis non sit quod quid erat esse, in infinitum fiet repetitio eiusdem nominis, semper posita nominis definitione pro nomine. Constat enim, quod cum dico, nasus concavus, loco concavi potest accipi simum, quia concavitas in naso non est nisi simitas, et loco simi iterum nasus concavus, et sic in infinitum.	1349. For if it is not true that they do not have an essence, the same word may be repeated an infinite number of times when the definition of the word is put in place of that word. For it is obvious that, when I say “concave nose,” the word snub can be understood in place of concave, because snubness is merely concavity in a nose; and the term concave nose can also be understood in place of snub; and so on to infinity.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 20 Palam est itaque, ut videtur, quod solius substantiae est definitio. Si enim esset aliorum praedicamentorum, oporteret quod esset ex additione subiecti, sicut definitio aequalitatis et definitio imparis oporteret quod sumeretur ex definitione suorum subiectorum. Non enim definitio imparis est sine numero; nec definitio feminini, quod significat quamdam qualitatem animalis, est sine animali. Si ergo definitio aliquorum est ex additione, sequetur quod bis accidat idem dicere, sicut in praemissis est ostensum. Unde, si verum est quod hoc inconveniens sequatur, sequitur quod accidentia copulata non habent definitionem.	1350. Hence it would seem to be evident that only substance has a definition; for if the other categories also had a definition, this would have to be a result of adding something to their subject, as the definition of equal and that of odd must be derived from the definition of their subjects. For there is no definition of odd without number, or of female, which signifies a certain quality of animal, without animal. Therefore if some things are defined by way of addition, it follows that the same words may be used twice, as was shown in the example given above. Hence if it is true that this absurd conclusion would result, it follows that compound accidents do not have a definition.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 21 Deinde cum dicit sed latet solvit praemissam quaestionem; dicens, quod moventem praedictam quaestionem latet, quod rationes, non dicuntur certe, idest certitudinaliter, quasi ea quae dicuntur univoce, sed dicuntur secundum prius et posterius, ut supra dictum est. Si autem praedicta accidentia copulata habent terminos, idest rationes aliquas, oportet quod alio modo sint illi termini quam definitiones: aut quod definitio et quod quid erat esse, quod significatur per definitionem, dicatur multipliciter.	1351. But this is hidden (587). He solves the problem raised above. He says that anyone who raises the above question is ignorant of the fact that these concepts are not expressed exactly, i.e., with exactness, as those which are used univocally, but are employed in a primary and secondary way, as was stated above (582:C 1331). But if the compound accidents mentioned above have a formula, or conceptual expression, they must have such in a different way than definitions do, or definition and essence, which is signified by definition, must be used in different senses.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 22 Quare sic quidem, idest simpliciter per prius, nullius erit definitio nisi substantiae, nec etiam quod quid erat esse. Sic autem, idest secundum quid et posterius, erit etiam aliorum. Substantia enim quae habet quidditatem absolutam, non dependet in sua quidditate ex alio. Accidens autem dependet a subiecto, licet subiectum non sit de essentia accidentis; sicut creatura dependet a creatore et tamen creator non est de essentia creaturae, ita quod oporteat exteriorem essentiam in eius definitione poni. Accidentia vero non habent esse nisi per hoc quod insunt subiecto: et ideo eorum quidditas est dependens a subiecto: et propter hoc oportet quod subiectum in accidentis definitione ponatur, quandoque quidem in recto, quandoque vero in obliquo.	1352. Hence “in one sense,” i.e., primarily and without qualification, only substance will have a definition, and only substance will have an essence. “And in another sense,” i.e., secondarily and with some qualification, the other categories will also have a definition, For substance, which has a quiddity in the absolute sense, does not depend on something else so far as its quiddity is concerned. An accident depends on its subject, however, although a subject does not belong to the essence of its accident (in much the same way as a creature depends on the creator, yet the creator does not belong to the essence of the creature), so that an extrinsic essence must be placed in its definition. In fact, accidents have being only by reason of the fact that they inhere in a subject, and therefore their quiddity depends on their subject. Hence a subject must be given in the definition of an accident at one time directly and at another, indirectly.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 23 In recto quidem, quando accidens significatur ut accidens in concretione ad subiectum: ut cum dico, simus est nasus concavus. Tunc enim nasus ponitur in definitione simi quasi genus, ad designandum quod accidentia non habent subsistentiam, nisi ex subiecto. Quando vero accidens significatur per modum substantiae in abstracto, tunc subiectum ponitur in definitione eius in obliquo, ut differentia; sicut dicitur, simitas est concavitas nasi.	1353. Now a subject is given directly in the definition of an accident when an accident is signified concretely as an accident fused with a subject, as when I say that snubness is a concave nose; for nose is given in the definition of snub as a genus in order to signify that accidents subsist only in a subject. But when an accident is signified in the abstract, after the manner of a substance, then the subject is given in its definition indirectly, as a difference, as it is said that snubness is the concavity of a nose.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 24 Patet igitur quod cum dico, nasum simum, non oportet loco simi accipere nasum concavum; quia nasus non ponitur in definitione simi, quasi sit de essentia eius; sed quasi additum essentiae. Unde simum et concavum per essentiam idem sunt. Sed simum addit supra concavum, habitudinem ad determinatum subiectum: et sic determinato subiecto quod est nasus, nihil differt simus a concavo; nec oportet aliquid loco simi ponere nisi concavum: et sic non erit dicere loco eius, nasus concavus, sed solum concavus.	1354. Hence it is clear that when I say snub nose, it is not necessary to understand concave nose in place of nose; because nose is not included in the definition of snub as though it were part of its essence, but as something added to its essence. Hence snub and concave are essentially the same. But snub adds over and above concave a relation to a determinate subject; and thus in this determinate subject, nose, snub differs in no way from concave, nor is it necessary that any word should be put in place of snub except the word concave. Thus it will not be necessary to use concave nose in place of snub, but only concave.
lib. 7 l. 4 n. 25 Ultimo concludit ex praedictis, quod palam est, quod definitio quae est ratio eius quod quid erat esse, et ipsum quod quid erat esse, solum est substantiarum, sicut prima solutio habebat. Vel est primo et simpliciter earum, et per posterius et secundum quid accidentium, ut in secunda solutione dicebatur.	1355. In bringing his discussion to a close he draws the conclusion which follows as obvious, namely, that a definition, which is the concept of a thing’s essence and the essence itself, belongs to substances alone, just as the first solution maintained. Or substances are defined in a primary and unqualified sense, and accidents in a secondary and qualified sense, as has been stated in the second solution.

Lecture 5

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 1 Postquam determinavit philosophus quid est quod quid erat esse, et quorum, consequenter inquirit quomodo se habeat quod quid erat esse ad id cuius est, utrum scilicet ut idem, vel ut diversum. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo movet quaestionem. Secundo solvit eam, ibi, singulum enim non aliud. Tertio ostendit quod ex solutione praedicta, possunt solvi sophisticae rationes, quae circa haec fiunt, ibi, sophistici vero elenchi. Dicit ergo primo, quod perscrutandum est utrum quod quid erat esse cuiuscumque, et unumquodque cuius est quod quid erat esse, sit idem aut diversum; sicut utrum quod quid erat esse homini et homo sit idem aut diversum, et similiter de aliis. Hoc enim inquirere et manifestare, est aliquid praeopere, idest praenecessarium ad perscrutationem de substantia, quam intendimus facere in sequentibus. Intendit enim inquirere inferius, utrum universalia sint substantiae rerum, et utrum partes definitorum intrent in definitionem eorum; et ad hoc valet ista perscrutatio, quam nunc proponit.	1356. Having established what essence is, and to what things it belongs, the Philosopher next inquires how essence is related to the thing of which it is the essence, i.e., whether it is the same as that thing or different; and in regard to this he does three things. First (588)C 1356), he presents the problem. Second (589:C 1357), he gives its solution (“For each thing”). Third (597:C 1377,), he shows that the sophistical arguments which arise with regard to these matters can be met by using the above solution (“Moreover, it is evident”). He accordingly says, first (588), that it is necessary to inquire whether the essence of each thing and the thing of which it is the essence are the same or different, for example, whether the essence of a man and a man are the same or different; and it is the same in the case of other things. For to investigate this and make it evident is a “preamble to,” i.e., a basic requirement for, “the inquiry about substance,” which we intend to make in the following discussions. For it is his aim to investigate below whether universals are the substances of things, and whether the parts of things defined enter into their definition; and this inquiry which he now proposes to make is useful in solving that problem.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit singulum enim solvit propositam quaestionem. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit quaestionis solutionem. Secundo probat eam, ibi, in dictis vero secundum se. Tertio ostendit contrarium solutionis praedictae esse absurdum et impossibile, ibi, absurdum vero apparebit. Circa primum duo facit. Primo enim ostendit quid prima facie circa quaestionem propositam verum esse videatur. Secundo ostendit in quo eius contrarium accidat, ibi, in dictis quidem itaque. Dicit ergo primo, quod statim, in primo aspectu, hoc videtur esse dicendum, quod in omnibus rebus singulum non sit aliud a sui substantia. Hoc autem quod est quod quid erat esse, est substantia eius cuius est quod quid erat esse. Unde videtur per hanc rationem in primo aspectu quod quod quid erat esse sit idem, et non alterum ab unoquoque cuius est.	1357. For each thing (589). Then he gives the solution to the problem which has been raised; and in regard to this he does three things. First (589), he gives the solution to this problem. Second (591:C 1362), he proves it (“But in the case”). Third (595:C 1373), he shows that the opposite of the solution given above is absurd and impossible (“Now the absurdity”). In regard to the first he does two things. First (589:C 1357), he indicates what seems to be true at first glance with regard to the proposed problem. Second (590:C 1358), he shows what follows from the contrary of this problem (“Now in the case”). He accordingly says, first (589), that it seems necessary at first glance, i.e., at once, to say that there is no case in which a particular thing differs from its own substance; and the reason is that the essence of a thing is the substance of the very thing of which it is the essence. Hence according to this argument it seems at first glance that the essence of a thing is the same as the thing itself and that one does not differ from the other.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit in dictis quidem. Ostendit in quibus quod praemissum est non sit verum; dicens, quod quod quid erat esse pro tanto videtur esse non aliud ab eo cuius est, quia est eius substantia: itaque in illis, quae praedicantur secundum accidens, et non dicunt substantiam subiecti, videtur esse diversum quod quid erat esse praedicati a subiecto. Alterum enim est id quod est esse albo homini, idest quod quid erat esse albi hominis, ab eo quod est albus homo.	1358. Now in the case (590). Then he indicates the things to which the above premise does not apply. He says that insofar as the essence of a thing does not seem to differ from the thing of which it is the essence, since it is its substance, then in the case of accidental predications, which do not express the substance of their subject, the essence of the predicate seems to differ from the subject. For “the being of a white man,” i.e., the essence of a white man, differs from a white man.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 4 Quod sic videtur, quia cum dicitur, homo albus, supponitur homo; idem enim est homo, et homo albus, ut dicunt. Si enim albus haberet esse aliud a subiecto, aliquid praedicaretur de composito, ratione albi, vel posset praedicari, quia non esset contra rationem albi. Quod enim praedicatur de homine albo, non praedicatur de eo nisi quia praedicatur de homine. Accidens enim non est subiectum, nisi ratione substantiae. Unde secundum quod in albo intelligitur homo, homo et homo albus sunt idem; et pro tanto id quod erit esse albo homini, erit etiam esse homini. Si ergo quod quid erat esse albi hominis, sit idem albo homini, erit etiam idem homini: sed non est idem homini, ergo quod quid erat esse albi hominis non est idem albo homini. Et sic in his quae sunt secundum accidens, quod quid erat esse alicuius non erit idem cum eo cuius est quod quid erat esse.	1359. This seems to be the case because, when someone says “white man,” man is presupposed, for a man and a white man are the same, as they say. For if white had a different being than its subject, something might be predicated of the composite by means of the concept white, or it could be predicated of the composite because it was not opposed to the concept white. For whatever is predicated of a white man is so predicated only because it is predicated of a man; for an accident is a subject only by reason of a substance. Hence, insofar as man is understood in what is white, man and white are the same; and insofar as they are the same, then whatever constitutes the being of a white man will also constitute the being of a man. Hence if the essence of a white man is the same as a white man, it will also be the same as a man. But it is not the same as a man; and thus the essence of a white man is not the same as a white man. Therefore in the case of those things which are accidental, the essence of a thing and the thing itself are not the same.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 5 Quod autem quod quid erat esse albi hominis non sit idem homini, patet, quia non est necesse, quod quaecumque dicuntur secundum accidens de aliquo subiecto, quod sint eadem illi: subiectum enim est quodammodo medium inter duo accidentia, quae praedicantur de ipso, inquantum illa duo accidentia non uniuntur nisi unitate subiecti, sicut album et musicum unitate hominis de quo praedicantur: est ergo homo ut medium, album autem et musicum sunt extremitates. Si autem album esset idem homini per essentiam, pari ratione et musicum; et ita ista duo extrema album et musicum essent per essentiam idem; quia quaecumque uni et eidem sunt eadem, etiam sibiinvicem sunt eadem. Hoc autem est falsum, quod istae extremitates sint eaedem per essentiam: sed forsan hoc videtur esse verum, quod sint eaedem per accidens. Hoc autem certum est quod album et musicum sunt idem per accidens.	1360. Now it is evident that the essence of a white man is not the same as a man, because not everything that is predicated accidentally of a subject is necessarily the same as that subject. For a subject is in a sense a mean between two accidents which are predicated of it, inasmuch as these two accidents are one only because their subject is one; for example, white and musical are one because the man of whom they are predicated is one. Therefore man is a mean, and white and musical are extremes. Now if white were essentially the same as man, then by the same argument musical would also be the same as man. Thus the two extremes, white and musical, would be essentially the same, because two things that are identical with some other thing are themselves identical. But it is false that these two extreme terms are essentially the same, although perhaps it might seem to be true that they are accidentally the same. Now it is certain that white and musical are accidentally the same.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 6 Sed ex hoc posset aliquis opinari, quod sicut album et musicum sunt idem per accidens, ita etiam hoc, quod est esse albo, et quod est esse musico, idest quod quid est utriusque sit idem per accidens. Sed hoc non videtur esse verum. Album enim et musicum sunt idem per accidens ex hoc, quod utrumque est idem per accidens homini. Non autem quod quid est esse albi, nec hoc quod quid est musici, sunt idem cum eo quod est quod quid est esse hominis. Unde quod quid est esse albi, et quod quid est esse musici, non sunt idem per accidens, sed solum album et musicum.	1361. But according to this someone might think that, just as the white and the musical are accidentally the same, in a similar fashion “the being of white” and “the being of musical,” i.e., the essences of both, are accidentally the same. However, this does not seem to be true; for the white and the musical are accidentally the same because each is accidentally the same as a man. Now the being of white and the being of musical are not the same as the being of man. Hence the being of white and the being of musical are not accidentally the same, but only the white and the musical.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit in dictis vero manifestat solutionem propositam. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo manifestat eam quantum ad ea quae dicuntur per se. Secundo quantum ad ea quae dicuntur per accidens, ibi, secundum accidens vero dictum. Circa primum duo facit. Primo manifestat propositam quaestionem quantum ad ea quae dicuntur per se. Secundo concludit conclusionem intentam, ibi, necesse igitur est unum esse. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit, quod in his, quae dicuntur per se, non est aliud quod quid erat esse, et id cuius est. Secundo quod non est separatum, ibi, et siquidem absolute. Dicit ergo primo, quod in illis, quae dicuntur per se, semper necesse est idem esse quod quid erat esse et id cuius est. Quod patet si ponantur aliquae substantiae abstractae ab istis sensibilibus, quibus non sunt aliquae aliae substantiae abstractae nec aliquae naturae priores eis. Huiusmodi enim substantias Platonici dicunt esse ideas abstractas. Si enim quod quid erat esse est aliud ab eo cuius est, oportebit hoc esse verum in omnibus in quibus est quod quid erat esse, cuiuslibet autem substantiae est quod quid erat esse, erit ergo aliquid aliud a qualibet substantia quod quid erat esse eius. Et ita etiam quod quid erat esse substantiae idealis erit aliud ab ea; et ita si ipsum bonum, idest si idea boni, et quod est bono esse, idest quod quid erat esse huius ideae, est alterum; et similiter ipsum animal, et quod est animali esse; et ipsum ens, et quod est enti esse, et ita in omnibus aliis ideis; sequetur quod sicut istae substantiae ideales ponuntur praeter substantias sensibiles, ita erunt aliae substantiae, et aliae naturae et ideae praeter ideas dictas a Platonicis, quae erunt quod quid erat esse illarum idearum; et etiam illae aliae substantiae sunt priores ideis. Et hoc dico sequetur si quod quid erat esse, substantiae est, idest si quaelibet substantia habet quod quid erat esse, ut dictum est. Vel si hoc quod quid erat esse pertinet ad substantiam rei: illud enim, a quo substantia rei dependet, est prius ea.	1362. But in the case (590). Then he explains the proposed solution; and in regard to this he does two things. First (590), he explains the solution with reference to essential predications; and second (594:C 1372), with reference to accidental predications (“But it is not true”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he explains the proposed solution with reference to essential predications; and second (593:C 1367), he draws the conclusion at which he aims (“It is necessary”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he shows that in the case of essential predications the essence of a thing does not differ from the thing of which it is the essence; and second (592:C 1363), that it is not separated from it (“And if”). He accordingly says, first (591), that in the case of essential predications the essence of a thing and the thing itself must always be the same. This becomes clear if one holds that there are substances which are separate from these sensible substances and have no other separated substances or natures prior to them; for the Platonists say that abstract ideas are substances of this kind. For if the essence of a thing differs from the thing itself, this will have to be true of all things which have an essence. Now every substance has an essence. Therefore the essence of every substance will differ from that substance. Hence the essence of an ideal substance will also differ from that substance. Thus “if the good itself,” i.e., the Idea of good, differs from “the being of the good,” i.e., from the essence of this Idea, and if animal-itself also differs from the being of an animal and if being-itself differs from the being of being, and so on in the case of the other Ideas, it follows that, just as there are held to be Ideas apart from sensible substances, in a similar fashion there will also be other substances and natures and Ideas apart from those mentioned by the Platonists. And these other substances will constitute the essence of these Ideas and will be prior to them. Now I say that this follows “if essence belongs to substance,” i.e., if each substance has an essence, as has been stated; or [in other words] if this essence belongs to the substance of the thing; for that on which a substance depends is prior to it.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit et si quidem. Ostendit quod hoc, quod est quod quid erat esse non est separatum ab eo cuius est, dicens, et si quidem sint absolute abinvicem, idest si quod quid erat esse et id cuius est, non solum sunt diversa, sed etiam sunt abinvicem separata, sequuntur duo inconvenientia: quorum primum est, quod harum rerum non sit scientia quarum quod quid est ab eis separatur. Secundum inconveniens est, quod haec eadem erunt non entia.	1363. And if (592). He shows that the essence of a thing is not separated from the thing of which it is the essence. He says, “And if they are separated from each other,” i.e., if the essence of a thing and the thing itself are not only different but also separated from each other, two absurdities follow. The first is that there will be no understanding of those things whose essence is separated from them; and the second is that these same things will not be beings.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 9 Et exponit quod dixerat absolute, ut videlicet nec ipsi bono, idest ideae boni, quae ponitur secundum Platonicos insit hoc quod est esse bono, idest quod quid est esse boni. Nec iterum scilicet huic bono, inest esse bonum, idest quidditas boni: quasi dicat absolutionem praedictam esse intelligendam secundum separationem quidditatis boni ab idea boni, et a particulari bono, quod dicitur per participationem ideae. Vel aliter. Nec huic esse bonum, idest nec hoc, scilicet quod quid erat esse, competit esse bonum, ut scilicet quod quid erat esse boni sit separatum a bono, et e converso.	1364. He also explains what he means by “separated,” namely, that “the being of the good,” i.e., the essence of the good, which the Platonists posit, “is not present in the good-itself,” i.e., in the Idea of good; and again that “being good,” i.e., the quiddity of good, is not present in this good; as if to say that the foregoing separation must be understood to mean the separation of the quiddity of the good both from the Idea of good and from a particular good, which is called such through participation in the Idea of good. Or according to another text, “And being good does not belong to this,” i.e., this essence is not proper to the being of the good in such a way that the essence of the good may be separated from the good, and vice versa.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 10 Et quod praedicta inconvenientia sequantur hac positione facta, patet: quia scientia uniuscuiusque in hoc consistit, quod sciatur quod quid erat esse illi: et hoc similiter se habet et in bono et in omnibus aliis. Quare sequitur, quod si huic quod est esse bono, idest quidditati boni, non inest bonum, nec etiam ei quod est esse enti, idest quidditati entis, inest ens, nec similiter ei quod est uni, inest unum; quia similiter aut omnia, aut nullum eorum sunt eadem cum suis quidditatibus. Si autem bonum propter separationem praedictam non inest ei, quod est esse bonum, ergo nec e contrario esse bonum inerit bono. Quare etiam nec quod est esse enti erit idem cum ente, nec aliquod aliorum habebit in se unum quod quid est. Et ita si unumquodque scitur per quod quid est, nulla res poterit sciri: quod fuit primum inconveniens.	1365. It is evident that the untenable conclusions mentioned above follow from the position described, because the understanding of each thing consists in a knowledge of its essence; and this applies in like manner both to the good and to all other things. Hence it follows that, if good is not present in “the being of the good,” i.e., its essence, neither is being present in “the being of being,” i.e., the essence of being, nor similarly is unity present in the being of the one, because either all of them alike or none of them are the same as their quiddities. If, however, by reason of the above-mentioned separation good is not present in the being of the good, then in an opposite way neither is the being of the good present in the good. Hence, too, neither will the essence of being be the same as being, nor will any other things have within themselves a single whatness. Thus if each thing is understood by means of its whatness, it follows that nothing can be known. This was the first absurdity mentioned.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 11 Iterum patet quod sequitur secundum, idest quod nihil erit ens, nec bonum, nec animal, nec aliquid huiusmodi; quia non poterit bonum esse illud, cui non inest hoc, quod est bono esse, idest quod quid est boni. Si igitur quod quid est boni est separatum a bono, et quod quid erat entis ab ente, sequetur quod ista, quae dicuntur bona et entia, non sunt bona, nec entia: quod fuit secundum inconveniens.	1366. It is also evident that “the second absurdity follows”—that nothing will be a being or a good or an animal or anything of this kind; because that cannot be good in which “the being of the good,” i.e., the whatness of the good, is not present. Hence if the whatness of the good is separated from the good, and the whatness of being is separated from being, it follows that the things which are said to be good and to be beings are neither good nor beings. This was the second absurdity mentioned.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit necesse igitur concludit philosophus conclusionem principaliter intentam; dicens, quod ex quo per diversitatem et separationem eius quod quid erat esse a rebus, sequitur quod res nec sunt scitae, nec entes, quod est inconveniens, necesse est igitur esse unum benignum, et hoc quod est benigno esse, idest quod quid est benigni, et bonum et bono esse, idest quod quid est boni. Et ponit haec duo, ut benignum pertineat ad bona particularia, quae Platonici dicebant bona per participationem, bonum autem ad ipsam ideam boni. Et similiter est de omnibus aliis, quae dicuntur per se et primo, et non per aliud sive per accidens, quia in illis est alia ratio, ut dictum est. Ad hoc enim quod res sint scitae, et quod sint entes, hoc est sufficiens, scilicet quod quod quid erat rei sit idem cum re si extiterit, idest si fuerit verum, quamvis non sint species ideales, quas Platonici ponebant.	1367. It is necessary (593). The Philosopher now draws the conclusion in which he is chiefly interested. He says that, since it follows, as a result of the difference and separation of essence from things, that things are not understood and are not beings, and this is absurd, “it is necessary that the amicable be one with the being of the amicable,” or the whatness of the amicable, “and that the good be one with the being of the good,” i.e., the quiddity of the good. He gives these two examples: the amicable, pertaining to particular goods, which the Platonists said were good by participation; and the good, pertaining to the Idea of good. And it is similar in the case of all other predications which are essential and primary and which do not involve one thing being predicated of something else, i.e., accidental predications; for the latter type of predication is of a different nature, as has been stated (579:C 1313). For in order that things may both be understood and be beings, it is enough “if this is so,” i.e., if this is true, namely, that the quiddity of a thing is the same as the thing itself, even though the Ideal Forms which the Platonists posited do not exist.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 13 Licet non propter aliud ponerent Platonici species, nisi ut per eas possit haberi scientia de istis sensibilibus, ut per earum participationem essent. Sed forsan magis est sufficiens ad praedictam positionem, quod quod quid est esse rei sit idem cum re quam ipsae species, etiam si verum sit quod sint species, quia species sunt separatae a rebus. Magis autem aliquid cognoscitur et habet esse per id quod est sibi coniunctum et idem, quam per id quod est ab eo separatum.	1368. Now the Platonists claimed that there are separate Forms only for this reason, that certain knowledge of sensible things might be had by means of these Forms, inasmuch as sensible things would exist by participating in them. But perhaps it is sufficient for the foregoing position that the whatness of a thing should be the same as the thing itself rather than the Form, even if it is true that there are Forms, because the Forms exist apart from things. Moreover, a thing is understood and has being by means of something which is connected with it and is the same as itself, rather than by means of something which is separated from it.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 14 Ex hoc autem philosophus dat intelligere destructiones specierum. Si enim species non ponuntur nisi propter scientiam rerum, et esse earum, et ad hoc sufficit alia positio, etiam hoc non posito et eo posito magis quam hoc, sequitur quod vanum sit ponere species.	1369. And from this consideration the Philosopher wants us to understand that separate Forms are destroyed. For if the Forms are held merely to account for our understanding of things and their being, and another position sufficiently accounts for this when it is held and the Platonic position is not, it follows that it is pointless to posit separate Forms.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 15 Similiter ad idem ostendendum, scilicet quod non sunt species, palam est, quia si sunt ideae quales Platonici eas esse dicebant, sequetur quod id, quod est subiectum, scilicet quod haec res sensibilis non sit substantia. Ponebant enim Platonici, quod necesse est ideas esse substantias, et non esse de aliquo subiecto. Proprium enim est substantiae in subiecto non esse. Sed si ista subiecta, idest, si ista sensibilia sint substantiae, oportet quod sint secundum participationem illarum specierum; et ita illae species erunt de subiecto.	1370. Similarly, the same point of the non-existence of separate Forms is evident from another consideration. If there are Ideas, it follows that the thing which is their subject, namely, this particular sensible thing, is not a substance. For the Platonists adopted the position that Ideas must be substances and so not belong to any subject; for it is proper for a substance not to inhere in a subject. But if the subjects hereabout, i.e., the sensible things about us, are substances, they must be such by participating in these separate Forms. Hence these Forms will inhere in a subject.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 16 Ex his itaque rationibus manifestum est, quod unum est et idem non secundum accidens, unumquodque et quod quid erat esse eius. Et similiter in sciendo, idem est scire unumquodque, et scire quid est eius. Quare secundum expositionem prout unum esse dicuntur quae sunt unum in essendo et in sciendo, necesse est ambo, scilicet rem et quod quid erat esse eius, esse unum aliquid.	1371. From these arguments, then, it is evident that each thing and its whatness are one and the same in no accidental way; and similarly that in the act of understanding to know a particular thing is the same as to know its essence. “Hence according to this exposition” inasmuch as those things are said to be one which are one both from the viewpoint of being and that of being understood, it is necessary that both of these, i.e., a thing and its essence, should be one.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 17 Deinde cum dicit secundum accidens manifestat solutionem positam quantum ad ea, quae dicuntur secundum accidens; dicens, quod in his quae dicuntur secundum accidens non est verum dicere, quod sit idem quod quid erat esse, et ipsum cuius est quod quid erat esse. Et hoc propter duplex significare. Cum enim dicitur homo albus, ex parte subiecti potest aliquid attribui ei ratione subiecti, vel accidentis ratione. Si ergo diceremus, quod quod quid est albi hominis sit idem homini albo, duo possunt significari: scilicet quod sit idem homini, vel quod sit idem albo. Et hoc est quod dicit. Etenim potest significare subiectum cui accidit album, et accidens. Quare patet, quod quodammodo est idem quod quid est albi hominis cum homine albo, et quodammodo non idem. Non enim est idem homini, nec etiam albo homini respectu subiecti, sed tamen est idem ipsi passioni, idest albo. Idem enim est quod quid erat albo et album. Licet non possit dici quod sit idem cum homine albo, ne intelligatur esse idem cum subiecto.	1372. But it is not true (594). He explains the foregoing solution with reference to accidental predications. He says that in the case of accidental predications it is not true to say that the essence of a thing and the thing of which it is the essence are the same. This is so because of the twofold meaning of the term; for when a man is said to be white, something can be attributed to the subject either by reason of the subject or by reason of the accident. Hence if we were to say that the whatness of a white man is the same as a white man, two things could be meant: that it is either the same as a man or the same as white; for it can designate both the subject “to which the accident white belongs and the accident itself.” Hence it is clear that in one sense the whatness of a white man is the same as a white man, and in another it is not. For it is not the same as a man or even the same as white man as regards the subject, but it is the same as “the attribute,” i.e., white; for the essence of white and white itself are the same. However, it cannot be said that it is the same as a white man, lest it should be understood to be the same as the subject.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 18 Deinde cum dicit absurdum vero ostendit quod contrarium dictae solutionis est absurdum. Quod quidem necessarium fuit propter hoc, quod superius probavit solutionem positam esse veram suppositis speciebus, quas postmodum destruxerat. Unde necessarium fuit, ut reiteraret probationem, probans ex parte eius quod quid erat esse, quod supra probaverat ex parte specierum. Et circa hoc ponit duas rationes.	1373. Now the absurdity (595). He shows that the opposite of the solution mentioned is absurd; and it was necessary to do this because he had proved that the solution given above is true when separate Forms are posited; which is a position that he afterwards destroyed. Hence he had to repeat his proof, showing that what he had proved about the Forms also applies to a thing’s essence. In regard to this he gives two arguments.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 19 Circa quarum primam dicit, quod dicere aliud esse quod quid erat esse rei, et rem ipsam, apparebit absurdum si quis unicuique eorum quod quid erat esse imposuerit nomen. Tunc enim eadem ratione, et ipsum, et quod quid erat esse erit aliud quod quid erat esse. Verbi gratia. Equus est quaedam res habens quod quid erat esse equo. Quod quidem si sit alia res ab equo, habeat haec res quoddam nomen, et vocetur a. A ergo, cum sit quaedam res, habebit quod quid erat esse, alterum a se, sicut equus; et ita huic, quod est equo esse, erit aliud quod quid erat esse: quod patet esse absurdum. Procedit autem haec ratio eodem modo circa quod quid est, sicut prima ratio processerat circa ideas. Et si aliquis dicat quod quod quid est esse quidditatis equi, est ipsa substantia, quae est quidditas equi, quid prohibet statim a principio dicere, quod quaedam sunt suum quod quid erat esse? Quasi dicat, nihil.	1374. In the first of these arguments he says that to affirm that the essence of a thing and the thing itself are different will appear absurd if anyone gives a name to the essence of each of these; for by the same argument both the thing and its essence will then be different from its essence; for example, a horse is something having the essence of a horse. Now if this differs from a horse, this will have a different name, and let us call it A. Therefore, since A is a thing, it will have an essence different from itself, just as horse does. Thus this thing which constitutes the being of a horse will have a different essence. But this is clearly false. Now this argument proceeds in the same way with regard to the quiddity as the first argument did with regard to the Ideas. And if someone were to say that the essence of a horse is the substance itself, which is the quidditv of a horse, what will prevent us from saying right now at the very start that some things are their own essence? By this he implies the answer, “Nothing.”
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 20 Sed sciendum, quod non solum res et quod quid erat esse eius sunt unum quocumque modo, sed etiam sunt unum secundum rationem, ut ex dictis potest esse manifestum. Non enim est unum secundum accidens unum et quod quid erat esse uni; sed est unum per se; et ita sunt secundum rationem unum.	1375. But it must be understood that a thing and its essence are one in every respect, even in their intelligible structure, as can be made clear from what has been said. For the one and the essence of the one are one not in an accidental way but essentially; and thus they are one in their intelligible structure.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 21 Secundam rationem ponit ibi, amplius si quae talis est. Si aliud est quod quid erat esse rei et res, hoc procederet in infinitum. Oportet enim dicere quod sint duae res, quarum altera sit unum, et altera quod quid erat esse uni. Et eadem ratione erit tertia res quae est quod quid erat esse ei, quod est quod quid esse unius; et sic in infinitum. Cum ergo non sit procedere in infinitum, palam est quod unum et idem est in his, quae dicuntur primo et per se, et non per accidens, unumquodque et id quod est unicuique esse, idem esse.	1376. Again, if they are (596). Then he gives the second argument, which runs as follows: if the essence of a thing and the thing itself are different, there will be an infinite regress; for we must say that there are two things, one of which is the one, and the other the essence of the one; and by the same argument there will be a third thing, which would be the essence of the essence of the one, and so on to infinity. Now since an infinite regress is impossible, it is evident that, in the case of predications which are primary and essential and not accidental, each thing and its being are one and the same.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 22 Deinde cum dicit sophistici autem dicit palam esse quod eadem solutione qua soluta est prima quaestio, solvuntur sophistici elenchi, qui faciunt ad hanc positionem, ad ostendendum scilicet quod non idem sunt quod quid erat esse rei et res. Ut cum quaerunt sophistae, si est idem Socrates et Socrati esse, et ostendunt, quod non, quia si idem est Socrates et Socrati esse, Socrates autem est albus, sequetur quod idem sit album et Socrati esse et cetera. Solutio patet ex praecedentibus. Sic enim non differt, nec ex quibus interrogabit aliquis, nec ex quibus fuerit solvens, idest non differt ex quibus procedat aliquis argumentando, nec quibus quaestionibus adaptet aliquis solutionem, dummodo sit eadem radix solutionis. Patet igitur ex dictis, quando quod quid erat esse uniuscuiusque est idem cum unoquoque, et quando non. Est enim idem in his quae sunt per se, non in his quae sunt per accidens.	1377. Moreover, it is evident (597). He says that the sophistical arguments which are raised against this position in order to show that the essence of a thing and the thing itself are not the same, are clearly met by means of the same solution which was given to the first problem. For example, the Sophists ask if Socrates and the being of Socrates are the same, and they show that they are not by saying that, if Socrates and the being of Socrates are the same, and Socrates is white, it follows that white and the being of Socrates, and so on, are the same. Now the solution is clear from what has been said above. “For there is no difference either in the things from which one asks the question, or in those from which one solves it,” i.e., it makes no difference from what things one proceeds to argue, or to what questions one adapts the answer, inasmuch as the solution is basically the same. Hence from what has been said it is evident when the essence of each thing is the same as each thing and when it is not; for it is the same in the case of essential predications, but not in that of accidental ones. Distinction between abstract and concrete essence
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 23 Sciendum est etiam ad evidentiam eorum, quae dicta sunt, quod quod quid est esse est id quod definitio significat. Unde, cum definitio praedicetur de definito, oportet quod quid est esse de definito praedicari. Non igitur est quod quid est esse hominis humanitas quae de homine non praedicatur, sed animal rationale mortale. Humanitas enim non respondetur quaerenti quid est homo, sed animal rationale et mortale. Sed tamen humanitas accipitur ut principium formale eius, quod est quod quid erat esse; sicut animalitas sumitur ut principium generis, et non genus; rationalitas ut principium differentiae, et non ut differentia.	1378. In support of the statements which he has made it must also be noted that the whatness of a thing is what its definition signifies. Hence when a definition is predicated of the thing defined, the whatness of that thing must also be predicated of it. Therefore, (~) humanity, which is not predicated of man, is not the whatness of man, but (+) mortal rational animal is; for the word humanity does not answer the question, “What is man?” But mortal rational animal does. Yet humanity is taken as the formal principle of the essence, just as animality is taken as (+) the principle of the genus and not as (~) the genus, and as rationality is taken as the (+) principle of the difference and not as (~) the difference.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 24 Humanitas autem pro tanto non est omnino idem cum homine, quia importat tantum principia essentialia hominis, et exclusionem omnium accidentium. Est enim humanitas, qua homo est homo: nullum autem accidentium hominis est, quo homo sit homo, unde omnia accidentia hominis excluduntur a significatione humanitatis. Hoc autem ipsum quod est homo, est quod habet principia essentialia, et cui possunt accidentia inesse. Unde, licet in significatione hominis non includantur accidentia eius, non tamen homo significat aliquid separatum ab accidentibus; et ideo homo significat ut totum, humanitas significat ut pars.	1379. Now to this extent humanity is not absolutely the same as man, because it implies only the essential principles of man and excludes all accidents. For humanity is that by which man is man. But none of the accidents of a man is that whereby he is a man. Hence all accidents of man are excluded from the meaning of humanity. Now it is the particular thing itself, namely, a man, which contains the essential principles and is that in which accidents can inhere. Hence although a man’s accidents are not contained in his intelligible expression, still man does not signify something apart from his accidents. Therefore man signifies as a whole and humanity as a part.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 25 Si autem est aliqua res, in qua non sit aliquod accidens, ibi necesse est, quod nihil differat abstractum a concreto. Quod maxime patet in Deo.	1380. Moreover, if there is some thing in which no accident is present, then this thing the abstract must differ in no way from the concrete. This is most evident in the case of God.

Lecture 6

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 1 Postquam philosophus ostendit quid est quod quid erat esse, et quorum est, et quod non est aliud ab eo cuius est, hic intendit ostendere, quod quidditates et formae existentes in istis sensibilibus non generantur ab aliquibus formis extra materiam existentibus, sed a formis quae sunt in materia. Et hic erit unus modorum, quo destruitur positio Platonis ponentis species separatas, quas ponebat esse necessarias ad hoc, quod per eas scientia de istis rebus sensibilibus haberetur, et ad hoc, quod earum participatione res sensibiles existerent, et ad hoc, quod essent principia generationis rerum sensibilium. Ostendit autem iam in praecedenti capitulo, quod species separatae non sunt necessariae ad scientiam rerum sensibilium, nec ad esse earum; cum ad hoc sufficiat quod quid est rei sensibilis in re sensibili existens, et idem ei. Unde restat ostendere, quod species separatae non sunt necessariae ad generationem sensibilium, quod ostendit in hoc capitulo. Dividitur ergo in partes duas. In prima praemittit quaedam, quae sunt necessaria ad propositum ostendendum. In secunda ostendit propositum, ibi, quoniam vero ab aliquo fit quod fit. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quasdam divisiones circa rerum generationem. Secundo manifestat eas, ibi, et generationes autem naturales. Ponit autem duas divisiones: quarum prima accipitur penes ea quae generantur, et modum generationis. Secunda penes ea quae ad generationem requiruntur: et hanc ponit ibi, omnia vero quae fiunt. Dicit ergo primo, quod eorum quae fiunt, quaedam fiunt a natura, quaedam ab arte, et quaedam a casu sive automato, idest per se vano. Cuius divisionis ratio est, quia causa generationis, aut est causa per se, aut est causa per accidens. Si enim est causa per se: vel est principium motus in quo est, et sic est natura; vel est extra ipsum, et sic est ars. Natura enim est principium motus, in eo in quo est. Ars vero non est in artificiato quod fit per artem, sed in alio.	1381. Having shown what essence is and to what things it belongs, and that it does not differ from the thing to which it belongs, the Philosopher now aims to show that the essences and forms present in these sensible things are not generated by any forms existing apart from matter, but by forms present in matter. And this will be one of the ways in which the position of Plato is destroyed; for Plato claimed that there are separate Forms, and that these are necessary both in order that an understanding of sensible things may be had, and that sensible things may exist by participating in them, and and that these Forms may be responsible for the generation of sensible things. Now he has already shown, in the preceding chapter (593)C 1368), that separate Forms are not necessary either to account for our understanding of sensible things or their being, since these can be adequately explained on the grounds that the whatness of a sensible thing is both present in that thing and identical with it. Hence it remains to show that separate Forms are not required for the generation of sensible things; and he proves this in this chapter. This undertaking is accordingly divided into two parts. In the first (598:C 1381) he prefaces his discussion with certain points required for the proof of his thesis. In the second (611:C IV7), he proves his thesis (“Now since”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he proposes certain divisions regarding the processes of generation which take place in the natural world. Second (600:C 1385), he explains these (“Now natural generations”). He gives two divisions. The first his to do with things that are generated and with their mode of generation; and the second (599:C 1383), with the conditions necessary for generation (“And everything”). He accordingly says, first (598), that of things which come to be, some come to be by nature, some by art, and some by chance, or “spontaneously,” i.e., by itself without purpose. The reason for this division is that the cause of generation is either a proper cause or an accidental one. For if it is a proper cause, it is either the principle of motion intrinsic to a thing, and then it is nature, or it is extrinsic to the thing, and then it is art; for nature is a principle of motion in that in which it exists, but art does not exist in the thing produced by art but in something else.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 2 Si vero est causa per accidens, sic est casus et fortuna. Fortuna quidem in his quae aguntur ab intellectu. Casus autem etiam in aliis. Utrumque vero sub automato, idest sub per se vano comprehenditur, quia vanum est quod est ordinatum ad finem, et non attingit ad illum. Et tam casus quam fortuna invenitur in his quae fiunt propter aliquid, cum accidit aliquid praeter id quod intendebatur ab aliqua causa per se determinata. Unde et per se dicitur, inquantum causam determinatam habet; et vanum, inquantum praeter intentionem accidit.	1382. But if it is an accidental cause, then it is chance or fortune. It is fortune in reference to those things which act by mind, but chance occurs in other things also; and both of these come under “the spontaneous,” i.e., what is of itself without purpose; for that is without purpose which is directed to a goal and does not reach it. And both chance and fortune are found among those things which are done for the sake of some goal, when some effect results besides the one intended by some definite proper cause. Hence an effect is said to be proper inasmuch as it has a definite cause, and to be without purpose inasmuch as it occurs apart from the intention of the agent.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit omnia vero ponit secundam divisionem, quae sumitur penes ea, quae ad generationem requiruntur. Omnia enim quae fiunt, fiunt ab aliquo agente, et ex aliquo, sicut ex materia, et iterum fiunt aliquid quod est terminus generationis. Et, quia supra dixerat quod hoc aliquid proprie est in substantiis, ideo hic docet generalius esse sumendum, ut per aliquid intelligatur quodlibet praedicamentum, in quo potest esse generatio simpliciter vel secundum quid, per se vel per accidens. Hoc enim quod dixit aliquid, vel significat hoc, idest substantiam, aut quantum, aut quale, aut quando, vel aliquod aliud praedicamentum.	1383. And everything (599). Then he gives the second division, which involves the conditions of generation; for everything which comes to be is brought about by some agent, and is produced from something as its matter, and also becomes something, which is the terminus of generation. And since he had said above that this something belongs in the class of substances) he therefore now informs us that this must be understood in a more general way, inasmuch as by something is meant any category in which generation can occur, in an unqualified or qualified sense, essentially or accidentally. For the something of which he spoke is either “a this,” i.e., a substance, or a quantity or quality or time or some other category.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 4 Et huius divisionis ratio est, quia in omni generatione fit aliquid actu, quod prius erat in potentia. Nihil autem potest dici de potentia in actum procedere, nisi per aliquod ens actu, quod est agens, a quo fit generatio; potentia vero pertinet ad materiam, ex qua aliquid generatur; actus vero ad id quod generatur.	1384. And the reason for this division is that in every generation something which was formerly potential becomes actual. Now a thing can be said to go from potency to actuality only by reason of some actual being, which is the agent by which the process of generation is brought about. Now potency pertains to. the matter from which something is generated: and actuality pertains to the thing generated.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit et generationes manifestat quod haec tria inveniantur in tribus modis generationis. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo manifestat propositum. Secundo inducit conclusionem principaliter intentam, ibi, quare sicut dicitur. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit hoc in generatione naturali. Secundo et in generatione quae fit secundum artem, ibi, generationes vero aliae. Tertio in generationibus quae fiunt a casu, ibi, si vero a casu. Circa primum quatuor facit. Primo manifestat quae generationes sint naturales; dicens, quod istae generationes sunt naturales, quarum principium est natura, non autem ars, aut aliquis intellectus, sicut cum generatur ignis, aut planta, aut animal ex virtute naturali rebus indita.	1385. Now natural generations (600). Then he explains that these three conditions required for generation are found in the three types mentioned; and in regard to this he does two things. First (600:C 1385), he explains his thesis. Second (609:C 1412), he introduces the conclusion which he chiefly intends to draw (“Hence, as is said”). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he makes this clear in the case of natural generations; and second (604:C 1394), in the case of generations resulting from art (“But the other”); and third (608:C 1410, in the case of those generations which come about by chance (“But if it comes ). In regard to the first he does four things. First (600), he indicates what generations are natural. He says that those generations are natural whose principle is nature and not art or any mind, for example, when fire or a plant or an animal is generated as a result of the natural power inherent in things.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit hoc autem exemplificat in generationibus naturalibus tria praemissa; dicens, quod in generatione naturali, hoc quidem est, ex quo fit quod generatur, quod dicitur materia. Hoc autem a quo generatur aliquid eorum quae sunt secundum naturam, quod dicitur agens. Hoc vero est aliquid, scilicet quod generatur, ut homo aut planta, aut aliquid talium, quae maxime dicimus esse substantias, idest substantias particulares compositas, de quibus magis est manifestum quod sint substantiae, ut supra habitum est. Materia autem et forma, quae est principium actionis in agente, non sunt substantiae, nisi inquantum sunt principia substantiae compositae.	1386. And that from which (601). Having posited these three conditions he now gives examples of natural generations. He says that in natural generation there is something from which any natural thing is generated, and this is called matter; and something by which it is generated, and this is called the agent; and there is this particular thing, namely, the thing generated, such as a man or a plant or something of this sort, which “we chiefly claim to be substances,” i.e., particular composite substances, which are more evidently substances, as was stated above. But matter and the form, which is the principle of action in the agent, are substances only insofar as they are principles of composite substances.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 7 Inter autem haec tria, duo se habent ut generationis principia, scilicet materia et agens; tertium autem se habet ut generationis terminus, idest compositum quod generatur. Et quia natura est generationis principium, tam materia, quam forma, quae est principium generationis in agente, dicitur natura, ut patet secundo physicorum. Compositum autem generatum, dicitur esse a natura vel secundum naturam.	1387. Now of these three conditions, two have the nature of principles of generation, namely, matter and the agent, and the third has the nature of a terminus of generation, i.e., the composite which is generated. And since nature is a principle of generation, both the matter as well as the form, which is the principle of generation in the agent, are called nature, as is evident in Book II of the Physics. And the composite which is generated is said to be by nature or according to nature.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit omnia vero probat quod unum trium, scilicet principium ex quo, inveniatur in omni generatione; non solum in naturali, sed etiam in artificiali (de aliis enim duobus est manifestum): dicens, quod omnia quae fiunt vel secundum naturam vel secundum artem, habent materiam ex qua fiunt. Omne enim quod generatur vel per artem vel per naturam, est possibile esse et non esse. Cum enim generatio sit de non esse in esse mutatio, oportet id quod generatur quandoque quidem esse, quandoque non esse: quod non esset nisi esset possibile esse et non esse. Hoc autem quod est in unoquoque in potentia ad esse et non esse, est materia. Est enim in potentia ad formas per quas res habent esse, et ad privationes per quas habent non esse, ut ex supra habitis patet. Relinquitur ergo, quod in omni generatione oportet esse materiam.	1388. Now all things (602). Here he proves that one of these three conditions—the principle from which a thing comes to be—is found in every kind of generation, not only in natural generations but also in artificial ones (for the nature of the other two conditions is evident). He says that all the things which come to be by nature or by art have a matter from which they come to be; for everything that is generated by nature or by art is capable both of being and of not being. For since generation is a change from non-being to being, the thing generated must at one time be and at another not be, and this would be true only if it were possible for it both to be and not to be. Now the potential element which each thing has both for being and not being is matter; for it is in potentiality to the forms by which things have being, and to the privations by which they have non-being, as is clear from what was said above. Therefore it follows that there must be matter in every kind of generation.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit universaliter vero ostendit quomodo praedicta tria se habent ad naturam; dicens, quod universaliter quodlibet praedictorum trium quodammodo est natura. Nam principium ex quo est generatio naturalis, scilicet materia, dicitur natura. Et propter hoc generationes simplicium corporum dicuntur naturales, licet principium activum generationis eorum sit extrinsecum; quod videtur esse contra rationem naturae, quia natura est principium intrinsecum, in qua est naturalis aptitudo ad talem formam; et ab hoc principio tales generationes dicuntur naturales.	1389. And in general (603). Here he shows how the three conditions mentioned above are related to nature. He says that in general each of the three conditions mentioned above is in a sense nature. For the principle from which natural generation proceeds, namely, matter, is called nature; and for this reason the generations of simple bodies are said to be natural ones, even though the active principle of their generation is extrinsic to them. This seems to be contrary to the very notion of nature, because nature is an intrinsic principle having a natural aptitude for such a form; and processes of generation which proceed from this principle are said to be natural.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 10 Et iterum illud secundum quod fit generatio, scilicet forma generati, dicitur esse natura, sicut planta, aut animal. Generatio enim naturalis est, quae est ad naturam, sicut dealbatio quae est ad albedinem.	1390. Again, the principle according to which generation comes about, namely, the form of the thing generated, is said to be its nature, as a plant or an animal; for a natural generation is one which is directed towards nature just as the act of whitening is one which is directed towards whiteness.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 11 Et iterum principium, a quo fit generatio, sicut ab agente, est natura dicta secundum speciem, quae scilicet est eiusdem speciei cum natura generati, sed tamen est in alio secundum numerum. Homo enim generat hominem; nec tamen genitum et generans sunt idem numero, sed specie tantum.	1391. Again, the principle by which generation comes about, as by an agent, is the specific nature, which is specifically the same as the nature of the thing generated, although it exists in something else; for man begets man. However, the thing generated and the one generating it are not numerically the same but only specifically the same.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 12 Et propter hoc dicitur in secundo physicorum quod forma et finis generationis incidunt in idem numero. Agens autem incidit cum eis in idem specie, sed non in idem numero. Materia vero neque in idem specie, neque in idem numero.	1392. And for this reason it is said in Book II of the Physics that the form and the goal of the process of generation coincide in one and the same individual. Now the agent coincides with these insofar as it is specifically the same but not insofar as it is numerically the same. But the matter is neither specifically the same nor numerically the same.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 13 Alia litera habet quod principium a quo, est secundum speciem dicta natura, aut conformis, quia videlicet non semper generans et genitum sunt eiusdem speciei, sed semper habent aliquam conformitatem, sicut cum equus generat mulum. Et ultimo concludit, quod illa, quae generantur per naturam, sic generantur sicut expositum est.	1393. Another text states that the principle by which a thing comes to be is the so-called specific nature or one conforming to it; for the thing generated and the one generating it are not always specifically the same, although they do have some conformity, as when a horse begets a mule. Finally, he concludes that the things generated by nature are generated in the manner described.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 14 Deinde cum dicit generationes vero determinat de his quae generantur per artem: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo distinguit generationem quae est secundum artem ab aliis generationibus, quae sunt secundum naturam. Secundo ostendit quomodo fiat generatio ab arte, ibi, ab arte vero fiunt. Dicit ergo primo, quod generationes, quae sunt aliae a naturalibus, dicuntur factiones. Quamvis enim nomine factionis, quae in Graeco dicitur praxis, possimus uti in rebus naturalibus, sicut cum dicimus quod calidum et ens actu, facit actu esse tale: magis tamen proprie utimur in his quae fiunt per intellectum, in quibus intellectus agentis habet dominium super illud quod facit, ut possit sic vel aliter facere: quod in rebus naturalibus non contingit; immo agunt ad aliquem effectum, determinato modo ab aliquo superiori praestito eis. Huiusmodi autem factiones vel fiunt ab arte, vel a potestate, vel a mente.	1394. But the other kinds (604). He now settles the issue about the things generated by art; and in regard to this he does two things. First (604), he distinguishes processes of generation arising from art from other processes of generation, namely, natural ones. Second (605:C 1404), he shows how generation comes about by art (“Now those things”). He accordingly says, first, that those processes of generation which differ from natural ones are called productions. For even though in the case of natural things we can use the word production, which is equivalent to praxis in Greek (as when we say that what is actually hot produces something which is actually hot), still we use the word properly in reference to those things which come about as a result of mind, in which the mind of the agent has dominion over the thing which he makes inasmuch as he can make it in this way or in that. But this does not occur in the case of natural things, for they rather act with a view to some effect in the definite manner provided for them by a superior agent. Moreover , productions of this kind are a result of art, of power, or of mind.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 15 Potestas autem hic videtur pro violentia sumi. Quaedam enim in his, quae non natura fiunt, constituuntur ex sola virtute agentis, in quibus non multum requiritur ars aliqua, vel aliquis ordinatus processus intellectus; quod maxime contingit in corporibus trahendis, vel proiiciendis, aut expellendis.	1395. Now the tern, power used here seems to be taken in the sense of violence; for certain of those things which do not come about by nature are produced by virtue of the agent’s power alone, in which a minimum of art is required and a minimum of activity directed by mind. This occurs especially in pulling or throwing or casting out bodies.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 16 Cum autem ordo intellectus ad effectum requiritur, quandoque quidem hoc contingit per artem, quandoque vero per solum intellectum, habitu artis nondum perfecto. Sicut enim aliquis argumentatur per artem, aliquis vero sine arte, ut idiotae; ita etiam aliquod opus artis aliquis per artem, aliquis sine arte facere potest in huiusmodi per artem factibilibus.	1396. Moreover, when the direction of mind is required, at one time this comes about by art, and at another by mind alone, as when one does not yet have an artistic habit perfectly. For just as one person may argue by art, and another without art, as an unlearned person, so too in reference to those things which are made by art one can produce an artistic work by art, and someone else without art.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 17 Harum autem generationum quae fiunt vel arte vel potestate, vel mente, quaedam fiunt a casu et a fortuna: quando scilicet aliquod agens per intellectum intendit finem aliquem per suam actionem, et provenit aliquis finis praeter intentionem agentis. Sicut cum aliquis intendit se confricare, et ex hoc sequitur sanitas, ut postea dicetur.	1397. Furthermore, of those processes of generation which are a result either of art, of power, or of mind, some are a result of chance and fortune, for example, when an agent by use of intelligence aims at some goal to be attained by his own activity, and ‘a goal is reached which the agent did not intend. For example, someone intends to rub himself vigorously and health comes of it, as is said later (C 1403).
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 18 Et hoc similiter contingit in artificialibus, sicut in factis a natura. Virtus enim, quae est in spermate, ut infra dicetur, assimilatur arti. Sicut enim ars per determinata media pervenit ad formam quam intendit, ita et virtus formativa, quae est in spermate. Sicut autem contingit effectum qui fit per artem etiam praeter intentionem artis aut intellectus fieri, et tunc dicitur a casu accidere: ita etiam et in illis, scilicet in rebus naturalibus, eadem fiunt et ex spermate et sine spermate. Quae quidem cum fiunt ex spermate, fiunt a natura; cum autem sine spermate, fiunt a casu. Et de his perscrutandum est posterius in hoc eodem capitulo.	1398. And the same thing occurs in the case of things produced by art as in those produced by nature; for the power contained in the seed, as is said below (619)C 1451), is similar to art, because just as art through certain definite intermediates attains the form at which it aims, so also does the formative power in the seed. And just as an effect produced by art may also occur apart from the intention of art or of mind, and then it is said to happen by chance, so too in the case of these things, i.e., natural ones, some things are generated both from seed and without seed. And when they are generated from seed, they are generated by nature; but when they are generated without seed, they are generated by chance. These things must also be investigated in this same chapter.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 19 Haec autem verba hic posita, duplicem habent dubitationem. Prima, quia cum cuiuslibet rei naturalis sit determinatus modus generationis, non videntur esse eadem quae generantur ex spermate, et per putrefactionem. Quod Averroes in octavo physicorum sentire videtur; dicens, quod non potest esse idem animal in specie quod generatur ex spermate, et quod generatur ex putrefactione. Avicenna autem e contrario sentit, quod omnia quae generantur ex semine, eadem specie possunt generari sine semine per putrefactionem, vel per aliquem modum commixtionis terrenae materiae.	1399. Now the words used here give rise to two problems. The first is that, since every natural thing has a definite mode of generation, those things which are generated from seed and those which are generated from decay do not seem to be the same. This is what Averroes seems to feel in his commentary on Book VIII of the Physics, for he says that an animal which is generated from seed and one which is generated from decay cannot be specifically the same. Avicenna, however, feels that all things which are generated from seed can be generated in the same species without seed from decay, or by some method of blending terrestrial matters.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 20 Sententia Aristotelis videtur esse media inter has duas opiniones, quod scilicet aliqua possunt et sine semine generari, et ex semine; non tamen omnia, ut infra dicet. Sicut nec in artificialibus omnia possunt fieri per artem et sine arte; sed quaedam fiunt per artem tantum, ut domus. Animalia enim perfecta videntur non posse generari nisi ex semine; animalia vero imperfecta quae sunt vicina plantis, videntur posse generari et ex semine et sine semine. Sicut plantae producuntur aliquando sine semine per actionem solis in terra ad hoc bene disposita; et tamen plantae sic productae producunt semina, ex quibus plantae similes in specie generantur.	1400. Aristotle’s view seems to be a mean between these two opinions, namely, that some things can be generated both from seed and without seed, but not all things, as he says below (610)C 1454); just as in the case of things produced by art not all things can be produced by art and without art, but some are produced by art alone, as a house. For perfect animals seem to be capable of being generated from seed, whereas imperfect animals, which are akin to plants, seem to be capable of being generated both from seed and without seed. For instance, plants are sometimes produced without seed by the action of the sun on the earth when it is rightly disposed for this effect; yet plants generated in this way produce seed from which plants of a similar kind are generated.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 21 Et hoc rationabiliter accidit. Quia quanto aliquid perfectius est, tanto plura ad eius completionem requiruntur. Et propter hoc ad plantas et ad animalia imperfecta, sufficit ad agendum sola virtus caelestis. In animalibus vero perfectis requiritur cum virtute caelesti etiam virtus seminis. Unde dicitur in secundo physicorum quod homo generat hominem et sol.	1401. And this is reasonable, because the more perfect a thing is the more numerous are the things required for its completeness. And, for this reason, in the generation of plants and imperfect animals it is sufficient that the power of the heavens alone should act. But in the case of perfect animals the power of the seed is also needed along with the power of the heavens. Hence it is said in Book II of the Physics that man and the sun beget man.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 22 Secunda dubitatio est, quia videntur animalia generata sine semine ex putrefactione, non fieri a casu, sed ex determinato agente, scilicet ex virtute caelesti, quae in generatione eorum supplet vicem virtutis generativae, quae est in semine: et hoc etiam vult Commentator in nono huius.	1402. The second problem is that animals which are generated without seed from decay do not seem to be produced by chance but by some definite agent, namely, by the power of the heavens, which supplies in the generation of such animals the energy of the generative power found in the seed. The Commentator is also of this opinion in his commentary on Book IX of this work.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 23 Sed sciendum est quod nihil prohibet aliquam generationem esse per se, cum refertur ad unam causam, quae tamen est per accidens et casualis, cum refertur in aliam causam. Sicut in ipso exemplo philosophi patet. Cum enim sanitas ex confricatione sequitur praeter intentionem confricantis, ipsa quidem sanatio, si referatur ad naturam, quae est corporis regitiva, non est per accidens, sed per se intenta. Si vero referatur ad intellectum confricantis, erit per accidens et casualis. Similiter etiam generatio animalis ex putrefactione generati, si referatur ad causas particulares, hic inferius agentes, invenitur esse per accidens et casualis. Non enim calor, qui causat putredinem, intendit naturali appetitu generationem huius vel illius animalis, quae ex putrefactione sequitur, sicut virtus, quae est ex semine, intendit productionem talis speciei. Sed si referatur ad virtutem caelestem, quae est universalis regitiva virtus generationum et corruptionum in istis inferioribus, non est per accidens, sed per se intenta; quia de eius intentione est ut educantur in actu omnes formae quae sunt in potentia materiae. Et sic recte assimilavit hic Aristoteles ea quae fiunt ab arte, his quae fiunt a natura.	1403. But it must be noted that nothing prevents a process of generation from being a proper process when referred to one cause, and yet be an accidental or chance affair when referred to another cause, as is evident in the Philosopher’s example. For when health results from a vigorous rubbing quite apart from the aim of the one doing the rubbing, the process of restoring health, if it is referred to nature, which governs the body, is not accidentally but properly aimed at. However, if it is referred to the aim of the one doing the rubbing, it will be accidental and a matter of chance. Similarly, if the process of generation of an animal generated from decay is referred to the particular causes acting here below, it will also be found to be accidental and a matter of chance; for heat, which causes decay, is not inclined by nature to have as its goal the generation of this or that particular animal which results from decay, as the power in the seed has as its goal the generation of something of a particular type. But if it is referred to the power of the heavens, which is the universal power regulating generation and corruption in these lower bodies, it is not accidental but is directly aimed at, because its goal is that all forms existing potentially in matter should be brought to actuality. Thus Aristotle has correctly compared here the things which come to be by art with those which come to be by nature.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 24 Deinde cum dicit ab arte vero ostendit modum generationis, quae est ab arte; et praecipue quantum ad principium effectivum. De principio enim materiali iam supra dixerat cum locutus fuerat de generatione naturali. Circa hoc autem duo facit. Primo ostendit quid sit principium activum in generatione quae est per artem. Secundo ostendit quomodo ab hoc principio generatio procedat, ibi, fit itaque sanitas. Dicit ergo primo, quod illa fiunt ab arte, quorum species factiva est in anima. Per speciem autem exponit quod quid erat esse cuiuslibet rei factae per artem, ut quod quid erat esse domus, quando fit domus. Et hoc etiam nominat primam substantiam, idest primam formam. Et hoc ideo, quia a forma quae est in anima nostra, procedit forma quae est in materia in artificialibus; in naturalibus autem e contrario.	1404. Now those things (605). He now explains the way in which things are generated by art; and he does this chiefly with reference to the efficient principle, for the material principle has already been discussed where he spoke about natural generation. In regard to this he does two things. First, he shows what the active principle is in a process of generation resulting from art. Second (606:C 1406), he shows how the process of generation proceeds from this principle (“Health comes about”). He accordingly says, first (605), that those things which come to be by art are those of which the productive form exists in the mind. And by form he means the essence of anything made by art, for example, the essence of a house, when it is a house that is made. He also calls this the “first substance,” i.e., the first form; and he does this because the form present in the matter of things made by art proceeds from the form present in the mind. In the case of natural things, however, the opposite is true.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 25 Haec autem forma quae est in anima, differt a forma, quae est in materia. Nam contrariorum formae in materia sunt diversae et contrariae, in anima autem est quodammodo una species contrariorum. Et hoc ideo, quia formae in materia sunt propter esse rerum formatarum: formae autem in anima sunt secundum modum cognoscibilem et intelligibilem. Esse autem unius contrarii tollitur per esse alterius; sed cognitio unius oppositi non tollitur per cognitionem alterius, sed magis iuvatur. Unde formae oppositorum in anima non sunt oppositae. Quinimmo substantia, idest quod quid erat esse privationis, est eadem cum substantia oppositi, sicut eadem est ratio in anima sanitatis et infirmitatis. Per absentiam enim sanitatis cognoscitur infirmitas. Sanitas autem, quae est in anima, est quaedam ratio, per quam cognoscitur sanitas et infirmitas; et consistit in scientia, idest in cognitione utriusque.	1405. Now the form present in the mind differs from the one present in matter; for in matter the forms of contraries are different and opposed, but in the mind contraries have in a sense the same form. And this is true because forms present in matter exist for the sake of the being of the things informed, but forms present in the mind exist according to the mode of what is knowable or intelligible. Now while the being of one contrary is destroyed by that of another, the knowledge of one contrary is not destroyed by that of another but is rather supported by it. Hence the forms of contraries in the mind are not opposed, but rather “the substance,” i.e., the whatness, “of a privation,” is the same as the substance of its contrary, as the concepts of health and of sickness in the mind are the same; for sickness is known by the absence of health. Further, the health which exists in the mind is the concept by which health and sickness are known; and it is found “in the scientific knowledge” of both, i.e., in knowing both.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 26 Deinde cum dicit fit itaque ostendit quomodo ab hoc principio procedatur ad sanitatem. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit quomodo sanitas quae est in anima, sit principium sanationis. Secundo quomodo diversimode accipitur principium in actione artis, ibi, generationum vero et motuum. Dicit ergo quod, cum sanitas quae est in anima, sit principium sanitatis quae fit per artem, ita fit sanitas in materia aliquo intelligente quod sanitas est hoc, scilicet vel regularitas vel adaequatio calidi, frigidi, humidi et sicci. Et ideo necesse est, si sanitas debet contingere, quod hoc existat, scilicet regularitas vel aequalitas humorum. Et si regularitas vel aequalitas debeat esse, oportet quod sit calor, per quem humores reducantur ad aequalitatem; et ita semper procedendo a posteriori ad prius, intelliget illud quod est factivum caloris, et quod est factivum illius, donec reducatur ad aliquod ultimum, quod ipse statim posset facere, sicut hoc quod est dare talem potionem; et demum motus incipiens ab illo quod statim potest facere, nominatur factio ordinata ad sanandum.	1406. Health comes about (606). He now shows how health is produced by this principle; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he shows how the health which exists in the mind is the principle (or starting point) for the restoring of health; and second (607:C 1408), how the term principle is taken in different ways in regard to the activity of art (“Now of generations”). He accordingly says (606) that, since the health present in the mind is the principle of the health produced by art, health is brought about in a subject as a result of someone thinking in this manner: since health is such and such, i.e., either regularity or the balance of heat, cold, moisture and dryness, if health is to exist, it is necessary that this exist, i.e., regular or the balance of humors; and if regularity or balance must exist, there must be heat, by which the humors are balanced; and thus by always going from what is subsequent to what is prior he thinks of the thing which is productive of heat, and then of the thing which is productive of this, until he reaches some final thing which he himself is immediately capable of doing, for example, the dispensing of some particular medicine; and finally the motion beginning from the thing which he can do immediately is said to be the activity directed to the production of health.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 27 Patet ergo, quod sicut in naturalibus ex homine generatur homo, ita in artificialibus accidit quodammodo ex sanitate fieri sanitatem, et ex domo domum; scilicet ex ea quae est sine materia in anima existens, illa quae habet materiam. Ars enim medicinalis, quae est principium sanationis, nihil est aliud quam species sanitatis, quae est in anima; et ars aedificativa est species domus in anima. Et ista species sive substantia sine materia, est quam dixit supra quod quid erat esse rei artificiatae.	1407. Hence it is evident that, just as in the case of natural things man is generated from man, so too in the case of artificial things it turns out that health comes to be in a sense from health, and a house from a house; i.e., from what exists in the mind without matter there is produced something which has matter. For the medical art, which is the principle of health, is nothing else than the form of health existing in the mind; and this form or substance which exists without matter is the one which he speaks of above as the essence of the thing produced by art.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 28 Deinde cum dicit generationum vero ostendit quomodo diversimode accipitur principium in actionibus artis; et dicit quod in generationibus et motibus artificialibus est aliqua actio quae vocatur intelligentia et aliqua quae vocatur factio. Ipsa enim excogitatio artificis vocatur intelligentia, quae incipit ab hoc principio, quae est species rei fiendae per artem. Et haec operatio protenditur, ut supra dictum est, usque ad illud quod est ultimum in intentione, et primum in opere. Et ideo illa actio quae incipit ab ultimo, ad quod intelligentia terminatur, vocatur factio, quae est motus iam in exteriorem materiam.	1408. Now of generations (607). He shows how the word principle is taken in different ways in regard to the activities of art. He says that in artificial generations and motions there is one activity which is called thinking and another which is called producing. For the artist’s planning, which begins from the principle which is the form of the thing to be made by his art, is itself called thinking; and this activity extends, as was said above, right down to what is last in the order of intention and first in the order of execution. Therefore the activity which begins from this last thing in which the activity of thinking terminates, is called producing, and this is then a motion affecting matter.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 29 Et sicut diximus de actione artis respectu formae, quae est ultimus finis generationis artificialis, similiter est de omnibus aliis intermediis. Sicut ad hoc quod convalescat, oportet quod adaequentur humores. Hoc igitur ipsum quod est adaequari, est unum de intermediis, quod est propinquissimum sanitati. Et sicut medicus, ad hoc quod faceret sanitatem, incipiebat considerando quid est sanitas: ita, ad hoc quod faciat adaequationem, oportet quod sciat quid est adaequatio; videlicet quod adaequatio est hoc, scilicet debita proportio humorum in respectu ad naturam humanam. Hoc autem erit si corpus fuerit calefactum; quando scilicet quis infirmatur propter defectum caloris. Et iterum oportet quod sciat quod quid est hoc, scilicet calefieri: sicut si dicatur quod calefieri est immutari a medicina calida. Et hoc, scilicet dare medicinam calidam, existit statim in potestate medici, et est iam in ipso, idest in potestate eius, ut talem medicinam det.	1409. And what we have said about the activity of art in reference to the form, which is the ultimate goal of artificial generation, also applies in the case of all other intermediate things; for example in order that one may be healed the humors of the body must be balanced. Hence this process of balancing is one of the intermediate things which is nearest to health. And just as the physician when he aims to cause health must begin by considering what health is, so too when he intends to produce a balance he must know what a balance is, namely, that it is “some particular thing,” i.e., the proportion of humors appropriate to human nature. “And this will occur if the body is heated”—supposing that someone is sick because of a lack of heat. And again he must know what this is, i.e., what being heated is, as if one might say that being heated consists in being changed by a hot medicine. And “this, namely, the administering of a hot medicine, is immediately within the physician’s power; and “this is already present in the physician himself,” i.e., it is within his power to administer such a medicine.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 30 Sic igitur patet, quod principium faciens sanitatem, unde incipit motus ad sanandum, est species, quae est in anima, vel ipsius sanitatis, vel aliorum intermediorum, per quae acquiritur sanitas. Et hoc dico, si sanatio fiat ab arte. Si autem fiat alio modo, non erit principium sanitatis species quae est in anima; hoc enim est proprium in operationibus artis.	1410. Hence it is evident that the principle causing health, from which the process of restoring health begins, is the form existing in the mind, either of health itself, or of other intermediate things by means of which health is produced. And I say that this is the case if the process of restoring health comes about by art. But if it comes about in some other way, the principle of health will not be a form existing in the mind; for this is proper to artificial operations.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 31 Deinde cum dicit si vero manifestat quomodo fiunt generationes casuales: et dicit, quod quando sanatio fit a casu, tunc principium sanitatis fit ab hoc, quod est principium faciendi sanitatem apud eum qui facit sanitatem secundum artem. Sed hoc est intelligendum de principio factionis, quod est ultimum in intelligendo, et primum in exequendo. Sicut in medicando principium sanitatis aliquando forsan fit a calefactione. Et hinc etiam incipit sanatio, quando aliquis a casu sanatur, quia calorem aliquis excitat confricatione praeter intentionem confricantis. Calor itaque in corpore excitatus per fricationem vel medicationem, aut est pars sanitatis, quasi intrans substantiam sanitatis, sicut cum ipsa alteratio calefactionis ad sanitatem sufficit; aut sequitur ad calorem aliquid quod est pars sanitatis, sicut cum per calorem fit sanitas per hoc quod calor dissolvit aliquos humores compactos, quorum dissolutio est iam constituens sanitatem. Aut etiam hoc potest esse per plura media; sicut cum calor consumit humores superfluos impedientes aliquos meatus in corpore; quibus consumptis fit debitus motus spirituum ad aliquas determinatas partes corporis: et hoc ultimum est iam faciens sanitatem. Et quod est ita, scilicet quod est proximum sanitatis factivum est aliqua pars sanitatis, idest intrans in constitutionem sanitatis. Et similiter est in aliis artificialibus. Nam partes domus sunt lapides, quorum compositio iam est aliquid domus.	1411. But if it (608). He shows how chance generations take place. He says that, when the restoring of health comes about by chance, the principle of health is the same as the one from which health comes about for him who causes health by art. But this must be understood of the principle of production, which is last in the order of intention and first in the order of execution, just as in the process of restoring health the principle of health may at times begin with the patient’s being heated. And the process of restoring health also begins here when someone is healed by chance, because someone may produce heat by rubbing but not intend this as the goal of the rubbing. Thus the heat produced in the body by rubbing or by a medication either is a part of health, inasmuch as it is something entering into the substance of health, as when by itself the alteration of being heated is sufficient to promote health; or something which is a part of health may result from heat, as when health is produced as a result of the heat dissolving certain congested humors, the dissolution of which thereupon constitutes health. Or it can also be produced by several intermediates, as when heat consumes certain superfluous humors blocking some passage in the body, so that when these have been removed the proper movement of spirits to some parts of the body then begins; and this final step is the one then causing health. “And what is such,” namely, the proximate cause of health, “is a part of health,” i.e., something entering into the make-up of health. And it is the same with other things produced by art; for the parts of a house are the stones whose bonding in the course of construction goes to constitute a house.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 32 Deinde cum dicit quare sicut concludit conclusionem principaliter intentam: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo includit conclusionem intentam. Secundo removet quamdam dubitationem, ibi, ex quo vero ut materia fit. Dicit ergo primo, quod ex quo omne quod generatur, generatur ex materia, et iterum generatur a suo simili, impossibile est aliquid esse factum, nisi aliquid praeexistat, sicut dicitur communiter. Communis enim philosophorum naturalium sententia erat, quod ex nihilo nihil fit. Palam est autem, quod id quod praeexistit, oportet quod sit pars rei generatae. Constat enim, quod materia quae praeexistit est pars generati. Quod ex hoc probari potest: quia materia est in generato, et ipsa fit generatum dum in actum educitur. Nec solum pars quae est materia praeexistit; sed, sicut ex dictis patet, etiam praeexistit pars quae est in ratione, scilicet forma. Haec enim duo, scilicet materia et forma, sunt partes generati.	1412. Hence, as is said (609). Then he draws the conclusion at which he chiefly aims; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he introduces this conclusion; and second (610:C 1414), he dispels a difficulty (“Now as for that”). He says, first (609), that, since everything which comes to be is generated from matter and is also generated by something like itself, it is impossible for anything to be generated unless something pre-exists, as is commonly said; for the common opinion of the philosophers of nature was that nothing comes to be from nothing. Further, it is evident that the thing which preexists must be part of the thing generated, and this can be shown from the fact that matter is present in the thing generated and becomes the thing generated when it is brought to actuality. And not only the. material part of a thing pre-exists, as is clear from the explanation given, but so also does the part which exists in the mind, namely, the form; for these two principles, matter and form, are parts of the thing generated.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 33 Utroque enim modo possumus assignare quid sint circuli aerei vel circuli multi, secundum aliam literam, idest particulares et distincti; et dicentes materiam quae est aes, et dicentes speciem, idest formam, quae est talis figura. Et recte dicit multos circulos particulares. Nam circulus secundum speciem et formam est unus tantum. Multiplicatur autem et individuatur per materiam. Et haec, scilicet figura, est genus, in quod primo collocatur circulus aereus. Et ita patet ex dictis, quod circulus aereus in sua definitione habet materiam. Quod autem species geniti praeexistat, supra ostensum est in naturalibus et in artificialibus generationibus.	1413. For we can describe what brazen circles are in both ways, or, according to another text, what many circles are, i.e., particular and distinct circles, by stating the matter, which is bronze, and “by stating the specifying principle,” i.e., the form, which is such and such a figure. And he is right in saying many particular circles; for a circle is one thing specifically and formally, but it becomes many and is individuated by matter. And this, the figure, is the genus in which brazen circle is first placed. Hence it is evident, from what has been said, that brazen circle has matter in its definition. And the fact that the form of the thing generated pre-exists has been made clear above both in reference to natural generations and to artificial productions.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 34 Deinde cum dicit ex quo vero removet quamdam dubitationem. Illud enim ex quo aliquid fit ut ex materia, quandoque praedicatur non in abstracto, sed denominative. Quaedam enim dicuntur non esse illud, idest materia, sed illiusmodi. Sicut statua non dicitur lapis, sed lapidea. Sed homo convalescens non dicitur illud ex quo, idest non recipit praedicationem eius ex quo fieri dicitur. Fit enim convalescens ex infirmo. Nec dicitur quod convalescens sit infirmus.	1414. Now as for that (610). Here he dispels. a certain difficulty; for that from which a thing comes to be as its matter is sometimes predicated of it not abstractly but denominatively; for some things are not said to be “that,” i.e., the matter, “but of that kind”; for instance, a statue is not said to be stone but of stone. And a man who is recovering his health “is not said to be that f rom which ' “ i.e., one does not predicate of him the thing from which, he is said to come to be; for a person who is recovering his health comes from a sick person. But we do not say that a person who is recovering his health is a sick one.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 35 Huiusmodi autem causa est, quia dupliciter dicitur aliquid fieri ex aliquo: scilicet ex privatione, et ex subiecto quod dicitur materia: sicut dicitur quod homo fit sanus, et quod laborans fit sanus. Dicitur autem magis aliquid fieri ex privatione quam ex subiecto; sicut magis dicitur aliquis fieri sanus ex laborante, quam ex homine. Sed hoc fieri hoc, magis dicimus in subiecto quam in privatione. Magis enim dicimus proprie quod homo fit sanus, quam quod laborans. Et ideo ille qui est sanus, non dicitur laborans, sed magis dicitur homo; et e converso homo dicitur sanus. Sic ergo id quod fit, praedicatur de subiecto, non autem de privatione.	1415. Now the reason for this kind of difficulty is that one thing is said to come from something else in two ways, namely, from a privation and from a subject, which is matter, for example, when it is said that a man recovers his health, and that a sick person recovers his health. But a thing is said to come from a privation rather than from a subject; for example, a healthy person is said to come from a sick one rather than from a man. But when one thing becomes another we say this in reference to the subject rather than to the privation; for properly speaking we say that a man rather than a sick person becomes healthy. Therefore a healthy person is not said to be a sick one, but rather a man; and in the opposite way it is a man that is said to be healthy. Hence the thing that comes to be is predicated of the subject, not of the privation.
lib. 7 l. 6 n. 36 Sed in quibusdam privatio est non manifesta et innominata; sicut privatio cuiuscumque figurae in aere, non habet nomen, nec etiam privatio domus in lateribus et in lignis. Et ideo utimur materia, pro materia et privatione simul. Et propter hoc, sicut illic dicimus, quod sanus fit ex laborante, ita hic dicimus quod statua fit ex aere, et domus ex lapidibus et lignis. Et propter hoc etiam, sicut ibi id ex quo fit aliquid, sicut ex privatione, non praedicatur de subiecto, quia non dicimus quod sanus sit laborans, ita nec hic dicimus quod statua sit lignum; sed praedicatur abstractum in concreto, dicendo quod non est lignum, sed lignea, nec aes, sed aerea, nec lapis, sed lapidea. Et similiter domus non est lateres, sed lateritia. Quia si quis diligenter inspiciat, nec fit statua ex ligno, nec domus ex lateribus simpliciter loquendo, sed per aliquam permutationem. Fiunt enim ista ex istis sicut ex aliquo permutato, et non sicut ex permanente. Aes enim infiguratum non manet dum fit statua, nec lateres incompositi dum fit domus. Et propter hoc in praedictis ita dicitur, idest talis fit praedicatio.	1416. But in some cases the privation is not evident and is nameless; for example, the privation of any particular figure in bronze does not have a name, and neither does the privation of house in the stones and timbers. Therefore we use the term matter simultaneously to designate both the matter and the privation. Hence just as we say in the one case that a healthy person comes from a sick one, so too we say in the other case that a statue comes from bronze, and a house from stones and timbers. And for this reason, too, just as in the one case the thing that comes to be from something taken as a privation is not predicated of the subject, because we do not say that a healthy person is a sick one, neither do we say in the other case that a statue is wood; but the abstract term is predicated concretely by saying that it is not wood but wooden, not bronze but brazen, not stone but of stone. And similarly a house is not bricks but of bricks. For if someone were to examine the question carefully, he would not say in an unqualified sense either that the statue conics froin wood or the house from bricks, litit that it conics to be as a result of some change. For the former comes from the latter taken as something which is changed and not as something which remains, because bronze does not stay formless while it is being made into a statue, nor do bricks stay unbonded while a house is being built. And for this reason “we speak in this way,” i.e., Predication is made in this way, in the cases mentioned above.

Lecture 7

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 1 Praemisit superius philosophus quaedam de generationibus rerum, quasi necessaria ad suum propositum ostendendum; scilicet ad ostendendum, quod causae generationis rerum non sunt ponendae species separatae. Ex quibus duo sunt iam manifestata per praemissa: scilicet quod omnis generatio est ex aliqua materia, et quod unumquodque quod generatur, generatur a suo simili. Nunc autem intendit ostendere propositum ex his quae supra investigata sunt. Et dividitur in partes tres. In prima ostendit quid sit illud quod generatur. In secunda ostendit, quod causa generationis non est species separata, ibi, utrum igitur est ne quaedam. In tertia determinat quaedam quae possent esse dubia circa praedeterminata, ibi, dubitabit autem aliquis. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quod forma non generatur nisi per accidens. Secundo ostendit quod compositum generatur, ibi, aeream vero sphaeram. Dicit ergo primo, quod ea quae sunt ostensa supra vera sunt. Quorum unum est, quod omne quod fit, fit ab aliquo, et hoc est agens vel generans, a quo est principium generationis. Et aliud est, quod omne quod generatur, generatur ex aliquo, ut intelligatur id ex quo est generatio, non privatio, sed materia. Dictum est enim superius, quod aliter fit aliquid ex materia, et aliter ex privatione. Et tertium est quod in omni generatione oportet esse aliquid quod fit. Et hoc est vel sphaera, vel circulus, vel quodcumque aliorum.	1417. The Philosopher posited above certain points about processes of generation in the world as prerequisites for proving his thesis, namely, to show that the causes of the generation of things must not be held to be separate Forms. And since two of these have already been made clear in the foregoing discussion, i.e., that every process of generation is from matter, and that everything which is generated is generated by something similar to itself, he now aims to prove his thesis from the questions which were investigated above. This is divided into two parts. In the first (611)C 1417) he shows what things are generated. In the second (613:C 1427) he shows that the cause of generation is not a separate Form (“The problem, then”). In the third (615:C 1436) he clears up certain things which could be considered as problems pertaining to the points already established (“However, someone”). In regard to the first he does two things. First (611), he shows that a form is generated only accidentally; and second (612:C 1424), that it is a composite thing which is generated (“But he does make”). He accordingly says, first (611), that the points explained above are true. The first of these is that everything which comes to be, comes to be by something, and this is the agent or generator, which is the principle of generation; and the second is that everything which comes to be, comes to be from something, and by this something from which generation takes place we mean the matter and not the privation. For it was said above that something comes to be from matter in a different way than it does from a privation. The third point is that in every process of generation there must be something which comes to be; and this is either a sphere or a circle or something else.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 2 Ex istis suppositis debet esse manifestum, quod sicut agens generando non facit materiam, vel subiectum generationis, quae est aes, ita etiam non facit formam, scilicet hoc ipsum quod est sphaera, nisi forte per accidens. Facit enim aeream sphaeram quod est compositum. Et quia aerea sphaera, est sphaera, ideo per accidens facit sphaeram.	1418. From the things which have been posited it ought to be evident that, just as an agent does not produce the matter or subject of generation, for example, the bronze, when he generates something, so too “neither does he produce the form,” namely, the thing itself which is a sphere, except perhaps accidentally; for he makes a brazen sphere, which is a composite. And since a brazen sphere is also a sphere, he therefore accidentally produces a sphere.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 3 Quod autem agens non faciat materiam, per se est manifestum, eo quod materia praeexistit factioni: unde non oportuit eum probare quod materia non fieret. Sed de formis poterat esse dubium, eo quod forma non invenitur nisi in termino actionis. Et ideo oportuit eum probare quod forma non fieret nisi per accidens. Et hoc ideo est, quia formae non proprie habent esse, sed magis sunt quibus aliqua habent esse. Unde si fieri est via in esse, illa tantum per se fiunt, quae per formas habent esse. Formae autem incipiunt esse, eo modo quo sunt in illis factis, quae per formas esse habent.	1419. Now the fact that the agent does not produce the matter is evident of itself, because matter is prior to the act of making. Hence it was not necessary for Aristotle to prove that matter is not generated. However, regarding forms there could be a difficulty, because a form is found only at the termination of an activity; and therefore it was necessary for him to prove that a form is produced only accidentally. And the reason is that forms do not have being, properly speaking, but are rather the principles by which things have being. Hence if the, process of coming to be is the way to being, only those things properly come to be which have being by their forms; and forms begin to be in the sense that they exist in the things generated, which have being by these forms.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 4 Et quod forma non fiat, sic probat. Facere enim hoc aliquid, est facere hoc ex aliquo subiecto, quod est totaliter, idest universaliter verum in omni generatione. Facere enim hoc quod est aes rotundum, non est facere hoc ipsum quod est rotundum, scilicet rotunditatem; aut hoc ipsum quod est facere sphaeram, scilicet formam sphaerae; sed est facere aliquid alterum, scilicet speciem, non qualitercumque, sed in alio, scilicet in materia: quod est facere compositum. Quod sic patet. Si enim agens facit aliquid, oportet quod faciat ex aliquo alio sicut ex materia. Hoc enim superius subiiciebatur, scilicet quod omnis generatio ex materia fit, propter probationem superius inductam. Sicut agens dicitur facere sphaeram aeream. Et hoc ideo, quia facit hoc quod est sphaera aerea, ex hoc quod est aes. Si igitur etiam ipsam formam faciat, palam erit quod faciet eam similiter, scilicet ex aliqua materia. Et ita sicut sphaera aerea erit composita ex materia et forma, sic et forma sphaerae aereae erit composita ex materia et forma: et redibit eadem quaestio de forma formae, et sic in infinitum: et ita generationes procedent in infinitum, quia omne generatum habet materiam et formam. Palam igitur est quod non fit species rei generatae, nec aliquid aliud quodcumque fit, quod oporteat vocare formam in rebus sensibilibus, sicut ordo et compositio et figura quae in aliquibus tenet locum formae, maxime in artificialibus.	1420. The proof that forms are not generated is as follows. To make this particular thing is to make it from a subject, and this is “totally,” i.e., universally, true of every generation. For to make what is bronze round is not to make “round” itself, i.e., roundness, or “sphere” itself, namely, the form of a sphere, but to make “something else,” namely, a form, not in any way whatever, “but in something else,” namely, in matter; and this is to make the composite. This is made evident as follows. If an agent makes something, he must make it from something else as its matter. And “this was assumed above,” namely, that every process of generation is from matter, because of the proof adduced above; as an agent, for example, is said to make a brazen sphere. And this is true because he makes the thing which is a brazen sphere from bronze. Hence, if he also makes the form itself, it is clear that he will make it in the same way, namely, from some matter. And thus just as a brazen sphere will be composed of matter and form, so also will the form of brazen sphere be composed of matter and form; and the same question will be raised in turn about the form of this form, and so on to infinity; and in this way processes of generation will proceed to infinity, because everything generated has matter and form. It is evident, then, that the form of the thing generated does not come to be; and neither does any other thing, whatever it may be, which must be called a form in sensible things, for example, order, combination and shape, which has the character of a form in some things, especially in those made by art.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 5 Et quia generatio est eius quod fit, palam est quod nec generatio est formae, sed compositi. Nec iterum quod quid erat esse rei generatae generatur, nisi per accidens. Sed forma et quod quid erat esse, est quod fit in alio, idest in materia, non per se. Et dico quod fit, vel ab arte, vel a natura, vel potestate, idest a quocumque agente per violentiam.	1421. And since generation pertains to the thing generated, it is evident that it is not the form that is generated but the composite. And so too the essence of the thing generated is not itself generated, except accidentally; for the form or essence “is what comes to be in something else,” i.e., in matter, but not of itself. And I say that it comes to be either by art, by nature “or by power,” i.e., by anything that acts by violence (C 841).
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 6 Dicit autem quod quid erat esse non fieri, quamvis sit idem rei factae. Supra enim ostensum est unamquamque rem esse idem cum suo quod quid erat esse. Sed tamen quod quid erat esse est quod per se pertinet ad speciem. Unde ab eo excluduntur conditiones individuales, quae per accidens sunt speciei. Species autem et alia universalia non generantur nisi per accidens, singularibus generatis.	1422. Now he says that the essence of a thing is not generated, even though it is the same as the thing generated; for it was shown above (591)C 1362) that each thing is the same as its own essence. But the essence of a thing refers properly to its form. Hence individual conditions, which pertain to a form accidentally, are excluded from it. And species and other universals are generated only accidentally when singular things are generated.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 7 Sciendum tamen quod licet in litera dicatur, quod forma fit in materia, non tamen proprie dicitur. Forma enim proprie non fit, sed compositum. Sicut enim dicitur forma esse in materia, licet forma non sit, sed compositum per formam: ita etiam proprius modus loquendi est, ut dicamus compositum generari ex materia in talem formam. Formae enim proprie non fiunt, sed educuntur de potentia materiae, inquantum materia quae est in potentia ad formam fit actu sub forma, quod est facere compositum.	1423. Yet it must be noted that even though it is said in the text that form comes to be in matter, this is not a proper way of speaking; for it is not a form that comes to be, but a composite. For a form is said to exist in matter, although a form does not [properly] exist, but a composite exists by its form. Thus the proper way of speaking is to say that a composite is generated from matter according to such and such a form. For forms are not generated, properly speaking, but are brought from the potency of matter, inasmuch as matter, which is in potentiality to form, becomes actual under some form; and this is to produce a composite.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit aeream vero ostendit, quod composita fiant, dicens, quod generans facit esse sphaeram aeream. Facit enim eam ex aere quod est materia, sicut ex principio generationis, et ex sphaera, quae est formae et generationis terminus. Facit enim hanc speciem, idest figuram sphaerae in hoc, idest in hac materia, inquantum scilicet transmutat hoc aes in sphaeram: et hoc est sphaera aerea, scilicet forma sphaerae in aere.	1424. But he does make (612). Here he shows that it is composite things which are generated. He says that an agent does make a sphere to be; for he makes it from bronze, which is the matter, as the principle of generation, and from sphere, which is the form and terminus of generation. For he causes “this form,” i.e., the figure of a sphere, “in this,” i.e., in the matter, in the sense that he changes this bronze into a sphere, and this is a brazen sphere, or the form of a sphere in bronze.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 9 Sed hoc, scilicet figura sphaerae est esse sphaerae, idest quod quid est sphaerae. Eius autem quod est esse sphaerae, idest ipsius quod quid est formae, non est omnino generatio; quia si esset eius generatio, oporteret quod esset ex aliquo sicut ex materia. Omne enim quod fit oportet esse divisibile, ita scilicet quod eius hoc sit hoc, idest una pars sit hoc, et hoc sit hoc, idest alia pars sit hoc. Et hoc exponit, scilicet quod una pars eius sit materia, et alia pars eius sit species. Si igitur quid est sphaerae quantum ad ipsam formam est quod sit figura aequalis ex medio, idest quod sit quaedam figura solida a cuius medio ad extremitates omnes lineae ductae sint aequales, oportet quod huius, scilicet sphaerae aereae hoc quidem, scilicet materia, sit in quo erat id quod facit generans, scilicet forma; et hoc sit in illo, scilicet forma, quae scilicet est figura ex medio aequalis, et hoc sit omne, idest totum quod factum est, scilicet aerea sphaera.	1425. “But this,” namely, the figure of a sphere, “is the being of a sphere,” i.e., the whatness of a sphere. “But of the being of sphere in general,” i.e., of the whatness of the form, there is no generation whatever, because if it were generated it would have to be generated from something as its matter. For everything which comes to be must be divisible, so that “this is this,” i.e., one part of it is this, “and that is that,” i.e., another part is that. He explains this by saying that one part of it is matter and the other, form. Hence, if the whatness of a sphere in reference to the form itself is “that it is a figure everywhere equidistant from a center,” i.e., that it is a certain solid figure of which all lines drawn from the center to the circumference are equal, then “one part,” i.e., the matter “of this,” namely, of a brazen sphere, must be that in which “the thing produced will exist,” namely, the matter, and the other will be what exists in this, namely, the form, which is the figure everywhere equidistant from a center, and “this is all,” i.e., the whole, “that has been produced,” namely, a brazen sphere.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 10 Palam igitur est ex dictis, quod si omne quod fit oportet esse divisibile, quod id quod est ut species, aut quod est ut substantia, idest ut quod quid erat esse non fit. Sed synodus, idest compositum quod dicitur et denominatur a tali forma, vel quidditate vel quod quid est, fit. Et iterum manifestum est quod omni generato inest materia, et quod cuiuslibet generati hoc est hoc, et hoc est hoc, idest una pars est materia, et alia forma.	1426. Hence it is evident from our remarks that, if everything which comes to be must be divisible, the part which is called the form or “substance,” i.e., the essence, does not come to be; but it is “the concrete whole,” or the composite, which is spoken of and gets its name from such a form or quiddity or whatness which comes to be. Again, it is evident that matter is found in everything which is generated, and that of everything which is generated “this is this and that is that,” i.e., one part is matter and the other is form.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit utrum igitur ostendit quod ex quo formae non generantur sed composita, quod non oportet ponere species separatas esse causas generationis in istis inferioribus. Sciendum est autem, quod Platonici ponebant species esse causas generationis dupliciter. Uno modo per modum generantis, et alio modo per modum exemplaris. Primo ergo ostendit, quod species separatae non sunt causae generationis per modum generantis. Secundo, quod non per modum exemplaris, ibi, in quibusdam vero palam. Dicit ergo primo, quod considerandum est utrum sit aliqua forma universalis praeter huiusmodi singularia, scilicet quod sit quaedam sphaera a materia separata praeter has sphaeras quae sunt in materia. Aut etiam sit aliqua domus universalis sine materia, praeter lapides, ex quibus constituuntur istae domus particulares. Movet autem quaestionem in artificialibus propter naturalia, quorum species Plato separatas posuit a materia; ut intelligatur esse quaesitum, utrum sit homo universalis praeter carnes et ossa, ex quibus particulares homines constituuntur.	1427. The problem, then (613). Since it is not forms which are generated but composite things, he shows that it is not necessary to posit separate Forms as the causes of generation in these lower bodies. And it must be understood that the Platonists claimed that separate Forms cause generation in two ways: first, after the manner of a generator, and, second, after the manner of an exemplar. Hence he shows, first (613), that separate Forms are not causes of generation after the manner of a generator; and second (614:C 1432), that they are not causes after the manner of an exemplar (“And in some cases”). He accordingly says, first (613), that it is necessary to consider whether there is a form “which is universal’ and exists apart from singular forms of this kind,” i.e., whether there is a sphere without matter apart from these spheres found in matter; or again whether there is a universal house without matter apart from the bricks of which these particular houses are made. Now he raises the question with reference to artificial things in order to throw light on natural ones, whose forms the Platonists claimed to be separate from matter; so that the question is understood to be whether there is a universal man apart from the flesh and bones of which individual men are composed.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 12 Ad solutionem autem huius quaestionis, hic primo praemittit, quod si sit aliqua substantia hoc modo facta, nullo modo erit hoc aliquid, sed significabit tantum quale quid, quod non est determinatum. Socrates enim significat hoc aliquid et determinatum; homo vero significat quale quid, quia significat formam communem et indeterminatam, quia significat absque determinatione huius vel illius. Unde si sit homo praeter Socratem et Platonem et alios huiusmodi, non tamen erit hoc aliquid nec determinatum. Sed nos videmus quod in generationibus, semper illud quod facit et generat ex hoc, idest ex tali materia, est tale hoc, idest hoc determinatum, habens determinatam speciem. Oportet enim, sicut generatum est hoc aliquid, ita et generans esse hoc aliquid, cum generans sit simile genito, ut supra probatum est. Et quod genitum sit hoc aliquid, ex hoc patet: quia quod generatur est compositum. Sed hoc esse, scilicet compositum, quando est hoc, idest determinatum, est ut Callias, aut Socrates, sicut cum dicitur haec sphaera aerea. Sed homo et animal non significant hanc materiam ex qua est generatio, sicut nec sphaera aerea universaliter dicta. Si ergo compositum generatur, et non generatur nisi ex hac materia, per quam est hoc aliquid, oportet quod id quod generatur sit hoc aliquid. Et cum generatum sit simile generanti, oportet etiam, quod generans sit hoc aliquid. Et ita non sit species universalis, sine materia.	1428. And for the purpose of answering this question he posits here that, if any substance is produced in this way, it will not be a particular thing in any sense, but will only signify such and such a thing, which is not a definite individual. For Socrates signifies this particular thing and a definite individual, but man signifies such and such a thing, because it signifies a common and indefinite form, since it signifies without the definiteness of a this or a that. Hence, if there should be a man separate from Socrates and Plato and other individuals of this kind, it will still be a particular or definite thing. But in processes of generation we see that the thing which makes and generates something “from this,” i.e., from some particular matter, is “such and such a particular thing,” i.e., this definite thing having a definite form; for just as the thing generated must be a particular thing, so also must the thing which generates it be a particular thing, since the thing generated is similar to the thing which generates it, as was proved above (603)C 1390. Now that the thing generated is a particular thing is clear from the fact that it is a composite. “And this being,” i.e., the composite, when it is “such and such a thing,” i.e., a definite thing, is like Callias or Socrates, just as when we speak of this brazen sphere. But man and animal do not signify this matter from which generation proceeds, and neither does brazen sphere, taken universally. Therefore, if the composite is generated, and it is generated only from this matter whereby it is this particular thing, then what is generated must be a particular thing. And since the thing generated is similar to the one generating it, the latter must also be a particular thing. Hence there is no universal form without matter.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 13 Manifestum est ergo ex dictis, quod si sunt aliquae species praeter singularia, nihil sunt utiles ad generationes et substantias rerum, sicut consueti sunt quidam dicere specierum causa, idest ad hoc quod ponant species. Haec enim erat una causa, quare Platonici species ponebant, ut essent causa generationis in rebus. Si igitur species separatae non possunt esse causa generationis, manifestum erit quod non erunt species quaedam substantiae secundum se existentes.	1429. It is therefore evident from what has been said that, if there are any forms separate from singular things, they are of no use for the generations and substances of things, just as some are accustomed to speak of “the cause which consists of the Forms,” intending thus to posit such forms. For one reason why the Platonists posited separate Forms was that they might be the cause of processes of generation in the world. Hence, if separate Forms cannot be the cause of generation, it is evident that forms will not be certain substances existing by themselves.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 14 Sciendum est autem, quod omnes, qui non consideraverunt hoc, quod philosophus supra ostendit, quod formae non fiunt, passi sunt difficultatem circa factionem formarum. Propter hoc namque quidam coacti sunt dicere, omnes formas esse ex creatione. Nam ponebant formas fieri, et non poterant ponere quod fierent ex materia, cum materia non sit pars formae: unde sequebatur quod fierent ex nihilo, et per consequens quod crearentur. E contrario autem quidam posuerunt propter hanc difficultatem, formas praeexistere in materia actu, quod est ponere latitationem formarum; sicut posuit Anaxagoras.	1430. And it must be noted that all those who have failed to consider what the Philosopher proved above-that forms do not come to be-face the same difficulty with regard to the production of forms, because it was for this reason that some men were compelled to say that all forms are created; for while they held that forms come to be, they could not hold that they come from matter since matter is not a part of form; and therefore they concluded that forms come from nothing, and, consequently, that they are created. But because of this difficulty, on the other hand, some men claimed that forms actually pre-exist in matter, and this is to suppose that forms are hidden, as Anaxagoras maintained.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 15 Sententia autem Aristotelis, qui ponit formas non fieri, sed compositum, utrumque excludit. Neque enim oportet dicere, quod formae sint causatae ab aliquo extrinseco agente, neque quod fuerint semper actu in materia, sed in potentia tantum. Et quod in generatione compositi sint eductae de potentia in actum.	1431. Now the view of Aristotle, who claimed that forms are not generated but only composite things, excludes both of these other opinions. For it is not necessary to say that forms are caused by some external agent, or that they will always be present in matter actually, but only potentially, and that in the generation of the composite they are brought from potentiality to actuality.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 16 Deinde cum dicit in quibusdam ostendit, quod species separatae non possunt esse causa generationis per modum exemplaris; dicens, quod licet in aliquibus sit dubium utrum generans sit simile generato, tamen in quibusdam palam est quod generans sit quoddam tale, quale est generatum; non quidem idem numero, sed idem specie, ut patet in naturalibus. Homo enim generat hominem, similiter equus equum, et unaquaeque res naturalis aliam similem in specie sibi: nisi accidat aliquid praeter naturam, sicut est cum equus generat mulum. Et dicitur ista generatio praeter naturam, quia est praeter intentionem naturae particularis.	1432. And in some cases (614). He shows that separate Forms cannot be the cause of the generation of things after the manner of an exemplar. He says that even though in some cases one may encounter the problem whether the generator is similar to the thing generated, still in the case of some things it is evident that the generator is of the same kind as the thing generated: not numerically the same but specifically, as is clear in the case of natural beings; for man begets man, and similarly a horse begets a horse, and each natural thing produces something similar to itself in species, unless something beyond nature happens to result, as when a horse begets a mule. And this generation is beyond nature, because it is outside of the aim of a particular nature.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 17 Virtus enim formativa, quae est in spermate maris, naturaliter est ordinata ut producat omnino simile ei, a quo sperma est decisum; sed de secundaria intentione est, quod quando perfecta similitudo induci non potest, inducatur qualiscumque potest similis. Et, quia in generatione muli sperma equi non potest inducere speciem equi in materia, propter hoc quod non est proportionata ad suscipiendum speciem equi, inducit speciem propinquam. Unde etiam in generatione muli est aliquo modo generans simile generato. Est enim aliquod proximum genus, quod non est nominatum, commune equo et asino. Et sub illo genere continetur etiam mulus. Unde secundum illud genus potest dici quod simile generat simile. Ut si verbi gratia dicamus quod illud proximum genus sit iumentum, poterimus dicere, quod licet equus non generet equum, sed mulum, iumentum tamen generat iumentum.	1433. For the formative power, which is in the sperm of the male, is designed by nature to produce something completely the same as that from which the sperm has been separated; but its secondary aim, when it cannot induce a perfect likeness, is to induce any kind of likeness that it can. And since in the generation of a mule the sperm of a horse cannot induce the form of a horse in the matter, because it is not adapted to receive the form of a horse, it therefore induces a related form. Hence in the generation of a mule the generator is similar in a way to the thing generated; for there is a proximate genus, which lacks a name, common to horse and to ass; and mule is also contained under that genus. Hence in reference to that genus it can be said that like generates like; for example, if we might say that that proximate genus is beast of burden, we could say that, even though a horse does not generate a horse but a mule, still a beast of burden generates a beast of burden.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 18 Patet igitur, quod omnia generata consequuntur speciei similitudinem ex virtute generantis. Quare palam est, quod non oportet ponere aliquam speciem separatam, quasi exemplar rebus generatis, ex cuius imagine res generatae speciei similitudinem consequantur, ut Platonici ponebant. Maxime enim huiusmodi exemplaria requirerentur in praedictis substantiis naturalibus, quae sunt maxime substantiae respectu artificialium. Sufficiens autem est in praedictis generans ad faciendum similitudinem speciei; et est sufficiens ponere causam speciei in materia, idest quod illud quod facit hoc generatum consequi talem speciem non sit species extra materiam, sed species in materia.	1434. Hence it is evident that everything which is generated receives the likeness of its form from the power of the thing generating it. And for this reason it is obviously not necessary to posit some separate Form, as the exemplar of the things which are generated, from whose image the things generated receive a similar form, as the Platonists claimed. For exemplars of this kind are especially necessary in the case of the natural substances mentioned above, which are substances to a greater degree when compared with artificial things. Now in the case of the foregoing substances the generator is sufficient to cause a likeness of form; and it is enough to maintain that the generator causes the form in the matter, i.e., that the thing which causes the thing generated to receive such a form is not some form outside of matter but a form in matter.
lib. 7 l. 7 n. 19 Omnis autem species, quae est in materia, scilicet in his carnibus et in his ossibus, est aliquod singulare, ut Callias et Socrates. Et ista etiam species causans similitudinem speciei in generando est diversa a specie generati secundum numerum propter diversam materiam. Cuius diversitas est principium diversitatis individuorum in eadem specie. Diversa namque est materia, in qua est forma hominis generantis et hominis generati. Sed utraque forma est idem secundum speciem. Nam ipsa species est individua, idest non diversificatur in generante et generato. Relinquitur ergo, quod non oportet ponere aliquam speciem praeter singularia, quae sit causa speciei in generatis, ut Platonici ponebant.	1435. “And every form” which is in the matter, namely, “in this flesh and these bones,” is some singular thing, such as Callias or Socrates. And this form which causes a likeness in species in the process of generation, also differs numerically from the form of the thing generated because of difference in matter; for material diversity is the principle of diversity among individuals in the same species; for the matter containing the form of the man who begets and that of the man who is begotten are different. But both forms are the same in species; for the form itself is “indivisible,” i.e., it does not differ in the one who generates and in the one who is generated. Hence it follows that it is not necessary to posit a form apart from singular things, which causes the form in the things generated, as the Platonists claimed.

Lecture 8

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 1 Postquam ostendit philosophus, quod species separatae non sunt causa generationis in istis inferioribus, hic manifestat quaedam, quae possent esse dubia circa praedeterminata. Et dividitur in partes tres, secundum quod tria dubia sunt quae manifestare intendit. Secunda pars incipit ibi, palam vero ex dictis. Tertia ibi, non solum autem de substantia. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit dubitationem. Secundo solvit eam, ibi, causa vero et cetera. Oritur autem prima dubitatio ex eo quod supra dixerat, quod, quando principium sanitatis est species, quae est in anima, tunc sanitas fit ab arte. Quando vero sanitas non est ab hoc principio, sed a calefactione tantum, tunc fit sanitas a casu, sicut cum accidit sanitas ex confricatione. Hoc autem non potest accidere in domibus, quae fiunt ab arte. Domus enim numquam fit ab aliquo principio, nisi a specie domus in anima; et sic semper fit ab arte, et non a casu. Et ideo est dubitatio, quare quaedam fiunt quandoque quidem ab arte, quandoque quidem a casu, ut sanitas; quaedam vero non, sed fiunt tantum ab arte, et nunquam a casu, ut domus.	1436. Having shown that separate forms are not the cause of generation in these lower bodies, the Philosopher now clears up certain things which could be regarded as problems relating to the points already established. This is divided into three parts insofar as there are three problems which he intends to clear up. The second part (617)C 1443) begins where he says “And it is evident”; and the third (620:C 1458), at the words, “Now it is not only.” In regard to the first he does two things. First (615:C 1436), he states the problem. Second (616:C 1437), he solves it (“And the reason”). Now the first problem stems from a statement which he had made above (609:C 1412) to the effect that, when the principle of health is the form in the mind, health is then a result of art; but when health is not a result of this principle but only of the act of heating, health then comes about by chance, for example, when health happens to result from a vigorous rubbing. But this cannot be true of everything that comes to be by art; for a house is never produced by any principle except the form of a house in the mind, and thus it will always come to be by art and never by chance. Hence the problem is why some things, for instance, health, sometimes come to be by art and sometimes by chance, while others, for instance, a house, come to be only by art and never by chance.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit causa vero solvit quaestionem; et dicit causam praedictae differentiae in artificialibus hanc esse, quia materia, a qua incipit generatio, secundum quam contingit facere et fieri aliquid eorum, quae sunt ab arte, talis est, in qua existit aliqua pars rei. Oportet namque in materia qualibet esse aptitudinem ad formam. Non enim quodlibet artificiatum potest fieri ex qualibet materia, sed ex determinata. Sicut serra non fit ex lana, sed ex ferro. Ipsa ergo aptitudo ad formam artificiati, quae est in materia, iam est aliqua pars artificiati, quae est in materia; quia sine aptitudine artificiatum esse non potest. Sicut serra non potest esse sine duritie, per quam ferrum est ordinatum ad formam serrae.	1437. And the reason (616). He then solves the problem. He says that the reason for the above-mentioned difference in the case of artificial things lies in the fact that the matter from which generation begins, inasmuch as it is the basis of the making and producing any of the things which come about by art, is such as to contain some part of the thing generated. For the matter must have some aptitude for form, because not any artifact can be produced from any matter, but each from some definite matter; for example, a saw is not produced from wool but from iron. Hence the aptitude itself of the artifact for a form, which is in the matter, is already some part of the artifact which is in the matter; because without this aptitude the artifact cannot exist; for instance, there cannot be a saw without hardness, by which the iron is disposed for the form of a saw.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 3 Sed haec pars dupliciter invenitur in materia. Quandoque quidem ita, quod per eam materia potest moveri a seipsa per partem formae in ea existentem. Quandoque vero non. Sicut in corpore humano, quod est materia sanationis, inest virtus activa, per quam corpus potest sanare seipsum. In lapidibus autem et lignis non est aliqua virtus activa, per quam possit moveri materia ad formam domus.	1438. But this part is found in matter in two ways: sometimes in such a way that the matter can move itself by this part, i.e., by the part of the form existing within it, and sometimes not. For example, in the case of the human body, which is the matter of health, there is an active power by which the body can heal itself, but in the case of stones and timbers there is no active power by which the matter can be moved to receive the form of a house.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 4 Et si quidem materia sic possit moveri per partem formae, quam in se habet, ad formam, hoc contingit dupliciter. Quia quandoque potest sic moveri per principium intrinsecum, quod est pars praedicta, sicut moveretur per artem, ut accidit in sanatione; nam natura humani corporis eodem modo agit ad sanitatem sicut et ars. Quandoque vero non potest moveri materia per principium intrinsecum eodem modo sicut movetur ab arte, licet aliquo modo per ipsum moveri possit. Multa enim sunt, quae possunt a seipsis moveri, sed non sic sicut moventur ab arte, ut patet in saltatione. Homines enim non habentes artem saltandi possunt quidem movere seipsos, sed non illo modo, sicut movent se qui habent artem praedictam.	1439. And if the matter can be so moved to receive a form by a part of the form which exists in it, this can occur in two ways. For sometimes it can be moved by an intrinsic principle, which is the part mentioned above, in the same way in which it is moved by art, as occurs in the restoration of health; for the nature of the human body acts in the same way with regard to health as art does. But sometimes the matter cannot be moved by an intrinsic principle in the same way in which it is moved by art, although it can be moved by itself in some way. For there are many things which can be moved by themselves, but not in the same way in which they are moved by art, as is clear in the case of dancing. For men who do not have the art of dancing can move about tut not in the way in which those men do who have this art.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 5 Illa igitur artificialia, quae habent talem naturam, sicut lapides sunt materia domus, non possunt a seipsis moveri: impossibile est enim moveri ea nisi ab alio. Et hoc non solum est in artificialibus, sed etiam in naturalibus. Sic enim et materia ignis non potest moveri ad formam ignis nisi ab alio. Et inde est, quod forma ignis non generatur nisi ab alio. Et propter hoc quaedam artificialia non possunt fieri sine habente artem: quae scilicet in sua materia vel non habent aliquod principium motivum ad formam, vel non sic motivum sicut ars movet.	1440. Therefore those artificial things which have this kind of nature, such as a house made of bricks, cannot set themselves in motion; for they cannot be moved unless they are moved by something else. This is true not only of artificial things but also of natural ones; for in this way too the matter of fire cannot be moved to receive the form of fire unless it is moved by something else. And it is for this reason that the form of fire is generated only by something else. Hence it follows that some artificial things cannot come to be unless there is something which possesses art, i.e., those which do not have in their matter any principle which can move their matter to receive a form, or which cannot cause motion in the way in which art does.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 6 Quae vero ab aliquo extrinseco principio moveri possunt non habente artem, possunt esse et fieri etiam sine habente artem. Movebuntur enim eorum materiae ab his quae non habent artem. Quod quidem ostendit dupliciter. Uno modo inquantum possunt moveri ab aliquibus aliis extrinsecis principiis non habentibus artem; sicut arborem plantare potest etiam qui non habet artem plantandi. Alio modo quando materia movetur ex parte, idest ab aliquo principio intrinseco, quod est aliqua pars formae. Sicut cum corpus humanum sanatur ab aliquo principio intrinseco, quod est aliqua pars formae.	1441. And those things which can be moved by some extrinsic principle which is not possessed of art, can both be and come to be without the intervention of art; for the matters of these are moved by things which do not possess art. He makes this clear in two ways: first, by pointing out that this can happen insofar as they can be moved by certain other extrinsic principles which do not possess art; and second, when “the matter is moved by a part” [i.e., of the composite] namely, by some intrinsic principle, which is some part of the form, for example, when health is restored to the human body by some intrinsic principle which is a part of the form.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 7 Sciendum est autem, quod occasione horum verborum, quae hic dicuntur, quidam ponunt, quod in omni generatione naturali est aliquod principium activum in materia, quod quidem est forma in potentia praeexistens in materia, quae est quaedam inchoatio formae. Unde haec formae pars dicitur. Quod quidem adstruere nituntur: primo ex hoc quod hic dicitur. Videtur enim hic Aristoteles dicere quod illa, in quorum materia non est principium activum, fiunt tantum ab arte. Oportet igitur, quod in materia illorum, quae fiunt a natura, insit aliquod principium activum.	1442a. Now it must be noted that some persons, because of the words which are used here, claim that in every natural generation the matter contains some active principle, which is the form pre-existing potentially in the matter and a kind of beginning of form; and thus it is called a part of the form. And they try to establish this, first, from the statements made here; for Aristotle seems to say here that those things whose matter contains no active principle are produced by art alone; and therefore they think that some active principle must be present in the matter of things which are generated by nature.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 8 Secundo ex hoc, quod omnis motus, cuius principium non est in eo quod movetur, sed extra, est motus violentus, et non naturalis. Si igitur in his, quae generantur per naturam, non esset aliquod principium generationis activum in materia, tunc eorum generationes non essent naturales, sed violentae; aut non esset aliqua differentia inter generationem artificialem et naturalem.	1442b. Second, they try to establish this from the fact that every motion whose principle is not intrinsic to the thing moved but extrinsic to it is a violent motion and not a natural one. For if there were no active principle in the matter of those things which are generated by nature, the process of generation of these things would not be natural but violent; or, in other words, there would be no difference between artificial generations and natural ones.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 9 Et si obiiciatur contra eos, quod tunc ea, quae generantur naturaliter, non indigent extrinseco generante, si eorum generatio est a principio intrinseco: respondent quod sicut principium intrinsecum non est forma completa, sed quaedam inchoatio formae; ita etiam non est perfectum principium activum, ut per se possit agere ad generationem; sed habet aliquid de virtute activa ut cooperetur exteriori agenti. Nisi enim aliquid conferret mobile exteriori agenti, esset motus violentus: violentum enim est, cuius principium est extra, nil conferente vim passo, ut in primo Ethicorum dicitur.	1442c. And when one argues against them that, if the generation of those things which come about by nature is from an intrinsic principle, such things do not therefore stand in need of any extrinsic generator, their answer is: just as an intrinsic principle is not a perfect form but a kind of beginning of form, neither is it a perfect active principle in the sense that it can act of itself so as to bring about generation; but it bears some likeness to an active power inasmuch as it cooperates with an extrinsic agent. For if the mobile object contributes nothing to the motion produced by an external agent, the motion is violent; because violence exists when the thing undergoing the change is moved by an extrinsic principle and does not itself contribute anything to the change, as is stated in Book III of the Ethics.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 10 Haec autem opinio videtur propinqua ponentibus latitationem formarum. Cum enim nihil agat nisi secundum quod est in actu: si partes vel inchoationes formarum quae sunt in materia, habent aliquam virtutem activam, sequitur quod sint aliquo modo actu, quod est ponere latitationem formarum. Et praeterea, cum esse sit ante agere, non potest intelligi forma prius habere agere, quam sit in actu.	1442d. Now this opinion seems to resemble the one expressed by those who claim that forms lie hidden; for since a thing acts only insofar as it is actual, if the parts or beginnings of the forms which exist in matter have some active power, it follows that they are actual to some degree; and this is to maintain that forms lie hidden. Furthermore, since being is prior to action, a form cannot be understood to act before it actually exists.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 11 Et ideo dicendum est, quod sicut sola viventia inveniuntur se movere secundum locum, alia vero moventur a principio extrinseco, vel generante, vel removente prohibens, ut dicitur octavo physicorum, ita secundum alios motus, sola viventia inveniuntur movere seipsa. Et hoc ideo quia inveniuntur habere diversas partes, quarum una potest esse movens et alia mota; quod oportet esse in omni movente seipsum, ut probatur in octavo physicorum. Sic igitur invenimus in generatione viventium esse principium activum intrinsecum quod est virtus formativa in semine. Et sicut est potentia augmentativa movens in motu augmenti et decrementi; ita est et in motu alterationis, quae est sanatio, principium movens intra. Nam cum cor non sit susceptivum infirmitatis, virtus naturalis, quae est in corde sano, totum corpus ad sanitatem alterat.	1442e. Therefore it must be said that, just as living things alone are found to move themselves locally, whereas other things are moved by an extrinsic principle, i.e., either by one which generates or which removes some obstacle, as is stated in Book VIII of the Physics, so too only living things are found to move themselves with the other motions. This is because they are found to have different parts, one of which can be a mover and the other something moved; and this must be true of everything that moves itself, as is proved in Book VIII of the Physics. Hence in the generation of living things we find an intrinsic efficient principle, which is the formative power in the seed. And just as living things have a power of growth, which is responsible for the motion of increase and decrease, in a similar fashion they have an intrinsic motive principle responsible for the qualitative change of being healed. For since the heart is not subject to disease, the natural power which is present in it, as in something healthy, changes the whole body to a state of health.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 12 De tali igitur materia habente in se principium activum loquitur hic philosophus, et non de rebus inanimatis. Quod ex hoc patet, quia materiam ignis comparat materiae domus in hoc, quod utraque movetur ad formam a principio extrinseco. Non tamen sequitur quod generatio inanimatorum corporum non sit naturalis. Non enim oportet ad motum naturalem, quod semper principium motus, quod est in mobili, sit principium activum et formale; sed quandoque est passivum et materiale. Unde et natura in secundo physicorum distinguitur per materiam et formam. Et ab hoc principio dicitur naturalis generatio simplicium corporum, ut dicit Commentator in secundo physicorum. Differentia tamen est inter materiam naturalium et artificialium: quia in materia rerum naturalium est aptitudo naturalis ad formam, et potest reduci in actum per agens naturale; non autem hoc contingit in materia artificialium.	1442f. Hence the Philosopher is speaking here of such matter as has an efficient principle within itself, and not of inanimate things. This is clear from the fact that he compares the matter of fire with the matter of a house in this respect, that both are moved to receive their form by an extrinsic principle. It does not follow, however, that the process whereby inanimate bodies are generated is not natural; for in order to have natural motion it is not necessary that the principle of motion present in the thing moved should always be an active and formal principle; but sometimes it is passive and material. Hence in Book II of the Physics nature is distinguished into matter and form. And the natural generation of simple bodies is said to proceed from this principle, as the Commentator says in his commentary on Book II of the Physics. Yet there is a difference between the matter of natural things and that of things made by art, because in the matter of natural things there is a natural aptitude for form, and this can be brought to actuality by a natural agent; but this does not occur in the matter of things made by art.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 13 Deinde cum dicit palam vero manifestat secundum quod poterat esse dubium ex praedictis. Dixerat enim superius quod omne quod generatur, generatur a simili secundum speciem. Hoc autem non eodem modo se habet in omnibus: et ideo hic manifestare intendit, quomodo hoc diversimode in diversis inveniatur. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo distinguit diversos modos quibus generatum est simile generanti. Secundo manifestat eos, ibi, causa namque faciendi. Sciendum est autem circa primum, quod omne quod generatur ab aliquo, aut generatur per se, aut generatur ab eo per accidens. Quod autem generatur ab aliquo per accidens, non generatur ab eo secundum quod huiusmodi. Unde non oportet in generante esse similitudinem generati. Sicut inventio thesauri non habet similitudinem aliquam in eo, qui fodiens ad plantandum invenit thesaurum per accidens. Sed generans per se, generat tale secundum quod huiusmodi. Unde oportet quod in generante per se, sit aliqualiter similitudo generati.	1443. And it is evident (617). Then he clears up the second problem which could arise from the foregoing discussion; for he had said above (614:C 1432) that everything which is generated is generated by something having a similar form. Now this does not apply in the same way to all things, and therefore he intends here to clarify how this applies in a different way to different things. In regard to this he does two things. First, he distinguishes the different ways in which the thing generated is like the thing which generates it. Second (618:C 1448), he explains these ways (“For the first”). With regard to the first (617) it must be noted that everything which is generated by something is generated by it either properly or accidentally. Now whatever is generated by something accidentally is not generated by it according as it is a thing of some special kind. Hence in the generator there does not have to be any likeness of the thing generated; for example, the discovery of a treasure has no likeness in him who, when he digs in order to plant something, discovers the treasure accidentally. But a generator in the proper sense generates something of the same kind as itself. Hence in a proper generator the likeness of the thing generated must exist in some way.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 14 Sed hoc contingit tripliciter. Uno modo quando forma generati praecedit in generante secundum eumdem modum essendi, et simili materia. Sicut cum ignis generat ignem, vel homo generat hominem. Et haec est generatio totaliter univoca.	1444. But this comes about in three ways: First, when the form of the thing generated pre-exists in the generator according to the same mode of being, and in a similar matter, as when fire generates fire or man begets man. This type of generation is wholly univocal.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 15 Alio modo quando forma generati praecedit in generante, non quidem secundum eumdem modum essendi, nec in substantia eiusdem rationis; sicut forma domus praecedit in artifice, non secundum esse materiale, sed secundum esse immateriale, quod habet in mente artificis, non in lapidibus et lignis. Et haec generatio est partim ex univoco quantum ad formam, partim ex aequivoco quantum ad esse formae in subiecto.	1445. Second, when the form of the thing generated pre-exists in the generator, neither according to the same mode of being, nor in a substance of the same kind; for example, the form of a house pre-exists in the builder, not with the material being which it has in the stones and timbers, but with the immaterial being which it has in the mind of the builder. This type of generation is partly univocal, from the standpoint of form, and partly equivocal, from the standpoint of the being of the form in the subject.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 16 Tertio modo quando ipsa tota forma generati non praecedit in generante, sed aliqua pars eius, aut aliqua pars partis; sicuti in medicina calida praecedit calor qui est pars sanitatis, aut aliquid ducens ad partem sanitatis. Et haec generatio nullo modo est univoca.	1446. Third, when the whole form of the thing generated does not preexist in the generator, but only some part of it or a part of a part; as in the medicine which has been heated there pre-exists the heat which is a part of health, or something leading to a part of health. This type of generation is not univocal in any way.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 17 Et ideo dicit, palam ex dictis est quod aut fiunt omnia quodammodo ex totaliter univoco, sicut naturalia, ut ignis ab igne, et homo ab homine. Aut ex eo quod est ex parte univocum, quantum ad formam, et ex parte aequivocum quantum ad esse formae in subiecto; sicut domus fit ex domo quae est ars in artifice, aut ab intellectu, sive artis habitu. Ipsa enim ars aedificativa est species domus. Aut tertio modo fiunt aliqua ex parte formae praeexistentis in generante, sive ex ipso generante, habente partem praedictam. Potest enim dici quod generatio fit vel ex forma, sive parte formae, vel ex habente formam, vel partem formae. Sed ex habente quidem sicut ex generante; ex forma sive parte formae, sicut ex eo quo generans generat. Nam forma non generat nec agit, sed habens formam per eam. Et hoc dico quod aliquid fit ex alio simili secundum aliquem praedictorum modorum, nisi fiat ex eo per accidens. Tunc enim non oportet huiusmodi similitudinem observari, sicut dictum est.	1447. Hence he says, “It is evident from what has been said that in a sense all things come from something which is totally univocal, as natural things,” for example, fire comes from fire, and a man from a man; or it comes from something which is univocal “in part,” in reference to the form, and equivocal in part, in reference to the being which the form has in the subject; for example, a house comes from the house which is the art in the builder, “or by means of mind,” or by a habit of art; for the building art is the form of the house. Or in a third way some things come from the form pre-existing in the generator, or from the generator himself who possesses a part of the above-mentioned form. For the process of generation can be said to be a result either of the form or of a part of the form, or of something having the form or a part of the form; but it comes from something having the form as from a generator, and from the form or a part of the form as from something by which the generator generates; for it is not the form that generates or acts, but the thing having the form generates and acts by means of it. By this I mean that a thing is generated by something like itself in the ways mentioned above, unless it comes about in an accidental way; for then it is not necessary that any likeness of this kind should be observed, as has been explained (C 1443).
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 18 Deinde cum dicit causa namque manifestat modos praedictos. Et primo in rebus artificialibus. Secundo in rebus naturalibus, ibi, similiter itaque his. Dicit ergo primo, quod ideo oportet quod sit fieri ex aliqua parte, quia prima causa faciendi secundum se, est pars generati praeexistentis in generante, quae est vel ipsa forma generantis, vel pars formae. Cum enim per motum calor generatur, in ipso motu est quodammodo calor sicut in virtute activa. Nam ipsa virtus causandi calorem quae est in motu, est aliquid de genere caloris. Et iste calor in motu existens virtute, facit calorem in corpore, non quidem generatione univoca, sed aequivoca; quia calor in motu, et in corpore calido, non est unius rationis. Is vero, scilicet calor, aut est ipsa sanitas, aut aliqua pars sanitatis, aut sequitur eum aliqua pars sanitatis, aut sanitas ipsa.	1448. For the first (618). Here he explains the ways mentioned above in which one thing comes from something else. He does this first in the case of artificial things; and second (619:C 1451), in the case of natural ones (“And those things which”). He accordingly says, first (618), that the thing produced must come from some part, because the first and proper cause of the production of anything produced is the part of it which preexists in the one producing it, and which is either the form itself of the producer or a part of the form. For when heat is caused by motion, heat is present in a sense in the motion itself as in an active power; for the power of causing heat which is in the motion is itself something belonging to the genus of heat; and the heat which is present virtually in the motion causes the heat in the body, not by a univocal generation but by an equivocal one; for the heat in the motion and that in the heated body are not of exactly the same nature. But heat is either health itself or some part of health, or it is accompanied by some part of health or health itself.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 19 Per haec quatuor quae ponit, dat intelligere quatuor modos, quibus potest se habere forma generantis ad formam geniti. Quorum primus est quando forma generati totaliter est in generante, sicut forma domus est in mente artificis, et sicut forma ignis generati est in igne generante. Secundus modus est quando pars formae generati est in generante, sicut cum medicina calida sanat calefaciendo. Nam calor factus est in sanato pars sanitatis. Tertius modus est quando pars formae est in generante, non actu, sed virtute; sicut quando motus calefaciendo sanat: calor enim est in motu virtute, et non actu. Quartus modus est quando ipsa tota forma est in generante virtute, sed non actu, sicut forma stuporis est in pisce stupefaciente manum. Et similiter est in aliis quae agunt a tota specie. Primum ergo modum designat in hoc quod dicit aut sanitas. Secundum in hoc quod dicit aut pars. Tertium in hoc quod dicit aut sequitur eum aliqua pars sanitatis. Quartum in hoc quod dicit, aut sanitas ipsa. Et quia motus causat calorem ad quem sequitur sanitas, propter hoc etiam dicitur motus facere sanitatem, quia id facit sanitatem cui consequitur vel accidit sanitas. Vel melius, quod consequitur, et accidit ex motu, scilicet calor, facit sanitatem.	1449. Now by these four alternatives which he gives he wants us to understand the four modes in which the form of the thing causing generation can be referred to the form of the thing generated. The first of these is found when the form of the thing generated is totally in the thing which causes generation; as the form of a house is in the mind of the master builder, and the form of the fire which is generated is in the fire which generates it. The second mode is found when a part of the form of the thing generated is in the thing causing generation, as when a hot medicine restores health by heating; for the heat produced in the one who is being healed is a part of health. The third mode is found when part of the form is in the thing causing generation, not actually but virtually, as when motion restores health by heating; for heat is present in the motion virtually but not actually. The fourth mode is found when the whole form itself is present virtually but not actually in the thing which causes generation; for example, the form of numbness is in the eel which makes the hand numb. And it is similar in the case of other things which act by means of the whole form. Therefore he refers to the first mode by the words “Either health”; to the second mode, by the words “or a part”; to the third, by the words “or some part of health follows from it”; and to the fourth, by the words “or health itself.” And since motion causes the heat from which health follows, for this reason too motion is said to cause health, because that causes health from which health follows or ensues. Or better “that which follows from and happens as a result of motion,” namely, heat, causes health.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 20 Quare patet, quod sicut in syllogismis, omnium principium est substantia, idest quod quid est rei (nam syllogismi demonstrativi sunt ex quid est, cum in demonstrationibus medium sit definitio), et hic, scilicet in operativis, generationes sunt ex quod quid est. In quo ostenditur similitudo intellectus speculativi et practici. Sicut enim intellectus speculativus procedit ad demonstrandum passiones de subiectis ex consideratione eius quod quid est, ita intellectus procedit ad operandum ex specie artificii, quae est eius quod quid est, ut supra dictum est.	1450. Hence it is evident that, just as in syllogisms the basis of all demonstrations “is substance,” i.e., the whatness (for demonstrative syllogisms proceed from the whatness of a thing, since the middle term in demonstrations is a definition), “so too in this case,” namely, in matters of operation, processes of generation proceed from the quiddity. In this statement the likeness of the speculative intellect to the practical intellect is shown; for just as the speculative intellect proceeds to demonstrate the properties of subjects from a study of their quiddity, in a similar fashion the intellect proceeds from the form of the work, which is its quiddity, as was stated above.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 21 Deinde cum dicit similiter itaque manifestat quod dixerat de artificialibus, in rebus naturalibus; dicens, quod similiter se habent ea quae sunt constituta secundum naturam, his quae fiunt per artem. Sperma enim operatur ad generationem, sicut contingit in his quae fiunt per artem. Sicut enim artifex non est actu domus, nec habet formam quae sit domus actu, sed potestate; ita sperma non est animal actu, nec habet animam quae est species animalis actu, sed potestate tantum. Est enim in semine virtus formativa: quae hoc modo comparatur ad materiam concepti, sicut comparatur forma domus in mente artificis ad lapides et ligna: nisi quod forma artis est omnino extrinseca a lapidibus et lignis; virtus autem spermatis est intrinseca.	1451. And those things (619). Here he explains his statement about artificial things in their application to natural things. He says that those things which are constituted by nature are similar to those which come to be by art; for the seed acts for the purpose of generating, and this is what happens in the case of things which come to be by art; for just as a master builder is not a house actually and does not possess the form which constitutes a house actually but only potentially, so too the seed is not an animal actually, nor does it possess a soul actually, which is the form of an animal, but only potentially. For in the seed there is a formative power which is related to the matter of the thing conceived in the same way in which the form of the house in the mind of the builder is related to the stones and timbers; but there is this difference: the form of an art is wholly extrinsic to the stones and timbers, whereas the power of the seed is present in the seed itself.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 22 Quamvis autem generatio animalis ex spermate, non sit a spermate sicut ab univoco, quia sperma non est animal; id tamen a quo est sperma, est aliqualiter univocum ei quod fit ex spermate. Nam sperma fit ab animali. Et in hoc est dissimilitudo inter generationem naturalem et generationem artificialem; quia non oportet quod forma domus in mente artificis sit a domo, licet quandoque hoc accidat, ut cum aliquis ad exemplar unius domus facit aliam. Sed semper oportet quod sperma sit ab animali.	1452. Now although the generation of an animal from seed does not proceed from the seed as from something univocal, since the seed is not an animal, still that from which the seed comes is in some measure univocal with the thing which comes from it; for the seed comes from an animal. And in this respect natural generation bears no likeness to artificial generation; because it is not necessary for the form of the house in the mind of the master builder to come from a house, although this sometimes happens, as when someone makes a plan of one house from that of another. But it is always necessary for seed to come from an animal.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 23 Exponit autem quod dixerat aliqualiter univocum, quia non oportet in omni generatione naturali esse omnimodam univocationem, sicut cum dicitur quod homo fit ex homine. Fit enim femina ex viro sicut ex agente; et mulus non fit ex mulo, sed ex equo vel asino, in quo tamen est aliqua similitudo, ut supra dixit. Et quod dixit quod a quo est sperma, oportet esse aliqualiter univocum, subiungit, intelligendum est si non fuerit orbatio, idest si non fuerit defectus naturalis virtutis in semine. Tunc enim generat aliquid quod non est simile generanti, sicut patet in monstruosis partubus.	1453. Moreover, he explains what he meant by the phrase “in a sense univocal,” because in natural generations it is not necessary that there should always be univocity in every respect, as there is when a man is said to come from a man, “for a woman comes from a man” as an agent; and a mule does not come from a mule, but from a horse or an ass, and in this case there is some likeness, as he said above (614)C 1433)Further, since he had said that there must be univocity to some degree because of that from which the seed comes, he adds that this must be understood “unless there should be some defect,” i.e., unless there is some shortcoming of natural power in the seed; for then the generator produces something which is not similar to itself, as is evident in the birth of monsters.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 24 Et sicut in illis, idest in rebus artificialibus, aliqua fiunt non solum per artem, sed a casu, quando materia potest moveri a seipsa eo motu quo movetur ab arte; quando vero non potest hoc modo moveri, tunc non potest id quod fit ab arte, ab alio fieri quam ab arte: ita et hic possunt aliqua fieri a casu et sine spermate, illa quorum materia hoc modo potest moveri a seipsa eo motu quo movet sperma, idest ad generationem animalis. Sicut patet in his quae generantur ex putrefactione: quae quomodo dicantur esse a casu, et quomodo non, superius expositum est. Illa autem quorum materia non potest moveri a se ipsa eo motu quo a spermate movetur, impossibilia sunt fieri aliter quam ex ipsis seminibus; sicut patet de homine et equo et aliis animalibus perfectis. Patet autem ex his quae hic dicuntur, quod neque omnia animalia possunt generari et ex semine et sine semine, ut Avicenna ponit, neque nulla generantur utroque modo, ut ponit Averroes.	1454. And “just as in those,” ‘ i.e., in artificial things, some come to be not only by art but also by chance, when the matter can be moved by itself by the same motion according to which it is moved by art (but when it cannot be moved in this way, then that which comes to be by art cannot be produced by anything else than art), so too in this case some things can come to be by chance and without seed, whose matter can be moved by itself in this way “by the motion by which the seed moves,” i.e., with the aim of generating an animal. This is evident in the case of those things which are generated from decay, and which are said in one sense to be a result of chance, and in another not, as was explained above (C 1403). But those things whose matter cannot be moved by itself by that very motion by which the seed is moved, are incapable of being generated in another way than from their own seed; and this is evident in the case of man and horse and other perfect animals. Now it is clear from what is said here that not all animals can be generated both from seed and without seed, as Avicenna claims, and that none can be generated in both ways, as Averroes claims.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 25 Est autem advertendum quod per ea quae hic dicuntur, possunt solvi dubitationes illorum qui ponebant formas in istis generatis, non esse a generantibus naturalibus, sed a formis quae sunt sine materia. Hoc enim maxime visi sunt ponere propter animalia generata ex putrefactione, quorum formae non videntur procedere ex aliquibus similibus secundum speciem. Ulterius autem in animalibus etiam quae generantur ex semine, virtus activa generationis, quae est in semine, non est anima, ut ex hoc possit anima sequi in animali generato. Adhuc autem procedunt, quia in inferioribus istis non inveniuntur aliqua principia activa ad generationem, nisi calidum et frigidum, quae sunt formae accidentales. Et sic non videtur, quod per ea possint produci formae substantiales. Nec videtur quod ratio philosophi quam supra posuit contra ponentes exemplaria, teneat in omnibus; ut scilicet ad similitudinem speciei in generatis, sufficiant formae generantium.	1455. Now it must be observed that from what has been said here it is possible to solve the problems facing those who claim that the forms generated in these lower bodies do not derive their being from natural generators but from forms which exist apart from matter. For they seem to maintain this position chiefly because of those living things which are generated from decay, whose forms do not seem to come from anything that is similar to them in form. And again since even in animals which are generated from seed the active power of generation, which is in the seed, is not a soul, they said that the soul of the animal which is generated cannot come from the seed. And they proceed to argue thus because they think that no active principle of generation is found in these lower bodies except heat and cold, which are accidental forms, and it does not seem that substantial forms can be generated by means of these. Nor does it seem that the argument which the Philosopher used against those who posited separate exemplars, holds in all cases, so that the forms in things causing generation are sufficient to account for the likeness of form in the things which are generated.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 26 Sed omnes hae dubitationes solvuntur per literam Aristotelis, si diligenter inspiciatur. Dicitur enim in litera quod virtus activa quae est in spermate, etsi non sit anima in actu, est tamen anima in virtute; sicuti forma domus in anima, non est domus actu, sed virtute. Unde, sicut ex forma domus, quae est in mente, potest fieri forma domus in materia, ita ex virtute seminis, potest fieri anima completa, praeter intellectum qui est ab extrinseco, ut dicitur in sextodecimo de animalibus. Et adhuc amplius, inquantum virtus quae est in semine, est ab anima perfecta, cuius virtute agit. Media enim principia, agunt in virtute primorum.	1456. But all these difficulties are solved by the text of Aristotle if it is examined carefully. For it is said in the text that the active power in the seed, even though it is not an animal actually, is nevertheless an animal virtually. Hence just as the form of a house in matter can come from the form of house in the mind, so too a complete soul can come from the power in the seed, exclusive of the intellect, which is from an extrinsic principle, as is said in Book XVI of Animals. And this is true inasmuch as the power in the seed comes from a complete soul by whose power it acts; for intermediate principles act by virtue of primary principles.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 27 In his vero quae generantur ex putrefactione, etiam est in materia aliquod principium simile virtuti activae quae est in spermate, ex quo causatur anima in talibus animalibus. Et sicuti virtus quae est in spermate, est ab anima completa animalis, et a virtute caelestis corporis, ita virtus quae est in materia putrefacta generativa animalis, est a solo corpore caelesti, in quo sunt virtute omnes formae generatae, sicut in principio activo. Qualitates etiam activae, licet sint activae, non tamen agunt solum in virtute propria, sed in virtute formarum substantialium ad quae se habent sicut instrumenta; sicut dicitur in secundo de anima, quod calor ignis est sicut instrumentum animae nutritivae.	1457. Now in the matter of those things which are generated from decay there also exists a principle which is similar to the active power in the seed, by which the soul of such animals is caused. And just as the power in the seed comes from the complete soul of the animal and from the power of a celestial body, in a similar fashion the power of generating an animal which exists in decayed matter is from a celestial body alone, in which all forms of things which are generated are present virtually as in their active principle. And even though active qualities are operative, they do not act by their own power but by virtue of their substantial forms to which they are related as instruments; as it is said in Book II of The Soul that the heat of fire is like an instrument of the nutritive soul.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 28 Deinde cum dicit non solum manifestat tertium, quod poterat ex dictis esse dubium. Probaverat enim quod formae non generantur, sed composita. Posset autem aliquis dubitare, utrum hoc verum sit solum in formis substantialibus, aut etiam in accidentalibus. Cui dubitationi hic satisfacere intendit. Unde duo facit. Primo ostendit, quod hoc est verum in utrisque; dicens quod ratio superius posita non solum ostendit speciem, idest formam non fieri de substantia, idest circa praedicamentum substantiae, sed communis est similiter de omnibus primis, idest de praedicamentis, sicut de qualitate, et quantitate, et aliis praedicamentis, fit enim, ut aerea sphaera, idest quod est compositum, sicut aerea sphaera. Sed non fit sphaera, idest quod se habet per modum formae; nec aes idest quod se habet per modum materiae. Et si fit sphaera, aliquo modo loquendi, non fit per se, sed in aere; quia semper oportet praeexistere ad generationem materiam et speciem, ut supra est ostensum. Illud quoque quod est ut aerea sphaera, scilicet compositum, fit, et in quid, hoc est in praedicamento substantiae, et in qualitate et quantitate, et similiter in aliis praedicamentis. Non enim fit quale, idest ipsa qualitas, sed hoc totum quod est quale lignum. Nec fit quantum, idest ipsa quantitas, sed lignum quantum, aut animal quantum.	1458. Now it is not only (620). Then he clears up the third problem that could arise from his remarks; for he had proved above that it is not forms which are generated but composite things, and someone could be puzzled whether this is true only of substantia I forms or also of accidental forms. So his aim here is to meet this problem, and therefore he does two things. First, he shows that this is true of both types of forms. He says that the argument given above “with reference to substance,” i.e., the category of substance, not only shows that the “specifying principle,” or form, does not come to be, but is common in a similar way “to all genera,” i.e., to the categories, such as quantity and quality and so on. “For a brazen sphere as such comes to be,” i.e., a composite such as a brazen sphere, “but not the sphere,” i.e., what has the character of a form, “or the bronze,” i.e., what has the character of matter. And if a sphere does come to be in some manner of speaking, it does not come to be in itself, but comes to be in bronze; because, in order for generation to take place the matter and the form must pre-exist, as was shown above (599-602:C 1383-88). Thus it is “a brazen sphere as such,” namely, the composite, which comes to be, “and this must also be the case with the quiddity,” i.e., the category of substance, and with quality and quantity, and also with the other categories. For “quality” does not come to be, i.e., quality itself, but this whole which is “wood of such a quality”nor does “quantity” come to be, i.e.: quantity itself, but so much wood or so large an animal.
lib. 7 l. 8 n. 29 Sed proprium ostendit quid differat inter substantiam et accidentia; dicens, quod hoc oportet accipere ut proprium substantiae per comparationem ad accidentia; quia quando substantia generatur, necesse est semper praeexistere alteram substantiam, quae facit generationem. Sicut si animal generatur, oportet quod praeexistat animal generans in his quae generantur ex semine. Sed in quali et quanto et in aliis accidentibus non oportet quod praeexistat quale aut quantum actu, sed solum in potentia, quod est materiale principium et subiectum motus. Principium enim activum substantiae non potest esse nisi substantia; sed principium activum accidentium potest esse non accidens, scilicet substantia.	1459. But from these remarks (621). He shows what the difference is between substance and accidents. He says that we must take this characteristic to be a property of substance as compared with accidents, namely, that when a substance is generated there must always exist another substance which causes its generation; for example, in the case of animals generated from seed, if an animal is generated, another animal which generates it must pre-exist. But in the case of quantity and quality and the other accidents it is not necessary that these pre-exist actually but only potentially, and this is the material principle and subject of motion. For the active principle of a substance can only be a substance; but the active principle of accidents can be something which is not an accident, namely, a substance.

Lecture 9

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 1 Postquam philosophus ostendit quid est quod quid erat esse, et quorum est, et quomodo se habet ad ea quorum est, et quod non oportet ponere quidditates rerum separatas propter generationem, hic intendit ostendere ex quibus constituitur quod quid erat esse; et dividitur in duas partes. In prima ostendit ex quibus quod quid erat esse constituitur. In secunda ostendit quomodo ex illis fiat unum, ibi, nunc autem dicamus primum. Prima autem pars dividitur in duas. In prima movet dubitationem. In secunda solvit eam, ibi, aut multipliciter dicitur pars. Prima pars dividitur in duas dubitationes, quas movet, ad idem pertinentes; secundam ibi, amplius autem si priores sunt partes. Dicit ergo primo, quod omnis definitio est quaedam ratio, idest quaedam compositio nominum per rationem ordinata. Unum enim nomen non potest esse definitio, quia definitio oportet quod distincte notificet principia rerum quae concurrunt ad essentiam rei constituendam; alias autem definitio non sufficienter manifestaret essentiam rei. Et propter hoc dicitur in primo physicorum, quod definitio dividit definitum in singulare, idest exprimit distincte singula principia definiti. Hoc autem non potest fieri nisi per plures dictiones: unde una dictio non potest esse definitio, sed potest esse manifestativa eo modo, quo nomen minus notum manifestatur per magis notum. Omnis autem ratio partes habet, quia est quaedam oratio composita, et non simplex nomen. Et ideo videtur quod sicut se habet ratio rei ad rem, ita se habent partes rationis ad partes rei. Et propter hoc dubitatur, utrum oporteat rationem partium ponere in ratione totius, aut non.	1460. Having shown what the quiddity (or essence) of a thing is, and to what things it belongs, and how it is related to the things to which it belongs, and that it is not necessary to posit separate quiddities in order to account for the generation of things, here the Philosopher’s aim is to expose the principles of which a thing’s quiddity is composed. This is divided into two parts. In the first (622:C 1460) he describes the principles of which a thing’s quiddity is composed; and in the second (640:C 1537) he explains how the thing which comes into being from these principles is one (“And now”). The first part is divided into two. In the first he raises a difficulty. In the second (624:C 1467) he solves it (“Or perhaps”). The first part is divided into two insofar as he raises two difficulties about the same point. The second (623:C 1464) is treated where he says, “Further, if parts.” He accordingly says, first (622), that every “definition is the intelligible expression of a thing,” i.e., a certain combination of words arranged by reason. For one word cannot constitute a definition, because a definition must convey a distinct knowledge of the real principles which come together to constitute a thing’s essence; otherwise a definition would not adequately expose a thing’s essence. And for this reason it is said in Book I of the Physics that a definition divides “the thing defined into its separate elements,” i.e., it expresses distinctly each of the principles of the thing defined, and this can be done only by means of several words. Hence one word cannot be a definition, but it can give us information about something in the same way that a word which is better known can give us information about a word which is less well known. Now every intelligible expression has parts, because it is a composite utterance and not a simple word. Therefore it seems that, just as the intelligible expression of a thing is related to the thing, so also are the parts of the intelligible expression related to the parts of the thing. And for this reason the problem arises whether the intelligible expression of the parts must be given in that of the whole or not.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 2 Et haec dubitatio exinde confirmatur: quia in quibusdam rationibus totorum, videntur esse rationes partium, et in quibusdam non. In definitione enim circuli non ponitur definitio incisionum circuli, idest partium ex circulo separatarum, sicut semicirculi et quartae partis circuli. Sed definitio syllabae continet in se definitionem elementorum, idest literarum. Si enim definitur syllaba, oportet quod dicatur esse aliqua vox composita ex literis. Et sic in definitione syllabae ponitur litera, et per consequens definitio eius, quia semper uti possumus definitione pro nomine. Et tamen circulus dividitur in incisiones ut in partes, sicut syllaba in elementa, idest in literas.	1461. This difficulty is confirmed by the fact that in some intelligible expressions of wholes the intelligible expressions of the parts seem to be present, and in some not; for in the definition of a circle the definition “of the segments of a circle” is not present, i.e., the definition of the parts which are separated from the circle, as the semicircle and quarter circle; but in the definition of a syllable the definition “of its elements,” i.e., its letters, is present. For if a syllable is defined it is necessary to say that it is a sound composed of letters; and so we give in the definition of a syllable the letter and, consequently, its definition, because we can always substitute the definition for the word. Yet a circle is divided into segments as its parts, just as a syllable is divided “into its elements,” or letters.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 3 Quod autem hic dicitur, quod sicut se habet definitio ad rem, ita se habet pars definitionis ad partem rei, videtur habere dubitationem. Definitio enim est idem rei. Unde videtur sequi quod partes definitionis sint idem partibus rei; quod patet esse falsum. Nam partes definitionis praedicantur de definitio, sicut de homine, animal et rationale; nulla autem pars integralis praedicatur de toto.	1462. Now his statement here that a part of the definition of a thing is related to a part of the thing as the definition is related to the thing, seems to involve a difficulty; for the definition is the same as the thing. Hence it seems to follow that the parts of the definition are the same as the parts of the thing; and this seems to be false. For the parts of the definition are predicated of the thing defined, as animal and rational are predicated of man, but no integral part is predicated of a whole.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 4 Sed dicendum est, quod partes definitionis significant partes rei, inquantum a partibus rei sumuntur partes definitionis; non ita quod partes definitionis sint partes rei. Non enim animal est pars hominis, neque rationale; sed animal sumitur ab una parte, et rationale ab alia. Animal enim est quod habet naturam sensitivam, rationale vero quod habet rationem. Natura autem sensitiva est ut materialis respectu rationis. Et inde est quod genus sumitur a materia, differentia a forma, species autem a forma et materia simul. Nam homo est, quod habet rationem in natura sensitiva.	1463. But it must be remarked that the parts of a definition signify the parts of a thing inasmuch as the parts of a definition are derived from the parts of a thing, yet not so that the parts of a definition are the parts of a thing. For neither animal nor rational are parts of man, but animal is taken from one part and rational from another; for an animal is a thing having a sentient nature, and a rational being is one having reason. Now sentient nature has the character of matter in relation to reason. And this is why genus is taken from matter and difference from form, and species from both matter and form together; for man is a thing having reason in a sentient nature.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit amplius autem ponit secundam dubitationem, quae est de prioritate partium. Omnes enim partes videntur esse priores toto, sicut simplex composito. Acutus enim angulus est pars recti anguli. Dividitur enim rectus angulus in duos vel plures angulos acutos. Et similiter digitus est pars hominis. Unde videtur, quod acutus angulus sit naturaliter prior recto, et digitus prior homine.	1464. Further, if parts (623). Then he gives the second difficulty; and this has to do with the priority of parts. For all parts seem to be prior to a whole as simple things are prior to what is composite, because an acute angle is prior to a right angle, since a right angle is divided into two or more acute angles, and in the same way a finger is prior to a man. Hence it seems that an acute angle is naturally prior to a right angle, and a finger prior to a man.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 6 Sed e contra videntur illa esse priora, scilicet rectus acuto, et homo digito. Et hoc dupliciter. Primo quidem secundum rationem. Per huic enim modum illa dicuntur esse priora, quae in eorum rationibus ponuntur, et non e contrario. Acutus enim et digitus dicuntur esse secundum rationem, idest definiuntur ex illis, scilicet homine et recto, ut dictum est. Unde videtur, quod homo et rectus angulus sint priores digito et acuto angulo.	1465. But, on the other hand, the latter seem to be prior; namely, a right angle seems to be prior to an acute angle, and a man to a finger, and this seems to be so for two reasons. First, they are prior in meaning; for in this way those things which are given in the intelligible expression of other things are said to be prior to them, and not the other way around; “For in their intelligible expression an acute angle and a finger are explained from these,” i.e., they are defined in reference to these, namely, to man and to right angle, as we have stated. Hence it seems that a man and a right angle are prior to a finger and to an acute angle.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 7 Secundo vero prout dicuntur esse aliqua priora ex eo, quod est esse sine invicem. Quae enim possunt esse sine aliis, et non e contrario, dicuntur esse priora, ut in quinto est habitum, sicut unum duobus. Homo autem potest esse sine digito. Digitus autem non potest esse sine homine, quia digitus abscisus non est digitus, ut infra dicetur. Unde videtur, quod homo sit prior digito. Et eadem ratio est de recto et acuto.	1466. Second, some things are said to he prior because they can exist without others, for those things which can exist without others, and not the reverse, are said to be prior, as is stated in Book V (465:C 950); for example, the number one can exist without the number two. Now a man can exist without a finger, but not a finger without a man, because a finger which has been severed from the body is not a finger, as is stated below (626:C 1488). Hence it seems that a man is prior to a finger; and the same reasoning applies to a right angle and to an acute angle.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit aut multipliciter solvit propositas quaestiones; et dividitur in tres partes. In prima ponit solutionem. In secunda exponit eam, ibi, dictum est igitur nunc ipsum. Tertio determinat quamdam dubitationem, quae ex praedicta solutione oriri potest, ibi, dubitatur autem merito. Ad evidentiam autem horum, quae in hoc capitulo dicuntur, sciendum est, quod circa definitiones rerum, et earum essentias duplex est opinio. Quidam enim dicunt, quod tota essentia speciei est ipsa forma, sicut quod tota essentia hominis est anima. Et propter hoc dicunt, quod eadem secundum rem est forma totius quae significatur nomine humanitatis, et forma partis, quae significatur nomine animae, sed differunt solum secundum rationem: nam forma partis dicitur secundum quod perficit materiam, et facit eam esse in actu: forma autem totius, secundum quod totum compositum per eam in specie collocatur. Et ex hoc volunt, quod nullae partes materiae ponantur in definitione indicante speciem, sed solum principia formalia speciei. Et haec opinio videtur Averrois et quorumdam sequentium eum.	1467. Or perhaps (624). Then he solves the difficulties which were raised; and this is divided into two parts. In the first he gives the solution. In the second (625:C 1482) he explains it (“The truth, then”). In the third (629:C 1501), he settles a problem that could arise from the foregoing solution (“Now the problem”). In support of what has been said in this chapter it should be noted that there are two opinions about the definitions of things and their essences. Some say that the whole essence of a species is the form; for example, the whole essence of man is his soul. And for this reason they say thaf in reality the form of the whole, which is signified by the word humanity, is the same as the form of the part, which is signified by the word soul, but that they differ only in definition; for the form of the part is so designated inasmuch as it perfects the matter and makes it to be actual, but the form of the whole is so designated inasmuch as the whole which is constituted by it is placed in its species. And for this reason they think that no material parts are given in the definition which designates the species, but only the formal principles of the species. This appears to be the opinion of Averroes and of certain of his followers.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 9 Sed videtur esse contra intentionem Aristotelis. Dicit enim superius in sexto, quod res naturales habent in sui definitione materiam sensibilem, et in hoc differunt a mathematicis. Non autem potest dici, quod substantiae naturales definiantur per id quod non sit de essentia earum. Substantiae enim non habent definitionem ex additione, sed sola accidentia, ut supra est habitum. Unde relinquitur quod materia sensibilis sit pars essentiae substantiarum naturalium, non solum quantum ad individua, sed etiam quantum ad species ipsas. Definitiones enim non dantur de individuis, sed de speciebus.	1468. But this seems to be opposed to the opinion of Aristotle; for he says above, in Book VI (535:C 1158), that natural things have sensible matter in their definition, and in this respect they differ from the objects of mathematics. Now it cannot be said that natural substances are defined by something that does not pertain to their being; for substances are not defined by addition but only accidents, as was stated above (587:C 1352). Hence it follows that sensible matter is a part of the essence of natural substances, and not only of individuals but also of species themselves; for it is not individuals that are defined but species.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 10 Unde est alia opinio, quam sequitur Avicenna; et secundum hanc forma totius, quae est ipsa quidditas speciei, differt a forma partis, sicut totum a parte: nam quidditas speciei, est composita ex materia et forma, non tamen ex hac forma et ex hac materia individua. Ex his enim componitur individuum, ut Socrates et Callias. Et haec est sententia Aristotelis in hoc capitulo, quam introducit ad excludendum opinionem Platonis de ideis. Dicebat enim species rerum naturalium esse per se existentes sine materia sensibili, quasi materia sensibilis non esset aliquo modo pars speciei. Ostenso ergo, quod materia sensibilis sit pars speciei in rebus naturalibus, ostenditur quod impossibile est esse species rerum naturalium sine materia sensibili, sicut hominem sine carnibus et ossibus, et sic de aliis.	1469. And from this arises the other opinion, which Avicenna entertains. According to this opinion the form of the whole, which is the quiddity of the species, differs from the form of the part as a whole differs from a part; for the quiddity of a species is composed of matter and form, although not of this individual matter and this individual form; for it is an individual, such as Socrates or Callias, that is composed of these. This is the view which Aristotle introduces in this chapter in order to reject Plato’s opinion about the Ideas; for Plato said that the forms of natural things have being of themselves without sensible matter, as though sensible matter were in no way a part of their species. Therefore, having shown that sensible matter is a part of the species of natural things, he now shows that there cannot be species of natural things without sensible matter; for example, the species man cannot exist without flesh and bones; and the same is true in other cases.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 11 Et hic erit tertius modus destruendi ideas. Nam primo destruxit per hoc quod quod quid erat esse non est separatum ab eo cuius est. Secundo per hoc, quod species separatae a materia non sunt causae generationis, neque per modum generantis, neque per modum exemplaris. Nunc autem tertio improbat eam per hoc quod materia sensibilis in communi est ratio speciei.	1470. Now this will constitute the third method by which the Ideas are rejected; for Aristotle rejected them, first, on the grounds that the essence of a thing does not exist apart from the thing to which it belongs; second, on the grounds that forms existing apart from matter are not causes of generation either in the manner of a generator or in that of an exemplar. And now in this third way he rejects Plato’s thesis on the grounds that the intelligible expression of a species includes common sensible matter.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 12 Dicit ergo solvendo, quod multipliciter dicitur pars, sicut in quinto est habitum. Et uno modo dicitur pars quantitativa, hoc scilicet quod mensurat totum secundum quantitatem, sicut bicubitum est pars cubiti, et binarius senarii. Sed hic modus partium praetermittatur ad praesens; non enim intendimus hic inquirere partes quantitatis; sed intendimus inquirere de partibus definitionis, quae significant substantiam rei. Unde perscrutandum est de illis partibus ex quibus substantia rei componitur.	1471. Hence in solving this difficulty (624) he says that the word part is used in several senses, as was explained in Book V (515:C 1093); for example, in one sense it means a quantitative part, i.e., one which measures a whole quantitatively, as half a cubit is part of a cubit, and the number two is part of the number six. But this type of part is at present omitted, because it is not his aim here to investigate the parts of quantity, but those of a definition, which signifies a thing’s substance. Hence it is necessary to investigate the parts of which a thing’s substance is composed.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 13 Pars autem substantiae est et materia, et forma, et ex quibus est aliquid compositum. Et quodlibet istorum trium, scilicet materia et forma et compositum ex his, est substantia, ut supra habitum est. Et ideo materia est quidem quodam modo pars alicuius, quodam modo non est, sed solum illa, ex quibus est ratio speciei, idest formae. Intelligimus enim concavitatem quasi formam, et nasum materiam, et simum quasi compositum. Et secundum hoc caro, quae est materia vel pars materiae, non est pars concavitatis, quae est forma vel species; nam caro est materia, in qua fit species. Sed tamen caro est aliqua pars simitatis, si tamen simitas intelligitur esse quoddam compositum, et non solum forma. Et similiter totius quidem statuae, quae est composita ex materia et forma, pars est aes; non autem est pars statuae secundum quod statua accipitur solum pro specie, idest pro forma.	1472. Now the parts of substance are matter and form and the composite of these; and any one of these three—matter, form and the composite—is substance, as was stated above (569)C 1276). Therefore in one sense matter is part of a thing, and in another sense it is not, but this is true “of those things of which the intelligible expression or specifying principle consists,” i.e., the form; for we understand concavity as form and nose as matter, and snub as the composite. And according to this, flesh, which is the matter or a part of the matter, is not a part of concavity, which is the form or specifying principle; for flesh is the matter in which the form is produced. Yet flesh is some part of snub, provided that snub is understood to be a composite and not merely a form. Similarly, bronze is a part of the whole statue, which is composed of matter and form; but it is not a part of’ the statue insofar as statue is taken here in the sense of the specifying principle, or form.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 14 Et ut sciatur quid est species, et quid est materia, dicendum est illud ad speciem pertinere, quod convenit unicuique inquantum speciem habet. Sicuti inquantum habet speciem statuae, convenit alicui quod sit figuratum, vel aliquid aliud huiusmodi. Sed id quod est materiale ad speciem, nunquam dicendum est secundum se de specie. Sciendum tamen est, quod nulla materia, nec communis, nec individuata secundum se se habet ad speciem prout sumitur pro forma. Sed secundum quod species sumitur pro universali, sicut hominem dicimus esse speciem, sic materia communis per se pertinet ad speciem, non autem materia individualis, in qua natura speciei accipitur.	1473. And to insure an understanding of what the specifying principle is and what the matter is, it is necessary to point out that anything which belongs to a thing inasmuch as it has a specific form belongs to its specific form; for example, inasmuch as a thing has the form of a statue, it is proper for it to have a shape or some such quality. But what is related to a form as its matter must never be predicated essentially of a form. Yet it must be noted that no kind of matter, be it common or individual, is related essentially to a species insofar as species is taken in the sense of a form, but insofar as it is taken in the sense of a universal; for example, when we say that man is a species, common matter then pertains essentially to the species, but not individual matter, in which the nature of the form is included.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 15 Et ideo dicendum est, quod definitio circuli non continet in se definitionem incisionum, idest partium ex circulo incisarum, vel semicirculi vel quartae partis circuli. Sed definitio, quae est syllabae, comprehendit in se definitionem, quae est elementorum, idest litterarum. Et huius ratio est, quia elementa, idest literae, sunt partes syllabae quantum ad speciem suam, et non secundum materiam. Ipsa enim forma syllabae in hoc consistit, quod ex literis componatur. Sed incisiones circuli sunt partes non circuli secundum speciem accepti, sed huius circuli particularis, vel horum circulorum, sicut materia in qua fit species circuli.	1474. Hence it must be said that the definition of a circle is not included in “the definition of its segments,” i.e., the parts divided from a circle, whether they be semicircles or quarter circles. But the definition of a syllable includes that “of its elements,” or letters; and the reason is that “the elements,” or letters, are parts of a syllable with reference to its form, but not to its matter; for the form of a syllable consists in being composed of letters. The divisions of a circle, however, are not parts of a circle taken formally, but of this part of a circle, or of these circles, as the matter in which the form of a circle is produced.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 16 Et hoc accipi potest ex regula superius posita. Hoc enim dixit ad speciem pertinere, quod secundum se inest unicuique speciem habenti; ad materiam vero quod accidit speciei. Per se autem inest syllabae, quod ex literis componatur. Quod autem circulus sit actu divisus in semicirculos, hoc accidit circulo, non inquantum est circulus, sed inquantum est hic circulus, cuius haec linea dividitur quae est pars eius ut materia. Unde patet, quod semicirculus est pars circuli secundum materiam individualem. Unde ista materia, quae est haec linea, est propinquior speciei quam aes, quod est materia sensibilis, quando rotunditas quae est forma circuli, fit in aere. Quia species circuli nunquam est praeter lineam, est autem praeter aes. Et sicut partes circuli, quae sunt secundum materiam individualem, non ponuntur in eius definitione, ita etiam nec omnes literae ponuntur in definitione syllabae, quae scilicet sunt partes cum materia, ut literae descriptae in cera, vel prolatae in aere. Hae enim iam sunt partes syllabae, sicut materia sensibilis.	1475. This can be understood from the rule laid down above; for he had said that what belongs essentially to each thing having a form pertains to the form, and that what belongs to the matter is accidental to the specific form; but it belongs essentially to a syllable, which is composed of letters. Now the fact that a circle may be actually divided into semicircles is accidental to a circle, not as a circle, but as this circle, of which this line, which is a material part of it, is a division. Hence it is clear that a semicircle is part of a circle in reference to individual matter. Therefore this matter, i.e., this line, is more akin to the form than bronze is, which is sensible matter, when roundness, which is the form of a circle, is produced in bronze; because the form of a circle never exists apart from a line, but it does exist apart from bronze. And just as the parts of a circle, which are accidents in reference to individual matter, are not given in its definition, in a similar fashion not all letters are given in the definition of a syllable, i.e., those which are parts along with matter, for example, those inscribed in wax or produced in the air, since these are already parts of a syllable as sensible matter.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 17 Non enim oportet, quod omnes partes in quas res aliqua resoluta corrumpitur, sint partes substantiae. Non enim si linea divisa in duo dimidia corrumpitur, aut si homo resolutus in ossa et nervos et carnes corrumpitur, propter hoc sequitur quod linea sit ex dimidiis, et homo ex carnibus et ossibus, ita quod ista sint partes substantiae eius: sed sunt ex istis partibus sicut ex materia. Unde sunt partes eius quod est simul totum, idest compositum; sed speciei, idest formae, et cuius est ratio, idest eius quod definitur, non adhuc sunt partes. Quapropter nullae tales partes ponuntur in rationibus convenienter.	1476. For not all the parts into which a thing is corrupted, when it is dissolved must be parts of its substance; because even if a line when divided is dissolved into two parts, or a man into bones, sinews, and flesh, it does not therefore follow, if a line is thus composed of halves, or a man of flesh and bones, that these are parts of their substance; but these things are constituted of these parts as their matter. Hence these are parts of “the concrete whole,” or composite, “but not of the specifying principle,” i.e., the form, or “of that to which the intelligible expression belongs,” i.e., of the thing defined. Therefore no such parts are properly given in the intelligible expressions of these things.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 18 Sciendum tamen, quod ratio talium partium in quorumdam definitionibus ponitur; scilicet in definitionibus compositorum, quorum sunt partes. In quorumdam vero definitionibus non oportet poni, scilicet in definitione formarum; nisi sint tales formae, quae sint simul sumptae cum materia. Licet enim materia non sit pars formae, tamen materia sine qua non potest concipi intellectu forma, oportet quod ponatur in definitione formae; sicut corpus organicum ponitur in definitione animae. Sicut enim accidentia non habent esse perfectum nisi secundum quod sunt in subiecto, ita nec formae nisi secundum quod sunt in propriis materiis. Et propter hoc, sicuti accidentia definiuntur ex additione subiectorum, ita et forma ex additione propriae materiae. Cum igitur in definitione formae ponitur materia, est definitio ex additione; non autem cum ponitur in definitione compositi.	1477. Still it must be noted that in the definitions of some things the intelligible expressions of such parts are included, i.e., in the definitions of composite things, of which they are the parts. But in the definitions of other things this is not necessary, i.e., in the definitions of forms, unless such forms are taken along with matter. For even though matter is not part of a form, it must be given in the definition of a form, since the mind cannot conceive of a form without conceiving matter; for example, organic body is included in the definition of soul. For just as accidents have complete being only insofar as they belong to a subject, in a similar fashion forms have complete being only insofar as they belong to their proper matters. And for this reason, just as accidents are defined by adding their subjects, so too a form is defined by adding its proper matter. Hence when matter is included in the definition of a form, there is definition by addition, but not when it is included in the definition of a composite.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 19 Vel hoc quod dicit si non fuerint simul sumpta, est exemplificatio eius quod dixerat horum non oportet inesse. In illis enim partes materiae non oportet in definitionibus poni, quae scilicet non sumuntur simul cum materia, vel quae non significant aliquid compositum ex materia et forma. Et hoc patet: quia propter hoc quod in quorumdam rationibus non ponitur materia, in quorumdam vero ponitur, contingit quod quaedam sint sicut ex principiis ex his in quae corrumpitur, idest ex partibus, in quas aliquid per corruptionem resolvitur. Et haec sunt illa, in quorum definitionibus ponuntur materiae. Quaedam vero non sunt ex praedictis partibus materialibus sicut ex principiis, sicut illa in quorum definitionibus non ponitur materia.	1478. Or his statement “unless taken together they constitute the intelligible expression of the thing” exemplifies his remark that “in other cases it need not include them.” For in such cases it is not necessary that the material parts should be included in the definition, i.e., in the case of those things which are not taken together with matter, or which do not signify something composed of matter and form. This is evident; for since matter is not included in the intelligible expression of some things but is included in that of others, there can be some things which “are composed of these as the principles into which they are dissolved,” i.e., the parts into which things are dissolved by corruption. And these are the things whose definitions include matter. But there are some things which are not composed of the foregoing material parts as principles, as those in whose definitions matter is not included.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 20 Et quia in istorum definitionibus ponitur materia, quae sunt simul accepta cum materia, non autem in aliis, ideo quaecumque sunt simul sumpta species cum materia, idest quaecumque significant aliquid compositum ex materia et forma, ut simum aut aereus circulus, huiusmodi corrumpuntur in partes materiales, et pars istorum est materia. Illa vero, quae non concipiuntur in intellectu cum materia, sed sunt omnino sine materia, sicut illa quae pertinent solum ad rationem speciei et formae, ista vel non corrumpuntur omnino, vel non corrumpuntur taliter, idest per resolutionem in aliquas partes materiales. Quaedam enim formae sunt quae nullo modo corrumpuntur, sicut substantiae intellectuales per se existentes. Quaedam vero formae non per se existentes, corrumpuntur per accidens, corrupto subiecto.	1479. And since matter is included in the definitions of those things which are taken together with matter but not in those of others, “hence all things which are matter and form taken together.” i.e., all things which signify something composed of matter and form, such as snub or brazen circle, such things are corrupted into material parts, and one of these is matter. But those things which are not conceived by the mind with matter but lack matter altogether, as those which belong to the notion of the species or form alone, these are not corrupted “in such a way as this,” i.e., by being dissolved into certain material parts. For some forms are corrupted in no way, as the intellectual substances, which exist of themselves, whereas others which do not exist of themselves are corrupted accidentally when their subject is corrupted.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 21 Quare patet, quod huiusmodi partes materiales sunt principia et partes eorum quae sunt sub ipsis, idest quae ab eis dependent, sicut dependet totum ex partibus ex quibus componitur; non autem sunt partes nec principia speciei. Et propter hoc, compositum, ut statua lutea, corrumpitur resoluta in materiam, idest in lutum, et sphaera aerea, in aes, et Callias, qui est homo particularis, in carnem et ossa. Et similiter circulus particularis constans ex his lineis divisis, corrumpitur in incisiones. Sicut enim Callias est aliquis homo qui concipitur cum materia individuali, ita circulus, cuius sunt partes istae incisiones, est aliquis circulus particularis, qui concipitur cum individuali materia. Hoc tamen differt quia singulares homines habent nomen proprium. Unde nomen speciei non aequivocatur ad individua: sed nomen circuli aequivoce dicitur de circulo qui simpliciter, idest universaliter dicitur, et de singulis particularibus circulis. Et hoc ideo quia singulis particularibus circulis non sunt nomina posita, sed nomina posita sunt singularium hominum.	1480. Hence it is evident that material parts of this kind are the principles and parts of those things “which come under these,” i.e., which depend on these, as a whole depends on its component parts; yet they are neither parts nor principles of the form. And for this reason when a composite, such as a statue made of clay, is corrupted, “it is dissolved into its matter,” i.e., into clay, as a brazen sphere is dissolved into bronze, and as Callias, who is a particular man, is dissolved into flesh and bones. Similarly a particular circle depending on these divided lines is corrupted into its segments; for just as Callias is a man conceived with individual matter, so too a circle whose parts are these particular segments is a particular circle conceived with individual matter. Yet there is this difference, that singular men have a proper name, and therefore the name of the species is not applied equivocally to the individual, but the term circle is applied equivocally to the circle “which is called such in an unqualified sense,” i.e., in a universal sense, and to singular particular circles. And the reason is that names are not given to several particular circles but they are given to particular men.
lib. 7 l. 9 n. 22 Attendendum est autem, quod nomen speciei non aequivoce praedicatur de individuo, secundum quod praedicat de eo communem naturam speciei: praedicaretur autem aequivoce de eo, si praedicaretur inquantum significaret hoc individuum prout huiusmodi. Si enim dicam, Socrates est homo, non aequivocatur nomen hominis. Sed si hoc nomen homo, imponatur alicui singulari homini ut proprium nomen, aequivoce significabit speciem, et hoc individuum. Et similiter de nomine circuli, quod aequivoce significat speciem et hunc circulum.	1481. Moreover it must be noted that the name of the species is not predicated of the individual in the sense that it refers the common nature of the species to it, but it is predicated of it equivocally, if it is predicated in such a way that it signifies this individual as such; for if I say “Socrates is a man,” the word man is not used equivocally. But if this word man is imposed as a proper name on some individual man, it will signify both the species and this individual equivocally. It is similar in the case of the word circle, which signifies the species and this particular circle equivocally.

Lecture 10

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 1 Quia solutio superius posita non erat usquequaque manifesta, nondum enim ostenderat quomodo partes sunt priores et posteriores, nec iterum distinxerat compositum universale a particulari, nec etiam speciem a forma: ideo hic solutionem superius positam explanat. Dividitur autem in partes duas. In prima explanat solutionem superius positam. In secunda docet qualiter sit ad quaestionem applicanda, ibi, interrogationi vero obviare. Prima dividitur in duas. Primo solvit quaestionem quantum ad hoc, quod quaesitum fuit de prioritate partium. Secundo quantum ad hoc, quod quaesitum fuit, utrum partes definiti intrent definitionem, ibi, sed rationis partes. Prima dividitur in duas. Primo ostendit quomodo partes sunt priores toto. Secundo manifestat per exemplum, ibi, quoniam vero. Dicit ergo primo, quod id quod superius est dictum in solutione proposita, verum quidem est in se, tamen repetendum est ut amplius fiat manifestum, quantum ad hoc quod dictum est. Oportet enim, quod omnes partes rationis, et in quas ratio dividitur, sint priores definito, vel omnes, vel quaedam. Et hoc dicitur propter hoc, quod partes formae quandoque non sunt de necessitate speciei, sed de perfectione; sicut visus et auditus, quae sunt partes animae sensibilis, non sunt de integritate vel necessitate animalis. Potest enim esse animal sine his sensibus. Sunt tamen de perfectione animalis, quia animal perfectum hos etiam sensus habet. Et sic universaliter est verum, quod illae partes quae ponuntur in definitione alicuius sunt universaliter priores eo.	1482. Since the foregoing solution was not always clear, for he had not yet shown how parts are prior, and subsequent or even distinguished the universal composite from the particular or the species from the form, he therefore now explains the foregoing solution. This is divided into two parts. In the first (625)C 1482) he explains the foregoing solution. In the second (628:C 1498) he tells us how the solution should be applied to this question (“But when anyone”). The first part is divided into two sections. First, he answers the question about the priority of parts; and second (627:C 1492), the question whether the parts of the thing defined enter into its definition (“But only”). The first part is again divided into two sections. First, he shows how parts are prior to wholes. Second (626:C 1484), he clarifies this by an example (“And since the soul”). He accordingly says, first (625), that while the explanation given above in the solution advanced is true in itself, it is still necessary to go over it again so that it may become more evident in reference to the present discussion. For all parts of a thing’s intelligible expression, i.e., those into which the intelligible expression is divided, must be prior to the thing defined, either all or some of them. This is said because sometimes the parts of the form are not necessarily parts of the species, but relate to the perfection of a thing; for example, sight and hearing, which are parts of the sentient soul, are not integral or necessary parts of an animal, inasmuch as there can exist an animal which does not have these senses. They nevertheless belong to the perfection of animal, because perfect animals do have these senses. Thus it is universally true that those parts which are given in the definition of anything are universally prior to it.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 2 Sed acutus angulus, quamvis sit pars recti, non tamen ponitur in definitione eius, sed e converso; non enim ratio recti anguli resolvitur in definitionem acuti, sed e converso. Qui enim definit acutum, utitur recto definiendo. Angulus enim acutus est angulus minor recto. Et similiter est de circulo et semicirculo, qui definitur per circulum. Est enim media pars circuli. Similiter est de digito et homine, qui ponitur in definitione digiti: definitur enim digitus, quod est talis pars hominis. Dictum est enim supra, quod partes formae sunt partes rationis, non autem partes materiae. Si igitur solae partes rationis sunt priores, non autem materiae, sequitur quod quaecumque sint partes definiti, sicut materia, in quam scilicet resolvitur definitum ut compositum in materialia principia, sunt posteriora. Quaecumque vero sunt partes rationis et substantiae quae est secundum rationem, idest partes formae secundum quam sumitur ratio rei, sunt priora toto, aut omnia, aut quaedam, ratione superius dicta.	1483. But even though an acute angle is part of a right angle, it is still not given in its definition; but the opposite is true, for the intelligible expression of a right angle is not dissolved into the definition of an acute angle, but the reverse. For he who defines an acute angle uses right angle in its definition, because an acute angle is less than a right angle. The same is true of a circle and a semicircle, which is defined by means of a circle, because it is a half of a circle. And the same thing holds true of a finger and a man, who is given in the definition of a finger; for a finger is defined as such and such a part of man. For it was stated above that the parts of the form are parts of the intelligible expression but not those of the matter. Therefore, if only the parts of the intelligible expression are prior and not those of the matter, it follows that all things which are material parts of the thing defined, into which it is dissolved in the same way that a composite is dissolved into its material principles, are subsequent. “But all things which are parts of the intelligible expression and of the substance according to its intelligible expression,” i.e., the parts of the form according to which the intelligible expression of the thing is understood, are prior to the whole, either all or some of them, according to the argument given above.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit quoniam vero exponit quod dixerat per exempla; dicens, quod anima animalium cum sit substantia animati secundum rationem, idest forma animati, a qua animatum habet propriam rationem, est substantia, idest forma et species, et quod quid erat esse tali corpori, scilicet organico. Corpus enim organicum non potest definiri nisi per animam. Et secundum hoc anima dicitur quod quid erat esse tali corpori.	1484. And since (626). Here he explains what he has said, by using an example. He says that since the soul of living things is their substance according to its intelligible expression, i.e., the form from which they derive their intelligible expression, then the soul of an animal “is the substance,” i.e., the form or specifying principle or essence “of such a body,” namely, of an organic body; for an organic body can be defined only by means of a soul. And from this point of view a soul is said to be the essence of such a body.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 4 Et quod hoc sit verum, patet per hoc quod si aliquis bene definiat cuiuscumque animalis partem, non potest eam bene definire nisi per propriam operationem. Sicut si dicatur quod oculus est pars animalis per quam videt. Ipsa autem operatio partium non existit sine sensu vel motu vel aliis operationibus partium animae. Et sic oportet quod definiens aliquam partem corporis, utatur anima.	1485. The truth of this is shown by the fact that, if anyone properly defines a part of any animal at all, he can define it properly only by means of its proper operation, as, for example, if someone were to say that an eye is that part of an animal by which it sees. But the operation itself of the parts does not exist without sensation or motion or the other operations of the soul’s parts; and thus one who defines some part of the body must use the soul.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 5 Et quia ita est, oportet quod partes eius, scilicet animae, sint priores - vel omnes, sicut in perfectis animalibus, vel quaedam, sicut in imperfectis animalibus, simul toto, idest eo quod est compositum ex anima et corpore. Et similiter est secundum unumquodque aliud, quia semper oportet quod partes formales sint priores quolibet composito.	1486. And since this is so, its parts, i.e., those of the soul, must be prior (either all of them, as happens in the case of perfect animals, or some of them, as happens in the case of imperfect animals) “to the concrete whole,” i.e., to the composite of body and soul. The same thing is true of every other individual thing, because the formal parts must always be prior to any composite.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 6 Sed corpus et partes corporis sunt posteriores hac substantia, scilicet forma, quae est anima, cum oporteat animam in eius definitione poni, ut iam dictum est. Et id quod dividitur in partes corporis, ut in materiam, non est ipsa substantia, idest forma, sed simul totum, idest compositum. Patet igitur quod partes corporis sunt priores simul toto, idest composito quodammodo, et quodammodo non.	1487. But the body and its parts are subsequent “to this substance,” i.e., to the form, which is the soul, since the soul must be given in the definition of the body, as has already been stated (C 1485); and what is divided into the parts of the body as its matter is not “the substance itself,” but “the concrete whole,” i.e., the composite. It is clear, then, that in a sense the parts of the body are prior to “the concrete whole,” i.e., to the composite, and in a sense they are not.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 7 Sunt quidem priores sicut simplex composito, inquantum animal compositum ex eis constituitur. Sunt autem non priores secundum modum quo dicitur esse prius id quod potest esse sine alio; non enim partes corporis possunt esse separatae ab animali; non enim digitus quocumque modo se habens est digitus. Ille enim qui est decisus, vel mortuus, non dicitur digitus nisi aequivoce, sicut digitus sculptus vel depictus. Sed secundum hanc considerationem huiusmodi partes sunt posteriores composito animali, quia animal sine digito esse potest.	1488. In fact they are prior in the way in which the simple is prior to the complex, inasmuch as the composite animal is constituted of them. However, they are not prior in the sense in which prior means something that can exist without something else; for the parts of the body cannot exist apart from the animal. Thus a finger is not a finger under all conditions, because one that is severed or dead is called such only equivocally, for example, the finger of a statue or that in a painting. But from this point of view parts of this kind are subsequent to the composite animal, because an animal can exist without a finger.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 8 Sed quaedam partes sunt, quae licet non sint priores toto animali hoc modo prioritatis, quia non possunt esse sine eo, sunt tamen secundum hanc considerationem simul; quia sicut ipsae partes non possunt esse sine integro animali, ita nec integrum animal sine eis. Huiusmodi autem sunt partes principales corporis, in quibus primo consistit forma, scilicet anima; scilicet cor, vel cerebrum. Nec ad propositum differt quicquid tale sit.	1489. But there are certain parts which, even though they are not prior to the whole animal with this sort of priority, are nevertheless simultaneous with the whole, from this point of view; because, just as the parts themselves cannot exist without the entire body, neither can the entire animal exist without them. And parts of this kind are the principal parts of the body in which “the form,” i.e., the soul, first exists, namely, the heart or the brain. Nor does it make any difference to his thesis what things may be such.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 9 Sciendum tamen, quod hoc compositum, quod est animal vel homo, potest dupliciter sumi: vel sicut universale, vel sicut singulare. Sicut universale quidem, sicut homo et animal. Sicut singulare, ut Socrates et Callias. Et ideo dicit, quod homo, et equus et quae ita sunt in singularibus, sed universaliter dicta, sicut homo et equus non sunt substantia, idest non sunt solum forma, sed sunt simul totum quoddam compositum ex determinata materia et determinata forma; non quidem ut singulariter, sed universaliter. Homo enim dicit aliquid compositum ex anima et corpore, non autem ex hac anima et hoc corpore. Sed singulare dicit aliquid compositum ex ultima materia, idest materia individuali. Est enim Socrates aliquid compositum ex hac anima et hoc corpore. Et similiter est in aliis singularibus.	1490. Yet it must be borne in mind that this composite, animal or man, can be taken in two ways: either as a universal or as a singular. An example of a universal composite would be animal and man, and of a singular composite, Socrates and Callias. Hence he says that man and horse and those predicates which are used in this way in reference to singular things but are taken universally, as man and horse, “are not substance,” i.e., they are not just form alone, but are concrete wholes composed of a determinate matter and a determinate form (i.e., insofar as these are taken not individually but universally). For man means something composed of body and soul, but not of this body and this soul, whereas a singular man means something composed of “ultimate matter,” i.e., individual matter: for Socrates is something composed of this body and this soul, and the same is true of other singular things.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 10 Sic igitur patet quod materia est pars speciei. Speciem autem hic intelligimus non formam tantum, sed quod quid erat esse. Et patet etiam quod materia est pars eius totius, quod est ex specie et materia, idest singularis, quod significat naturam speciei in hac materia determinata. Est enim materia pars compositi. Compositum autem est tam universale quam singulare.	1491. Hence it is clear that matter is a part of the species. But by species here we mean not just the form but the essence of the thing. And it is also clear that matter is a part of this whole which “is composed of species and matter,” i.e., the singular, which signifies the nature of the species in this determinate matter. For matter is part of a composite, and a composite is both universal and singular.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit sed rationis ostendit quae partes debeant poni in definitione. Cum enim ostensum sit quae partes sunt speciei et quae partes individui, quia materia communiter sumpta est pars speciei, haec autem materia determinata est pars individui: manifestum est, quod solum illae partes sunt partes rationis, quae sunt partes speciei; non autem quae sunt partes individui. In definitione enim hominis ponitur caro et os, sed non haec caro et hoc os. Et hoc ideo, quia ratio definitiva non assignatur nisi universaliter.	1492. But only the parts (627). Here he explains what parts should be given in a definition. For since it was shown (622:C 1463) which parts are parts of the species as well as which are parts of the individual (because matter taken commonly is part of the species, whereas this definite matter is part of the individual), it is evident that only those parts which are parts of the species are parts of the intelligible expression, and not those which are parts of the individual; for flesh and bones, and not this flesh and these bones, are given in the definition of man; and the reason is that the definitive expression is applied only universally.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 12 Cum enim quod quid erat esse sit idem cum eo cuius est, ut supra ostensum est, illius tantum erit definitio, quae est ratio significans quod quid erat esse, quod est idem cum suo quod quid erat esse. Huiusmodi autem sunt universalia et non singularia. Circulus enim, et id quod est circulo esse, sunt idem; et similiter anima, et id quod est animae esse. Sed ipsorum, quae sunt composita ex specie et materia individuali, sicut circuli huius, aut alicuius aliorum singularium: horum non est definitio.	1493. For since the essence of a thing is the same as the thing of which it is the essence, as was shown above (591)C 1362), there will be a definition which is the intelligible expression or essence only of that which is the same as its own essence. Now things of this kind are universal and not singular; for a circle and the being of a circle are the same, and it is similar in the case of a soul and the being of a soul. But there is no definition of those things which are composed of a form and individual matter, as of this circle or of any other singular thing.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 13 Nec differt utrum singularia sint sensibilia vel intelligibilia. Singularia quidem sensibilia sunt sicut circuli aerei et lignei. Intelligibilia singularia sunt sicut circuli mathematici. Quod autem in mathematicis considerentur aliqua singularia, ex hoc patet, quia considerantur ibi plura unius speciei, sicut plures lineae aequales, et plures figurae similes. Dicuntur autem intelligibilia, huiusmodi singularia, secundum quod absque sensu comprehenduntur per solam phantasiam, quae quandoque intellectus vocatur secundum illud in tertio de anima: intellectus passivus corruptibilis est.	1494. Nor does it make any difference whether the singulars are sensible or intelligible; sensible singulars being such things as brazen and wooden circles, and intelligible singulars being such as mathematical circles. Now that some singulars are considered among the objects of mathematics is clear from the fact that in this order many things of the same species are observed~ as many equal lines and many similar figures. And such singulars are said to be intelligible insofar as they are grasped without the senses by means of imagination alone, which is sometimes referred to as an intellect, according to the statement in Book III of The Soul: “The passive intellect is corruptible.”
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 14 Ideo autem singularium circulorum non est definitio, quia illa, quorum est definitio, cognoscuntur per suam definitionem; sed singularia non cognoscuntur nisi dum sunt sub sensu vel imaginatione, quae hic intelligentia dicitur, quia res considerat sine sensu, sicut intellectus. Sed huiusmodi singulares circuli abeuntes ab actu, idest recedentes ab actuali inspectione sensus, quantum ad sensibiles, aut imaginationis, quantum ad mathematicos, non est manifestum, utrum sint inquantum sunt singulares; sed tamen semper dicuntur et cognoscuntur per rationem universalis. Cognoscuntur enim hi circuli sensibiles, etiam quando non actu videntur, inquantum sunt circuli, non inquantum sunt hi circuli.	1495. Therefore there is no definition of singular circles, because those things of which there is definition are known by their own definition. But singulars are known only as long as they come under the senses or imagination, which is called an intellect here because it considers things without the senses just as the intellect does. But “when” singular circles of this kind “are removed from a state of actuality,” i.e., when they are no longer considered by the senses (in reference to sensible circles) and by imagination (in reference to mathematical circles), it is not evident whether they exist as singulars; yet they are always referred to and known by their universal formula. For even when they are not actually being perceived, these sensible circles are known inasmuch as they are circles, but not inasmuch as they are these circles.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 15 Ratio autem huius est, quia materia, quae principium est individuationis, est secundum se ignota, et non cognoscitur nisi per formam, a qua sumitur ratio universalis. Et ideo singularia non cognoscuntur in sua absentia nisi per universalia. Materia autem non solum est principium individuationis in singularibus sensibilibus, sed etiam in mathematicis. Materia enim alia est sensibilis, alia intelligibilis. Sensibilis quidem ut aes et lignum, vel etiam quaelibet materia mobilis, ut ignis et aqua, et huiusmodi omnia; et a tali materia individuantur singularia sensibilia. Intelligibilis vero materia est, quae est in sensibilibus, non inquantum sunt sensibilia, sicut mathematica sunt. Sicut enim forma hominis est in tali materia, quae est corpus organicum, ita forma circuli vel trianguli est in hac materia quae est continuum vel superficies vel corpus.	1496. The reason for this is that matter, which is the principle of individuation, is unknowable in itself and is known only by means of the form, from which the universal formula is derived. Therefore when singular things are absent, they are known only by their universals. Now matter is the principle of individuation not only in singular things but also in the objects of mathematics; for there are two kinds of matter, one sensible and the other intelligible. And by sensible matter is meant such things as bronze and wood, or any changeable matter, such as fire and water and all things of this sort; and singular sensible things are individuated by such matter. But by intelligible matter is meant what exists in things which are sensible but are not viewed as sensible, as the objects of mathematics. For just as the form of man exists in such and such Matter, which is an organic body, in a similar way the form of a circle or of a triangle exists in this matter, which is a continuum, whether surface or solid.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 16 Concludit igitur quod dictum est, quomodo se habet de toto et parte, et de priori et de posteriori, idest cuius pars sit pars, et quomodo sit prior et quomodo posterior. Partes enim materiae individuae sunt partes compositi singularis, non autem speciei, nec formae. Partes autem materiae universalis, sunt partes speciei, sed non formae. Et quia universale definitur et non singulare, ideo partes materiae individualis non ponuntur in definitione, sed solum partes materiae communis, simul cum forma vel partibus formae.	1497. He therefore concludes that he has explained the relationship of whole and part, and the sense in which there is priority and posteriority, i.e., how a part is a part of the whole, and how it is prior and how subsequent. For the parts of individual matter are parts of the singular composite but not of the species or form, whereas the parts of universal matter are parts of the species but not of the form. And since universals and not singulars are defined, the parts of individual matter are therefore not given in a thing’s definition, but only the parts of common matter together with the form or parts of the form.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 17 Deinde cum dicit interrogationi vero adaptat solutionem propositam quaestioni prius notae; dicens, quod necesse est obviare per praedictam solutionem interrogationi quando quis interrogat, utrum rectus angulus et circulus et animal sint priora partibus; aut e converso partes in quas huiusmodi dividuntur, et ex quibus componuntur, sunt priores. Dicendum quod non est simpliciter respondendum. Est enim duplex opinio. Quidam enim dicunt quod idem est tota species et forma, sicut anima quod homo. Quidam autem quod non, quia homo est compositum ex anima et corpore. Et secundum utramque opinionem est diversimode respondendum.	1498. But when anyone (628). He now adapts the proposed solution to the question previously noted. He says that when someone asks whether a right angle and a circle and an animal are prior to their parts, or the reverse: whether the parts into which these things are divided and of which they are composed are prior, we must meet this question by using the foregoing solution. Now in reply to this an un qualified answer cannot be given; for there are two opinions on this point. Some say that the whole species is the same as the form so that man is the same as his soul, and others say that they are not, but that man is a composite of body and soul. And it is necessary to answer each opinion in a different way.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 18 Si enim idem est anima quod animal vel animatum, aut similiter unumquodque est idem cum forma uniuscuiusque, ut circulus idem cum forma circuli, et rectus angulus idem cum forma recti, dicendum est determinando quid sit posterius, et quo sit posterius; quia secundum hoc partes materiae sunt posteriores his, quae sunt in ratione, et sunt etiam posteriores aliquo recto, scilicet recto communi, sed sunt priores recto singulari. Hic enim rectus qui est aereus, est cum materia sensibili. Et hic rectus qui est cum lineis singularibus, est cum materia intelligibili. Sed ille rectus qui est sine materia, idest communis, erit posterior partibus formae quae sunt in ratione, sed erit prior partibus materiae quae sunt partes singularium. Nec erit secundum hanc opinionem distinguere inter materiam communem et individualem. Sed tamen simpliciter non erit respondendum, quia erit distinguendum inter partes materiae et partes formae.	1499. For if a soul is the same as an animal or a living thing, or in a similar way, if each thing is the same as its form (for example, a circle is the same as the form of a circle, and a right angle the same as the form of a right angle), we must answer by establishing which is subsequent and in what way it is subsequent; because from this point of view the parts of the matter are subsequent to those in the intelligible expression, and to those “in some right angle,” i.e., in the universal right angle, but they are prior to those in a particular right angle. For this right angle which is bronze has sensible matter, and this right angle which is contained in singular lines has intelligible matter; but that right angle which is “immaterial,” i.e., common, will be subsequent to the parts of the form present in the intelligible expression, and it will be prior to the parts of the matter which are the parts of singular things. And according to this opinion it will not be possible to distinguish between common matter and individual matter. Yet an unqualified answer must not be given to this question, because it will be necessary to distinguish between the parts of the matter and those of the form.
lib. 7 l. 10 n. 19 Si autem alia opinio sit vera, scilicet quod anima sit aliud quam animal, sic erit dicendum et non dicendum partes esse priores toto, sicut determinatum est prius. Secundum enim hanc opinionem docuit superius distinguere non solum inter materiam et formam, sed inter materiam communem quae est pars speciei, et inter materiam individualem quae est pars individui.	1500. If, however, the other opinion is true, namely, that the soul is different from the animal, it will be necessary both to say and not to say that the parts are prior to the whole, as was previously established; because with regard to this opinion he instructed us above to distinguish not only between matter and form, but also between common matter, which is part of the species, and individual matter, which is part of the individual.

Lecture 11

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 1 In ista parte determinat quamdam dubitationem, quae poterat oriri ex solutione praemissae quaestionis. Distinxerat enim, solvendo praemissam quaestionem, inter partes speciei, et partes individui, quod est compositum ex specie et ex materia. Et ideo hic quaerit, quae sint partes speciei, et quae non. Dividitur ergo ista pars in partes tres. In prima determinat hanc dubitationem. In secunda ostendit quid restat dicendum, ibi, utrum autem praeter materiam. Tertio recapitulat ea quae dicta sunt, ibi, quid quidem igitur est quod quid erat. Circa primum tria facit. Primo movet dubitationem. Secundo solvit, ibi, quaecumque quidem igitur et cetera. Tertio solutionem manifestando colligit, ibi, palam autem et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod cum dictum sit quod partes speciei ponuntur in definitionibus, non autem partes compositi ex specie et materia, merito dubitatur quae sunt partes speciei, et quae non sunt partes speciei sed simul sumpti, idest individui, in quo simul sumitur natura speciei cum materia ipsa individuante.	1501. In this part he solves a problem which could arise from the answer to the foregoing question; for in answering that question he had distinguished the parts of the species from those of the individual thing, which is composed of species and matter. Hence he now inquires as to what parts are parts of the species and what are not. This part is therefore divided into three sections. In the first (629)C 1501) he solves the problem. In the second (638:C 1525) he shows what remains to be discussed (“But whether”). In the third (639:C 1529) he summarizes the points discussed (“We have stated”). He accordingly says, first (629), that since it has been stated that the parts of the species are given in definitions, but not the parts of the thing composed of matter and species, there is a real problem as to what parts are parts of the species, and what are not parts of the species “but of the concrete whole,” i.e., the individual thing, in which the nature of the species is taken along with individuating matter.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 2 Si enim hoc non sit manifestum, non poterimus aliquid recte definire, quia definitio nunquam est rei singularis, sed solum universalis, ut supra dictum est. Et inter universalia proprie est species, quae constituitur ex genere et differentia, ex quibus omnis definitio constat. Genus enim non definitur, nisi etiam sit species. Unde patet, quod nisi sciatur quae pars sit sicut materia, et quae non est sicut materia sed sicut ad speciem ipsam pertinens, non erit manifestum qualis debeat esse definitio rei assignanda, cum non assignetur nisi speciei, et oporteat in definitione speciei partes speciei ponere, et non partes quae sunt posteriores specie.	1502. For if this is not evident, we will be unable to define anything correctly, because definition never pertains to the singular but only to the universal, as was stated above (627)C 149397). And among universals the species is properly included, and this is constituted of genus and difference, of which every definition is composed; for a genus is defined only if there is also a species. Hence it is clear that unless we know what part has the nature of matter, and what part does not but pertains to the species itself, it will not be evident as to what definition should be assigned to a thing, since it is assigned only to the species. And in the definition of the species it is necessary to give the parts of the species and not those which are subsequent to it.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit quaecumque quidem solvit propositam dubitationem. Et circa haec tria facit. Primo ponit solutionem secundum opinionem Platonicorum. Secundo improbat eam, ibi, accidit itaque unam. Tertio solvit secundum suam sententiam, ibi, quare omnia reducere. Circa primum duo facit. Primo solvit propositam dubitationem quantum ad sensibilia. Secundo quantum ad mathematica, ibi, quoniam autem. Primo ergo dicit, quod in quibusdam manifestum est, quod materia non sit pars speciei, sicut in omnibus illis quae manifeste apparent fieri in materiis diversis secundum speciem, sicut circulus invenitur fieri in aere et in lapide et in ligno. Unde manifestum est quod neque aes neque lapis neque lignum, est aliquid de substantia circuli, quasi pars existat huius speciei, quae est circulus. Est autem hoc manifestum propter hoc quod circulus a quolibet istorum separatur: nihil autem potest separari ab eo quod est pars speciei.	1503. Therefore in the case (630). He solves the proposed problem; and in regard to this he does three things. First (630:C 1503), he gives the solution according to the opinion of the Platonists. Second (632:C 1512), he rejects it (“It follows”). Third (635:C 196), he solves it by giving his own opinion (“Hence to reduce”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he solves the proposed difficulty in reference to sensible things; and second (631:C 1507), in reference to the objects of mathematics (“Now since this seems”). He says, first (630), then, that In the case of some things it is evident that matter is not part of the species, for example, all those which appear to be produced in specifically different matters, as a circle is found to be produced in bronze, in stone and in wood. Hence it is evident that neither bronze nor stone nor wood is part of the substance of circle, as though it were a part of the form, circle. And this is evident by reason of the fact that circle may be separated from each of these matters, and nothing can be separated from something which is a part of its form.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 4 Sed quaedam sunt, quorum species non inveniuntur fieri in diversis materiis secundum speciem, sed semper in eisdem. Sicut species hominis, quantum ad hoc quod visibiliter apparet, non invenitur nisi in carnibus et ossibus. Nihil tamen prohibet, ut etiam ista, quae non videntur a propria materia separata, similiter se habeant ad suas materias sicut illa quae esse possunt in diversis materiis, et ab unaquaque earum separari.	1504. But there are some things whose species do not occur as produced in specifically different matters, but always in the same matters; for example, the species of man insofar as it is apparent to the sense of sight is found only in flesh and bones. However, nothing prevents those things which do not seem to be separate from their proper matter from also being related in the same way to their own matters as those things which can exist in different matters and be separated from each of them.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 5 Si enim poneremus quod non viderentur sensibiliter aliqui circuli nisi ex aere, nihilominus tamen sic esset pars speciei circuli aes. Et licet tunc non separaretur circulus actu ab aere, separaretur tamen mente, quia species circuli posset intelligi sine aere, ex quo aes non esset pars speciei circuli, licet difficile sit mente auferre et separare abinvicem quae actu non separantur. Non enim est hoc nisi illorum qui per intellectum supra sensibilia elevari possunt.	1505. For if we were to maintain that some circles would not be apparent to the senses unless they were composed of bronze, none the less bronze would not be in this way a part of the form of circle. And even though circle would not then be actually separate from bronze, it would still be separable in thought, since the species of circle can be understood without bronze, since bronze is not part of the form of circle, although it is difficult to mentally separate and isolate from each other those things which are not actually separate; for this belongs only to those things which can be raised above the sensible order by the intellect.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 6 Et similiter si hominis species semper apparet in carnibus et ossibus et talibus partibus, oportet quaerere, utrum istae partes sint speciei humanae et rationis, idest definitionis hominis; aut non sunt partes speciei, sed solum materia speciei, sicut aes circuli. Sed quia talis species non fit in aliis partibus materialibus quam in istis, ideo de facili non possumus separare hominem per intellectum a carnibus et ossibus. Videtur enim eadem ratio esse hic et in circulo, si omnes circuli essent aerei.	1506. And similarly, if the species of man always appears in flesh and bones and such parts, it is necessary to ask whether these are parts of man’s species “and of the intelligible expression,” or definition, of man; or whether they are not the species’ parts, but only the matter of the species, as bronze is the matter of a circle. But because such a species does not arise in other material parts than these, therefore we cannot by means of our intellect easily separate man from flesh and bones; for the reasoning seems to be the same in this case as in that of a circle, if all circles were of bronze.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit quoniam autem procedit ulterius prosequendo opinionem praetactam quantum ad mathematica; dicens, quod quia videtur hoc contingere in aliquibus, scilicet quod materia non sit pars speciei, quamvis species non inveniatur nisi in illa materia, sed non est manifestum quando et in quibus hoc contingat vel non contingat, ideo aliqui circa hoc dubitant non solum in naturalibus, sed etiam in mathematicis, ut in circulo et triangulo.	1507. Now since this (631). Then he continues his discussion by examining the opinion just touched on insofar as it relates to the objects of mathematics, He says that in some cases it seems possible for matter not to be a part of the species, although the species occurs only in matter, but it is not evident when and in what instances this is possible or not possible. Therefore some thinkers are puzzled about this, not only in reference to natural things but also in reference to the objects of mathematics, such as circles and triangles.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 8 Videtur enim eis, quod sicut materia sensibilis non est pars speciei in naturalibus, ita etiam quod materia intelligibilis non sit pars speciei in mathematicis. Materia autem figurarum mathematicarum intelligibilis, est continuum, ut linea vel superficies. Et ideo vult, quod linea non sit pars speciei circuli vel trianguli; quasi non sit competens quod triangulus et circulus definiantur per lineas et continuum, cum non sint partes speciei; sed omnia ista similiter dicantur ad circulum et triangulum, sicut carnes et ossa ad hominem, et aes et lapides ad circulum.	1508. For it seems to them that, just as sensible matter is not a part of the species of natural beings, in a similar fashion intelligible matter is not a part of the species of mathematical entities. Now the intelligible matter of mathematical figures is continuous quantity, such as lines and surfaces. Hence it was thought that a line is not part of the species of a circle or triangle (as if it were not right that a triangle and a circle should be defined by lines and by continuous quantity, since they are not parts of the species), but that all those things are related to a circle and a triangle in the same way that flesh and bones are related to man, and bronze and stones to circles.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 9 Removendo autem a triangulo et circulo continuum, quod est linea, nihil remanet nisi unitas et numerus, quia triangulus est tres lineas habens, et circulus unam. Et ideo, quia lineas non dicunt esse partes speciei, referunt omnes species ad numeros, dicentes quod numeri sunt species mathematicorum omnium. Dicunt enim quod ratio duorum est ratio lineae rectae, propter hoc quod linea recta duobus punctis terminatur.	1509. But when the continuous quantity, line, is removed from triangles and circles, the only thing that remains is the unit and number, because a triangle is a figure having three lines, and a circle is a figure having one. Therefore, not holding that lines are parts of the species, they refer all species to numbers, saying that numbers are the species of all mathematical entities; for they say that the intelligible structure of the number two is that of a straight line, because a straight line is terminated by two points.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 10 Sed circa hoc inter Platonicos ponentes ideas, est differentia quaedam. Quidam enim non ponentes mathematica media inter species et sensibilia, dicentes species esse numeros, dicunt ipsam lineam esse dualitatem, quia non ponunt lineam mediam differentem a specie lineae.	1510. But among the Platonists, who posit Ideas, there is a difference of opinion on this matter; for some of them, i.e,, those who did not make the objects of mathematics an intermediate class between the Forms and sensible things but claimed that the Forms are numbers, said that the line is the number two, because they did not hold that there is an intermediate line differing from the Form of a line.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 11 Quidam vero dicunt quod dualitas est species lineae, et non linea. Linea enim est quoddam mathematicum medium inter species et sensibilia; et dualitas est ipsa species. Et secundum eos, in quibusdam non differunt species et cuius est species, sicut in numeris, quia ipsas species dicebant esse numeros. Unde idem dicebant esse dualitatem et speciem dualitatis. Sed lineae hoc non accidit, secundum eos, quia linea iam dicit aliquid participans speciem, cum multae lineae inveniantur esse in una specie; quod non esset si ipsamet linea esset ipsa species.	1511. But others said that the number two is not a line but the Form of a line; for according to them the line is a mathematical intermediate between the Forms and sensible things; and they said that the number two is the Form itself of the number two. And according to them there are some things in which the Form and the thing of which it is the Form do not differ, for example, numbers. Hence they said that the number two and the Form of twoness are the same. But this is not the case with a line, in their opinion, because a line already expresses something participating in a Form, since there are found to be many lines in one species; and this would not be so if the line itself were a separate Form.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit accidit itaque improbat praedictam solutionem; et ponit tres rationes: quarum prima est. Si soli numeri sint species, omnia ista quae participant uno numero participant una specie. Multa autem sunt diversa specie quae participant uno numero. Unus enim et idem numerus est in triangulo propter tres lineas, et in syllogismo propter tres terminos, et in corpore propter tres dimensiones. Accidit igitur multorum specie diversorum esse unam speciem. Quod non solum Platonicis sed etiam Pythagoricis accidit, qui etiam ponebant naturam omnium rerum esse numeros.	1512. It follows, then (632). He now rejects the solution given above; and he gives three arguments, of which the first is this: if numbers alone are separate Forms, all things which participate in one number will participate in one Form. But there are many specifically different things which participate in one number; for one and the same number is present in a triangle because of its three lines, and in a syllogism because of its three terms, and in a solid because of its three dimensions. Hence it follows that there is one Form of many things which are specifically different. This was the conclusion which faced not only the Platonists but also the Pythagoreans, who also claimed that the nature of everything consists in numbers.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 13 Secundam ponit ibi, et contingit. Quae talis est. Si carnes et ossa non sunt partes speciei humanae, nec lineae speciei trianguli, pari ratione nulla materia est pars speciei. Sed secundum Platonicos, in numero dualitas attribuitur materiae, unitas autem speciei: ergo sola unitas est species. Dualitas autem, et per consequens omnes alii numeri, tamquam materiam implicantes, non erunt species. Et sic una tantum erit species omnium rerum.	1513. And it is possible (633). Then he gives the second argument, which is as follows: if flesh and bones are not parts of the Form of man, and lines not parts of the Form of triangle, then for a like reason no matter is part of a Form. But in the case of numbers, according to the Platonists, the number two is attributed to matter and unity to Form. Therefore only unity constitutes Form. But the number two, and therefore all other numbers, inasmuch as they imply matter, will not be Forms. Hence there will only be one Form of all things.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 14 Tertiam ponit ibi, quamvis sic. Quae talis est. Illa sunt unum quorum species una est. Si igitur omnium species est una, sequetur quod omnia sint unum secundum speciem, et non solum quae videntur esse diversa. Potest tamen dici quod hoc tertium non est alia ratio a secunda; sed est inconveniens, quod ex secunda conclusione sequitur secundae rationis.	1514. However, in this way (634). Here he gives the third argument, which is as follows: those things are one whose Form is one. Hence if there is only one Form of all things, it follows that all things are one formally, and not just those which seem to be different [but in reality are not]. Yet it can be said that this third argument does not differ from the second one, but that it is an absurdity which follows as a conclusion of the second argument.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 15 Posita ergo ratione cui praemissa solutio innitebatur, et positis rationibus contra praemissam solutionem, concludit: dictum esse quod illa quae sunt circa definitiones habent dubitationem et qua de causa. Et sic patet quod per omnia praemissa ostendere voluit difficultatem praemissae dubitationis.	1515. Therefore having given the arguments on which the foregoing solution is based, and having given two arguments against this solution, he concludes that the questions about definitions constitute a problem, and that the reason for this has been stated. Thus it is evident that he wishes to use everything which has been set down to expose the difficulty connected with the foregoing problem.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 16 Deinde cum dicit quare omnia solvit praemissam quaestionem secundum propriam sententiam. Et primo quantum ad naturalia. Secundo quantum ad mathematica, ibi, circa mathematica. Dicit ergo primo, quod ex quo praedicta inconvenientia sequuntur removentibus a specie rei omnia quae sunt materialia, sive sint sensibilia, sive non, patet ex dictis quod superfluum est omnes species rerum reducere ad numeros vel unitatem, et auferre totaliter materiam sensibilem et intelligibilem, sicut Platonici faciebant.	1516. Hence to reduce (635). He now gives the real solution of the foregoing problem based on his own doctrine. He does this first with regard to natural things; and second (636:C 1520), with regard to the objects of mathematics (“And with regard”). He accordingly says, first (635), that since the absurdities mentioned above plague those removing from the species of a thing all material parts, whether they are sensible or not, it is evident from what has been said that it is futile to reduce all species of things to numbers or to the unit and to do away completely with sensible and intelligible matter as the Platonists did.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 17 Quia quaedam species rerum non sunt formae sine materia; sed sunt hoc in hoc forsan, idest formae in materia: ita quod id quod resultat ex forma in materia existente species est. Aut si non sunt sicut forma in materia, sunt se habentia sicut illa quae habent formam in materia. Proprie enim formam in materia habent naturalia, quibus quodam modo assimilantur mathematica, etiam inquantum proportio figurae circuli vel trianguli ad lineas, est sicut proportio formae hominis ad carnes et ossa. Et ideo, sicut species hominis non est forma aliqua sine carnibus et ossibus, ita forma circuli vel trianguli non est aliqua forma sine lineis. Et ideo parabola quam consuevit dicere de animali Socrates iunior, non se bene habet.	1517. For some forms of things are not forms without matter, but are “a this in this,” i.e., a form in matter, in such a way that what results from the form existing in matter is the species. Or if they are not like a form in matter, they are like things which have a form in matter; for properly speaking natural things have form in matter, and the objects of mathematics also resemble these in a way inasmuch as the figure of a circle or a triangle is related to lines as the form of man is related to flesh and bones. Therefore just as man’s species is not a form without flesh and bones, neither is the form of a triangle or of a circle a form without lines. Hence the analogy of animal, which the younger Socrates was accustomed to use, is not a good one.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 18 Videtur autem ipsum Platonem Socratem iuniorem nominare, quia in omnibus libris suis introducit Socratem loquentem, propter hoc quod fuerat magister eius. Opinionem autem Platonis, de materialitate naturalium specierum, vocat parabolam, quia fabulis assimilatur quae componuntur ad aliquam sententiam metaphorice insinuandam. Propter quod in tertio superius dixit, quod haec opinio assimilatur opinionibus fingentium deos esse, et quod formae eorum sunt sicut formae humanae. Ideo autem praedicta opinio non bene se habet, quia ducit extra veritatem, in eo quod facit opinari quod hoc modo contingat esse hominem sine partibus materialibus, scilicet sine carnibus et ossibus, sicut contingit circulum esse sine aere quod manifeste non pertinet ad species circuli.	1518. Now it seems that Plato himself is called the younger Socrates, because in all his works he introduces Socrates as the speaker, since Socrates was his master. And Plato’s opinion about the materiality of natural species he calls an analogy, because it is similar to fables, which are devised for the purpose of conveying some opinion by means of a metaphor; and this is why he said above in Book III (254:C 471; 257:C 474), that this opinion resembles the opinion of those who assume that there are gods and that their forms are like human ones. Hence the view expressed above is not a good one, because it leads us away from the truth insofar as it makes us think that it is possible for man to exist without flesh mid bones, just as it is possible for a circle to exist without bronze, which clearly does not belong to the species of a circle.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 19 Sed hoc non est simile. Non enim similiter se habet homo ad carnes et ossa, sicut circulus ad aes; quia circulus non est aliquod sensibile secundum suam rationem. Potest enim intelligi sine materia sensibili. Unde aes, quod est materia sensibilis, non est pars speciei circuli. Sed animal videtur esse quoddam sensibile. Non enim potest definiri sine motu. Animal enim discernitur a non animali sensu et motu, ut patet in primo libro de anima. Et ideo non potest definiri animal sine partibus corporalibus habentibus se aliquo modo debito ad motum. Non enim manus est pars hominis quocumque modo se habens, sed quando est sic disposita quod potest perficere opus manus; quod non potest facere sine anima, quae est principium motus. Quare oportet quod manus cuiuscumque sit pars hominis, secundum quod est animata. Secundum vero quod est inanimata, non est pars, sicut manus mortua vel depicta. Unde oportet quod partes tales quae sunt necessariae ad perficiendum operationem speciei propriam, sint partes speciei; tam quae sunt ex parte formae, quam quae sunt ex parte materiae.	1519. But this case is not similar; for a man is not related to flesh and bones in the same way that a circle is related to bronze, because a circle is not something sensible in its own intelligible expression; for it can be understood without sensible matter. Hence, bronze, which is sensible matter, is not part of the species of a circle. But an animal seems to be a sensible thing since it cannot be defined without motion; for an animal is distinguished from something that is not an animal by means of sensation and motion, as is clear in Book I of The Soul. Therefore an animal cannot be defined without including bodily parts, which are disposed in a proper way for motion; for the hand is not a part of man when it exists in every state, but when it is disposed in such a way that it can perform the proper work of a hand; and this it cannot do without the soul, which is the principle of motion. Hence it is necessary that the hand be a part of man insofar as it is animated, but it is not a part of man insofar as it is not animated, like the hand of a corpse or that in a painting. Therefore such parts as are required for the carrying out of the proper operation of the species must be parts of the species; both those which pertain to the form and those which pertain to matter.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 20 Deinde cum dicit circa mathematica solvit quaestionem quantum ad mathematica. Videtur enim post solutionem de naturalibus positam, adhuc relinqui sub dubio de mathematicis. Dixerat enim quod, cum animal sit sensibile, non potest definiri sine partibus sensibilibus, sicut circulus potest definiri sine aere, quod est sensibilis materia. Et ideo circa mathematica quaeritur quare rationes, idest definitiones partium, non sunt partes rationum totorum, sicut quare hemicycla, idest semicirculi, non ponuntur in definitione circuli. Non enim potest dici, quod haec, scilicet hemicycla, sint sensibilia, sicut aes est sensibilis materia.	1520. And with regard to (636). Next he answers the question with regard to the objects of mathematics; for though the solution has been given above with regard to natural things, it seems that the difficulty still remains with regard to the objects of mathematics; for he had said above that since an animal is sensible it cannot be defined without sensible parts, as a circle can be defined without bronze, which is sensible matter. Therefore “with regard to the objects of mathematics the question arises why the intelligible expressions of the parts,” i.e., the definitions of the parts, “are not parts of the intelligible expression of the whole,” e.g., why semicircles, or half-circles, are not given in the definition of a circle-, for it cannot be said that these, namely, semicircles, are sensible things, as bronze is sensible matter.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 21 Sed solvit quod hoc nihil differt quantum ad propositum, utrum scilicet partes materiae sint sensibilia vel non sensibilia; quia etiam non sensibilium est aliqua materia intelligibilis. Et talis materia, quae scilicet non est pars speciei, est omnis eius quod non est quod quid erat esse et species eadem secundum se, sed est hoc aliquid, idest particulare aliquod demonstratum: quasi dicat: in omni eo quod non est ipsa sua species, sed est aliquod individuum determinatum in specie, oportet esse aliquas partes materiae quae non sunt partes speciei. Socrates enim, quia non est ipsa sua humanitas, sed est habens humanitatem, ideo habet in se partes materiales quae non sunt partes speciei, sed quae sunt partes huius materiae individualis quae est individuationis principium, ut has carnes et haec ossa.	1521. But he answers that it makes no difference to his thesis whether the material parts are sensible or not, because there is intelligible matter even in things which are not sensible. And such matter—the kind which is not a part of the species—belongs to everything whose essence or species is not the same as itself “but is a particular thing,” i.e., a determinate particular, as if to say that in everything which is not its own species but is a definite individual determined in species there must be certain material parts which are not parts of the species. For since Socrates is not identical with his own humanity but has humanity, for this reason he has in himself certain material parts which are not parts of his species but of this individual matter, which is the principle of individuation, for example, this flesh and these bones.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 22 Et similiter in hoc circulo sunt hae lineae quae non sunt partes speciei. Unde patet quod huiusmodi non sunt partes circuli qui est universalis, sed sunt partes singularium circulorum, sicut dictum est prius. Et propter hoc semicirculi non ponuntur in definitione circuli universalis, quia sunt partes singularium circulorum, et non universalis. Et hoc est verum tam in materia sensibili, quam in materia intelligibili. Utroque enim modo invenitur materia, ut ex dictis patet. Si autem esset aliquod individuum quod esset ipsa sua species, sicut si Socrates esset ipsa sua humanitas, non essent in Socrate aliquae partes quae non essent partes humanitatis.	1522. And, similarly, in this particular circle there are these particular lines which are not parts of the species. Hence it is clear that parts of this kind are not parts of the universal circle but of singular circles, as was stated above (627)C 1492). And for this reason semicircles are not included in the definition of the universal circle, because they are parts of singular circles and not of the universal circle. This is true both of sensible and intelligible matter; for matter is found in both modes, as is evident from what has been said. But if there were some individual which was the same as its own species, for example, if Socrates were his own humanity, there would be no parts in Socrates which would not be parts of humanity.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 23 Deinde cum dicit palam autem recolligit praedictam solutionem, exemplificando eam in animali; dicens, palam esse quod anima est substantia prima, idest forma animalis, corpus autem materia, homo autem aut animal id quod est ex utrisque, scilicet in universali, sed Socrates et Coriscus quod est ex utrisque in particulari. Quia anima dicitur dupliciter, scilicet in universali et particulari, ut anima et haec anima. Ideo autem oportet quod significatur per modum totius, dici universaliter et singulariter, ea ratione quia anima dicitur dupliciter: quia hoc competit secundum utramque opinionem hominum de anima. Sicut enim supra dictum est, alii dicunt hominem et animal esse animam, alii vero dicunt hominem et animal non esse animam, sed totum, scilicet compositum ex anima et corpore.	1523. And it is also (637). He now sums up the solution given above by using animal as an example. He says that it is evident that the soul “is a primary substance,” i.e., the form of animal, and that the body is matter, and that “man is the composite of both,” i.e., insofar as they are taken universally; but that Socrates or Coriscus is the composite of both taken particularly, because “soul is taken in two senses,” i.e., universally and particularly, as soul and as this soul. Hence what is signified as a whole must be taken both universally and singularly, in the way in which soul is taken in two senses, because this is in keeping with both views which men take of the soul. For, as was said above (624:C 1467), some claim that a man or an animal is its soul, whereas others say that a man or an animal is not its soul “but the whole,” i.e., the composite of soul and body.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 24 Patet ergo quod secundum illam opinionem quae dicit hominem esse animam, anima dicitur universaliter et singulariter, ut anima et haec anima; et homo etiam dicitur universaliter et particulariter sive singulariter, scilicet homo et hic homo. Similiter etiam secundum hanc opinionem, quae dicit hominem esse compositum ex anima et corpore, sequitur quod si simplicia dicuntur universaliter et singulariter, quod etiam compositum dicatur universaliter et singulariter. Sicut si anima est hoc, et corpus est hoc, quae sunt simpliciter dicta tamquam partes compositi, quod etiam dicatur universale et particulare sive singulare, non solum partes, sed etiam compositum.	1524. It is evident, then, according to the opinion which affirms that man is his soul, that the term soul is taken both universally and singularly, as soul and this soul; and the term man is also taken both universally and particularly, i.e., singularly, as man and as this man. And similarly, too, according to the opinion which affirms that man is a composite of body and soul, it follows that, if simple things may be taken both universally and singularly, composites may also be taken both universally and singularly; for example, if the soul is this thing and the body is this thing, which are referred to in an unqualified sense as parts of the composite, it follows that the terms universal and particular, or singular, may be applied not only to the parts but also to the composite.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 25 Deinde cum dicit utrum autem ostendit quid de cetero remaneat determinandum circa substantias. Et ponit quod duo remaneant determinanda. Quorum primum est quod, cum determinatum sit, quod substantia et quod quid est rerum sensibilium et materialium sunt ipsae partes speciei, restat determinare utrum talium substantiarum, scilicet materialium et sensibilium, sit aliqua substantia praeter materiam, ita quod oporteat quaerere aliquam substantiam istorum sensibilium alteram ab ea quae determinata est, sicut quidam dicunt numeros praeter materiam existentes, aut aliquid tale, idest species vel ideas, esse substantias horum sensibilium. Et de hoc perscrutandum est posterius.	1525. But whether (638) He explains what still remains to be established about substances; and he gives the two issues which have to be dealt with. The first is this: when it has been established that the substance and whatness of sensible and material things are parts of the species, the next thing that has to be established is whether there is some substance besides the matter “of such substances,” i.e., of material and sensible substances, so that it is necessary to look for some other substance of these sensible things besides the one which has been dealt with; as some affirm that there are numbers existing apart from matter, “or something of the kind,” i.e., that separate Forms or Ideas are the substances of these sensible things. This must be investigated later on (Books XIII and XIV).
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 26 Haec enim perscrutatio est propria huic scientiae. In hac enim scientia tentamus determinare de substantiis sensibilibus huius gratia, idest propter substantias immateriales, quia speculatio circa substantias sensibiles et materiales quodammodo pertinet ad physicam, quae non est prima philosophia, sed secunda, sicut in quarto habitum est. Prima enim philosophia est de primis substantiis quae sunt substantiae immateriales, de quibus speculatur non solum inquantum sunt substantiae, sed inquantum substantiae tales, inquantum scilicet immateriales. De sensibilibus vero substantiis non speculatur inquantum sunt tales substantiae, sed inquantum sunt substantiae, aut etiam entia, vel inquantum per eas manuducimur in cognitionem substantiarum immaterialium. Physicus vero e converso determinat de substantiis materialibus, non inquantum sunt substantiae, sed inquantum materiales et habentes in se principium motus.	1526. For this investigation is the one proper to this science, because in this science we attempt to establish something about sensible substances “for the sake of these,” i.e., for the sake of immaterial substances, because the study of sensible and material substances belongs in a sense to the philosophy of nature, which is not first philosophy, but second philosophy, as was stated in Book IV (323:C 593). For first philosophy is concerned with the first substances, which are immaterial ones, which it studies not only inasmuch as they are substances but inasmuch as they are such substances, namely, inasmuch as they are immaterial. But it does not study sensible substances inasmuch as they are such substances but inasmuch as they are substances, or also beings, or inasmuch as we are led by such substances to a knowledge of immaterial substances. But the philosopher of nature, on the other hand, deals with material substances, not inasmuch as they are substances, but inasmuch as they are material and have a principle of motion within themselves.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 27 Et quia posset aliquis credere quod scientia naturalis non specularetur circa totas substantias materiales et sensibiles, sed solum circa materias eorum, ideo hoc removet dicens, quod physicum non solum oportet considerare de materia, sed etiam de ea parte quae est secundum rationem, scilicet de forma. Et magis etiam de forma quam de materia, quia forma est magis natura quam materia, ut probatum est in secundo physicorum.	1527. And because someone might think that the philosophy of nature should not treat of material and sensible substances in their entirety, but only of their matters, he therefore rejects this, saying that the philosophy of nature must consider not only matter but also the part “which is intelligible,” namely, the form. And it must also consider form more than matter, because form is nature to a greater degree than matter, as was proved in Book II of the Physics.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 28 Secundum vero quod restat determinandum, est quomodo partes quae sunt in ratione, idest in definitione se habent; utrum scilicet sint substantiae existentes in actu, et quare etiam definitio, cum componatur ex multis partibus, est una ratio. Palam enim est quod oportet definitionem esse unam tantum rationem, quia res est una. Definitio vero significat quid est res. Sed per quid aliqua res habens partes efficiatur una, speculandum est posterius.	1528. Second, it remains to be established how “the parts in the intelligible expression,” i.e., in the definition, are disposed: whether they are parts of the substance actually. And it also remains to be established why the definition, when it is composed of many parts, is one intelligible expression; for it is evident that the definition of a thing must be only one intelligible expression, because a thing is one, and a definition signifies what a thing is. But how a thing having parts is one must be investigated later (733:C 1755).
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 29 Deinde cum dicit quid quidem recapitulat ea quae sunt determinata; dicens, quod est dictum quid est quod quid erat esse, et quomodo id quod est quod quid erat esse, est quod praedicatur de omni, et quod praedicatur secundum se. Et iterum dictum est quare quorumdam ratio significans quod quid erat esse, continet in se partes definiti, sicut definitio syllabae continet literas, et quorumdam non, sicut definitio circuli non continet semicirculos. Dictum est etiam quod in ratione substantiae, idest formae, non ponuntur partes quae sunt partes substantiae sicut materia, quia tales non sunt partes substantiae illius, idest formae, sed partes totius compositi.	1529. We have stated (639). Next he sums up the points which have been established. He says that it has been stated what the essence of a thing is, and how it is predicated of all things, and that it is predicated essentially. And it has also been stated why the intelligible expression signifying the essence of some things contains in itself the parts of the thing defined, just as the definition of a syllable contains its letters, and “why that of others does not,” as the definition of a circle does not contain semicircles. And again it has also been stated that those parts which are material parts of substance are not given “in the intelligible expression of substance,” i.e., of form, because such parts are not “parts of that substance,” i.e., of the form, but are parts of the whole composite.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 30 Cuius quidem compositi aliquo modo est definitio, aliquo modo non est. Quia si accipiatur cum materia, scilicet individuali, non est eius definitio, quia singularia non definiuntur, ut supra est habitum. Cuius ratio est, quia talis materia individualis est quid infinitum et indeterminatum. Materia enim non finitur nisi per formam. Sed compositum acceptum secundum primam substantiam, idest secundum formam, habet definitionem. Definitur enim compositum acceptum in specie, non secundum individuum.	1530. Now in one sense there is a definition of this kind of composite, and in another sense there is not; for if it is taken “with matter,” namely, the individual, there is no definition of it, since singulars are not defined, as was stated above (627) C 1493). The reason is that such individual matter is something unlimited and indeterminate; for matter is limited only by form. But if composite is taken “with reference to the primary substance,” i.e., to form, it has a definition; for the composite is defined when taken specifically, but not when taken individually.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 31 Sicut autem individuum per materiam individuatur, ita unumquodque ponitur in sua specie per formam. Non enim homo est homo quia habet carnes et ossa, sed ex eo quod habet animam rationalem in carnibus et ossibus. Unde oportet quod definitio speciei accipiatur a forma, et quod illae partes materiae solum ponantur in definitione speciei, in quibus primo et principaliter est forma. Sicut ratio hominis est illa quae est animae. Ex hoc enim homo est homo, quod habet talem animam. Et propter hoc, si homo definitur, oportet quod definiatur per animam, et quod nihilominus in eius definitione ponantur partes corporis, in quibus primo est anima, sicut cor aut cerebrum, ut supra dixit.	1531. And just as the individual is individuated by matter, in a similar fashion each thing is placed in its proper species by its form; for man is man, not because he has flesh and bones, but because he has a rational soul in this flesh and these bones. It is necessary, then, that the definition of the species should be taken from the form, and that only those material parts should be given in the definition of the species, in which the form has the primary and chief role, as the intelligible expression of man is one which contains soul; for man is man because he has such a soul. And for this reason, if man is defined, he must be defined by his soul, yet in his definition one must include the parts of the body in which the soul is first present, such as the heart or the brain, as was said above (626)C 1489).
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 32 Ipsa namque substantia cuius pars non est materia est species, idest forma quae inest materiae, ex qua forma et materia dicitur tota substantia, idest determinatur et definitur. Sicut concavitas est quaedam forma. Ex ea enim et naso, dicitur nasus simus et simitas. Et similiter ex anima et corpore, dicitur homo et humanitas. Si enim nasus, qui est sicut materia, esset pars curvitatis, tunc cum dicitur nasus curvus, bis diceretur nasus. Semel enim diceretur proprio nomine, et semel prout includeretur in definitione curvi. (Si tamen poneretur in eius definitione sicut pars essentiae curvitatis, non quasi ex additione, ut supra dictum est). Quamvis autem materia non sit in essentia formae, est tamen in tota substantia composita. Sicut curvitas est in naso simo, et etiam materia individualis est in Callia.	1532. For the substance, of which matter is not a part, “is the specifying principle,” i.e., the form, which is present in matter; and from this form and matter “the whole substance” is derived, i.e., made determinate and defined; for example, concavity is a form of this kind, for from this and from nose snubnose and snubness are derived. And in the same way man and humanity are derived from soul and body. For if nose, which plays the part of matter, were part of curvature, then when curved nose is referred to, the term nose would be expressed twice; for it is expressed once by its own name, and it is included again in the definition of the curved. However, this would be the case if nose were placed in the definition of the curved as part of the essence of curvature, and not by addition, as was stated above (624)C 1472). And even though matter is not present in the essence of form, it is nevertheless present in the whole composite substance; for example, curvature is present in snub nose, and individual matter is also present in Callias.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 33 Dictum est etiam superius quod quod quid erat esse uniuscuiusque, est idem cum eo cuius est. Quod quidem est simpliciter verum in quibusdam, sicut in primis substantiis, idest in immaterialibus. Sicut ipsa curvitas est idem cum eo quod quid erat curvitatis, si tamen curvitas est de primis substantiis. Quod quidem dicit, quia etiam curvitas videtur esse forma in materia, licet non in materia sensibili, sed intelligibili, quae est ipsum continuum. Vel secundum aliam literam quae prima est. Est enim quaedam curvitas prima, sicut curvitas quae est in speciebus secundum Platonicos, in quibus speciebus communiter est verum quod quaelibet est idem cum suo quod quid est. Alia autem curvitas quae est in rebus sensibilibus vel in mathematicis, non est prima. Unde non est idem quod suum quod quid erat esse.	1533. It was also said above (591)C 1362) that the essence of each thing is the same as the thing of which it is the essence. This is true without qualification in some cases, “as in the case of primary substances,” i.e., in that of immaterial substances, just as curvature itself is the same as the essence of curvature, provided that curvature belongs to primary substances. He says this because curvature seems to be a form in matter, though not in sensible matter but in an intelligible matter—continuous quantity. Or, according to another text, “which is first”; for there is a primary curvature, like the curvature which exists among the separate Forms, according to the Platonists, and of these Forms it is universally true that each is the same as its own essence. But the other curvature which is present in sensible things or in the objects of mathematics is not a primary one. Hence it is not the same as its essence.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 34 Dicit autem exponendo, quod primam substantiam hic nominat non substantiam particularem, sicut in praedicamentis, sed quae non dicitur per hoc quod aliud sit in alio sicut in subiecto et materia, idest illae res quae sunt formae non in materia, sicut substantiae separatae. Quaecumque vero sunt sicut materia, vel etiam sunt concepta cum materia, sicut composita quae habent in sui ratione materiam, in istis non est idem quod quid erat esse, et id cuius est. Nec etiam est unum in his quae dicuntur secundum accidens, sicut Socrates et musicus sunt idem per accidens.	1534. And in explaining this he says that he does not use the term primary substance here to mean a particular substance, as he does in the Categories, but to mean something which does not exist in something else “as in a subject or matter,” i.e., those things which are not forms in matter, such as the separate substances. But all those which have the nature of matter or are conceived with matter, such as composites, which have matter in their intelligible expression, are not the same as their essence. Nor do those predications which are accidental form a unity, as Socrates and musician are the same accidentally.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 35 Attendendum est autem quod ab hac sententia quam posuerat, scilicet quod quod quid est idem est cum unoquoque cuius est, duo hic excipit, scilicet illa quae dicuntur per accidens, et substantias materiales, cum superius non exceperit nisi illa quae dicuntur per accidens. Oportet autem non solum ista excludi, sed etiam substantias materiales. Sicut enim supra dictum est, quod quid erat esse est id quod significat definitio. Definitio autem non assignatur individuis, sed speciebus; et ideo materia individualis, quae est individuationis principium est praeter id quod est quod quid erat esse. Impossibile est autem in rerum natura esse speciem nisi in hoc individuo. Unde oportet quod quaelibet res naturae, si habeat materiam quae est pars speciei, quae est pertinens ad quod quid est, quod etiam habeat materiam individualem, quae non pertinet ad quod quid est. Unde nulla res naturae si materiam habeat, est ipsum quod quid est, sed est habens illud. Sicut Socrates non est humanitas, sed est humanitatem habens. Si autem esset possibile esse hominem compositum ex corpore et anima, qui non esset hic homo ex hoc corpore et ex hac anima compositus, nihilominus esset suum quod quid erat esse, quamvis haberet materiam.	1535. Now it must be noted that from the opinion which he expressed here that each thing and its essence are the same, he now excludes two kinds of things: (1) things which are accidental, and (2) substances which are material, although above he excluded only those things which are said to be accidental. And it is necessary not only to exclude the former but also to exclude material substances; for, as was said above (622:C 1460), what the definition signifies is the essence, and definitions are not assigned to individuals but to species; and therefore individual matter, which is the principle of individuation, is distinct from the essence. But in reality it is impossible for a form to exist except in a particular substance. Hence if any natural thing has matter which is part of its species, and this pertains to its essence, it must also have individual matter, which does not pertain to its essence. Therefore, if any natural thing has matter, it is not its own essence but is something having an essence; for example, Socrates is not humanity but something having humanity. And if it were possible for a man to be composed of body and soul and not be this particular man composed of this body and this soul, he would still be his own essence, even though he contained matter.
lib. 7 l. 11 n. 36 Licet autem homo praeter singularia non sit in rerum natura, est tamen in ratione quae pertinet ad logicam considerationem. Et ideo superius ubi logice consideravit de quod quid erat esse, non exclusit substantias materiales, quin in illis etiam esset idem quod quid est, cum eo cuius est. Homo enim communis est idem cum suo quod quid est, logice loquendo. Nunc autem postquam iam descendit ad principia naturalia quae sunt materia et forma, et ostendit quomodo diversimode comparantur ad universale et particulare quod subsistit in natura, excipit hic ab eo quod supra dixerat idem esse quod quid est cum unoquoque, substantias materiales in rerum natura existentes. Relinquitur autem quod illae substantiae quae sunt formae tantum subsistentes, non habent aliquid per quod individuentur, quod sit extra rationem rei vel speciei significantem quod quid est. Et ideo in illis simpliciter verum est, quod quaelibet illarum est suum quod quid erat esse.	1536. Now even though man does not exist apart from singular men in reality, nevertheless man is separable in his intelligible expression, which pertains to the domain of logic. Therefore, above (578)C 1308), where he considered essence from the viewpoint of logic, he did not exclude material substances from being their own essence; for man as a universal is the same as his essence, logically speaking. And now having come to natural principles, which are matter and form, and having shown how they are related to the universal in different ways, and to the particular thing which subsists in nature, he now excludes material substances, which exist in reality, from the statement which he had made above to the effect that the essence of a thing is the same as the thing of which it is the essence. Moreover it follows that those substances which are subsistent forms alone do not have any principle individuating them which is extrinsic to the intelligible expression (of the thing or of the species) which signifies their whatness. Concerning these things, then, it is true that each is unqualifiedly the same as its own essence.

Lecture 12

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 1 Postquam ostendit philosophus quae partes in definitione ponantur, hic inquirit quomodo definitio ex partibus existens, possit esse una: et circa hoc tria facit. Primo movet dubitationem. Secundo obiicit ad utramque partem, ibi, in hoc namque homo. Tertio solvit quaestionem, ibi, oportet autem intendere et cetera. Dicit ergo, quod nunc primum debet dicere de definitione id quod non est de ea dictum in analyticis, idest in libro posteriorum. Ibi enim mota est quaedam dubitatio de definitione, et non soluta, quam oportet hic solvere, quia est praeopere rationibus de substantia, idest quia solutio huius quaestionis est pernecessaria ad ea quae sunt de substantia determinanda, de qua est principalis intentio huius scientiae. Est autem ista dubitatio, quare illud, cuius definitio est ratio, est unum, scilicet quod quid est. Definitio enim ratio est significans quod quid est, sicut definitio hominis est animal bipes. Ponatur enim quod haec sit eius definitio: quare igitur hoc, quod dicitur animal bipes, est unum, et non multa?	1537. After having shown what parts are given in definitions, here the Philosopher inquires how a definition, being composed of parts, can be one thing; and in regard to this he does three things. First (640)C 1537), he raises a question. Second (641:C 1538), he argues on one side (“For man”). Third (644:C 1542), he answers the question (“Now it is necessary”). He accordingly says that with regard to definition we should speak now for the first time of the things which have not been stated about it “in the Analytics,” i.e., in the Posterior Analytics. For in that work a certain difficulty was raised about definition and left unsolved, and this must be answered here “because it constitutes a preamble to the arguments about substance,” i.e., because the answer to this question is a prerequisite for establishing certain things about substance, which is the chief concern of this science. This difficulty is why the thing of which the intelligible expression, namely, the quiddity, is a definition, “is one thing.” For a definition is an intelligible expression signifying a quiddity; for example, the definition of man is “two-footed animal,” for let us assume that this is his definition. Therefore the question is: why is this thing which is called two-footed animal one thing and not many?
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit in hoc namque obiicit pro utraque parte: et primo ad ostendendum quod ex eis non fiat unum. Secundo ad contrarium, ibi, oportet autem unum. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit, quod ex genere et differentia non fit unum. Secundo quod nec ex pluribus differentiis, ibi, si vero et participat. Dicit ergo primo, quod in hoc quod est homo et album, ista duo sunt multa, quando alterum eorum non inest alteri. Si enim album non insit homini, tunc homo et album nullo modo sunt unum. Unum vero sunt, quando alterum eorum inest alteri, et subiectum, quod est homo patitur alterum, idest suscipit hanc passionem, quae est album. Tunc autem ex his duobus fit unum per accidens quod est albus homo. Ex his accipitur, quod ex duobus, quorum unum non inest alteri, non fit unum. Sed hic, scilicet cum dicitur animal bipes, alterum eorum, scilicet animal, non participat altero, scilicet bipede, sicut homo albus participat albo. Et hoc ideo, quia animal est genus, bipes vero differentia. Genus vero non videtur participare differentiis. Sequeretur enim quod idem participaret simul contrariis. Differentiae enim sunt contrariae quibus genus differt, idest per quas genus dividitur; et pari ratione per quam participaret unam, participaret aliam. Si autem est impossibile quod idem participet contraria, impossibile erit, quod ex genere et differentia fiat unum.	1538. For man (641). Then he raises arguments on both sides of the question; and he does this, first (641:C 1538), in order to show that one thing is not produced from them; and second (643:C 1540, to show that the contrary is true (“But all the elements”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he shows that one thing is not produced from a genus and a difference. Second (642:C 1539), he shows that one thing is not produced from many differences (“And even if”). He accordingly says, first (641), that these two things, man and white, are many when one of them is not present in the other; for, if white does not belong to man, then man and white are one in no way. But they are one when one of them is present in the other, and when the subject, man, “is the recipient of the other,” i.e., when it receives the modification, white; and then something accidentally one is produced from these two things, namely, a white man. Now from these remarks it is understood that one thing is not produced from two things when one does not exist in the other. But “in this case,” namely, when one speaks of two-footed animal, “one,” i.e., animal, does not participate “in the other,” namely, in two-footed, as white man participates in white. And this is so because animal is a genus and two-footed is a difference. But a genus does not seem to participate in differences, for it would follow that the same thing would participate in contraries at the same time; for differences are the contraries “by which a genus is distinguished,” i.e., by which a genus is divided; and for the same reason that it participates in one it will participate in the other. But if it is impossible for the same thing to participate in contraries, it will be impossible for one thing to be produced from a genus and a difference.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit si vero ostendit quod ex pluribus differentiis non potest fieri unum; dicens, quod si detur genus participare aliquo modo differentia, prout scilicet animal non accipitur in sua communitate, sed contrahitur per differentiam ad speciem, et sic per consequens ex genere et differentia fieri unum, tamen adhuc erit eadem ratio ad ostendendum quod definitio non significat unum, si sunt plures differentiae in definitione positae. Sicut si ponantur in definitione hominis istae tres differentiae, quarum prima sit gressibile vel habens pedes, secunda sit bipes, tertia vero non alatum. Non enim poterit dici quare ista sunt unum et non multa.	1539. And even if (642). Then he shows that one thing cannot be produced from many differences. He says that, even if it is admitted that a genus participates in some way in a difference (as, for example, animal is not taken under its common aspect but insofar as it is restricted to a species by a difference, and then one thing is produced from a genus and a difference), the same argument can still be used to show that a definition does not signify one thing, if many differences are given in the definition; for example, if in the definition of man these three differences are given: first, capable of walking or having feet, second, two-footed, and third, wingless; for it cannot be said why these things are one and not many.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 4 Non enim est sufficiens ad hoc ratio quia insunt uni, utputa animali, quod est homo; sic enim sequeretur, quod omnia essent unum. Sequeretur enim quod omnia accidentia, quae insunt alicui subiecto, essent unum per se. Sic enim loquimur de uno et adinvicem et ad subiectum. Et cum ea quae accidunt uni subiecto accidant etiam alteri, sequeretur, quod illa duo subiecta etiam essent unum, puta nix et cygnus quibus inest albedo. Et sic deducendo sequeretur, quod omnia essent unum. Non ergo potest dici quod ex pluribus differentiis fiat unum, etiam dato quod ex genere et differentia fiat unum. Et sic ex duabus partibus videtur quod definitio non significet unum.	1540. For to explain this it is not enough to give as a reason that they exist in one thing (as in the animal, man), because in this way it would follow that all accidents which inhere in any subject would be essentially one thing; for we do speak of one accident in relation to another accident as well as to the subject. And since those things which are accidents of one subject may also be accidents of another subject, it would follow that those two subjects would be one, for example, snow and a swan, in both of which whiteness is found. And thus by inference it would follow that all things would be one. Hence it cannot be said that one thing is produced from many differences, even though one thing is produced from a genus and a difference. Hence it seems that a definition does not signify one thing composed of two parts.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit oportet autem obiicit in contrarium; ostendens quod definitio significet unum; dicens, quod oportet quaecumque in definitione ponuntur esse unum. Et hoc ideo, quia definitio est una ratio; et id quod significatur per ipsam, est substantia rei. Unde oportet quod definitio sit ratio significativa unius alicuius; quia substantia rei, quam definitio significat, est unum quid. Et etiam supra dictum est, quod definitio significat hoc aliquid, ubi ostensum est quod definitio est proprie substantiarum.	1541. But all the elements (643). Here he argues one side of the question, showing that a definition does signify one thing. He says that all the attributes which are given in a definition must be one. And this is so because a definition is one intelligible expression, and what it signifies is the substance of a thing. Hence a definition must be an intelligible expression signifying one thing, because the substance of a thing, which the definition signifies, is one quiddity. And it was also stated above (582:C 1330, where definition was shown to belong properly to substances, that a definition signifies a particular thing.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit oportet autem solvit praemissam quaestionem; ostendens quod definitio significet unum: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit quomodo ex genere et differentia fit unum. Secundo quomodo ex pluribus differentiis fiat unum, ibi, at vero oportet dividi. Dicit ergo primo, quod ad investigandum unitatem definitionum oportet primum intendere de definitionibus quae dantur secundum divisionem generis in differentias. Istae enim sunt definitiones verae, in quibus non est aliud quam primum genus et differentiae. Dantur enim et quaedam definitiones per aliqua accidentia, vel per aliquas proprietates, vel etiam per aliquas causas extrinsecas, quae non significant substantiam rei. Et ideo huiusmodi definitiones non sunt ad propositum, cum hic agatur de definitionibus ad substantias rerum investigandas.	1542. Now it is necessary (644). He answers the foregoing question by showing that a definition signifies one thing; and in regard to this he does two things. First (644), he shows how one thing is produced from a genus and a difference; and second (645:C 1551), how one thing is produced from many differences (“Again, it is”). He accordingly says, first (644), that in order to investigate the unity of definitions it is necessary, first, to examine definitions which are based on the division of genus into differences. For those are true definitions which contain nothing but the primary genus and differences, because some definitions are based on certain accidents, or on certain properties, or also on certain extrinsic causes, which do not signify the substance of a thing. Hence such definitions are not to the point, since here he is treating of definitions with a view to investigating the substances of things.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 7 Ideo autem dico quod in definitione est primum genus cum differentiis, quia etsi aliquando in definitionibus ponantur aliqua genera intermedia inter genus primum quod est generalissimum, et species ultimas quae definiuntur, tamen illa genera media nihil aliud sunt quam genus primum, et differentiae comprehensae in intellectu generis medii cum hoc, idest cum genere primo. Sicut si in definitione hominis ponatur animal, quod est genus intermedium, patet quod animal nihil aliud est quam substantia, quae est genus primum, cum aliquibus differentiis. Est enim animal substantia animata sensibilis. Et similiter si intelligamus primum genus esse animal, habitum bipes; et iterum tertium genus, animal bipes non alatum. Et similiter si aliquod genus per plures differentias determinatur. Semper enim posterius genus comprehendit prius cum aliqua differentia. Et sic patet quod omnis definitio resolvitur in primum genus et aliquas differentias.	1543. Therefore I say that in a definition there is a primary genus with differences, because, even if one sometimes gives in definitions certain intermediate genera between the primary genus, which is the most general, and the last species which are defined, nevertheless those intermediate genera are nothing but the primary genus and the differences included in the understanding of the intermediate genus “along with this,” i.e., along with the primary genus; as when animal, which is an intermediate genus, is given in the definition of man, it is evident that animal is nothing but substance, which is the primary genus, along with certain differences; for an animal is a living sensible substance. And the case is the same when we understand the primary genus to be animal “having feet”; and again when we understand the third genus to be “two-footed animal without wings.” And the same thing is true when any genus is limited by many differences; for a subsequent genus always includes a prior genus along with some difference. Hence it is evident that every definition is dissolved into a primary genus and certain differences.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 8 Omnino autem non differt, utrum per plura aut per pauca definiatur aliquod definitum. Quare non differt, utrum per pauca, vel per duo, ita quod illorum duorum unum sit genus et aliud differentia. Sicut eius quod est animal bipes, animal est genus; et alterum, scilicet bipes, est differentia. Ostendendum est ergo primo, quomodo ex istis duobus fiat unum. Quod sic patet.	1544. And in general it makes no difference whether the thing defined is defined by many terms or by few. Hence it makes no difference whether it is defined by few or by two, so long as one of these is a genus and the other a difference; for animal is the genus of two-footed animal, and the other term, namely, two-footed, is the difference. Therefore it must shown, first, how one thing is produced from these. This becomes clear as follows.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 9 Genus enim non est praeter ea quae sunt species generis. Non enim invenitur animal, quod non sit nec homo, nec bos, nec aliquid aliud huiusmodi. Aut si inveniatur aliquid quod est genus praeter species, sic acceptum ut est praeter species, non accipitur ut genus, sed ut materia. Contingit enim aliquod et esse genus aliquorum, et materiam. Sicut vox est genus literarum, et est materia. Et quod sit genus, patet per hoc quod differentiae additae voci faciunt species vocum literatarum. Et quod etiam sit materia, patet; quia ex hac, scilicet ex voce faciunt elementa, idest literas, sicut aliquid fit ex materia.	1545. A genus does not exist apart from the things which are its species, for no animal is found which is not a man or an ox or some other animal of this kind. Or if there is something which is a genus apart from its species, taken in the sense that it exists apart from its species, it is not a genus but matter, because it is possible for something to be both the genus and matter of certain things, as the vocal sound is both the genus of letters and their matter. That it is a genus is evident from the fact that differences added to the vocal sound make the species of articulate sounds; and that it is matter is evident because the differences “make the elements,” i.e., the letters, “out of this,” namely, out of the vocal sound, as something is made out of matter.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 10 Sciendum est autem quod, licet idem secundum nomen possit esse genus et materia, non tamen idem eodem modo acceptum. Materia enim est pars integralis rei, et ideo de re praedicari non potest. Non enim potest dici quod homo sit caro et os. Genus autem praedicatur de specie. Unde oportet quod significet aliquo modo totum. Sicut enim propter hoc quod est innominata privatio, aliquando simplici nomine materiae significatur materia cum privatione, ut supra dictum est, quod aes accipitur pro aere infigurato, cum dicimus quod ex aere fit statua; ita etiam quando forma est innominata, simplici nomine materiae intelligitur compositum ex materia et forma, non quidem determinata, sed communi; et sic accipitur ut genus. Sicut enim compositum ex materia et forma determinata est species, ita compositum ex materia et forma communi est genus.	1546. Moreover, it must be understood that while genus and matter can be the same in name, they nevertheless do not mean the same thing; for matter is an integral part of a thing, and thus cannot be predicated of a thing, for it cannot be said that man is flesh and bones. But a genus is predicated of its species, and therefore it must in some way signify the whole thing, just as matter along with its privation is sometimes designated by the simple name of the matter in view of the namelessness of privations, as it was said above (610)C 1416) that bronze is taken for formless bronze when we say that a statue is made of bronze; and in a similar fashion when the form is nameless, the composite of matter and form is designated by the simple name of the matter-not common matter, but some determinate matter. And in this way it is taken as a genus; for just as a species is a composite of matter and a determinate form, so too a genus is a composite of matter and a common form.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 11 Et hoc in pluribus patet. Corpus enim potest accipi, et ut materia animalis, et ut genus. Si enim in intellectu corporis intelligatur substantia completa ultima forma, habens in se tres dimensiones, sic corpus est genus, et species eius erunt substantiae perfectae per has ultimas formas determinatas, sicut per formam auri, vel argenti, aut olivae, aut hominis. Si vero in intellectu corporis non accipiatur nisi hoc, quod est habens tres dimensiones cum aptitudine ad formam ultimam, sic corpus est materia.	1547. This becomes evident in many ways. For body can be taken both as the matter and as the genus of animal, because, if we understand in the notion of body a substance completed by its ultimate form, having in itself three dimensions, then body is a genus and its species arc the complete substances determined by these ultimate forms, as that of gold, of silver, of olive, or of man. But if one considers in the notion of body only that it is a thing having three dimensions with an aptitude for an ultimate form, then body is matter.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 12 Et similiter est de voce. Si enim in intellectu vocis includatur ipsa vocis formatio in communi secundum formam quae distinguitur in diversas formas literarum et syllabarum, sic vox est genus. Si autem in intellectu vocis accipitur solum substantia soni, cui possibile est advenire praedictam formationem, sic vox erit materia literarum. Ex quo etiam patet quod vox, secundum quod est genus, non potest esse sine speciebus. Non enim potest esse sonus formatus, quin aliquam determinatam formam habeat huius vel illius literae. Sed si omnino careret forma literali prout est materia, sic inveniretur sine literis, sicut aes invenitur absque his quae fiunt ex aere.	1548. And the same thing applies in the case of a vocal sound; for if in the intelligible expression of vocal sound one includes the formation of sound in common according to the form which is subdivided into the different forms of the letters and syllables, then vocal sound is a genus. But if in the intelligible expression of vocal sound one understands only the substance of sound, to which the foregoing formation can accrue, then vocal sound will be the matter of the letters. From this it is also evident that vocal sound, which is a genus, cannot exist without species; for a sound can be formed only if it has the definite form of this or that letter. But if it lacked altogether the form of a letter insofar as it is matter, then it would be found without letters, just as bronze is found without the things which are produced from it.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 13 Si ergo praedicta sunt vera, palam est quod definitio est quaedam ratio ex differentiis unitatem habens; ita quod tota essentia definitionis, in differentia quodammodo comprehenditur. Ex hoc enim animal, quod est genus, non potest esse absque speciebus, quia formae specierum quae sunt differentiae, non sunt aliae formae a forma generis, sed sunt formae generis cum determinatione. Sicut patet quod animal est quod habet animam sensitivam. Homo autem est qui habet animam sensitivam talem, scilicet cum ratione. Leo vero qui habet talem, scilicet cum abundantia audaciae. Et sic de aliis. Unde cum differentia additur generi, non additur quasi aliqua diversa essentia a genere, sed quasi in genere implicite contenta, sicut determinatum continetur in indeterminato, ut album in colorato.	1549. If the foregoing statements are true, then, it is evident that a definition is an intelligible expression having unity from its differences in such a way that the whole essence of the definition is included in a certain way in the difference. For animal, which is a genus, cannot exist without species, because the forms of the species, the differences, are not different forms from the form of the genus but are the forms of the genus lacking determination; for example, it is evident that an animal is a thing having a sentient soul, that man is one having “such and such” a sentient soul, viz., with reason, and that a lion is one having “such and such” a soul, namely, with an abundance of daring. And it is the same in other cases. Hence, when a difference is added to a genus it is not added as though it were an essence distinct from the genus, but as though it were contained implicitly in the genus, as the determinate is contained in the indeterminate, for example, white in the thing colored.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 14 Per quod etiam solvitur ratio superius inducta; quia nihil prohibet idem genus in se continere diversas differentias, sicut indeterminatum continet in se diversa determinata. Et etiam propter hoc solvitur, quia non hoc modo advenit differentia generi, ut diversa essentia ab eo existens, sicut advenit album homini.	1550. And in the light of this the problem raised above (640)C 1537) is solved, since nothing prevents one and the same genus from containing within itself various differences, as the indeterminate contains within itself various determinate things. And in addition it is solved by reason of the fact that a difference does not accrue to a genus as constituting an essence distinct from it, as white accrues to man.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 15 Deinde cum dicit at vero ostendit quod nec etiam multitudo differentiarum impedit unitatem definitionis. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit qualiter debeant sumi in definitione multae differentiae. Secundo ostendit quod si differentiae debito modo sumantur, non impediet multitudo differentiarum unitatem definitionis, ibi, si itaque. Dicit ergo primo, quod in definitionibus in quibus sunt multae differentiae, oportet non solum dividi genus in differentiam, sed etiam dividi differentiam primam in differentiam secundam. Sicut animalis differentia est pedalitas, secundum quam animal dicitur habens pedes, vel gressibile. Sed quia etiam haec differentia multipliciter invenitur, iterum oportet scire differentiam animalis habentis pedes, quae sit differentia eius, inquantum est habens pedes, scilicet per se et non per accidens.	1551. Again, it is (645). He next shows that a multitude of differences does not prevent a definition from being one; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he shows in what way a multitude of differences should be taken in a definition. Second (646:C 1555), he shows that, if differences are taken in the right way, a multitude of differences does not prevent a definition from being one (“If these things”). He accordingly says, first (645), that in the case of those definitions which include many differences not only should the genus be divided by a difference but the first difference should also be divided by the second difference; for example, footed is the difference of animal according to which animal is said to have feet or to be capable of walking; but since this difference is also found to have many forms, it is again necessary to know the difference of such an animal, i.e., what its difference is, “inasmuch as it has feet,” i.e., inasmuch as it is considered essentially and not accidentally.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 16 Et ideo, quia habenti pedes accidit habere alas, non est dicendum, dividendo differentiam, quod habentis pedes aliud est alatum, aliud non alatum, si homo bene velit dicere divisionem differentiarum. Sed tamen quandoque aliquis dividens differentias facit hoc ut scilicet dividat per ea quae sunt secundum accidens, propter hoc quod non potest invenire proprias et per se differentias. Aliquando enim necessitas cogit, ut utamur, loco per se differentiarum, differentiis per accidens, inquantum sunt signa quaedam differentiarum essentialium nobis ignotarum.	1552. Therefore, since it is accidental to a thing having feet to have wings, it must not be said, in dividing the difference, that among those things which have feet, one kind is winged and another wingless, if a man wants to express correctly the division of the differences. Yet when someone in dividing differences “does this,” in such a way that he divides it by means of those attributes which are accidental, this is why he cannot find proper and essential differences. For sometimes necessity compels us to use accidental differences in place of essential differences inasmuch as accidental differences are the signs of certain essential differences unknown to us.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 17 Sed hoc modo est haec differentia dividenda habens pedes: scilicet: huiusmodi animalium, aliud est habens pedes scissos, et aliud non scissos. Istae enim sunt differentiae pedis, scilicet scissum et non scissum. Et ideo habens pedes scissos, per se dividet hanc differentiam quae est habens pedes. Scissio enim pedis est quaedam pedalitas: idest haec differentia quae est habere pedes scissos, est quoddam contentum sub hoc quod est habere pedes; et habent se adinvicem sicut determinatum et indeterminatum, sicut diximus de genere et differentia.	1553. But this difference “having feet” must be divided in this way, namely, so that among animals of this kind one kind has cloven feet and another has not; for these, namely, cloven and uncloven, “are the differences of foot.” Therefore having cloven feet divides essentially the difference having feet; for a cloven foot “is a certain kind of foot,” i.e., the difference having cloven feet is something contained under the difference having feet; and they are related to each other as the determinate to the indeterminate, as we said of genus and difference.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 18 Et ita semper procedendum est in divisione differentiarum, donec dividens veniat ad non differentia, idest ad ultimas differentias, quae non dividuntur ulterius in alias differentias; et tunc tot erunt species pedis quot differentiae: et species animalium habentium pedes aequales differentiis. Quaelibet enim individualis differentia constituet unam speciem specialissimam.	1554. And it is always necessary to proceed in this way in the division of differences until the one making the division “comes to the species which have no difference,” i.e., to ultimate differences, which are not divided further into other differences; and then there will be as many species of foot as there are differences, and the species of animals having feet will be equal in number to the differences; for any individual difference constitutes one ultimate species.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 19 Deinde cum dicit si itaque ostendit ex suppositis, quod multitudo differentiarum non impedit unitatem definitionis. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit propositum. Secundo inducit conclusionem intentam, ibi, quare palam et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quomodo ex multis differentiis fit unum, si differentiae per se sumuntur. Secundo, quod hoc non potest esse si sumantur per accidens, ibi, si vero secundum accidens. Dicit ergo primo, quod si sic se habent differentiae acceptae in definitione sicut dictum est, scilicet quod semper sumantur per se differentiae et non per accidens, palam est quod ultima differentia erit tota substantia rei, et tota definitio. Includit enim in se omnes praecedentes particulas.	1555. If these things (646). He shows here, from the things which have been set down, that a multitude of differences does not prevent a definition from being one. And in regard to this he does two things. First (646:C 1555), he proves his thesis. Second (648:C 1561), he draws the conclusion at which he aims (“Hence, it is evident”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he proves how one thing is produced from many differences, if differences are understood essentially. Second (647:C 1560), he shows that this cannot be the case if the differences are understood accidentally (“But if the division”). He accordingly says, first (646), that if the differences taken in a definition are such “as has been indicated,” i.e., so that differences are always taken essentially and not accidentally, it is obvious that the ultimate difference will constitute the whole substance of the thing and its entire definition; for it includes in itself all preceding parts.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 20 Quod enim in differentia includatur genus, ostensum est, ex hoc quod genus non est sine differentiis. Sed quod ultima includat omnes praecedentes, palam est ex hoc quod nisi hoc dicatur, sequitur quod oporteat in terminis, idest definitionibus, multoties eadem dicere. Et hoc erit superfluum et nugatorium.	1556. For on the grounds that a genus does not exist without differences it has been shown that a genus is included in its differences. But that the ultimate difference includes all preceding differences is evident from the fact that unless this were affirmed to be so, it would follow that “in the definitive expressions of things,” i.e., in their definitions, the same thing would have to be expressed many times. This would be superfluous and meaningless.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 21 Hoc autem inconveniens ideo accidit, quia si aliquis dicat in definiendo animal habens pedes bipes, quod oportebit eum dicere si bipes sit alia differentia ab habente pedes, non includens eam, nihil aliud dixit sic definiens, quam animal habens pedes, duos pedes habens. Bipes enim nihil aliud est quam duos pedes habens; in quo manifeste includitur, pedes habens. Unde patet quod, si utraque apponatur differentia, est nugatio.	1557. And this absurd conclusion follows because, if someone were to define an animal by saying “two-footed having feet” (as he must do if two-footed is a difference distinct from having feet and does not include it), when he defines it in this way he has said nothing but animal having feet having two feet; for two-footed is nothing but having two feet, in which the difference having feet is obviously included. Hence it is evident that, if both are used, we get nonsense.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 22 Et iterum si hoc quod est bipes dividat aliquis propria divisione, idest per ea quae sunt per se et non per accidens, sequetur ulterius multoties dici idem, et toties quot sumuntur differentiae. Ut si dicam quod animalis bipedis, aliud est habens pedes scissos in quinque digitos, aliud in quatuor: si quis vellet, definiens hominem, ponere omnes differentias intermedias, toties repeteret idem, quot differentias apponeret. Diceret enim quod homo est animal pedes habens, duos pedes habens, scissos in quinque digitos.	1558. Moreover, if someone divides two-footed “by its proper difference,” i.e., by those things which are essential and not accidental, it follows further that the same thing is expressed many times, and as many times is the number of differences used, so that, if I say that one kind of two-footed animal is one which has a foot divided into five toes, and another kind is one which has a foot divided into four toes, anyone wishing to give all intermediate differences in defining man would express the same thing many times, and as often as he added differences; for he would say that man is an animal having feet, having two feet, having feet divided into five toes.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 23 Et quia ista sunt inconvenientia, igitur manifestum est quod si in definitione accipiantur differentiae, una erit ultima, scilicet quae est species et substantia, idest quae substantiam et speciem definiti comprehendet, et ab eius unitate definitio erit una.	1559. Now since these things are unacceptable, it is evident that, if differences are taken in a definition there will be one ultimate difference, namely, the one “which will be the specific form and substance,” i.e., which comprises the substance and specific form of the thing defined; and as a result of the unity of this difference the definition will be one.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 24 Deinde cum dicit si vero ostendit, quod hoc non potest dici si differentiae per accidens sumantur; dicens, quod si aliquis in dividendo et definiendo accipiat differentiam secundum accidens, sicut si dividatur quod habentium pedes, aliud est album, aliud est nigrum, tot erunt ultimae differentiae, quot factae sunt divisiones; quia una earum alteram non includet. Et de differentiis sic sumptis, procedebat ratio superius inducta contra unitatem definitionis. Huiusmodi enim differentiae sic per accidens acceptae non essent unum nisi subiecto; quod non sufficit ad unitatem definitionis.	1560. But if the division (647). Here he shows that the definition cannot be said to be one if the differences which are taken are accidental. He says that, if someone in dividing and defining were to take an accidental difference (for example, if things having feet were divided, one into black and another into white), there would be as many ultimate differences as the divisions which have been made, because one of them would not include another. And concerning differences taken in this way the argument introduced above was directed against the unity of the definition; for differences of this kind taken accidentally in this way would be one only in their subject, and this is not enough to account for the unity of the definition.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 25 Deinde cum dicit quare palam concludit propositum. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit conclusionem; dicens, quod palam est ex praedictis quod quamvis in definitione ponatur genus et differentia, tamen definitio est ratio ex differentiis tantum, quia genus non est praeter differentias, ut supra dictum est. Et quamvis ponantur multae differentiae in definitione, tamen tota definitio dependet et constituitur ex ultima, quando fit divisio secundum rectum, idest a communiori ad minus commune descendendo secundum per se differentias, et non accipiendo quasi a latere differentias per accidens.	1561. Hence it is evident (648). He now concludes to his thesis; and in regard to this he does two things. First he gives his conclusion. He says that it is evident from the above discussions that, even though a genus and a difference are given in a definition, still a definition is an intelligible expression composed only of differences, because a genus is not something apart from its differences, as was stated above (644:C 1549). And even though many differences are given in a definition, still the entire definition depends on and is constituted by the ultimate difference, when the division is made “correctly,” i.e., by descending from more common to less common essential differences, and not by bringing in accidental differences from the side, so to speak.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 26 Secundo ibi, palam autem manifestat conclusionem inductam per quoddam signum, dicens, palam autem erit, scilicet quod tota definitio constituatur ex ultima differentia, ex hoc quod, si quis transponat partes talium definitionum, sequetur inconveniens. Sicut si aliquis dicat definitionem hominis esse animal bipes, habens pedes. Ex quo enim dictum est bipes, superfluum est apponere, pedes habens. Sed si diceretur primo pedes habens, adhuc restaret inquirendum, utrum esset bipes, dividendo pedes habens.	1562. Moreover, this will be evident (649). Second, he clarifies by means of an example the conclusion which was drawn, saying “moreover this will be evident,” namely, that the entire definition consists in the ultimate difference, on the grounds that if anyone changes the parts of such definitions an absurdity results. Thus someone might say that the definition of man is a two-footed animal having feet. But as soon as two-footed has been expressed, it is superfluous to add having feet. But if one were to say first “having feet,” it would still be necessary to ask whether it was two-footed, by dividing the difference having feet.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 27 Ex hoc patet quod illae differentiae, secundum quod sunt multae, habent inter se ordinem determinatum. Non autem hoc potest intelligi quod in substantia rei sit aliquis ordo. Non enim potest dici, quod hoc substantiae sit prius, et illud posterius; quia substantia est tota simul et non per successionem, nisi in quibusdam defectivis, sicut sunt motus et tempus.	1563. From this it is evident that insofar as those differences are many they have a definite order among themselves. But this cannot mean that there is any order in the substance of a thing; for it cannot be said that this part of a substance is prior and another subsequent, because substance is complete all at once and not successively, except in the case of those things which are deficient in being, such as motion and time.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 28 Unde patet quod multae partes definitionis non significant multas partes essentiae ex quibus essentia constituatur sicut ex diversis; sed omnes significant unum quod determinatur ultima differentia. Patet etiam ex hoc, quod cuiuslibet speciei est una tantum forma substantialis; sicut leonis una est forma per quam est substantia, et corpus, et animatum corpus, et animal, et leo. Si enim essent plures formae secundum omnia praedicta, non possent omnes una differentia comprehendi, nec ex eis unum constitueretur.	1564. Hence it is evident that a multiplicity of parts in a definition does not signify a multiplicity of essential parts of which the essence is constituted as if they were distinct things; but all signify one thing which is made determinate by an ultimate difference. It is also evident from this that there is one substantial form for every species. Thus there is one form of lion by which it is a substance, a body, a living body, an animal, and a lion; for if there were many forms corresponding to all the differences mentioned above, all could not be included under one difference, nor could one thing be composed of them.
lib. 7 l. 12 n. 29 Concludit ergo finaliter recapitulando, quod nunc primo tot sint dicta de definitionibus quae accipiuntur secundum divisiones generis in differentias, et differentiae in differentias quales quaedam sunt, quia videlicet sunt ex his quae praedicantur per se, et continentes in se partes speciei, et etiam unaquaeque est unum. Haec enim in praecedentibus de definitionibus sunt ostensa. Dicit autem primum, quia in sequentibus de definitione et quod quid est, aliqua determinantur.	1565. Lastly he brings his discussion to a close with a summary. He says that with regard to definitions which are based on the divisions of genera into differences and of difference into differences, these points should constitute a preliminary statement “of the kinds of things they are”: they are composed of essential predicates, they contain in themselves the parts of the specific form, and each is also a unity. He says “preliminary” because in the following discussions certain points are established about definitions and quiddities.

Lecture 13

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 1 Postquam determinavit philosophus de substantia secundum quod substantia dicitur quod quid est, hic determinat de substantia secundum quod universale a quibusdam dicitur substantia; et circa hoc duo facit. Primo continuat se ad praecedentia. Secundo prosequitur suam intentionem, ibi, videtur autem impossibile. Dicit ergo primo, quod quia in ista scientia est principalis perscrutatio de substantia, oportet iterum redire ad divisionem substantiae, ut videatur quid est dictum, et quid restat dicendum. Dicitur autem substantia, ut ex praedictis patet, id quod est tamquam subiectum, scilicet materia, quae se habet ad formam substantialem sicut subiectum, quod est substantia completa, ad formam accidentalem. Et alio modo dicitur substantia quod quid erat esse, quod pertinet ad formam. Tertio modo dicitur substantia quod ex his, idest compositum ex materia et forma. Et quarto modo dicitur substantia a quibusdam universale.	1566. Having settled the issue about substance in the sense of quiddity, the Philosopher now comes to certain conclusions about substance insofar as the universal is considered by some thinkers to be a substance; and in regard to this he does two things. First (650)C 1566), he links up this discussion with the preceding one. Second (651:C 1569), he carries out his plan (“For it seems”). He therefore says, first (650), that since this science is chiefly concerned with the study of substance, we must return again to the division of substance in order to see what has been said and what remains to be said. Now it is clear from the preceding discussion that substance has the following meanings. First, it means what has the nature “of a subject,” namely, matter, which is related to substantial form in the same way as a subject, which is a complete substance, is related to accidental form; second, it means the essence of a thing, which refers to its form; third, it means “the composite of these,” i.e., the composite of matter and form; and fourth, it means the universal, according to some thinkers.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 2 Haec autem divisio substantiae hic posita in idem redit cum divisione posita in principio huius septimi, licet videatur esse diversa. Ibi enim posuit quatuor: scilicet subiectum, quod quid erat esse, et universale, et genus: et subiectum divisit in tria: scilicet in materiam et formam et compositum. Et, quia iam manifestum est quod quod quid erat esse se tenet ex parte formae, ponit quod quid erat esse, loco formae. Item, quia genus commune eadem ratione ponitur substantia qua et universale, ut ostendetur, concludit utrumque sub uno modo: et sic remanent tantum quatuor modi, qui hic ponuntur.	1567. Now the division of substance given here is the same as that given at the beginning of Book VII (568)C 1270), although it seems to differ; for there he gave four senses of substance: the subject, the essence, the universal and the genus. And he divided subject into three meanings: matter, form, and the composite. And since it has already been made clear that essence derives from form, he puts essence in place of form; and again since a common genus is said to be substance on the same grounds as a universal is, as will be shown, he concludes that both belong in the same class; and thus there remain only the four senses in which substance is spoken of here.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 3 De duobus ergo istorum modorum dictum est. Dictum est enim de quod quid erat esse, et iterum de subiecto, quod dicitur dupliciter. Uno modo sicut id quod est aliquid, et ens actu, sicut animal subiicitur suis passionibus, et quaecumque substantia particularis suis accidentibus. Alio modo sicut materia prima subiicitur actui, idest formae substantiali. De his autem dictum est, ubi ostensum est quomodo partes materiae pertineant ad speciem vel ad individuum. Sed quia non solum materia et quod quid est videntur esse causae, sed etiam universale quibusdam, scilicet Platonicis, videtur maxime esse causa et principium, ideo de hoc, scilicet universali, tractabimus in hoc eodem septimo. De substantiis autem compositis et sensibilibus tractabitur in octavo; quarum ea, quae in hoc septimo tractantur, sunt quasi principia.	1568. Two of these, then, have been discussed already; for essence has been treated (576)C 1299) and also the subject (568:C 1270), which is taken in two senses. For, first, it means a particular thing and an actual being, as animal is the subject of its predicates, and as any particular substance is the subject of its accidents. Second, it means primary matter, which is “the subject of actuality,” i.e., of substantial form. These things were discussed where it was shown (629:C 1501) how the parts of matter pertain to the form and to the individual. But since not only the matter and the quiddity seem to be causes, but also the universal, because “according to some thinkers,” i.e., the Platonists, this seems to be in the fullest sense a cause and principle, we will therefore -treat “of this,” i.e., the universal, in this same seventh book. And in Book VIII (691:C 1681) we will treat of composite and sensible substances, to which the things treated in this seventh book are related as principles.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit videtur enim incipit inquirere utrum universalia sint substantiae: et dividitur in duas partes. In prima ostendit quod universalia non sunt substantiae, sicut quidam posuerunt. Secundo ostendit quantum ad quid recte dixerunt hoc ponentes, et quantum ad quid erraverunt, ibi, sed species dicentes hic quidem dicunt recte. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit in communi quod universalia non sunt substantiae. Secundo specialiter de uno et ente, quae maxime ponebantur esse substantiae rerum, ibi, quoniam vero unum dicitur. Prima dividitur in duas. In prima ostendit, quod universalia non sunt substantiae. In secunda, quod non sunt separata, ibi, manifestum autem ex his. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit universalia non esse substantias ex ea parte qua universalia praedicantur de multis. Secundo ex ea parte qua species ex universalibus componuntur, sicut ex partibus definitionis, ibi, amplius autem et impossibile et inconveniens. Dixerat enim superius in quinto, quod genus quodammodo est totum, inquantum praedicatur de pluribus, et quodammodo est pars, inquantum ex genere et differentia constituitur species. Circa primum duo facit. Primo enim ostendit, quod universale non est substantia, cum de pluribus praedicetur. Secundo excludit quamdam cavillosam responsionem, ibi, sed an sic quidem non contingit.	1569. For it seems (651). Here he begins to investigate whether universals are substances, and this is divided into two parts. In the first (651) he shows that universals are not substances, as some thinkers claimed. In the second (681:C 1642) he shows to what extent the statements of those making this claim are true and to what extent they are false (“But those who”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he shows in a general way that universals are not substances. Second (678:C 1637), he shows this in a special way with regard to being and unity, which were assumed to be the substances of thinars in the highest degree (“And since”). The first is divided into two parts. In the first he shows that universals are not substances; and in the second (659:C 1592), he shows that they are not separate entities (“And from these”). in regard to the first he does two things. First, he shows that universals cannot be substances on the grounds that they are predicated of many things; and second (654:C 1579), on the grounds that species are composed of universals as parts of their definition (“Furthermore, it is”). For he had said above, in Book V (524:C 1119), that in one sense a genus is a whole inasmuch as it is predicated of several things, and in another sense it is a part inasmuch as a species is composed of a genus and a difference. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he shows that a universal is not a substance on the grounds that it is predicated of many things. Second (653:C 1577), he rejects a captious answer (“But while a universal”).
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 5 Sciendum est autem, ad evidentiam huius capituli, quod universale dupliciter potest accipi. Uno modo pro ipsa natura, cui intellectus attribuit intentionem universalitatis: et sic universalia, ut genera et species, substantias rerum significant, ut praedicantur in quid. Animal enim significat substantiam eius, de quo praedicatur, et homo similiter. Alio modo potest accipi universale inquantum est universale, et secundum quod natura praedicta subest intentioni universalitatis: idest secundum quod consideratur animal vel homo, ut unum in multis. Et sic posuerunt Platonici animal et hominem in sua universalitate esse substantias.	1570. For the clarification of this chapter it must be noted that the term universal can be taken in two senses. First, it can be taken to mean the nature of the thing to which the intellect attributes the aspect of universality, and in this sense universals such as genera and species signify the substances of things inasmuch as they are predicated quidditatively; for animal signifies the substance of the thing of which it is predicated, and so also does man. Second, a universal can be taken insofar as it is universal, and insofar as the nature predicated of a thing falls under the aspect of universality, i.e., insofar as animal or man is considered as a one-in-many. And in this sense the Platonists claimed that animal and man in their universal aspect constitute substances.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 6 Quod Aristoteles in hoc capitulo intendit reprobare, ostendens quod animal commune vel homo communis non est aliqua substantia in rerum natura. Sed hanc communitatem habet forma animalis vel hominis secundum quod est in intellectu, qui unam formam accipit ut multis communem, inquantum abstrahit eam ab omnibus individuantibus. Ponit ergo ad propositum duas rationes.	1571. This is what Aristotle aims to disprove in this chapter by showing that animal in general or man in general is not a substance in reality, but that the form animal or man takes on this generality insofar as it exists in the mind, which understands one form as common to many inasmuch as it abstracts it from all individuating principles. Hence in support of his thesis he gives two arguments.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 7 Circa quarum primam dicit, quod videtur ex sequentibus rationibus impossibile esse, quodcumque eorum, quae universaliter praedicantur, esse substantiam, secundum scilicet quod in sua universalitate accipitur. Quod primo probatur ex hoc, quod substantia uniuscuiusque, est propria ei, et non inest alii. Sed universale est commune multis, hoc enim dicitur universale, quod natum est multis inesse et de multis praedicari. Si ergo universale est substantia, oportet quod sit alicuius substantia. Cuius ergo substantia erit? Aut enim oportet quod sit substantia omnium, quibus inest, aut unius. Non est autem possibile quod sit substantia omnium: quia unum non potest esse substantia pluribus. Plura enim sunt quorum substantiae sunt plures et diversae.	1572. Concerning the first of these (651) he says that in the light of the succeeding arguments it seems impossible that any one of those attributes which are predicated universally should be a substance, i.e., insofar as it is taken in its universality. This is proved, first, by the fact that while the substance of each thing is proper to each and does not belong to something else, a universal is common to many; for that is said to be universal which belongs by nature to many things and is predicated of many. Hence, if a universal is substance it must be the substance of some thing. Of what thing, then, will it be the substance? For it must either be the substance of all the things to which it belongs or of one. But it is impossible for it to be the substance of all things, because one thing cannot be the substance of many, since those things are many whose substances are many and distinct.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 8 Sed si dicatur, quod sit substantia unius eorum quibus inest, sequetur quod omnia alia, quibus inest, sint illud unum, quibus ponitur esse substantia. Oportet enim quod pari ratione, eorum etiam sit substantia, cum et eis similiter insit. Quorum autem substantia est una, et quod quid erat esse unum, oportet et ipsa esse unum. Relinquitur ergo, quod ex quo universale non potest esse substantia omnium, de quibus dicitur, nec unius alicuius, quod nullius sit substantia.	1573. But if it is held to be the substance of one of the things in which it is found, it follows that all other things in which it is found, and of which it is held to be the substance, are that one thing; because it must also be their substance for the same reason, since it is found in all in the same way. Now those things of which the substance and essence are one must also be one themselves. Hence, since a universal cannot be the substance of all the things of which it is predicated or of any one of them, it follows that it is not the substance of anything.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 9 Sciendum autem quod ideo dicit quod universale est quod natum est pluribus inesse, non autem quod pluribus inest; quia quaedam universalia sunt quae non continent sub se nisi unum singulare, sicut sol et luna. Sed hoc non est quin ipsa natura speciei quantum est de se sit nata esse in pluribus; sed est aliquid aliud prohibens, sicut quod tota materia speciei comprehendatur in uno individuo, et quod non est necessarium multiplicari secundum numerum speciem, quae in uno individuo potest esse perpetua.	1574. Now it should be noted that he describes a universal as what is naturally disposed to exist in many, and not as what exists in many; because there are some universals which contain under themselves only one singular thing, for example, sun and moon. But this is not to be understood in the sense that the very nature of the species, considered in itself, is not naturally disposed to exist in many things; but there is something else which prevents this, as the fact that all the matter of the species is included in one individual, and the fact that it is not necessary that a species which can last forever in a single individual should be numerically many.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 10 Secundam rationem ponit ibi, amplius substantia dicit quod substantia dicitur, quae non est de subiecto: et dicitur universale semper de aliquo subiecto: ergo universale non est substantia. Videtur autem ratio haec non valere. Dictum est enim in praedicamentis, quod de ratione substantiae est, quod non sit in subiecto. Praedicari vero de subiecto non est contra rationem substantiae. Unde ponuntur ibi secundae substantiae quae praedicantur de subiecto.	1575. Furthermore, substance (652). Here he gives his second reason. He says that substance refers to something which is not predicated of a subject. But a universal is something which is always predicated of some subject. Therefore a universal is not a substance. But this argument seems not to be cogent, for it is said in the Categories ‘ that it belongs to the notion of substance not to exist in a subject. But to be predicated of a subject is not opposed to the notion of substance. Hence in that place second substances are posited, and these are predicated of a subject.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 11 Sed dicendum quod secundum logicam considerationem loquitur philosophus in praedicamentis. Logicus autem considerat res secundum quod sunt in ratione; et ideo considerat substantias prout secundum acceptionem intellectus subsunt intentioni universalitatis. Et ideo quantum ad praedicationem, quae est actus rationis, dicit quod praedicatur de subiecto, idest de substantia subsistente extra animam. Sed philosophus primus considerat de rebus secundum quod sunt entia; et ideo apud eius considerationem non differt esse in subiecto et de subiecto. Hic enim accipit dici de subiecto, quod est in se aliqua res et inest alicui subiecto existenti in actu. Et hoc impossibile est esse substantiam. Sic enim haberet esse in subiecto. Quod est contra rationem substantiae: quod etiam in praedicamentis est habitum.	1576. But it must be said that in the Categories the Philosopher is speaking from the viewpoint of logic. Now a logician considers things insofar as they exist in the mind, and therefore he considers substances insofar as they take on the character of universality from the way in which the intellect understands them. Hence in reference to predicating, which is an act of reason, he says that substance is predicated “of a subject,” i.e., of a substance subsisting outside of the mind. But the first philosopher considers things insofar as they are beings, and therefore in his view of the matter there is no difference between existing in a subject and being predicated of a subject. For he takes something to be predicated of a subject which is something in itself and belongs to some actually existing subject. And it is impossible that this be a substance, for then it would have to exist in a subject. But this is contrary to the notion of substance, as is also stated in the Categories.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit sed an sic quidem excludit quamdam cavillosam responsionem, qua posset aliquis obviare primae rationi, in qua dixerat, quod omnia sunt unum, quorum substantia et quod quid est sunt unum. Posset enim aliquis dicere, quod universale non est sicut substantia, ut quod quid erat esse, quod quidem sit proprium uni. Et ideo ad hoc excludendum philosophus dicit sed an. Potest dici obviando rationi primo inductae, quod non contingit universale esse substantiam, sicut quod quid erat esse est substantia; sed tantum est substantia in ipsis particularibus existens, sicut animal in homine et equo. Non enim ita est natura animalis in homine, quod sit propria ei, cum sit etiam equi. Quasi dicat, non potest sic responderi.	1577. But while a universal (653). Here he rejects the captious answer by which someone might oppose his first argument, in which he had said that all things are one whose substance and quiddity are one. For someone might say that a universal is not a substance in the sense of the essence of a thing, which is proper to one thing. Therefore with a view to rejecting this the Philosopher says “But while” it might be said, in opposition to the first argument introduced, that it is impossible for a universal to be a substance in the way in which an essence is, it is substance only as something existing in these particular things, as animal exists in man anti in horse. For the nature of animal is not found in man in such a way that it is proper to him, because it is also found in horse—as if to say that the argument cannot be answered in this way.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 13 Sequitur enim, si hoc quod est animal commune, sit substantia, quod huius substantiae sit aliqua ratio. Nec differt ad propositum si non est ratio definitiva omnium quae sunt in substantia, idest quae ponuntur in definitione, ne in infinitum procedatur in definitionibus, sed oportet omnes partes cuiuslibet definitionis iterum definiri. Nihil enim minus illa substantia oportet quod sit alicuius, licet non habeat definitionem, quam si haberet. Sicut si dicamus, quod licet hoc ipsum, quod est homo communis, non habeat definitionem, tamen oportet quod sit hominis substantia in quo existit, ipsius scilicet hominis communis. Quare idem accidit quod et prius; quia oportebit quod ista substantia communis, licet non ponatur propria alicui inferiorum, tamen erit propria illius substantiae communis in qua prima existit. Sicut si animal commune sit quaedam substantia, animal per prius praedicabitur de illa communi substantia, et significabit eius substantiam propriam, sive sit definibile, sive non. Unde non poterit, ex quo haec substantia est propria uni, de multis praedicari.	1578. For if animal in common is a substance, it follows that there is an intelligible expression of this substance. And it makes no difference to his thesis if there is no definitive expression of all those things “which are present in substance,” i.e., which are given in the definition, test there be an infinite regress in definitions, but all parts of any definition must be further defined. For this substance must be the substance of something, even though it does not have a definition, no less than if it has. Thus we might say that, although man in common does not have a definition, it must nevertheless be the substance of the man in whom it is present, namely, of man in common. Hence the same conclusion follows as before, because, even though this common substance is not held to be proper to any one of its inferiors, it must still be proper to that common substance in which it is first found. For example, if animal in common is a substance, animal will be predicated primarily of that common substance and will signify its proper substance, whether it be definable or not. Hence, since this substance is proper to one thing, it will be impossible for it to be predicated of many things.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 14 Deinde cum dicit amplius autem ostendit, quod universale non est substantia, accipiendo rationes ex ea parte, qua universale est pars definitionis et essentiae. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit rationes ad propositum. Secundo excludit quamdam dubitationem, ibi, habet autem quod accidit dubitationem. Circa primum ponit quatuor rationes. Quarum primam ponit dicens, quod impossibile et inconveniens est, id quod est hoc aliquid et substantia, non esse ex substantiis, nec ex his quae sunt hoc aliquid, sed ex his quae significant quale, si tamen est ex aliquibus. Quod dicit propter substantias simplices. Sequitur enim, quod cum ea, ex quibus est aliquid, sint priora, quod prius sit id quod est non substantia, sed quale, eo quod est substantia, et eo quod est hoc aliquid. Quod est impossibile: quia impossibile est passiones et qualitates et accidentia esse priores substantia ratione, aut tempore, aut generatione.	1579. Furthermore, it is (654). He now shows that the universal is not a substance by basing his arguments on the grounds that the universal is part of the definition and essence. In regard to this he does two things. First (654:C 1579), he gives the arguments in support of his thesis. Second (658:C 1590), he disposes of a difficulty (“But the result”). In regard to the first part he gives four arguments. First, he says that it is both impossible and untenable that a particular thing and a substance should not be composed of substances or particular things but of those things which signify quality—if it is composed of anything (which he adds to allow for simple substances). For since those parts of which a thing is composed are prior to it, it follows that what is not substance but quality is prior both to substance and to this particular thing. But this is impossible, because it is impossible for modifications and qualities and accidents to be prior to substance either in intelligibility or in time or in generation.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 15 Quod enim non sint priores ratione, supra ostensum est, ex eo quod substantia ponitur in definitione accidentium et non e converso. Item quod non sint priores tempore, ex hoc supra probatum est, ex quo etiam hic probatur, quia sequeretur quod passiones essent separabiles a substantiis, quod est impossibile. Esse autem prius generatione continetur sub eo quod est prius tempore. Omne enim quod est prius generatione, est etiam prius tempore, licet non e converso. Ea enim, quae non habent ordinem ad generationem alicuius, licet sint priora tempore, non tamen sunt priora generatione: sicuti equus non est prior generatione leone, qui nunc est, licet sit prior tempore. Partes autem ex quibus aliquid constituitur, sunt priores generatione, et per consequens tempore, et quandoque etiam ratione, sicut supra ostensum est. Unde impossibile est quod ex non substantiis componatur substantia. Universalia autem significant non substantiam et hoc aliquid, sed significant quale quid, ut in praedicamentis dicitur de secundis substantiis. Ergo patet quod ex universalibus, si sunt quaedam res praeter singularia, non possunt componi singularia, quae sunt hoc aliquid.	1580. For it has been shown above (563)C 1253) that they are not prior in intelligibility, because substance is given in the definition of accidents, and not the reverse. And from this it has also been proved above (563:C 1257) that they are not prior in time. From this in turn he further proves here that it would follow that attributes would be capable of existing apart from substances; and this is impossible. And priority in generation comes under priority in time, although the reverse is not true. For even though things which are not related to the generation of something are prior in time, they are’ still not prior in generation; for example, a horse is not prior in generation to a lion which exists at this moment, even though it is prior to it in time. However, the parts of which a thing is composed are prior in the process of generation and therefore in time, and sometimes also in intelligibility, as was shown above (570:C 1278). Hence it is impossible that substances should be composed of things which are not substances. But universals do not signify particular things, but of what sort things are, as was said about second substances in the Categories. It is evident, then, that singular things, which are particulars, cannot be composed of universals if these are some kind of things which exist apart from singulars.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 16 Sed videtur quod haec ratio inconvenienter procedat. Secundae enim substantiae, quae sunt genera et species in genere substantiae, etsi non significent hoc aliquid, sed quale, non tamen significant hoc modo quale, sicut passiones, quae significant qualitatem accidentalem, sed significant qualitatem substantialem. Ipse autem procedit hic ac si significarent qualitatem accidentalem.	1581. But it seems that this argument is not a satisfactory one; for even though second substances, which are genera and species in the genus of substance, do not signify particular things but of what sort things are, nevertheless they do not signify of what sort things are in the same way in which attributes that signify accidental quality do, but they signify substantial quality. However, he argues here as if they signified accidental quality.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 17 Sed dicendum est quod, si universalia sint res quaedam, sicut Platonici ponebant, oportebit dicere, quod non solum qualitatem substantialem, sed accidentalem significent. Omnis enim qualitas quae est alia res ab eo cuius est qualitas, est accidentalis. Sicut albedo est alia res a corpore cuius est qualitas, et est in eo cuius est qualitas sicut in subiecto; et ideo est accidens. Si ergo universalia, inquantum universalia sunt, sint res quaedam, oportebit quod sint aliae res a singularibus, quae non sunt universalia. Et ideo, si significant qualitatem eorum, oportet quod insint eis sicut substantiis. Et per consequens quod significent qualitatem accidentalem.	1582. But it must be said that if universals are things, as the Platonists claimed, we shall have to say that they signify not only substantial quality but also accidental quality; for every quality which is distinct from the thing of which it is the quality, is accidental. For example, whiteness differs from the body of which it is a quality, and it inheres in the body of which it is the quality as its subject; and therefore it is an accident. Hence, if universals as universals are things, they must be distinct from singulars, which are not universals. Therefore, if they signify the quality of those things, they must inhere in them as in substances and thus must signify accidental quality.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 18 Sed ponentibus quod genera et species non sunt aliquae res vel naturae aliae a singularibus, sed ipsamet singularia, sicut quod non est homo qui non sit hic homo, non sequitur quod secundae substantiae significent accidens vel passionem.	1583. However, for those who claim that genera and species are not things or natures distinct from singulars but are the singular things themselves (for example, that there is no man who is not this man), it does not follow that second substance signifies an accident or modification.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 19 Secundam rationem ponit ibi, amplius Socrati. Dicit, quod si universalia sunt substantiae, sequitur quod Socrati inerit substantiae substantia. Si enim omnia universalia sunt substantiae; sicut homo est substantia Socratis, ita animal erit substantia hominis. Et ita istae duae substantiae, una quae est homo, et alia quae est animal, erunt in Socrate. Et hoc est quod concludit: quare duorum erit substantia, idest: quare sequitur, quod hoc quod dico animal, sit substantia non solum hominis, sed etiam Socratis. Et ita una substantia erit in duobus; cum tamen supra ostensum sit, quod una substantia non est nisi unius.	1584. Furthermore, Socrates (655). He gives the second argument. He says that if universals are substances, it follows that Socrates will have a substance in his substance; for if all universals are substances, then just as man is the substance of Socrates, in a similar fashion animal will be the substance of man; and thus these two substances, one of which is man and the other animal, will exist in Socrates. His conclusion is “and therefore it will be the substance of two things,” i.e., it therefore follows that animal is the substance not only of man but also of Socrates. Hence one substance will belong to two things. Yet it has been shown above that one thing has only one substance.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 20 Et non solum in Socrate hoc accidit quod dictum est, sed totaliter in omnibus accidit, si homo et alia quae sic dicuntur sicut species, sint substantiae, et quod nihil eorum quae ponuntur in ratione specierum sit substantia, neque quod possit esse sine illis, in quorum definitione ponuntur, vel quod sint in aliquo alio, aut quod sit ipsummet aliud. Sicut quod non erit quoddam animal praeter aliqua animalia, idest praeter species animalis. Et similiter est de omnibus aliis quae ponuntur in definitionibus, sive sint genera, sive differentiae. Et hoc ideo, quia, cum species sint substantiae, si ea etiam quae in definitionibus specierum ponuntur sint substantiae, in singularibus erunt plures substantiae, et una substantia erit plurium, ut de Socrate dictum est. Patet igitur ex dictis, quod nullum universale est substantia; et nullum eorum quae communiter praedicantur, significat hoc aliquid, sed quale.	1585. And the result mentioned applies not only in the case of Socrates but universally in all cases. For if man and the other things which are called species in this way are substances, it also follows that no one of the parts in the intelligible structure of a species is substance, and that it cannot exist without the species in whose definitions it is given or exist in anything else; just as there is no animal “apart from particular animals,” i.e., apart from the species of animal. And the same thing applies to all other predicates which are given in definitions, whether they are genera or differences. And this is true because, if those parts which are given in the definitions of species are substances, then since species are substances there will be many substances in singular things, and many things will have one substance; as was said about Socrates. From what has been said, then, it is evident that no universal is a substance, and that common predicates do not signify a particular thing but of what sort a thing is.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 21 Tertiam rationem ponit ibi, si autem. Dicit, quod si praedicta conclusio non concedatur, accident multa inconvenientia: inter quae erit unum, quod oportebit ponere tertium hominem. Quod quidem potest exponi dupliciter. Uno modo ut praeter duos homines singulares, qui sunt Socrates et Plato, sit tertius homo, qui est communis. Quod quidem non est inconveniens secundum ponentes ideas, licet secundum rectam rationem inconveniens videatur.	1586. And if this (656). Then he gives the third argument. He says that, if the preceding conclusion is not admitted, many absurdities will follow, and one of these will be the need to posit a third man. This can be explained in two ways. First, it can mean that besides the two singular men, Socrates and Plato, there is a third man, who is common to both. This is not absurd according to those who posit Ideas, although it seems absurd from the viewpoint of right reason.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 22 Alio modo, ut praeter hominem singularem et communem, ponatur tertius, cum communicent in nomine et ratione, sicut et duo homines singulares, praeter quos ponitur tertius homo communis, et ob hanc causam, scilicet quia communicant in nomine et definitione.	1587. Second, it can be explained as meaning that there is posited a third man besides a singular man and man in common, since they have a common name and intelligible expression, just as do two singular men in addition to whom a third common man is posited; and the reason is that they have a common name and definition.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 23 Quartam rationem ponit ibi amplius autem. Dicit, quod universalia non sunt substantiae secundum hanc rationem. Impossibile est enim aliquam substantiam esse ex pluribus substantiis, quae sunt in ea actu. Duo enim, quae sunt in actu, nunquam sunt unum actu; sed duo, quae sunt in potentia, sunt unum actu, sicut patet in partibus continui. Duo enim dimidia unius lineae sunt in potentia in ipsa linea dupla, quae est una in actu. Et hoc ideo, quia actus habet virtutem separandi et dividendi. Unumquodque enim dividitur ab altero per propriam formam. Unde ad hoc quod aliqua fiant unum actu, oportet quod omnia concludantur sub una forma, et quod non habeant singula singulas formas, per quas sint actu. Quare patet, quod si substantia particularis est una, non erit ex substantiis in ea existentibus actu; et sic, si est ex universalibus, universalia non erunt substantiae.	1588. Furthermore, it is (657). He gives the fourth argument. He says that universals are not substances for this reason that it is impossible that a substance should be composed of many substances actually present in it; for two actual things are never one actual thing, but two which are in potentiality are one actually, as is clear of the parts of a continuous quantity. The two halves of one line, for instance, exist potentially in the whole line, which is one actually. And this is because actuality has the power of separating and distinguishing; for one thing is distinguished from another by its proper form. Hence in order that many things may become one actual thing, it is necessary that all should be included under one form, and that each one should not have its own form by which it would exist in act. Hence it is evident that if a particular substance is one, it will not be composed of substances actually present in it; and thus if it is composed of universals, universals will not be substances.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 24 Et secundum hunc modum Democritus recte dicit, quod impossibile est unum fieri ex duobus, et ex uno fieri duo. Est enim intelligendum, quod duo in actu existentia, nunquam faciunt unum. Sed ipse non distinguens inter potentiam et actum, posuit magnitudines indivisibiles esse substantias. Voluit enim, quod sicut in eo quod est unum, non sunt multa in actu, ita nec in potentia. Et sic quaelibet magnitudo est indivisibilis. Vel aliter. Recte, inquam, dixit Democritus, supposita sua positione, qua ponebat magnitudines indivisibiles esse etiam rerum substantias, et sic esse semper in actu, et ita ex eis non fieri unum. Et sicut est in magnitudinibus, ita est in numero, si numerus est compositio unitatum, sicut a quibusdam dicitur. Oportet enim quod vel dualitas non sit unum quid, sive quicumque alius numerus; sive quod unitas non sit actu in ea. Et sic dualitas non erunt duae unitates, sed aliquid ex duabus unitatibus compositum. Aliter numerus non esset unum per se et vere, sed per accidens, sicut quae coacervantur.	1589. And in this sense Democritus is right when he says that it is impossible for one thing to be produced from two, and two from one; for it must be borne in mind that two actual existents never make one. But in failing to distinguish between the potential and the actual, he claimed that indivisible continuous quantities are substances; for he thought that, just as one thing does not contain many things actually, neither does it contain them potentially; and thus any continuous quantity is indivisible. Or this might be explained differently. I mean that Democritus was right if we assume his own position to be true, in which he claimed that indivisible quantities are the substances of things and thus are always actual, and in this way no one thing is produced from them. And just as this is true in the case of continuous quantities, in a similar way it is true in the case of numbers, if number is composed of units, as some thinkers claimed. For either the number two (or any other number) is not one thing, or the unit is not actually present in it. Thus the number two will not be two units, but something composed of units; otherwise a number would not be a unity, essentially and properly, but only accidentally, like a heap.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 25 Deinde cum dicit habet autem movet dubitationem circa praedicta; dicens, quod id, quod accidit ex praedictis, habet dubitationem. Dictum est enim, quod ex universalibus non potest esse aliqua substantia, propter hoc quod universale non significat hoc aliquid, sed quale. Secundo dictum est, quod ex substantiis in actu non potest esse aliqua substantia. Et sic videtur sequi, quod substantia non potest componi neque ex substantiis: ergo sequitur quod omnis substantia sit incomposita. Et ita, cum definitiones non dentur de substantiis incompositis (quod patet per hoc quod definitio est ratio habens partes, ut supra dictum est), sequitur, quod nullius substantiae sit definitio. Sed omnibus videtur, ut supra ostensum est, quod definitio, vel est solum substantiae, vel eius maxime. Nunc autem conclusum est, quod substantiae non sit definitio: ergo sequitur quod nullius sit definitio.	1590. But the result (658). He poses a difficulty about the above answer. He says that the result of the foregoing discussion gives rise to a difficulty; for first (as was said), a substance cannot be composed of universals, because a universal does not signify a particular thing but of what sort a thing is; and second, a substance cannot be composed of actual substances; and thus it seems to follow that substances cannot be composed or made up of substances. It follows, then, that all substances lack composition. And thus, since no definitions are given of substances which lack composition (and this is clear from the fact that the definition is an intelligible expression having parts, as was shown above [[[Authors/Aristotle/metaphysics/l7#jp622|622]]:C 1460]), it follows that no substance has a definition. But it seems to everyone, as was shown above (582:C 1331), that a definition is either of substance alone or chiefly of substance, and it has now been concluded that there is no definition of substance; hence it follows that there is no definition of anything.
lib. 7 l. 13 n. 26 Dicendum est autem ad praedictam dubitationem, quod quodam modo substantia est ex substantiis, quodam modo non. Hoc autem erit manifestum magis ex posterioribus in hoc capitulo, et in octavo. Est enim ex substantiis in potentia, sed non in actu.	1591. Now the answer to the above difficulty is that in one sense substance is composed of substances and in another it is not. But this will become clearer from the following discussions in this book (669)C 1606) and in Book VIII; for substance is composed of potential substances, not of actual ones.

Lecture 14

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 14 n. 1 Postquam philosophus ostendit universalia non esse substantias absolute, hic ostendit, quod non sunt substantiae a sensibilibus separatae: et dividitur in partes duas. In prima ostendit, quod universalia non sunt substantiae separatae. In secunda manifestat quoddam, quod in superioribus dubium reliquerat, ibi, manifestum autem est quod substantiarum. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit universalia non esse substantias separatas. Secundo ostendit quod si sunt separatae, non sunt definibiles, ibi, quoniam vero substantia altera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit inconvenientia, quae sequuntur ponentibus universalia esse substantias separatas, comparando genus ad species. Secundo comparando genus ad individua, ibi, amplius autem in sensibilibus. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit quamdam divisionem. Secundo prosequitur primum membrum divisionis, ibi, ratione namque palam. Tertio secundum, ibi, sed si alterum in unoquoque. Dicit ergo primo, quod ex praedictis etiam manifestum esse potest quid accidat de inconvenientibus, dicentibus ideas esse substantias et separabiles, quae dicuntur esse species universales, et simul cum hoc ponentibus speciem esse ex genere et differentiis. Hae enim duae positiones simul coniunctae, scilicet quod species componantur ex genere et differentia, et quod species universales sunt substantiae separatae, quae dicuntur ideae, ducunt ad inconvenientia. Si enim ponantur species esse separatae, constat quod unum genus est in pluribus speciebus simul, sicut animal in homine et equo. Aut ergo hoc ipsum quod est animal in homine et equo existens, est unum et idem numero; aut alterum in homine, et alterum in equo. Inducit autem hanc divisionem, quia Plato ponebat ideas specierum, non autem generum, cum tamen poneret communiter universalia esse substantias.	1592. Having shown that universals are not substances in an unqualified sense, here the Philosopher shows that they are not substances existing apart from sensible things. This is divided into two parts. In the first (659)C 1592) he shows that universals are not substances existing apart from sensible things. In the second (677:C 1630 he clears up a point which had remained a problem in the above discussion (“It is also”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he shows that universals are not separate substances. Second (669:C 1606), he shows that if they are separate they are not definable (“But since there are”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he shows the absurd consequences facing those who claim that universals are separate substances, by comparing genus with species; and second (668:C 1605), by comparing genus with individuals (“Again, these are”). In regard to the first he does three things. First, he presents a division. Second (660:C 1593), he proceeds to treat the first member of this division (“For it is evident”). Third (664:C 1600), he proceeds to treat the second member (“But what will happen”). He therefore says, first (659), that from what has been said above it is also possible to indicate the absurd conclusions facing those who say that the Ideas, which are said to be universal forms, are substances and are separable, and at the same time claim that a specific form is composed of genus and difference; for these two positions, when taken together, i.e., that forms are composed of genus and difference, and that universal forms are separate substances, called Ideas, lead to absurd consequences. For if forms are assumed to be separate, it follows that one genus exists in many species at the same time, as animal in man and in horse. Therefore, either this animal present in man and in horse is one and the same thing numerically, or there is one animal present in man and a different one present in horse. And he introduces this division because Plato claimed that there are Ideas of species but not of genera, even though he made the general claim that universals are substances.
lib. 7 l. 14 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit ratione namque prosequitur primum membrum divisionis. Et primo ostendit, quod sit unum et idem animal. Secundo ostendit inconvenientia, quae sequuntur hoc posito, ibi, si quidem ergo. Dicit ergo, quod manifestum est, quod animal est unum et idem in homine et equo secundum rationem. Si enim assignetur ratio animalis secundum quod dicitur de utrolibet, scilicet homine vel equo, eadem ratio assignabitur, quae est substantia animata sensibilis: univoce enim praedicatur genus de speciebus, sicut et species de individuis. Si ergo propter hoc, quod species praedicatur secundum unam rationem de omnibus individuis, est aliquis homo communis, qui est ipsum quod est homo secundum se existens, et est hoc aliquid, idest quoddam demonstrabile subsistens et separatum a sensibilibus, sicut Platonici ponunt; necesse est pari ratione et ea, ex quibus species constat, scilicet genus et differentiam, ut animal et bipes, significare similiter hoc aliquid, et esse separabilia a suis inferioribus, et esse substantias per se existentes. Quare sequitur quod animal erit unum numero per se existens, quod praedicatur de homine et equo.	1593. For it is evident (660). He proceeds to treat the first member of this division. First, he shows that the animal present in man and that present in horse are one and the same. Second (661:C 1594), he explains the absurdities which follow from this position (“If, then”). He accordingly says, first (660), that it is evident that the animal present in man and that present in horse are one and the same in their intelligible expression; for if one states the intelligible expression of animal insofar as it is predicated of each, namely, of man and of horse, the same intelligible expression—living sensible substance—will be assigned to each of them; for a genus is predicated univocally of a species just as a species is also predicated univocally of individuals. Hence, if, because of the fact that species are predicated of all individuals according to one intelligible expression, there is a common man, who is man-in-himself, existing by himself, “and who is a particular thing,” i.e., something subsistent which can be pointed to and is separable from sensible things, as the Platonists maintained, then for a similar reason the things of which a species consists, namely, genus and difference, such as animal and two-footed, must also signify particular things and be separable from their own inferiors, and be substances existing by themselves. Hence it follows that animal will be one individual and subsistent thing, which is predicated of man and of horse.
lib. 7 l. 14 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit si quidem ostendit inconvenientia, quae sequuntur ex hoc posito: quae sunt tria. Primum est, quia cum genus sit in specie sicut substantiam rei significans, sic erit animal in equo, sicut tu es in teipso, qui es substantia tuiipsius. Sic autem non est possibile aliquod unum esse in pluribus separatim existentibus. Non enim tu es nisi in teipso. Es enim in pluribus non separatim existentibus, sicut in carnibus et ossibus, quae sunt tui partes. Animal igitur si sit unum et idem, non poterit esse in pluribus speciebus, ut in homine et equo; cum species separatae secundum Platonicos sint quaedam substantiae adinvicem diversae.	1594. If, then, the animal (661). Then he points out the absurdities which follow from this position; and there are three of them. The first is that since a genus is present in a species as something signifying the substance of a thing, then animal will be present in horse as you are in yourself, who are your own substance. Now in this way it is not possible for some one thing to be present in many things which exist separately. For you are present only in yourself, since you are not in many things which exist separately, as in flesh and bones, which are your parts. Therefore, if animal is one and the same, it will be incapable of existing in many species, as in man and in horse, since the separate Forms, according to the Platonists, are substances which are distinct from each other.
lib. 7 l. 14 n. 4 Secundum ponit ibi, et quare homo enim, quia est unum de multis praedicatum secundum Platonicos, non ponitur in particularibus, sed extra ea. Si ergo sit unum animal, quod praedicatur de omnibus speciebus; quare hoc ipsum quod est animal universale non est sine ipso, scilicet sine equo vel quacumque alia specie, ut per se separatum existens? Non potest ratio conveniens assignari ab eis.	1595. And why will (662). Then he gives the second absurdity. For since man is one thing predicated of many, according to the Platonists, man is assumed not to be present in particular things but to exist outside of them. Hence, if there is one animal which is predicated of all species of animals, why will this universal animal-in-itself not exist apart from itself, namely, apart from horse or any other species of animal, as something existing separately by itself? No suitable explanation of this can be given by them.
lib. 7 l. 14 n. 5 Tertium ponit ibi, deinde si dicens: constat, quod species constituitur ex genere et differentia. Aut igitur hoc est per hoc, quod genus participat differentiam sicut subiectum participat accidens, ut hoc modo intelligamus ex animali et bipede fieri hominem, sicut ex albo et homine fit homo albus; aut per aliquem alium modum.	1596. Again, if it participates (663). He gives the third absurdity. He says that it is evident that a species is constituted of a genus and a difference. Therefore this is explained by the fact that a genus participates in a difference just as a subject participates in an accident. Thus we understand that man is made up of animal and two-footed in the same way that white man is made up of white and man. Or it is explained in some other way.
lib. 7 l. 14 n. 6 Et si quidem species fiat per hoc, quod genus participat differentiam, sicut quod animal per participationem bipedis fit homo, et per participationem multipedis fit equus, vel polypus, accidit aliquid impossibile. Cum enim genus, quod praedicatur de diversis speciebus, ponatur esse una substantia, sequitur quod contraria simul insunt ipsi animali, quod in se est unum et hoc ens, scilicet demonstrabile. Differentiae enim, quibus dividitur genus, sunt contrariae.	1597. And if a species comes to be because a genus participates in a difference, so that animal by participating in two-footed becomes a man, and by participating in many-footed becomes a horse or an octopus, an impossible conclusion follows. For when a genus which is predicated of different species is held to be one substance, it follows that contrary attributes will be present at the same time in the same animal, which is one thing in itself and a particular being, namely, something capable of being pointed to; for the differences by which a genus is divided are contraries.
lib. 7 l. 14 n. 7 Si autem non sit ex animali et bipede homo per modum participationis, quis modus erit cum aliquis dixerit animal esse bipes vel gressibile, constituens ex his duobus unum? Quasi dicat: de facili non potest assignari. Et ideo subiungit, sed forsan componitur, quasi dicat: numquid poterit dici, quod ex his duobus fiat unum per compositionem sicut domus fit ex lapidibus; aut per copulationem, sicut arca fit ex lignis conclavatis; aut per mixtionem, sicut electuarium fit ex speciebus alteratis? His enim modis invenitur ex duabus vel pluribus substantiis per se existentibus aliquid unum fieri.	1598. However, if man is not composed of animal and two-footed by way of participation, then when someone says that animal is two-footed or capable of walking, what will be the way in which one thing is constituted from these two? The implication is that the reason cannot be easily given. Therefore he adds “But perhaps they are combined,” which is equivalent to saying: will it be possible to affirm that one thing arises from these two as a result of their combination, as a house arises from stones; or by being joined together, as a chest comes from pieces of wood being fitted together; or by being mixed, as a lozenge comes from the alteration of different kinds of medications? For these are the three ways in which one thing is found to come from two or more things which exist as independent substances.
lib. 7 l. 14 n. 8 Sed omnes isti modi sunt inconvenientes. Non enim possent genus et differentiae praedicari de specie, sicut nec partes compositae vel copulatae vel mixtae praedicantur de suis totis. Et praeterea unum non venit in compositionem diversorum totaliter; sed partes divisim sunt, ita quod una pars eius sit in compositione huius et alia in compositione alterius, sicut una pars ligni venit in compositione domus, et alia in compositione arcae. Unde, si ex animali et bipede fieret homo et avis, modis praedictis, sequeretur quod non tota natura animalis esset in homine nec in ave, sed alia et alia pars. Et sic iterum non esset idem animal in utroque.	1599. But all of these ways are unacceptable. For genus and difference could not be predicated of species, as parts which are combined, joined together and mixed are not predicated of their wholes. Furthermore, one thing does not enter as a whole into the composition of different things, but its parts exist separately, so that one part of it enters into the composition of this thing and another into the composition of something else, as one part of wood enters into the composition of a house and another into the composition of a chest. Hence if man and bird were to come from animal and from two-footed in the foregoing ways, it would follow that the whole nature of animal would not be present in man and in bird, but different parts would be present in each. And so, again, animal would not be the same in each.
lib. 7 l. 14 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit sed si alterum prosequitur secundum membrum divisionis; dicens, quod inconveniens sequitur si ponatur non unum animal esse in omnibus speciebus. Ducit autem ad quatuor inconvenientia: quorum primum ponit sic dicens. Ostensum est quid sequatur ponentibus universalia esse substantias, si ponatur unum animal esse in omnibus speciebus. Sed propter hoc potest aliquis dicere, quod sit alterum animal in unaquaque specie: ergo erunt infinita quorum substantia est animal, ut est consequens dicere ad praedictam positionem. Est enim animal substantia cuiuslibet speciei contentae sub animali. Non enim potest dici quod homo fiat ex animali secundum accidens, sed per se: et ita animal ad substantiam equi pertinet, et bovis, et aliarum specierum, quae sunt fere infinitae. Quod autem aliquod unum cedat in substantia infinitorum, videtur esse inconveniens.	1600. But what will happen (664). He now treats the second member of the division. He says that an absurdity follows if animal is not assumed to be one in all species of animals; and this leads to four impossible consequences. He gives the first by speaking as follows: the consequences facing those who claim that universals are substances when animal is assumed to be one in all species of animals, has been made clear. But because of this someone can say that there is a different animal in each species of animal; hence there will be an infinite number of things whose substance is animal, inasmuch as this follows from the statement of the foregoing position; for animal is the substance of any species contained under animal, since it cannot be said that man comes from animal accidentally but essentially. And thus animal pertains to the substance of horse and of ox and to that of the other species, which arc almost infinite in number. But that some one thing should be present in the substance of an infinite number of things seems absurd.
lib. 7 l. 14 n. 10 Secundum inconveniens ponit ibi, amplius multa dicit, quod sequitur etiam quod ipsum animal, idest substantia animalis universalis, erit multa, quia animal, quod est in unaquaque specie, est substantia illius speciei, de qua praedicatur. Non enim praedicatur de specie sicut de quodam alio diverso a se in substantia. Si autem non praedicatur animal de homine sicut de diverso poterit dici convenienter, quod homo erit ex illo, scilicet ex animali, sicut ex sua substantia; et quod illud, scilicet animal, sit etiam genus eius, praedicatum de eo in eo quod quid est. Relinquitur ergo, quod sicut illa de quibus praedicatur animal, sunt multa, ita ipsum animal universale esse multa.	1601. Again, animal-in-itself (665). Then he gives the second absurdity. He says that it also follows that “animal-in-itself,” i.e., the universal substance animal, will be many, because animal, which is present in each species of animal, is the substance of the species of which it is predicated; for it is not predicated of the species as of something else substantially different from itself. And if the term animal is not predicated of man as something different, it will be proper to say that man will be made up of it, i.e., have animal within himself as his own substance, and that the thing being predicated, i.e., animal, is also his genus, which is predicated of him quidditatively. Hence it follows that, just as those things of which animal is predicated are many, in a similar way the universal animal is itself many.
lib. 7 l. 14 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit et amplius ponit tertium inconveniens; dicens, quod ulterius ex praedictis sequitur, quod omnia illa, ex quibus est homo, scilicet superiora genera et differentiae, sint ideae; quod est contra positionem Platonicorum, qui ponebant solas species esse ideas particularium, genera vero et differentias non esse ideas specierum. Et hoc ideo, quia idea est proprie exemplar ideati secundum suam formam. Forma autem generis non est propria formis specierum, sicut forma speciei est propria individuis, quae conveniunt secundum formam, et differunt secundum materiam.	1602. Further, all the things (666). He gives the third absurdity. He says that it also follows, from the things said above, that all the things of which man consists, namely, the higher genera and species, are Ideas; and this is opposed to the position of the Platonists, who claimed that only species are Ideas of particular things, and that genera and differences are not Ideas of species. They did this because an Idea is the proper exemplar of the thing produced from the Idea so far as the form of the thing is concerned. Now the form of a genus is not proper to that of its species as the form of a species is proper to its individuals, which are formally the same and materially different.
lib. 7 l. 14 n. 12 Sed, si sunt diversa animalia secundum diversas species, unicuique speciei respondebit aliquid in substantia sui generis, sicut propria idea; et ita etiam erunt genera ideae, et similiter differentiae. Non ergo alteri universalium erit quod sit idea, et alteri quod sit substantia, sicut Platonici ponebant, dicentes quidem genera esse substantias specierum, species vero ideas individuorum. Impossibile namque est ita esse, ut ostensum est. Sequitur igitur ex praedictis quod ipsum animal, idest substantia animalis universalis, sit unumquodque eorum quae sunt in animalibus idest quae continentur inter species animalis.	1603. But if there are different animals for the different species of animals, then something in the substance of the genus of each species will correspond to each as its proper Idea; and thus genera also will be Ideas, and so will differences. Therefore it will not be characteristic of one of the universals to be an Idea and of another to be a substance, as the Platonists claimed when they said that genera are the substances of species and species the Ideas of individuals; for it is impossible that this should be so, as has been shown. From what has been said above, then, it follows “that animal in-itself,” i.e., the universal substance animal, is each of these things “which are contained in animals,” i.e. which are contained among the species of animal.
lib. 7 l. 14 n. 13 Quartum ponit ibi, amplius ex dicit quod iterum videtur esse dubium ex quo constituatur hoc quod est homo, et quomodo constituatur ex ipso animali scilicet universali, aut quomodo possibile est animal esse, quod substantia hoc ipsum praeter ipsum animal, idest quomodo potest esse ut homo sit aliquid praeter animal quasi quaedam substantia per se existens, et tamen animal sit hoc ipsum quod est homo? Haec enim videntur esse opposita, quod homo sit praeter animal, et tamen animal sit hoc ipsum quod est homo.	1604. Again from what (667). Here he gives the fourth absurdity. He says that there also seems to be a difficulty about the parts of which this thing, man, is composed; and how it is derived from “animal-in-itself,” namely, the universal animal; or “how is it possible that the animal which is a substance should exist apart from animal-in-itself,” i.e., how is it possible for man to be something apart from animal as a substance existing by itself and for it still to be true that animal is this very thing which is man? For these two views seem to be opposed, namely, that man exists apart from animal, and that animal is this very thing is man.
lib. 7 l. 14 n. 14 Deinde cum dicit amplius autem improbat praedictam positionem per comparationem generum ad singularia; dicens quod haec eadem inconvenientia, quae accidunt ponentibus genera et universalia esse substantias in speciebus, accidunt et in sensibilibus singularibus, et etiam multa his absurdiora; inquantum natura generis magis remota est a singularibus sensibilibus et materialibus, quam a speciebus intelligibilibus et immaterialibus. Si itaque impossibile est sic esse, palam est quod idea non est ipsorum sensibilium, sicut Platonici dicunt.	1605. Again, these are (668). Then he rejects the foregoing position by comparing genera to singular things. He says that the same absurd conclusions which face those who claim that genera and universals are the substances of species, also face those who hold genera to be the substances of singular sensible things (and there are even more absurd conclusions than these). And their claim is absurd inasmuch as the nature of a genus is more removed from sensible, material singulars than from intelligible and immaterial species. Hence, if it is impossible that this should be the case, it is clear that there is no Idea of these sensible things, as the Platonists said.

Lecture 15

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 1 In hoc loco philosophus ostendit, quod ideae quae ponuntur separatae a Platonicis, non possunt definiri. Et hoc ideo, quia Platonici ad hoc praecipue ponebant ideas, ut eis adaptarentur et definitiones et demonstrationes, quae sunt de necessariis, cum ista sensibilia videantur omnia in motu consistere. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit per rationes, quod ideae non possunt definiri. Secundo per signum, ibi, quoniam propter quid nullus. Circa primum ponit tres rationes: quarum primam ponit sic dicens, quod substantiarum alia est sicut ratio, idest sicut quod quid erat esse et forma, et alia est sicut compositum ex materia et forma, quod est totum simul coniunctum ex materia et forma. Dico autem eas esse alteras quia hoc quidem, scilicet substantia, quae est totum, sic est substantia sicut habens rationem conceptam cum materia; illa vero, quae est sicut forma et ratio et quod quid erat esse, est totaliter ratio et forma non habens materiam individualem adiunctam.	1606. In this place the Philosopher shows that the Ideas, which the Platonists claimed to be separate, are incapable of being defined. And he does this because the Platonists posited Ideas chiefly in order that they might apply them both to definitions and demonstrations, which have to do with what is necessary, since all these sensible substances seemed to be in motion. In regard to this he does two things. First (669)C 1606), he uses arguments to show that the Ideas cannot be defined. Second (676:C 1627), he uses an example (“Therefore, as was stated”). In the first member of this division (669) he presents three arguments, and the first of these he states as follows: one kind of substance is “the intelligible structure,” i.e., the essence and form, and another is the composite of matter and form, which is the concrete whole made up of matter and form. And I say that these differ; i.e., “that the latter,” which is substance in the sense of the concrete whole, is substance taken as something having its intelligible structure conceived with matter; but the former, which is the form or intelligible structure or essence of a thing, is the intelligible structure or form in general, and this does not have individual matter connected with it.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 2 Quaecumque igitur dicuntur substantiae hoc modo sicut composita, eorum potest esse corruptio. Ostensum est enim supra, quod eorum solum est generatio, quae ex materia et forma componuntur. Corruptio autem et generatio sunt circa idem.	1607. Therefore all those things which are called substance in the sense of a composite are capable of being corrupted; for it was shown above (611)C 1423) that only those things which are composed of matter and form are subject to generation; and generation and corruption belong to the same subject.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 3 Ipsius autem substantiae, quae est sicut ratio vel quod quid est, non est ita corruptio quod ipsa per se corrumpatur. Ostensum est enim supra quod non est eius generatio, sed solum compositi; non enim fit quod quid erat esse domui, ut supra ostensum est, sed fit quod est proprium huic domui. Generatur enim haec domus particularis, non autem ipsa species domus. Sed tamen huiusmodi formae et quidditates aliquando sunt, et aliquando non sunt sine generatione et corruptione, idest sine hoc quod ipsa generentur vel corrumpantur per se, sed incipiunt esse et non esse aliis generatis et corruptis. Ostensum est enim supra quod nullus in naturalibus generat haec, scilicet formas et quidditates, nec etiam in artificialibus; sed hoc agens singulare generat et facit hoc singulare.	1608. And substance in the sense of the intelligible structure or whatness of a thing is incapable of being corrupted in such a way that it is corrupted in itself. For it was shown above (611)C 1417-23) that this kind of substance is not generated but only the composite; for it is not the essence of a house that is produced (as was shown above), but what is peculiar to this house; because it is this particular house and not the intelligible structure of a house that is produced. Yet forms and quiddities of this kind sometimes are and sometimes are not “without generation and corruption,” i.e., without being generated or corrupted in themselves, for they begin to be and not to be when other things are generated and corrupted. For it was shown above (611:C 1420) that in the case of natural things no one “generates these,” namely, their forms and quiddities; nor does this happen even in the case of artificial things; but this singular agent generates and produces this singular thing.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 4 Propter hoc autem, quod singularia generantur et corrumpuntur, substantiarum sensibilium singularium non potest esse nec definitio nec demonstratio. Habent enim materiam individualem; cuius natura est talis, ut id quod ex ea constituitur, contingat esse et non esse; quia ipsa materia quantum est in se, est in potentia ad formam, per quam res materialis est, et ad privationem per quam res materialis non est. Et ideo omnia singularia de numero ipsorum sensibilium, quorum materia est in potentia ad esse et non esse, sunt corruptibilia. Corpora tamen caelestia non habent materiam huiusmodi, quae sit in potentia ad esse et non esse, sed solum ad ubi. Et ideo non sunt corruptibilia.	1609. And because singular things are generated and corrupted there can be neither definition nor demonstration of singular sensible substances; for they contain individual matter whose nature is such that anything constituted of it is capable both of being and of not being. For matter itself, considered in itself, is in potentiality to form, by means of which the material thing exists, and to privation, by reason of which the material thing does not exist. Hence all singular things included among these sensible substances whose matter is in potentiality to being and non-bcing are corruptible. However, the celestial bodies do not have that kind of matter which is in potentiality to being and non-being, but that which is in potentiality to place; therefore they are not corruptible.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 5 Si ergo demonstratio est necessariorum, ut probatum est in posterioribus, et definitio etiam est scientifica, idest faciens scire, quae est quasi medium demonstrationis, quae est syllogismus faciens scire; sicut non contingit quandoque esse scientiam et quandoque ignorantiam, quia quod scitur semper oportet esse verum, sed id quod est tale, idest quod quandoque potest esse verum, quandoque falsum, est opinio; ita etiam non contingit demonstrationem nec definitionem esse eorum quae possunt se aliter habere; sed solum opinio est huiusmodi contingentium.	1610. Hence, if demonstration is of necessary things, as was proved in the Posterior Analytics, and definition is also “scientific,” i.e., productive of science, because it serves as the middle term in a demonstration, which is a syllogism producing science, then just as it is impossible for scientific knowledge sometimes to be scientific knowledge and sometimes ignorance, because what is known scientifically must always be true, “but what is such,” i.e., what can sometimes be true and sometimes false, is opinion, in the same way it is impossible that there should be demonstration or definition of those things which can be otherwise than they are; but about contingent things of this kind there is only opinion.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 6 Si, inquam, ita est, palam est, quod non erit nec definitio nec demonstratio ipsorum singularium corruptibilium sensibilium. Non enim huiusmodi corruptibilia possunt esse manifesta scientiam habentibus de eis, scilicet cum recesserunt a sensu, per quem cognoscuntur. Et ideo salvatis eisdem rationibus in anima ipsorum singularium, idest speciebus, per quas cognosci possunt, non erit de eis nec definitio nec demonstratio. Et propter hoc oportet, cum aliquis eorum, qui student ad assignandum terminum, idest definitionem alicuius rei, definiat aliquod singulare, quod non ignoret, quia semper contingit auferre singulare, manente tali ratione, quam ipse fingit in anima. Et hoc ideo quia non contingit vere definire singulare. In his enim quae vere definiuntur, manet cognitio definiti quamdiu manet cognitio definitionis in anima.	1611. If this is so, I say, it is evident that there will be neither definition nor demonstration of these singular, sensible, corruptible things. For corruptible things of this kind cannot be clearly known by those who have scientific knowledge of them when they have passed outside the scope of the senses, through which they are known. Hence, “even though the intelligible expressions” or forms of these singular things, by which they can be known, “remain in the soul,” there will be neither definition nor demonstration of them. And for this reason when anyone, “eager for setting the limits of things,” i.e., the definition of anything, defines a singular thing, he must not ignore the fact that it is always possible to remove the singular while the intelligible expression as such which he forms in his mind remains. And this is true because it is impossible to give a genuine definition of a singular; for in the case of those things which are truly defined the knowledge of the thing defined remains as long as the knowledge of the definition remains in the mind.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 7 Si igitur singulare definiri non potest, itaque nec ideam possibile est definire. Ideam enim oportet esse singularem, secundum ea quae ponuntur de idea. Ponunt enim quod idea est quoddam per se existens ab omnibus aliis separatum. Haec autem est ratio singularis.	1612. Therefore, if a singular thing cannot be defined, it is impossible to define an Idea; for an Idea must be a singular thing, according to those who posit Ideas, since they claim that an idea is something which subsists of itself apart from all other things; and this is what singular thing means.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit necessarium vero ponit secundam rationem: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit rationem. Secundo excludit quamdam cavillosam responsionem, ibi, si quis autem dicat. Fuit autem necessarium ut hanc rationem superadderet rationi suprapositae, quia ratio iam posita probabat singulare non esse definibile, ex eo quod est corruptibile et materiale; quae duo Platonici ideis non attribuebant. Unde ne per hoc sua probatio inefficax redderetur, subiungit aliam rationem, dicens:	1613. And it is necessary (670). Then he gives the second argument; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he gives the argument; and second (671:C 1619), he rejects an answer which avoids the question (“But if”). Now it was necessary that he should add this argument to the foregoing one, since the argument given has already proved that the singular is not definable because it is corruptible and material, and the Platonists did not assign these two properties to the Ideas. Hence, lest his proof should be rendered ineffective, he adds another argument (670), and states it as follows.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 9 Necessarium esse omnem definitivam rationem esse ex pluribus nominibus. Ille enim qui definit, non faciet notificationem rei ponendo unum nomen tantum; quia si poneret unum tantum nomen, adhuc definitum remanebit nobis ignotum. Contingit enim uno nomine notiori assignato, ipsum nomen definiti notificari; non autem rem definitam, nisi principia eius exprimantur, per quae res omnis cognoscitur.	1614. It is necessary that every definitive expression should be composed of several words; for one who defines a thing does not convey its meaning by giving only one word, because if he were to give only one the thing defined would still remain unknown to us. For when a single better known word is given it is possible to know the name of the thing defined but not the thing defined, unless its principles are given; for it is by its principles that everything becomes known.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 10 Resolutio autem definiti in sua principia, quod definientes facere intendunt non contingit nisi pluribus nominibus positis. Et ideo dicit, quod si unum nomen tantum ponatur, quod adhuc remanebit definitum ignotum; sed si plura ponantur, oportet quod nomina posita sint communia omnibus.	1615. Now the resolving of the thing defined into its principles—which those forming definitions intend to do—is possible only when several words are given. Therefore he says that, if only one word is given, the thing defined will still remain unknown; but if many words are given, they must be common to all things [of their class].
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 11 Si enim in definitione alicuius singularis ponantur aliqua nomina quae conveniunt ipsi soli, erunt synonyma nomina unius rei singularis; unde res non notificabitur huiusmodi nominibus positis, sed forte nomen minus notum. Sicut si diceremus quid est Tullius, et responderetur Marcus et Cicero non esset conveniens definitio.	1616. For if in the definition of any singular thing certain words are given which are proper only to that thing itself, they will be synonymous names of the same singular thing. Hence it is not the thing which will be made known when words of this kind are given, but perhaps a less well known word. For example, if we were to ask who Tullius is, and one were to answer, Marcus and Cicero, it would not be an apt definition.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 12 Oportet igitur, si singulare definitur, in eius definitione poni aliqua nomina, quae multis conveniant. Ergo necesse erit, quod definitio non solum huic singulari conveniat, cuius definitio quaeritur, sed etiam aliis. Quod est contra rationem verae definitionis. Sicut si aliquis te definire intendat, et dicat quod tu es animal gressibile, aut animal album, vel quicquid aliud, non tibi soli convenit, sed etiam est in alio.	1617. Therefore, if a singular thing is defined, certain words must be given which are applicable to many things. Hence the definition must fit not only the singular thing whose definition is under investigation but also other things; and this is opposed to the notion of a true definition; for example, if someone intended to define you, and said that you are an animal capable of walking or a white animal or anything else that applies to you, this definition would not only fit you but other things as well.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 13 Unde patet, quod singulare, non solum ex hoc quod est corruptibile et materiale, caret definitione, sed etiam ex hoc quod est singulare; unde nec idea definitur. Cuius ratio est quam hic tangit philosophus: quia si nomina ad definiendum assumpta exprimunt individuum quantum ad ea ex quibus individuatur, erunt nomina synonyma. Si autem exprimunt naturam et accidentia communia absque individuatione, non erit definitio propria definitio: quia omnes formae, sive accidentales, sive substantiales, quae non sunt per se subsistentes, sunt, quantum est de se, communes multis. Et si aliqua inveniatur in uno solo, sicut forma solis, hoc non provenit ex parte formae, quin quantum est de se sit nata esse in pluribus; sed ex parte materiae. Nam tota materia speciei congregata est sub uno individuo. Vel magis ex parte finis; quia unus sol sufficit ad universi perfectionem.	1618. It is evident, then, that a singular thing lacks a definition not only because it is corruptible and material but also because it is singular. Hence, neither is an Idea defined. The reason for this is the one which the Philosopher gives here: if the words taken to define a thing express the individual in terms of the things by which it is individuated, the words will be synonymous. But if they express the nature and common attributes without individuation, the definition will not be a proper definition of the thing defined, because all forms, accidental or substantial, which do not subsist of themselves, are, when considered in themselves, common to many. And if some are found in only one thing, as the form of the sun, this does not come from the form, inasmuch as it is of itself suited to be in many things, but from the matter; for the whole matter of the species is collected in one individual. Or this comes from its final cause, because one sun is sufficient for the perfection of the universe.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 14 Deinde cum dicit si quis autem excludit quamdam cavillosam responsionem. Posset enim aliquis dicere, quod licet quodlibet eorum, quae ponuntur in definitione singularis ideae, conveniat separatim multis, non tamen simul accepta conveniunt nisi uni soli; huic scilicet cuius definitio quaeritur. Hanc autem responsionem excludit duobus modis. Primo quantum ad ipsas ideas. Secundo quantum ad ea, quorum sunt ideae, ibi, amplius de multis. Circa primum duo facit. Primo excludit responsionem praedictam; ostendens quod adhuc sequitur definitionem non definito soli inesse. Secundo quod non primo, ibi, et necesse esse priora. Dicit ergo, quod contra responsionem praedictam, primo est dicendum hic, quod definitio assignata alicui ideae etiam aliis inerit; sicut si definitio ideae hominis sit animal bipes, haec duo inerunt animali et bipedi, idest ideae animalis et ideae bipedis; quia etiam illae duae ideae simul coniunctae erunt animal bipes. Et sic haec definitio, animal bipes, non erit propria ideae hominis. Et hoc inconveniens quidem accidit in sempiternis, idest considerando etiam definitionem ideae, quae est quoddam singulare sempiternum secundum Platonicos; et considerando quod definitio assignata uni ideae convenit aliis.	1619. But if anyone (671). Then he rejects an answer which is evasive. For someone could say that while any of those attributes given in the definition of a singular Idea are proper to many individually, yet taken together they are proper to only one thing, viz., to the one whose definition is under investigation. He rejects this answer in two ways. First (671:C 1619), with reference to the Ideas themselves; and second (675:C 1624), with reference to those things of which they are the Ideas (“It will, moreover”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he rejects the answer mentioned above, showing that it still does not follow that the definition belongs only to the thing defined; and second (672:C 1620), that it does not belong to it primarily (“It is also necessary”). Hence he says (671) that in opposing this answer it must be said, first, that the definition assigned to any Idea also belongs to other Ideas; for example, if the definition of the Idea of man is two-footed animal, these two belong “to animal and to two-footed,” i.e., to the Idea of animal and to the Idea of two-footed; for those two Ideas combined would also be two-footed animal. Hence this definition, two-footed animal, will not be proper to the Idea of man. And this absurdity also follows ,,in the case of eternal things,” i.e., if we consider the definition of an Idea, which is an eternal singular, from the Platonists’ point of view, and if we consider that the definition given to one Idea is proper to the others.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 15 Deinde cum dicit et necesse ostendit quod sequitur ulterius, quod definitio assignata ideae hominis non primo convenit ei; quod est contra rationem definitionis. Nam definitio primo verificatur de definito. Hoc autem ostendit tribus modis. Primo sic: dicens, quod non solum necesse est quod animali et bipedi conveniat definitio assignata homini; sed etiam necesse est quod illa, scilicet animal et bipes, existant priora homine, et sint partes eius, inquantum homo ex utroque constituitur.	1620. It is also (672). Then he exposes the second consequence, namely, that the definition assigned to the Idea of rnan does not belong primarily to this Idea; and this is opposed to the notion of a definition, for a definition is shown to be true primarily of the thing defined. He proves this in three ways. First, he says that it is necessary not only that the definition given to man should belong to animal and to two-footed, but also that these—animal and two-footed—should be prior to man and be his parts inasmuch as man is composed of both.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 16 Quinimmo secundum positionem eorum sequeretur, quod ambo sint separabilia ab homine, et ab aliis animalibus, scilicet animal et bipes, si homo ponitur separabilis ab individuis. Sicut enim homo est superius ad individua, ita genus et differentiae ad hominem. Aut enim oportet quod nullum commune sit separabile; aut oportet quod ambo praedicta, scilicet animal et bipes, sint separabilia ab homine. Si igitur nullum commune est separabile, tunc sequetur quod genus non erit praeter species. Et sic genus non significabit substantiam. Si vero genus erit praeter species, pari ratione et differentia, quae etiam est communior specie. Si autem utraque, scilicet animal et bipes, sunt separabilia ab homine, sequetur quod sint priora, eo modo sicut homo separatus est prior individuis. Et ita sequetur ulterius, quod definitio assignata homini, conveniat quibusdam prioribus, scilicet animali et bipedi.	1621. But according to the position of the Platonists it would rather follow that both of these—animal and two-footed—are separable from man and from other animals, if man is assumed to be separable from individuals; because just as man is above individuals, in a similar fashion genus and difference are above man. For it is necessary either that nothing common be separable, or that both of these—animal and two-footed—be separable from man. Now if nothing common is separable, it follows that a genus will not exist apart from its species, and thus the genus will not signify substance. But if a genus exists apart from its species, then for a like reason a difference will also exist apart, for this is more common than a species. But if both animal and two-footed are separable from man, it follows that they are prior in the way in which the separate man is prior to the individual. And thus it further follows that the definition assigned to man belongs to certain prior things-to animal and to two-footed.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 17 Secundo ibi, deinde quia ostendit idem alia ratione; dicens, quod inde patet quod animal et bipes sunt priora homine secundum esse. Ista enim sunt priora in esse quae non removentur aliis ablatis; sed eis ablatis alia removentur. Sicut unum est prior duobus, quia remoto uno, removentur duo, sed non e converso. Remotis autem animali et bipede, removetur homo; sed remoto homine, hoc, scilicet animal et bipes, non aufertur. Unde patet quod animal et bipes sunt priora homine.	1622. Again, because (673). Second, he proves the same point by means of another argument. He says that it is evident from the following consideration that animal and two-footed are prior to man in being; for those things are prior in being which are not destroyed when other things are destroyed, although when they are destroyed other things are destroyed. For example, the number one is prior to the number two because, when the number one is destroyed, the number two is destroyed; but not the reverse. And when animal and two-footed are destroyed, man is destroyed, although when man is destroyed the former—animal and two-footed—are not destroyed. Hence animal and two-footed are evidently prior to man.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 18 Tertio ibi, deinde autem ostendit idem tertia ratione; dicens, quod idem apparet si ponamus animal et bipes non solum esse separabilia ab homine, quasi quaedam ideae eius, sicut supra dictum est in prima ratione, sed etiam quod ex ipsis fit homo, ut sic ex ideis separatis fiat idea separata. Patet enim, quod minus erunt composita animal et bipes, ex quibus componitur homo, quam homo qui componitur ex eis. Quod autem est minus compositum, est prius. Unde sequetur adhuc, quod animal et bipes sunt priora homine, non solum propter separationem, ut prima ratio procedebat, sed etiam propter compositionem, ut procedit haec tertia ratio.	1623. And again (674). He then proves the same point by a third argument. He says that the same conclusion is evident if we maintain not only that animal and two-footed are separable from man, as being Ideas of man, as was proved above in the first argument (671:C 1621), but also that man is composed of them, insomuch that in this way a separate Idea turns out to be composed of separate Ideas. For it is evident that animal and two-footed, of which man is composed, would be less composite than man, who is composed of them. But what is less composite is prior. Hence it follows again that animal and two-footed are prior to man, not only because they are separate, as the first argument advanced, but also because man is composite, as this third argument advanced.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 19 Deinde cum dicit amplius de multis ponit aliam rationem ad excludendum praemissam responsionem; dicens, quod non solum sequetur quod definitio assignata ideae hominis conveniat aliis ideis prioribus, scilicet animali et bipedi, ex quibus ponitur constitui idea hominis; sed etiam illa ipsa, ut animal et bipes, oportebit praedicari de multis, et non de homine tantum, non solum seorsum accepta, ut praemissa responsio istorum dicebat, sed etiam coniunctim.	1624. It will, moreover (675). Then he gives an additional argument to reject the answer given above. He says that it not only follows that the definition assigned to the Idea of man is common to other prior Ideas, namely, to animal and to two-footed, of which the Idea of man is supposed to be composed, but also that these very things—animal and two-footed—will be predicated of many things and not just of man. And this will occur not only when they are taken in themselves, as the foregoing answer of these men stated, but also when they are taken together.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 20 Si enim haec ex quibus componitur idea hominis, scilicet animal et bipes, non praedicantur de multis, quomodo cognoscetur quod sint ideae hominis, ut supra conclusum est? Sequetur enim quod sit aliqua idea, quae non potest praedicari de pluribus quam de uno. Constat enim quod idea animalis de pluribus numero praedicari potest. Si ergo haec duo simul animal bipes, non possunt praedicari nisi de uno, sequetur quod bipes restringat animal ad unum, ita quod aliqua idea quae est bipes praedicetur de uno tantum. Quod non videtur esse verum; cum omnis idea sit participabilis a multis. Ab uno enim exemplari, multa exemplaria fieri contingit. Non igitur praedicta responsio potuit esse vera.	1625. For if these elements of which the Idea of man is composed, animal and two-footed, are not predicated of many things, how is it known that they belong to the Idea of man, as was concluded above (644)C 1542-50)? For it would follow that there is some Idea which cannot be predicated of more things than one, since it is evident that the Idea of animal can be predicated of many individuals. Hence, if these two together—animal and two-footed—can be predicated of only one thing, it follows that two-footed restricts animal to one thing so that some Idea, two-footed, is predicated of only one thing. But this does not seem to be true, since every Idea is capable of being participated in by many things; for from one exemplar there arise many things which resemble that exemplar. Therefore the foregoing answer cannot be true.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 21 Sciendum est autem quod per hanc eandem rationem sufficienter ostenditur etiam nullum singulare in his inferioribus definiri posse per aliquas proprietates vel formas adunatas, quaecumque fuerint. Sicut enim quaelibet idea, ita et quaelibet forma, quantum est de se, nata est in pluribus esse. Et ita, quantumcumque aggregentur, non erit certa assignatio huius singularis nisi per accidens, inquantum contingit omnia insimul collecta in uno solo inveniri. Unde patet quod collectio accidentium non est principium individuationis, ut quidam dicunt, sed materia designata, ut philosophus dixit.	1626. Moreover, it must be understood that by the same argument it can also be adequately shown that no singular thing among these sensible things can be defined by any properties or united forms, whatever they may be. For any Idea, and also any form, taken in itself, is naturally disposed to exist in many things; and thus no matter how they may be combined there will be an exact definition of this singular thing only accidentally, inasmuch as it is possible for all of these forms taken together to be found in only one thing. It is obvious, then, that the principle of individuation is not a collection of accidents (as some said), but designated matter, as the Philosopher has stated (627:C 1496).
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 22 Deinde cum dicit quemadmodum ergo ponit tertiam rationem principalem ad ostendendum quod ideae non possunt definiri; dicens, quod quia supra dictum est, quod individua non possunt definiri propter hoc quod sunt corruptibilia, ut prima ratio procedebat, et quia ea quae accipiuntur in definitionibus sunt communia, ut procedebat ratio secunda, latet verum esse hoc quod dictum est, scilicet quod impossibile sit definire singularia in sempiternis, et maxime in illis quae sunt unica in una specie, sicut sol et luna. Quia enim sunt sempiterna, non videtur de eis concludere ratio, quae ex corruptione singularium procedebat. Quia vero sunt unica in una specie, non videtur de eis ratio concludere quae procedebat ex communitate partium definitionis. Quaecumque enim convenit soli speciei, conveniunt soli individuo.	1627. Therefore, as was stated (676). Then he gives the third and chief argument to show that Ideas cannot be defined. He says that, since it has been stated above (669:C 1609) that individuals cannot be defined because of their corruptibility, as the first argument advanced, and since those attributes which are included in definitions are common ones, as the second argument advanced, the truth of the statement that it is impossible to define singulars among eternal things is not apparent, especially in the case of those which are unique in one species, as the sun and the moon. For since the things in question are eternal, the argument based on the corruptibility of singular things does not seem to be conclusive when applied to them. And because these things are unique in their species, the argument from the commonness of the parts of a definition does not seem to be conclusive in their regard; for in this case all attributes proper to one species alone are proper to one individual alone.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 23 Sed pro tanto decipiuntur, qui putant haec esse definibilia, quia definientes talia peccant multipliciter. Et uno modo peccant inquantum addunt aliqua in definitionibus eorum, quibus ablatis adhuc erunt ipsa, scilicet sol et luna. Sicut cum definiendo solem, dicunt quod est perigyrion, idest terram gyrans, aut nycticrypton, idest nocte absconsum. Si enim sol steterit non gyrans terram, aut si apparuerit, ut non sit nocte absconsum, non adhuc erit sol, si bene fuerit definitum. Sed absurdum est, si non sit sol istis remotis. Sol enim significat quamdam substantiam; illa vero, per quae definitur, sunt quaedam accidentia eius.	1628. But those who think that these things are definable are deceived to such an extent that they make many errors in defining such things. They err in one respect inasmuch as they add in the definitions of these things such attributes as can be removed and let the things themselves remain, namely, the sun and the moon; for example, in defining the sun they say that it is something “going around the earth,” i.e., revolving around the earth, or “hidden at night,” i.e., invisible during the night. For if the sun were to stand still and not revolve around the earth, or if it appeared without being invisible at night, it would not be the sun if it had been defined properly. However, it would be absurd if it were not the sun when these attributes were removed, for the sun signifies a substance; but these things by which it is defined are certain of its accidents.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 24 Non solum autem sic peccant, sed et amplius, definientes solem per aliquid quod convenit in alio esse. Si enim fiat alter talis, idest aliquod corpus habens talem vel eamdem formam et speciem, palam est quod erit sol, secundum quod sol significat speciem, et hoc modo potest definiri. Ratio autem definitiva est communis, idest huius speciei quod est sol. Sed sol iste erat de numero singularium, sicut Cleon aut Socrates. Et sic patet, quod licet etiam ideae ponantur sempiternae et unicae in una specie, adhuc non poterunt definiri.	1629. And they not only err in this way but also make a further mistake when they define the sun by an attribute which is suited to belong to something else; for supposing that “another such thing should come into being,” i.e., some body having such a form, or the same form and species, it is evident that it would be a sun, inasmuch as sun signifies a species; and in this way it can be defined. Hence, “the definitive expression is common,” i.e., the intelligible expression of the species sun. But this sun would be a singular thing like Cleon or Socrates. Thus it is certain that even though the Ideas are also claimed to be eternal and unique in their species, they still cannot be defined.
lib. 7 l. 15 n. 25 Quare nullus ponentium ideas protulit aliquem terminum, idest definitionem ideae. Si enim aliqua definitio ab eis data esset de aliqua idea, puta hominis vel equi, fieret manifestum contra tentantes definire ideam, quia verum est quod modo dictum est, scilicet quod idea est indefinibilis.	1630. Hence none of those who posit Ideas reveal “any fixed limits,” i.e., definition, of an Idea. For if they were to give the definition of some Idea, as that of man or horse, it would become evident, in opposition to those attempting to define an Idea, that what has just been said is true: an Idea is indefinable.

Lecture 16

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 1 Hic philosophus manifestat quod superius sub dubitatione reliquit: scilicet quomodo aliqua substantia componatur ex partibus; cum supra ostenderit, quod substantia non potest componi neque ex passionibus, neque ex substantiis actu existentibus. Et ideo hic ostendit, quod partes, ex quibus componuntur substantiae, non sunt substantiae actu existentes, sed potentia; dicens, quod cum supra dictum sit, quod quaedam sunt quae ab omnibus existimantur substantiae esse, scilicet substantiae sensibiles, et partes earum, manifestum est, quod plurimae huiusmodi substantiarum sunt in potentia, et non in actu; ut patet de partibus animalium, et de omnibus aliis partibus.	1631. Here the Philosopher clears up a point which remained a difficulty above, namely, how a substance is composed of parts, when he showed above (518:C 1318) that a substance could be composed neither of its accidental attributes nor of actually existing substances (657:C 1588). Therefore he shows here (677) that the parts of which substances are composed are not actually existing substances but potential ones. He says that, since it was stated above (565:C 1263) that there are some things which are thought by all to be substances, namely, sensible substances and their parts, it is evident that most substances of this kind are potential and not actual, as is clear of the parts of animals and all other parts.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 2 Dicit autem partes esse plurimas harum substantiarum, quia, cum unumquodque totum ex pluribus componatur, oportet plures esse partes componentes quam tota composita. Et quod partes sint in potentia tantum, patet, quia nihil de numero earum est separatum; immo omnes partes inquantum sunt partes, sunt unitae in toto.	1632. He says that the parts of these substances are many, because since each whole is composed of many parts, there must be more component parts than composite wholes. And it is evident that parts exist potentially, because none of them are separate, but all parts as parts are rather united in the whole.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 3 Omne enim quod est in actu, oportet esse ab aliis distinctum, quia res una dividitur ab alia per suum actum et per formam, sicut supra dictum est. Quando autem ea, quae ponuntur partes, fuerint separata abinvicem dissoluto toto, tunc quidem sunt entia in actu, non quidem ut partes, sed ut materia existens sub privatione formae totius. Sicut patet de terra et igne et aere, quae quando sunt partes corporis mixti, non sunt actu existentia, sed potentia in mixto; cum vero separantur, tunc sunt in actu existentia, et non partes. Nullum enim elementorum antequam digeratur, idest antequam per alterationem debitam veniat ad mixtionem, et fiat unum mixtum ex eis, est unum cum alio, nisi sicut cumulus lapidum est unum secundum quid, et non simpliciter. Vel melius nihil ipsorum, idest nihil ex ipsis est unum et cetera.	1633. For everything which is actual must be distinct from other things, because one thing is distinguished from another by its own actuality and form, as was stated above (658)C 1588). But when those things which are assumed to be parts have been separated from each other when the whole is dissolved, they are then actual beings, not as parts but as matter existing under the privation of the form of the whole. This is evident, for example, of earth, fire and air, which, when they are parts of a compound, are not actually existing things but exist potentially in the compound; but when they are separated, they are then actually existing things and not parts. For none of the elements “before they are arranged,” i.e., before they reach their proper state of mixture by way of alteration, and before one compound comes from them, together form a unity, except in the sense that a heap of stones is one in a qualified sense and not in an unqualified one. Or better “none of them,” i.e., they do not constitute a unity before some one thing is produced from them by arrangement.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 4 Quamvis enim omnes partes sint in potentia, tamen maxime poterit aliquis opinari partes animatorum et partes animae esse propinquas, ut fiant actu et potentia, idest ut sint in potentia propinqua actui. Et hoc ideo, quia corpora animata sunt corpora organica habentia partes distinctas secundum formam; unde maxime sunt propinqua ad hoc quod sint actu. Et hoc ideo quia habent principium motus ab aliquo determinato, cum una pars moveat aliam. Sicut patet in iuncturis, in quibus videtur esse principium motus alterius partium coniunctarum, cum contingat unam moveri, alia quiescente, ut dicitur in libro de motibus animalium.	1634. For even though all parts exist potentially, someone might very readily suppose that the parts of living things and those of the soul which are close to them are actual as well as potential, i.e., they are in potentiality close to actuality; and the reason is that living bodies are organic bodies having parts which are formally distinct. Hence they most of all are close to being actual; and this is because they have a principle of motion in some determinate part, since one part moves another. This is clear, for instance, in the case of their joints, in which the principle of motion of one of the two connected parts seems to be found, since one can be moved and another at rest, as is stated in The Motion of Animals.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 5 Et propter hoc etiam, quia non solum partes corporis sunt in potentia propinqua actui, sed etiam partes animae, ideo quaedam animalia post divisionem vivunt, sicut animalia anulosa. Quod ex hoc contingit, quia in toto animali erat una anima in actu, plures autem in potentia. Facta autem divisione, fiunt plures animae in actu. Quod contingit propter imperfectionem talium animalium, quae requirunt modicam diversitatem in partibus, eo quod habent animam imperfectae virtutis, non valentem diversa operari, ad quae sit necessaria organorum multitudo.	1635. And since not only the parts of the body are in potentiality close to actuality, but also the parts of the soul, therefore some animals live after they have been divided, as segmented animals. And this is possible because in the whole animal there is one soul actually and there are many souls potentially. But when division is made the several souls become actual. This happens because of the imperfection of such animals which require very little diversity in their parts, for they have a soul with imperfect ability to function and incapable of acting in different ways, for which a number of different organs. are necessary.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 6 Sed tamen quamvis istae partes animae et animatorum sint propinquae actui, nihilominus sunt omnia in potentia, quando totum fuerit unum et continuum per naturam. Non autem si fiat unum per violentiam; sicut si ligentur partes unius animalis cum partibus alterius; aut per complantationem, sicut accidit in plantis. Ante enim quam surculus insertus uniatur plantae, est in actu; postea vero est in potentia. Tale namque, scilicet unum esse per violentiam aut per complantationem est orbatio, idest aliquid laesivum naturae, et contra naturam existens.	1636. Yet even though these parts of the soul and the parts of living things are close to actuality, nevertheless they are all potential when the whole is one and continuous by nature. But this would not be the case if one thing came into being by force, as, for example, when the parts of one living thing are tied to those of another; or by grafting, as happens in the case of plants. For before the scion which is to be inserted is united with the plant, it is actual, but afterwards it is potential. “For such a thing,” namely, to be one by force or grafting, “is a mutilation,” i.e., something injurious to nature and opposed to nature.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit quoniam vero ostendit specialiter quod unum et ens non sunt substantiae. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo praemittit propositum; dicens, quod hoc modo praedicatur de rebus unum sicut et ens, cum sint convertibilia: et unum dicitur de aliqua re propter substantiam eius. Unius enim est una substantia; et illa sunt unum numero, quorum est substantia una numero. Quod etiam aliquid dicatur ens per suam substantiam, hoc est manifestum.	1637. And since (678). Here he shows in a special way that unity and being are not substances; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he states his thesis. He says that unity is predicated of things in the same way that being is, since they are interchangeable, and unity is predicated of a thing because of its substance. For one thing has one substance, and those things are numerically one whose substance is numerically one. And it is also evident that a thing is called a being because of its own substance.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 8 Quoniam inquam ita est, palam est quod neque unum neque ens contingit esse substantiam rerum; immo praedicantur de substantia sicut de subiecto. Sicut etiam neque hoc quod est elemento esse aut principio, idest ipsa ratio principii et elementi, dicit substantiam rei quae dicitur principium vel elementum. Sed quaerimus quid sit principium vel elementum, ut ad aliquod notius referamus, scilicet ad substantiam subiectam.	1638. Since this is true, I say, it is clear that neither unity nor being can be the substance of things, but they are predicated rather of substance as their subject. And in a similar way neither does “the being of an element or a principle,” i.e., the very notion of a principle or element, express the substance of the thing called a principle or element. But we look for the principle or element in order to refer it to something better known, namely, to the substance of the subject.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 9 Sed tamen ens et unum magis sunt substantia quam principium et elementum et causa. Propinquius enim se habent ad rerum substantiam. Principium enim et causa et elementum, important solam habitudinem rei ad rem aliquam; sed ens et unum significat id quod convenit rei ratione suae substantiae. Et tamen nec ens nec unum sunt substantia ipsa rei.	1639. Yet being and unity are substance to a greater degree than a principle, element and cause, since they are closer to the substance of things; for principle, element and cause signify only the relationship of one thing to another, but being and unity signify something proper to a thing by reason of its own substance. Yet neither being nor unity is the substance itself of a thing.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 10 Secundo ibi, sed nec probat propositum duabus rationibus. Quarum primam ponit dicens, quod cum ista, scilicet ens et unum, sint communia, non possunt esse substantiae, si nullum commune est substantia, ut probatum est. Quod autem nullum commune sit substantia, ex hoc patet, quia substantia nulli potest inesse nisi ipsi habenti eam cuius est substantia. Unde impossibile est substantiam esse communem multorum.	1640. But neither (679). Second, he proves his thesis by two arguments. He gives the first of these when he says that since these—unity and being—are common attributes, they cannot be substances if nothing common is substance, as has been proved (655:C 1585). That nothing common is substance is clear from the fact that substance can only be present in the thing to which it belongs and of which it is the substance. Hence it is impossible that substance should be common to several things.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 11 Secundam rationem ponit ibi, amplius quod dicit quod hoc ipsum quod est unum, non potest apud multa simul inveniri. Hoc enim est contra rationem unius, si tamen ponatur aliquod unum per se existens ut substantia. Sed illud quod est commune, est simul apud multa. Hoc enim est ratio communis, ut de multis praedicetur, et in multis existat. Patet igitur quod unum quod est commune, non potest esse sic unum quasi una substantia. Et ulterius palam est ex omnibus praedictis in hoc capitulo, quod nullum universale, nec ens, nec unum, nec genera, nec species habent esse separatum praeter singularia.	1641. Furthermore, unity (680). Here he gives the second argument. He says that unity itself cannot be present in many things at the same time; for this is opposed to the notion of unity even though it is maintained that there is a unity which exists by itself as a substance. But what is common is present in many things at the same time, for common means what may be predicated of many things and be present in many things. Hence it is clear that a common unity cannot be one in the sense that it is one substance. Furthermore, it is evident from all the points already discussed above in this chapter that no universal—either being or unity or genera or species—has a separate being apart from singular things.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit sed species ostendit quantum ad quid Plato recte dixerit, et quantum ad quid non recte; dicens, quod Platonici ponentes species ideales, in hoc recte dicunt, quod ponunt eas separatas, ex quo ponunt esse substantias singularium. De ratione enim substantiae est quod sit per se existens. Non autem posset esse per se existens si in aliquo singularium esset; praesertim quia si uno singularium existeret, in aliis esse non posset. Sicut enim iam dictum est, id quod est unum subsistens, non potest in multis esse. Unde in hoc recte facit Plato, ex quo posuit species esse substantias, quod posuit eas separatas.	1642. But those who (681). He shows in what sense Plato’s statements are true, and in what sense they are not. He says that the Platonists, who assume that there are certain ideal forms, are right insofar as they claim that these are separate, because they hold that they are the substances of singular things; for by definition a substance is something that exists of itself. Now unity cannot be something that exists of itself if it exists in some singular thing, and the reason is that if it does exist in one singular thing it cannot exist in others; for, as has already been stated (680:C 1641), no self-subsistent unity can be present in many things. Hence considering Plato’s doctrine that the separate Forms are substance, he was right insofar as he maintained that they are separate.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 13 In hoc autem non dixerunt recte, quia dicunt unam speciem esse in multis. Haec enim duo videntur esse opposita: quod aliquid sit separatum per se existens, et tamen habeat esse in multis. Causa autem propter quam inducti sunt Platonici ad ponendum huiusmodi substantias separatas, et tamen esse in multis, haec est: quia per rationem invenerunt quod oportet esse aliquas substantias incorruptibiles et incorporeas, cum ratio substantiae corporalibus dimensionibus non sit obligata. Sed quae sunt huiusmodi substantiae, quae quidem sunt incorruptibiles, et sunt praeter has substantias singulares et sensibiles, non habent reddere, idest non possunt assignare et manifestare, eo quod nostra cognitio a sensu incipit, et ideo ad incorporea quae sensum transcendunt, non possumus ascendere, nisi quatenus per sensibilia manuducimur.	1643. But the Platonists were not right when they said that there is one form in many things; for these two statements seem to be opposed, namely, that something may be separate and exist of itself, and that it may still have being in many things. The reason why the Platonists were led to posit separate substances of this kind, yet have them existing in many things, is that they discovered through the use of reason that there must be some incorruptible and incorporeal substances, since the notion of substance is not bound up with corporeal dimensions. But “they cannot explain” which substances are of this kind which are incorruptible and exist apart from these singular and sensible substances, i.e., they cannot describe and make them known, because our knowledge begins from the senses and therefore we can ascend to incorporeal things, which transcend the senses, only insofar as we may be guided by sensible substances.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 14 Et ideo, ut aliquam notitiam traderent de substantiis incorporeis incorruptibilibus, faciunt, idest fingunt eas, easdem esse specie substantiis corruptibilibus, sicut in istis substantiis corruptibilibus invenitur homo singularis corruptibilis, et similiter equus. Posuerunt igitur quod etiam in illis substantiis separatis esset aliqua substantia quae esset homo, et aliqua quae esset equus, et sic de aliis: sed differenter: quia has substantias separatas scimus, ex doctrina Platonicorum, per hoc quod dicimus autanthropon, idest per se hominem, et authippon, idest per se equum. Et ita in singulis substantiis sensibilibus ad designandas substantias separatas addimus hoc verbum, idest hanc dictionem auto, idest per se.	1644. Therefore in order that they might convey some knowledge of incorporeal, incorruptible substances, “they make,” i.e., they suppose, them to be specifically the same as corruptible substances, just as they find among these corruptible substances a singular corruptible man and similarly a singular corruptible horse. Hence they claimed that among those separate substances there is a substance which is man, and another which is horse, and so on for other things, but in a different way; because according to the doctrine of the Platonists we know these separate substances on the grounds that we speak of “man himself,” i.e., man-in-himself, “and horse itself,” i.e., horse-in-itself. And thus in order to designate separate substances “we add this word,” i.e., the term “itself,” or in itself, to each sensible substance.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 15 Ex quo apparet quod Platonici volebant illas substantias separatas esse eiusdem speciei cum istis sensibilibus; et solum in hoc differre, quia separatis attribuebant nomen speciei per se, non autem sensibilibus. Cuius ratio est quia in singularibus sunt multa, quae non sunt partes speciei. Sed in illis substantiis separatis dicebant tantum esse illa quae pertinent ad speciem et naturam speciei. Ergo homo separatus dicebatur per se homo, quia habet ea tantum quae pertinent ad naturam speciei. Sed hic homo singularis habet, cum his quae ad naturam speciei pertinent, multa alia: et propter hoc non dicitur per se homo.	1645. From this it appears that the Platonists wanted those separate substances to be specifically the same as these sensible substances; and to differ only in that they gave to separate substances the name of a form in itself, but not to sensible substances. The reason for this is that singular substances contain many things which are not parts of the form, and they said that separate substances contain only those elements which pertain to the specific form and to the nature of the specific form. Hence this separate man was called man-in-himself, because he contained only those elements which pertain to the nature of the form; but this singular man contains many other things besides those which pertain to the form, and for this reason he is not called man-in-himself.
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 16 Est autem similis defectus in hac positione, sicut si poneremus quod non videremus astra et alia corpora incorruptibilia, et tamen constaret per rationem quod essent aliqua corpora incorruptibilia, et poneremus quod incorruptibilia corpora essent eiusdem speciei cum corporibus corruptibilium. Sicut si diceremus quod corpora incorruptibilia essent bos et homo et equus et alia huiusmodi, ut poetae finxerunt in stellis esse arietem et taurum et alia huiusmodi. Sicut igitur si non videremus stellas, non minus ut existimo forent substantiae corporeae sempiternae, idest stellae, praeter eas quas nos tunc videremus, scilicet huiusmodi corpora corruptibilia et alterius speciei ab eis; ita etiam et nunc, quamvis nesciamus dicere quae sunt substantiae separatae et cuius naturae, tamen forsan necessarium est esse quasdam substantias separatas praeter sensibiles, et alterius speciei ab eis. Ideo autem dicit forsan, quia nondum probaverat substantias aliquas esse a materia separatas. Probabit autem in sequentibus.	1646. Now there is a defect in this position comparable to that of maintaining that we do not see the stars and other incorruptible bodies but that it was nevertheless certain by reason that there existed incorruptible bodies, and then maintaining that incorruptible bodies were specifically the same as the bodies of corruptible things; as if we were to say that ox and man and horse and other substances of this kind were incorruptible bodies, as the poets imagined a ram (Aries) and a bull (Taurus) and the like to be present in the stars. Therefore even if we did not see the stars, none the less, “as I should presume,” there would be “eternal corporeal substances,” i.e., the stars, in addition to those substances which we did then see, namely, corruptible bodies of this kind, and they would be of a different species than these. And in a similar way, even if we do not now know how to express what separate substances are and of what nature they are, perhaps it is still necessary that there should be some separate substances in addition to sensible ones, and of a different species than these. And he says “Perhaps” because he has not yet proved that there are any separate substances apart from matter. However, he will prove this in later books (XII & XIII).
lib. 7 l. 16 n. 17 Concludit autem ultimo conclusionem intentam in toto capitulo; dicens, quod manifesta sunt ex praedictis duo. Quorum unum est, quod nihil universaliter dictorum sit substantia. Secundum est quod nulla substantia fit ex substantiis actu existentibus. Vel secundum aliam literam, ex non substantiis. Ostendit enim supra, quod substantia quae est hoc aliquid, non fit ex communibus, quae significant quale quid.	1647. Last of all he draws the conclusion at which he aims throughout the whole chapter. He says that two things are evident from what has been said: first, that no universal predicates are substances; and second, that no substance consists of substances having actual existence, or according to another text, “one substance is not composed of substances.” For he has shown above (655)C 1584-5) that substance in the sense of this particular thing does not consist of common attributes which signify of what sort a thing is.

Lecture 17

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 1 Philosophus in principio huius septimi promiserat se tractaturum de substantia rerum sensibilium quae est quod quid erat esse, quam logice notificavit ostendens, quod ea quae per se praedicantur, pertinent ad quod quid est, ex quo nondum erat manifestum quid sit substantia, quae est quod quid erat esse. Hanc autem substantiam Platonici dicebant esse universalia, quae sunt species separatae: quod Aristoteles supra immediate reprobavit. Unde relinquebatur, quod ipse philosophus ostenderet quid secundum rem sit substantia, quae est quod quid erat esse. Et ad hoc etiam ostendendum praemittit, quod substantia, quae est quod quid erat esse, se habet ut principium et causa, quae est intentio huius capituli. Dividitur ergo in partes duas. In prima dicit de quo est intentio. In secunda prosequitur suam intentionem, ibi, quaeritur autem ipsum propter quid. Dicit ergo primo, quod ex quo ostensum est, quod nihil universaliter dictorum est substantia, ut Platonici posuerant, dicamus quid secundum veritatem oportet dicere substantiam, scilicet quae est quod quid erat esse, et quale quid sit haec substantia: utrum scilicet sit forma, vel materia, vel aliquid huiusmodi: et hoc inquam dicamus interponentes vel dicentes quasi aliud principium ab eo principio logico, per quod ingressi sumus in principio septimi ad inquisitionem praedictae substantiae. Forsitan enim ex his, quae dicentur circa quidditates rerum sensibilium, erit palam de illa substantia, quae est separata a sensibilibus substantiis. Quamvis enim substantiae separatae non sint eiusdem speciei cum substantiis sensibilibus, ut Platonici posuerunt, tamen cognitio istarum substantiarum sensibilium est via ad cognoscendum praedictas substantias separatas. Subiungit autem quid sit illud principium aliud per quod ad propositam quaestionem ingrediendum est, dicens quod hinc procedendum est ad ostendendum quid sit praedicta substantia, quod sciamus quod in ipsa substantia est principium quoddam, et causa quaedam.	1648. At the beginning of this seventh book the Philosopher had promised that he would treat of the substance of sensible things in the sense of their essence, which he has explained from the viewpoint of logic by showing that those attributes which are predicated essentially pertain to the whatness of a thing, since it was not yet evident what it is that constitutes substance in the sense of essence. Now the Platonists said that this substance is the universals, which are separate Forms. But this doctrine Aristotle rejected immediately above. Hence it remained for him to show what substance in the sense of essence really is. And in order to do this he also sets down as a premise that substance in the sense of essence has the character of a principle and cause. nis is the purpose of this chapter. Hence it is divided into two parts. In the first (691)C 1648) he explains what his aim is. In the second (683:C 1649) he proceeds to carry out his aim (“Now the why”). He accordingly says, first (682), that, since it has been shown that no universal predicate is a substance, as the Platonists claimed, let us state what the real truth of the matter is about substance, viz., that which is essence, “and what kind of thing” this substance is, i.e., whether it is form or matter or something of this kind. He says “Let us state this,” as if we were introducing or announcing a starting point different from the dialectical one with which we began in the beginning of this seventh book to investigate the above-mentioned substance; for perhaps from the things which are to be said about the quiddities of sensible substances it will also be possible to understand that kind of substance which is separate from sensible substances. For even though separate substances are not of the same species as sensible ones, as the Platonists claimed, still a knowledge of these sensible substances is the road by which we reach a knowledge of those separate substances. And he adds what that other starting point is from which one must enter upon the proposed investigation. He says that one must proceed from this starting point in order to show what the above-mentioned kind of substance is, so that we may understand that in substance itself there is a principle and cause.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit quaeritur autem ostendit quod substantia, quae est quod quid erat esse, sit principium et causa. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit quod sit principium et causa. Secundo cuiusmodi principium sit, ibi, quoniam vero ex aliquo compositum fit. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit propositum. Secundo excludit quoddam quod posset videri propositae rationi repugnans, ibi, latet autem maxime quod quaeritur. Est autem vis suae rationis talis. Illud, de quo non quaeritur per quaestionem propter quid, sed in ipsum alia quaesita reducuntur, oportet esse principium et causam: quaestio enim propter quid, quaerit de causa. Sed substantia quae est quod quid erat esse, est huiusmodi. Non enim quaeritur propter quid homo est homo, sed propter quid homo est aliquid aliud. Et similiter est in aliis. Ergo substantia rei, quae est quod quid erat esse, est principium et causa.	1649. Now the why (683). Here he shows that substance in the sense of essence is a principle and cause; and in regard to this he does two things. ‘ First (683), he shows that it is a principle and cause. Second (687:C 1672), he shows what kind of principle it is (“Now since what”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he explains his aim. Second (684:C 1662), he rejects an interpretation which could seem opposed to the argument he has given (“Now the object”). Now the point of his argument is as follows: whatever is such that one does not ask why it is, but is that to which the other things under investigation are reduced, must be a principle and cause; for the question why is a question about a cause. But substance in the sense of essence is a thing of this kind; for one does not ask why man is man, but why man is something else; and it is the same in other cases. Therefore the substance of a thing in the sense of its essence is a principle and cause.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 3 Dicit ergo primo, quod ipsum propter quid semper sic quaeritur, idest ipsa quaestione propter quid utimur quaerentes, propter quid aliquid aliud inest alicui alii, et non propter quid aliquid sit ipsum. Quaerere enim propter quid homo musicus sit musicus homo, aut est quaerere quod dictum est propter quid homo musicus est homo musicus, aut aliud; quasi dicat: cum quaerimus propter quid homo musicus est homo musicus, dupliciter potest haec quaestio intelligi. Uno modo ut id quod dictum est et positum quaeratur, scilicet ut de hoc toto, quod est homo musicus, quaeratur hoc totum, quod est homo musicus. Alio modo ut quaeratur aliud de alio; ut scilicet de homine, qui est musicus, quaeratur non propter quid sit homo, sed propter quid sit musicus.	1650. Hence he says, first (683), that “the why of a thing is always investigated in the following way,” i.e., we use the question why when we ask why one thing belongs to something else, and not why a thing is itself. “For to ask why a musical man is a musical man is either to ask (as has been said) why the man is musical, or to ask about something else.” This is equivalent to saying that, when we ask why a musical man is a musical man, this question can be interpreted in two ways: first, that the thing which has been stated and posited is under investigation, i.e., the thing being investigated, namely, the whole, musical man, is asked about the whole, musical man. Second, that one thing is asked about another; i.e., about a man who is musical what is asked is not why he is a man, but why he is musical.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 4 Et statim reprobat primum modum intelligendi; dicens, quod quaerere propter quid ipsum est ipsum, sicut propter quid homo sit homo, nihil est quaerere. In omni enim quaestione, qua quaeritur propter quid, oportet aliquid esse manifestum, et aliquid esse quaesitum, quod non est manifestum. Cum enim sint quatuor quaestiones, ut in secundo posteriorum habetur, scilicet an est, quid est, quia est, et propter quid: duae istarum, scilicet quid, et propter quid, in idem coincidunt, ut ibi probatur. Sicut autem quaestio quid est, se habet ad quaestionem an est, ita quaestio propter quid, ad quaestionem quia. Cum igitur quaeritur propter quid oportet illa duo esse manifesta. Secundum enim quod propter quid est idem ei quod est quid, oportet esse manifestum an est. Secundum autem quod propter quid distinguitur a quid est, oportet esse manifestum quia. Et ideo dicit, quod cum quaeritur propter quid, oportet existere manifesta entia ista duo: scilicet ipsum quia et ipsum esse, quod pertinet ad quaestionem an est. Sicut cum quaeritur propter quid luna eclipsatur? Oportet esse manifestum quod luna patitur eclipsim: si enim non sit manifestum hoc, frustra quaeritur propter quid hoc sit. Et eadem ratione cum quaeritur quid est homo? Oportet esse manifestum, hominem esse. Hoc autem non potest contingere si quaeratur propter quid ipsum sit ipsum: ut propter quid homo est homo? Vel propter quid musicus est musicus? Scito enim quod homo est homo, scitur propter quid.	1651. And he immediately rejects the first interpretation, saying that to ask why a thing is itself, for example, why man is man, is to make no inquiry at all; for every time we ask the question why, there must be something which is evident, and something which is not evident and has to be investigated. For there are four questions which may be asked, as is stated in Book 11 of the Posterior Analytics, namely, (i) “Is it?” (2.) “What is it?” (3) “Is it a fact that it is such?” and (4) “Why is it such?” Now two of these questions, namely, “What is it?” and “Why is it such?” basically coincide, as is proved in that work. And just as the question “What is it?” is related to the question “Is it?” so too the question “Why is it such?” is related to the question “Is it a fact that it is such?” Hence, when one asks the question why, these two points must be evident; for inasmuch as the question “Why is it such?” bears on the same point as the question “What is it?” the fact of the thing’s existence must be evident. And inasmuch as the question “Why is it such?” is distinguished from the question “What is it?” the fact that it is such must be evident. Hence he says that, when one asks why, these two things must be evident, namely, the fact that it is such, and its existence, which pertains to the question “Is it?” for example, when we ask, “Why does the moon undergo an eclipse?” it must be evident that the moon does undergo an eclipse; for if this were not evident, it would be pointless to inquire why this is so. And by the same reasoning, when one asks “What is man?” it must be evident that man exists. But this could not happen if one were to ask why a thing is itself, for example, “Why is man man?” or “Why is the musical musical?” for in knowing that a man is a man it is known why he is a man.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 5 Est enim una ratio et una causa in omnibus, quam impossibile est ignorari; sicut nec alia communia, quae dicuntur communes animi conceptiones, ignorari possibile est. Huius autem ratio est, quia unumquodque est unum sibiipsi. Unde unumquodque de se praedicatur.	1652. For in the case of all things there is one reason and one cause which cannot remain unknown, just as other common notions, which are called the common conceptions of the intellect, cannot remain unknown. And the reason is that each is one with itself. Hence each is predicated of itself.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 6 Nisi forte aliquis velit assignare aliam causam, dicens, quod ideo homo est homo, et musicus est musicus, et sic de aliis, quia unumquodque est indivisibile ad seipsum. Et ita non potest de seipso negari, ut dicatur homo non est homo. Unde oportet ut de se affirmetur. Sed haec ratio non differt a prima, quam diximus; scilicet quod unumquodque unum est sibiipsi. Quia hoc erat unum esse; idest supra posueramus, quod unum significet indivisibile. Et ideo idem est dicere, quod unumquodque sit unum sibi, et indivisibile ad seipsum.	1653. Now it might be that someone should want to give another cause, saying that the reason a man is a man, and the musical is musical, and so on in other cases, is that each is indivisible in relation to itself; and thus it cannot be denied of itself so that we should say that a man is not a man. Hence it must be affirmed of itself. But this argument does not differ from the first which we gave, namely, that each thing is one with itself. For “this is what being one really is”; i.e., we maintained above that unity signifies indivisibility. Therefore it is the same thing to say that each thing is one with itself and that it is indivisible in relation to itself.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 7 Sed etiam dato quod haec esset alia ratio a praedicta, tamen hoc etiam est commune omnibus, quia unumquodque est indivisibile ad seipsum. Et est quod breve, idest se habet ad modum principii, quod est parvum quantitate et maximum virtute. Unde non potest quaeri quasi ignoratum, sicut nec alia principia communia. Alia translatio habet, et est similis toni: quasi dicat: et consonat verum in omnibus. Alia vero litera habet, et est verum, subaudiendum, per se manifestum. Sic igitur patet, quod non potest quaeri propter quid ipsum sit ipsum.	1654. But even supposing that this argument differed from the preceding one, this too is still a characteristic common to all things, namely, that each thing is indivisible in relation to itself “and is something small,” i.e., it has the nature of a principle, which is small in size and great in power. Hence one cannot inquire about it as about something unknown, any more than about other common principles. Another translation reads “And it is like a tone,” as if to say that it is in harmony with the truth in all things. But another text has “And it is true,” and we must understand by this “self-evident.” Thus it is obvious that there can be no investigation as to why a thing is itself.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 8 Unde relinquitur, quod semper quaeritur propter quid hoc sit aliud hoc. Et hoc subsequenter manifestat; dicens, quod si aliquis quaereret propter quid tale animal est homo? Hoc quidem igitur palam quod non quaeritur propter quid homo est homo. Et sic patet quod aliud de aliquo quaeritur propter quid existit, non idem de seipso. Sed cum quaeritur aliquid de aliquo propter quid existit, oportet manifestum esse, quia existit. Nam si non sit ita, ut scilicet si non sit manifestum quod existat, nihil quaerit. Quaerit enim fortasse de eo quod non est. Vel aliter ut referatur ad superiora. Nam si non sit ita, idest si non quaerit aliud de alio sed ipsum de seipso, nihil quaerit, ut iam ostensum est.	1655. It follows, then, that one always asks why this thing is something else. Hence he makes this clear next. He says that, if someone might ask “Why is man such and such an animal?” it is evident that he is not asking why man is man. Thus it is clear that he is asking why one thing is predicated of something else, and not why the same thing is predicated of itself. But when someone asks why something is predicated of something else, the fact that it exists must be evident; “for if this were not so,” i.e., if it were not evident that it existed, “the inquiry would be about nothing”; for one is possibly inquiring about what is not. Or it may be taken in another way as referring to the point mentioned before; “for if this were not so,” i.e., if one did not inquire about one thing as predicated of something else but as predicated of itself, the inquiry would be about nothing, as has been shown.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 9 In quaerendo autem propter quid de aliquo, aliquando quaeritur causa, quae est forma in materia. Unde cum quaeritur, propter quid tonat? Respondetur, quia sonitus fit in nubibus: hic enim constat quod aliud de alio est quod quaeritur. Est enim sonitus in nubibus, vel tonitruum in aere.	1656. Now in asking the why of something, sometimes we are asking about the cause taken as form in matter. Hence when we ask “Why does it thunder?” the answer is, “because sound is produced in the clouds”; for here it is clear that what is being asked is one thing of another, for sound is in the clouds, or thunder in the air.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 10 Aliquando autem quaeritur causa ipsius formae in materia quae est efficiens vel finis; ut cum quaerimus propter quid haec, scilicet lapides et lateres, sunt domus? In ista enim quaestione est aliquid de aliquo quod quaeritur, scilicet domus de lapidibus et lignis. Et ideo philosophus non dixit simpliciter, quod quaeratur quid est domus, sed propter quid huiusmodi sunt domus. Palam igitur est, quod ista quaestio quaerit de causa.	1657. But sometimes we are asking about the cause of the form in the matter, either the efficient cause or final cause; for when we ask “Why are these materials (bricks and stones) a house?” the question concerns one thing as predicated of something else, namely, bricks and stones of a house. Hence the Philosopher did not say without qualification that the question is “What is a house?” but “Why are things of this kind a house?” It is evident, then, that this question asks about a cause.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 11 Quae quidem causa quaesita, est quod quid erat esse, logice loquendo. Logicus enim considerat modum praedicandi, et non existentiam rei. Unde quicquid respondetur ad quid est, dicit pertinere ad quod quid est; sive illud sit intrinsecum, ut materia et forma; sive sit extrinsecum, ut agens et finis. Sed philosophus qui existentiam quaerit rerum, finem vel agentem, cum sint extrinseca, non comprehendit sub quod quid erat esse. Unde si dicamus, domus est aliquid prohibens a frigore et caumate, logice loquendo significatur quod quid erat esse, non autem secundum considerationem philosophi. Et ideo dicit quod hoc quod quaeritur ut causa formae in materia, est quod quid erat esse, ut est dicere logice: quod tamen secundum rei veritatem et physicam considerationem in quibusdam est cuius causa, idest finis, ut in domo, aut in lecto.	1658. Now the cause which he has been investigating is the essence, logically speaking; for the logician considers the way in which terms are predicated and not the existence of a thing. Hence he says that whatever answer is given to the question “What is this thing?” pertains to the quiddity, whether it is intrinsic, as matter and form, or extrinsic, as the agent and final cause. But the philosopher, who inquires about the existence of things and their final and efficient cause, does not include them under the quiddity since they are extrinsic. If we say, then, that a house is something which protects us from cold and heat, the quiddity is signified from the viewpoint of logic, but not from that of the philosopher. Hence he says that the thing which is being investigated as the cause of the form in the matter is the quiddity, logically speaking. Yet according to the truth of the matter and from the point of view of natural philosophy, in the case of some things (for example, a house and a bed) this cause is “that for the sake of which a thing exists,” i.e., its goal [or end].
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 12 Exemplificat autem de artificialibus, quia in eis est maxime manifestum quod sunt propter finem. Quamvis enim naturalia sint propter finem, fuit tamen hoc a quibusdam negatum. Potest igitur, cum quaeritur propter quid lapides et ligna sunt domus, responderi per causam finalem; scilicet ut defendamur a frigore et caumate. In quibusdam vero id quod quaeritur, ut causa formae in materia, est quod movit primum, idest agens. Nam hoc etiam est causa. Ut si quaeritur propter quid lapides et ligna sunt domus? Potest responderi: propter artem aedificativam.	1659. He draws examples from the sphere of artificial things because it is most evident that these exist for the sake of some goal; for even though natural things also exist for some goal, this was nevertheless denied by some thinkers. Therefore, when someone asks why stones and timbers are a house, one can answer by stating the final cause: to shelter ourselves from cold and heat. But in certain cases the thing under investigation, as the cause of the form in the matter, “is that which first moves a thing,” i.e., the agent; for this also is a cause, for example, if we ask “Why are stones and timbers a house?” one can answer, “because of the art of building.”
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 13 In hoc tamen differt inter causam agentem et finalem: quia talis causa, scilicet agens, quaeritur in fieri et corrumpi. Altera autem causa, scilicet finalis, non quaeritur solum in fieri et corrumpi, sed etiam in esse. Et hoc ideo, quia agens est causa formae in materia transmutando materiam ad formam, quod fit in generari et corrumpi. Finis autem, inquantum movet agentem per intentionem, est causa etiam in fieri et corrumpi. Inquantum vero res per suam formam ordinatur in finem, est etiam causa in essendo. Unde cum dicitur quod lapides et ligna sunt domus propter artem aedificativam, intelligitur quod ars aedificativa est causa fiendi domum. Cum vero dicitur quod lapides et ligna sunt domus, ut defendamur a frigore et caumate, potest intelligi quod propter hoc facta sit domus, et quod propter hoc esse domus sit utile.	1660. Yet there is this difference between the efficient and the final cause: such a cause (the efficient) is investigated as the cause of the process of generation and corruption. But the other cause (the final) is investigated not merely as the cause, of the process of generation and corruption but also of being. The reason for this is that the agent causes the form in the matter by changing the matter over to that form, as takes places in the process of generation and corruption. And inasmuch as the goal moves the agent through his intending it, it is also a cause of generation and corruption. And inasmuch as the thing is directed to its goal by means of its form, it is also a cause of being. Hence, when it is said that stones and timbers are a house as a result of the art of building, it is understood that the art of building is the cause of the production of the house. But when it is said that stones and timbers are a house in order to shelter us from cold and heat, it can be understood that the house has been built for this reason, and that it is useful for this reason.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 14 Hic autem loquitur philosophus in substantiis sensibilibus. Unde intelligendum est quod hic dicitur, solum de agente naturali, quod agit per motum. Nam agens divinum quod influit esse sine motu, est causa non solum in fieri, sed etiam in esse.	1661. Now the Philosopher is speaking here of natural substances. Hence his statement here must be understood to apply only to a natural agent, which acts by means of motion. For the Divine agent, who communicates being without motion, is the cause not only of becoming but also of being.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 15 Deinde cum dicit latet autem quia superius dixerat, quod cum quaeritur propter quid, semper quaeritur aliud de alio, et hoc videtur in aliquo modo quaerendi habere instantiam; ideo movet hic circa hoc dubitationem, et solvit. Unde circa hoc tria facit. Primo movet dubitationem. Secundo solvit, ibi, sed oportet corrigentes quaerere. Tertio infert quoddam corollarium ex dictis, ibi, palam igitur quod in simplicibus. Dicit ergo primo, quod id, quod quaeritur, scilicet in qualibet quaestione quaeri aliud de alio maxime latet, idest dubitationem habet in his, quae non de aliis dicuntur, idest in quaestionibus, in quibus non praedicatur aliquid de aliquo, sed fit quaestio de aliquo uno simplici, ut cum quaeritur quid est homo? Hoc inquam latet propter simpliciter dici, sed non definite quia hoc aut hoc: idest ista est causa dubitationis, quia in talibus simpliciter profertur aliquid unum, ut homo, et non proferuntur in quaestione illa quibus convenit esse hominem, sicut partes, vel etiam aliquod hominis suppositum.	1662. Now the object (684). Since he had said above that when one asks why, one always inquires about something as predicated of something else, and this seems in a way to give rise to a problem, therefore in this Place he raises the problem about this point and solves it. Now in regard to this he does three things. First, he raises the problem. Second (685:C 1664), he solves it (“But in dealing”). Third (686:C 1669), he draws a corollary from his discussion (“Hence it is evident”). He accordingly says, first (684), that “the object of our inquiry,” i.e., what is investigated in Any inquiry pertaining to one thing as predicated of something else, “is most obscure,” or puzzling, “in cases concerned with things not predicated of others,” i.e., where the inquiry is about something not predicated of something else but is about a single thing; for when one inquires “What is man?” this, I say, is obscure “because a single term is used,” but it is “not said definitely that he is this or that”; i.e., the cause of the difficulty is that in such cases one single thing is expressed, as man, and in that inquiry the things to which it belongs to be a man as parts, or also the particular supposit, are not expressed.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 16 Sed videtur haec dubitatio non esse ad propositum. Locutus enim fuerat supra philosophus de quaestione propter quid est, et non de quaestione quid est. Haec autem dubitatio instat de quaestione quid est. Sed dicendum, quod quaestio quid et propter quid in idem quodammodo incidunt, ut est dictum. Et ideo quaestio quid est, potest transformari in quaestionem propter quid. Quaestio enim quid est, quaerit de quidditate propter quam id, de quo quid est quaeritur, praedicatur de quolibet suorum subiectorum, et convenit suis partibus. Propter hoc enim Socrates est homo, quia convenit ei illud, quod respondetur ad quaestionem quid est homo. Propter hoc etiam carnes et ossa sunt homo, quia quod quid est homo est in carnibus et in ossibus. Idem ergo est quaerere quid est homo, et quaerere propter quid hoc, scilicet Socrates, est homo? Vel propter quid hoc, scilicet carnes et ossa sunt homo? Sicut et supra quaerebatur propter quid lapides et ligna sunt domus? Et ideo etiam hic dicit quod hoc facit dubitationem, quod in quaestione non additur hoc aut hoc. Si enim adderetur, manifestum esset quod esset eadem ratio in quaestione qua quaeritur quid est homo et in aliis quaestionibus de quibus supra dixit.	1663. But this difficulty does not seem to have anything to do with the point at issue; for the Philosopher spoke above about the question “Why is a thing such?” and not “What is it?” and this difficulty has to do with the question “What is it?” But it must be said that the questions “What is it?” and “Why is it?” bear on the same point, as has been stated (C 1651). Hence the question “What is it?” can be changed into the question “Why is it such?” for the question “What is it?” asks about the quiddity by reason of which that thing about which one asks this question, is predicated of any of its own subjects and is proper to its own parts; for Socrates is a man because the answer to the question “What is man?” is pertinent to him. And for this reason flesh and bones are man, because the whatness of man is contained in these flesh and bones. Therefore it is the same thing to ask “What is man?” and, “Why is this (Socrates) a man?” or “Why are these things (flesh and bones) a man?” And this is the same as the question which was raised above “Why are stones and timbers a house?” Therefore he also says here that this causes a difficulty, because in this investigation this and that are not added; for if they were added it would be evident that the answer to the question which asks about the quiddity of man and to the other questions of which he spoke above would be the same.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 17 Deinde cum dicit sed oportet solvit praedictam dubitationem; dicens, quod ad hoc quod praedicta dubitatio circa praemissam quaestionem excludatur, oportet corrigentes quaerere, idest oportet quaestionem praemissam corrigere, ut loco eius quod quaerebatur quid est homo, quaeratur propter quid Socrates est homo? Vel propter quid carnes et ossa sunt homo? Si autem non sic corrigatur ista quaestio, sequitur hoc inconveniens, quod aliquid sit commune eius quod est nihil quaerere, et eius quod est quaerere aliquid. Dictum est enim supra, quod quaerere ipsum de seipso, est nihil. Quaerere autem aliquid de alio, est aliquid quaerere. Cum ergo quaestio propter quid, in qua quaeritur aliquid de alio, et quaestio quid, in qua non videtur quaeri aliquid de alio, nisi praedicto modo corrigantur, sibiinvicem communicent, sequetur quod aliquid sit commune quaestioni, in qua nihil quaeritur, et in qua aliquid quaeritur.	1664. But in dealing (685). He now solves the foregoing problem. He says that in order to dispose of the problem relating, to the foregoing question “corrections must be made,” i.e., it is necessary to correct the question given, so that in place of the question “What is man?” we will substitute the question “Why is Socrates a man?” or “Why are flesh and bones a man?” And if this question is not corrected, the absurd consequence will be that asking something and asking nothing will have something in common. For it was said above that to ask something about a thing in terms of itself is not to make any inquiry at all; but to ask something about something else is to ask about something. Therefore, since the question why (in which we ask something about something else) and the question what (in which we do not seem to ask something about something else) have something in common, unless they are corrected in the way mentioned above, it follows that a question asking nothing and a question asking something have something in common.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 18 Vel aliter. Si non corrigatur quaestio ista, sequetur quod aliquid sit commune eius quod est nihil quaerere, et eius quod est quaerere aliquid. Tunc enim aliquid quaeritur, quando fit quaestio de eo quod est: tunc vero nihil quaeritur, quando fit quaestio de eo quod non est. Si ergo in quaestione qua quaeritur quid est, non oportet aliquid supponere, et aliud quaerere de illo, posset ista quaestio fieri et de ente et de non ente. Et ita quaestio quae est quid est, esset communiter facta et de aliquo et de nihilo.	1665. Or to state it in another way—if this question is not corrected, it follows that those cases in which no question at all is asked and those in which a question is asked have something in common. For when a question is asked about that which is, something is asked, but when a question is asked about that which is not, nothing is asked. Hence, if in asking what a thing is we need not assume anything and ask anything else of it, this question applies both to being and to non-being. Thus the question “What is it?” would apply in common both to something and to nothing.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 19 Quoniam vero in hac quaestione, qua quaeritur quid est homo, oportet habere notum existere verum hoc ipsum quod est esse hominem (aliter nihil quaereretur): sicut cum quaeritur propter quid sit eclipsis, oportet esse notum, quia est eclipsis: palam est, quod ille qui quaerit quid est homo quaerit propter quid est. Nam esse est praesuppositum ad hoc quod quaeritur quid est, quia est praesuppositum ad propter quid; sicut cum quaerimus quid est domus? Idem est ac si quaereremus propter quid haec, scilicet lapides et ligna, sunt domus? Propter haec scilicet quia partes domus existunt id quod erat domus esse, idest propter hoc quod quidditas domus inest partibus domus.	1666. But since in the question “What is man?” it is necessary to know the truth of the fact that man exists (otherwise there would be no question), as when we ask why there is an eclipse, we must know that an eclipse exists, it is evident that one who asks what man is, asks why he is. For in order that one may ask what a thing is, the existence of the thing has to be presupposed, because it is assumed by the question why. Thus, when we ask “What is a house?” it would be the same as asking “Why are these materials (stones and timbers) a house?” because of these, i.e., “because the parts of a house constitute the being of a house,” i.e., the quiddity of a house is present in the parts of a house.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 20 Dictum est enim supra, quod in talibus propter quid quandoque quaerit formam, quandoque agentem, quandoque finem. Et similiter cum quaerimus quid est homo, idem est ac si quaereretur propter quid hoc, scilicet Socrates, est homo? Quia scilicet inest ei quidditas hominis. Aut etiam idem est, ac si quaereretur propter quid corpus sic se habens, ut puta organicum, est homo? Haec enim est materia hominis, sicut lapides et lateres domus.	1667. For it was said above that in such cases the question why sometimes asks about the form and sometimes about the agent and sometimes about the goal of a thing. And similarly when we ask what man is, it is the same as asking “Why is this (Socrates) a man?” because the quiddity of man belongs to him. Or it would also be the same as asking “Why is a body, which is disposed in this way (organically) a man?” For this is the matter of man, as stones and bricks are the matter of a house.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 21 Quare manifestum est quod in talibus quaestionibus quaeritur causa materiae, idest propter quid materia pertingat ad naturam eius quod definitur. Hoc autem quaesitum quod est causa materiae est species, scilicet forma qua aliquid est. Hoc autem est substantia, idest ipsa substantia quae est quod quid erat esse. Et sic relinquitur quod propositum erat ostendere, scilicet quod substantia sit principium et causa.	1668. Hence in such questions it is evident that we are asking about “the cause of the matter,” i.e., why it is made to be of this nature. Now the thing under investigation which is the cause of the matter is “the specifying principle,” namely, the form by which something is. And this “is the substance,” i.e., the very substance in the sense of the quiddity. Thus it follows that his thesis has been proved, i.e., that substance is a principle and cause.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 22 Deinde cum dicit palam igitur infert quoddam corollarium ex dictis; dicens, quod ex quo in omnibus quaestionibus quaeritur aliquid de aliquo, sicut de materiae causa, quae est formalis vel causa formae in materia, ut finis et agens: palam est, quod in substantiis simplicibus, quae non sunt compositae ex materia et forma, non est aliqua quaestio. In omni enim quaestione, ut habitum est, oportet aliquid esse notum, et aliquid quaeri quod ignoramus. Tales autem substantiae, vel totae cognoscuntur, vel totae ignorantur, ut in nono infra dicetur. Unde non est in eis quaestio.	1669. Hence it is (686). He then draws a corollary from his discussions. He says that, since in all questions one asks about something as predicated of something else, as the cause of the matter, which is the formal cause, or the cause of the form in matter, as the final cause and the agent, it is evident that there is no inquiry about simple substances, which are not composed of matter and form. For, as has been stated, in every inquiry there must be something which is known and some investigation about something which we do not know. Now such substances are either totally known or totally unknown, as is stated in Book IX (810:C 1905). Hence there is no inquiry about them.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 23 Et propter hoc de eis etiam non potest esse doctrina, sicut est in scientiis speculativis. Nam doctrina est generatio scientiae; scientia autem fit in nobis per hoc quod scimus propter quid. Syllogismi enim demonstrativi facientis scire, medium est propter quid est.	1670. And for this reason there also cannot be any teaching concerning them, as there is in the speculative sciences. For teaching produces science, and science arises in us by our knowing why a thing is; for the middle term of a demonstrative syllogism, which causes science, is why a thing is so.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 24 Sed ne videatur consideratio talium substantiarum omnino aliena esse a physica doctrina, ideo subiungit, quod alter est modus quaestionis talium. In cognitione enim harum substantiarum non pervenimus nisi ex substantiis sensibilibus, quarum substantiae simplices sunt quodammodo causae. Et ideo utimur substantiis sensibilibus ut notis, et per eas quaerimus substantias simplices. Sicut philosophus infra, per motum investigat substantias immateriales moventes. Et ideo in doctrinis et quaestionibus de talibus, utimur effectibus, quasi medio ad investigandum substantias simplices, quarum quidditates ignoramus. Et etiam patet, quod illae substantiae comparantur ad istas in via doctrinae, sicut formae et aliae causae ad materiam. Sicut enim quaerimus in substantiis materialibus formam, finem et agentem ut causas materiae; ita quaerimus substantias simplices ut causas substantiarum materialium.	1671. But lest the study of such substances should seem to be foreign to the philosophy of nature, he therefore adds that the method of investigating such things is different; for we come to an understanding of these substances only from sensible substances, of which these simple substances are, in a measure, the cause. Therefore we make use of sensible substances as known, and by means of them we investigate simple substances, just as the Philosopher investigates below (Book XII) the immaterial substances, which cause motion, by means of motion. Hence in our teaching and investigations of them we use effects as the middle term in our investigations of simple substances whose quiddities we do not know. And it is also evident that simple substances are related to sensible ones in the process of teaching as the form and other causes are related to matter; for just as we inquire about the form of sensible substances and about their goal and their efficient causes as the causes of matter, in a similar fashion we inquire about simple substances as the causes of material substances.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 25 Deinde cum dicit quoniam vero ostendit cuiusmodi causa et principium sit substantia, quae est quod quid erat esse; et circa hoc tria facit. Primo praemittit quoddam, quod est necessarium ad propositum ostendendum. Secundo movet dubitationem, ibi, si igitur necesse illud. Tertio solvit, ibi, videbitur autem utique esse aliquid. Circa primum innuit quamdam distinctionem compositionis alicuius ex multis. Quandoque enim ex multis fit compositio, ita quod totum compositum ex multis est unum quoddam, sicut domus composita ex suis partibus, et mixtum corpus ex elementis. Quandoque vero ex multis fit compositum, ita quod totum compositum non est unum simpliciter, sed solum secundum quid; sicut patet in cumulo vel acervo lapidum, cum partes sunt in actu, cum non sint continuae. Unde simpliciter quidem est multa, sed solum secundum quid unum, prout ista multa associantur sibi in loco.	1672. Now since what (687). Here he shows what kind of cause and principle substance is when taken as the quiddity of a thing; and in regard to this he does three things. First, he premises a certain distinction necessary for the proof of his thesis. Second (688:C 1675), he raises a difficulty (“Therefore, if something”). Third (689:C 1678), he solves it (“Now it would seem”). In regard to the first (687) he distinguishes one kind of composition from several others; for sometimes composition involves many things in such a way that the whole is one thing composed of many, as a house is composed of its parts and a compound is composed of elements. But sometimes a composite results from many things in such a way that the whole composite is not one thing in an unqualified sense but only in a qualified one, as is clear of a heap or pile of stones when the parts are actual, not being continuous. Hence it is many in an unqualified sense, but is one only in a qualified sense, inasmuch as many things are grouped together in place.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 26 Huius autem diversitatis ratio est, quia compositum quandoque sortitur speciem ab aliquo uno, quod est vel forma, ut patet in corpore mixto; vel compositio, ut patet in domo; vel ordo, ut patet in syllaba et numero. Et tunc oportet quod totum compositum sit unum simpliciter. Quandoque vero compositum sortitur speciem ab ipsa multitudine partium collectarum, ut patet in acervo et populo, et aliis huiusmodi: et in talibus totum compositum non est unum simpliciter, sed solum secundum quid.	1673. Now it is characteristic of the notion of this kind of diversity that the composite sometimes derives its species from some one thing, which is either the form (as in a compound) or combination (as in a house) or arrangement (as in a syllable or in a number). And then the whole composite must be one without qualification. But sometimes the composite derives its species from the very multitude of collected parts, as in a heap of things and a group of people and so forth; and in such cases the whole composite is not a unity in an unqualified sense but only with qualification.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 27 Dicit ergo philosophus, quod quia aliquid est sic ex aliquo compositum ut omne, idest totum sit unum, et non hoc modo sicut cumulus lapidum, sed sicut syllaba, quae est unum simpliciter; in omnibus talibus oportet, quod ipsum compositum non sit ea ex quibus componitur: sicut syllaba non est elementa. Sicut haec syllaba, quae est ba, non est idem quod hae duae literae b et a; nec caro est idem quod ignis et terra. Et hoc sic probat: quia dissolutis, idest divisis ab invicem his, ex quibus fit compositio, haec, scilicet totum non adhuc remanet post dissolutionem. Sicut iam divisis elementis non remanet caro, et divisis literis non remanet syllaba. Elementa vero, idest literae, remanent post dissolutionem syllabae. Et ignis et terra remanent post dissolutionem carnis. Igitur syllaba est aliquid praeter elementa; et non solum est elementa, quae sunt vocalis et consonans; sed alterum aliquid, per quod syllaba est syllaba. Et sic similiter et caro non solum est ignis et terra, aut calidum et frigidum, per quorum virtutem elementa commiscentur, sed etiam est aliquid alterum per quod caro est caro.	1674. Hence the Philosopher says that, since one kind of composite is constituted of something in this way “as a whole”—i.e., the whole is one—and not in the way in which a heap of stones is one but as a syllable is one (without qualification), in all such cases the composite must not be identical with its components, as a syllable is not its letters; for this syllable ba is not the same as these two letters b and a, nor is flesh the same as fire and earth. He proves this as follows. “When these are dissociated,” i.e., when the things of which the composite is made up are separated from each other, “this”—the whole—does not remain after its dissolution. For when the elements have been actually separated, flesh does not remain; and when its letters have been separated, the syllable does not remain. “But the elements,” i.e., the letters, remain after the dissolution of the syllable, and fire and earth remain after the dissolution of flesh. Therefore the syllable is something over and above its elements, and it is not only its elements, which are vowels and consonants, but there is also something else by which a syllable is a syllable. And in a similar way flesh is not merely fire and earth, or the hot and the cold, by whose power the elements are mixed, but there is also something else by which flesh is flesh.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 28 Deinde cum dicit si igitur necesse movet dubitationem circa id quod principaliter intendit. Ostensum est enim quod in carne et syllaba est aliquid praeter elementa. Videtur autem, quod omne quod est, aut sit elementum, aut ex elementis. Si igitur necesse est id aliquod, quod est in carne et syllaba praeter elementa, aut elementum esse, aut ex elementis, sequuntur haec inconvenientia.	1675. Therefore, if something (688). He raises a problem relating to his principal thesis; for it was shown that there is something else in flesh and in a syllable besides their elements; for it seems that everything which is, is either an element or composed of elements. If, then, it is necessary that this additional something which is present in flesh and in a syllable over and above their elements should be either an element or composed of elements, this absurdity results.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 29 Si quidem enim sit elementum, iterum erit eadem ratio et de hoc et de aliis elementis. Connumerandum enim aliis erit. Erit enim caro composita, ex hoc, quod diximus praeter elementa et nunc ponimus elementum esse, et ex igne, et terra. Et quia iam probatum est, quod in omni composito quod est unum, oportet esse aliquid aliud praeter elementa, erit eadem quaestio adhuc de illo alio: quod si sit elementum, iterum caro erit ex primo alio elemento, et ex elementis, et adhuc ex aliquo alio. Quare sic ibit in infinitum; quod est inconveniens.	1676. For if this is an element, the same argument will apply again both to this and to other elements, because it will have to be numbered with the others. For flesh will be composed both of this thing, which we said was something over and above the elements, and which we now claim to be an element, and of fire and earth. And since it has already been proved that in every composite which is one there must be something in addition to its elements, the same question will then apply to this something else, because, if it is an element, flesh will again be composed both of the other original element, and of the elements, and then of something else. Hence in this way there will be an infinite regress; but this is absurd.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 30 Si ergo istud aliud inventum, non sit elementum, sed sit ex elementis; palam est quia non est ex elemento uno tantum, sed ex pluribus elementis. Quia si non esset ex pluribus, sed ex uno tantum, sequeretur quod esset illud idem elementum totum. Quod enim est ex aqua tantum, est vere aqua. Quare si sit ex pluribus elementis, iterum eadem ratio erit de hoc quae et de carne et syllaba, quia scilicet erit in eo aliquid praeter elementa ex quibus est. Et de hoc iterum redibit quaestio eadem. Et sic iterum procedit in infinitum.	1677. Therefore, if this something else when found is not an element but is composed of elements, it is evident that it is not composed of one element only but of many; because if it were not composed of many but of only one, it would follow that that element would be the same as the whole; for what is composed of water only is truly water. Hence, if it is composed of many elements, the same argument will again apply to this thing as applies to flesh and a syllable, because it will contain something else besides the elements of which it is composed. And the same question will again apply to this. Thus once more there will be an infinite regress.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 31 Deinde cum dicit videbitur autem solvit propositam dubitationem: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo solvit eam quantum ad illud quod primo aspectu de ipsa apparet. Secundo solutionem corrigit, et ad veritatem reducit, ibi, quoniam vero quaedam. Dicit ergo primo, quod illud quod est in compositis aliud ab elementis, videbitur utique in primo aspectu esse aliquid quod non sit ex elementis, sed sit elementum et causa essendi, vel carnem, vel syllabam, et similiter in aliis. Et iterum videbitur, quod haec sit substantia uniuscuiusque, quae est quod quid erat esse. Substantia enim quae est quod quid erat esse, est prima causa essendi.	1678. Now it would seem (689). Then he solves the problem which he raised; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he solves it with reference to the way in which it first appears. Second (690:C 1679), he corrects this solution and gives the true one (“And since some”). He accordingly says, first (689), that the thing which is present in composites over and above their elements would seem at first glance not to be something composed of elements, but to be an element and cause of the being of flesh and a syllable and similarly of other things. Moreover, it would seem that it is the substance of each of them in the sense of their quiddity; for substance in the sense of quiddity is the first cause of being.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 32 Deinde cum dicit quoniam vero corrigit praedictam solutionem quantum ad duo. Primo quantum ad hoc quod dixerat, quod hoc quod est in compositis praeter elementa, est substantia uniuscuiusque. Hoc enim est verum in rebus quae sunt substantiae; non autem in rebus quae non sunt substantiae. Forma enim syllabae non est substantia. Secundo quantum ad hoc quod dixerat, quod hoc ipsum est elementum et causa essendi. Non enim potest dici elementum, sed principium, quia elementum pertinet ad causam materialem.	1679. And since certain things (690). He now corrects the above solution in two ways: first, insofar as he had said that this something else which is present in composite things over and above their elements is the substance of each; for this is true of things which are substances, but not of things which are not substances, since the form of a syllable is not a substance; second, insofar as he had said that this very thing is an element and a cause of being; for it cannot be called an element but a principle, because elements pertain to the material cause of a thing.
lib. 7 l. 17 n. 33 Dicit ergo, quod quia quaedam rerum non sunt substantiae, sicut praecipue patet in artificialibus, sed quaecumque sunt secundum naturam, quantum ad esse, et per naturam constitutae, quantum ad fieri, sunt verae substantiae; manifestabitur quod haec natura quam quaesivimus est substantia in quibusdam, scilicet in naturalibus, et non in omnibus. Quae etiam natura non est elementum sed principium formale. Elementum vero dicitur id in quo aliquid dividitur inexistens, idest intrinsecum, sicut in materiam, puta elementa syllabae ba sunt a, b. Unde cum praedictum principium non sit materiale, sed formale, non erit elementum. Et sic simul patet, et quale principium est substantia; et quod neque est elementum, neque ex elementis: in quo solvitur dubitatio praemissa.	1680. Therefore he says that, since some things are not substances, as is c1car especially of artificial things, but just those are true substances that are “according to nature,” with reference to being, “and are constituted such by nature,” with reference to becoming, it will be made clear that this nature which we are investigating is substance “in some cases,” i.e., in that of natural beings, and not in all. And it will also be made clear that this nature is not an element but a formal principle; for that is called an element into which something is divided and which is “intrinsic” as matter; for example, the elements of the syllable ba are b and a. Hence, since the principle in question is not a material principle but a formal one, it will not be an element. And thus it is evident at the same time both what kind of principle substance is, and that it is neither an element nor composed of elements. The foregoing problem is solved in this way.