Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber7/lect17

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.