Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber7/lect8

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.