Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber7/lect4

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.