Authors/Thomas Aquinas/perihermenias/perihermenias I

Commentary by Thomas Aquinas; finished by Cardinal Cajetan. Translated by Jean T. Oesterle Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962

LECTURE 1

Latin	English
(Aquinas) dedicatio Dilecto sibi praeposito Lovaniensi frater Thomas de Aquino salutem et verae sapientiae incrementa. Diligentiae tuae, qua in iuvenili aetate non vanitati sed sapientiae intendis, studio provocatus, et desiderio satisfacere cupiens, libro Aristotelis, qui peri hermeneias dicitur, multis obscuritatibus involuto, inter multiplices occupationum mearum sollicitudines, expositionem adhibere curavi, hoc gerens in animo sic altiora pro posse perfectioribus exhibere, ut tamen iunioribus proficiendi auxilia tradere non recusem. Suscipiat ergo studiositas tua praesentis expositionis munus exiguum, ex quo si profeceris, provocare me poteris ad maiora
Aquinas pr. 1 Sicut dicit philosophus in III de anima, duplex est operatio intellectus: una quidem, quae dicitur indivisibilium intelligentia, per quam scilicet intellectus apprehendit essentiam uniuscuiusque rei in seipsa; alia est operatio intellectus scilicet componentis et dividentis. Additur autem et tertia operatio, scilicet ratiocinandi, secundum quod ratio procedit a notis ad inquisitionem ignotorum. Harum autem operationum prima ordinatur ad secundam: quia non potest esse compositio et divisio, nisi simplicium apprehensorum. Secunda vero ordinatur ad tertiam: quia videlicet oportet quod ex aliquo vero cognito, cui intellectus assentiat, procedatur ad certitudinem accipiendam de aliquibus ignotis.	There is a twofold operation of the intellect, as the Philosopher says in III De anima [6: 430a 26]. One is the understanding of simple objects, that is, the operation by which the intellect apprebends just the essence of a thing alone; the other is the operation of composing and dividing. There is also a third operation, that of reasoning, by which reason proceeds from what is known to the investigation of things that are unknown. The first of these operations is ordered to the second, for there cannot be composition and division unless things have already been apprehended simply. The second, in turn, is ordered to the third, for clearly we must proceed from some known truth to which the intellect assents in order to have certitude about something not yet known.
Aquinas pr. 2 Cum autem logica dicatur rationalis scientia, necesse est quod eius consideratio versetur circa ea quae pertinent ad tres praedictas operationes rationis. De his igitur quae pertinent ad primam operationem intellectus, idest de his quae simplici intellectu concipiuntur, determinat Aristoteles in libro praedicamentorum. De his vero, quae pertinent ad secundam operationem, scilicet de enunciatione affirmativa et negativa, determinat philosophus in libro perihermeneias. De his vero quae pertinent ad tertiam operationem determinat in libro priorum et in consequentibus, in quibus agitur de syllogismo simpliciter et de diversis syllogismorum et argumentationum speciebus, quibus ratio de uno procedit ad aliud. Et ideo secundum praedictum ordinem trium operationum, liber praedicamentorum ordinatur ad librum perihermeneias, qui ordinatur ad librum priorum et sequentes.	2. Since logic is called rational science it must direct its consideration to the things that belong to the three operations of reason we have mentioned. Accordingly, Aristotle treats those belonging to the first operation of the intellect, i.e., those conceived by simple understanding, in the book Praedicamentorum; those belonging to the second operation, i.e., affirmative and negative enunciation, in the book Perihermeneias; those belonging to the third operation in the book Priorum and the books following it in which he treats the syllogism absolutely, the different kinds of syllogism, and the species of argumentation by which reason proceeds from one thing to another. And since the three operations of reason are ordered to each other so are the books: the Praedicamenta to the Perihermeneias and the Perihermeneias to the Priora and the books following it.
Aquinas pr. 3 Dicitur ergo liber iste, qui prae manibus habetur, perihermeneias, quasi de interpretatione. Dicitur autem interpretatio, secundum Boethium, vox significativa, quae per se aliquid significat, sive sit complexa sive incomplexa. Unde coniunctiones et praepositiones et alia huiusmodi non dicuntur interpretationes, quia non per se aliquid significant. Similiter etiam voces significantes naturaliter, non ex proposito aut cum imaginatione aliquid significandi, sicut sunt voces brutorum animalium, interpretationes dici non possunt. Qui enim interpretatur aliquid exponere intendit. Et ideo sola nomina et verba et orationes dicuntur interpretationes, de quibus in hoc libro determinatur. Sed tamen nomen et verbum magis interpretationis principia esse videntur, quam interpretationes. Ille enim interpretari videtur, qui exponit aliquid esse verum vel falsum. Et ideo sola oratio enunciativa, in qua verum vel falsum invenitur, interpretatio vocatur. Caeterae vero orationes, ut optativa et imperativa, magis ordinantur ad exprimendum affectum, quam ad interpretandum id quod in intellectu habetur. Intitulatur ergo liber iste de interpretatione, ac si dicetur de enunciativa oratione: in qua verum vel falsum invenitur. Non autem hic agitur de nomine et verbo, nisi in quantum sunt partes enunciationis. Est enim proprium uniuscuiusque scientiae partes subiecti tradere, sicut et passiones. Patet igitur ad quam partem philosophiae pertineat liber iste, et quae sit necessitas istius, et quem ordinem teneat inter logicae libros.	3. The one we are now examining is named Perihermeneias, that is, On Interpretation. Interpretation, according to Boethius, is "significant vocal sound—whether complex or incomplex—which signifies something by itself.” Conjunctions, then, and prepositions and other words of this kind are not called interpretations since they do not signify anything by themselves. Nor can sounds signifying naturally but not from purpose or in connection with a mental image of signifying something—such as the sounds of brute animals—be called interpretations, for one who in terprets intends to explain something. Therefore only names and verbs and speech are called interpretations and these Aristotle treats in this book. The name and verb, however, seem to be principles of interpretation rather than interpretations, for one who interprets seems to explain something as either true or false. Therefore, only enunciative speech in which truth or falsity is found is called interpretation. Other kinds of speech, such as optatives and imperatives, are ordered rather to expressing volition than to interpreting what is in the intellect. This book, then, is entitled On Interpretation, that is to say, On Enunciative Speech in which truth or falsity is found. The name and verb are treated only insofar as they are parts of the enunciation; for it is proper to a science to treat the parts of its subject as well as its properties. It is clear, then, to which part of philosophy this book belongs, what its necessity is, and what its place is among the books on logic.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 1 n. 1 Praemittit autem huic operi philosophus prooemium, in quo sigillatim exponit ea, quae in hoc libro sunt tractanda. Et quia omnis scientia praemittit ea, quae de principiis sunt; partes autem compositorum sunt eorum principia; ideo oportet intendenti tractare de enunciatione praemittere de partibus eius. Unde dicit: primum oportet constituere, idest definire quid sit nomen et quid sit verbum. In Graeco habetur, primum oportet poni et idem significat. Quia enim demonstrationes definitiones praesupponunt, ex quibus concludunt, merito dicuntur positiones. Et ideo praemittuntur hic solae definitiones eorum, de quibus agendum est: quia ex definitionibus alia cognoscuntur.	4. The Philosopher begins this work with an introduction in which he points out one by one the things that are to be treated. For, since every science begins with a treatment of the principles, and the principles of composite things are their parts, one who intends to treat enunciation must begin with its parts, Therefore Aristotle begins by saying: First we must determine, i.e., define, what a name is and what a verb is. In the Greek text it is First we must posit, which signifies the same thing, for demonstrations presuppose definitions, from which they conclude, and hence definitions are rightly called "positions.” This is the reason he only points out here the definitions of the things to be treated; for from definitions other things are known.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 1 n. 2 Si quis autem quaerat, cum in libro praedicamentorum de simplicibus dictum sit, quae fuit necessitas ut hic rursum de nomine et verbo determinaretur; ad hoc dicendum quod simplicium dictionum triplex potest esse consideratio. Una quidem, secundum quod absolute significant simplices intellectus, et sic earum consideratio pertinet ad librum praedicamentorum. Alio modo, secundum rationem, prout sunt partes enunciationis; et sic determinatur de eis in hoc libro; et ideo traduntur sub ratione nominis et verbi: de quorum ratione est quod significent aliquid cum tempore vel sine tempore, et alia huiusmodi, quae pertinent ad rationem dictionum, secundum quod constituunt enunciationem. Tertio modo, considerantur secundum quod ex eis constituitur ordo syllogisticus, et sic determinatur de eis sub ratione terminorum in libro priorum.	5. It might be asked why it is necessary to treat simple things again, i.e., the name and the verb, for they were treated in the book Praedicamentorum. In answer to this we should say that simple words can be considered in three ways: first, as they signify simple intellection absolutely, which is the consideration proper to the book Praedicamentorum; secondly, according to their function as parts of the enunciation, which is the way they are considered in this book. Hence, they are treated here under the formality of the name and the verb, and under this formality they signify something with time or without time and other things of the kind that belong to the formality of words as they are components of an enunciation. Finally, simple words may be considered as they are components of a syllogistic ordering. They are treated then under the formality of terms and this Aristotle does in the book Priorum.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 1 n. 3 Potest iterum dubitari quare, praetermissis aliis orationis partibus, de solo nomine et verbo determinet. Ad quod dicendum est quod, quia de simplici enunciatione determinare intendit, sufficit ut solas illas partes enunciationis pertractet, ex quibus ex necessitate simplex oratio constat. Potest autem ex solo nomine et verbo simplex enunciatio fieri, non autem ex aliis orationis partibus sine his; et ideo sufficiens ei fuit de his duabus determinare. Vel potest dici quod sola nomina et verba sunt principales orationis partes. Sub nominibus enim comprehenduntur pronomina, quae, etsi non nominant naturam, personam tamen determinant, et ideo loco nominum ponuntur: sub verbo vero participium, quod consignificat tempus: quamvis et cum nomine convenientiam habeat. Alia vero sunt magis colligationes partium orationis, significantes habitudinem unius ad aliam, quam orationis partes; sicut clavi et alia huiusmodi non sunt partes navis, sed partium navis coniunctiones.	It might be asked why he treats only the name and verb and omits the other parts of speech. The reason could be that Aristotle intends to establish rules about the simple enunciation and for this it is sufficient to consider only the parts of the enunciation that are necessary for simple speech. A simple enunciation can be formed from just a name and a verb, but it cannot be formed from other parts of speech without these. Therefore, it is sufficient to treat these two.On the other hand, the reason could be that names and verbs are the principal parts of speech. Pronouns, which do not name a nature but determine a person-and therefore are put in place of names-are comprehended under names. The participle-althougb it has similarities with the name-signifies with time and is therefore comprehended under the verb. The others are things that unite the parts of speech. They signify relations of one part to another rather than as parts of speech; as nails and other parts of this kind are not parts of a ship, but connect the parts of a ship.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 1 n. 4 His igitur praemissis quasi principiis, subiungit de his, quae pertinent ad principalem intentionem, dicens: postea quid negatio et quid affirmatio, quae sunt enunciationis partes: non quidem integrales, sicut nomen et verbum (alioquin oporteret omnem enunciationem ex affirmatione et negatione compositam esse), sed partes subiectivae, idest species. Quod quidem nunc supponatur, posterius autem manifestabitur.	7. After he has proposed these parts [the name and the verb] as principles, Aristotle states what he principally intends to establish:... then what negation is and affirmation. These, too, are parts of the enunciation, not integral parts however, as are the name and the verb—otherwise every enunciation would have to be formed from an affirmation and negation—but subjective parts, i.e., species. This is supposed here but will be proved later.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 1 n. 5 Sed potest dubitari: cum enunciatio dividatur in categoricam et hypotheticam, quare de his non facit mentionem, sicut de affirmatione et negatione. Et potest dici quod hypothetica enunciatio ex pluribus categoricis componitur. Unde non differunt nisi secundum differentiam unius et multi. Vel potest dici, et melius, quod hypothetica enunciatio non continet absolutam veritatem, cuius cognitio requiritur in demonstratione, ad quam liber iste principaliter ordinatur; sed significat aliquid verum esse ex suppositione: quod non sufficit in scientiis demonstrativis, nisi confirmetur per absolutam veritatem simplicis enunciationis. Et ideo Aristoteles praetermisit tractatum de hypotheticis enunciationibus et syllogismis. Subdit autem, et enunciatio, quae est genus negationis et affirmationis; et oratio, quae est genus enunciationis.	8. Since enunciation is divided into categorical and hypothetical, it might be asked why he does not list these as well as affirmation and negation. In reply to this we could say that Aristotle has not added these because the hypothetical enunciation is composed of many categorical propositions and hence categorical and hypothetical only differ according to the difference of one and many.Or we could say—and this would be a better reason—that the hypothetical enunciation does not contain absolute truth, the knowledge of which is required in demonstration, to which this book is principally ordered; rather, it signifies something as true by supposition, which does not suffice for demonstrative sciences unless it is confirmed by the absolute truth of the simple enunciation. This is the reason Aristotle does not treat either hypothetical enunciations or syllogisms. He adds, and the enunciation, which is the genus of negation and affirmation; and speech, which is the genus of enunciation.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 1 n. 6 Si quis ulterius quaerat, quare non facit ulterius mentionem de voce, dicendum est quod vox est quoddam naturale; unde pertinet ad considerationem naturalis philosophiae, ut patet in secundo de anima, et in ultimo de generatione animalium. Unde etiam non est proprie orationis genus, sed assumitur ad constitutionem orationis, sicut res naturales ad constitutionem artificialium.	9. If it should be asked why, besides these, he does not mention vocal sound, it is because vocal sound is something natural and therefore belongs to the consideration of natural philosophy, as is evident in II De Anima [8: 420b 5-421a 6] and at the end of De generatione animalium [ch. 8]. Also, since it is something natural, vocal sound is not properly the genus of speech but is presupposed for the forming of speech, as natural things are presupposed for the formation of artificial things.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 1 n. 7 Videtur autem ordo enunciationis esse praeposterus: nam affirmatio naturaliter est prior negatione, et iis prior est enunciatio, sicut genus; et per consequens oratio enunciatione. Sed dicendum quod, quia a partibus inceperat enumerare, procedit a partibus ad totum. Negationem autem, quae divisionem continet, eadem ratione praeponit affirmationi, quae consistit in compositione: quia divisio magis accedit ad partes, compositio vero magis accedit ad totum. Vel potest dici, secundum quosdam, quod praemittitur negatio, quia in iis quae possunt esse et non esse, prius est non esse, quod significat negatio, quam esse, quod significat affirmatio. Sed tamen, quia sunt species ex aequo dividentes genus, sunt simul natura; unde non refert quod eorum praeponatur.	10. In this introduction, however, Aristotle seems to have inverted the order of the enunciation, for affirmation is naturally prior to negation and enunciation prior to these as a genus; and consequently, speech to enunciation. We could say in reply to this that he began to enumerate from the parts and consequently he proceeds from the parts to the whole. He puts negation, which contains division, before affirmation, which consists of composition, for the same reason: division is closer to the parts, composition closer to the whole. Or we could say, as some do, that he puts negation first because in those things that can be and not be, non-being, which negation signifies, is prior to being, which affirmation signifies. Aristotle, however, does not refer to the fact that one of them is placed before the other, for they are species equally dividing a genus and are therefore simultaneous according to nature.

LECTURE 2

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 2 n. 1 Praemisso prooemio, philosophus accedit ad propositum exequendum. Et quia ea, de quibus promiserat se dicturum, sunt voces significativae complexae vel incomplexae, ideo praemittit tractatum de significatione vocum: et deinde de vocibus significativis determinat de quibus in prooemio se dicturum promiserat. Et hoc ibi: nomen ergo est vox significativa et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, determinat qualis sit significatio vocum; secundo, ostendit differentiam significationum vocum complexarum et incomplexarum; ibi: est autem quemadmodum et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo quidem, praemittit ordinem significationis vocum; secundo, ostendit qualis sit vocum significatio, utrum sit ex natura vel ex impositione; ibi: et quemadmodum nec litterae et cetera.	1. After his introduction the Philosopher begins to investigate the things he has proposed. Since the things he promised to speak of are either complex or incomplex significant vocal sounds, he prefaces this with a treatment of the signification of vocal sounds; then he takes up the significant vocal sounds he proposed in the introduction where he says, A name, then, is a vocal sound significant by convention, without time, etc. In regard to the signification of vocal sounds he first determines what kind of signification vocal sound has and then shows the difference between the signification of complex and incomplex vocal sounds where he says, As sometimes there is thought in the soul, etc. With respect to the first point, he presents the order of the signification of vocal sounds and then shows what kind of signification vocal sound has, i.e., whether it is from nature or by imposition. This he does where he says, And just as letters are not the same for all men, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 2 n. 2 Est ergo considerandum quod circa primum tria proponit, ex quorum uno intelligitur quartum. Proponit enim Scripturam, voces et animae passiones, ex quibus intelliguntur res. Nam passio est ex impressione alicuius agentis; et sic passiones animae originem habent ab ipsis rebus. Et si quidem homo esset naturaliter animal solitarium, sufficerent sibi animae passiones, quibus ipsis rebus conformaretur, ut earum notitiam in se haberet; sed quia homo est animal naturaliter politicum et sociale, necesse fuit quod conceptiones unius hominis innotescerent aliis, quod fit per vocem; et ideo necesse fuit esse voces significativas, ad hoc quod homines ad invicem conviverent. Unde illi, qui sunt diversarum linguarum, non possunt bene convivere ad invicem. Rursum si homo uteretur sola cognitione sensitiva, quae respicit solum ad hic et nunc, sufficeret sibi ad convivendum aliis vox significativa, sicut et caeteris animalibus, quae per quasdam voces, suas conceptiones invicem sibi manifestant: sed quia homo utitur etiam intellectuali cognitione, quae abstrahit ab hic et nunc; consequitur ipsum sollicitudo non solum de praesentibus secundum locum et tempus, sed etiam de his quae distant loco et futura sunt tempore. Unde ut homo conceptiones suas etiam his qui distant secundum locum et his qui venturi sunt in futuro tempore manifestet, necessarius fuit usus Scripturae.	2. Apropos of the order of signification of vocal sounds he proposes three things, from one of which a fourth is understood. He proposes writing, vocal sounds, and passions of the soul; things is understood from the latter, for passion is from the impression of something acting, and hence passions of the soul have their origin from things. Now if man were by nature a solitary animal the passions of the soul by which he was conformed to things so as to have knowledge of them would be sufficient for him; but since he is by nature a political and social animal it was necessary that his conceptions be made known to others. This he does through vocal sound. Therefore there had to be significant vocal sounds in order that men might live together. Whence those who speak different languages find it difficult to live together in social unity. Again, if man had only sensitive cognition, which is of the here and now, such significant vocal sounds as the other animals use to manifest their conceptions to each other would be sufficient for him to live with others. But man also has the advantage of intellectual cognition, which abstracts from the here and now, and as a consequence, is concerned with things distant in place and future in time as well as things present according to time and place. Hence the use of writing was necessary so that he might manifest his conceptions to those who are distant according to place and to those who will come in future time.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 2 n. 3 Sed quia logica ordinatur ad cognitionem de rebus sumendam, significatio vocum, quae est immediata ipsis conceptionibus intellectus, pertinet ad principalem considerationem ipsius; significatio autem litterarum, tanquam magis remota, non pertinet ad eius considerationem, sed magis ad considerationem grammatici. Et ideo exponens ordinem significationum non incipit a litteris, sed a vocibus: quarum primo significationem exponens, dicit: sunt ergo ea, quae sunt in voce, notae, idest, signa earum passionum quae sunt in anima. Dicit autem ergo, quasi ex praemissis concludens: quia supra dixerat determinandum esse de nomine et verbo et aliis praedictis; haec autem sunt voces significativae; ergo oportet vocum significationem exponere.	3. However, since logic is ordered to obtaining knowledge about things, the signification of vocal sounds, which is immediate to the conceptions of the intellect, is its principal consideration. The signification of written signs, being more remote, belongs to the consideration of the grammarian rather than the logician. Aristotle therefore begins his explanation of the order of signification from vocal sounds, not written signs. First he explains the signification of vocal sounds: Therefore those that are in vocal sound are signs of passions in the soul. He says "therefore” as if concluding from premises, because he has already said that we must establish what a name is, and a verb and the other things he mentioned; but these are significant vocal sounds; therefore, signification of vocal sounds must be explained.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 2 n. 4 Utitur autem hoc modo loquendi, ut dicat, ea quae sunt in voce, et non, voces, ut quasi continuatim loquatur cum praedictis. Dixerat enim dicendum esse de nomine et verbo et aliis huiusmodi. Haec autem tripliciter habent esse. Uno quidem modo, in conceptione intellectus; alio modo, in prolatione vocis; tertio modo, in conscriptione litterarum. Dicit ergo, ea quae sunt in voce etc.; ac si dicat, nomina et verba et alia consequentia, quae tantum sunt in voce, sunt notae. Vel, quia non omnes voces sunt significativae, et earum quaedam sunt significativae naturaliter, quae longe sunt a ratione nominis et verbi et aliorum consequentium; ut appropriet suum dictum ad ea de quibus intendit, ideo dicit, ea quae sunt in voce, idest quae continentur sub voce, sicut partes sub toto. Vel, quia vox est quoddam naturale, nomen autem et verbum significant ex institutione humana, quae advenit rei naturali sicut materiae, ut forma lecti ligno; ideo ad designandum nomina et verba et alia consequentia dicit, ea quae sunt in voce, ac si de lecto diceretur, ea quae sunt in ligno.	4. When he says "Those that are in vocal sound,” and not "vocal sounds,” his mode of speaking implies a continuity with what he has just been saying, namely, we must define the name and the verb, etc. Now these have being in three ways: in the conception of the intellect, in the utterance of the voice, and in the writing of letters. He could therefore mean when he says "Those that are in vocal sound,” etc., names and verbs and the other things we are going to define, insofar as they are in vocal sound, are signs. On the other hand, he may be speaking in this way because not all vocal sounds are significant, and of those that are, some are significant naturally and hence are different in nature from the name and the verb and the other things to be defined. Therefore, to adapt what he has said to the things of which he intends to speak he says, "Those that are in vocal sound,” i.e., that are contained under vocal sound as parts under a whole. There could be still another reason for his mode of speaking. Vocal sound is something natural. The name and verb, on the other hand, signify by human institution, that is, the signification is added to the natural thing as a form to matter, as the form of a bed is added to wood. Therefore, to designate names and verbs and the other things he is going to define he says, "Those that are in vocal sound,” in the same way he would say of a bed, "that which is in wood.”
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 2 n. 5 Circa id autem quod dicit, earum quae sunt in anima passionum, considerandum est quod passiones animae communiter dici solent appetitus sensibilis affectiones, sicut ira, gaudium et alia huiusmodi, ut dicitur in II Ethicorum. Et verum est quod huiusmodi passiones significant naturaliter quaedam voces hominum, ut gemitus infirmorum, et aliorum animalium, ut dicitur in I politicae. Sed nunc sermo est de vocibus significativis ex institutione humana; et ideo oportet passiones animae hic intelligere intellectus conceptiones, quas nomina et verba et orationes significant immediate, secundum sententiam Aristotelis. Non enim potest esse quod significent immediate ipsas res, ut ex ipso modo significandi apparet: significat enim hoc nomen homo naturam humanam in abstractione a singularibus. Unde non potest esse quod significet immediate hominem singularem; unde Platonici posuerunt quod significaret ipsam ideam hominis separatam. Sed quia hoc secundum suam abstractionem non subsistit realiter secundum sententiam Aristotelis, sed est in solo intellectu; ideo necesse fuit Aristoteli dicere quod voces significant intellectus conceptiones immediate et eis mediantibus res.	5. When he speaks of passions in the soul we are apt to think of the affections of the sensitive appetite, such as anger, joy, and the other passions that are customarily and commonly called passions of the soul, as is the case in II Ethicorum [5: 1105b 21]. It is true that some of the vocal sounds man makes signify passions of this kind naturally, such as the groans of the sick and the sounds of other animals, as is said in I Politicae [2: 1253a 10-14]. But here Aristotle is speaking of vocal sounds that are significant by human institution. Therefore "passions in the soul” must be understood here as conceptions of the intellect, and names, verbs, and speech, signify these conceptions of the intellect immediately according to the teaching of Aristotle. They cannot immediately signify things, as is clear from the mode of signifying, for the name "man” signifies human nature in abstraction from singulars; hence it is impossible that it immediately signify a singular man. The Platonists for this reason held that it signified the separated idea of man. But because in Aristotle’s teaching man in the abstract does not really subsist, but is only in the mind, it was necessary for Aristotle to say that vocal sounds signify the conceptions of the intellect immediately and things by means of them.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 2 n. 6 Sed quia non est consuetum quod conceptiones intellectus Aristoteles nominet passiones; ideo Andronicus posuit hunc librum non esse Aristotelis. Sed manifeste invenitur in 1 de anima quod passiones animae vocat omnes animae operationes. Unde et ipsa conceptio intellectus passio dici potest. Vel quia intelligere nostrum non est sine phantasmate: quod non est sine corporali passione; unde et imaginativam philosophus in III de anima vocat passivum intellectum. Vel quia extenso nomine passionis ad omnem receptionem, etiam ipsum intelligere intellectus possibilis quoddam pati est, ut dicitur in III de anima. Utitur autem potius nomine passionum, quam intellectuum: tum quia ex aliqua animae passione provenit, puta ex amore vel odio, ut homo interiorem conceptum per vocem alteri significare velit: tum etiam quia significatio vocum refertur ad conceptionem intellectus, secundum quod oritur a rebus per modum cuiusdam impressionis vel passionis.	6. Since Aristotle did not customarily speak of conceptions of the intellect as passions, Andronicus took the position that this book was not Aristotle’s. In I De anima, however, it is obvious that he calls all of the operations of the soul "passions” of the soul. Whence even the conception of the intellect can be called a passion and this either because we do not understand without a phantasm, which requires corporeal passion (for which reason the Philosopher calls the imaginative power the passive intellect) [De Anima III, 5: 430a 25]; or because by extending the name "passion” to every reception, the understanding of the possible intellect is also a kind of undergoing, as is said in III De anima [4: 429b 29]. Aristotle uses the name "passion,” rather than "understanding,” however, for two reasons: first, because man wills to signify an interior conception to another through vocal sound as a result of some passion of the soul, such as love or hate; secondly, because the signification of vocal sound is referred to the conception of the intellect inasmuch as the conception arises from things by way of a kind of impression or passion.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 2 n. 7 Secundo, cum dicit: et ea quae scribuntur etc., agit de significatione Scripturae: et secundum Alexandrum hoc inducit ad manifestandum praecedentem sententiam per modum similitudinis, ut sit sensus: ita ea quae sunt in voce sunt signa passionum animae, sicut et litterae sunt signa vocum. Quod etiam manifestat per sequentia, cum dicit: et quemadmodum nec litterae etc.; inducens hoc quasi signum praecedentis. Quod enim litterae significent voces, significatur per hoc, quod, sicut sunt diversae voces apud diversos, ita et diversae litterae. Et secundum hanc expositionem, ideo non dixit, et litterae eorum quae sunt in voce, sed ea quae scribuntur: quia dicuntur litterae etiam in prolatione et Scriptura, quamvis magis proprie, secundum quod sunt in Scriptura, dicantur litterae; secundum autem quod sunt in prolatione, dicantur elementa vocis. Sed quia Aristoteles non dicit, sicut et ea quae scribuntur, sed continuam narrationem facit, melius est ut dicatur, sicut Porphyrius exposuit, quod Aristoteles procedit ulterius ad complendum ordinem significationis. Postquam enim dixerat quod nomina et verba, quae sunt in voce, sunt signa eorum quae sunt in anima, continuatim subdit quod nomina et verba quae scribuntur, signa sunt eorum nominum et verborum quae sunt in voce.	7. When he says, and those that are written are signs of those in vocal sound, he treats of the signification of writing. According to Alexander he introduces this to make the preceding clause evident by means of a similitude; and the meaning is: those that are in vocal sound are signs of the passions of the soul in the way in which letters are of vocal sound; then he goes On to manifest this point where he says, And just as letters are not the same for all men so neither are vocal sounds the same—by introducing this as a sign of the preceding. For when he says in effect, just as there are diverse vocal sounds among diverse peoples so there are diverse letters, he is signifying that letters signify vocal. sounds. And according to this exposition Aristotle said those that are written are signs... and not, letters are signs of those that are in vocal sound, because they are called letters in both speech and writing, alt bough they are more properly called letters in writing; in speech they are called elements of vocal sound. Aristotle, however, does not say, just as those that are written, but continues with his account. Therefore it is better to say as Porphyry does, that Aristotle adds this to complete the order of signification; for after he says that names and verbs in vocal sound are signs of those in the soul, he adds—in continuity with this—that names and verbs that are written are sians of the names and verbs that are in vocal sound.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 2 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: et quemadmodum nec litterae etc., ostendit differentiam praemissorum significantium et significatorum, quantum ad hoc, quod est esse secundum naturam, vel non esse. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo enim, ponit quoddam signum, quo manifestatur quod nec voces nec litterae naturaliter significant. Ea enim, quae naturaliter significant sunt eadem apud omnes. Significatio autem litterarum et vocum, de quibus nunc agimus, non est eadem apud omnes. Sed hoc quidem apud nullos unquam dubitatum fuit quantum ad litteras: quarum non solum ratio significandi est ex impositione, sed etiam ipsarum formatio fit per artem. Voces autem naturaliter formantur; unde et apud quosdam dubitatum fuit, utrum naturaliter significent. Sed Aristoteles hic determinat ex similitudine litterarum, quae sicut non sunt eaedem apud omnes, ita nec voces. Unde manifeste relinquitur quod sicut nec litterae, ita nec voces naturaliter significant, sed ex institutione humana. Voces autem illae, quae naturaliter significant, sicut gemitus infirmorum et alia huiusmodi, sunt eadem apud omnes.	8. Then where he says, And just as letters are not the same for all men so neither are vocal sounds the same, he shows that the foresaid things differ as signified and signifying inasmuch as they are either according to nature or not. He makes three points here. He first posits a sign to show that neither vocal sounds nor letters signify naturally; things that signify naturally are the same among all men; but the signification of letters and vocal sounds, which is the point at issue here, is not the same among all men. There has never been any question about this in regard to letters, for their character of signifying is from imposition and their very formation is through art. Vocal sounds, however, are formed naturally and hence there is a question as to whether they signify naturally. Aristotle determines this by comparison with letters: these are not the same among all men, and so neither are vocal sounds the same. Consequently, like letters, vocal sounds do not signify naturally but by human institution. The vocal sounds that do signify naturally, such as groans of the sick and others of this kind, are the same among all men.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 2 n. 9 Secundo, ibi: quorum autem etc., ostendit passiones animae naturaliter esse, sicut et res, per hoc quod eaedem sunt apud omnes. Unde dicit: quorum autem; idest sicut passiones animae sunt eaedem omnibus (quorum primorum, idest quarum passionum primarum, hae, scilicet voces, sunt notae, idest signa; comparantur enim passiones animae ad voces, sicut primum ad secundum: voces enim non proferuntur, nisi ad exprimendum interiores animae passiones), et res etiam eaedem, scilicet sunt apud omnes, quorum, idest quarum rerum, hae, scilicet passiones animae sunt similitudines. Ubi attendendum est quod litteras dixit esse notas, idest signa vocum, et voces passionum animae similiter; passiones autem animae dicit esse similitudines rerum: et hoc ideo, quia res non cognoscitur ab anima nisi per aliquam sui similitudinem existentem vel in sensu vel in intellectu. Litterae autem ita sunt signa vocum, et voces passionum, quod non attenditur ibi aliqua ratio similitudinis, sed sola ratio institutionis, sicut et in multis aliis signis: ut tuba est signum belli. In passionibus autem animae oportet attendi rationem similitudinis ad exprimendas res, quia naturaliter eas designant, non ex institutione.	9. Secondly, when he says, but the passions of the soul, of which vocal sounds are the first signs, are the same for all, he shows that passions of the soul exist naturally, just as things exist naturally, for they are the same among all men. For, he says, but the passions of the soul, i.e., just as the passions of the soul are the same for all men; of which first, i.e., of which passions, being first, these, namely, vocal sounds, are tokens,” i.e., signs” (for passions of the soul are compared to vocal sounds as first to second since vocal sounds are produced only to express interior passions of the soul), so also the things... are the same, i.e., are the same among all, of which, i.e., of which things, passions of the soul are likenesses. Notice he says here that letters are signs, i.e., signs of vocal sounds, and similarly vocal sounds are signs of passions of the soul, but that passions of the soul are likenesses of things. This is because a thing is not known by the soul unless there is some likeness of the thing existing either in the sense or in the intellect. Now letters are signs of vocal sounds and vocal sounds of passions in such a way that we do not attend to any idea of likeness in regard to them but only one of institution, as is the case in regard to many other signs, for example, the trumpet as a sign of war. But in the passions of the soul we have to take into account the idea of a likeness to the things represented, since passions of the soul designate things naturally, not by institution.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 2 n. 10 Obiiciunt autem quidam, ostendere volentes contra hoc quod dicit passiones animae, quas significant voces, esse omnibus easdem. Primo quidem, quia diversi diversas sententias habent de rebus, et ita non videntur esse eaedem apud omnes animae passiones. Ad quod respondet Boethius quod Aristoteles hic nominat passiones animae conceptiones intellectus, qui numquam decipitur; et ita oportet eius conceptiones esse apud omnes easdem: quia, si quis a vero discordat, hic non intelligit. Sed quia etiam in intellectu potest esse falsum, secundum quod componit et dividit, non autem secundum quod cognoscit quod quid est, idest essentiam rei, ut dicitur in III de anima; referendum est hoc ad simplices intellectus conceptiones (quas significant voces incomplexae), quae sunt eaedem apud omnes: quia, si quis vere intelligit quid est homo, quodcunque aliud aliquid, quam hominem apprehendat, non intelligit hominem. Huiusmodi autem simplices conceptiones intellectus sunt, quas primo voces significant. Unde dicitur in IV metaphysicae quod ratio, quam significat nomen, est definitio. Et ideo signanter dicit: quorum primorum hae notae sunt, ut scilicet referatur ad primas conceptiones a vocibus primo significatas.	10. There are some who object to Aristotle’s position that passions of the soul, which vocal sounds signify, are the same for all men. Their argument against it is as follows: different men have different opinions about things; therefore, passions of the soul do not seem to be the same among all men. Boethius in reply to this objection says that here Aristotle is using "passions of the soul” to denote conceptions of the intellect, and since the intellect is never deceived, conceptions of the intellect must be the same among all men; for if someone is at variance with what is true, in this instance he does not understand. However, since what is false can also be in the intellect, not as it knows what a thing is, i.e., the essence of a thing, but as it composes and divides, as is said in III De anima [6: 430a 26]. Aristotle’s statement should be referred to the simple conceptions of the intellect—that are signified by the incomplex vocal sounds—which are the same among all men; for if someone truly understands what man is, whatever else than man he apprehends he does not understand as man. Simple conceptions of the intellect, which vocal sounds first signify, are of this kind. This is why Aristotle says in IV Metaphysicae [IV, 4: 1006b 4] that the notion which the name signifies is the definition.” And this is the reason he expressly says, "of which first [passions] these are signs,” i.e., so that this will be referred to the first conceptions first signified by vocal sounds.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 2 n. 11 Sed adhuc obiiciunt aliqui de nominibus aequivocis, in quibus eiusdem vocis non est eadem passio, quae significatur apud omnes. Et respondet ad hoc Porphyrius quod unus homo, qui vocem profert, ad unam intellectus conceptionem significandam eam refert; et si aliquis alius, cui loquitur, aliquid aliud intelligat, ille qui loquitur, se exponendo, faciet quod referet intellectum ad idem. Sed melius dicendum est quod intentio Aristotelis non est asserere identitatem conceptionis animae per comparationem ad vocem, ut scilicet unius vocis una sit conceptio: quia voces sunt diversae apud diversos; sed intendit asserere identitatem conceptionum animae per comparationem ad res, quas similiter dicit esse easdem.	11. The equivocal name is given as another objection to this position, for in the case of an equivocal name the same vocal sound does not signify the same passion among all men. Porphyry answers this by pointing out that a man who utters a vocal sound intends it to signify one conception of the intellect. If the person to whom he is speaking understands something else by it, the one who is speaking, by explaining himself, will make the one to whom he is speaking refer his understanding to the same thing. However it is better to say that it is not Aristotle’s intention to maintain an identity of the conception of the soul in relation to a vocal sound such that there is one conception in relation to one vocal sound, for vocal sounds are different among different peoples; rather, he intends to maintain an identity of the conceptions of the soul in relation to things, which things he also says are the same.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 2 n. 12 Tertio, ibi: de his itaque etc., excusat se a diligentiori harum consideratione: quia quales sint animae passiones, et quomodo sint rerum similitudines, dictum est in libro de anima. Non enim hoc pertinet ad logicum negocium, sed ad naturale.	12. Thirdly when he says, This has been discussed, however, in our study of the soul, etc., he excuses himself from a further consideration of these things, for the nature of the passions of the soul and the way in which they are likenesses of things does not pertain to logic but to philosophy of nature and has already been treated in the book De anima [III, 4-8].

LECTURE 3

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 3 n. 1 Postquam philosophus tradidit ordinem significationis vocum, hic agit de diversa vocum significatione: quarum quaedam significant verum vel falsum, quaedam non. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, praemittit differentiam; secundo, manifestat eam; ibi: circa compositionem enim et cetera. Quia vero conceptiones intellectus praeambulae sunt ordine naturae vocibus, quae ad eas exprimendas proferuntur, ideo ex similitudine differentiae, quae est circa intellectum, assignat differentiam, quae est circa significationes vocum: ut scilicet haec manifestatio non solum sit ex simili, sed etiam ex causa quam imitantur effectus.	1. After the Philosopher has treated the order of the signification of vocal sounds, he goes on to discuss a diversity in the signification of vocal sounds, i.e., some of them signify the true or the false, others do not. He first states the difference and then manifests it where he says, for in composition and division there is truth and falsity. Now because in the order of nature conceptions of the intellect precede vocal sounds, which are uttered to express them, he assigns the difference in respect to the significations of vocal sounds from a likeness to the difference in intellection. Thus the manifestation is from a likeness and at the same time from the cause which the effects imitate.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 3 n. 2 Est ergo considerandum quod, sicut in principio dictum est, duplex est operatio intellectus, ut traditur in III de anima; in quarum una non invenitur verum et falsum, in altera autem invenitur. Et hoc est quod dicit quod in anima aliquoties est intellectus sine vero et falso, aliquoties autem ex necessitate habet alterum horum. Et quia voces significativae formantur ad exprimendas conceptiones intellectus, ideo ad hoc quod signum conformetur signato, necesse est quod etiam vocum significativarum similiter quaedam significent sine vero et falso, quaedam autem cum vero et falso.	2. The operation of the intellect is twofold, as was said in the beginning, and as is explained in III De anima [6: 430a 26]. Now truth and falsity is found in one of these operations but not in the other. This is what Aristotle says at the beginning of this portion of the text, i.e., that in the soul sometimes there is thought without truth and falsity, but sometimes of necessity it has one or the other of these. And since significant vocal sounds are formed to express these conceptions of the intellect, it is necessary that some significant vocal sounds signify without truth and falsity, others with truth and falsity—in order that the sign be conformed to what is signified.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 3 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: circa compositionem etc., manifestat quod dixerat. Et primo, quantum ad id quod dixerat de intellectu; secundo, quantum ad id quod dixerat de assimilatione vocum ad intellectum; ibi: nomina igitur ipsa et verba et cetera. Ad ostendendum igitur quod intellectus quandoque est sine vero et falso, quandoque autem cum altero horum, dicit primo quod veritas et falsitas est circa compositionem et divisionem. Ubi oportet intelligere quod una duarum operationum intellectus est indivisibilium intelligentia: in quantum scilicet intellectus intelligit absolute cuiusque rei quidditatem sive essentiam per seipsam, puta quid est homo vel quid album vel quid aliud huiusmodi. Alia vero operatio intellectus est, secundum quod huiusmodi simplicia concepta simul componit et dividit. Dicit ergo quod in hac secunda operatione intellectus, idest componentis et dividentis, invenitur veritas et falsitas: relinquens quod in prima operatione non invenitur, ut etiam traditur in III de anima.	3. Then when he says, for in composition and division there is truth and falsity, he manifests what he has just said: first with respect to what he has said about thought; secondly, with respect to what he has said about the likeness of vocal sounds to thought, where he says Names and verbs, then are like understanding without composition or division, etc. To show that sometimes there is thought without truth or falsity and sometimes it is accompanied by one of these, he says first that truth and falsity concern composition and division. To understand this we must note again that one of the two operations of the intellect is the understanding of what is indivisible. This the intellect does when it understands the quiddity or essence of a thing absolutely, for instance, what man is or what white is or what something else of this kind is. The other operation is the one in which it composes and divides simple concepts of this kind. He says that in this second operation of the intellect, i.e., composing and dividing, truth and falsity is found; the conclusion being that it is not found in the first, as he also says in III De anima [6: 430a 26].
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 3 n. 4 Sed circa hoc primo videtur esse dubium: quia cum divisio fiat per resolutionem ad indivisibilia sive simplicia, videtur quod sicut in simplicibus non est veritas vel falsitas, ita nec in divisione. Sed dicendum est quod cum conceptiones intellectus sint similitudines rerum, ea quae circa intellectum sunt dupliciter considerari et nominari possunt. Uno modo, secundum se: alio modo, secundum rationes rerum quarum sunt similitudines. Sicut imago Herculis secundum se quidem dicitur et est cuprum; in quantum autem est similitudo Herculis nominatur homo. Sic etiam, si consideremus ea quae sunt circa intellectum secundum se, semper est compositio, ubi est veritas et falsitas; quae nunquam invenitur in intellectu, nisi per hoc quod intellectus comparat unum simplicem conceptum alteri. Sed si referatur ad rem, quandoque dicitur compositio, quandoque dicitur divisio. Compositio quidem, quando intellectus comparat unum conceptum alteri, quasi apprehendens coniunctionem aut identitatem rerum, quarum sunt conceptiones; divisio autem, quando sic comparat unum conceptum alteri, ut apprehendat res esse diversas. Et per hunc etiam modum in vocibus affirmatio dicitur compositio, in quantum coniunctionem ex parte rei significat; negatio vero dicitur divisio, in quantum significat rerum separationem.	4. There seems to be a difficulty about this point, for division is made by resolution to what is indivisible, or simple, and therefore it seems that just as truth and falsity is not in simple things, so neither is it in division. To answer this it should be pointed out that the conceptions of the intellect are likenesses of things and therefore the things that are in the intellect can be considered and named in two ways: according to themselves, and according to the nature of the things of which they are the likenesses. For just as a statue—say of Hercules—in itself is called and is bronze but as it is a likeness of Hercules is named man, so if we consider the things that are in the intellect in themselves, there is always composition where there is truth and falsity, for they are never found in the intellect except as it compares one simple concept with another. But if the composition is referred to reality, it is sometimes called composition, sometimes division: composition when the intellect compares one concept to another as though apprehending a conjunction or identity of the things of which they are conceptions; division, when it so compares one concept with another that it apprehends the things to be diverse. In vocal sound, therefore, affirmation is called composition inasmuch as it signifies a conjunction on the part of the thing and negation is called division inasmuch as it signifies the separation of things.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 3 n. 5 Ulterius autem videtur quod non solum in compositione et divisione veritas consistat. Primo quidem, quia etiam res dicitur vera vel falsa, sicut dicitur aurum verum vel falsum. Dicitur etiam quod ens et verum convertuntur. Unde videtur quod etiam simplex conceptio intellectus, quae est similitudo rei, non careat veritate et falsitate. Praeterea, philosophus dicit in Lib. de anima quod sensus propriorum sensibilium semper est verus; sensus autem non componit vel dividit; non ergo in sola compositione vel divisione est veritas. Item, in intellectu divino nulla est compositio, ut probatur in XII metaphysicae; et tamen ibi est prima et summa veritas; non ergo veritas est solum circa compositionem et divisionem.	5. There is still another objection in relation to this point. It seems that truth is not in composition and division alone, for a thing is also said to be true or false. For instance, gold is said to be true gold or false gold. Furthermore, being and true are said to be convertible. It seems, therefore, that the simple conception of the intellect, which is a likeness of the thing, also has truth and falsity. Again, the Philosopher says in his book De anima [II, 6: 418a 15], that the sensation of proper sensibles is always true. But the sense does not compose or divide. Therefore, truth is not in composition and division exclusively. Moreover, in the divine intellect there is no composition, as is proved in XII Metaphysicae [9: 1074b 15–1075a 11]. But the first and highest truth is in the divine intellect. Therefore, truth is not in composition and division exclusively.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 3 n. 6 Ad huiusmodi igitur evidentiam considerandum est quod veritas in aliquo invenitur dupliciter: uno modo, sicut in eo quod est verum: alio modo, sicut in dicente vel cognoscente verum. Invenitur autem veritas sicut in eo quod est verum tam in simplicibus, quam in compositis; sed sicut in dicente vel cognoscente verum, non invenitur nisi secundum compositionem et divisionem. Quod quidem sic patet.	6. To answer these difficulties the following considerations are necessary. Truth is found in something in two ways: as it is in that which is true, and as it is in the one speaking or knowing truth. Truth as it is in that which is true is found in both simple things and composite things, but truth in the one speaking or knowing truth is found only according to composition and division. This will become clear in what follows.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 3 n. 7 Verum enim, ut philosophus dicit in VI Ethicorum, est bonum intellectus. Unde de quocumque dicatur verum, oportet quod hoc sit per respectum ad intellectum. Comparantur autem ad intellectum voces quidem sicut signa, res autem sicut ea quorum intellectus sunt similitudines. Considerandum autem quod aliqua res comparatur ad intellectum dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, sicut mensura ad mensuratum, et sic comparantur res naturales ad intellectum speculativum humanum. Et ideo intellectus dicitur verus secundum quod conformatur rei, falsus autem secundum quod discordat a re. Res autem naturalis non dicitur esse vera per comparationem ad intellectum nostrum, sicut posuerunt quidam antiqui naturales, existimantes rerum veritatem esse solum in hoc, quod est videri: secundum hoc enim sequeretur quod contradictoria essent simul vera, quia contradictoria cadunt sub diversorum opinionibus. Dicuntur tamen res aliquae verae vel falsae per comparationem ad intellectum nostrum, non essentialiter vel formaliter, sed effective, in quantum scilicet natae sunt facere de se veram vel falsam existimationem; et secundum hoc dicitur aurum verum vel falsum. Alio autem modo, res comparantur ad intellectum, sicut mensuratum ad mensuram, ut patet in intellectu practico, qui est causa rerum. Unde opus artificis dicitur esse verum, in quantum attingit ad rationem artis; falsum vero, in quantum deficit a ratione artis.	7. Truth, as the Philosopher says in VI Ethicorum [2: 1139a 28-30], is the good of the intellect. Hence, anything that is said to be true is such by reference to intellect. Now vocal sounds are related to thought as signs, but things are related to thought as that of which thoughts are likenesses. It must be noted, however, that a thing is related to thought in two ways: in one way as the measure to the measured, and this is the way natural things are related to the human speculative intellect. Whence thought is said to be true insofar as it is conformed to the thing, but false insofar as it is not in conformity with the thing. However, a natural thing is not said to be true in relation to our thought in the way it was taught by certain ancient natural philosophers who supposed the truth of things to be only in what they seemed to be. According to this view it would follow that contradictories could be at once true, since the opinions of different men can be contradictory. Nevertheless, some things are said to be true or false in relation to our thought—not essentially or formally, but effectively—insofar as they are so constituted naturally as to cause a true or false estimation of themselves. It is in this way that gold is said to be true or false. In another way, things are compared to thought as measured to the measure, as is evident in the practical intellect, which is a cause of things. In this way, the work of an artisan is said to be true insofar as it achieves the conception in the mind of the artist, and false insofar as it falls short of that conception.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 3 n. 8 Et quia omnia etiam naturalia comparantur ad intellectum divinum, sicut artificiata ad artem, consequens est ut quaelibet res dicatur esse vera secundum quod habet propriam formam, secundum quam imitatur artem divinam. Nam falsum aurum est verum aurichalcum. Et hoc modo ens et verum convertuntur, quia quaelibet res naturalis per suam formam arti divinae conformatur. Unde philosophus in I physicae, formam nominat quoddam divinum.	8. Now all natural things are related to the divine intellect as artifacts to art and therefore a thing is said to be true insofar as it has its own form, according to which it represents divine art; false gold, for example, is true copper. It is in terms of this that being and true are converted, since any natural thing is conformed to divine art through its form. For this reason the Philosopher in I Physicae [9: 192a 17] says that form is something divine.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 3 n. 9 Et sicut res dicitur vera per comparationem ad suam mensuram, ita etiam et sensus vel intellectus, cuius mensura est res extra animam. Unde sensus dicitur verus, quando per formam suam conformatur rei extra animam existenti. Et sic intelligitur quod sensus proprii sensibilis sit verus. Et hoc etiam modo intellectus apprehendens quod quid est absque compositione et divisione, semper est verus, ut dicitur in III de anima. Est autem considerandum quod quamvis sensus proprii obiecti sit verus, non tamen cognoscit hoc esse verum. Non enim potest cognoscere habitudinem conformitatis suae ad rem, sed solam rem apprehendit; intellectus autem potest huiusmodi habitudinem conformitatis cognoscere; et ideo solus intellectus potest cognoscere veritatem. Unde et philosophus dicit in VI metaphysicae quod veritas est solum in mente, sicut scilicet in cognoscente veritatem. Cognoscere autem praedictam conformitatis habitudinem nihil est aliud quam iudicare ita esse in re vel non esse: quod est componere et dividere; et ideo intellectus non cognoscit veritatem, nisi componendo vel dividendo per suum iudicium. Quod quidem iudicium, si consonet rebus, erit verum, puta cum intellectus iudicat rem esse quod est, vel non esse quod non est. Falsum autem quando dissonat a re, puta cum iudicat non esse quod est, vel esse quod non est. Unde patet quod veritas et falsitas sicut in cognoscente et dicente non est nisi circa compositionem et divisionem. Et hoc modo philosophus loquitur hic. Et quia voces sunt signa intellectuum, erit vox vera quae significat verum intellectum, falsa autem quae significat falsum intellectum: quamvis vox, in quantum est res quaedam, dicatur vera sicut et aliae res. Unde haec vox, homo est asinus, est vere vox et vere signum; sed quia est signum falsi, ideo dicitur falsa.	9. And just as a thing is said to be true by comparison to its measure, so also is sensation or thought, whose measure is the thing outside of the soul. Accordingly, sensation is said to be true when the sense through its form is in conformity with the thing existing outside of the a soul. It is in this way that the sensation of proper sensibles is true, and the intellect apprehending what a thing is apart from composition and division is always true, as is said in III De anima [3: 427b 12; 428a 11; 6: 43a 26]. It should be noted, however, that although the sensation of the proper object is true the sense does not perceive the sensation to be true, for it cannot know its relationship of conformity with the thing but only apprehends the thing. The intellect, on the other hand, can know its relationship of conformity and therefore only the intellect can know truth. This is the reason the Philosopher says in VI Metaphysicae [4: 1027b 26] that truth is only in the mind, that is to say, in one knowing truth. To know this relationship of conformity is to judge that a thing is such or is not, which is to compose and divide; therefore, the intellect does not know truth except by composing and dividing through its judgment. If the judgment is in accordance with things it will be true, i.e., when the intellect judges a thing to be what it is or not to be what it is not. The judgment will be false when it is not in accordance with the thing, i.e., when it judges that what is, is not, or that what is not, is. It is evident from this that truth and falsity as it is in the one knowing and speaking is had only in composition and division. This is what the Philosopher is speaking of here. And since vocal sounds are signs of thought, that vocal sound will be true which signifies true thought, false which signifies false thought, although vocal sound insofar as it is a real thing is said to be true in the same way other things are. Thus the vocal sound "Man is an ass” is truly vocal sound and truly a sign, but because it is a sign of something false it is said to be false.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 3 n. 10 Sciendum est autem quod philosophus de veritate hic loquitur secundum quod pertinet ad intellectum humanum, qui iudicat de conformitate rerum et intellectus componendo et dividendo. Sed iudicium intellectus divini de hoc est absque compositione et divisione: quia sicut etiam intellectus noster intelligit materialia immaterialiter, ita etiam intellectus divinus cognoscit compositionem et divisionem simpliciter.	10. It should be noted that the Philosopher is speaking of truth here as it relates to the human intellect, which judges of the conformity of things and thought by composing and dividing. However, the judgment of the divine intellect concerning this is without composition and division, for just as our intellect understands material things immaterially, so the divine intellect knows composition and division simply.”
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 3 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit: nomina igitur ipsa et verba etc., manifestat quod dixerat de similitudine vocum ad intellectum. Et primo, manifestat propositum; secundo, probat per signum; ibi: huius autem signum et cetera. Concludit ergo ex praemissis quod, cum solum circa compositionem et divisionem sit veritas et falsitas in intellectu, consequens est quod ipsa nomina et verba, divisim accepta, assimilentur intellectui qui est sine compositione et divisione; sicut cum homo vel album dicitur, si nihil aliud addatur: non enim verum adhuc vel falsum est; sed postea quando additur esse vel non esse, fit verum vel falsum.	11. When he says, Names and verbs, then, are like thought without composition or division, he manifests what he has said about the likeness of vocal sounds to thought. Next he proves it by a sign when he says, A sign of this is that "goatstag” signifies something but is neither true nor false, etc. Here he concludes from what has been said that since there is truth and falsity in the intellect only when there is composition or division, it follows that names and verbs, taken separately, are like thought which is without composition and division; as when we say "man” or "white,” and nothing else is added. For these are neither true nor false at this point, but when "to be” or "not to be” is added they be come true or false.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 3 n. 12 Nec est instantia de eo, qui per unicum nomen veram responsionem dat ad interrogationem factam; ut cum quaerenti: quid natat in mari? Aliquis respondet, piscis. Nam intelligitur verbum quod fuit in interrogatione positum. Et sicut nomen per se positum non significat verum vel falsum, ita nec verbum per se dictum. Nec est instantia de verbo primae et secundae personae, et de verbo exceptae actionis: quia in his intelligitur certus et determinatus nominativus. Unde est implicita compositio, licet non explicita.	12. Although one might think so, the case of someone giving a,, single name as a true response to a question is not an instance that can be raised against this position; for example, suppose someone asks, "What swims in the sea?” and the answer is "Fish”; this is not opposed to the position Aristotle is taking here, for the verb that was posited in the question is understood. And just as the name said by itself does not signify truth or falsity, so neither does the verb said by itself. The verbs of the first and second person and the intransitive verb” are not instances opposed to this position either, for in these a particular and determined nominative is understood. Consequently there is implicit composition, though not explicit.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 3 n. 13 Deinde cum dicit: signum autem etc., inducit signum ex nomine composito, scilicet Hircocervus, quod componitur ex hirco et cervus et quod in Graeco dicitur Tragelaphos; nam tragos est hircus, et elaphos cervus. Huiusmodi enim nomina significant aliquid, scilicet quosdam conceptus simplices, licet rerum compositarum; et ideo non est verum vel falsum, nisi quando additur esse vel non esse, per quae exprimitur iudicium intellectus. Potest autem addi esse vel non esse, vel secundum praesens tempus, quod est esse vel non esse in actu, et ideo hoc dicitur esse simpliciter; vel secundum tempus praeteritum, aut futurum, quod non est esse simpliciter, sed secundum quid; ut cum dicitur aliquid fuisse vel futurum esse. Signanter autem utitur exemplo ex nomine significante quod non est in rerum natura, in quo statim falsitas apparet, et quod sine compositione et divisione non possit verum vel falsum esse.	13. Then he says, A sign of this is that "goatstag” signifies something but is neither true nor false unless "to be or "not to be” is added either absolutely or according to time. Here he introduces as a sign the composite name "goatstag,” from "goat” and "stag.” In Greek the word is "tragelaphos,” from "tragos” meaning goat and "elaphos” meaning stag. Now names of this kind signify something, namely, certain simple concepts (although the things they signify are composite), and therefore are not true or false unless "to be” or "not to be” is added, by which a judgment of the intellect is expressed. The "to be” or "not to be” can be added either according to present time, which is to be or not to be in act and for this reason is to be simply; or according to past or future time, which is to be relatively, not simply; as when we say that something has been or will be. Notice that Aristotle expressly uses as an example here a name signifying something that does not exist in reality, in which fictiveness is immediately evident, and which cannot be true or false without composition and division.

LECTURE 4

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 1 Postquam philosophus determinavit de ordine significationis vocum, hic accedit ad determinandum de ipsis vocibus significativis. Et quia principaliter intendit de enunciatione, quae est subiectum huius libri; in qualibet autem scientia oportet praenoscere principia subiecti; ideo primo, determinat de principiis enunciationis; secundo, de ipsa enunciatione; ibi: enunciativa vero non omnis et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo enim, determinat principia quasi materialia enunciationis, scilicet partes integrales ipsius; secundo, determinat principium formale, scilicet orationem, quae est enunciationis genus; ibi: oratio autem est vox significativa et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, determinat de nomine, quod significat rei substantiam; secundo, determinat de verbo, quod significat actionem vel passionem procedentem a re; ibi: verbum autem est quod consignificat tempus et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo, definit nomen; secundo, definitionem exponit; ibi: in nomine enim quod est equiferus etc.; tertio, excludit quaedam, quae perfecte rationem nominis non habent, ibi: non homo vero non est nomen.	1. Having determined the order of the signification of vocal sounds, the Philosopher begins here to establish the definitions of the significant vocal sounds. His principal intention is to establish what an enunciation is—which is the subject of this book—but since in any science the principles of the subject must be known first, he begins with the principles of the enunciation and then establishes what an enunciation is where he says, All speech is not enunciative, etc.” With respect to the principles of the enunciation he first determines the nature of the quasi material principles, i.e., its integral parts, and secondly the formal principle, i.e., speech, which is the genus of the enunciation, where he says, Speech is significant vocal sound, etc.” Apropos of the quasi material principles of the enunciation he first establishes that a name signifies the substance of a thing and then that the verb signifies action or passion proceeding from a thing, where he says The verb is that which signifies with time, etc.” In relation to this first point, he first defines the name, and then explains the definition where he says, for in the name "Campbell” the part "bell,” as such, signifies nothing, etc., and finally excludes certain things—those that do not have the definition of the name perfectly—where he says, "Non-man,” however, is not a name, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 2 Circa primum considerandum est quod definitio ideo dicitur terminus, quia includit totaliter rem; ita scilicet, quod nihil rei est extra definitionem, cui scilicet definitio non conveniat; nec aliquid aliud est infra definitionem, cui scilicet definitio conveniat.	2. It should be noted in relation to defining the name, that a definition is said to be a limit because it includes a thing totally, i.e., such that nothing of the thing is outside of the definition, that is, there is nothing of the thing to which the definition does not belong; nor is any other thing under the definition, that is, the definition belongs to no other thing.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 3 Et ideo quinque ponit in definitione nominis. Primo, ponitur vox per modum generis, per quod distinguitur nomen ab omnibus sonis, qui non sunt voces. Nam vox est sonus ab ore animalis prolatus, cum imaginatione quadam, ut dicitur in II de anima. Additur autem prima differentia, scilicet significativa, ad differentiam quarumcumque vocum non significantium, sive sit vox litterata et articulata, sicut biltris, sive non litterata et non articulata, sicut sibilus pro nihilo factus. Et quia de significatione vocum in superioribus actum est, ideo ex praemissis concludit quod nomen est vox significativa.	3. Aristotle posits five parts in the definition of the name. Vocal sound is given first, as the genus. This distinguishes the name from all sounds that are not vocal; for vocal sound is sound produced from the mouth of an animal and involves a certain kind of mental image, as is said in II De anima [8: 420b 30-34]. The second part is the first difference, i.e., significant, which differentiates the name from any non-significant vocal sound, whether lettered and articulated, such as "biltris,” or non-lettered and non-articulated, as a hissing for no reason. Now since he has already determined the signification of vocal sounds, he concludes from what has been established that a name is a significant vocal sound.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 4 Sed cum vox sit quaedam res naturalis, nomen autem non est aliquid naturale sed ab hominibus institutum, videtur quod non debuit genus nominis ponere vocem, quae est ex natura, sed magis signum, quod est ex institutione; ut diceretur: nomen est signum vocale; sicut etiam convenientius definiretur scutella, si quis diceret quod est vas ligneum, quam si quis diceret quod est lignum formatum in vas.	4. But vocal sound is a natural thing, whereas a name is not natural but instituted by men; it seems, therefore, that Aristotle should have taken sign, which is from institution, as the genus of the name, rather than vocal sound, which is from nature. Then the definition would be: a name is a vocal sign, etc., just as a salver would be more suitably defined as a wooden dish than as wood formed into a dish.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 5 Sed dicendum quod artificialia sunt quidem in genere substantiae ex parte materiae, in genere autem accidentium ex parte formae: nam formae artificialium accidentia sunt. Nomen ergo significat formam accidentalem ut concretam subiecto. Cum autem in definitione omnium accidentium oporteat poni subiectum, necesse est quod, si qua nomina accidens in abstracto significant quod in eorum definitione ponatur accidens in recto, quasi genus, subiectum autem in obliquo, quasi differentia; ut cum dicitur, simitas est curvitas nasi. Si qua vero nomina accidens significant in concreto, in eorum definitione ponitur materia, vel subiectum, quasi genus, et accidens, quasi differentia; ut cum dicitur, simum est nasus curvus. Si igitur nomina rerum artificialium significant formas accidentales, ut concretas subiectis naturalibus, convenientius est, ut in eorum definitione ponatur res naturalis quasi genus, ut dicamus quod scutella est lignum figuratum, et similiter quod nomen est vox significativa. Secus autem esset, si nomina artificialium acciperentur, quasi significantia ipsas formas artificiales in abstracto.	5. It should be noted, however, that while it is true that artificial things are in the genus of substance on the part of matter, they are in the genus of accident on the part of form, since the forms of artificial things are accidents. A name, therefore, signifies an accidental form made concrete in a subject. Now the subject must be posited in the definition of every accident; hence, when names signify an accident in the abstract the accident has to be posited directly (i.e., in the nominative case) as a quasi-genus in their definition and the subject posited obliquely (i.e., in an oblique case such as the genitive, dative, or accusative) as a quasi-difference; as for example, when we define snubness as curvedness of the nose. But when names signify an accident ill the concrete, the matter or subject has to be posited in their definition as a quasi-genus and the accident as a quasi-difference, as when we say that a snub nose is a curved nose. Accordingly, if the names of artificial things signify accidental forms as made concrete in natural subjects, then it is more appropriate to posit the natural thing in their definition as a quasi-genus. We would say, therefore, that a salver is shaped wood, and likewise, that a name is a significant vocal sound. It would be another matter if names of artificial things were taken as signifying artificial forms in the abstract.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 6 Tertio, ponit secundam differentiam cum dicit: secundum placitum, idest secundum institutionem humanam a beneplacito hominis procedentem. Et per hoc differt nomen a vocibus significantibus naturaliter, sicut sunt gemitus infirmorum et voces brutorum animalium.	6. The third part is the second difference, i.e., by convention, namely, according to human institution deriving from the will of man. This differentiates names from vocal sounds signifying naturally, such as the groans of the sick and the vocal sounds of brute animals.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 7 Quarto, ponit tertiam differentiam, scilicet sine tempore, per quod differt nomen a verbo. Sed videtur hoc esse falsum: quia hoc nomen dies vel annus significat tempus. Sed dicendum quod circa tempus tria possunt considerari. Primo quidem, ipsum tempus, secundum quod est res quaedam, et sic potest significari a nomine, sicut quaelibet alia res. Alio modo, potest considerari id, quod tempore mensuratur, in quantum huiusmodi: et quia id quod primo et principaliter tempore mensuratur est motus, in quo consistit actio et passio, ideo verbum quod significat actionem vel passionem, significat cum tempore. Substantia autem secundum se considerata, prout significatur per nomen et pronomen, non habet in quantum huiusmodi ut tempore mensuretur, sed solum secundum quod subiicitur motui, prout per participium significatur. Et ideo verbum et participium significant cum tempore, non autem nomen et pronomen. Tertio modo, potest considerari ipsa habitudo temporis mensurantis; quod significatur per adverbia temporis, ut cras, heri et huiusmodi.	7. The fourth part is the third difference, i.e., without time, which differentiates the name from the verb. This, however, seems to be false, for the name "day” or "year” signifies time. But there are three things that can be considered with respect to time; first, time itself, as it is a certain kind of thing or reality, and then it can be signified by a name just like any other thing; secondly, that which is measured by time, insofar as it is measured by time. Motion, which consists of action and passion, is what is measured first and principally by time, and therefore the verb, which signifies action and passion, signifies with time. Substance considered in itself, which a name or a pronoun signify, is not as such measured by time, but only insofar as it is subjected to motion, and this the participle signifies. The verb and the participle, therefore, signify with time, but not the name and pronoun. The third thing that can be considered is the very relationship of time as it measures. This is signified by adverbs of time such as "tomorrow,” "yesterday,” and others of this kind.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 8 Quinto, ponit quartam differentiam cum subdit: cuius nulla pars est significativa separata, scilicet a toto nomine; comparatur tamen ad significationem nominis secundum quod est in toto. Quod ideo est, quia significatio est quasi forma nominis; nulla autem pars separata habet formam totius, sicut manus separata ab homine non habet formam humanam. Et per hoc distinguitur nomen ab oratione, cuius pars significat separata; ut cum dicitur, homo iustus.	8. The fifth part is the fourth difference, no part of which is significant separately, that is, separated from the whole name; but it is related to the signification of the name according as it is in the whole. The reason for this is that signification is a quasi-form of the name. But no separated part has the form of the whole; just as the hand separated from the man does not have the human form. This difference distinguishes the name from speech, some parts of which signify separately, as for example in "just man.”
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit: in nomine enim quod est etc., manifestat praemissam definitionem. Et primo, quantum ad ultimam particulam; secundo, quantum ad tertiam; ibi: secundum vero placitum et cetera. Nam primae duae particulae manifestae sunt ex praemissis; tertia autem particula, scilicet sine tempore, manifestabitur in sequentibus in tractatu de verbo. Circa primum duo facit: primo, manifestat propositum per nomina composita; secundo, ostendit circa hoc differentiam inter nomina simplicia et composita; ibi: at vero non quemadmodum et cetera. Manifestat ergo primo quod pars nominis separata nihil significat, per nomina composita, in quibus hoc magis videtur. In hoc enim nomine quod est equiferus, haec pars ferus, per se nihil significat sicut significat in hac oratione, quae est equus ferus. Cuius ratio est quod unum nomen imponitur ad significandum unum simplicem intellectum; aliud autem est id a quo imponitur nomen ad significandum, ab eo quod nomen significat; sicut hoc nomen lapis imponitur a laesione pedis, quam non significat: quod tamen imponitur ad significandum conceptum cuiusdam rei. Et inde est quod pars nominis compositi, quod imponitur ad significandum conceptum simplicem, non significat partem conceptionis compositae, a qua imponitur nomen ad significandum. Sed oratio significat ipsam conceptionem compositam: unde pars orationis significat partem conceptionis compositae.	9. When he says, for in the name "Campbell” the part "bell” as such signifies nothing, etc., he explains the definition. First he explains the last part of the definition; secondly, the third part, by convention. The first two parts were explained in what preceded, and the fourth part, without time, will be explained later in the section on the verb. And first he explains the last part by means of a composite name; then he shows what the difference is between simple and composite names where he says, However the case is not exactly the same in simple names and composite names, etc. First, then, he shows that a part separated from a name signifies nothing. To do this he uses a composite name because the point is more striking there. For in the name "Campbell” the part "bell” per se signifies nothing, although it does signify something in the phrase "camp bell.” The reason for this is that one name is imposed to signify one simple conception; but that from which a name is imposed to signify is different from that which a name signifies. For example, the name "pedigree”, The Latin here is lapis, from laesione pedis. To bring out the point St. Thomas is making herean equivalent English word of Latin derivation, i.e., "pedigree,” has been used. Close is imposed from pedis and grus [crane’s foot] which it does not signify, to signify the concept of a certain thing. Hence, a part of the composite name—which composite name is imposed to signify a simple concept—does not signify a part of the composite conception from which the name is imposed to signify. Speech, on the other hand, does signify a composite conception. Hence, a part of speech signifies a part of the composite conception.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit: at vero non etc., ostendit quantum ad hoc differentiam inter nomina simplicia et composita, et dicit quod non ita se habet in nominibus simplicibus, sicut et in compositis: quia in simplicibus pars nullo modo est significativa, neque secundum veritatem, neque secundum apparentiam; sed in compositis vult quidem, idest apparentiam habet significandi; nihil tamen pars eius significat, ut dictum est de nomine equiferus. Haec autem ratio differentiae est, quia nomen simplex sicut imponitur ad significandum conceptum simplicem, ita etiam imponitur ad significandum ab aliquo simplici conceptu; nomen vero compositum imponitur a composita conceptione, ex qua habet apparentiam quod pars eius significet.	10. When he says, However, the case is not exactly the same in simple names and composite names, etc., he shows that there is a difference between simple and composite names in regard to their parts not signifying separately. Simple names are not the same as composite names in this respect because in simple names a part is in no way significant, either according to truth or according to appearance, but in composite names the part has meaning, i.e., has the appearance of signifying; yet a part of it signifies nothing, as is said of the name "breakfast.” The reason for this difference is that the simple name is imposed to signify a simple concept and is also imposed from a simple concept; but the composite name is imposed from a composite conception, and hence has the appearance that a part of it signifies.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit: secundum placitum etc., manifestat tertiam partem praedictae definitionis; et dicit quod ideo dictum est quod nomen significat secundum placitum, quia nullum nomen est naturaliter. Ex hoc enim est nomen, quod significat: non autem significat naturaliter, sed ex institutione. Et hoc est quod subdit: sed quando fit nota, idest quando imponitur ad significandum. Id enim quod naturaliter significat non fit, sed naturaliter est signum. Et hoc significat cum dicit: illitterati enim soni, ut ferarum, quia scilicet litteris significari non possunt. Et dicit potius sonos quam voces, quia quaedam animalia non habent vocem, eo quod carent pulmone, sed tantum quibusdam sonis proprias passiones naturaliter significant: nihil autem horum sonorum est nomen. Ex quo manifeste datur intelligi quod nomen non significat naturaliter.	11. Then he says, "By convention” is added because nothing is by nature a name, etc. Here Aristotle explains the third part of the definition. The reason it is said that the name signifies by convention, he says, is that no name exists naturally. For it is a name because it signifies; it does not signify naturally however, but by institution. This he adds when he says, but it is a name when it is made a sign, i.e., when it is imposed to signify. For that which signifies naturally is not made a sign, but is a sign naturally. he explains this when he says: for unlettered sounds, such as those of the brutes designate, etc., i.e., since they cannot be signified by letters. He says sounds rather than vocal sounds because some animals—those without lungs—do not have vocal sounds. Such animals signify proper passions by some kind of non-vocal sound which signifies naturally. But none of these sounds of the brutes is a name. We are given to understand from this that a name does not signify naturally.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 12 Sciendum tamen est quod circa hoc fuit diversa quorumdam opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt quod nomina nullo modo naturaliter significant: nec differt quae res quo nomine significentur. Alii vero dixerunt quod nomina omnino naturaliter significant, quasi nomina sint naturales similitudines rerum. Quidam vero dixerunt quod nomina non naturaliter significant quantum ad hoc, quod eorum significatio non est a natura, ut Aristoteles hic intendit; quantum vero ad hoc naturaliter significant quod eorum significatio congruit naturis rerum, ut Plato dixit. Nec obstat quod una res multis nominibus significatur: quia unius rei possunt esse multae similitudines; et similiter ex diversis proprietatibus possunt uni rei multa diversa nomina imponi. Non est autem intelligendum quod dicit: quorum nihil est nomen, quasi soni animalium non habeant nomina: nominantur enim quibusdam nominibus, sicut dicitur rugitus leonis et mugitus bovis; sed quia nullus talis sonus est nomen, ut dictum est.	12. However, there were diverse opinions about this. Some men said that names in no way signify naturally and that it makes no difference which things are signified by which names. Others said that names signify naturally in every way, as if names were natural likenesses of things. Still others said names do not signify naturally, i.e., insofar as their signification is not from nature, as Aristotle maintains here, but that names do signify naturally in the sense that their signification corresponds to the natures of things, as Plato held. The fact that one thing is signified by many names is not in opposition to Aristotle’s position here, for there can be many likenesses of one thing; and similarly, from diverse properties many diverse names can be imposed on one thing. When Aristotle says, but none of them is a name, he does not mean that the sounds of animals are not named, for we do have names for them; "roaring,” for example, is said of the sound made by a lion, and "lowing” of that of a cow. What he means is that no such sound is a name.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 13 Deinde cum dicit: non homo vero etc., excludit quaedam a nominis ratione. Et primo, nomen infinitum; secundo, casus nominum; ibi: Catonis autem vel Catoni et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod non homo non est nomen. Omne enim nomen significat aliquam naturam determinatam, ut homo; aut personam determinatam, ut pronomen; aut utrumque determinatum, ut Socrates. Sed hoc quod dico non homo, neque determinatam naturam neque determinatam personam significat. Imponitur enim a negatione hominis, quae aequaliter dicitur de ente, et non ente. Unde non homo potest dici indifferenter, et de eo quod non est in rerum natura; ut si dicamus, Chimaera est non homo, et de eo quod est in rerum natura; sicut cum dicitur, equus est non homo. Si autem imponeretur a privatione, requireret subiectum ad minus existens: sed quia imponitur a negatione, potest dici de ente et de non ente, ut Boethius et Ammonius dicunt. Quia tamen significat per modum nominis, quod potest subiici et praedicari, requiritur ad minus suppositum in apprehensione. Non autem erat nomen positum tempore Aristotelis sub quo huiusmodi dictiones concluderentur. Non enim est oratio, quia pars eius non significat aliquid separata, sicut nec in nominibus compositis; similiter autem non est negatio, id est oratio negativa, quia huiusmodi oratio superaddit negationem affirmationi, quod non contingit hic. Et ideo novum nomen imponit huiusmodi dictioni, vocans eam nomen infinitum propter indeterminationem significationis, ut dictum est.	13. When he says, "Non-man,” however, is not a name, etc., he points out that certain things do not have the nature of a name. First he excludes the infinite name; then the cases of the name where he says, "Of Philo” and "to Philo,” etc. He says that "non-man” is not a name because every name signifies some determinate nature, for example, "man,” or a determinate person in the case of the pronoun, or both determinately, as in "Socrates.” But when we say "non-man” it signifies neither a determinate nature nor a determinate person, because it is imposed from the negation of man, which negation is predicated equally of being and non-being. Consequently, "non-man” can be said indifferently both of that which does not exist in reality, as in "A chimera is non-man,” and of that which does exist in reality, as in "A horse is non-man.” Now if the infinite name were imposed from a privation it would require at least an existing subject, but since it is imposed from a negation, it can be predicated of being and nonbeing, as Boethius and Ammonius say. However, since it signifies in the mode of a name, and can therefore be subjected and predicated, a suppositum is required at least in apprehension. In the time of Aristotle there was no name for words of this kind. They are not speech since a part of such a word does not signify something separately, just as a part of a composite name does not signify separately; and they are not negations, i.e., negative speech, for speech of this kind adds negation to affirmation, which is not the case here. Therefore he imposes a new name for words of this kind, the "infinite name,” because of the indetermination of signification, as has been said.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 14 Deinde cum dicit: Catonis autem vel Catoni etc., excludit casus nominis; et dicit quod Catonis vel Catoni et alia huiusmodi non sunt nomina, sed solus nominativus dicitur principaliter nomen, per quem facta est impositio nominis ad aliquid significandum. Huiusmodi autem obliqui vocantur casus nominis: quia quasi cadunt per quamdam declinationis originem a nominativo, qui dicitur rectus eo quod non cadit. Stoici autem dixerunt etiam nominativos dici casus: quos grammatici sequuntur, eo quod cadunt, idest procedunt ab interiori conceptione mentis. Et dicitur rectus, eo quod nihil prohibet aliquid cadens sic cadere, ut rectum stet, sicut stilus qui cadens ligno infigitur.	14. When he says, "Of Philo” and "to Philo” and all such expressions are not names but modes of names, he excludes the cases of names from the nature of the name. The nominative is the one that is said to be a name principally, for the imposition of the name to signify something was made through it. Oblique expressions of the kind cited are called cases of the name because they fall away from the nominative as a kind of source of their declension. On the other hand, the nominative, because it does not fall away, is said to be erect. The Stoics held that even the nominatives were cases (with which the grammarians agree), because they fall, i.e., proceed from the interior conception of the mind; and they said they were also called erect because nothing prevents a thing from falling in such a way that it stands erect, as when a pen falls and is fixed in wood.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 15 Deinde cum dicit: ratio autem eius etc., ostendit consequenter quomodo se habeant obliqui casus ad nomen; et dicit quod ratio, quam significat nomen, est eadem et in aliis, scilicet casibus nominis; sed in hoc est differentia quod nomen adiunctum cum hoc verbo est vel erit vel fuit semper significat verum vel falsum: quod non contingit in obliquis. Signanter autem inducit exemplum de verbo substantivo: quia sunt quaedam alia verba, scilicet impersonalia, quae cum obliquis significant verum vel falsum; ut cum dicitur, poenitet Socratem, quia actus verbi intelligitur ferri super obliquum; ac si diceretur, poenitentia habet Socratem.	15. Then he says, The definition of these is the same in all other respects as that of the name itself, etc. Here Aristotle shows how oblique cases are related to the name. The definition, as it signifies the name, is the same in the others, namely, in the cases of the name. But they differ in this respect: the name joined to the verb "is” or "will be” or "has been” always signifies the true or false; in oblique cases this is not so. It is significant that the substantive verb is the one he uses as an example, for there are other verbs, i.e., impersonal verbs, that do signify the true or false when joined with a name in an oblique case, as in "It grieves Socrates,” because the act of the verb is understood to be carried over to the oblique cases, as though what were said were, "Grief possesses Socrates.”
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 4 n. 16 Sed contra: si nomen infinitum et casus non sunt nomina, inconvenienter data est praemissa nominis definitio, quae istis convenit. Sed dicendum, secundum Ammonium, quod supra communius definit nomen, postmodum vero significationem nominis arctat subtrahendo haec a nomine. Vel dicendum quod praemissa definitio non simpliciter convenit his: nomen enim infinitum nihil determinatum significat, neque casus nominis significat secundum primum placitum instituentis, ut dictum est.	16. However, an objection could be made against Aristotle’s position in this portion of his text. If the infinite name and the cases of the name are not names, then the definition of the name (which belongs to these) is not consistently presented. There are two ways of answering this objection. We could say, as Ammonius does, that Aristotle defines the name broadly, and afterward limits the signification of the name by subtracting these from it. Or, we could say that the definition Aristotle has given does not belong to these absolutely, since the infinite name signifies nothing determinate, and the cases of the name do not signify according to the first intent of the one instituting the name, as has been said.

LECTURE 5

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 1 Postquam philosophus determinavit de nomine: hic determinat de verbo. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo, definit verbum; secundo, excludit quaedam a ratione verbi; ibi: non currit autem, et non laborat etc.; tertio, ostendit convenientiam verbi ad nomen; ibi: ipsa quidem secundum se dicta verba, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ponit definitionem verbi; secundo exponit eam; ibi: dico autem quoniam consignificat et cetera.	1. After determining the nature of the name the Philosopher now determines the nature of the verb. First he defines the verb; secondly, he excludes certain forms of verbs from the definition, where he says, "Non-matures” and "non-declines” I do not call verbs, etc.; finally, he shows in what the verb and name agree where he says, Verbs in themselves, said alone, are names, etc. First, then, he defines the verb and immediately begins to explain the definition where he says, I mean by "signifies with time,” etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 2 Est autem considerandum quod Aristoteles, brevitati studens, non ponit in definitione verbi ea quae sunt nomini et verbo communia, relinquens ea intellectui legentis ex his quae dixerat in definitione nominis. Ponit autem tres particulas in definitione verbi: quarum prima distinguit verbum a nomine, in hoc scilicet quod dicit quod consignificat tempus. Dictum est enim in definitione nominis quod nomen significat sine tempore. Secunda vero particula est, per quam distinguitur verbum ab oratione, scilicet cum dicitur: cuius pars nihil extra significat.	2. In order to be brief, Aristotle does not give what is common to the name and the verb in the definition of the verb, but leaves this for the reader to understand from the definition of the name. He posits three elements in the definition of the verb. The first of these distinguishes the verb from the name, for the verb signifies with time, the name without time, as was stated in its definition. The second element, no part of which signifies separately, distinguishes the verb from speech.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 3 Sed cum hoc etiam positum sit in definitione nominis, videtur hoc debuisse praetermitti, sicut et quod dictum est, vox significativa ad placitum. Ad quod respondet Ammonius quod in definitione nominis hoc positum est, ut distinguatur nomen ab orationibus, quae componuntur ex nominibus; ut cum dicitur, homo est animal. Quia vero sunt etiam quaedam orationes quae componuntur ex verbis; ut cum dicitur, ambulare est moveri, ut ab his distinguatur verbum, oportuit hoc etiam in definitione verbi iterari. Potest etiam aliter dici quod quia verbum importat compositionem, in qua perficitur oratio verum vel falsum significans, maiorem convenientiam videbatur verbum habere cum oratione, quasi quaedam pars formalis ipsius, quam nomen, quod est quaedam pars materialis et subiectiva orationis; et ideo oportuit iterari.	3. This second element was also given in the definition of the name and therefore it seems that this second element along with vocal sound significant by convention, should have been omitted. Ammonius says in reply to this that Aristotle posited this in the definition of the name to distinguish it from speech which is composed of names, as in "Man is an animal”; but speech may also be composed of verbs, as in "To walk is to move”; therefore, this also bad to be repeated in the definition of the verb to distinguish it from speech. We might also say that since the verb introduces the composition which brings about speech signifying truth or falsity, the verb seems to be more like speech (being a certain formal part of it) than the name which is a material and subjective part of it; therefore this had to be repeated.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 4 Tertia vero particula est, per quam distinguitur verbum non solum a nomine, sed etiam a participio quod significat cum tempore; unde dicit: et est semper eorum, quae de altero praedicantur nota, idest signum: quia scilicet nomina et participia possunt poni ex parte subiecti et praedicati, sed verbum semper est ex parte praedicati.	4. The third element distinguishes the verb not only from the name, but also from the participle, which also signifies with time. He makes this distinction when he says, and it is a sign of something said of something else, i.e., names and participles can be posited on the part of the subject and the predicate, but the verb is always posited on the part of the predicate.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 5 Sed hoc videtur habere instantiam in verbis infinitivi modi, quae interdum ponuntur ex parte subiecti; ut cum dicitur, ambulare est moveri. Sed dicendum est quod verba infinitivi modi, quando in subiecto ponuntur, habent vim nominis: unde et in Graeco et in vulgari Latina locutione suscipiunt additionem articulorum sicut et nomina. Cuius ratio est quia proprium nominis est, ut significet rem aliquam quasi per se existentem; proprium autem verbi est, ut significet actionem vel passionem. Potest autem actio significari tripliciter: uno modo, per se in abstracto, velut quaedam res, et sic significatur per nomen; ut cum dicitur actio, passio, ambulatio, cursus et similia; alio modo, per modum actionis, ut scilicet est egrediens a substantia et inhaerens ei ut subiecto, et sic significatur per verba aliorum modorum, quae attribuuntur praedicatis. Sed quia etiam ipse processus vel inhaerentia actionis potest apprehendi ab intellectu et significari ut res quaedam, inde est quod ipsa verba infinitivi modi, quae significant ipsam inhaerentiam actionis ad subiectum, possunt accipi ut verba, ratione concretionis, et ut nomina prout significant quasi res quasdam.	5. But it seems that verbs are used as subjects. The verb in the infinitive mode is an instance of this, as in the example, "To walk is to be moving.” Verbs of the infinitive mode, however, have the force of names when they are used as subjects. (Hence in both Greek and ordinary Latin usage articles are added to them as in the case of names.) The reason for this is that it is proper to the name to signify something as existing per se, but proper to the verb to signify action or passion. Now there are three ways of signifying action or passion. It can be signified per se, as a certain thing in the abstract and is thus signified by a name such as "action,” "passion,” "walking,” "running,” and so on. It can also be signified in the mode of an action, i.e., as proceeding from a substance and inhering in it as in a subject; in this way action or passion is signified by the verbs of the different modes attributed to predicates. Finally—and this is the third way in which action or passion can be signified—the very process or inherence of action can be apprehended by the intellect and signified as a thing. Verbs of the infinitive mode signify such inherence of action in a subject and hence can be taken as verbs by reason of concretion, and as names inasmuch as they signify as things.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 6 Potest etiam obiici de hoc quod etiam verba aliorum modorum videntur aliquando in subiecto poni; ut cum dicitur, curro est verbum. Sed dicendum est quod in tali locutione, hoc verbum curro, non sumitur formaliter, secundum quod eius significatio refertur ad rem, sed secundum quod materialiter significat ipsam vocem, quae accipitur ut res quaedam. Et ideo tam verba, quam omnes orationis partes, quando ponuntur materialiter, sumuntur in vi nominum.	6. On this point the objection may also be raised that verbs of other modes sometimes seem to be posited as subjects; for example when we say, "‘Matures’is a verb.” In such a statement, however, the verb "matures” is not taken formally according as its signification is referred to a thing, but as it signifies the vocal sound itself materially, which vocal sound is taken as a thing. When posited in this way, i.e., materially, verbs and all parts of speech are taken with the force of names.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: dico vero quoniam consignificat etc., exponit definitionem positam. Et primo, quantum ad hoc quod dixerat quod consignificat tempus; secundo, quantum ad hoc quod dixerat quod est nota eorum quae de altero praedicantur, cum dicit: et semper est et cetera. Secundam autem particulam, scilicet: cuius nulla pars extra significat, non exponit, quia supra exposita est in tractatu nominis. Exponit ergo primum quod verbum consignificat tempus, per exemplum; quia videlicet cursus, quia significat actionem non per modum actionis, sed per modum rei per se existentis, non consignificat tempus, eo quod est nomen. Curro vero cum sit verbum significans actionem, consignificat tempus, quia proprium est motus tempore mensurari; actiones autem nobis notae sunt in tempore. Dictum est autem supra quod consignificare tempus est significare aliquid in tempore mensuratum. Unde aliud est significare tempus principaliter, ut rem quamdam, quod potest nomini convenire, aliud autem est significare cum tempore, quod non convenit nomini, sed verbo.	7. Then he says, I mean by "signifies with time” that "maturity,” for example, is a name, but "matures” is a verb, etc.”’ With this he begins to explain the definition of the verb: first in regard to signifies with time; secondly, in regard to the verb being a sign of something said of something else. He does not explain the second part, no part of which signifies separately, because an explanation of it has already been made in connection with the name. First, he shows by an example that the verb signifies with time. "Maturity,” for example, because it signifies action, not in the mode of action but. in the mode of a thing existing per se, does not signify with time, for it is a name. But "matures,” since it is a verb signifying action, signifies with time, because to be measured by time is proper to motion; moreover, actions are known by us in time. We have already mentioned that to signify with time is to signify something measured in time. Hence it is one thing to signify time principally, as a thing, which is appropriate to the name; however, it is another thing to signify with time, which is not proper to the name but to the verb.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: et est semper etc., exponit aliam particulam. Ubi notandum est quod quia subiectum enunciationis significatur ut cui inhaeret aliquid, cum verbum significet actionem per modum actionis, de cuius ratione est ut inhaereat, semper ponitur ex parte praedicati, nunquam autem ex parte subiecti, nisi sumatur in vi nominis, ut dictum est. Dicitur ergo verbum semper esse nota eorum quae dicuntur de altero: tum quia verbum semper significat id, quod praedicatur; tum quia in omni praedicatione oportet esse verbum, eo quod verbum importat compositionem, qua praedicatum componitur subiecto.	8. Then he says, Moreover, a verb is always a sign of something that belongs to something, i.e., of something present in a subject. Here he explains the last part of the definition of the verb. It should be noted first that the subject of an enunciation signifies as that in which something inheres. Hence, when the verb signifies action through the mode of action (the nature of which is to inhere) it is always posited on the part of the predicate and never on the part of the subject—unless it is taken with the force of a name, as was said. The verb, therefore, is always said to be a sign of something said of another, and this not only because the verb always signifies that which is predicated but also because there must be a verb in every predication, for the verb introduces the composition by which the predicate is united with the subject.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 9 Sed dubium videtur quod subditur: ut eorum quae de subiecto vel in subiecto sunt. Videtur enim aliquid dici ut de subiecto, quod essentialiter praedicatur; ut, homo est animal; in subiecto autem, sicut accidens de subiecto praedicatur; ut, homo est albus. Si ergo verba significant actionem vel passionem, quae sunt accidentia, consequens est ut semper significent ea, quae dicuntur ut in subiecto. Frustra igitur dicitur in subiecto vel de subiecto. Et ad hoc dicit Boethius quod utrumque ad idem pertinet. Accidens enim et de subiecto praedicatur, et in subiecto est. Sed quia Aristoteles disiunctione utitur, videtur aliud per utrumque significare. Et ideo potest dici quod cum Aristoteles dicit quod, verbum semper est nota eorum, quae de altero praedicantur, non est sic intelligendum, quasi significata verborum sint quae praedicantur, quia cum praedicatio videatur magis proprie ad compositionem pertinere, ipsa verba sunt quae praedicantur, magis quam significent praedicata. Est ergo intelligendum quod verbum semper est signum quod aliqua praedicentur, quia omnis praedicatio fit per verbum ratione compositionis importatae, sive praedicetur aliquid essentialiter sive accidentaliter.	9. The last phrase of this portion of the text presents a difficulty, namely, "of something belonging to [i.e., of] a subject or in a subject.” For it seems that something is said of a subject when it is predicated essentially, as in "Man is an animal”; but in a subject, when it is an accident that is predicated of a subject, as in "Man is white.” But if verbs signify action or passion (which are accidents), it follows that they always signify what is in a subject. It is useless, therefore, to say "belonging to [i.e., of] a subject or in a subject.” In answer to this Boethius says that both pertain to the same thing, for an accident is predicated of a subject and is also in a subject. Aristotle, however, uses a disjunction, which seems to indicate that he means something different by each. Therefore it could be said in reply to this that when Aristotle says the verb is always a sign of those things that are predicated of another” it is not to be understood as though the things signified by verbs are predicated. For predication seems to pertain more properly to composition; therefore, the verbs themselves are what are predicated, rather than signify predicates.” The verb, then, is always a sign that something is being predicated because all predication is made through the verb by reason of the composition introduced, whether what is being predicated is predicated essentially or accidentally.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit: non currit vero et non laborat etc., excludit quaedam a ratione verbi. Et primo, verbum infinitum; secundo, verba praeteriti temporis vel futuri; ibi: similiter autem curret vel currebat. Dicit ergo primo quod non currit, et non laborat, non proprie dicitur verbum. Est enim proprium verbi significare aliquid per modum actionis vel passionis; quod praedictae dictiones non faciunt: removent enim actionem vel passionem, potius quam aliquam determinatam actionem vel passionem significent. Sed quamvis non proprie possint dici verbum, tamen conveniunt sibi ea quae supra posita sunt in definitione verbi. Quorum primum est quod significat tempus, quia significat agere et pati, quae sicut sunt in tempore, ita privatio eorum; unde et quies tempore mensuratur, ut habetur in VI physicorum. Secundum est quod semper ponitur ex parte praedicati, sicut et verbum: et hoc ideo, quia negatio reducitur ad genus affirmationis. Unde sicut verbum quod significat actionem vel passionem, significat aliquid ut in altero existens, ita praedictae dictiones significant remotionem actionis vel passionis.	10. When he says, "Non-matures” and "non-declines” I do not call verbs, etc., he excludes certain forms of verbs from the definition of the verb. And first he excludes the infinite verb, then the verbs of past and future time. "Non-matures” and "non-declines” cannot strictly speaking be called verbs for it is proper to the verb to signify something in the mode of action or passion. But these words remove action or passion rather than signify a determinate action or passion. Now while they cannot properly be called verbs, all the parts of the definition of the verb apply to them. First of all the verb signifies time, because it signifies to act or to be acted upon; and since these are in time so are their privations; whence rest, too, is measured by time, as is said in VI Physicorum [3:234a 24–234b 9; & 8: 238a 23–239b 41]. Again, the infinite verb is always posited on the part of the predicate just as the verb is; the reason is that negation is reduced to the genus of affirmation. Hence, just as the verb, which signifies action or passion, signifies something as existing in another, so the foresaid words signify the remotion of action or passion.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 11 Si quis autem obiiciat: si praedictis dictionibus convenit definitio verbi; ergo sunt verba; dicendum est quod definitio verbi supra posita datur de verbo communiter sumpto. Huiusmodi autem dictiones negantur esse verba, quia deficiunt a perfecta ratione verbi. Nec ante Aristotelem erat nomen positum huic generi dictionum a verbis differentium; sed quia huiusmodi dictiones in aliquo cum verbis conveniunt, deficiunt tamen a determinata ratione verbi, ideo vocat ea verba infinita. Et rationem nominis assignat, quia unumquodque eorum indifferenter potest dici de eo quod est, vel de eo quod non est. Sumitur enim negatio apposita non in vi privationis, sed in vi simplicis negationis. Privatio enim supponit determinatum subiectum. Differunt tamen huiusmodi verba a verbis negativis, quia verba infinita sumuntur in vi unius dictionis, verba vero negativa in vi duarum dictionum.	11. Now someone might object that if the definition of the verb applies to the above words, then they are verbs. In answer to this it should be pointed out that the definition which has been given of the verb is the definition of it taken commonly. Insofar as these words fall short of the perfect notion of the verb, they are not called verbs. Before Aristotle’s time a name bad not been imposed for a word that differs from verbs as these do. He calls them infinite verbs because such words agree in some things with verbs and yet fall short of the determinate notion of the verb. The reason for the name, he says, is that an infinite verb can be said indifferently of what is or what is not; for the adjoined negation is taken, not with the force of privation, but with the force of simple negation since privation supposes a determinate subject. Infinite verbs do differ from negative verbs, however, for infinite verbs are taken with the force of one word, negative verbs with the force of two.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit: similiter autem curret etc., excludit a verbo verba praeteriti et futuri temporis; et dicit quod sicut verba infinita non sunt simpliciter verba, ita etiam curret, quod est futuri temporis, vel currebat, quod est praeteriti temporis, non sunt verba, sed sunt casus verbi. Et differunt in hoc a verbo, quia verbum consignificat praesens tempus, illa vero significant tempus hinc et inde circumstans. Dicit autem signanter praesens tempus, et non simpliciter praesens, ne intelligatur praesens indivisibile, quod est instans: quia in instanti non est motus, nec actio aut passio; sed oportet accipere praesens tempus quod mensurat actionem, quae incepit, et nondum est determinata per actum. Recte autem ea quae consignificant tempus praeteritum vel futurum, non sunt verba proprie dicta: cum enim verbum proprie sit quod significat agere vel pati, hoc est proprie verbum quod significat agere vel pati in actu, quod est agere vel pati simpliciter: sed agere vel pati in praeterito vel futuro est secundum quid.	12. When he says, Likewise, "has matured” and "will mature” are not verbs, but modes of verbs, etc., he excludes verbs of past and future time from the definition. For just as infinite verbs are not verbs absolutely, so "will mature,” which is of future time, and "has matured,” of past time, are not verbs. They are cases of the verb and differ from the verb—which signifies with present time—by signifying time before and after the present. Aristotle expressly says "present time” and not just "present” because he does not mean here the indivisible present which is the instant; for in the instant there is neither movement, nor action, nor passion. Present time is to be taken as the time that measures action which has begun and has not yet been terminated in act. Accordingly, verbs that signify with past or future time are not verbs in the proper sense of the term, for the verb is that which signifies to act or to be acted upon and therefore strictly speaking signifies to act or to be acted upon in act, which is to act or to be acted upon simply, whereas to act or to be acted upon in past or future time is relative.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 13 Dicuntur etiam verba praeteriti vel futuri temporis rationabiliter casus verbi, quod consignificat praesens tempus; quia praeteritum vel futurum dicitur per respectum ad praesens. Est enim praeteritum quod fuit praesens, futurum autem quod erit praesens.	13. It is with reason that verbs of past or future time are called cases of the verb signifying with present time, for past or future are said with respect to the present, the past being that which was present, the future, that which will be present.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 14 Cum autem declinatio verbi varietur per modos, tempora, numeros et personas, variatio quae fit per numerum et personam non constituit casus verbi: quia talis variatio non est ex parte actionis, sed ex parte subiecti; sed variatio quae est per modos et tempora respicit ipsam actionem, et ideo utraque constituit casus verbi. Nam verba imperativi vel optativi modi casus dicuntur, sicut et verba praeteriti vel futuri temporis. Sed verba indicativi modi praesentis temporis non dicuntur casus, cuiuscumque sint personae vel numeri.	14. Although the inflection of the verb is varied by mode, time, number, and person, the variations that are made in number and person do not constitute cases of the verb, the reason being that such variation is on the part of the subject, not on the part of the action. But variation in mode and time refers to the action itself and hence both of these constitute cases of the verb. For verbs of the imperative or optative modes are called cases as well as verbs of past or future time. Verbs of the indicative mode in present time, however, are not called cases, whatever their person and number.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 15 Deinde cum dicit: ipsa itaque etc., ostendit convenientiam verborum ad nomina. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, proponit quod intendit; secundo, manifestat propositum; ibi: et significant aliquid et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod ipsa verba secundum se dicta sunt nomina: quod a quibusdam exponitur de verbis quae sumuntur in vi nominis, ut dictum est, sive sint infinitivi modi; ut cum dico, currere est moveri, sive sint alterius modi; ut cum dico, curro est verbum. Sed haec non videtur esse intentio Aristotelis, quia ad hanc intentionem non respondent sequentia. Et ideo aliter dicendum est quod nomen hic sumitur, prout communiter significat quamlibet dictionem impositam ad significandum aliquam rem. Et quia etiam ipsum agere vel pati est quaedam res, inde est quod et ipsa verba in quantum nominant, idest significant agere vel pati, sub nominibus comprehenduntur communiter acceptis. Nomen autem, prout a verbo distinguitur, significat rem sub determinato modo, prout scilicet potest intelligi ut per se existens. Unde nomina possunt subiici et praedicari.	15. He points out the conformity between verbs and names where he says, Verbs in themselves, said alone, are names. He proposes this first and then manifests it. He says then, first, that verbs said by themselves are names. Some have taken this to mean the verbs that are taken with the force of names, either verbs of the infinitive mode, as in "To run is to be moving,” or verbs of another mode, as in "‘Matures’ is a verb.” But this does not seem to be what Aristotle means, for it does not correspond to what he says next. Therefore "name” must be taken in another way here, i.e., as it commonly signifies any word whatever that is imposed to signify a thing. Now, since to act or to be acted upon is also a certain thing, verbs themselves as they name, i.e., as they signify to act or to be acted upon, are comprehended under names taken commonly. The name as distinguished from the verb signifies the thing under a determinate mode, i.e., according as the thing can be understood as existing per se. This is the reason names can be subjected and predicated.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 16 Deinde cum dicit: et significant aliquid etc., probat propositum. Et primo, per hoc quod verba significant aliquid, sicut et nomina; secundo, per hoc quod non significant verum vel falsum, sicut nec nomina; ibi: sed si est, aut non est et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod in tantum dictum est quod verba sunt nomina, in quantum significant aliquid. Et hoc probat, quia supra dictum est quod voces significativae significant intellectus. Unde proprium vocis significativae est quod generet aliquem intellectum in animo audientis. Et ideo ad ostendendum quod verbum sit vox significativa, assumit quod ille, qui dicit verbum, constituit intellectum in animo audientis. Et ad hoc manifestandum inducit quod ille, qui audit, quiescit.	16. He proves the point he has just made when he says, and signify something, etc., first by showing that verbs, like names, signify something; then by showing that, like names, they do not signify truth or falsity when he says, for the verb is not a sign of the being or nonbeing of a thing. He says first that verbs have been said to be names only insofar as they signify a thing. Then he proves this: it has already been said that significant vocal sound signifies thought; hence it is proper to significant vocal sound to produce something understood in the mind of the one who hears it. To show, then, that a verb is significant vocal sound he assumes that the one who utters a verb brings about understanding in the mind of the one who bears it. The evidence he introduces for this is that the mind of the one who bears it is set at rest.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 17 Sed hoc videtur esse falsum: quia sola oratio perfecta facit quiescere intellectum, non autem nomen, neque verbum si per se dicatur. Si enim dicam, homo, suspensus est animus audientis, quid de eo dicere velim; si autem dico, currit, suspensus est eius animus de quo dicam. Sed dicendum est quod cum duplex sit intellectus operatio, ut supra habitum est, ille qui dicit nomen vel verbum secundum se, constituit intellectum quantum ad primam operationem, quae est simplex conceptio alicuius, et secundum hoc, quiescit audiens, qui in suspenso erat antequam nomen vel verbum proferretur et eius prolatio terminaretur; non autem constituit intellectum quantum ad secundam operationem, quae est intellectus componentis et dividentis, ipsum verbum vel nomen per se dictum: nec quantum ad hoc facit quiescere audientem.	17. But what Aristotle says here seems to be false, for it is only perfect speech that makes the intellect rest. The name or the verb, if said by themselves, do not do this. For example, if I say "man,” the mind of the hearer is left in suspense as to what I wish to say about mail; and if I say "runs,” the bearer’s mind is left in suspense as to whom I am speaking of. It should be said in answer to this objection that the operation of the intellect is twofold, as was said above, and therefore the one who utters a name or a verb by itself, determines the intellect with respect to the first operation, which is the simple conception of something. It is in relation to this that the one hearing, whose mind was undetermined before the name or the verb was being uttered and its utterance terminated, is set at rest. Neither the name nor the verb said by itself, however, determines the intellect in respect to the second operation, which is the operation of the intellect composing and dividing; nor do the verb or the name said alone set the hearer’s mind at rest in respect to this operation.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 18 Et ideo statim subdit: sed si est, aut non est, nondum significat, idest nondum significat aliquid per modum compositionis et divisionis, aut veri vel falsi. Et hoc est secundum, quod probare intendit. Probat autem consequenter per illa verba, quae maxime videntur significare veritatem vel falsitatem, scilicet ipsum verbum quod est esse, et verbum infinitum quod est non esse; quorum neutrum per se dictum est significativum veritatis vel falsitatis in re; unde multo minus alia. Vel potest intelligi hoc generaliter dici de omnibus verbis. Quia enim dixerat quod verbum non significat si est res vel non est, hoc consequenter manifestat, quia nullum verbum est significativum esse rei vel non esse, idest quod res sit vel non sit. Quamvis enim omne verbum finitum implicet esse, quia currere est currentem esse, et omne verbum infinitum implicet non esse, quia non currere est non currentem esse; tamen nullum verbum significat hoc totum, scilicet rem esse vel non esse.	18. Aristotle therefore immediately adds, but they do not yet signify whether a thing is or is not, i.e., they do not yet signify something by way of composition and division, or by way of truth or falsity. This is the second thing he intends to prove, and he proves it by the verbs that especially seem to signify truth or falsity, namely the verb to be and the infinite verb to non-be, neither of which, said by itself, signifies real truth or falsity; much less so any other verbs. This could also be understood in a more general way, i.e., that here he is speaking of all verbs; for he says that the verb does not signify whether a thing is or is not; he manifests this further, therefore, by saying that no verb is significative of a thing’s being or non-being, i.e., that a thing is or is not. For although every finite verb implies being, for "to run” is "to be running,” and every infinite verb implies nonbeing, for "to non-run” is "to be non-running,” nevertheless no verb signifies the whole, i.e., a thing is or a thing is not.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 19 Et hoc consequenter probat per id, de quo magis videtur cum subdit: nec si hoc ipsum est purum dixeris, ipsum quidem nihil est. Ubi notandum est quod in Graeco habetur: neque si ens ipsum nudum dixeris, ipsum quidem nihil est. Ad probandum enim quod verba non significant rem esse vel non esse, assumpsit id quod est fons et origo ipsius esse, scilicet ipsum ens, de quo dicit quod nihil est (ut Alexander exponit), quia ens aequivoce dicitur de decem praedicamentis; omne autem aequivocum per se positum nihil significat, nisi aliquid addatur quod determinet eius significationem; unde nec ipsum est per se dictum significat quod est vel non est. Sed haec expositio non videtur conveniens, tum quia ens non dicitur proprie aequivoce, sed secundum prius et posterius; unde simpliciter dictum intelligitur de eo, quod per prius dicitur: tum etiam, quia dictio aequivoca non nihil significat, sed multa significat; et quandoque hoc, quandoque illud per ipsam accipitur: tum etiam, quia talis expositio non multum facit ad intentionem praesentem. Unde Porphyrius aliter exposuit quod hoc ipsum ens non significat naturam alicuius rei, sicut hoc nomen homo vel sapiens, sed solum designat quamdam coniunctionem; unde subdit quod consignificat quamdam compositionem, quam sine compositis non est intelligere. Sed neque hoc convenienter videtur dici: quia si non significaret aliquam rem, sed solum coniunctionem, non esset neque nomen, neque verbum, sicut nec praepositiones aut coniunctiones. Et ideo aliter exponendum est, sicut Ammonius exponit, quod ipsum ens nihil est, idest non significat verum vel falsum. Et rationem huius assignat, cum subdit: consignificat autem quamdam compositionem. Nec accipitur hic, ut ipse dicit, consignificat, sicut cum dicebatur quod verbum consignificat tempus, sed consignificat, idest cum alio significat, scilicet alii adiunctum compositionem significat, quae non potest intelligi sine extremis compositionis. Sed quia hoc commune est omnibus nominibus et verbis, non videtur haec expositio esse secundum intentionem Aristotelis, qui assumpsit ipsum ens quasi quoddam speciale.	19. He proves this point from something in which it will be clearer when he adds, Nor would it be a sign of the being or nonbeing of a thing if you were to say "is” alone, for it is nothing. It should be noted that the Greek text has the word "being” in place of "is” here. In order to prove that verbs do not signify that a thing is or is not, he takes the source and origin of to be [esse], i.e., being [ens] itself, of which he says, it is nothing. Alexander explains this passage in the following way: Aristotle says being itself is nothing because "being” [ens] is said equivocally of the ten predicaments; now an equivocal name used by itself signifies nothing unless something is added to determine its signification; hence, "is” [est] said by itself does not signify what is or is not. But this explanation is not appropriate for this text. In the first place "being” is not, strictly speaking, said equivocally but according to the prior and posterior. Consequently, said absolutely, it is understood of that of which it is said primarily. Secondly, an equivocal word does not signify nothing, but many things, sometimes being taken for one, sometimes for another. Thirdly, such an explanation does not have much application here. Porphyry explains this passage in another way. He says that "being” [ens] itself does not signify the nature of a thing as the name "man” or "wise” do, but only designates a certain conjunction and this is why Aristotle adds, it signifies with a composition, which cannot be conceived apart from the things composing it. This explanation does not seem to be consistent with the text either, for if "being” itself does not signify a thing, but only a conjunction, it, like prepositions and conjunctions, is neither a name nor a verb. Therefore Ammonius thought this should be explained in another way. He says "being itself is nothing” means that it does not signify truth or falsity. And the reason for this is given when Aristotle says, it signifies with a composition. The "signifies with,” according to Ammonius, does not mean what it does when it is said that the verb signifies with time; "signifies with,” means here signifies with something, i.e., joined to another it signifies composition, which cannot be understood without the extremes of the composition. But this explanation does not seem to be in accordance with the intention of Aristotle, for it is common to all names and verbs not to signify truth or falsity, whereas Aristotle takes "being” here as though it were something special.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 20 Et ideo ut magis sequamur verba Aristotelis considerandum est quod ipse dixerat quod verbum non significat rem esse vel non esse, sed nec ipsum ens significat rem esse vel non esse. Et hoc est quod dicit, nihil est, idest non significat aliquid esse. Etenim hoc maxime videbatur de hoc quod dico ens: quia ens nihil est aliud quam quod est. Et sic videtur et rem significare, per hoc quod dico quod et esse, per hoc quod dico est. Et si quidem haec dictio ens significaret esse principaliter, sicut significat rem quae habet esse, procul dubio significaret aliquid esse. Sed ipsam compositionem, quae importatur in hoc quod dico est, non principaliter significat, sed consignificat eam in quantum significat rem habentem esse. Unde talis consignificatio compositionis non sufficit ad veritatem vel falsitatem: quia compositio, in qua consistit veritas et falsitas, non potest intelligi, nisi secundum quod innectit extrema compositionis.	20. Therefore in order to understand what Aristotle is saying we should note that he has just said that the verb does not signify that a thing exists or does not exist [rem esse vel non esse]; nor does "being” [ens] signify that a thing exists or does not exist. This is what he means when he says, it is nothing, i.e., it does not signify that a thing exists. This is indeed most clearly seen in saying "being” [ens], because being is nothing other than that which is. And thus we see that it signifies both a thing, when I say "that which,” and existence [esse] when I say "is” [est]. If the word "being” [ens] as signifying a thing having existence were to signify existence [esse] principally, without a doubt it would signify that a thing exists. But the word "being” [ens] does not principally signify the composition that is implied in saying "is” [est]; rather, it signifies with composition inasmuch as it signifies the thing having existence. Such signifying with composition is not sufficient for truth or falsity; for the composition in which truth and falsity consists cannot be understood unless it connects the extremes of a composition.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 21 Si vero dicatur, nec ipsum esse, ut libri nostri habent, planior est sensus. Quod enim nullum verbum significat rem esse vel non esse, probat per hoc verbum est, quod secundum se dictum, non significat aliquid esse, licet significet esse. Et quia hoc ipsum esse videtur compositio quaedam, et ita hoc verbum est, quod significat esse, potest videri significare compositionem, in qua sit verum vel falsum; ad hoc excludendum subdit quod illa compositio, quam significat hoc verbum est, non potest intelligi sine componentibus: quia dependet eius intellectus ab extremis, quae si non apponantur, non est perfectus intellectus compositionis, ut possit in ea esse verum, vel falsum.	21. If in place of what Aristotle says we say nor would "to be” itself [nec ipsum esse], as it is in our texts, the meaning is clearer. For Aristotle proves through the verb "is” [est] that no verb signifies that a thing exists or does not exist, since "is” said by itself does not signify that a thing exists, although it signifies existence. And because to be itself seems to be a kind of composition, so also the verb "is” [est], which signifies to be, can seem to signify the composition in which there is truth or falsity. To exclude this Aristotle adds that the composition which the verb "is” signifies cannot be understood without the composing things. The reason for this is that an understanding of the composition which "is” signifies depends on the extremes, and unless they are added, understanding of the composition is not complete and hence cannot be true or false.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 5 n. 22 Ideo autem dicit quod hoc verbum est consignificat compositionem, quia non eam principaliter significat, sed ex consequenti; significat enim primo illud quod cadit in intellectu per modum actualitatis absolute: nam est, simpliciter dictum, significat in actu esse; et ideo significat per modum verbi. Quia vero actualitas, quam principaliter significat hoc verbum est, est communiter actualitas omnis formae, vel actus substantialis vel accidentalis, inde est quod cum volumus significare quamcumque formam vel actum actualiter inesse alicui subiecto, significamus illud per hoc verbum est, vel simpliciter vel secundum quid: simpliciter quidem secundum praesens tempus; secundum quid autem secundum alia tempora. Et ideo ex consequenti hoc verbum est significat compositionem.	22. Therefore he says that the verb "is” signifies with composition; for it does not signify composition principally but consequently. it primarily signifies that which is perceived in the mode of actuality absolutely; for "is” said simply, signifies to be in act, and therefore signifies in the mode of a verb. However, the actuality which the verb "is” principally signifies is the actuality of every form commonly, whether substantial or accidental. Hence, when we wish to signify that any form or act is actually in some subject we signify it through the verb "is,” either absolutely or relatively; absolutely, according to present time, relatively, according to other times; and for this reason the verb "is” signifies composition, not principally, but consequently.

LECTURE 6

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 1 Postquam philosophus determinavit de nomine et de verbo, quae sunt principia materialia enunciationis, utpote partes eius existentes; nunc determinat de oratione, quae est principium formale enunciationis, utpote genus eius existens. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo enim, proponit definitionem orationis; secundo, exponit eam; ibi: dico autem ut homo etc.; tertio, excludit errorem; ibi: est autem oratio omnis et cetera.	1. Having established and explained the definition of the name and the verb, which are the material principles of the enunciation inasmuch as they are its parts, the Philosopher now determines and explains what speech is, which is the formal principle of the enunciation inasmuch as it is its genus. First he proposes the definition of speech; then he explains it where he says, Let me explain. The word "animal” signifies something, etc.; finally, he excludes an error where he says, But all speech is significant—not just as an instrument, however, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 2 Circa primum considerandum est quod philosophus in definitione orationis primo ponit illud in quo oratio convenit cum nomine et verbo, cum dicit: oratio est vox significativa, quod etiam posuit in definitione nominis, et probavit de verbo quod aliquid significet. Non autem posuit in eius definitione, quia supponebat ex eo quod positum erat in definitione nominis, studens brevitati, ne idem frequenter iteraret. Iterat tamen hoc in definitione orationis, quia significatio orationis differt a significatione nominis et verbi, quia nomen vel verbum significat simplicem intellectum, oratio vero significat intellectum compositum.	2. In defining speech the Philosopher first states what it has in common with the name and verb where he says, Speech is significant vocal sound. This was posited in the definition of the name but not repeated in the case of the verb, because it was supposed from the definition of the name. This was done for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition; but subsequently he did prove that the verb signifies something. He repeats this, however, in the definition of speech because the signification of speech differs from that of the name and the verb; for the name and the verb signify simple thought, whereas speech signifies composite thought.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 3 Secundo autem ponit id, in quo oratio differt a nomine et verbo, cum dicit: cuius partium aliquid significativum est separatim. Supra enim dictum est quod pars nominis non significat aliquid per se separatum, sed solum quod est coniunctum ex duabus partibus. Signanter autem non dicit: cuius pars est significativa aliquid separata, sed cuius aliquid partium est significativum, propter negationes et alia syncategoremata, quae secundum se non significant aliquid absolutum, sed solum habitudinem unius ad alterum. Sed quia duplex est significatio vocis, una quae refertur ad intellectum compositum, alia quae refertur ad intellectum simplicem; prima significatio competit orationi, secunda non competit orationi, sed parti orationis. Unde subdit: ut dictio, non ut affirmatio. Quasi dicat: pars orationis est significativa, sicut dictio significat, puta ut nomen et verbum, non sicut affirmatio, quae componitur ex nomine et verbo. Facit autem mentionem solum de affirmatione et non de negatione, quia negatio secundum vocem superaddit affirmationi; unde si pars orationis propter sui simplicitatem non significat aliquid, ut affirmatio, multo minus ut negatio.	3. Secondly, he posits what differentiates speech from the name and verb when he says, of which some of the parts are significant separately; for a part of a name taken separately does not signify anything per se, except in the case of a name composed of two parts, as he said above. Note that he says, of which some of the parts are significant, and not, a part of which is significant separately; this is to exclude negations and the other words used to unite categorical words, which do not in themselves signify something absolutely, but only the relationship of one thing to another. Then because the signification of vocal sound is twofold, one being referred to composite thought, the other to simple thought (the first belonging to speech, the second, not to speech but to a part of speech), he adds, as words but not as an affirmation. What he means is that a part of speech signifies in the way a word signifies, a name or a verb, for instance; it does not signify in the way an affirmation signifies, which is composed of a name and a verb. He only mentions affirmation because negation adds something to affirmation as far as vocal sound is concerned for if a part of speech, since it is simple, does not signify as an affirmation, it will not signify as a negation.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 4 Sed contra hanc definitionem Aspasius obiicit quod videtur non omnibus partibus orationis convenire. Sunt enim quaedam orationes, quarum partes significant aliquid ut affirmatio; ut puta, si sol lucet super terram, dies est; et sic de multis. Et ad hoc respondet Porphyrius quod in quocumque genere invenitur prius et posterius, debet definiri id quod prius est. Sicut cum datur definitio alicuius speciei, puta hominis, intelligitur definitio de eo quod est in actu, non de eo quod est in potentia; et ideo quia in genere orationis prius est oratio simplex, inde est quod Aristoteles prius definivit orationem simplicem. Vel potest dici, secundum Alexandrum et Ammonium, quod hic definitur oratio in communi. Unde debet poni in hac definitione id quod est commune orationi simplici et compositae. Habere autem partes significantes aliquid ut affirmatio, competit soli orationi, compositae; sed habere partes significantes aliquid per modum dictionis, et non per modum affirmationis, est commune orationi simplici et compositae. Et ideo hoc debuit poni in definitione orationis. Et secundum hoc non debet intelligi esse de ratione orationis quod pars eius non sit affirmatio: sed quia de ratione orationis est quod pars eius sit aliquid quod significat per modum dictionis, et non per modum affirmationis. Et in idem redit solutio Porphyrii quantum ad sensum, licet quantum ad verba parumper differat. Quia enim Aristoteles frequenter ponit dicere pro affirmare, ne dictio pro affirmatione sumatur, subdit quod pars orationis significat ut dictio, et addit non ut affirmatio: quasi diceret, secundum sensum Porphyrii, non accipiatur nunc dictio secundum quod idem est quod affirmatio. Philosophus autem, qui dicitur Ioannes grammaticus, voluit quod haec definitio orationis daretur solum de oratione perfecta, eo quod partes non videntur esse nisi alicuius perfecti, sicut omnes partes domus referuntur ad domum: et ideo secundum ipsum sola oratio perfecta habet partes significativas. Sed tamen hic decipiebatur, quia quamvis omnes partes referantur principaliter ad totum perfectum, quaedam tamen partes referuntur ad ipsum immediate, sicut paries et tectum ad domum, et membra organica ad animal: quaedam vero mediantibus partibus principalibus quarum sunt partes; sicut lapides referuntur ad domum mediante pariete; nervi autem et ossa ad animal mediantibus membris organicis, scilicet manu et pede et huiusmodi. Sic ergo omnes partes orationis principaliter referuntur ad orationem perfectam, cuius pars est oratio imperfecta, quae etiam ipsa habet partes significantes. Unde ista definitio convenit tam orationi perfectae, quam imperfectae.	4. Aspasius objects to this definition because it does not seem to belong to all parts of speech. There is a kind of speech he says, in which some of the parts signify as an affirmation; for instance, "If the sun shines over the earth, it is day,” and so in many other examples. Porphyry says in reply to this objection that in whatever genus there is something prior and posterior, it is the prior thing that has to be defined. For example, when we give the definition of a species—say, of man—the definition is understood of that which is in act, not of that which is in potency. Since, then, in the genus of speech, simple speech is prior, Aristotle defines it first. Or, we can answer the objection in the way Alexander and Ammonious do. They say that speech is defined here commonly. Hence what is common to simple and composite speech ought to be stated in the definition. Now to have parts signifying something as an affirmation belongs only to composite speech, but to have parts signifying something in the mode of a word and not in the mode of an affirmation is common to simple and composite speech. Therefore this had to be posited in the definition of speech. We should not conclude, however, that it is of the nature of speech that its part not be an affirmation, but rather that it is of the nature of speech that its parts be something that signify in the manner of words and not in the manner of an affirmation. Porphyry’s solution reduces to the same thing as far as meaning is concerned, although it is a little different verbally. Aristotle frequently uses "to say” for "to affirm,” and hence to prevent "word” from being taken as "affirmation” when he says that a part of speech signifies as a word, he immediately adds, not as an affirmation, meaning—according to Porphyry’s view—"word” is not taken here in the sense in which it is the same as "affirmation.” A philosopher called John the Grammarian thought that this definition could only apply to perfect speech because there only seem to be parts in the case of something perfect, or complete; for example, a house to which all of the parts are referred. Therefore only perfect speech has significant parts. He was in error on this point, however, for while it is true that all the parts are referred principally to the perfect, or complete whole, some parts are referred to it immediately, for example, the walls and roof to a house and organic members to an animal; others, however, are referred to it through the principal parts of which they are parts; stones, for example, to the house by the mediate wall, and nerves and bones to the animal by the mediate organic members like the hand and the foot, etc. In the case of speech, therefore, all of the parts are principally referred to perfect speech, a part of which is imperfect speech, which also has significant parts. Hence this definition belongs both to perfect and to imperfect speech.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: dico autem ut homo etc., exponit propositam definitionem. Et primo, manifestat verum esse quod dicitur; secundo, excludit falsum intellectum; ibi: sed non una hominis syllaba et cetera. Exponit ergo quod dixerat aliquid partium orationis esse significativum, sicut hoc nomen homo, quod est pars orationis, significat aliquid, sed non significat ut affirmatio aut negatio, quia non significat esse vel non esse. Et hoc dico non in actu, sed solum in potentia. Potest enim aliquid addi, per cuius additionem fit affirmatio vel negatio, scilicet si addatur ei verbum.	5. When he says, Let me explain. The word "animal” signifies something, etc., he elucidates the definition. First he shows that what he says is true; secondly, he excludes a false understanding of it where he says, But one syllable of "animal” does not signify anything, etc. He explains that when he says some parts of speech are significant, he means that some of the parts signify something in the way the name "animal,” which is a part of speech, signifies something and yet does not signify as an affirmation or negation, because it does not signify to be or not to be. By this I mean it does not signify affirmation or negation in act, but only in potency; for it is possible to add something that will make it an affirmation or negation, i.e., a verb.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: sed non una hominis etc., excludit falsum intellectum. Et posset hoc referri ad immediate dictum, ut sit sensus quod nomen erit affirmatio vel negatio, si quid ei addatur, sed non si addatur ei una nominis syllaba. Sed quia huic sensui non conveniunt verba sequentia, oportet quod referatur ad id, quod supra dictum est in definitione orationis, scilicet quod aliquid partium eius sit significativum separatim. Sed quia pars alicuius totius dicitur proprie illud, quod immediate venit ad constitutionem totius, non autem pars partis; ideo hoc intelligendum est de partibus ex quibus immediate constituitur oratio, scilicet de nomine et verbo, non autem de partibus nominis vel verbi, quae sunt syllabae vel litterae. Et ideo dicitur quod pars orationis est significativa separata, non tamen talis pars, quae est una nominis syllaba. Et hoc manifestat in syllabis, quae quandoque possunt esse dictiones per se significantes: sicut hoc quod dico rex, quandoque est una dictio per se significans; in quantum vero accipitur ut una quaedam syllaba huius nominis sorex, soricis, non significat aliquid per se, sed est vox sola. Dictio enim quaedam est composita ex pluribus vocibus, tamen in significando habet simplicitatem, in quantum scilicet significat simplicem intellectum. Et ideo in quantum est vox composita, potest habere partem quae sit vox, inquantum autem est simplex in significando, non potest habere partem significantem. Unde syllabae quidem sunt voces, sed non sunt voces per se significantes. Sciendum tamen quod in nominibus compositis, quae imponuntur ad significandum rem simplicem ex aliquo intellectu composito, partes secundum apparentiam aliquid significant, licet non secundum veritatem. Et ideo subdit quod in duplicibus, idest in nominibus compositis, syllabae quae possunt esse dictiones, in compositione nominis venientes, significant aliquid, scilicet in ipso composito et secundum quod sunt dictiones; non autem significant aliquid secundum se, prout sunt huiusmodi nominis partes, sed eo modo, sicut supra dictum est.	6. He excludes a false understanding of what has been said by his next statement. But one syllable of "animal” does not signify anything. This could be referred to what has just been said and the meaning would be that the name will be an affirmation or negation if something is added to it, but not if what is added is one syllable of a name. However, what he says next is not compatible with this meaning and therefore these words should be referred to what was stated earlier in defining speech, namely, to some parts of which are significant separately. Now, since what is properly called a part of a whole is that which contributes immediately to the formation of the whole, and not that which is a part of a part, "some parts” should be understood as the parts from which speech is immediately formed, i.e., the name and verb, and not as parts of the name or verb, which are syllables or letters. Hence, what is being said here is that a part of speech is significant separately but not such a part as the syllable of a name. He manifests this by means of syllables that sometimes can be words signifying per se. "Owl,” for example, is sometimes one word signifying per se. When taken as a syllable of the name "fowl,” however, it does not signify something per se but is only a vocal sound. For a word is composed of many vocal sounds, but it has simplicity in signifying insofar as it signifies simple thought. Hence, a word inasmuch as it is a composite vocal sound can have a part which is a vocal sound, but inasmuch as it is simple in signifying it cannot have a signifying part. Whence syllables are indeed vocal sounds, but they are not vocal sounds signifying per se. In contrast to this it should be noted that in composite names, which are imposed to signify a simple thing from some composite understanding, the parts appear to signify something, although according to truth they do not. For this reason he adds that in compound words, i.e., composite names, the syllables may be words contributing to the composition of a name, and therefore signify something, namely, in the composite, and according as they are words; but as parts of this kind of name they do not signify something per se, but in the way that has already been explained.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: est autem oratio etc., excludit quemdam errorem. Fuerunt enim aliqui dicentes quod oratio et eius partes significant naturaliter, non ad placitum. Ad probandum autem hoc utebantur tali ratione. Virtutis naturalis oportet esse naturalia instrumenta: quia natura non deficit in necessariis; potentia autem interpretativa est naturalis homini; ergo instrumenta eius sunt naturalia. Instrumentum autem eius est oratio, quia per orationem virtus interpretativa interpretatur mentis conceptum: hoc enim dicimus instrumentum, quo agens operatur. Ergo oratio est aliquid naturale, non ex institutione humana significans, sed naturaliter.	7. Then he says, But all speech is significant—not just as an instrument, however, etc. Here he excludes the error of those who said that speech and its parts signify naturally rather than by convention. To prove their point they used the following argument. The instruments of a natural power must themselves be natural, for nature does not fail in regard to what is necessary; but the interpretive power is natural to man; therefore, its instruments are natural. Now the instrument of the interpretive power is speech since it is through speech that expression is given to the conception of the mind; for we mean by an instrument that by which an agent operates. Therefore, speech is something natural, signifying, not from human institution, but naturally.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 8 Huic autem rationi, quae dicitur esse Platonis in Lib. qui intitulatur Cratylus, Aristoteles obviando dicit quod omnis oratio est significativa, non sicut instrumentum virtutis, scilicet naturalis: quia instrumenta naturalia virtutis interpretativae sunt guttur et pulmo, quibus formatur vox, et lingua et dentes et labia, quibus litterati ac articulati soni distinguuntur; oratio autem et partes eius sunt sicut effectus virtutis interpretativae per instrumenta praedicta. Sicut enim virtus motiva utitur naturalibus instrumentis, sicut brachiis et manibus ad faciendum opera artificialia, ita virtus interpretativa utitur gutture et aliis instrumentis naturalibus ad faciendum orationem. Unde oratio et partes eius non sunt res naturales, sed quidam artificiales effectus. Et ideo subdit quod oratio significat ad placitum, idest secundum institutionem humanae rationis et voluntatis, ut supra dictum est, sicut et omnia artificialia causantur ex humana voluntate et ratione. Sciendum tamen quod, si virtutem interpretativam non attribuamus virtuti motivae, sed rationi; sic non est virtus naturalis, sed supra omnem naturam corpoream: quia intellectus non est actus alicuius corporis, sicut probatur in III de anima. Ipsa autem ratio est, quae movet virtutem corporalem motivam ad opera artificialia, quibus etiam ut instrumentis utitur ratio: non sunt autem instrumenta alicuius virtutis corporalis. Et hoc modo ratio potest etiam uti oratione et eius partibus, quasi instrumentis: quamvis non naturaliter significent.	8. Aristotle refutes this argument, which is said to be that of Plato in the Cratylus, when he says that all speech is significant, but not as an instrument of a power, that is, of a natural power; for the natural instruments of the interpretive power are the throat and lungs, by which vocal sound is formed, and the tongue, teeth and lips by which letters and articulate sounds are formulated. Rather, speech and its parts are effects of the interpretative power through the aforesaid instruments. For just as the motive power uses natural instruments such as arms and hands to make an artificial work, so the interpretative power uses the throat and other natural instruments to make speech. Hence, speech and its parts are not natural things, but certain artificial effects. This is the reason Aristotle adds here that speech signifies by convention, i.e., according to the ordinance of human will and reason. It should be noted, however, that if we do not attribute the interpretative power to a motive power, but to reason, then it is not a natural power but is beyond every corporeal nature, since thought is not an act of the body, as is proved in III De anima [4: 429a 10]. Moreover, it is reason itself that moves the corporeal motive power to make artificial works, which reason then uses as instruments; and thus artificial works are not instruments of a corporeal power. Reason can also use speech and its parts in this way, i.e., as instruments, although they do not signify naturally.

LECTURE 7

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 7 n. 1 Postquam philosophus determinavit de principiis enunciationis, hic incipit determinare de ipsa enunciatione. Et dividitur pars haec in duas: in prima, determinat de enunciatione absolute; in secunda, de diversitate enunciationum, quae provenit secundum ea quae simplici enunciationi adduntur; et hoc in secundo libro; ibi: quoniam autem est de aliquo affirmatio et cetera. Prima autem pars dividitur in partes tres. In prima, definit enunciationem; in secunda, dividit eam; ibi: est autem una prima oratio etc., in tertia, agit de oppositione partium eius ad invicem; ibi: quoniam autem est enunciare et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo, ponit definitionem enunciationis; secundo, ostendit quod per hanc definitionem differt enunciatio ab aliis speciebus orationis; ibi: non autem in omnibus etc.; tertio, ostendit quod de sola enunciatione est tractandum, ibi: et caeterae quidem relinquantur.	1. Having defined the principles of the enunciation, the Philosopher now begins to treat the enunciation itself. This is divided into two parts. In the first he examines the enunciation absolutely; in the second the diversity of enunciations resulting from an addition to the simple enunciation. The latter is treated in the second book, where he says, Since an affirmation signifies something about a subject, etc.”’ The first part, on the enunciation absolutely, is divided into three parts. In the first he defines enunciation; in the second he divides it where he says, First affirmation, then negation, is enunciative speech that is one, etc.;” in the third he treats of the opposition of its parts to each other, where he says, Since it is possible to enunciate that what belongs to a subject does not belong to it, etc. In the portion of the text treated in this lesson, which is concerned with the definition of enunciation, he first states the definition, then shows that this definition differentiates the enunciation from other species of speech, where he says, Truth and falsity is not present in all speech however, etc., and finally indicates that only the enunciation is to be treated in this book where he says, Let us therefore consider enunciative speech, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 7 n. 2 Circa primum considerandum est quod oratio, quamvis non sit instrumentum alicuius virtutis naturaliter operantis, est tamen instrumentum rationis, ut supra dictum est. Omne autem instrumentum oportet definiri ex suo fine, qui est usus instrumenti: usus autem orationis, sicut et omnis vocis significativae est significare conceptionem intellectus, ut supra dictum est: duae autem sunt operationes intellectus, in quarum una non invenitur veritas et falsitas, in alia autem invenitur verum vel falsum. Et ideo orationem enunciativam definit ex significatione veri et falsi, dicens quod non omnis oratio est enunciativa, sed in qua verum vel falsum est. Ubi considerandum est quod Aristoteles mirabili brevitate usus, et divisionem orationis innuit in hoc quod dicit: non omnis oratio est enunciativa, et definitionem enunciationis in hoc quod dicit: sed in qua verum vel falsum est: ut intelligatur quod haec sit definitio enunciationis, enunciatio est oratio, in qua verum vel falsum est.	2. The point has just been made that speech, although it is not an instrument of a power operating naturally, is nevertheless an instrument of reason. Now every instrument is defined by its end, which is the use of the instrument. The use of speech, as of every significant vocal sound, is to signify a conception of the intellect. But there are two operations of the intellect. In one truth and falsity is found, in the other not. Aristotle therefore defines enunciative speech by the signification of the true and false: Yet not all speech is enunciative; but only speech in which there is truth or falsity. Note with what remarkable brevity he signifies the division of speech by Yet not all speech is enunciative, and the definition by, but only speech in which there is truth or falsity. This, then, is to be understood as the definition of the enunciation: speech in which there is truth and falsity.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 7 n. 3 Dicitur autem in enunciatione esse verum vel falsum, sicut in signo intellectus veri vel falsi: sed sicut in subiecto est verum vel falsum in mente, ut dicitur in VI metaphysicae, in re autem sicut in causa: quia ut dicitur in libro praedicamentorum, ab eo quod res est vel non est, oratio vera vel falsa est.	3. True or false is said to be in the enunciation as in a sign of true or false thought; but true or false is in the mind as in a subject (as is said in VI Metaphysicae [1027b 17–1028a 5]), and in the thing as in a cause (as is said in the book Predicamentorum [5: 4a 35–4b 9])—for it is from the facts of the case, i.e., from a thing’s being so or not being so, that speech is true or false.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 7 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit: non autem in omnibus etc., ostendit quod per hanc definitionem enunciatio differt ab aliis orationibus. Et quidem de orationibus imperfectis manifestum est quod non significant verum vel falsum, quia cum non faciant perfectum sensum in animo audientis, manifestum est quod perfecte non exprimunt iudicium rationis, in quo consistit verum vel falsum. His igitur praetermissis, sciendum est quod perfectae orationis, quae complet sententiam, quinque sunt species, videlicet enunciativa, deprecativa, imperativa, interrogativa et vocativa. (Non tamen intelligendum est quod solum nomen vocativi casus sit vocativa oratio: quia oportet aliquid partium orationis significare aliquid separatim, sicut supra dictum est; sed per vocativum provocatur, sive excitatur animus audientis ad attendendum; non autem est vocativa oratio nisi plura coniungantur; ut cum dico, o bone Petre). Harum autem orationum sola enunciativa est, in qua invenitur verum vel falsum, quia ipsa sola absolute significat conceptum intellectus, in quo est verum vel falsum.	4. Next he shows that this definition differentiates the enunciation from other speech, when he says, Truth or falsity is not present in all speech however, etc. In the case of imperfect or incomplete speech it is clear that it does not signify the true or false, since it does not make complete sense to the mind of the hearer and therefore does not completely express a judgment of reason in which the true or false consists. Having made this point, however, it must be noted that there are five species of perfect speech that are complete in meaning: enunciative, deprecative, imperative, interrogative, and vocative. (Apropos of the latter it should be noted that a name alone in the vocative case is not vocative speech, for some of the parts must signify something separately, as was said above. So, although the mind of the hearer is provoked or aroused to attention by a name in the vocative case, there is not vocative speech, unless many words are joined together, as in "O good Peter!”) Of these species of speech the enunciative is the only one in which there is truth or falsity, for it alone signifies the conception of the intellect absolutely and it is in this that there is truth or falsity.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 7 n. 5 Sed quia intellectus vel ratio, non solum concipit in seipso veritatem rei tantum, sed etiam ad eius officium pertinet secundum suum conceptum alia dirigere et ordinare; ideo necesse fuit quod sicut per enunciativam orationem significatur ipse mentis conceptus, ita etiam essent aliquae aliae orationes significantes ordinem rationis, secundum quam alia diriguntur. Dirigitur autem ex ratione unius hominis alius homo ad tria: primo quidem, ad attendendum mente; et ad hoc pertinet vocativa oratio: secundo, ad respondendum voce; et ad hoc pertinet oratio interrogativa: tertio, ad exequendum in opere; et ad hoc pertinet quantum ad inferiores oratio imperativa; quantum autem ad superiores oratio deprecativa, ad quam reducitur oratio optativa: quia respectu superioris, homo non habet vim motivam, nisi per expressionem sui desiderii. Quia igitur istae quatuor orationis species non significant ipsum conceptum intellectus, in quo est verum vel falsum, sed quemdam ordinem ad hoc consequentem; inde est quod in nulla earum invenitur verum vel falsum, sed solum in enunciativa, quae significat id quod mens de rebus concipit. Et inde est quod omnes modi orationum, in quibus invenitur verum vel falsum, sub enunciatione continentur: quam quidam dicunt indicativam vel suppositivam. Dubitativa autem ad interrogativam reducitur, sicut et optativa ad deprecativam.	5. But the intellect, or reason, does not just conceive the truth of a thing. It also belongs to its office to direct and order others in accordance with what it conceives. Therefore, besides enunciative speech, which signifies the concept of the mind, there had to be other kinds of speech to signify the order of reason by which others are directed. Now, one man is directed by the reason of another in regard to three things: first, to attend with his mind, and vocative speech relates to this; second, to respond with his voice, and interrogative speech relates to this; third, to execute a work, and in relation to this, imperative speech is used with regard to inferiors, deprecative with regard to superiors. Optative speech is reduced to the latter, for a man does not have the power to move a superior except by the expression of his desire. These four species of speech do not signify the conception of the intellect in which there is truth or falsity, but a certain order following upon this. Consequently truth or falsity is not found in any of them, but only in enunciative speech, which signifies what the mind conceives from things. It follows that all the modes of speech in which the true or false is found are contained under the enunciation, which some call indicative or suppositive. The dubitative, it should be noted, is reduced to the interrogative, as the optative is to the deprecative.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 7 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: caeterae igitur relinquantur etc., ostendit quod de sola enunciativa est agendum; et dicit quod aliae quatuor orationis species sunt relinquendae, quantum pertinet ad praesentem intentionem: quia earum consideratio convenientior est rhetoricae vel poeticae scientiae. Sed enunciativa oratio praesentis considerationis est. Cuius ratio est, quia consideratio huius libri directe ordinatur ad scientiam demonstrativam, in qua animus hominis per rationem inducitur ad consentiendum vero ex his quae sunt propria rei; et ideo demonstrator non utitur ad suum finem nisi enunciativis orationibus, significantibus res secundum quod earum veritas est in anima. Sed rhetor et poeta inducunt ad assentiendum ei quod intendunt, non solum per ea quae sunt propria rei, sed etiam per dispositiones audientis. Unde rhetores et poetae plerumque movere auditores nituntur provocando eos ad aliquas passiones, ut philosophus dicit in sua rhetorica. Et ideo consideratio dictarum specierum orationis, quae pertinet ad ordinationem audientis in aliquid, cadit proprie sub consideratione rhetoricae vel poeticae, ratione sui significati; ad considerationem autem grammatici, prout consideratur in eis congrua vocum constructio.	6. Then Aristotle says, Let us therefore consider enunciative speech, etc. Here he points out that only enunciative speech is to be treated; the other four species must be omitted as far as the present intention is concerned, because their investigation belongs rather to the sciences of rhetoric or poetics. Enunciative speech belongs to the present consideration and for the following reason: this book is ordered directly to demonstrative science, in which the mind of man is led by an act of reasoning to assent to truth from those things that are proper to the thing; to this end the demonstrator uses only enunciative speech, which signifies things according as truth about them is in the mind. The rhetorician and the poet, on the other hand, induce assent to what they intend not only through what is proper to the thing but also through the dispositions of the hearer. Hence, rhetoricians and poets for the most part strive to move their auditors by arousing certain passions in them, as the Philosopher says in his Rhetorica [I, 2: 1356a 2, 1356a 14; III, 1: 1403b 12]. This kind of speech, therefore, which is concerned with the ordination of the hearer toward something, belongs to the consideration of rhetoric or poetics by reason of its intent, but to the consideration of the grammarian as regards a suitable construction of the vocal sounds.

LECTURE 8

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 1 Postquam philosophus definivit enunciationem, hic dividit eam. Et dividitur in duas partes: in prima, ponit divisionem enunciationis; in secunda, manifestat eam; ibi: necesse est autem et cetera.	1. Having defined the enunciation the Philosopher now divides it. First he gives the division, and then manifests it where he says, Every enunciative speech however, must contain a verb, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 2 Circa primum considerandum est quod Aristoteles sub breviloquio duas divisiones enunciationis ponit. Quarum una est quod enunciationum quaedam est una simplex, quaedam est coniunctione una. Sicut etiam in rebus, quae sunt extra animam, aliquid est unum simplex sicut indivisibile vel continuum, aliquid est unum colligatione aut compositione aut ordine. Quia enim ens et unum convertuntur, necesse est sicut omnem rem, ita et omnem enunciationem aliqualiter esse unam.	2. It should be noted that Aristotle in his concise way gives two divisions of the enunciation. The first is the division into one simply and one by conjunction. This parallels things outside of the soul where there is also something one simply, for instance the indivisible or the continuum, and something one either by aggregation or composition or order. In fact, since being and one are convertible, every enunciation must in some way be one, just as every thing is.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 3 Alia vero subdivisio enunciationis est quod si enunciatio sit una, aut est affirmativa aut negativa. Enunciatio autem affirmativa prior est negativa, triplici ratione, secundum tria quae supra posita sunt: ubi dictum est quod vox est signum intellectus, et intellectus est signum rei. Ex parte igitur vocis, affirmativa enunciatio est prior negativa, quia est simplicior: negativa enim enunciatio addit supra affirmativam particulam negativam. Ex parte etiam intellectus affirmativa enunciatio, quae significat compositionem intellectus, est prior negativa, quae significat divisionem eiusdem: divisio enim naturaliter posterior est compositione, nam non est divisio nisi compositorum, sicut non est corruptio nisi generatorum. Ex parte etiam rei, affirmativa enunciatio, quae significat esse, prior est negativa, quae significat non esse: sicut habitus naturaliter prior est privatione.	3. The other is a subdivision of the enunciation: the division of it as it is one into affirmative and negative. The affirmative enunciation is prior to the negative for three reasons, which are related to three things already stated. It was said that vocal sound is a sign of thought and thought a sign of the thing. Accordingly, with respect to vocal sound, affirmative enunciation is prior to negative because it is simpler, for the negative enunciation adds a negative particle to the affirmative. With respect to thought, the affirmative enunciation, which signifies composition by the intellect, is prior to the negative, which signifies division, for division is posterior by nature to composition since division is only of composite things—just as corruption is only of generated things. With respect to the thing, the affirmative enunciation, which signifies to be is prior to the negative, which signifies not to be, as the having of something is naturally prior to the privation of it.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 4 Dicit ergo quod oratio enunciativa una et prima est affirmatio, idest affirmativa enunciatio. Et contra hoc quod dixerat prima, subdit: deinde negatio, idest negativa oratio, quia est posterior affirmativa, ut dictum est. Contra id autem quod dixerat una, scilicet simpliciter, subdit quod quaedam aliae sunt unae, non simpliciter, sed coniunctione unae.	4. What he says, then, is this: Affirmation, i.e., affirmative enunciation, is one and the first enunciative speech. And in opposition to first he adds, then negation, i.e., negative speech, for it is posterior to affirmative, as we have said. In Opposition to one, i.e., one simply, he adds, certain others are one, not simply, but one by conjunction.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 5 Ex hoc autem quod hic dicitur argumentatur Alexander quod divisio enunciationis in affirmationem et negationem non est divisio generis in species, sed divisio nominis multiplicis in sua significata. Genus enim univoce praedicatur de suis speciebus, non secundum prius et posterius: unde Aristoteles noluit quod ens esset genus commune omnium, quia per prius praedicatur de substantia, quam de novem generibus accidentium.	5. From what Aristotle says here Alexander argues that the division of enunciation into affirmation and negation is Dot a division of a genus into species, but a division of a multiple name into its meanings; for a genus is not predicated according to the prior and posterior, but is predicated univocally of its species; this is the reason Aristotle would not grant that being is a common genus of all things, for it is predicated first of substance, and then of the nine genera of accidents.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 6 Sed dicendum quod unum dividentium aliquod commune potest esse prius altero dupliciter: uno modo, secundum proprias rationes, aut naturas dividentium; alio modo, secundum participationem rationis illius communis quod in ea dividitur. Primum autem non tollit univocationem generis, ut manifestum est in numeris, in quibus binarius secundum propriam rationem naturaliter est prior ternario; sed tamen aequaliter participant rationem generis sui, scilicet numeri: ita enim est ternarius multitudo mensurata per unum, sicut et binarius. Sed secundum impedit univocationem generis. Et propter hoc ens non potest esse genus substantiae et accidentis: quia in ipsa ratione entis, substantia, quae est ens per se, prioritatem habet respectu accidentis, quod est ens per aliud et in alio. Sic ergo affirmatio secundum propriam rationem prior est negatione; tamen aequaliter participant rationem enunciationis, quam supra posuit, videlicet quod enunciatio est oratio in qua verum vel falsum est.	6. However, in the division of that which is common, one of the dividing members can be prior to another in two ways: according to the proper notions” or natures of the dividing members, or according to the participation of that common notion that is divided in them. The first of these does not destroy the univocity of a genus, as is evident in numbers. Twoness, according to its proper notion, is naturally prior to threeness, yet they equally participate in the notion of their genus, i.e., number; for both a multitude consisting of three and a multitude consisting of two is measured by one. The second, however, does impede the univocity of a genus. This is why being cannot be the genus of substance and accident, for in the very notion of being, substance, which is being per se, has priority in respect to accident, which is being through another and in another. Applying this distinction to the matter at hand, we see that affirmation is prior to negation in the first way, i.e., according to its notion, yet they equally participate in the definition Aristotle has given of the enunciation, i.e., speech in which there is truth or falsity.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: necesse est autem etc., manifestat propositas divisiones. Et primo, manifestat primam, scilicet quod enunciatio vel est una simpliciter vel coniunctione una; secundo, manifestat secundam, scilicet quod enunciatio simpliciter una vel est affirmativa vel negativa; ibi: est autem simplex enunciatio et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, praemittit quaedam, quae sunt necessaria ad propositum manifestandum; secundo, manifestat propositum; ibi: est autem una oratio et cetera.	7. Where he says, Every enunciative speech, however, must contain a verb or a mode of the verb, etc., he explains the divisions. He gives two explanations, one of the division of enunciation into one simply and one by conjunction, the second of the division of the enunciation which is one simply into affirmative or negative. The latter explanation begins where he says, A simple enunciation is vocal sound signifying that something belongs or does not belong to a subject, etc. Before he explains the first division, i.e., into one simply and one by conjunction, he states certain things that are necessary for the evidence of the explanation, and then explains the division where he says, Enunciative speech is one when it signifies one thing, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 8 Circa primum duo facit: primo, dicit quod omnem orationem enunciativam oportet constare ex verbo quod est praesentis temporis, vel ex casu verbi quod est praeteriti vel futuri. Tacet autem de verbo infinito, quia eumdem usum habet in enunciatione sicut et verbum negativum. Manifestat autem quod dixerat per hoc, quod non solum nomen unum sine verbo non facit orationem perfectam enunciativam, sed nec etiam oratio imperfecta. Definitio enim oratio quaedam est, et tamen si ad rationem hominis, idest definitionem non addatur aut est, quod est verbum, aut erat, aut fuit, quae sunt casus verbi, aut aliquid huiusmodi, idest aliquod aliud verbum seu casus verbi, nondum est oratio enunciativa.	8. He states the first thing that is necessary for his explanation when he says that every enunciative speech must contain a verb in present time, or a case of the verb, i.e., in past or future time. (The infinite verb is not mentioned because it has the same function in the enunciation as the negative verb.) To manifest this he shows that one name, without a verb, does not even constitute imperfect enunciative speech, let alone perfect speech. Definition, he points out, is a certain kind of speech, and yet if the verb "is” or modes of the verb such as "was” or "has been” or something of the kind, is not added to the notion of man, i.e., to the definition, it is not enunciative speech.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 9 Potest autem esse dubitatio: cum enunciatio constet ex nomine et verbo, quare non facit mentionem de nomine, sicut de verbo? Ad quod tripliciter responderi potest. Primo quidem, quia nulla oratio enunciativa invenitur sine verbo vel casu verbi; invenitur autem aliqua enunciatio sine nomine, puta cum nos utimur infinitivis verborum loco nominum; ut cum dicitur, currere est moveri. Secundo et melius, quia, sicut supra dictum est, verbum est nota eorum quae de altero praedicantur. Praedicatum autem est principalior pars enunciationis, eo quod est pars formalis et completiva ipsius. Unde vocatur apud Graecos propositio categorica, idest praedicativa. Denominatio autem fit a forma, quae dat speciem rei. Et ideo potius fecit mentionem de verbo tanquam de parte principaliori et formaliori. Cuius signum est, quia enunciatio categorica dicitur affirmativa vel negativa solum ratione verbi, quod affirmatur vel negatur; sicut etiam conditionalis dicitur affirmativa vel negativa, eo quod affirmatur vel negatur coniunctio a qua denominatur. Tertio, potest dici, et adhuc melius, quod non erat intentio Aristotelis ostendere quod nomen vel verbum non sufficiant ad enunciationem complendam: hoc enim supra manifestavit tam de nomine quam de verbo. Sed quia dixerat quod quaedam enunciatio est una simpliciter, quaedam autem coniunctione una; posset aliquis intelligere quod illa quae est una simpliciter careret omni compositione: sed ipse hoc excludit per hoc quod in omni enunciatione oportet esse verbum, quod importat compositionem, quam non est intelligere sine compositis, sicut supra dictum est. Nomen autem non importat compositionem, et ideo non exigit praesens intentio ut de nomine faceret mentionem, sed solum de verbo.	9. But, one might ask, why mention the verb and not the name, for the enunciation consists of a name and a verb? This can be answered in three ways. First of all because enunciative speech is not attained without a verb or a mode of the verb, but it is without a name, for instance, when infinitive forms of the verb are used in place of names, as in "To run is to be moving.” A second and better reason for speaking only of the verb is that the verb is a sign of what is predicated of another. Now the predicate is the principal part of the enunciation because it is the formal part and completes it. This is the reason the Greeks called the enunciation a categorical, i.e., predicative, proposition. It should also be noted that denomination is made from the form which gives species to the thing. He speaks of the verb, then, but not the name, because it is the more principal and formal part of the enunciation. A sign of this is that the categorical enunciation is said to be affirmative or negative solely by reason of the verb being affirmed or denied, and the conditional enunciation is said to be affirmative or negative by reason of the conjunction by which it is denominated being affirmed or denied. A third and even better reason is that Aristotle did not intend to show that the name or verb is not sufficient for a complete enunciation, for he explained this earlier. Rather, he is excluding a misunderstanding that might arise from his saying that one kind of enunciation is one simply and another kind is one by conjunction. Some might think this means that the kind that is one simply, lacks all composition. But he excludes this by saying that there must be a verb in every enunciation; for the verb implies composition and composition cannot be understood apart from the things composed, as he said earlier.” The name, on the other hand, does not imply composition and therefore did not have to be mentioned.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 10 Secundo; ibi: quare autem etc., ostendit aliud quod est necessarium ad manifestationem propositi, scilicet quod hoc quod dico, animal gressibile bipes, quae est definitio hominis, est unum et non multa. Et eadem ratio est de omnibus aliis definitionibus. Sed huiusmodi rationem assignare dicit esse alterius negocii. Pertinet enim ad metaphysicum; unde in VII et in VIII metaphysicae ratio huius assignatur: quia scilicet differentia advenit generi non per accidens sed per se, tanquam determinativa ipsius, per modum quo materia determinatur per formam. Nam a materia sumitur genus, a forma autem differentia. Unde sicut ex forma et materia fit vere unum et non multa, ita ex genere et differentia.	10. The other, point necessary for the evidence of the first division is made where he says, but then the question arises as to why the definition "terrestrial biped animal” is something one, etc. He indicates by this that "terrestrial biped animal,” which is a definition of man, is one and not many. The reason it is one is the same as in the case of all definitions but, he says, to assign the reason belongs to another subject of inquiry. It belongs, in fact, to metaphysics and he assigns the reason in VII and VIII Metaphysicae [VII, 12: 1037b 7; VIII, 6: 1045a 6] which is this: the difference does not accrue to the genus accidentally but per se and is determinative of it in the way in which form determines matter; for the genus is taken from matter, the difference from form. Whence, just as one thing—not many—comes to be from form and matter, so one thing comes to be from the genus and difference.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 11 Excludit autem quamdam rationem huius unitatis, quam quis posset suspicari, ut scilicet propter hoc definitio dicatur unum, quia partes eius sunt propinquae, idest sine aliqua interpositione coniunctionis vel morae. Et quidem non interruptio locutionis necessaria est ad unitatem definitionis, quia si interponeretur coniunctio partibus definitionis, iam secunda non determinaret primam, sed significarentur ut actu multae in locutione: et idem operatur interpositio morae, qua utuntur rhetores loco coniunctionis. Unde ad unitatem definitionis requiritur quod partes eius proferantur sine coniunctione et interpolatione: quia etiam in re naturali, cuius est definitio, nihil cadit medium inter materiam et formam: sed praedicta non interruptio non sufficit ad unitatem definitionis, quia contingit etiam hanc continuitatem prolationis servari in his, quae non sunt simpliciter unum, sed per accidens; ut si dicam, homo albus musicus. Sic igitur Aristoteles valde subtiliter manifestavit quod absoluta unitas enunciationis non impeditur, neque per compositionem quam importat verbum, neque per multitudinem nominum ex quibus constat definitio. Et est eadem ratio utrobique, nam praedicatum comparatur ad subiectum ut forma ad materiam, et similiter differentia ad genus: ex forma autem et materia fit unum simpliciter.	11. The reason for the unity of this definition might be supposed by some to be only that of juxtaposition of the parts, i.e., that "terrestrial biped animal” is said to be one only because the parts are side by side without conjunction or pause. But he excludes such a notion of its unity. Now it is true that non-interruption of locution is necessary for the unity of a definition, for if a conjunction were put between the parts the second part would not determine the first immediately and the many in locution would consequently signify many in act. The pause used by rhetoricians in place of a conjunction would do the same thing. Whence it is a requirement for the unity of a definition that its parts be uttered without conjunction and interpolation, the reason being that in the natural thing, whose definition it is, nothing mediates between matter and form. However, non-interruption of locution is not the only thing that is needed for unity of the definition, for there can be continuity of utterance in regard to things that are not one simply, but are accidentally, as in white musical man.” Aristotle has therefore manifested very subtly that absolute unity of the enunciation is not impeded either by the composition which the verb implies or by the multitude of names from which a definition is established. And the reason is the same in both cases, i.e., the predicate is related to the subject as form to matter, as is the difference to a genus; but from form and matter a thing that is one simply comes into existence.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit: est autem una oratio etc., accedit ad manifestandam praedictam divisionem. Et primo, manifestat ipsum commune quod dividitur, quod est enunciatio una; secundo, manifestat partes divisionis secundum proprias rationes; ibi: harum autem haec simplex et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, manifestat ipsam divisionem; secundo, concludit quod ab utroque membro divisionis nomen et verbum excluduntur; ibi: nomen ergo et verbum et cetera. Opponitur autem unitati pluralitas; et ideo enunciationis unitatem manifestat per modos pluralitatis.	12. He begins to explain the division when he says, Enunciative speech is one when it signifies one thing, etc. First he makes the common thing that is divided evident, i.e., the enunciation as it is one; secondly, he makes the parts of the division evident according to their own proper notions, where he says, Of enunciations that are one, simple enunciation is one kind, etc. After he has made the division of the common thing evident, i.e., enunciation, he then concludes that the name and the verb are excluded from each member of the division where he says, Let us call the name or the verb a word only, etc. Now plurality is opposed to unity. Therefore he is going to manifest the unity of the enunciation through the modes of plurality.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 13 Dicit ergo primo quod enunciatio dicitur vel una absolute, scilicet quae unum de uno significat, vel una secundum quid, scilicet quae est coniunctione una. Per oppositum autem est intelligendum quod enunciationes plures sunt, vel ex eo quod plura significant et non unum: quod opponitur primo modo unitatis; vel ex eo quod absque coniunctione proferuntur: et tales opponuntur secundo modo unitatis.	13. He begins his explanation by saying that enunciation is either one absolutely, i.e., it signifies one thing said of one thing, or one relatively, i.e., it is one by conjunction. In opposition to these are the enunciations that are many, either because they signify not one but many things, which is opposed to the first mode of unity or because they are uttered without a connecting particle, which is opposed to the second mode of unity.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 14 Circa quod considerandum est, secundum Boethium, quod unitas et pluralitas orationis refertur ad significatum; simplex autem et compositum attenditur secundum ipsas voces. Et ideo enunciatio quandoque est una et simplex puta cum solum ex nomine et verbo componitur in unum significatum; ut cum dico, homo est albus. Est etiam quandoque una oratio, sed composita, quae quidem unam rem significat, sed tamen composita est vel ex pluribus terminis; sicut si dicam, animal rationale mortale currit, vel ex pluribus enunciationibus, sicut in conditionalibus, quae quidem unum significant et non multa. Similiter autem quandoque in enunciatione est pluralitas cum simplicitate, puta cum in oratione ponitur aliquod nomen multa significans; ut si dicam, canis latrat, haec oratio plures est, quia plura significat, et tamen simplex est. Quandoque vero in enunciatione est pluralitas et compositio, puta cum ponuntur plura in subiecto vel in praedicato, ex quibus non fit unum, sive interveniat coniunctio sive non; puta si dicam, homo albus musicus disputat: et similiter est si coniungantur plures enunciationes, sive cum coniunctione sive sine coniunctione; ut si dicam, Socrates currit, Plato disputat. Et secundum hoc sensus litterae est quod enunciatio una est illa, quae unum de uno significat, non solum si sit simplex, sed etiam si sit coniunctione una. Et similiter enunciationes plures dicuntur quae plura et non unum significant: non solum quando interponitur aliqua coniunctio, vel inter nomina vel verba, vel etiam inter ipsas enunciationes; sed etiam si vel inconiunctione, idest absque aliqua interposita coniunctione plura significat, vel quia est unum nomen aequivocum, multa significans, vel quia ponuntur plura nomina absque coniunctione, ex quorum significatis non fit unum; ut si dicam, homo albus grammaticus logicus currit.	14. Boethius interprets this passage in the following way. "Unity” and "plurality” of speech refers to what is signified, whereas "simple” and "composite” is related to the vocal sounds. Accordingly, an enunciation is sometimes one and simple, namely, when one thing is signified by the composition of name and verb, as in "Man is white.” Sometimes it is one and composite. In this case it signifies one thing, but is composed either from many terms, as in "A mortal rational animal is running,” or from many enunciations, as in conditionals that signify one thing and not many. On the other hand, sometimes there is plurality along with simplicity, namely, when a name signifying many things is used, as in "The dog barks,” in which case the enunciation is many because it signifies many things [i.e., it signifies equivocally], but it is simple as far as vocal sound is concerned. But sometimes there is plurality and composition, namely, when many things are posited on the part of the subject or predicate from which one thing does not result, whether a conjunction intervenes or not, as in "The musical white man is arguing.” This is also the case if there are many enunciations joined together, with or without connecting particles as in "Socrates runs, Plato discusses. According to this exposition the meaning of the passage in question is this: an enunciation is one when it signifies one thing said of one thing, and this is the case whether the enunciation is one simply or is one by conjunction; an enunciation is many when it signifies not one but many things, and this not only when a conjunction is inserted between either the names or verbs or between the enunciations themselves, but even if there are many things that are not conjoined. In the latter case they signify many things either because an equivocal name is used or because many names signifying many things from which one thing does not result are used without conjunctions, as in "The white grammatical logical man is running.”
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 15 Sed haec expositio non videtur esse secundum intentionem Aristotelis. Primo quidem, quia per disiunctionem, quam interponit, videtur distinguere inter orationem unum significantem, et orationem quae est coniunctione una. Secundo, quia supra dixerat quod est unum quoddam et non multa, animal gressibile bipes. Quod autem est coniunctione unum, non est unum et non multa, sed est unum ex multis. Et ideo melius videtur dicendum quod Aristoteles, quia supra dixerat aliquam enunciationem esse unam et aliquam coniunctione unam, vult hic manifestare quae sit una. Et quia supra dixerat quod multa nomina simul coniuncta sunt unum, sicut animal gressibile bipes, dicit consequenter quod enunciatio est iudicanda una non ex unitate nominis, sed ex unitate significati, etiam si sint plura nomina quae unum significent. Vel si sit aliqua enunciatio una quae multa significet, non erit una simpliciter, sed coniunctione una. Et secundum hoc, haec enunciatio, animal gressibile bipes est risibile, non est una quasi coniunctione una, sicut in prima expositione dicebatur, sed quia unum significat.	15. However, this exposition does not seem to be what Aristotle had in mind. First of all the disjunction he inserts seems to indicate that he is distinguishing between speech signifying one thing and speech which is one by conjunction. In the second place, he has just said that terrestrial biped animal is something one and not many. Moreover, what is one by conjunction is not one, and not many, but one from many. Hence it seems better to say that since he has already said that one kind of enunciation is one simply and another kind is one by conjunction be is showing here what one enunciation is. Having said, then, that many names joined together are something one as in the example "terrestrial biped animal,” he goes on to say that an enunciation is to be judged as one, not from the unity of the name but from the unity of what is signified, even if there are many names signifying the one thing; and if an enunciation which signifies many things is one, it will not be one simply, but one by conjunction. Hence, the enunciation "A terrestrial biped animal is risible,” is not one in the sense of one by conjunction as the first exposition would have it, but because it signifies one thing.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 16 Et quia oppositum per oppositum manifestatur, consequenter ostendit quae sunt plures enunciationes, et ponit duos modos pluralitatis. Primus est, quod plures dicuntur enunciationes quae plura significant. Contingit autem aliqua plura significari in aliquo uno communi; sicut cum dico, animal est sensibile, sub hoc uno communi, quod est animal, multa continentur, et tamen haec enunciatio est una et non plures. Et ideo addit et non unum. Sed melius est ut dicatur hoc esse additum propter definitionem, quae multa significat quae sunt unum: et hic modus pluralitatis opponitur primo modo unitatis. Secundus modus pluralitatis est, quando non solum enunciationes plura significant, sed etiam illa plura nullatenus coniunguntur, et hic modus pluralitatis opponitur secundo modo unitatis. Et secundum hoc patet quod secundus modus unitatis non opponitur primo modo pluralitatis. Ea autem quae non sunt opposita, possunt simul esse. Unde manifestum est, enunciationem quae est una coniunctione, esse etiam plures: plures in quantum significat plura et non unum. Secundum hoc ergo possumus accipere tres modos enunciationis. Nam quaedam est simpliciter una, in quantum unum significat; quaedam est simpliciter plures, in quantum plura significat, sed est una secundum quid, in quantum est coniunctione una; quaedam sunt simpliciter plures, quae neque significant unum, neque coniunctione aliqua uniuntur. Ideo autem Aristoteles quatuor ponit et non solum tria, quia quandoque est enunciatio plures, quia plura significat, non tamen est coniunctione una, puta si ponatur ibi nomen multa significans.	16. Then—because an opposite is manifested through an opposite—he goes on to show which enunciations are many, and he posits two modes of plurality. Enunciations are said to be many which signify many things. Many things may be signified in some one common thing however; when I say, for example, "An animal is a sentient being,” many things are contained under the one common thing, animal, but such an enunciation is still one, not many. Therefore Aristotle adds, and not one. It would be better to say, however, that the and not one is added because of definition, which signifies many things that are one. The mode of plurality he has spoken of thus far is opposed to the first mode of unity. The second mode of plurality covers enunciations that not only signify many things but many that are in no way joined together. This mode is opposed to the second mode of unity. Thus it is evident that the second mode of unity is not opposed to the first mode of plurality. Now those things that are not opposed can be together. Therefore, the enunciation that is one by conjunction is also many many insofar as it signifies many and not one. According to this understanding of the text there are three modes of the enunciation: the enunciation that is one simply inasmuch as it signifies one thing; the enunciation that is many simply inasmuch as it signifies many things, but is one relatively inasmuch as it is one by conjunction; finally, the enunciations that are many simply—those that do not signify one thing and are not united by any conjunction. Aristotle posits four kinds of enunciation rather than three, for an enunciation is sometimes many because it signifies many things, and yet is not one by conjunction; a case in point would be an enunciation in which a name signifying many things is used.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 17 Deinde cum dicit: nomen ergo et verbum etc., excludit ab unitate orationis nomen et verbum. Dixerat enim quod enunciatio una est, quae unum significat: posset autem aliquis intelligere, quod sic unum significaret sicut nomen et verbum unum significant. Et ideo ad hoc excludendum subdit: nomen ergo, et verbum dictio sit sola, idest ita sit dictio, quod non enunciatio. Et videtur, ex modo loquendi, quod ipse imposuerit hoc nomen ad significandum partes enunciationis. Quod autem nomen et verbum dictio sit sola manifestat per hoc, quod non potest dici quod ille enunciet, qui sic aliquid significat voce, sicut nomen, vel verbum significat. Et ad hoc manifestandum innuit duos modos utendi enunciatione. Quandoque enim utimur ipsa quasi ad interrogata respondentes; puta si quaeratur, quis sit in scholis? Respondemus, magister. Quandoque autem utimur ea propria sponte, nullo interrogante; sicut cum dicimus, Petrus currit. Dicit ergo, quod ille qui significat aliquid unum nomine vel verbo, non enunciat vel sicut ille qui respondet aliquo interrogante, vel sicut ille qui profert enunciationem non aliquo interrogante, sed ipso proferente sponte. Introduxit autem hoc, quia simplex nomen vel verbum, quando respondetur ad interrogationem, videtur verum vel falsum significare: quod est proprium enunciationis. Sed hoc non competit nomini vel verbo, nisi secundum quod intelligitur coniunctum cum alia parte proposita in interrogatione. Ut si quaerenti, quis legit in scholis? Respondeatur, magister, subintelligitur, ibi legit. Si ergo ille qui enunciat aliquid nomine vel verbo non enunciat, manifestum est quod enunciatio non sic unum significat, sicut nomen vel verbum. Hoc autem inducit sicut conclusionem eius quod supra praemisit: necesse est omnem orationem enunciativam ex verbo esse vel ex casu verbi.	17. Where he says, Let us call the name or the verb a word only, etc., he excludes the name and the verb from the unity of speech. His reason for making this point is that his statement, "an enunciation is one inasmuch as it signifies one thing,” might be taken to mean that an enunciation signifies one thing in the same way the name or verb signify one thing. To prevent such a misunderstanding he says, Let us call the name or the verb a word only, i.e., a locution which is not an enunciation. From his mode of speaking it would seem that Aristotle himself imposed the name "phasis” [word] to signify such parts of the enunciation. Then he shows that a name or verb is only a word by pointing out that we do not say that a person is enunciating when be signifies something in vocal sound in the way in which a name or verb signifies. To manifest this he suggests two ways of using the enunciation. Sometimes we use it to reply to questions; for example if someone asks "Who is it who discusses,” we answer "The teacher.” At other times we use the enunciation, not in reply to a question, but of our own accord, as when we say "Peter is running.” What Aristotle is saying, then, is that the person who signifies something one by a name or a verb is not enunciating in the way in which either the person who replies to a question or who utters an enunciation of his own accord is enunciating. He introduces this point because the simple name or verb, when used in reply to a question seems to signify truth or falsity and truth or falsity is what is proper to the enunciation. Truth and falsity is not proper, however, to the name or verb unless it is understood as joined to another part proposed in a question; if someone should ask, for example, "Who reads in the schools,” we would answer, "The teacher,” understanding also, "reads there.” If, then, something expressed by a name or verb is not an enunciation, it is evident that the enunciation does not signify one thing in the same way as the name or verb signify one thing. Aristotle draws this by way of a conclusion from, Every enunciative speech must contain a verb or a mode of the verb, which was stated earlier.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 18 Deinde cum dicit: harum autem haec simplex etc., manifestat praemissam divisionem secundum rationes partium. Dixerat enim quod una enunciatio est quae unum de uno significat, et alia est quae est coniunctione una. Ratio autem huius divisionis est ex eo quod unum natum est dividi per simplex et compositum. Et ideo dicit: harum autem, scilicet enunciationum, in quibus dividitur unum, haec dicitur una, vel quia significat unum simpliciter, vel quia una est coniunctione. Haec quidem simplex enunciatio est, quae scilicet unum significat. Sed ne intelligatur quod sic significet unum, sicut nomen vel verbum, ad excludendum hoc subdit: ut aliquid de aliquo, idest per modum compositionis, vel aliquid ab aliquo, idest per modum divisionis. Haec autem ex his coniuncta, quae scilicet dicitur coniunctione una, est velut oratio iam composita: quasi dicat hoc modo, enunciationis unitas dividitur in duo praemissa, sicut aliquod unum dividitur in simplex et compositum.	18. Then when he says, Of enunciations that are one, simple enunciation is one kind, etc., he manifests the division of enunciation by the natures of the parts. He has said that the enunciation is one when it signifies one thing or is one by conjunction. The basis of this division is the nature of one, which is such that it can be divided into simple and composite. Hence, Aristotle says, Of these, i.e., enunciations into which one is divided, which are said to be one either because the enunciation signifies one thing simply or because it is one by conjunction, simple enunciation is one kind, i.e., the enunciation that signifies one thing. And to exclude the understanding of this as signifying one thing in the same way as the name or the verb signifies one thing he adds, something affirmed of something, i.e., by way of composition, or something denied of something, i.e., by way of division. The other kind—the enunciation that is said to be one by conjunction—is composite, i.e., speech composed of these simple enunciations. In other words, he is saying that the unity of the enunciation is divided into simple and composite, just as one is divided into simple and composite.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 19 Deinde cum dicit: est autem simplex etc., manifestat secundam divisionem enunciationis, secundum videlicet quod enunciatio dividitur in affirmationem et negationem. Haec autem divisio primo quidem convenit enunciationi simplici; ex consequenti autem convenit compositae enunciationi; et ideo ad insinuandum rationem praedictae divisionis dicit quod simplex enunciatio est vox significativa de eo quod est aliquid: quod pertinet ad affirmationem; vel non est aliquid: quod pertinet ad negationem. Et ne hoc intelligatur solum secundum praesens tempus, subdit: quemadmodum tempora sunt divisa, idest similiter hoc habet locum in aliis temporibus sicut et in praesenti.	19. He manifests the second division of the enunciation where he says, A simple enunciation is vocal sound signifying that something belongs or does not belong to a subject, i.e., the division of enunciation into affirmation and negation. This is a division that belongs primarily to the simple enunciation and consequently to the composite enunciation; therefore, in order to suggest the basis of the division he says that a simple enunciation is vocal sound signifying that something belongs to a subject, which pertains to affirmation, or does not belong to a subject, which pertains to negation. And to make it clear that this is not to be understood only of present time he adds, according to the divisions of time, i.e., this holds for other times as well as the present.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 20 Alexander autem existimavit quod Aristoteles hic definiret enunciationem; et quia in definitione enunciationis videtur ponere affirmationem et negationem, volebat hic accipere quod enunciatio non esset genus affirmationis et negationis, quia species nunquam ponitur in definitione generis. Id autem quod non univoce praedicatur de multis (quia scilicet non significat aliquid unum, quod sit unum commune multis), non potest notificari nisi per illa multa quae significantur. Et inde est quod quia unum non dicitur aequivoce de simplici et composito, sed per prius et posterius, Aristoteles in praecedentibus semper ad notificandum unitatem enunciationis usus est utroque. Quia ergo videtur uti affirmatione et negatione ad notificandum enunciationem, volebat Alexander accipere quod enunciatio non dicitur de affirmatione et negatione univoce sicut genus de suis speciebus.	20. Alexander thought that Aristotle was defining the enunciation here and because he seems to put affirmation and negation in the "definition” he took this to mean that enunciation is not the genus of affirmation and negation, for the species is never posited in the definition of the genus. Now what is not predicated univocally of many (namely, because it does not signify something one that is common to many) cannot be made known except through the many that are signified. "One” is not said equivocally of the simple and composite, but primarily and consequently, and hence Aristotle always used both "simple” and "composite” in the preceding reasoning to make the unity of the enunciation known. Now, here he seems to use affirmation and negation to make the enunciation known; therefore, Alexander took this to mean that enunciation is not said of affirmation and negation univocally as a genus of its species.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 8 n. 21 Sed contrarium apparet ex hoc, quod philosophus consequenter utitur nomine enunciationis ut genere, cum in definitione affirmationis et negationis subdit quod, affirmatio est enunciatio alicuius de aliquo, scilicet per modum compositionis, negatio vero est enunciatio alicuius ab aliquo, scilicet per modum divisionis. Nomine autem aequivoco non consuevimus uti ad notificandum significata eius. Et ideo Boethius dicit quod Aristoteles suo modo breviloquio utens, simul usus est et definitione et divisione eius: ita ut quod dicit de eo quod est aliquid vel non est, non referatur ad definitionem enunciationis, sed ad eius divisionem. Sed quia differentiae divisivae generis non cadunt in eius definitione, nec hoc solum quod dicitur vox significativa, sufficiens est definitio enunciationis; melius dici potest secundum Porphyrium, quod hoc totum quod dicitur vox significativa de eo quod est, vel de eo quod non est, est definitio enunciationis. Nec tamen ponitur affirmatio et negatio in definitione enunciationis sed virtus affirmationis et negationis, scilicet significatum eius, quod est esse vel non esse, quod est naturaliter prius enunciatione. Affirmationem autem et negationem postea definivit per terminos utriusque cum dixit: affirmationem esse enunciationem alicuius de aliquo, et negationem enunciationem alicuius ab aliquo. Sed sicut in definitione generis non debent poni species, ita nec ea quae sunt propria specierum. Cum igitur significare esse sit proprium affirmationis, et significare non esse sit proprium negationis, melius videtur dicendum, secundum Ammonium, quod hic non definitur enunciatio, sed solum dividitur. Supra enim posita est definitio, cum dictum est quod enunciatio est oratio in qua est verum vel falsum. In qua quidem definitione nulla mentio facta est nec de affirmatione, nec de negatione. Est autem considerandum quod artificiosissime procedit: dividit enim genus non in species, sed in differentias specificas. Non enim dicit quod enunciatio est affirmatio vel negatio, sed vox significativa de eo quod est, quae est differentia specifica affirmationis, vel de eo quod non est, in quo tangitur differentia specifica negationis. Et ideo ex differentiis adiunctis generi constituit definitionem speciei, cum subdit: quod affirmatio est enunciatio alicuius de aliquo, per quod significatur esse; et negatio est enunciatio alicuius ab aliquo quod significat non esse.	21. But the contrary appears to be the case, for the Philosopher subsequently uses the name "enunciation” as a genus when in defining affirmation and negation he says, Affirmation is the enunciation of something about something, i.e., by way of composition; negation is the enunciation of something separated from something, i.e., by way of division. Moreover, it is not customary to use an equivocal name to make known the things it signifies. Boethius for this reason says that Aristotle with his customary brevity is using both the definition and its division at once. Therefore when he says that something belongs or does not belong to a subject he is not referring to the definition of enunciation but to its division. However, since the differences dividing a genus do not fall in its definition and since vocal sound signifying is not a sufficient definition of the enunciation, Porphyry thought it would be better to say that the whole expression, vocal sound signifying that something belongs or does not belong to a subject, is the definition of the enunciation. According to his exposition this is not affirmation and negation that is posited in the definition, but capacity for affirmation and negation, i.e., what the enunciation is a sign of, which is to be or not to be, which is prior in nature to the enunciation. Then immediately following this he defines affirmation and negation in terms of themselves when he says, Affirmation is the enunciation of something about something; negation the enunciation of something separated from something. But just as the species should not be stated in the definition of the genus, so neither should the properties of the species. Now to signify to be is the property of the affirmation, and to signify not to be the property of the negation. Therefore Ammonius thought it would be better to say that the enunciation was not defined here, but only divided. For the definition was posited above when it was said that the enunciation is speech in which there is truth or falsity—in which definition no mention is made of either affirmation or negation. It should be noticed, however, that Aristotle proceeds very skillfully here, for he divides the genus, not into species, but into specific differences. He does not say that the enunciation is an affirmation or negation, but vocal sound signifying that something belongs to a subject, which is the specific difference of affirmation, or does not belong to a subject, which is the specific difference of negation. Then when he adds, Affirmation is the enunciation of something about something which signifies to be, and negation is the enunciation of something separated from something, which signifies not to be, he establishes the definition of the species by joining the differences to the genus.

LECTURE 9

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 9 n. 1 Posita divisione enunciationis, hic agit de oppositione partium enunciationis, scilicet affirmationis et negationis. Et quia enunciationem esse dixerat orationem, in qua est verum vel falsum, primo, ostendit qualiter enunciationes ad invicem opponantur; secundo, movet quamdam dubitationem circa praedeterminata et solvit; ibi: in his ergo quae sunt et quae facta sunt et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ostendit qualiter una enunciatio opponatur alteri; secundo, ostendit quod tantum una opponitur uni; ibi: manifestum est et cetera. Prima autem pars dividitur in duas partes: in prima, determinat de oppositione affirmationis et negationis absolute; in secunda, ostendit quomodo huiusmodi oppositio diversificatur ex parte subiecti; ibi: quoniam autem sunt et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ostendit quod omni affirmationi est negatio opposita et e converso; secundo, manifestat oppositionem affirmationis et negationis absolute; ibi: et sit hoc contradictio et cetera.	1. Having made the division of the enunciation, Aristotle now deals with the opposition of the parts of the enunciation, i.e., the opposition of affirmation and negation. He has already said that the enunciation is speech in which there is truth or falsity; therefore, he first shows how enunciations are opposed to each other; secondly, he raises a doubt about some things previously determined and then resolves it where he says, In enunciations about that which is or has taken place, etc. He not only shows how one enunciation is opposed to another, but that only one is opposed to one, where he says, It is evident also that there is one negation of one affirmation. In showing how one enunciation is opposed to another, he first treats of the opposition of affirmation and negation absolutely, and then shows in what way opposition of this kind is diversified on the part of the subject where he says, Since some of the things we are concerned with are universal and others singular, etc. With respect to the opposition of affirmation and negation absolutely, he first shows that there is a negation opposed to every affirmation and vice versa, and then where he says, We will call this opposed affirmation and negation "contradiction,” he explains the opposition of affirmation and negation absolutely.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 9 n. 2 Circa primum considerandum est quod ad ostendendum suum propositum philosophus assumit duplicem diversitatem enunciationis: quarum prima est ex ipsa forma vel modo enunciandi, secundum quod dictum est quod enunciatio vel est affirmativa, per quam scilicet enunciatur aliquid esse, vel est negativa per quam significatur aliquid non esse; secunda diversitas est per comparationem ad rem, ex qua dependet veritas et falsitas intellectus et enunciationis. Cum enim enunciatur aliquid esse vel non esse secundum congruentiam rei, est oratio vera; alioquin est oratio falsa.	2. In relation to the first point, that there is a negation opposed to every affirmation and vice versa, the Philosopher assumes a twofold diversity of enunciation. The first arises from the very form or mode of enunciating. According to this diversity, enunciation is either affirmative—in which it is enunciated that something is—or negative—in which it is signified that something is not. The second is the diversity that arises by comparison to reality. Truth and falsity of thought and of the enunciation depend upon this comparison, for when it is enunciated that something is or is not, if there is agreement with reality, there is true speech; otherwise there is false speech.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 9 n. 3 Sic igitur quatuor modis potest variari enunciatio, secundum permixtionem harum duarum divisionum. Uno modo, quia id quod est in re enunciatur ita esse sicut in re est: quod pertinet ad affirmationem veram; puta cum Socrates currit, dicimus Socratem currere. Alio modo, cum enunciatur aliquid non esse quod in re non est: quod pertinet ad negationem veram; ut cum dicitur, Aethiops albus non est. Tertio modo, cum enunciatur aliquid esse quod in re non est: quod pertinet ad affirmationem falsam; ut cum dicitur, corvus est albus. Quarto modo, cum enunciatur aliquid non esse quod in re est: quod pertinet ad negationem falsam; ut cum dicitur, nix non est alba. Philosophus autem, ut a minoribus ad potiora procedat, falsas veris praeponit: inter quas negativam praemittit affirmativae, cum dicit quod contingit enunciare quod est, scilicet in rerum natura, non esse. Secundo autem, ponit affirmativam falsam cum dicit: et quod non est, scilicet in rerum natura, esse. Tertio autem, ponit affirmativam veram, quae opponitur negativae falsae, quam primo posuit, cum dicit: et quod est, scilicet in rerum natura, esse. Quarto autem, ponit negativam veram, quae opponitur affirmationi falsae, cum dicit: et quod non est, scilicet in rerum natura, non esse.	3. The enunciation can therefore be varied in four ways according to a combination of these two divisions: in the first way, what is in reality is enunciated to be as it is in reality. This is characteristic of true affirmation. For example, when Socrates runs, we say, "Socrates is running.” In the second way, it is enunciated that something is not what in reality it is not. This is characteristic of true negation, as when we say, "An Ethiopian is not white.” In the third way, it is enunciated that something is what in reality it is not. This is characteristic of a false affirmation, as in "The raven is white.” In the fourth way, it is enunciated that something is not what it is in reality. This is characteristic of a false negation, as in "Snow is not white.” In order to proceed from the weaker to the stronger the Philosopher puts the false before the true, and among these he states the negative before the affirmative. He begins, then, with the false negative; it is possible to enunciate, that what is, namely, in reality, is not. Secondly, he posits the false affirmative, and that what is not, namely, in reality, is. Thirdly, he posits the true affirmative—which is opposed to the false negative he gave first—and that what is, namely, in reality, is. Fourthly, he posits the true negative—which is opposed to the false affirmative—and that what is not, namely, in reality, is not.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 9 n. 4 Non est autem intelligendum quod hoc quod dixit: quod est et quod non est, sit referendum ad solam existentiam vel non existentiam subiecti, sed ad hoc quod res significata per praedicatum insit vel non insit rei significatae per subiectum. Nam cum dicitur, corvus est albus, significatur quod non est, esse, quamvis ipse corvus sit res existens.	4. In saying what is and what is not, Aristotle is not referring only to the existence or nonexistence of a subject. What he is saying is that the reality signified by the predicate is in or is not in the reality signified by the subject. For what is signified in saying, "The raven is white,” is that what is not, is, although the raven itself is an existing thing.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 9 n. 5 Et sicut istae quatuor differentiae enunciationum inveniuntur in propositionibus, in quibus ponitur verbum praesentis temporis, ita etiam inveniuntur in enunciationibus in quibus ponuntur verba praeteriti vel futuri temporis. Supra enim dixit quod necesse est enunciationem constare ex verbo vel ex casu verbi. Et hoc est quod subdit: quod similiter contingit, scilicet variari diversimode enunciationem circa ea, quae sunt extra praesens tempus, idest circa praeterita vel futura, quae sunt quodammodo extrinseca respectu praesentis, quia praesens est medium praeteriti et futuri.	5. These four differences of enunciations are found in propositions in which there is a verb of present time and also in enunciations in which there are verbs of past or future time. He said earlier that every enunciative speech must contain a verb or a mode of the verb. Here he makes this point in relation to the four differences of enunciations: similarly it is possible to enunciate these, i.e., that the enunciation be varied in diverse ways in regard to those times outside of the present, i.e., with respect to the past or future, which are in a certain way extrinsic in respect to the present, since the present is between the past and the future.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 9 n. 6 Et quia ita est, contingit omne quod quis affirmaverit negare, et omne quod quis negaverit affirmare: quod quidem manifestum est ex praemissis. Non enim potest affirmari nisi vel quod est in rerum natura secundum aliquod trium temporum, vel quod non est; et hoc totum contingit negare. Unde manifestum est quod omne quod affirmatur potest negari, et e converso. Et quia affirmatio et negatio opposita sunt secundum se, utpote ex opposito contradictoriae, consequens est quod quaelibet affirmatio habeat negationem sibi oppositam et e converso. Cuius contrarium illo solo modo posset contingere, si aliqua affirmatio affirmaret aliquid, quod negatio negare non posset.	6. Since there are these four differences of enunciation in past and future time as well as in present time, it is possible to deny everything that is affirmed and to affirm everything that is denied. This is evident from the premises, for it is only possible to affirm either that which is in reality according to past, present, or future time, or that which is not; and it is possible to deny all of this. It is clear, then, that everything that is affirmed can be denied or vice versa. Now, since affirmation and negation are per se opposed, i.e., in an opposition of contradiction, it follows that any affirmation would have a negation opposed to it, and conversely. The contrary of this could happen only if an affirmation could affirm something that the negation could not deny.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 9 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: et sit hoc contradictio etc., manifestat quae sit absoluta oppositio affirmationis et negationis. Et primo, manifestat eam per nomen; secundo, per definitionem; ibi: dico autem et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod cum cuilibet affirmationi opponatur negatio, et e converso, oppositioni huiusmodi imponatur nomen hoc, quod dicatur contradictio. Per hoc enim quod dicitur, et sit hoc contradictio, datur intelligi quod ipsum nomen contradictionis ipse imposuerit oppositioni affirmationis et negationis, ut Ammonius dicit.	7. When he says, We will call this opposed affirmation and negation "contradiction,” he explains what absolute opposition of affirmation and negation is. He does this first through the name; secondly, through the definition where he says, I mean by "opposed” the enunciation of the same thing of the same subject, etc. "Contradiction,” he says, is the name imposed for the kind of opposition in which a negation is opposed to an affirmation and conversely. By saying We will call this "contradiction,” we are given to understand—as Ammonius points out—that he has himself imposed the name "contradiction” for the opposition of affirmation and negation.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 9 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: dico autem opponi etc., definit contradictionem. Quia vero, ut dictum est, contradictio est oppositio affirmationis et negationis, illa requiruntur ad contradictionem, quae requiruntur ad oppositionem affirmationis et negationis. Oportet autem opposita esse circa idem. Et quia enunciatio constituitur ex subiecto et praedicato, requiritur ad contradictionem primo quidem quod affirmatio et negatio sint eiusdem praedicati: si enim dicatur, Plato currit, Plato non disputat, non est contradictio; secundo, requiritur quod sint de eodem subiecto: si enim dicatur, Socrates currit, Plato non currit, non est contradictio. Tertio, requiritur quod identitas subiecti et praedicati non solum sit secundum nomen, sed sit simul secundum rem et nomen. Nam si non sit idem nomen, manifestum est quod non sit una et eadem enunciatio. Similiter autem ad hoc quod sit enunciatio una, requiritur identitas rei: dictum est enim supra quod enunciatio una est, quae unum de uno significat; et ideo subdit: non autem aequivoce, idest non sufficit identitas nominis cum diversitate rei, quae facit aequivocationem.	8. Then he defines contradiction when he says, I mean by "opposed” the enunciation of the same thing of the same subject, etc. Since contradiction is the opposition of affirmation and negation, as he has said, whatever is required for the opposition of affirmation and negation is required for contradiction. Now, opposites must be about the same thing and since the enunciation is made up of a subject and predicate the first requirement for contradiction is affirmation and negation of the same predicate, for if we say "Plato runs” and "Plato does not discuss,” there is no contradiction. The second is that the affirmation and negation be of the same subject, for if we say "Socrates runs” and "Plato does not run,” there is no contradiction. The third requirement is identity of subject and predicate not only according to name but according to the thing and the name at once; for clearly, if the same name is not used there is not one and the same enunciation; similarly there must be identity of the thing, for as was said above, the enunciation is one when it signifies one thing said of one thing.”’ This is why he adds, not equivocally however, for identity of name with diversity of the thing—which is equivocation—is not sufficient for contradiction.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 9 n. 9 Sunt autem et quaedam alia in contradictione observanda ad hoc quod tollatur omnis diversitas, praeter eam quae est affirmationis et negationis: non enim esset oppositio si non omnino idem negaret negatio quod affirmavit affirmatio. Haec autem diversitas potest secundum quatuor considerari. Uno quidem modo, secundum diversas partes subiecti: non enim est contradictio si dicatur, Aethiops est albus dente et non est albus pede. Secundo, si sit diversus modus ex parte praedicati: non enim est contradictio si dicatur, Socrates currit tarde et non movetur velociter; vel si dicatur, ovum est animal in potentia et non est animal in actu. Tertio, si sit diversitas ex parte mensurae, puta loci vel temporis; non enim est contradictio si dicatur, pluit in Gallia et non pluit in Italia; aut, pluit heri, hodie non pluit. Quarto, si sit diversitas ex habitudine ad aliquid extrinsecum; puta si dicatur, decem homines esse plures quoad domum, non autem quoad forum. Et haec omnia designat cum subdit: et quaecumque caetera talium determinavimus, idest determinare consuevimus in disputationibus contra sophisticas importunitates, idest contra importunas et litigiosas oppositiones sophistarum, de quibus plenius facit mentionem in I elenchorum.	9. There are also certain other things that must be observed with respect to contradiction in order that all diversity be destroyed except the diversity of affirmation and negation, for if the negation does not deny in every way the same thing that the affirmation affirms there will not be opposition. Inquiry can be made about this diversity in respect to four things: first, are there diverse parts of the subject, for if we say "An Ethiopian is white as to teeth” and "An Ethiopian is not white as to foot,” there is no contradiction; secondly, is there a diverse mode on the part of the predicate, for there is no contradiction if we say "Socrates runs slowly” and "Socrates is not moving swiftly,” or "An egg is an animal in potency” and "An egg is not an animal in act”; thirdly, is there diversity on the part of measure, for instance, of place or time, for there is no contradiction if we say "It is raining in Gaul” and "It is not raining in Italy,” or "It rained yesterday” and "It did not rain today”; fourthly, is there diversity from a relationship to something extrinsic, as when we say "Ten men are many in respect to a house, but not in respect to a court house.” Aristotle designates all of these when he adds, nor in any of the other ways that we have distinguished, i.e., that it is usual to determine in disputations against the specious difficulties of the sophists, i.e., against the fallacious and quarrelsome objections of the sophists, which he mentions more fully in I Elenchorum [5: 166b 28–167a 36].

LECTURE 10

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 1 Quia philosophus dixerat oppositionem affirmationis et negationis esse contradictionem, quae est eiusdem de eodem, consequenter intendit distinguere diversas oppositiones affirmationis et negationis, ut cognoscatur quae sit vera contradictio. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, praemittit quamdam divisionem enunciationum necessariam ad praedictam differentiam oppositionum assignandam; secundo, manifestat propositum; ibi: si ergo universaliter et cetera. Praemittit autem divisionem enunciationum quae sumitur secundum differentiam subiecti. Unde circa primum duo facit: primo, dividit subiectum enunciationum; secundo, concludit divisionem enunciationum, ibi: necesse est enunciare et cetera.	1. The Philosopher has just said that contradiction is the opposition of the affirmation and negation of the same thing of the same subject. Following upon this he distinguishes the diverse oppositions of affirmation and negation, the purpose being to know what true contradiction is. He first states a division of enunciation which is necessary in order to assign the difference of these oppositions; then he begins to manifest the different oppositions where he says, If, then, it is universally enunciated of a universal that something belongs or does not belong to it, etc. The division he gives is taken from the difference of the subject and therefore he divides the subject of enunciations first; then he concludes with the division of enunciation, where he says, we have to enunciate either of a universal or of a singular, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 2 Subiectum autem enunciationis est nomen vel aliquid loco nominis sumptum. Nomen autem est vox significativa ad placitum simplicis intellectus, quod est similitudo rei; et ideo subiectum enunciationis distinguit per divisionem rerum, et dicit quod rerum quaedam sunt universalia, quaedam sunt singularia. Manifestat autem membra divisionis dupliciter: primo quidem per definitionem, quia universale est quod est aptum natum de pluribus praedicari, singulare vero quod non est aptum natum praedicari de pluribus, sed de uno solo; secundo, manifestat per exemplum cum subdit quod homo est universale, Plato autem singulare.	2. Now the subject of an enunciation is a name or something taken in place of a name. A name is a vocal sound significant by convention of simple thought, which, in turn, is a likeness of the thing. Hence, Aristotle distinguishes the subject of enunciation by a division of things; and he says that of things, some are universals, others singulars. He then explains the members of this division in two ways. First he defines them. Then he manifests them by example when he says, "man” is universal, "Plato” singular.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 3 Accidit autem dubitatio circa hanc divisionem, quia, sicut probat philosophus in VII metaphysicae, universale non est aliquid extra res existens. Item, in praedicamentis dicitur quod secundae substantiae non sunt nisi in primis, quae sunt singulares. Non ergo videtur esse conveniens divisio rerum per universalia et singularia: quia nullae res videntur esse universales, sed omnes sunt singulares.	3. There is a difficulty about this division, for the Philosopher proves in VII Metaphysicae [14: 1039a 23] that the universal is not something existing outside of the thing; and in the Predicamenta [5: 2a 11] he says that second substances are only in first substances, i.e., singulars. Therefore, the division of things into universals and singulars does not seem to be consistent, since according to him there are no things that are universal; on the contrary, all things are singular.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 4 Dicendum est autem quod hic dividuntur res secundum quod significantur per nomina, quae subiiciuntur in enunciationibus: dictum est autem supra quod nomina non significant res nisi mediante intellectu; et ideo oportet quod divisio ista rerum accipiatur secundum quod res cadunt in intellectu. Ea vero quae sunt coniuncta in rebus intellectus potest distinguere, quando unum eorum non cadit in ratione alterius. In qualibet autem re singulari est considerare aliquid quod est proprium illi rei, in quantum est haec res, sicut Socrati vel Platoni in quantum est hic homo; et aliquid est considerare in ea, in quo convenit cum aliis quibusdam rebus, sicut quod Socrates est animal, aut homo, aut rationalis, aut risibilis, aut albus. Quando igitur res denominatur ab eo quod convenit illi soli rei in quantum est haec res, huiusmodi nomen dicitur significare aliquid singulare; quando autem denominatur res ab eo quod est commune sibi et multis aliis, nomen huiusmodi dicitur significare universale, quia scilicet nomen significat naturam sive dispositionem aliquam, quae est communis multis. Quia igitur hanc divisionem dedit de rebus non absolute secundum quod sunt extra animam, sed secundum quod referuntur ad intellectum, non definivit universale et singulare secundum aliquid quod pertinet ad rem, puta si diceret quod universale extra animam, quod pertinet ad opinionem Platonis, sed per actum animae intellectivae, quod est praedicari de multis vel de uno solo.	4. The things divided here, however, are things as signified by names—which names are subjects of enunciations. Now, Aristotle has already said that names signify things only through the mediation of the intellect; therefore, this division must be taken as a division of things as apprehended by the intellect. Now in fact, whatever is joined together in things can be distinguished by the intellect when one of them does not belong to the notion of the other. In any singular thing, we can consider what is proper to the thing insofar as it is this thing, for instance, what is proper to Socrates or to Plato insofar as he is this man. We can also consider that in which it agrees with certain other things, as, that Socrates is an animal, or man, or rational, or risible, or white. Accordingly, when a thing is denominated from what belongs only to this thing insofar as it is this thing, the name is said to signify a singular. When a thing is denominated from what is common to it and to many others, the name is said to signify a universal since it signifies a nature or some disposition which is common to many. Immediately after giving this division of things, then—not of things absolutely as they are outside of the soul, but as they are referred to the intellect—Aristotle defines the universal and the singular through the act of the intellective soul, as that which is such as to be predicated of many or of only one, and not according to anything that pertains to the thing, that is, as if he were affirming such a universal outside of the soul, an opinion relating to Plato’s teaching.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 5 Est autem considerandum quod intellectus apprehendit rem intellectam secundum propriam essentiam, seu definitionem: unde et in III de anima dicitur quod obiectum proprium intellectus est quod quid est. Contingit autem quandoque quod propria ratio alicuius formae intellectae non repugnat ei quod est esse in pluribus, sed hoc impeditur ab aliquo alio, sive sit aliquid accidentaliter adveniens, puta si omnibus hominibus morientibus unus solus remaneret, sive sit propter conditionem materiae, sicut est unus tantum sol, non quod repugnet rationi solari esse in pluribus secundum conditionem formae ipsius, sed quia non est alia materia susceptiva talis formae; et ideo non dixit quod universale est quod praedicatur de pluribus, sed quod aptum natum est praedicari de pluribus.	5. There is a further point we should consider in relation to this portion of the text. The intellect apprehends the thing—understood according to the thing’s essence or definition. This is the reason Aristotle says in III De anima [4:429b 10] that the proper object of the intellect is what the thing essentially is. Now, sometimes the proper nature of some understood form is not repugnant to being in many but is impeded by something else, either by something occurring accidentally (for instance if all men but one were to die) or because of the condition of matter; the sun, for instance, is only one, not because it is repugnant to the notion of the sun to be in many according to the condition of its form, but because there is no other matter capable of receiving such a form. This is the reason Aristotle did not say that the universal is that which is predicated of many, but that which is of such a nature as to be predicated of many.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 6 Cum autem omnis forma, quae nata est recipi in materia quantum est de se, communicabilis sit multis materiis; dupliciter potest contingere quod id quod significatur per nomen, non sit aptum natum praedicari de pluribus. Uno modo, quia nomen significat formam secundum quod terminata est ad hanc materiam, sicut hoc nomen Socrates vel Plato, quod significat naturam humanam prout est in hac materia. Alio modo, secundum quod nomen significat formam, quae non est nata in materia recipi, unde oportet quod per se remaneat una et singularis; sicut albedo, si esset forma non existens in materia, esset una sola, unde esset singularis: et propter hoc philosophus dicit in VII Metaphys. quod si essent species rerum separatae, sicut posuit Plato, essent individua.	6. Now, since every form which is so constituted as to be received in matter is communicable to many matters, there are two ways in which what is signified by a name may not be of such a nature as to be predicated of many: in one way, because a name signifies a form as terminated in this matter, as in the case of the name "Socrates” or "Plato,” which signifies human nature as it is in this matter; in another way, because a name signifies a form which is not constituted to be received in matter and consequently must remain per se one and singular. Whiteness, for example, would be only one if it were a form not a existing in matter, and consequently singular. This is the reason the Philosopher says in VII Metaphysicae [6: 1045a 36–1045b 7] that if there were separated species of things, as Plato held, they would be individuals.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 7 Potest autem obiici quod hoc nomen Socrates vel Plato est natum de pluribus praedicari, quia nihil prohibet multos esse, qui vocentur hoc nomine. Sed ad hoc patet responsio, si attendantur verba Aristotelis. Ipse enim non divisit nomina in universale et particulare, sed res. Et ideo intelligendum est quod universale dicitur quando, non solum nomen potest de pluribus praedicari, sed id, quod significatur per nomen, est natum in pluribus inveniri; hoc autem non contingit in praedictis nominibus: nam hoc nomen Socrates vel Plato significat naturam humanam secundum quod est in hac materia. Si vero hoc nomen imponatur alteri homini significabit naturam humanam in alia materia; et sic eius erit alia significatio; unde non erit universale, sed aequivocum.	7. It could be objected that the name "Socrates” or "Plato” is of such a kind as to be predicated of many, since there is nothing to prevent their being applied to many. The response to this objection is evident if we consider Aristotle’s words. Notice that he divides things into universal and particular, not names. It should be understood from this that what is said to be universal not only has a name that can be predicated of many but what is signified by the name is of such a nature as to be found in many. Now this is not the case in the above-mentioned names, for the name "Socrates” or "Plato” signifies human nature as it is in this matter. If one of these names is imposed on another man it will signify human nature in other matter and thus another signification of it. Consequently, it will be equivocal, not universal.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: necesse est autem enunciare etc., concludit divisionem enunciationis. Quia enim semper enunciatur aliquid de aliqua re; rerum autem quaedam sunt universalia, quaedam singularia; necesse est quod quandoque enuncietur aliquid inesse vel non inesse alicui universalium, quandoque vero alicui singularium. Et est suspensiva constructio usque huc, et est sensus: quoniam autem sunt haec quidem rerum etc., necesse est enunciare et cetera.	8. When he says, we have to enunciate either of a universal or of a singular that something belongs or does not belong to it, he infers the division of the enunciation. Since something is always enunciated of some thing, and of things some are universals and some singulars, it follows that sometimes it will be enunciated that something belongs or does not belong to something universal, sometimes to something singular. The construction of the sentence was interrupted by the explanation of universal and singular but now we can see the meaning: Since some of the things we are concerned with are universal and others singular... we have to enunciate either of a universal or of a singular that something belongs or does not belong to it.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 9 Est autem considerandum quod de universali aliquid enunciatur quatuor modis. Nam universale potest uno modo considerari quasi separatum a singularibus, sive per se subsistens, ut Plato posuit, sive, secundum sententiam Aristotelis, secundum esse quod habet in intellectu. Et sic potest ei aliquid attribui dupliciter. Quandoque enim attribuitur ei sic considerato aliquid, quod pertinet ad solam operationem intellectus, ut si dicatur quod homo est praedicabile de multis, sive universale, sive species. Huiusmodi enim intentiones format intellectus attribuens eas naturae intellectae, secundum quod comparat ipsam ad res, quae sunt extra animam. Quandoque vero attribuitur aliquid universali sic considerato, quod scilicet apprehenditur ab intellectu ut unum, tamen id quod attribuitur ei non pertinet ad actum intellectus, sed ad esse, quod habet natura apprehensa in rebus, quae sunt extra animam, puta si dicatur quod homo est dignissima creaturarum. Hoc enim convenit naturae humanae etiam secundum quod est in singularibus. Nam quilibet homo singularis dignior est omnibus creaturis irrationalibus; sed tamen omnes homines singulares non sunt unus homo extra animam, sed solum in acceptione intellectus; et per hunc modum attribuitur ei praedicatum, scilicet ut uni rei. Alio autem modo attribuitur universali, prout est in singularibus, et hoc dupliciter. Quandoque quidem ratione ipsius naturae universalis, puta cum attribuitur ei aliquid quod ad essentiam eius pertinet, vel quod consequitur principia essentialia; ut cum dicitur, homo est animal, vel homo est risibilis. Quandoque autem attribuitur ei aliquid ratione singularis in quo invenitur, puta cum attribuitur ei aliquid quod pertinet ad actionem individui; ut cum dicitur, homo ambulat. Singulari autem attribuitur aliquid tripliciter: uno modo, secundum quod cadit in apprehensione; ut cum dicitur, Socrates est singulare, vel praedicabile de uno solo. Quandoque autem, ratione naturae communis; ut cum dicitur, Socrates est animal. Quandoque autem, ratione sui ipsius; ut cum dicitur, Socrates ambulat. Et totidem etiam modis negationes variantur: quia omne quod contingit affirmare, contingit negare, ut supra dictum est.	9. In relation to the point being made here we have to consider the four ways in which something is enunciated of the universal. On the one band, the universal can be considered as though separated from singulars, whether subsisting per se as Plato held or according to the being it has in the intellect as Aristotle held; considered thus, something can be attributed to it in two ways. Sometimes we attribute something to it which pertains only to the operation of the intellect; for example when we say, "Man,” whether the universal or the species, "is predicable” of many. For the intellect forms intentions of this kind, attributing them to the nature understood according as it compares the nature to the things outside of the mind. But sometimes we attribute something to the universal thus considered (i.e., as it is apprehended by the intellect as one) which does not belong to the act of the intellect but to the being that the nature apprehended has in things outside of the soul; for example, when we say "Man is the noblest of creatures.” For this truly belongs to human nature as it is in singulars, since any single man is more noble than all irrational creatures; yet all singular men are not one man outside of the mind, but only in the apprehension of the intellect; and the predicate is attributed to it in this way, i.e., as to one thing. On the other hand, we attribute something to the universal as in singulars in another way, and this is twofold: sometimes it is in view of the universal nature itself; for instance, when we attribute something to it that belongs to its essence, or follows upon the essential principles, as in "Man is an animal,” or "Man is risible.” Sometimes it is in view of the singular in which the universal is found; for instance, when we attribute something to the universal that pertains to the action of the individual, as in "Man walks. Moreover, something is attributed to the singular in three ways: in one way, as it is subject to the intellect, as when we say "Socrates is a singular,” or "predicable of only one”; in another way, by reason of the common nature, as when we say "Socrates is an animal”; in the third way, by reason of itself, as when we say "Socrates is walking.” The negations are varied in the same number of ways, since everything that can be affirmed can also be denied, as was said above.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 10 Est autem haec tertia divisio enunciationis quam ponit philosophus. Prima namque fuit quod enunciationum quaedam est una simpliciter, quaedam vero coniunctione una. Quae quidem est divisio analogi in ea de quibus praedicatur secundum prius et posterius: sic enim unum dividitur secundum prius in simplex et per posterius in compositum. Alia vero fuit divisio enunciationis in affirmationem et negationem. Quae quidem est divisio generis in species, quia sumitur secundum differentiam praedicati ad quod fertur negatio; praedicatum autem est pars formalis enunciationis; et ideo huiusmodi divisio dicitur pertinere ad qualitatem enunciationis, qualitatem, inquam, essentialem, secundum quod differentia significat quale quid. Tertia autem est huiusmodi divisio, quae sumitur secundum differentiam subiecti, quod praedicatur de pluribus vel de uno solo, et ideo dicitur pertinere ad quantitatem enunciationis, nam et quantitas consequitur materiam.	10. This is the third division the Philosopher has given of the enunciation. The first was the division of the enunciation into one simply and one by conjunction. This is an analogous division into those things of which one is predicated primarily and consequently, for one is divided according to the prior and posterior into simple and composite. The second was the division of enunciation into affirmation and negation. This is a division of genus into species, for it is taken from the difference of the predicate to which a negation is added. The predicate is the formal part of the enunciation and hence such a division is said to pertain to the quality of the enunciation. By "quality” I mean essential quality, for in this case the difference signifies the quality of the essence. The third division is based upon the difference of the subject as predicated of many or of only one, and is therefore a division that pertains to the quantity of the enunciation, for quantity follows upon matter.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit: si ergo universaliter etc., ostendit quomodo enunciationes diversimode opponantur secundum diversitatem subiecti. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, distinguit diversos modos oppositionum in ipsis enunciationibus; secundo, ostendit quomodo diversae oppositiones diversimode se habent ad verum et falsum; ibi: quocirca has quidem impossibile est et cetera.	11. Aristotle shows next how enunciations are opposed in diverse ways according to the diversity of the subject when he says, If, then, it is universally enunciated of a universal that something belongs or does not belong to it, etc. He first distinguishes the diverse modes of opposition in enunciations; secondly, he shows how these diverse oppositions are related in different ways to truth and falsity where he says, Hence in the case of the latter it is impossible that both be at once true, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 12 Circa primum considerandum est quod cum universale possit considerari in abstractione a singularibus vel secundum quod est in ipsis singularibus, secundum hoc diversimode aliquid ei attribuitur, ut supra dictum est. Ad designandum autem diversos modos attributionis inventae sunt quaedam dictiones, quae possunt dici determinationes vel signa, quibus designatur quod aliquid de universali, hoc aut illo modo praedicetur. Sed quia non est ab omnibus communiter apprehensum quod universalia extra singularia subsistant, ideo communis usus loquendi non habet aliquam dictionem ad designandum illum modum praedicandi, prout aliquid dicitur in abstractione a singularibus. Sed Plato, qui posuit universalia extra singularia subsistere, adinvenit aliquas determinationes, quibus designaretur quomodo aliquid attribuitur universali, prout est extra singularia, et vocabat universale separatum subsistens extra singularia quantum ad speciem hominis, per se hominem vel ipsum hominem et similiter in aliis universalibus. Sed universale secundum quod est in singularibus cadit in communi apprehensione hominum; et ideo adinventae sunt quaedam dictiones ad significandum modum attribuendi aliquid universali sic accepto.	12. First, then, he distinguishes the diverse modes of opposition and since these depend upon a diversity in the subject we must first consider the latter diversity. Now the universal can be considered either in abstraction from singulars or as it is in singulars, and by reason of this something is attributed in diverse modes to the universal, as we have already said. To designate diverse modes of attribution certain words have been conceived which may be called determinations or signs and which designate that something is predicated in this or that mode. But first we should note that since it is not commonly apprehended by all men that universals subsist outside of singulars there is no word in common speech to designate the mode of predicating in which something is said of a universal thus in abstraction from singulars. Plato, who held that universals subsist outside of singulars, did, however, invent certain determinations to designate the way in which something is attributed to the universal as it is outside of singulars. With respect to the species man he called the separated universal subsisting outside of singulars "man per se”’or "man itself,” and he designated other such universals in like manner. The universal as it is in singulars, however, does fall within the common apprehension of men and accordingly certain words have been conceived to signify the mode of attributing something to the universal taken in this way.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 13 Sicut autem supra dictum est, quandoque aliquid attribuitur universali ratione ipsius naturae universalis; et ideo hoc dicitur praedicari de eo universaliter, quia scilicet ei convenit secundum totam multitudinem in qua invenitur; et ad hoc designandum in affirmativis praedicationibus adinventa est haec dictio, omnis, quae designat quod praedicatum attribuitur subiecto universali quantum ad totum id quod sub subiecto continetur. In negativis autem praedicationibus adinventa est haec dictio, nullus, per quam significatur quod praedicatum removetur a subiecto universali secundum totum id quod continetur sub eo. Unde nullus dicitur quasi non ullus, et in Graeco dicitur, udis quasi nec unus, quia nec unum solum est accipere sub subiecto universali a quo praedicatum non removeatur. Quandoque autem attribuitur universali aliquid vel removetur ab eo ratione particularis; et ad hoc designandum, in affirmativis quidem adinventa est haec dictio, aliquis vel quidam, per quam designatur quod praedicatum attribuitur subiecto universali ratione ipsius particularis; sed quia non determinate significat formam alicuius singularis, sub quadam indeterminatione singulare designat; unde et dicitur individuum vagum. In negativis autem non est aliqua dictio posita, sed possumus accipere, non omnis; ut sicut, nullus, universaliter removet, eo quod significat quasi diceretur, non ullus, idest, non aliquis, ita etiam, non omnis, particulariter removeat, in quantum excludit universalem affirmationem.	13. As was said above, sometimes something is attributed to the universal in view of the universal nature itself; for this reason it is said to be predicated of the universal universally, i.e., that it belongs to the universal according to the whole multitude in which it is found. The word "every” has been devised to designate this in affirmative predications. It designates that the predicate is attributed to the universal subject with respect to the whole of what is contained under the subject. In negative predications the word "no” has been devised to signify that the predicate is removed from the universal subject according to the whole of what is contained under it. Hence, saying nullus in Latin is like saying non ullus [not any] and in Greek ??de?? [none] is like ??de e?? [not one], for not a single one is understood under the universal subject from which the predicate is not removed. Sometimes something is either attributed to or removed from the universal in view of the particular. To designate this in affirmative enunciations, the word "some,” or "a certain one,” has been devised. We designate by this that the predicate is attributed to the universal subject by reason of the particular. "Some,” or "a certain one,” however, does not signify the form of any singular determinately, rather, it designates the singular under a certain indetermination. The singular so designated is therefore called the vague individual. In negative enunciations there is no designated word, but "not all” can be used. just as "no,” then, removes universally, for it signifies the same thing as if we were to say "not any,” (i.e., "not some”) so also "not all” removes particularly inasmuch as it excludes universal affirmation.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 14 Sic igitur tria sunt genera affirmationum in quibus aliquid de universali praedicatur. Una quidem est, in qua de universali praedicatur aliquid universaliter; ut cum dicitur, omnis homo est animal. Alia, in qua aliquid praedicatur de universali particulariter; ut cum dicitur, quidam homo est albus. Tertia vero est, in qua aliquid de universali praedicatur absque determinatione universalitatis vel particularitatis; unde huiusmodi enunciatio solet vocari indefinita. Totidem autem sunt negationes oppositae.	14. There are, therefore, three kinds of affirmations in which something is predicated of a universal: in one, something is predicated of the universal universally, as in "Every man is an animal”; in another, something is predicated of the universal particularly, as in "Some man is white.” The third is the affirmation in which something is predicated of the universal without a determination of universality or particularity. Enunciations of this kind are customarily called indefinite. There are the same number of opposed negations.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 15 De singulari autem quamvis aliquid diversa ratione praedicetur, ut supra dictum est, tamen totum refertur ad singularitatem ipsius, quia etiam natura universalis in ipso singulari individuatur; et ideo nihil refert quantum ad naturam singularitatis, utrum aliquid praedicetur de eo ratione universalis naturae; ut cum dicitur, Socrates est homo, vel conveniat ei ratione singularitatis.	15. In the case of the singular, although something is predicated of it in a different respect, as was said above, nevertheless the whole is referred to its singularity because the universal nature is individuated in the singular; therefore it makes no difference as far as the nature of singularity is concerned whether something is predicated of the singular by reason of the universal nature, as in "Socrates is a man,” or belongs to it by reason of its singularity.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 16 Si igitur tribus praedictis enunciationibus addatur singularis, erunt quatuor modi enunciationis ad quantitatem ipsius pertinentes, scilicet universalis, singularis, indefinitus et particularis.	16. If we add the singular to the three already mentioned there will be four modes of enunciation pertaining to quantity: universal singular, indefinite, and particular.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 17 Sic igitur secundum has differentias Aristoteles assignat diversas oppositiones enunciationum adinvicem. Et primo, secundum differentiam universalium ad indefinitas; secundo, secundum differentiam universalium ad particulares; ibi: opponi autem affirmationem et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo, agit de oppositione propositionum universalium adinvicem; secundo, de oppositione indefinitarum; ibi: quando autem in universalibus etc.; tertio, excludit dubitationem; ibi: in eo vero quod et cetera.	17. Aristotle assigns the diverse oppositions of enunciations according to these differences. The first opposition is based on the difference of universals and indefinites; the second bn the difference of universals and particulars, the latter being treated where he says, Affirmation is opposed to negation in the way I call contradictory, etc. With respect to the first opposition, the one between universals and indefinites, the opposition of universal propositions to each other is treated first, and then the opposition of indefinite enunciations where he says, On the other hand, when the enunciations are of a universal but not universally enunciated, etc. Finally he precludes a possible question where he says, In the predicate, however, the universal universally predicated is not true, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 18 Dicit ergo primo quod si aliquis enunciet de subiecto universali universaliter, idest secundum continentiam suae universalitatis, quoniam est, idest affirmative, aut non est, idest negative, erunt contrariae enunciationes; ut si dicatur, omnis homo est albus, nullus homo est albus. Huius autem ratio est, quia contraria dicuntur quae maxime a se distant: non enim dicitur aliquid nigrum ex hoc solum quod non est album, sed super hoc quod est non esse album, quod significat communiter remotionem albi, addit nigrum extremam distantiam ab albo. Sic igitur id quod affirmatur per hanc enunciationem, omnis homo est albus, removetur per hanc negationem, non omnis homo est albus. Oportet ergo quod negatio removeat modum quo praedicatum dicitur de subiecto, quem designat haec dictio, omnis. Sed super hanc remotionem addit haec enunciatio, nullus homo est albus, totalem remotionem, quae est extrema distantia a primo; quod pertinet ad rationem contrarietatis. Et ideo convenienter hanc oppositionem dicit contrarietatem.	18. He says first, then, that if someone enunciates universally of a universal subject, i.e., according to the content of its universality, that it is, i.e., affirmatively, or is not, i.e., negatively, these enunciations will be contrary; as when we say, "Every man is white,” "No man is white.” And the reason is that the things that are most distant from each other are said to be contraries. For a thing is not said to be black only because it is not white but because over and beyond not being white—which signifies the remotion of white commonly—it is, in addition, black, the extreme in distance from white. What is affirmed by the enunciation "Every man is white” then, is removed by the negation "Not every man is white”; the negation, therefore, removes the mode in which the predicate is said of the subject which the word "every” designates. But over and beyond this remotion, the enunciation "No man is white” which is most distant from "Every man is white,” adds total remotion, and this belongs to the notion of contrariety. He therefore appropriately calls this opposition contrariety.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 19 Deinde cum dicit: quando autem etc., ostendit qualis sit oppositio affirmationis et negationis in indefinitis. Et primo, proponit quod intendit; secundo, manifestat propositum per exempla; ibi: dico autem non universaliter etc.; tertio, assignat rationem manifestationis; ibi: cum enim universale sit homo et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod quando de universalibus subiectis affirmatur aliquid vel negatur non tamen universaliter, non sunt contrariae enunciationes, sed illa quae significantur contingit esse contraria. Deinde cum dicit: dico autem non universaliter etc., manifestat per exempla. Ubi considerandum est quod non dixerat quando in universalibus particulariter, sed non universaliter. Non enim intendit de particularibus enunciationibus, sed de solis indefinitis. Et hoc manifestat per exempla quae ponit, dicens fieri in universalibus subiectis non universalem enunciationem; cum dicitur, est albus homo, non est albus homo. Et rationem huius expositionis ostendit, quia homo, qui subiicitur, est universale, sed tamen praedicatum non universaliter de eo praedicatur, quia non apponitur haec dictio, omnis: quae non significat ipsum universale, sed modum universalitatis, prout scilicet praedicatum dicitur universaliter de subiecto; et ideo addita subiecto universali, semper significat quod aliquid de eo dicatur universaliter. Tota autem haec expositio refertur ad hoc quod dixerat: quando in universalibus non universaliter enunciatur, non sunt contrariae.	19. When he says, On the other hand, when the enunciations are of a universal but not universally enunciated, etc., he shows what kind of opposition there is between affirmation and negation in indefinite enunciations. First he states the point; he then manifests it by an example when he says, I mean by "enunciated of a universal but not universally,” etc. Finally he gives the reason for this when he says, For while "man” is a universal, it is not used as universal, etc. He says first, then, that when something is affirmed or denied of a universal subject, but not universally, the enunciations are not contrary but the things that are signified may be contraries. He clarifies this with examples where he says, I mean by "enunciated of a universal but not universally,” etc. Note in relation to this that what he said just before this was "when... of universals but not universally enunciated” and not, "when... of universals particularly,” the reason being that he only intends to speak of indefinite enunciations, not of particulars. This he manifests by the examples he gives. When we say "Man is white” and "Man is not white,” the universal subjects do not make them universal enunciations. He gives as the reason for this, that although man, which stands as the subject, is universal, the predicate is not predicated of it universally because the word "every” is not added, which does not itself signify the universal, but the mode of universality, i.e., that the predicate is said universally of the subject. Therefore when "every” is added to the universal subject it always signifies that something is said of it universally. This whole exposition relates to his saying, On the other hand, when the enunciations are of a universal but not universally enunciated, they are not contraries.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 20 Sed hoc quod additur: quae autem significantur contingit esse contraria, non est expositum, quamvis obscuritatem contineat; et ideo a diversis diversimode exponitur. Quidam enim hoc referre voluerunt ad contrarietatem veritatis et falsitatis, quae competit huiusmodi enunciationibus. Contingit enim quandoque has simul esse veras, homo est albus, homo non est albus; et sic non sunt contrariae, quia contraria mutuo se tollunt. Contingit tamen quandoque unam earum esse veram et alteram esse falsam; ut cum dicitur, homo est animal, homo non est animal; et sic ratione significati videntur habere quamdam contrarietatem. Sed hoc non videtur ad propositum pertinere, tum quia philosophus nondum hic loquitur de veritate et falsitate enunciationum; tum etiam quia hoc ipsum posset de particularibus enunciationibus dici.	20. Immediately after this he adds, although it is possible for the things signified to be contraries, and in spite of the fact that this is obscure he does not explain it. It has therefore been interpreted in different ways. Some related it to the contrariety of truth and falsity proper to enunciations of this kind, For such enunciations may be simultaneously true, as in "Man is white” and "Man is not white,” and thus not be contraries, for contraries mutually destroy each other. On the other hand, one may be true and the other false, as in "Man is an animal” and "Man is not an animal,” and thus by reason of what is signified seem to have a certain kind of contrariety. But this does not seem to be related to what Aristotle has said: first, because the Philosopher has not yet taken up the point of truth and falsity of enunciations; secondly, because this very thing can also be said of particular enunciations.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 21 Alii vero, sequentes Porphyrium, referunt hoc ad contrarietatem praedicati. Contingit enim quandoque quod praedicatum negatur de subiecto propter hoc quod inest ei contrarium; sicut si dicatur, homo non est albus, quia est niger; et sic id quod significatur per hoc quod dicitur, non est albus, potest esse contrarium. Non tamen semper: removetur enim aliquid a subiecto, etiam si contrarium non insit, sed aliquid medium inter contraria; ut cum dicitur, aliquis non est albus, quia est pallidus; vel quia inest ei privatio actus vel habitus seu potentiae; ut cum dicitur, aliquis non est videns, quia est carens potentia visiva, aut habet impedimentum ne videat, vel etiam quia non est aptus natus videre; puta si dicatur, lapis non videt. Sic igitur illa, quae significantur contingit esse contraria, sed ipsae enunciationes non sunt contrariae, quia ut in fine huius libri dicetur, non sunt contrariae opiniones quae sunt de contrariis, sicut opinio quod aliquid sit bonum, et illa quae est, quod aliquid non est bonum.	21. Others, following Porphyry, relate this to the contrariety of the predicate. For sometimes the predicate may be denied of the subject because of the presence of the contrary in it, as when we say, "Man is not white” because he is black; thus it could be the contrary that is signified by "is not white.” This is not always the case, however, for we remove something from a subject even when it is not a contrary that is present in it but some mean between contraries, as in saying, "So-and-so is not white” because he is pale; or when there is a privation of act or habit or potency, as in saying, "So-and-so is non-seeing” because he lacks the power of sight or has an impediment so that he cannot see, or even because something is not of such a nature as to see, as in saying, "A stone does not see.” It is therefore possible for the things signified to be contraries, but the enunciations themselves not to be; for as is said near the end of this book, opinions that are about contraries are not contrary,”’ for example, an opinion that something is good and an opinion that something is evil.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 22 Sed nec hoc videtur ad propositum Aristotelis pertinere, quia non agit hic de contrarietate rerum vel opinionum, sed de contrarietate enunciationum: et ideo magis videtur hic sequenda expositio Alexandri. Secundum quam dicendum est quod in indefinitis enunciationibus non determinatur utrum praedicatum attribuatur subiecto universaliter (quod faceret contrarietatem enunciationum), aut particulariter (quod non faceret contrarietatem enunciationum); et ideo huiusmodi enunciationes indefinitae non sunt contrariae secundum modum quo proferuntur. Contingit tamen quandoque ratione significati eas habere contrarietatem, puta, cum attribuitur aliquid universali ratione naturae universalis, quamvis non apponatur signum universale; ut cum dicitur, homo est animal, homo non est animal: quia hae enunciationes eamdem habent vim ratione significati; ac si diceretur, omnis homo est animal, nullus homo est animal.	22. This does not seem to relate to what Aristotle has proposed either, for he is not treating here of contrariety of things or opinions, but of contrariety of enunciations. For this reason it seems better here to follow the exposition of Alexander. According to his exposition, in indefinite enunciations it is not determined whether the predicate is attributed to the subject universally (which would constitute contrariety of enunciations), or particularly (which would not constitute contrariety of enunciations). Accordingly, enunciations of this kind are not contrary in mode of expression. However, sometimes they have contrariety by reason of what is signified, i.e., when something is attributed to a universal in virtue of the universal nature although the universal sign is not added, as in "Man is an animal” and "Man is not an animal,” for in virtue of what is signified these enunciations have the same force as "Every man is an animal” and "No man is an animal.”
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 23 Deinde cum dicit: in eo vero quod etc., removet quoddam quod posset esse dubium. Quia enim posuerat quamdam diversitatem in oppositione enunciationum ex hoc quod universale sumitur a parte subiecti universaliter vel non universaliter, posset aliquis credere quod similis diversitas nasceretur ex parte praedicati, ex hoc scilicet quod universale praedicari posset et universaliter et non universaliter; et ideo ad hoc excludendum dicit quod in eo quod praedicatur aliquod universale, non est verum quod praedicetur universale universaliter. Cuius quidem duplex esse potest ratio. Una quidem, quia talis modus praedicandi videtur repugnare praedicato secundum propriam rationem quam habet in enunciatione. Dictum est enim supra quod praedicatum est quasi pars formalis enunciationis, subiectum autem est pars materialis ipsius: cum autem aliquod universale profertur universaliter, ipsum universale sumitur secundum habitudinem quam habet ad singularia, quae sub se continet; sicut et quando universale profertur particulariter, sumitur secundum habitudinem quam habet ad aliquod contentorum sub se; et sic utrumque pertinet ad materialem determinationem universalis: et ideo neque signum universale neque particulare convenienter additur praedicato, sed magis subiecto: convenientius enim dicitur, nullus homo est asinus, quam, omnis homo est nullus asinus; et similiter convenientius dicitur, aliquis homo est albus, quam, homo est aliquid album. Invenitur autem quandoque a philosophis signum particulare appositum praedicato, ad insinuandum quod praedicatum est in plus quam subiectum, et hoc praecipue cum, habito genere, investigant differentias completivas speciei, sicut in II de anima dicitur quod anima est actus quidam. Alia vero ratio potest accipi ex parte veritatis enunciationis; et ista specialiter habet locum in affirmationibus quae falsae essent si praedicatum universaliter praedicaretur. Et ideo manifestans id quod posuerat, subiungit quod nulla affirmatio est in qua, scilicet vere, de universali praedicato universaliter praedicetur, idest in qua universali praedicato utitur ad universaliter praedicandum; ut si diceretur, omnis homo est omne animal. Oportet enim, secundum praedicta, quod hoc praedicatum animal, secundum singula quae sub ipso continentur, praedicaretur de singulis quae continentur sub homine; et hoc non potest esse verum, neque si praedicatum sit in plus quam subiectum, neque si praedicatum sit convertibile cum eo. Oporteret enim quod quilibet unus homo esset animalia omnia, aut omnia risibilia: quae repugnant rationi singularis, quod accipitur sub universali.	23. When he says, But as regards the predicate the universal universally predicated is not true, etc., he precludes a certain difficulty. He has already stated that there is a diversity in the opposition of enunciations because of the universal being taken either universally or not universally on the part of the subject. Someone might think, as a consequence, that a similar diversity would arise on the part of the predicate, i.e., that the universal could be predicated both universally and not universally. To exclude this he says that in the case in which a universal is predicated it is not true that the universal is predicated universally. There are two reasons for this. The first is that such a mode of predicating seems to be repugnant to the predicate in relation to its status in the enunciation; for, as has been said, the predicate is a quasi-formal part of the enunciation, while the subject is a material part of it. Now when a universal is asserted universally the universal itself is taken according to the relationship it has to the singulars contained under it, and when it is asserted particularly the universal is taken according to the relationship it has to some one of what is contained under it. Thus both pertain to the material determination of the universal. This is why it is not appropriate to add either the universal or particular sign to the predicate, but rather to the subject; for it is more appropriate to say, "No man is an ass” than "Every man is no ass”; andlikewise, to say, "Some man is white” than, "Man is some white.” However, sometimes philosophers put the particular sign next to the predicate to indicate that the predicate is in more than the subject, and this especially when they have a genus in mind and are investigating the differences which complete the species. There is an instance of this in II De anima [1:412a 22] where Aristotle says that the soul is a certain act.”’ The other reason is related to the truth of enunciations. This has a special place in affirmations, which would be false if the predicate were predicated universally. Hence to manifest what he has stated, he adds, for there is no affirmation in which, i.e., truly, a universal predicate will be predicated universally, i.e., in which a universal predicate is used to predicate universally, for example, "Every man is every animal.” If this could be done, the predicate "animal” according to the singulars contained under it would have to be predicated of the singulars contained under "man”; but such predication could not be true, whether the predicate is in more than the subject or is convertible with the subject; for then any one man would have to be all animals or all risible beings, which is repugnant to the notion of the singular, which is taken tinder the universal.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 24 Nec est instantia si dicatur quod haec est vera, omnis homo est omnis disciplinae susceptivus: disciplina enim non praedicatur de homine, sed susceptivum disciplinae; repugnaret autem veritati si diceretur, omnis homo est omne susceptivum disciplinae.	23a. The truth of the enunciation "Every man is susceptible of every discipline” is not an instance that can be used as an objection to this position, for it is not "discipline” that is predicated of man but "susceptible of discipline.” It would be repugnant to truth if it were said that "Every man is everything susceptible of discipline.”
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 10 n. 25 Signum autem universale negativum, vel particulare affirmativum, etsi convenientius ponantur ex parte subiecti, non tamen repugnat veritati etiam si ponantur ex parte praedicati. Contingit enim huiusmodi enunciationes in aliqua materia esse veras: haec enim est vera, omnis homo nullus lapis est; et similiter haec est vera, omnis homo aliquod animal est. Sed haec, omnis homo omne animal est, in quacumque materia proferatur, falsa est. Sunt autem quaedam aliae tales enunciationes semper falsae; sicut ista, aliquis homo omne animal est (quae habet eamdem causam falsitatis cum hac, omnis homo omne animal est); et si quae aliae similes, sunt semper falsae: in omnibus enim eadem ratio est. Et ideo per hoc quod philosophus reprobavit istam, omnis homo omne animal est, dedit intelligere omnes consimiles esse improbandas.	24. On the other hand, although the negative universal sign or the particular affirmative sign are more appropriately posited on the part of the subject, it is not repugnant to truth if they are posited on the part of the predicate, for such enunciations may be true in some matter. The enunciation "Every man is no stone,” for example, is true, and so is "Every man is some animal.” But the enunciation "Every man is every animal,” in whatever matter it occurs, is false. There are other enunciations of this kind that are always false, such as, "Some man is every animal” (which is false for the same reason as "Every man is every animal” is false). And if there are any others like these, they are always false; and the reason is the same in every case. And, therefore, in rejecting the enunciation "Every man is every animal,” the Philosopher meant it to be understood that all similar enunciations are to be rejected.

LECTURE 11

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 11 n. 1 Postquam philosophus determinavit de oppositione enunciationum, comparando universales enunciationes ad indefinitas, hic determinat de oppositione enunciationum comparando universales ad particulares. Circa quod considerandum est quod potest duplex oppositio in his notari: una quidem universalis ad particularem, et hanc primo tangit; alia vero universalis ad universalem, et hanc tangit secundo; ibi: contrariae vero et cetera.	1. Now that he has determined the opposition of enunciations by comparing universal enunciations with indefinite enunciations, Aristotle determines the opposition of enunciations by comparing universals to particulars. It should be noted that there is a twofold opposition in these enunciations, one of universal to particular, and he touches upon this first; the other is the opposition of universal to universal, and this he takes up next, where he says, They are opposed contrarily when the universal affirmation is opposed to the universal negation, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 11 n. 2 Particularis vero affirmativa et particularis negativa, non habent proprie loquendo oppositionem, quia oppositio attenditur circa idem subiectum; subiectum autem particularis enunciationis est universale particulariter sumptum, non pro aliquo determinato singulari, sed indeterminate pro quocumque; et ideo, cum de universali particulariter sumpto aliquid affirmatur vel negatur, ipse modus enunciandi non habet quod affirmatio et negatio sint de eodem: quod requiritur ad oppositionem affirmationis et negationis, secundum praemissa.	2. The particular affirmative and particular negative do not have opposition properly speaking, because opposition is concerned with the same subject. But the subject of a particular enunciation is the universal taken particularly, not for a determinate singular but indeterminately for any singular. For this reason, when something is affirmed or denied of the universal particularly taken, the mode of enunciating is not such that the affirmation and negation are of the same thing; hence what is required for the opposition of affirmation and negation is lacking.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 11 n. 3 Dicit ergo primo quod enunciatio, quae universale significat, scilicet universaliter, opponitur contradictorie ei, quae non significat universaliter sed particulariter, si una earum sit affirmativa, altera vero sit negativa (sive universalis sit affirmativa et particularis negativa, sive e converso); ut cum dicitur, omnis homo est albus, non omnis homo est albus: hoc enim quod dico, non omnis, ponitur loco signi particularis negativi; unde aequipollet ei quae est, quidam homo non est albus; sicut et nullus, quod idem significat ac si diceretur, non ullus vel non quidam, est signum universale negativum. Unde hae duae, quidam homo est albus (quae est particularis affirmativa), nullus homo est albus (quae est universalis negativa), sunt contradictoriae.	3. First he says that the enunciation that signifies the universal, i.e., universally, is opposed contradictorily to the one that does not signify universally but particularly, if one of them is affirmative and the other negative (whether the universal is affirmative and the particular negative or conversely), as in "Every man is white,” "Not every man is white.” For, the "not every” is used in place of the particular negative sign; consequently, "Not every man is white” is equivalent to "Some man is not white.” In a parallel way "no,” which signifies the same thing as "not any” or "not some,” is the universal negative sign; consequently, the two enunciations, "Some man is white,” which is the particular affirmative, and "No man is white,” which is the universal negative, are contradictories.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 11 n. 4 Cuius ratio est quia contradictio consistit in sola remotione affirmationis per negationem; universalis autem affirmativa removetur per solam negationem particularis, nec aliquid aliud ex necessitate ad hoc exigitur; particularis autem affirmativa removeri non potest nisi per universalem negativam, quia iam dictum est quod particularis affirmativa non proprie opponitur particulari negativae. Unde relinquitur quod universali affirmativae contradictorie opponitur particularis negativa, et particulari affirmativae universalis negativa.	4. The reason for this is that contradiction consists in the mere removal of the affirmation by a negation. Now the universal affirmative is removed by merely the negation of the particular and nothing else is required of necessity; but the particular affirmative can only be removed by the universal negative because, as has already been said, the particular negative is not properly opposed to the particular affirmative. Consequently, the particular negative is opposed contradictorily to the universal affirmative and the universal negative to the particular affirmative.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 11 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: contrariae vero etc., tangit oppositionem universalium enunciationum; et dicit quod universalis affirmativa et universalis negativa sunt contrariae; sicut, omnis homo est iustus, nullus homo est iustus, quia scilicet universalis negativa non solum removet universalem affirmativam, sed etiam designat extremam distantiam, in quantum negat totum quod affirmatio ponit; et hoc pertinet ad rationem contrarietatis; et ideo particularis affirmativa et negativa se habent sicut medium inter contraria.	5. When he says, They are opposed contrarily when the universal affirmation is opposed to the universal negation, etc., he touches on the opposition of universal enunciations. The universal affirmative and universal negative, he says, are contraries, as in "Every man is just... No man is just”; for the universal negative not only removes the universal affirmative but also designates an extreme of distance between them inasmuch as it denies the whole that the affirmation posits; and this belongs to the notion of contrariety. The particular affirmative and particular negative, for this reason, are related as a mean between contraries.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 11 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: quocirca has quidem etc., ostendit quomodo se habeant affirmatio et negatio oppositae ad verum et falsum. Et primo, quantum ad contrarias; secundo, quantum ad contradictorias; ibi: quaecumque igitur contradictiones etc.; tertio, quantum ad ea quae videntur contradictoria, et non sunt; ibi: quaecumque autem in universalibus et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod quia universalis affirmativa et universalis negativa sunt contrariae, impossibile est quod sint simul verae. Contraria enim mutuo se expellunt. Sed particulares, quae contradictorie opponuntur universalibus contrariis, possunt simul verificari in eodem; sicut, non omnis homo est albus, quae contradictorie opponitur huic, omnis homo est albus, et, quidam homo est albus, quae contradictorie opponitur huic, nullus homo est albus. Et huiusmodi etiam simile invenitur in contrarietate rerum: nam album et nigrum numquam simul esse possunt in eodem, sed remotiones albi et nigri simul possunt esse: potest enim aliquid esse neque album neque nigrum, sicut patet in eo quod est pallidum. Et similiter contrariae enunciationes non possunt simul esse verae, sed earum contradictoriae, a quibus removentur, simul possunt esse verae.	6. He shows how the opposed affirmation and negation are related to truth and falsity when he says, Hence in the case of the latter it is impossible that both be at once true, etc. He shows this first in regard to contraries; secondly, in regard to contradictories, where he says, Whenever there are contradictions with respect to universal signifying universally, etc.; thirdly, in regard to those that seem contradictory but are not, where he says, But when the contradictions are of universals not signifying universally, etc. First, he says that because the universal affirmative and universal negative are contraries, it is impossible for them to be simultaneously true, for contraries mutually remove each other. However, the particular enunciations that are contradictorily opposed to the universal contraries, can be verified at the same time in the same thing, for example, "Not every man is white” (which is opposed contradictorily to "Every man is white”) and "Some man is white” (which is opposed contradictorily to "No man is white”) . A parallel to this is found in the contrariety of things, for white and black can never be in the same thing at the same time; but the remotion of white and black can be in the same thing at the same time, for a thing may be neither white nor black, as is evident in something yellow. In a similar way, contrary enunciations cannot be at once true, but their contradictories, by which they are removed, can be true simultaneously.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 11 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: quaecumque igitur contradictiones etc., ostendit qualiter veritas et falsitas se habeant in contradictoriis. Circa quod considerandum est quod, sicut dictum est supra, in contradictoriis negatio non plus facit, nisi quod removet affirmationem. Quod contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, quando est altera earum universalis, altera particularis, ut supra dictum est. Alio modo, quando utraque est singularis: quia tunc negatio ex necessitate refertur ad idem (quod non contingit in particularibus et indefinitis), nec potest se in plus extendere nisi ut removeat affirmationem. Et ideo singularis affirmativa semper contradicit singulari negativae, supposita identitate praedicati et subiecti. Et ideo dicit quod, sive accipiamus contradictionem universalium universaliter, scilicet quantum ad unam earum, sive singularium enunciationum, semper necesse est quod una sit vera et altera falsa. Neque enim contingit esse simul veras aut simul falsas, quia verum nihil aliud est, nisi quando dicitur esse quod est, aut non esse quod non est; falsum autem, quando dicitur esse quod non est, aut non esse quod est, ut patet ex IV metaphysicorum.	7. Then he says, Whenever there are contradictions with respect to universals signifying universally, one must be true and the other false, etc. Here he shows how truth and falsity are related in contradictories. As was said above, in contradictories the negation does no more than remove the affirmation, and this in two ways: in one way when one of them is universal, the other particular; in another way when each is singular. In the case of the singular, the negation is necessarily referred to the same thing—which is not the case in particulars and indefinites—and cannot extend to more than removing the affirmation. Accordingly, the singular affirmative is always contradictory to the singular negative, the identity of subject and predicate being supposed. Aristotle says, therefore, that whether we take the contradiction of universals universally (i.e., one of the universals being taken universally) or the contradiction of singular enunciations, one of them must always be true and the other false. It is not possible for them to be at once true or at once false because to be true is nothing other than to say of what is, that it is, or of what is not that it is not; to be false, to say of what is not, that it is, or of what is, that it is not, as is evident in IV Metaphysicorum [7: 1011b 25].
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 11 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: quaecumque autem universalium etc., ostendit qualiter se habeant veritas et falsitas in his, quae videntur esse contradictoria, sed non sunt. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo proponit quod intendit; secundo, probat propositum; ibi: si enim turpis non probus etc.; tertio, excludit id quod facere posset dubitationem; ibi: videbitur autem subito inconveniens et cetera. Circa primum considerandum est quod affirmatio et negatio in indefinitis propositionibus videntur contradictorie opponi propter hoc, quod est unum subiectum non determinatum per signum particulare, et ideo videtur affirmatio et negatio esse de eodem. Sed ad hoc removendum philosophus dicit quod quaecumque affirmative et negative dicuntur de universalibus non universaliter sumptis, non semper oportet quod unum sit verum, et aliud sit falsum, sed possunt simul esse vera. Simul enim est verum dicere quod homo est albus, et, homo non est albus, et quod homo est probus, et, homo non est probus.	8. When he says, But when the contradictions are of universals not signifying universally, etc., he shows how truth and falsity are related to enunciations that seem to be contradictory, but are not. First he proposes how they are related; then he proves it where he says, For if he is ugly, he is not beautiful, etc.; finally, he excludes a possible difficulty where he says, At first sight this might seem paradoxical, etc. With respect to the first point we should note that affirmation and negation in indefinite propositions seem to be opposed contradictorily because there is one subject in both of them and it is not determined by a particular sign. Hence, the affirmation and negation seem to be about the same thing. To exclude this, the Philosopher says that in the case of affirmative and negative enunciations of universals not taken universally, one need not always be true and the other false, but they can be at once true. For it is true to say both that "Man is white” and that "Man is not white,” and that "Man is honorable” and "Man is not honorable.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 11 n. 9 In quo quidem, ut Ammonius refert, aliqui Aristoteli contradixerunt ponentes quod indefinita negativa semper sit accipienda pro universali negativa. Et hoc astruebant primo quidem tali ratione: quia indefinita, cum sit indeterminata, se habet in ratione materiae; materia autem secundum se considerata, magis trahitur ad id quod indignius est; dignior autem est universalis affirmativa, quam particularis affirmativa; et ideo indefinitam affirmativam dicunt esse sumendam pro particulari affirmativa: sed negativam universalem, quae totum destruit, dicunt esse indigniorem particulari negativa, quae destruit partem, sicut universalis corruptio peior est quam particularis; et ideo dicunt quod indefinita negativa sumenda est pro universali negativa. Ad quod etiam inducunt quod philosophi, et etiam ipse Aristoteles utitur indefinitis negativis pro universalibus; sicut dicitur in libro Physic. quod non est motus praeter res; et in libro de anima, quod non est sensus praeter quinque. Sed istae rationes non concludunt. Quod enim primo dicitur quod materia secundum se sumpta sumitur pro peiori, verum est secundum sententiam Platonis, qui non distinguebat privationem a materia, non autem est verum secundum Aristotelem, qui dicit in Lib. I Physic. quod malum et turpe et alia huiusmodi ad defectum pertinentia non dicuntur de materia nisi per accidens. Et ideo non oportet quod indefinita semper stet pro peiori. Dato etiam quod indefinita necesse sit sumi pro peiori, non oportet quod sumatur pro universali negativa; quia sicut in genere affirmationis, universalis affirmativa est potior particulari, utpote particularem affirmativam continens; ita etiam in genere negationum universalis negativa potior est. Oportet autem in unoquoque genere considerare id quod est potius in genere illo, non autem id quod est potius simpliciter. Ulterius etiam, dato quod particularis negativa esset potior omnibus modis, non tamen adhuc ratio sequeretur: non enim ideo indefinita affirmativa sumitur pro particulari affirmativa, quia sit indignior, sed quia de universali potest aliquid affirmari ratione suiipsius, vel ratione partis contentae sub eo; unde sufficit ad veritatem eius quod praedicatum uni parti conveniat (quod designatur per signum particulare); et ideo veritas particularis affirmativae sufficit ad veritatem indefinitae affirmativae. Et simili ratione veritas particularis negativae sufficit ad veritatem indefinitae negativae, quia similiter potest aliquid negari de universali vel ratione suiipsius, vel ratione suae partis. Utuntur autem quandoque philosophi indefinitis negativis pro universalibus in his, quae per se removentur ab universalibus; sicut et utuntur indefinitis affirmativis pro universalibus in his, quae per se de universalibus praedicantur.	9. On this point, as Ammonius reports, some men, maintaining that the indefinite negative is always to be taken for the universal negative, have taken a position contradictory to Aristotle’s. They argued their position in the following way. The indefinite, since it is indeterminate, partakes of the nature of matter; but matter considered in itself is regarded as what is less worthy. Now the universal affirmative is more worthy than the particular affirmative and therefore they said that the indefinite affirmative was to be taken for the particular affirmative. But, they said, the universal negative, which destroys the whole, is less worthy than the particular negative, which destroys the part (just as universal corruption is worse than particular corruption); therefore, they said that the indefinite negative was to be taken for the universal negative. They went on to say in support of their position that philosophers, and even Aristotle himself, used indefinite negatives as universals. Thus, in the book Physicorum [III, 1: 200b 32] Aristotle says that there is not movement apart from the thing; and in the book De anima [III, 1: 424b 20], that there are not more than five senses. However, these reasons are not cogent. What they say about matter—that considered in itself it is taken for what is less worthy—is true according to the opinion of Plato, who did not distinguish privation from matter; however, it is not true according to Aristotle, who says in I Physicae [9: 192a 3 & 192a 22], that the evil and ugly and other things of this kind pertaining to defect, are said of matter only accidentally. Therefore the indefinite need not stand always for the more ignoble. Even supposing it is necessary that the indefinite be taken for the less worthy, it ought not to be taken for the universal negative; for just as the universal affirmative is more powerful than the particular in the genus of affirmation, as containing the particular affirmative, so also the universal negative is more powerful in the genus of negations. Now in each genus one must consider what is more powerful in that genus, not what is more powerful simply. Further, if we took the position that the particular negative is more powerful than all other modes, the reasoning still would not follow, for the indefinite affirmative is not taken for the particular affirmative because it is less worthy, but because something can be affirmed of the universal by reason of itself, or by reason of the part contained under it; whence it suffices for the truth of the particular affirmative that the predicate belongs to one part (which is designated by the particular sign); for this reason the truth of the particular affirmative suffices for the truth of the indefinite affirmative. For a similar reason the truth of the particular negative suffices for the truth of the indefinite negative, because in like manner, something can be denied of a universal either by reason of itself, or by reason of its part. Apropos of the examples cited for their argument, it should be noted that philosophers sometimes use indefinite negatives for universals in the case of things that are per se removed from universals; and they use indefinite affirmatives for universals in the case of things that are per se predicated of universals.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 11 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit: si enim turpis est etc., probat propositum per id, quod est ab omnibus concessum. Omnes enim concedunt quod indefinita affirmativa verificatur, si particularis affirmativa sit vera. Contingit autem accipi duas affirmativas indefinitas, quarum una includit negationem alterius, puta cum sunt opposita praedicata: quae quidem oppositio potest contingere dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum perfectam contrarietatem, sicut turpis, idest inhonestus, opponitur probo, idest honesto, et foedus, idest deformis secundum corpus, opponitur pulchro. Sed per quam rationem ista affirmativa est vera, homo est probus, quodam homine existente probo, per eamdem rationem ista est vera, homo est turpis, quodam homine existente turpi. Sunt ergo istae duae verae simul, homo est probus, homo est turpis; sed ad hanc, homo est turpis, sequitur ista, homo non est probus; ergo istae duae sunt simul verae, homo est probus, homo non est probus: et eadem ratione istae duae, homo est pulcher, homo non est pulcher. Alia autem oppositio attenditur secundum perfectum et imperfectum, sicut moveri opponitur ad motum esse, et fieri ad factum esse: unde ad fieri sequitur non esse eius quod fit in permanentibus, quorum esse est perfectum; secus autem est in successivis, quorum esse est imperfectum. Sic ergo haec est vera, homo est albus, quodam homine existente albo; et pari ratione, quia quidam homo fit albus, haec est vera, homo fit albus; ad quam sequitur, homo non est albus. Ergo istae duae sunt simul verae, homo est albus, homo non est albus.	10. When he says, For if he is ugly, he is not beautiful, etc., he proves what he has proposed by something conceded by everyone, namely, that the indefinite affirmative is verified if the particular affirmative is true. We may take two indefinite affirmatives, one of which includes the negation of the other, as for example when they have opposed predicates. Now this opposition can happen in two ways. It can be according to perfect contrariety, as shameful (i.e., dishonorable) is opposed to worthy (i.e., honorable) and ugly (i.e., deformed in body) is opposed to beautiful. But the reasoning by which the affirmative enunciation, "Man is worthy,” is true, i.e., by some worthy man existing, is the same as the reasoning by which "Man is shameful” is true, i.e., by a shameful man existing. Therefore these two enunciations are at once true, "Man is worthy” and "Man is shameful.” But the enunciation, "Man is not worthy,” follows upon "Man is shameful.” Therefore the two enunciations, " Man is worthy,” and "Man is not worthy,” are at once true; and by the same reasoning these two, "Man is beautiful” and "Man is not beautiful.” The other opposition is according to the complete and incomplete, as to be in movement is opposed to to have been moved, and becoming to to have become. Whence the non-being of that which is coming to be in permanent things, whose being is complete, follows upon the becoming but this is not so in successive things, whose being is incomplete. Thus, "Man is white” is true by the fact that a white man exists; by the same reasoning, because a man is becoming white, the enunciation "Man is becoming white” is true, upon which follows, "Man is not white.” Therefore, the two enunciations, "Man is white” and "Man is not white” are at once true.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 11 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit: videbitur autem etc., excludit id quod faceret dubitationem circa praedicta; et dicit quod subito, id est primo aspectu videtur hoc esse inconveniens, quod dictum est; quia hoc quod dico, homo non est albus, videtur idem significare cum hoc quod est, nullus homo est albus. Sed ipse hoc removet dicens quod neque idem significant neque ex necessitate sunt simul vera, sicut ex praedictis manifestum est.	11. Then when he says, At first sight this might seem paradoxical, etc., he excludes what might present a difficulty in relation to what has been said. At first sight, he says, what has been stated seems to be inconsistent; for "Man is not white” seems to signify the same thing as "No man is white.” But he rejects this when he says that they neither signify the same thing, nor are they at once true necessarily, as is evident from what has been said.

LECTURE 12

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 12 n. 1 Postquam philosophus distinxit diversos modos oppositionum in enunciationibus, nunc intendit ostendere quod uni affirmationi una negatio opponitur, et circa hoc duo facit: primo, ostendit quod uni affirmationi una negatio opponitur; secundo, ostendit quae sit una affirmatio vel negatio, ibi: una autem affirmatio et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo, proponit quod intendit; secundo, manifestat propositum; ibi: hoc enim idem etc.; tertio, epilogat quae dicta sunt; ibi: manifestum est ergo et cetera.	1. Having distinguished the diverse modes of opposition in enunciations, the Philosopher now proposes to show that there is one negation opposed to one affirmation. First he shows that there is one negation opposed to one affirmation; then he manifests what one affirmation and negation are, where he says, Affirmation or negation is one when one thing is signified of one thing, etc. With respect to what he intends to do he first proposes the point; then he manifests it where he says, for the negation must deny the same thing that the affirmation affirms, etc. Finally, he gives a summary of what has been said, where he says, We have said that there is one negation opposed contradictorily to one affirmation, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 12 n. 2 Dicit ergo primo, manifestum esse quod unius affirmationis est una negatio sola. Et hoc quidem fuit necessarium hic dicere: quia cum posuerit plura oppositionum genera, videbatur quod uni affirmationi duae negationes opponerentur; sicut huic affirmativae, omnis homo est albus, videtur, secundum praedicta, haec negativa opponi, nullus homo est albus, et haec, quidam homo non est albus. Sed si quis recte consideret huius affirmativae, omnis homo est albus, negativa est sola ista, quidam homo non est albus, quae solummodo removet ipsam, ut patet ex sua aequipollenti, quae est, non omnis homo est albus. Universalis vero negativa includit quidem in suo intellectu negationem universalis affirmativae, in quantum includit particularem negativam, sed supra hoc aliquid addit, in quantum scilicet importat non solum remotionem universalitatis, sed removet quamlibet partem eius. Et sic patet quod sola una est negatio universalis affirmationis: et idem apparet in aliis.	2. He says, then, that it is evident that there is only one negation of one affirmation. It is necessary to make this point here because he has posited many kinds of opposition and it might appear that two negations are opposed to one affirmation. Thus it might seem that the negative enunciations, "No man is white” and "Some man is not white” are both opposed to the affirmative enunciation, "Every man is white.” But if one carefully examines what has been said it will be evident that the only negative opposed to "Every man is white” is "Some man is not white,” which merely removes it, as is clear from its equivalent, "Not every man is white.” It is true that the negation of the universal affirmative is included in the understanding of the universal negative inasmuch as the universal negative includes the particular negative, but the universal negative adds something over and beyond this inasmuch as it not only brings about the removal of universality but removes every part of it. Thus it is evident that there is only one negation of a universal affirmation, and the same thing is evident in the others.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 12 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: hoc enim etc., manifestat propositum: et primo, per rationem; secundo, per exempla; ibi: dico autem, ut est Socrates albus. Ratio autem sumitur ex hoc, quod supra dictum est quod negatio opponitur affirmationi, quae est eiusdem de eodem: ex quo hic accipitur quod oportet negationem negare illud idem praedicatum, quod affirmatio affirmavit et de eodem subiecto, sive illud subiectum sit aliquid singulare, sive aliquid universale, vel universaliter, vel non universaliter sumptum; sed hoc non contingit fieri nisi uno modo, ita scilicet ut negatio neget id quod affirmatio posuit, et nihil aliud; ergo uni affirmationi opponitur una sola negatio.	3. When he says, for the negation must deny the same thing that the affirmation affirms, etc., he manifests what he has said: first, from reason; secondly, by example. The reasoning is taken from what has already been said, namely, that negation is opposed to affirmation when the enunciations are of the same thing of the same subject. Here he says that the negation must deny the same predicate the affirmation affirms, and of the same subject, whether that subject he something singular or something universal, either taken universally or not taken universally. But this can only be done in one way, i.e., when the negation denies what the affirmation posits, and nothing else. Therefore there is only one negation opposed to one affirmation.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 12 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit: dico autem, ut est etc., manifestat propositum per exempla. Et primo, in singularibus: huic enim affirmationi, Socrates est albus, haec sola opponitur, Socrates non est albus, tanquam eius propria negatio. Si vero esset aliud praedicatum vel aliud subiectum, non esset negatio opposita, sed omnino diversa; sicut ista, Socrates non est musicus, non opponitur ei quae est, Socrates est albus; neque etiam illa quae est, Plato est albus, huic quae est, Socrates non est albus. Secundo, manifestat idem quando subiectum affirmationis est universale universaliter sumptum; sicut huic affirmationi, omnis homo est albus, opponitur sicut propria eius negatio, non omnis homo est albus, quae aequipollet particulari negativae. Tertio, ponit exemplum quando affirmationis subiectum est universale particulariter sumptum: et dicit quod huic affirmationi, aliquis homo est albus, opponitur tanquam eius propria negatio, nullus homo est albus. Nam nullus dicitur, quasi non ullus, idest, non aliquis. Quarto, ponit exemplum quando affirmationis subiectum est universale indefinite sumptum et dicit quod isti affirmationi, homo est albus, opponitur tanquam propria eius negatio illa quae est, non est homo albus.	4. In manifesting this by example, where he says, For example, the negation of "Socrates is white,” etc., he first takes examples of singulars. Thus, "Socrates is not white” is the proper negation opposed to "Socrates is white.” If there were another predicate or another subject, it would not be the opposed negation, but wholly different. For example, "Socrates is not musical” is not opposed to "Socrates is white,” nor is "Plato is white” opposed to "Socrates is not white.” Then he manifests the same thing in an affirmation with a universal universally taken as the subject. Thus, "Not every man is white,” which is equivalent to the particular negative, is the proper negation opposed to the affirmation, "Every man is white.” Thirdly, he gives an example in which the subject of the affirmation is a universal taken particularly. The proper negation opposed to the affirmation "Some man is white” is "No man is white,” for to say "no” is to say "not any,” i.e., "not some.” Finally, he gives as an example enunciations in which the subject of the affirmation is the universal taken indefinitely; "Man is not white” is the proper negation opposed to the affirmation "Man is white.”
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 12 n. 5 Sed videtur hoc esse contra id, quod supra dictum est quod negativa indefinita verificatur simul cum indefinita affirmativa; negatio autem non potest verificari simul cum sua opposita affirmatione, quia non contingit de eodem affirmare et negare. Sed ad hoc dicendum quod oportet quod hic dicitur intelligi quando negatio ad idem refertur quod affirmatio continebat; et hoc potest esse dupliciter: uno modo, quando affirmatur aliquid inesse homini ratione sui ipsius (quod est per se de eodem praedicari), et hoc ipsum negatio negat; alio modo, quando aliquid affirmatur de universali ratione sui singularis, et pro eodem de eo negatur.	5. The last example used to manifest his point seems to be contrary to what he has already said, namely, that the indefinite negative and the indefinite affirmative can be simultaneously verified; but a negation and its opposite affirmation cannot be simultaneously verified, since it is not possible to affirm and deny of the same subject. But what Aristotle is saying here must be understood of the negation when it is referred to the same thing the affirmation contained, and this is possible in two ways: in one way, when something is affirmed to belong to man by reason of what he is (which is per se to be predicated of the same thing), and this very thing the negation denies; secondly, when something is affirmed of the universal by reason of its singular, and the same thing is denied of it.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 12 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: quod igitur una affirmatio etc., epilogat quae dicta sunt, et concludit manifestum esse ex praedictis quod uni affirmationi opponitur una negatio; et quod oppositarum affirmationum et negationum aliae sunt contrariae, aliae contradictoriae; et dictum est quae sint utraeque. Tacet autem de subcontrariis, quia non sunt recte oppositae, ut supra dictum est. Dictum est etiam quod non omnis contradictio est vera vel falsa; et sumitur hic large contradictio pro qualicumque oppositione affirmationis et negationis: nam in his quae sunt vere contradictoriae semper una est vera, et altera falsa. Quare autem in quibusdam oppositis hoc non verificetur, dictum est supra; quia scilicet quaedam non sunt contradictoriae, sed contrariae, quae possunt simul esse falsae. Contingit etiam affirmationem et negationem non proprie opponi; et ideo contingit eas esse veras simul. Dictum est autem quando altera semper est vera, altera autem falsa, quia scilicet in his quae vere sunt contradictoria.	6. He concludes by summarizing what has been said: We have said that there is one negation opposed contradictorily to one affirmation, etc. He considers it evident from what has been said that one negation is opposed to one affirmation; and that of opposite affirmations and negations, one kind are contraries, the other contradictories; and that what each kind is has been stated. He does not speak of subcontraries because it is not accurate to say that they are opposites, as was said above. He also says here that it has been shown that not every contradiction is true or false, "contradiction” being taken here broadly for any kind of opposition of affirmation and negation; for in enunciations that are truly contradictory one is always true and the other false. The reason why this may not be verified in some kinds of opposites has already been stated, namely, because some are not contradictories but contraries, and these can be false at the same time. It is also possible for affirmation and negation not to be properly opposed and consequently to be true at the same time. It has been stated, however, when one is always true and the other false, namely, in those that are truly contradictories.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 12 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: una autem affirmatio etc., ostendit quae sit affirmatio vel negatio una. Quod quidem iam supra dixerat, ubi habitum est quod una est enunciatio, quae unum significat; sed quia enunciatio, in qua aliquid praedicatur de aliquo universali universaliter vel non universaliter, multa sub se continet, intendit ostendere quod per hoc non impeditur unitas enunciationis. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, ostendit quod unitas enunciationis non impeditur per multitudinem, quae continetur sub universali, cuius ratio una est; secundo, ostendit quod impeditur unitas enunciationis per multitudinem, quae continetur sub sola nominis unitate; ibi: si vero duobus et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod una est affirmatio vel negatio cum unum significatur de uno, sive illud unum quod subiicitur sit universale universaliter sumptum sive non sit aliquid tale, sed sit universale particulariter sumptum vel indefinite, aut etiam si subiectum sit singulare. Et exemplificat de diversis sicut universalis ista affirmativa est una, omnis homo est albus; et similiter particularis negativa quae est eius negatio, scilicet non est omnis homo albus. Et subdit alia exempla, quae sunt manifesta. In fine autem apponit quamdam conditionem, quae requiritur ad hoc quod quaelibet harum sit una, si scilicet album, quod est praedicatum, significat unum: nam sola multitudo praedicati impediret unitatem enunciationis. Ideo autem universalis propositio una est, quamvis sub se multitudinem singularium comprehendat, quia praedicatum non attribuitur multis singularibus, secundum quod sunt in se divisa, sed secundum quod uniuntur in uno communi.	7. The Philosopher explains what one affirmation or negation is where he says, Affirmation or negation is one when one thing is signified of one thing, etc. He did in fact state this earlier when he said that an enunciation is one when it signifies one thing, but because the enunciation in which something is predicated of a universal, either universally or not universally, contains under it many things, he is going to show here that unity of enunciation is not impeded by this. First he shows that unity of enunciation is not impeded by the multitude contained under the universal, whose notion is one. Then he shows that unity of enunciation is impeded by the multitude contained under the unity of a name only, where he says, But if one name is imposed for two things, etc. He says, then, that an affirmation or negation is one when one thing is signified of one thing, whether the one thing that is subjected be a universal taken universally, or not, i.e., it may be a universal taken particularly or indefinitely, or even a singular. He gives examples of the differ6nt kinds: such as, the universal affirmative "Every man is white” and the particular negative, which is its negation, "Not every man is white,” each of which is one. There are other examples which are evident. At the end he states a condition that is required for any of them to be one, i.e., provided the "white,” which is the predicate, signifies one thing; for a multiple predicate with a subject signifying one thing would also impede the unity of an enunciation. The universal proposition is therefore one, even though it comprehends a multitude of singulars under it, for the predicate is not attributed to many singulars according as each is divided from the other, but according as they are united in one common thing.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 12 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: si vero duobus etc., ostendit quod sola unitas nominis non sufficit ad unitatem enunciationis. Et circa hoc quatuor facit: primo, proponit quod intendit; secundo, exemplificat; ibi: ut si quis ponat etc.; tertio, probat; ibi: nihil enim differt etc.; quarto, infert corollarium ex dictis; ibi: quare nec in his et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod si unum nomen imponatur duabus rebus, ex quibus non fit unum, non est affirmatio una. Quod autem dicit, ex quibus non fit unum, potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo, ad excludendum hoc quod multa continentur sub uno universali, sicut homo et equus sub animali: hoc enim nomen animal significat utrumque, non secundum quod sunt multa et differentia ad invicem, sed secundum quod uniuntur in natura generis. Alio modo, et melius, ad excludendum hoc quod ex multis partibus fit unum, sive sint partes rationis, sicut sunt genus et differentia, quae sunt partes definitionis: sive sint partes integrales alicuius compositi, sicut ex lapidibus et lignis fit domus. Si ergo sit tale praedicatum quod attribuatur rei, requiritur ad unitatem enunciationis quod illa multa quae significantur, concurrant in unum secundum aliquem dictorum modorum; unde non sufficeret sola unitas vocis. Si vero sit tale praedicatum quod referatur ad vocem, sufficiet unitas vocis; ut si dicam, canis est nomen.	8. When he says, But if one name is imposed for two things, he shows that unity of name alone does not suffice for unity of an enunciation. He first makes the point; secondly, he gives an example, where he says, if someone were to impose the name "cloak” on horse and man, etc.; thirdly, he proves it where he says, For this is no different from saying "Horse and man is white,” etc.; finally, he infers a corollary from what has been said, where he says, Consequently, in such enunciations, it is not necessary, etc. If one name is imposed for two things, he says, from which one thing is not formed, there is not one affirmation. The from which one thing is not formed can be understood in two ways. It can be understood as excluding the many that are contained under one universal, as man and horse under animal, for the name "animal” signifies both,.not as they are many and different from each other but as they are united in the nature of the genus. It can also be understood—and this would be more accurate—as excluding the many parts from which something one is formed, whether the parts of the notion as known, as the genus and the difference, which are parts of the definition, or the integral parts of some composite, as the stones and wood from which a house is made. If, then, there is such a predicate which is attributed to a thing, the many that are signified must concur in one thing according to some of the modes mentioned in order that there be one enunciation; unity of vocal sound alone would not suffice. However, if there is such a predicate which is referred to vocal sound, unity of vocal sound would suffice, as in "‘Dog’is a name.”
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 12 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit: ut si quis etc., exemplificat quod dictum est, ut si aliquis hoc nomen tunica imponat ad significandum hominem et equum: et sic, si dicam, tunica est alba, non est affirmatio una, neque negatio una. Deinde cum dicit: nihil enim differt etc., probat quod dixerat tali ratione. Si tunica significat hominem et equum, nihil differt si dicatur, tunica est alba, aut si dicatur, homo est albus, et, equus est albus; sed istae, homo est albus, et equus est albus, significant multa et sunt plures enunciationes; ergo etiam ista, tunica est alba, multa significat. Et hoc si significet hominem et equum ut res diversas: si vero significet hominem et equum ut componentia unam rem, nihil significat, quia non est aliqua res quae componatur ex homine et equo. Quod autem dicit quod non differt dicere, tunica est alba, et, homo est albus, et, equus est albus, non est intelligendum quantum ad veritatem et falsitatem. Nam haec copulativa, homo est albus et equus est albus, non potest esse vera nisi utraque pars sit vera: sed haec, tunica est alba, praedicta positione facta, potest esse vera etiam altera existente falsa; alioquin non oporteret distinguere multiplices propositiones ad solvendum rationes sophisticas. Sed hoc est intelligendum quantum ad unitatem et multiplicitatem. Nam sicut cum dicitur, homo est albus et equus est albus, non invenitur aliqua una res cui attribuatur praedicatum; ita etiam nec cum dicitur, tunica est alba.	9. He gives an example of what he means where he says, For example, if someone were to impose the name "cloak,” etc. That is, if someone were to impose the name "cloak” to signify man and horse and then said, "Cloak is white,” there would not be one affirmation, nor would there be one negation. He proves this where he says, For this is no different from saying, etc. His argument is as follows. If "cloak” signifies man and horse there is no difference between saying "Cloak is white” and saying, "Man is white, and, Horse is white.” But "Man is white, and, horse is white” signify many and are many enunciations. Therefore, the enunciation, "Cloak is white,” signifies many things. This is the case if "cloak” signifies man and horse as diverse things; but if it signifies man and horse as one thing, it signifies nothing, for there is not any thing composed of man and horse. When Aristotle says that there is no difference between saying "Cloak is white” and, "Man is white, and, horse is white,” it is not to be understood with respect to truth and falsity. For the copulative enunciation "Man is white and horse is white” cannot be true unless each part is true; but the enunciation "Cloak is white,” under the condition given, can be true even when one is false; otherwise it would not be necessary to distinguish multiple propositions to solve sophistic arguments. Rather, it is to be understood with respect to unity and multiplicity, for just as in "Man is white and horse is white” there is not some one thing to which the predicate is attributed, so also in "Cloak is white.”
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 12 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit: quare nec in his etc., concludit ex praemissis quod nec in his affirmationibus et negationibus, quae utuntur subiecto aequivoco, semper oportet unam esse veram et aliam falsam, quia scilicet negatio potest aliud negare quam affirmatio affirmet.	10. When he says, Consequently, it is not necessary in such enunciations, etc., he concludes from what has been said that in affirmations and negations that use an equivocal subject, one need not always be true and the other false since the negation may deny something other than the affirmation affirms.

LECTURE 13

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 13 n. 1 Postquam philosophus determinavit de oppositione enunciationum et ostendit quomodo dividunt verum et falsum oppositae enunciationes; hic inquirit de quodam quod poterat esse dubium, utrum scilicet id quod dictum est similiter inveniatur in omnibus enunciationibus vel non. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, proponit dissimilitudinem; secundo, probat eam; ibi: nam si omnis affirmatio et cetera.	1. Now that he, has treated opposition of enunciations and has shown the way in which opposed enunciations divide truth and falsity, the Philosopher inquires about a question that might arise, namely, whether what has been said is found to be so in all enunciations or not. And first he proposes a dissimilarity in enunciations with regard to dividing truth and falsity, then proves it where he says, For if every affirmation or negation is true or false, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 13 n. 2 Circa primum considerandum est quod philosophus in praemissis triplicem divisionem enunciationum assignavit, quarum prima fuit secundum unitatem enunciationis, prout scilicet enunciatio est una simpliciter vel coniunctione una; secunda fuit secundum qualitatem, prout scilicet enunciatio est affirmativa vel negativa; tertia fuit secundum quantitatem, utpote quod enunciatio quaedam est universalis, quaedam particularis, quaedam indefinita et quaedam singularis.	2. In relation to the dissimilarity which he intends to prove we should recall that the Philosopher has given three divisions of the enunciation. The first was in relation to the unity of enunciation, and according to this it is divided into one simply and one by conjunction; the second was in relation to quality, and according to this it is divided into affirmative and negative; the third was in relation to quantity, and according to this it is either universal, particular, indefinite, or singular.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 13 n. 3 Tangitur autem hic quarta divisio enunciationum secundum tempus. Nam quaedam est de praesenti, quaedam de praeterito, quaedam de futuro; et haec etiam divisio potest accipi ex his quae supra dicta sunt: dictum est enim supra quod necesse est omnem enunciationem esse ex verbo vel ex casu verbi; verbum autem est quod consignificat praesens tempus; casus autem verbi sunt, qui consignificant tempus praeteritum vel futurum. Potest autem accipi quinta divisio enunciationum secundum materiam, quae quidem divisio attenditur secundum habitudinem praedicati ad subiectum: nam si praedicatum per se insit subiecto, dicetur esse enunciatio in materia necessaria vel naturali; ut cum dicitur, homo est animal, vel, homo est risibile. Si vero praedicatum per se repugnet subiecto quasi excludens rationem ipsius, dicetur enunciatio esse in materia impossibili sive remota; ut cum dicitur, homo est asinus. Si vero medio modo se habeat praedicatum ad subiectum, ut scilicet nec per se repugnet subiecto, nec per se insit, dicetur enunciatio esse in materia possibili sive contingenti.	3. Here he treats of a fourth division of enunciation, a division according to time. Some enunciations are about the present, some about the past, some about the future. This division could be seen in what Aristotle has already said, namely, that every enunciation must have a verb or a mode of a verb, the verb being that which signifies the present time, the modes with past or future time. In addition, a fifth division of the enunciation can be made, a division in regard to matter. It is taken from the relationship of the predicate to the subject. If the predicate is per se in the subject, it will be said to be an enunciation in necessary or natural matter. Examples of this are "Man is an animal” and "Man is risible.” If the predicate is per se repugnant to the subject, as excluding the notion of it, it is said to be an enunciation in impossible or remote matter; for example, the enunciation "Man is an ass.” If the predicate is related to the subject in a way midway between these two, being neither per se repugnant to the subject nor per se in it, the enunciation is said to be in possible or contingent matter.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 13 n. 4 His igitur enunciationum differentiis consideratis, non similiter se habet iudicium de veritate et falsitate in omnibus. Unde philosophus dicit, ex praemissis concludens, quod in his quae sunt, idest in propositionibus de praesenti, et in his quae facta sunt, idest in enunciationibus de praeterito, necesse est quod affirmatio vel negatio determinate sit vera vel falsa. Diversificatur tamen hoc, secundum diversam quantitatem enunciationis; nam in enunciationibus, in quibus de universalibus subiectis aliquid universaliter praedicatur, necesse est quod semper una sit vera, scilicet affirmativa vel negativa, et altera falsa, quae scilicet ei opponitur. Dictum est enim supra quod negatio enunciationis universalis in qua aliquid universaliter praedicatur, est negativa non universalis, sed particularis, et e converso universalis negativa non est directe negatio universalis affirmativae, sed particularis; et sic oportet, secundum praedicta, quod semper una earum sit vera et altera falsa in quacumque materia. Et eadem ratio est in enunciationibus singularibus, quae etiam contradictorie opponuntur, ut supra habitum est. Sed in enunciationibus, in quibus aliquid praedicatur de universali non universaliter, non est necesse quod semper una sit vera et altera sit falsa, qui possunt ambae esse simul verae, ut supra ostensum est.	4. Given these differences of enunciations, the judgment of truth and falsity is not alike in all. Accordingly, the Philosopher says, as a conclusion from what has been established: In enunciations about that which is, i.e., in propositions about the present, or has taken place, i.e., in enunciations about the past, the affirmation or the negation must be determinately true or false. However, this differs according to the different quantity of the enunciations. In enunciations in which something is universally predicated of universal subjects, one must always be true, either the affirmative or negative, and the other false, i.e., the one opposed to it. For as was said above, the negation of a universal enunciation in which something is predicated universally, is not the universal negative, but the particular negative, and conversely, the universal negative is not directly the negation of the universal affirmative, but the particular negative. According to the foregoing, then, one of these must always be true and the other false in any matter whatever. And the same is the case in singular enunciations, which are also opposed contradictorily. However, in enunciations in which something is predicated of a universal but not universally, it is not necessary that one always be true and the other false, for both could be at once true.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 13 n. 5 Et hoc quidem ita se habet quantum ad propositiones, quae sunt de praeterito vel de praesenti: sed si accipiamus enunciationes, quae sunt de futuro, etiam similiter se habent quantum ad oppositiones, quae sunt de universalibus vel universaliter vel non universaliter sumptis. Nam in materia necessaria omnes affirmativae determinate sunt verae, ita in futuris sicut in praeteritis et praesentibus; negativae vero falsae. In materia autem impossibili, e contrario. In contingenti vero universales sunt falsae et particulares sunt verae, ita in futuris sicut in praeteritis et praesentibus. In indefinitis autem, utraque simul est vera in futuris sicut in praesentibus vel praeteritis.	5. The case as it was just stated has to do with propositions about the past or the present. Enunciations about the future that are of universals taken either universally or not universally are also related in the same way in regard to oppositions. In necessary matter all affirmative enunciations are determinately true; this holds for enunciations in future time as well as in past and present time; and negative enunciations are determinately false. In impossible matter the contrary is the case. In contingent matter, however, universal enunciations are false and particular enunciations true. This is the case in enunciations about the future as well as those of the past and present. In indefinite enunciations, both are at once true in future enunciations as well as in those of the present or the past.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 13 n. 6 Sed in singularibus et futuris est quaedam dissimilitudo. Nam in praeteritis et praesentibus necesse est quod altera oppositarum determinate sit vera et altera falsa in quacumque materia; sed in singularibus quae sunt de futuro hoc non est necesse, quod una determinate sit vera et altera falsa. Et hoc quidem dicitur quantum ad materiam contingentem: nam quantum ad materiam necessariam et impossibilem similis ratio est in futuris singularibus, sicut in praesentibus et praeteritis. Nec tamen Aristoteles mentionem fecit de materia contingenti, quia illa proprie ad singularia pertinent quae contingenter eveniunt, quae autem per se insunt vel repugnant, attribuuntur singularibus secundum universalium rationes. Circa hoc igitur versatur tota praesens intentio: utrum in enunciationibus singularibus de futuro in materia contingenti necesse sit quod determinate una oppositarum sit vera et altera falsa.	6. In singular future enunciations, however, there is a difference. In past and present singular enunciations, one of the opposites must be determinately true and the other false in any matter whatsoever, but in singulars that are about the future, it is not necessary that one be determinately true and the other false. This holds with respect to contingent matter; with respect to necessary and impossible matter the rule is the same as in enunciations about the present and the past. Aristotle has not mentioned contingent matter until now because those things that take place contingently pertain exclusively to singulars, whereas those that per se belong or are repugnant are attributed to singulars according to the notions of their universals. Aristotle is therefore wholly concerned here with this question: whether in singular enunciations about the future in contingent matter it is necessary that one of the opposites be determinately true and the other determinately false.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 13 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: nam si omnis affirmatio etc., probat praemissam differentiam. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, probat propositum ducendo ad inconveniens; secundo, ostendit illa esse impossibilia quae sequuntur; ibi: quare ergo contingunt inconvenientia et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ostendit quod in singularibus et futuris non semper potest determinate attribui veritas alteri oppositorum; secundo, ostendit quod non potest esse quod utraque veritate careat; ibi: at vero neque quoniam et cetera. Circa primum ponit duas rationes, in quarum prima ponit quamdam consequentiam, scilicet quod si omnis affirmatio vel negatio determinate est vera vel falsa ita in singularibus et futuris sicut in aliis, consequens est quod omnia necesse sit vel determinate esse vel non esse. Deinde cum dicit: quare si hic quidem etc. vel, si itaque hic quidem, ut habetur in Graeco, probat consequentiam praedictam. Ponamus enim quod sint duo homines, quorum unus dicat aliquid esse futurum, puta quod Socrates curret, alius vero dicat hoc idem ipsum non esse futurum; supposita praemissa positione, scilicet quod in singularibus et futuris contingit alteram esse veram, scilicet vel affirmativam vel negativam, sequetur quod necesse sit quod alter eorum verum dicat, non autem uterque: quia non potest esse quod in singularibus propositionibus futuris utraque sit simul vera, scilicet affirmativa et negativa: sed hoc habet locum solum in indefinitis. Ex hoc autem quod necesse est alterum eorum verum dicere, sequitur quod necesse sit determinate vel esse vel non esse. Et hoc probat consequenter: quia ista duo se convertibiliter consequuntur, scilicet quod verum sit id quod dicitur, et quod ita sit in re. Et hoc est quod manifestat consequenter dicens quod si verum est dicere quod album sit, de necessitate sequitur quod ita sit in re; et si verum est negare, ex necessitate sequitur quod ita non sit. Et e converso: quia si ita est in re vel non est, ex necessitate sequitur quod sit verum affirmare vel negare. Et eadem etiam convertibilitas apparet in falso: quia, si aliquis mentitur falsum dicens, ex necessitate sequitur quod non ita sit in re, sicut ipse affirmat vel negat; et e converso, si non est ita in re sicut ipse affirmat vel negat, sequitur quod affirmans vel negans mentiatur.	7. He proves that there is a difference between these opposites and the others where he says, For if every affirmation or negation is true or false, etc. First he proves it by showing that the opposite position leads to what is unlikely; secondly, he shows that what follows from this position is impossible, where he says, These absurd consequences and others like them, etc. In his proof he first shows that in enunciations about future singulars, truth cannot always be determinately attributed to one of the opposites, and then he shows that both cannot lack truth, where he says, But still it is not possible to say that neither is true, etc. He gives two arguments with respect to the first point. In the first of these he states a certain consequence, namely, that if every affirmation or negation is determinately true or false, in future singulars as in the others, it follows that all things must determinately be or not be. He proves this consequence where he says, wherefore, if one person says, etc.,or as it is in the Greek, for if one person says something will be, etc.”’ Let us suppose, he argues, that there are two men, one of whom says something will take place in the future, for instance, that Socrates will run, and the other says this same thing will not take place. If the foregoing position is supposed—that in singular future enunciations one of them will be true, either the affirmative or the negative it would follow that only one of them is saying what is true, because in singular future propositions both cannot be at once true, that is, both the affirmative and the negative. This occurs only in indefinite propositions. Moreover, from the fact that one of them must be speaking the truth, it follows that it must determinately be or not be. Then he proves this from the fact that these two follow upon each other convertibly, namely, truth is that which is said and which is so in reality. And this is what he manifests when he says that, if it is true to say that a thing is white, it necessarily follows that it is so in reality; and if it is true to deny it, it necessarily follows that it is not so. And conversely, for if it is so in reality, or is not, it necessarily follows that it is true to affirm or deny it. The same convertibility is also evident in what is false, for if someone lies, saying what is false, it necessarily follows that in reality it is not as he affirms or denies it to be; and conversely, if it is not in reality as he affirms or denies it to be, it follows that in affirming or denying it he lies.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 13 n. 8 Est ergo processus huius rationis talis. Si necesse est quod omnis affirmatio vel negatio in singularibus et futuris sit vera vel falsa, necesse est quod omnis affirmans vel negans determinate dicat verum vel falsum. Ex hoc autem sequitur quod omne necesse sit esse vel non esse. Ergo, si omnis affirmatio vel negatio determinate sit vera, necesse est omnia determinate esse vel non esse. Ex hoc concludit ulterius quod omnia sint ex necessitate. Per quod triplex genus contingentium excluditur.	8. The process of Aristotle’s reasoning is as follows. If it is necessary that every affirmation or negation about future singulars is true or false, it is necessary that everyone who affirms or denies, determinately says what is true or false. From this it follows that it is necessary that everything be or not be. Therefore, if every affirmation or negation is determinately true, it is necessary that everything determinately be or not be. From this he concludes further that all things are of necessity. This would exclude the three kinds of contingent things,
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 13 n. 9 Quaedam enim contingunt ut in paucioribus, quae accidunt a casu vel fortuna. Quaedam vero se habent ad utrumlibet, quia scilicet non magis se habent ad unam partem, quam ad aliam, et ista procedunt ex electione. Quaedam vero eveniunt ut in pluribus; sicut hominem canescere in senectute, quod causatur ex natura. Si autem omnia ex necessitate evenirent, nihil horum contingentium esset. Et ideo dicit nihil est quantum ad ipsam permanentiam eorum quae permanent contingenter; neque fit quantum ad productionem eorum quae contingenter causantur; nec casu quantum ad ea quae sunt in minori parte, sive in paucioribus; nec utrumlibet quantum ad ea quae se habent aequaliter ad utrumque, scilicet esse vel non esse, et ad neutrum horum sunt determinata: quod significat cum subdit, nec erit, nec non erit. De eo enim quod est magis determinatum ad unam partem possumus determinate verum dicere quod hoc erit vel non erit, sicut medicus de convalescente vere dicit, iste sanabitur, licet forte ex aliquo accidente eius sanitas impediatur. Unde et philosophus dicit in II de generatione quod futurus quis incedere, non incedet. De eo enim qui habet propositum determinatum ad incedendum, vere potest dici quod ipse incedet, licet per aliquod accidens impediatur eius incessus. Sed eius quod est ad utrumlibet proprium est quod, quia non determinatur magis ad unum quam ad alterum, non possit de eo determinate dici, neque quod erit, neque quod non erit. Quomodo autem sequatur quod nihil sit ad utrumlibet ex praemissa hypothesi, manifestat subdens quod, si omnis affirmatio vel negatio determinate sit vera, oportet quod vel ille qui affirmat vel ille qui negat dicat verum; et sic tollitur id quod est ad utrumlibet: quia, si esse aliquid ad utrumlibet, similiter se haberet ad hoc quod fieret vel non fieret, et non magis ad unum quam ad alterum. Est autem considerandum quod philosophus non excludit hic expresse contingens quod est ut in pluribus, duplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia tale contingens non excludit quin altera oppositarum enunciationum determinate sit vera et altera falsa, ut dictum est. Secundo, quia remoto contingenti quod est in paucioribus, quod a casu accidit, removetur per consequens contingens quod est ut in pluribus: nihil enim differt id quod est in pluribus ab eo quod est in paucioribus, nisi quod deficit in minori parte.	9. The three kinds of contingent things are these: some, the ones that happen by chance or fortune, happen infrequently; others are in determinate to either of two alternatives because they are not inclined more to one part than to another, and these proceed from choice; still others occur for the most part, for example, men becoming gray in old age, which is caused by nature. If, however, everything took place of necessity, there would be none of these kinds of contingent things. Therefore, Aristotle says, nothing is with respect to the very permanence of those things that are contingently permanent; or takes place with respect to those that are caused contingently; by chance with respect to those that take place for the least part, or infrequently; or is indeterminate to either of two alternatives with respect to those that are related equally to either of two, i.e., to being or to nonbeing, and are determined to neither of these, which he signifies when he adds, or will be, or will not be. For of that which is more determined to one part we can truly and determinately say that it will be or will not be, as for example, the physician truly says of the convalescent, "He will be restored to health,” although perchance by some accident his cure may be impeded. The Philosopher makes this same point when he says in II De generatione [11: 337b 7], "A man about to walk might not walk.” For it can be truly said of someone who has the determined intention to walk that he will walk, although by some accident his walking might be impeded. But in the case of that which is indeterminate to either of two, it cannot determinately be said of it either that it will be or that it will not be, for it is proper to it not to be determined more to one than to another. Then he manifests how it follows from the foregoing hypothesis that nothing is indeterminate to either of two when he adds that if every affirmation or negation is determinately true, then either the one who affirms or the one who denies must be speaking the truth. That which is indeterminate to either of two is therefore destroyed, for if there is something indeterminate to either of two, it would be related alike to taking place or not taking place, and no more to one than to the other. It should be, noted that the Philosopher is not expressly excluding the contingent that is for the most part. There are two reasons for this. In the first place, this kind of contingency still excludes the determinate truth of one of the opposite enunciations and the falsity of the other, as has been said. Secondly, when the contingent that is infrequent, i.e., that which takes place by chance, is removed, the contingent that is for the most part is removed as a consequence, for there is no difference between that which is for the most part and that which is infrequent except that the former fails for the least part.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 13 n. 10 Deinde cum dicit: amplius si est album etc., ponit secundam rationem ad ostendendum praedictam dissimilitudinem, ducendo ad impossibile. Si enim similiter se habet veritas et falsitas in praesentibus et futuris, sequitur ut quidquid verum est de praesenti, etiam fuerit verum de futuro, eo modo quo est verum de praesenti. Sed determinate nunc est verum dicere de aliquo singulari quod est album; ergo primo, idest antequam illud fieret album, erat verum dicere quoniam hoc erit album. Sed eadem ratio videtur esse in propinquo et in remoto; ergo si ante unum diem verum fuit dicere quod hoc erit album, sequitur quod semper fuit verum dicere de quolibet eorum, quae facta sunt, quod erit. Si autem semper est verum dicere de praesenti quoniam est, vel de futuro quoniam erit, non potest hoc non esse vel non futurum esse. Cuius consequentiae ratio patet, quia ista duo sunt incompossibilia, quod aliquid vere dicatur esse, et quod non sit. Nam hoc includitur in significatione veri, ut sit id quod dicitur. Si ergo ponitur verum esse id quod dicitur de praesenti vel de futuro, non potest esse quin illud sit praesens vel futurum. Sed quod non potest non fieri idem significat cum eo quod est impossibile non fieri. Et quod impossibile est non fieri idem significat cum eo quod est necesse fieri, ut in secundo plenius dicetur. Sequitur ergo ex praemissis quod omnia, quae futura sunt, necesse est fieri. Ex quo sequitur ulterius, quod nihil sit neque ad utrumlibet neque a casu, quia illud quod accidit a casu non est ex necessitate, sed ut in paucioribus; hoc autem relinquit pro inconvenienti; ergo et primum est falsum, scilicet quod omne quod est verum esse, verum fuerit determinate dicere esse futurum.	10. When he says, Furthermore, on such a supposition, if something is now white, it was true to say formerly that it will be white, etc., he gives a second argument to show the dissimilarity of enunciations about future singulars. This argument is by reduction to the impossible. If truth and falsity. are related in like manner in present and in future enunciations, it follows that whatever is true of the present was also true of the future, in the way in which it is true of the present. But it is now determinately true to say of some singular that it is white; therefore formerly, i.e., before it became white, it was true to say that this will be white. Now the same reasoning seems to hold for the proximate and the remote. Therefore, if yesterday it was true to say that this will be white, it follows that it was always true to say of anything that has taken place that it will be. And if it is always true to say of the present that it is, or of the future that it will be, it is not possible that this not be, or, that it will not be. The reason for this consequence is evident, for these two cannot stand together, that something truly be said to be, and that it not be; for this is included in the signification of the true, that that which is said, is. If therefore that which is said concerning the present or the future is posited to be true, it is not possible that this not be in the present or future. But that which cannot not take place signifies the same thing as that which is impossible not to take place. And that which is impossible not to take place signifies the same thing as that which necessarily takes place, as will be explained more fully in the second book. It follows, therefore, that all things that are future must necessarily take place. From this it follows further, that there is nothing that is indeterminate to either of two or that takes place by chance, for what happens by chance does not take place of necessity but happens infrequently. But this is unlikely. Therefore the first proposition is false, i.e., that of everything of which it is true that it is, it was determinately true to say that it would be.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 13 n. 11 Ad cuius evidentiam considerandum est quod cum verum hoc significet ut dicatur aliquid esse quod est, hoc modo est aliquid verum, quo habet esse. Cum autem aliquid est in praesenti habet esse in seipso, et ideo vere potest dici de eo quod est: sed quamdiu aliquid est futurum, nondum est in seipso, est tamen aliqualiter in sua causa: quod quidem contingit tripliciter. Uno modo, ut sic sit in sua causa ut ex necessitate ex ea proveniat; et tunc determinate habet esse in sua causa; unde determinate potest dici de eo quod erit. Alio modo, aliquid est in sua causa, ut quae habet inclinationem ad suum effectum, quae tamen impediri potest; unde et hoc determinatum est in sua causa, sed mutabiliter; et sic de hoc vere dici potest, hoc erit, sed non per omnimodam certitudinem. Tertio, aliquid est in sua causa pure in potentia, quae etiam non magis est determinata ad unum quam ad aliud; unde relinquitur quod nullo modo potest de aliquo eorum determinate dici quod sit futurum, sed quod sit vel non sit.	11. For clarification of this point, we must consider the following. Since "true” signifies that something is said to be what it is, something is true in the manner in which it has being. Now, when something is in the present it exists in itself, and hence it can be truly said of it that it is. But as long as something is future, it does not yet exist in itself, but it is in a certain way in its cause, and this in a threefold way. It may be in its cause in such a way that it comes from it necessarily. In this case it has being determinately in its cause, and therefore it can be determinately said of it that it will be. In another way, something is in its cause as it has an inclination to its effect but can be impeded. This, then, is determined in its cause, but changeably, and hence it can be truly a said of it that it will be but not with complete certainty. Thirdly, something is in its cause purely in potency. This is the case in which the cause is as yet not determined more to one thing than to another, and consequently it cannot in any way be said determinately of these that it is going to be, but that it is or is not going to be.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 13 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit: at vero neque quoniam etc., ostendit quod veritas non omnino deest in singularibus futuris utrique oppositorum; et primo, proponit quod intendit dicens quod sicut non est verum dicere quod in talibus alterum oppositorum sit verum determinate, sic non est verum dicere quod non utrumque sit verum; ut si quod dicamus, neque erit, neque non erit. Secundo, ibi: primum enim cum sit etc., probat propositum duabus rationibus. Quarum prima talis est: affirmatio et negatio dividunt verum et falsum, quod patet ex definitione veri et falsi: nam nihil aliud est verum quam esse quod est, vel non esse quod non est; et nihil aliud est falsum quam esse quod non est, vel non esse quod est; et sic oportet quod si affirmatio sit falsa, quod negatio sit vera; et e converso. Sed secundum praedictam positionem affirmatio est falsa, qua dicitur, hoc erit; nec tamen negatio est vera: et similiter negatio erit falsa, affirmatione non existente vera; ergo praedicta positio est impossibilis, scilicet quod veritas desit utrique oppositorum. Secundam rationem ponit; ibi: ad haec si verum est et cetera. Quae talis est: si verum est dicere aliquid, sequitur quod illud sit; puta si verum est dicere quod aliquid sit magnum et album, sequitur utraque esse. Et ita de futuro sicut de praesenti: sequitur enim esse cras, si verum est dicere quod erit cras. Si ergo vera est praedicta positio dicens quod neque cras erit, neque non erit, oportebit neque fieri, neque non fieri: quod est contra rationem eius quod est ad utrumlibet, quia quod est ad utrumlibet se habet ad alterutrum; ut navale bellum cras erit, vel non erit. Et ita ex hoc sequitur idem inconveniens quod in praemissis.	12. Then Aristotle says, But still it is not possible to say that neither is true, etc. Here he shows that truth is not altogether lacking to both of the opposites in singular future enunciations. First he says that just as it is not true to say that in such enunciations one of the opposites is determinately true, so it is not true to say that neither is true; as if we could say that a thing neither will take place nor will not take place. Then when he says, In the first place, though the affirmation be false, etc., he gives two arguments to prove his point. The first is as follows. Affirmation and negation divide the true and the false. This is evident from the definition of true and false, for to be true is to be what in fact is, or not to be what in fact is not; and to be false is to be what in fact is not, or not to be what in fact is. Consequently, if the affirmation is false, the negation must be true, and conversely. But if the position is taken that neither is true, the affirmation, "This will be” is false, yet the negation is not true; likewise the negation will be false and the affirmation not be true. Therefore, the aforesaid position is impossible, i.e., that truth is lacking to both of the opposites. The second argument begins where he says, Secondly, if it is true to say that a thing is white and large, etc. The argument is as follows. If it is true to say something, it follows that it is. For example, if it is true to say that something is large and white, it follows that it is both. And this is so of the future as of the present, for if it is true to say that it will be tomorrow, it follows that it will be tomorrow. Therefore, if the position that it neither will be or not be tomorrow is true, it will be necessary that it neither happen nor not happen, which is contrary to the nature of that which is indeterminate to either of two, for that which is indeterminate to either of two is related to either; for example, a naval battle will take place tomorrow, or will not. The same unlikely things follow, then, from this as from the first argument.

LECTURE 14

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 1 Ostenderat superius philosophus ducendo ad inconveniens quod non est similiter verum vel falsum determinate in altero oppositorum in singularibus et futuris, sicut supra de aliis enunciationibus dixerat; nunc autem ostendit inconvenientia ad quae adduxerat esse impossibilia. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, ostendit impossibilia ea quae sequebantur; secundo, concludit quomodo circa haec se veritas habeat; ibi: igitur esse quod est et cetera.	1. The Philosopher has shown—by leading the opposite position to what is unlikely—that in singular future enunciations truth or falsity is not determinately in one of the opposites, as it is in other enunciations. Now he is going to show that the unlikely things to which it has led are impossibilities. First he shows that the things that followed are impossibilities; then he concludes what the truth is, where he says, Now that which is, when it is, necessarily is, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 2 Circa primum tria facit: primo, ponit inconvenientia quae sequuntur; secundo, ostendit haec inconvenientia ex praedicta positione sequi; ibi: nihil enim prohibet etc.; tertio, ostendit esse impossibilia inconvenientia memorata; ibi: quod si haec possibilia non sunt et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, ex praedictis rationibus concludens, quod haec inconvenientia sequuntur, si ponatur quod necesse sit oppositarum enunciationum alteram determinate esse veram et alteram esse falsam similiter in singularibus sicut in universalibus, quod scilicet nihil in his quae fiunt sit ad utrumlibet, sed omnia sint et fiant ex necessitate. Et ex hoc ulterius inducit alia duo inconvenientia. Quorum primum est quod non oportebit de aliquo consiliari: probatum est enim in III Ethicorum quod consilium non est de his, quae sunt ex necessitate, sed solum de contingentibus, quae possunt esse et non esse. Secundum inconveniens est quod omnes actiones humanae, quae sunt propter aliquem finem (puta negotiatio, quae est propter divitias acquirendas), erunt superfluae: quia si omnia ex necessitate eveniunt, sive operemur sive non operemur erit quod intendimus. Sed hoc est contra intentionem hominum, quia ea intentione videntur consiliari et negotiari ut, si haec faciant, erit talis finis, si autem faciunt aliquid aliud, erit alius finis.	2. With respect to the impossibilities that follow he first states the unlikely things that follow from the opposite position, then shows that these follow from the aforesaid position, where he says, For nothing prevents one person from saying that this will be so in ten thousand years, etc. Finally he shows that these are impossibilities where he says, But these things appear to be impossible, etc. He says, then, concluding from the preceding reasoning, that these unlikely things follow—if the position is taken that of opposed enunciations one of the two must be determinately true and the other false in the same way in singular as in universal enunciations—namely, that in things that come about nothing is indeterminate to either of two, but all things are and take place of necessity. From this he infers two other unlikely things that follow. First, it will not be necessary to deliberate about anything; whereas he proved in III Ethicorum [3: 1112a 19] that counsel is not concerned with things that take place necessarily but only with contingent things, i.e., things which can be or not be. Secondly, all human actions that are for the sake of some end (for example, a business transaction to acquire riches) will be superfluous, because what we intend will take place whether we take pains to bring it about or not—if all things come about of necessity. This, however, is in opposition to the intention of men, for they seem to deliberate and to transact business with the intention that if they do this there will be such a result, but if they do something else, there will be another result.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: nihil enim prohibet etc., probat quod dicta inconvenientia consequantur ex dicta positione. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, ostendit praedicta inconvenientia sequi, quodam possibili posito; secundo, ostendit quod eadem inconvenientia sequantur etiam si illud non ponatur; ibi: at nec hoc differt et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, non esse impossibile quod ante mille annos, quando nihil apud homines erat praecogitatum, vel praeordinatum de his quae nunc aguntur, unus dixerit quod hoc erit, puta quod civitas talis subverteretur, alius autem dixerit quod hoc non erit. Sed si omnis affirmatio vel negatio determinate est vera, necesse est quod alter eorum determinate verum dixerit; ergo necesse fuit alterum eorum ex necessitate evenire; et eadem ratio est in omnibus aliis; ergo omnia ex necessitate eveniunt.	3. Where he says, For nothing prevents one person from saying that this will be so in ten thousand years, etc., he proves that the said unlikely things follow from the said position. First he shows that the unlikely things follow from the positing of a certain possibility; then he shows that the same unlikely things follow even if that possibility is not posited, where he says, Moreover, it makes no difference whether people have actually made the contradictory statements or not, etc. He says, then, that it is not impossible that a thousand years before, when men neither knew nor ordained any of the things that are taking place now, a man said, "This will be,” for example, that such a state would be overthrown, and another man said, "This will not be.” But if every affirmation or negation is determinately true, one of them must have spoken the truth. Therefore one of them had to take place of necessity; and this same reasoning holds for all other things. Therefore everything takes place of necessity.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit: at vero neque hoc differt etc., ostendit quod idem sequitur si illud possibile non ponatur. Nihil enim differt, quantum ad rerum existentiam vel eventum, si uno affirmante hoc esse futurum, alius negaverit vel non negaverit; ita enim se habebit res si hoc factum fuerit, sicut si hoc non factum fuerit. Non enim propter nostrum affirmare vel negare mutatur cursus rerum, ut sit aliquid vel non sit: quia veritas nostrae enunciationis non est causa existentiae rerum, sed potius e converso. Similiter etiam non differt quantum ad eventum eius quod nunc agitur, utrum fuerit affirmatum vel negatum ante millesimum annum vel ante quodcumque tempus. Sic ergo, si in quocumque tempore praeterito, ita se habebat veritas enunciationum, ut necesse esset quod alterum oppositorum vere diceretur; et ad hoc quod necesse est aliquid vere dici sequitur quod necesse sit illud esse vel fieri; consequens est quod unumquodque eorum quae fiunt, sic se habeat ut ex necessitate fiat. Et huiusmodi consequentiae rationem assignat per hoc, quod si ponatur aliquem vere dicere quod hoc erit, non potest non futurum esse. Sicut supposito quod sit homo, non potest non esse animal rationale mortale. Hoc enim significatur, cum dicitur aliquid vere dici, scilicet quod ita sit ut dicitur. Eadem autem habitudo est eorum, quae nunc dicuntur, ad ea quae futura sunt, quae erat eorum, quae prius dicebantur, ad ea quae sunt praesentia vel praeterita; et ita omnia ex necessitate acciderunt, et accidunt, et accident, quia quod nunc factum est, utpote in praesenti vel in praeterito existens, semper verum erat dicere, quoniam erit futurum.	4. Then he shows that the same thing follows if this possibility is not posited where he says, Moreover, it makes no difference whether people have actually made the contradictory statements or not, etc. It makes no difference in relation to the existence or outcome of things whether a person denies that this is going to take place when it is affirmed, or not; for as was previously said, the event will either take place or not whether the affirmation and denial have been made or not. That something is or is not does not result from a change in the course of things to correspond to our affirmation or denial, for the truth of our enunciation is not the cause of the existence of things, but rather the converse. Nor does it make any difference to the outcome of what is now being done whether it was affirmed or denied a thousand years before, or at any other time before. Therefore, if in all past time, the truth of enunciations was such that one of the opposites had to have been truly said and if upon the necessity of something being truly said it follows that this must be or take place, it will follow that everything that takes place is such that it takes place of necessity. The reason he assigns for this consequence is the following. If it is posited that someone truly says this will be, it is not possible that it will not be, just as having supposed that man is, he cannot not be a rational mortal animal. For to be truly said means that it is such as is said. Moreover, the relationship of what is said. now to what will be is the same as the relationship of what was said previously to what is in the present or the past. Therefore, all things have necessarily happened, and they are necessarily happening, and they will necessarily happen, for of what is accomplished now, as existing in the present or in the past, it was always true to say that it would be.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: quod si haec possibilia non sunt etc., ostendit praedicta esse impossibilia: et primo, per rationem; secundo, per exempla sensibilia; ibi: et multa nobis manifesta et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ostendit propositum in rebus humanis; secundo, etiam in aliis rebus; ibi: et quoniam est omnino et cetera. Quantum autem ad res humanas ostendit esse impossibilia quae dicta sunt, per hoc quod homo manifeste videtur esse principium eorum futurorum, quae agit quasi dominus existens suorum actuum, et in sua potestate habens agere vel non agere; quod quidem principium si removeatur, tollitur totus ordo conversationis humanae, et omnia principia philosophiae moralis. Hoc enim sublato non erit aliqua utilitas persuasionis, nec comminationis, nec punitionis aut remunerationis, quibus homines alliciuntur ad bona et retrahuntur a malis, et sic evacuatur tota civilis scientia. Hoc ergo philosophus accipit pro principio manifesto quod homo sit principium futurorum; non est autem futurorum principium nisi per hoc quod consiliatur et facit aliquid: ea enim quae agunt absque consilio non habent dominium sui actus, quasi libere iudicantes de his quae sunt agenda, sed quodam naturali instinctu moventur ad agendum, ut patet in animalibus brutis. Unde impossibile est quod supra conclusum est quod non oporteat nos negotiari vel consiliari. Et sic etiam impossibile est illud ex quo sequebatur, scilicet quod omnia ex necessitate eveniant.	5. When he says, But these things appear to be impossible, etc., he shows that what has been said is impossible. He shows this first by reason, secondly by sensible examples, where he says, We can point to many clear instances of this, etc. First he argues that the position taken is impossible in relation to human affairs, for clearly man seems to be the principle of the future things that he does insofar as he is the master of his own actions and has the power to act or not to act. Indeed, to reject this principle would be to do away with the whole order of human association and all the principles of moral philosophy. For men are attracted to good and withdrawn from evil by persuasion and threat, and by punishment and reward; but rejection of this principle would make these useless and thus nullify the whole of civil science. Here the Philosopher accepts it as an evident principle that man is the principle of future things. However, he is not the principle of future things unless he deliberates about a thing and then does it. In those things that men do without deliberation they do not have dominion over their acts, i.e., they do not judge freely about things to be done, but are moved to act by a kind of natural instinct such as is evident in the case of brute animals. Hence, the conclusion that it is not necessary for us to take pains about something or to deliberate is impossible; likewise what it followed from is impossible, i.e., that all things take place of necessity.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: et quoniam est omnino etc., ostendit idem etiam in aliis rebus. Manifestum est enim etiam in rebus naturalibus esse quaedam, quae non semper actu sunt; ergo in eis contingit esse et non esse: alioquin vel semper essent, vel semper non essent. Id autem quod non est, incipit esse aliquid per hoc quod fit illud; sicut id quod non est album, incipit esse album per hoc quod fit album. Si autem non fiat album permanet non ens album. Ergo in quibus contingit esse et non esse, contingit etiam fieri et non fieri. Non ergo talia ex necessitate sunt vel fiunt, sed est in eis natura possibilitatis, per quam se habent ad fieri et non fieri, esse et non esse.	6. Then he shows that this is also the case in other things where he says, and that universally in the things not always in act, there is a potentiality to be and not to be, etc. In natural things, too, it is evident that there are some things not always in act; it is therefore possible for them to be or not be, otherwise they would either always be or always not be. Now that which is not begins to be something by becoming it; as for example, that which is not white begins to be white by becoming white. But if it does not become white it continues not to be white. Therefore, in things that have the possibility of being and not being, there is also the possibility of becoming and not becoming. Such things neither are nor come to be of necessity but there is in them the kind of possibility which disposes them to becoming and not becoming, to being and not being.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: ac multa nobis manifesta etc., ostendit propositum per sensibilia exempla. Sit enim, puta, vestis nova; manifestum est quod eam possibile est incidi, quia nihil obviat incisioni, nec ex parte agentis nec ex parte patientis. Probat autem quod simul cum hoc quod possibile est eam incidi, possibile est etiam eam non incidi, eodem modo quo supra probavit duas indefinitas oppositas esse simul veras, scilicet per assumptionem contrarii. Sicut enim possibile est istam vestem incidi, ita possibile est eam exteri, idest vetustate corrumpi; sed si exteritur non inciditur; ergo utrumque possibile est, scilicet eam incidi et non incidi. Et ex hoc universaliter concludit quod in aliis futuris, quae non sunt in actu semper, sed sunt in potentia, hoc manifestum est quod non omnia ex necessitate sunt vel fiunt, sed eorum quaedam sunt ad utrumlibet, quae non se habent magis ad affirmationem quam ad negationem; alia vero sunt in quibus alterum eorum contingit ut in pluribus, sed tamen contingit etiam ut in paucioribus quod altera pars sit vera, et non alia, quae scilicet contingit ut in pluribus.	7. Next he shows the impossibility of what was said by examples perceptible to the senses, where he says, We can point to many clear instances of this, etc. Take a new garment for example. It is evident that it is possible to cut it, for nothing stands in the way of cutting it either on the part of the agent or the patient. He proves it is at once possible that it be cut and that it not be cut in the same way he has already proved that two opposed indefinite enunciations are at once true, i.e., by the assumption of contraries. just as it is possible that the garment be cut, so it is possible that it wear out, i.e., be corrupted in the course of time. But if it wears out it is not cut. Therefore both are possible, i.e., that it be cut and that it not be cut. From this he concludes universally in regard to other future things which are not always in act, but are in potency, that not all are or take place of necessity; some are indeterminate to either of two, and therefore are not related any more to affirmation than to negation; there are others in which one possibility happens for the most part, although it is possible, but for the least part, that the other part be true, and not the part which happens for the most part.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 8 Est autem considerandum quod, sicut Boethius dicit hic in commento, circa possibile et necessarium diversimode aliqui sunt opinati. Quidam enim distinxerunt ea secundum eventum, sicut Diodorus, qui dixit illud esse impossibile quod nunquam erit; necessarium vero quod semper erit; possibile vero quod quandoque erit, quandoque non erit. Stoici vero distinxerunt haec secundum exteriora prohibentia. Dixerunt enim necessarium esse illud quod non potest prohiberi quin sit verum; impossibile vero quod semper prohibetur a veritate; possibile vero quod potest prohiberi vel non prohiberi. Utraque autem distinctio videtur esse incompetens. Nam prima distinctio est a posteriori: non enim ideo aliquid est necessarium, quia semper erit; sed potius ideo semper erit, quia est necessarium: et idem patet in aliis. Secunda autem assignatio est ab exteriori et quasi per accidens: non enim ideo aliquid est necessarium, quia non habet impedimentum, sed quia est necessarium, ideo impedimentum habere non potest. Et ideo alii melius ista distinxerunt secundum naturam rerum, ut scilicet dicatur illud necessarium, quod in sua natura determinatum est solum ad esse; impossibile autem quod est determinatum solum ad non esse; possibile autem quod ad neutrum est omnino determinatum, sive se habeat magis ad unum quam ad alterum, sive se habeat aequaliter ad utrumque, quod dicitur contingens ad utrumlibet. Et hoc est quod Boethius attribuit Philoni. Sed manifeste haec est sententia Aristotelis in hoc loco. Assignat enim rationem possibilitatis et contingentiae, in his quidem quae sunt a nobis ex eo quod sumus consiliativi, in aliis autem ex eo quod materia est in potentia ad utrumque oppositorum.	8. With regard to this question about the possible and the necessary, there have been different opinions, as Boethius says in his Commentary, and these will have to be considered. Some who distinguished them according to result—for example, Diodorus—said that the impossible is that which never will be, the necessary, that which always will be, and the possible, that which sometimes will be, sometimes not. The Stoics distinguished them according to exterior restraints. They said the necessary was that which could not be prevented from being true, the impossible, that which is always prevented from being true, and the possible, that which can be prevented or not be prevented. However, the distinctions in both of those cases seem to be inadequate. The first distinctions are a posteriori, for something is not necessary because it always will be, but rather, it always will be because it is necessary; this holds for the possible as well as the impossible. The second designation is taken from what is external and accidental, for something is not necessary because it does not have an impediment, but it does not have an impediment because it is necessary. Others distinguished these better by basing their distinction on the nature of things. They said that the necessary is that which in its nature is determined only to being, the impossible, that which is determined only to nonbeing, and the possible, that which is not altogether determined to either, whether related more to one than to another or related equally to both. The latter is known as that which is indeterminate to either of two. Boethius attributes these distinctions to Philo. However, this is clearly the opinion of Aristotle here, for he gives as the reason for the possibility and contingency in the things we do the fact that we deliberate, and in other things the fact that matter is in potency to either it of two opposites.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 9 Sed videtur haec ratio non esse sufficiens. Sicut enim in corporibus corruptibilibus materia invenitur in potentia se habens ad esse et non esse, ita etiam in corporibus caelestibus invenitur potentia ad diversa ubi, et tamen nihil in eis evenit contingenter, sed solum ex necessitate. Unde dicendum est quod possibilitas materiae ad utrumque, si communiter loquamur, non est sufficiens ratio contingentiae, nisi etiam addatur ex parte potentiae activae quod non sit omnino determinata ad unum; alioquin si ita sit determinata ad unum quod impediri non potest, consequens est quod ex necessitate reducat in actum potentiam passivam eodem modo.	9. But this reasoning does not seem to be adequate either. While it is true that in corruptible bodies matter is in potency to being and nonbeing, and in celestial bodies there is potency to diverse location; nevertheless nothing happens contingently in celestial bodies, but only of necessity. Consequently, we have to say that the potentiality of matter to either of two, if we are speaking generally, does not suffice as a reason for contingency unless we add on the part of the active potency that it is not wholly determined to one; for if it is so determined to one that it cannot be impeded, it follows that it necessarily reduces into act the passive potency in the same mode.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 10 Hoc igitur quidam attendentes posuerunt quod potentia, quae est in ipsis rebus naturalibus, sortitur necessitatem ex aliqua causa determinata ad unum quam dixerunt fatum. Quorum Stoici posuerunt fatum in quadam serie, seu connexione causarum, supponentes quod omne quod in hoc mundo accidit habet causam; causa autem posita, necesse est effectum poni. Et si una causa per se non sufficit, multae causae ad hoc concurrentes accipiunt rationem unius causae sufficientis; et ita concludebant quod omnia ex necessitate eveniunt.	10. Considering this, some maintained that the very potency which is in natural things receives necessity from some cause determined to one. This cause they called fate. The Stoics, for example, held that fate was to be found in a series or interconnection of causes on the assumption that everything that happens has a cause; but when a cause has been posited the effect is posited of necessity, and if one per se cause does not suffice, many causes concurring for this take on the nature of one sufficient cause; so, they concluded, everything happens of necessity.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 11 Sed hanc rationem solvit Aristoteles in VI metaphysicae interimens utramque propositionum assumptarum. Dicit enim quod non omne quod fit habet causam, sed solum illud quod est per se. Sed illud quod est per accidens non habet causam; quia proprie non est ens, sed magis ordinatur cum non ente, ut etiam Plato dixit. Unde esse musicum habet causam, et similiter esse album; sed hoc quod est, album esse musicum, non habet causam: et idem est in omnibus aliis huiusmodi. Similiter etiam haec est falsa, quod posita causa etiam sufficienti, necesse est effectum poni: non enim omnis causa est talis (etiamsi sufficiens sit) quod eius effectus impediri non possit; sicut ignis est sufficiens causa combustionis lignorum, sed tamen per effusionem aquae impeditur combustio.	11. Aristotle refutes this reasoning in VI Metaphysicae [2: 1026a 33] by destroying each of the assumed propositions. He says there that not everything that takes place has a cause, but only what is per se has a cause. What is accidental does not have a cause, for it is not properly being but is more like nonbeing, as Plato also held. Whence, to be musical has a cause and likewise to be white, but to be musical white does not have a cause; and the same is the case with all others of this kind. It is also false that when a cause has been posited—even a sufficient one—the effect must be posited, for not every cause (even if it is sufficient) is such that its effect cannot be impeded. For example, fire is a sufficient cause of the combustion of wood, but if water is poured on it the combustion is impeded.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 12 Si autem utraque propositionum praedictarum esset vera, infallibiliter sequeretur omnia ex necessitate contingere. Quia si quilibet effectus habet causam, esset effectum (qui est futurus post quinque dies, aut post quantumcumque tempus) reducere in aliquam causam priorem: et sic quousque esset devenire ad causam, quae nunc est in praesenti, vel iam fuit in praeterito; si autem causa posita, necesse est effectum poni, per ordinem causarum deveniret necessitas usque ad ultimum effectum. Puta, si comedit salsa, sitiet: si sitiet, exibit domum ad bibendum: si exibit domum, occidetur a latronibus. Quia ergo iam comedit salsa, necesse est eum occidi. Et ideo Aristoteles ad hoc excludendum ostendit utramque praedictarum propositionum esse falsam, ut dictum est.	12. However, if both of the aforesaid propositions were true, it would follow infallibly that everything happens necessarily. For if every effect has a cause, then it would be possible to reduce an effect (which is going to take place in five days or whatever time) to some prior cause, and so on until it reaches a cause which is now in the present or already has been in the past. Moreover, if when the cause is posited it is necessary that the effect be posited, the necessity would reach through an order of causes all the way to the ultimate effect. For instance, if someone eats salty food, he will be thirsty; if he is thirsty, he will go outside to drink; if he goes outside to drink, he will be killed by robbers. Therefore, once he has eaten salty food, it is necessary that he be killed. To exclude this position, Aristotle shows that both of these propositions are false.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 13 Obiiciunt autem quidam contra hoc, dicentes quod omne per accidens reducitur ad aliquid per se, et ita oportet effectum qui est per accidens reduci in causam per se. Sed non attendunt quod id quod est per accidens reducitur ad per se, in quantum accidit ei quod est per se, sicut musicum accidit Socrati, et omne accidens alicui subiecto per se existenti. Et similiter omne quod in aliquo effectu est per accidens consideratur circa aliquem effectum per se: qui quantum ad id quod per se est habet causam per se, quantum autem ad id quod inest ei per accidens non habet causam per se, sed causam per accidens. Oportet enim effectum proportionaliter referre ad causam suam, ut in II physicorum et in V methaphysicae dicitur.	13. However, some persons object to this on the grounds that everything accidental is reduced to something per se and therefore an effect that is accidental must be reduced to a per se cause. Those who argue in this way fail to take into account that the accidental is reduced to the per se inasmuch as it is accidental to that which is per se; for example, musical is accidental to Socrates, and every accident to some subject existing per se. Similarly, everything accidental in some effect is considered in relation to some per se effect, which effect, in relation to that which is per se, has a per se cause, but in relation to what is in it accidentally does not have a per se cause but an accidental one. The reason for this is that the effect must be proportionately referred to its cause, as is said in II Physicorum [3: 195b 25-28] and in V Metaphysicae [2: 1013b 28].
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 14 Quidam vero non attendentes differentiam effectuum per accidens et per se, tentaverunt reducere omnes effectus hic inferius provenientes in aliquam causam per se, quam ponebant esse virtutem caelestium corporum in qua ponebant fatum, dicentes nihil aliud esse fatum quam vim positionis syderum. Sed ex hac causa non potest provenire necessitas in omnibus quae hic aguntur. Multa enim hic fiunt ex intellectu et voluntate, quae per se et directe non subduntur virtuti caelestium corporum: cum enim intellectus sive ratio et voluntas quae est in ratione, non sint actus organi corporalis, ut probatur in libro de anima, impossibile est quod directe subdantur intellectus seu ratio et voluntas virtuti caelestium corporum: nulla enim vis corporalis potest agere per se, nisi in rem corpoream. Vires autem sensitivae in quantum sunt actus organorum corporalium per accidens subduntur actioni caelestium corporum. Unde philosophus in libro de anima opinionem ponentium voluntatem hominis subiici motui caeli adscribit his, qui non ponebant intellectum differre a sensu. Indirecte tamen vis caelestium corporum redundat ad intellectum et voluntatem, in quantum scilicet intellectus et voluntas utuntur viribus sensitivis. Manifestum autem est quod passiones virium sensitivarum non inferunt necessitatem rationi et voluntati. Nam continens habet pravas concupiscentias, sed non deducitur, ut patet per philosophum in VII Ethicorum. Sic igitur ex virtute caelestium corporum non provenit necessitas in his quae per rationem et voluntatem fiunt. Similiter nec in aliis corporalibus effectibus rerum corruptibilium, in quibus multa per accidens eveniunt. Id autem quod est per accidens non potest reduci ut in causam per se in aliquam virtutem naturalem, quia virtus naturae se habet ad unum; quod autem est per accidens non est unum; unde et supra dictum est quod haec enunciatio non est una, Socrates est albus musicus, quia non significat unum. Et ideo philosophus dicit in libro de somno et vigilia quod multa, quorum signa praeexistunt in corporibus caelestibus, puta in imbribus et tempestatibus, non eveniunt, quia scilicet impediuntur per accidens. Et quamvis illud etiam impedimentum secundum se consideratum reducatur in aliquam causam caelestem; tamen concursus horum, cum sit per accidens, non potest reduci in aliquam causam naturaliter agentem.	14. Some, however, not considering the difference between accidental and per se effects, tried to reduce all the effects that come about in this world to some per se cause. They posited as this cause the power of the heavenly bodies and assumed fate to be dependent on this power—fate being, according to them, nothing else but the power of the position of the constellations. But such a cause cannot bring about necessity in all the things accomplished in this world, since many things come about from intellect and will, which are not subject per se and directly to the power of the heavenly bodies. For the intellect, or reason, and the will which is in reason, are not acts of a corporeal organ (as is proved in the treatise De anima [III, 4: 429a 18]) and consequently cannot be directly subject to the power of the heavenly bodies, since a corporeal force, of itself, can only act on a corporeal thing. The sensitive powers, on the other hand, inasmuch as they are acts of corporeal organs, are accidentally subject to the action of the heavenly bodies. Hence, the Philosopher in his book De anima [III, 3: 427a 21] ascribes the opinion that the will of man is subject to the movement of the heavens to those who hold the position that the intellect does not differ from sense. The power of the heavenly bodies, however, does indirectly redound to the intellect and will inasmuch as the aq intellect and will use the sensitive powers. But clearly the passions of the sensitive powers do not induce necessity of reason and will, for the continent man has wrong desires but is not seduced by them, as is shown in VII Ethicorum [3: 1146a 5]. Therefore, we may conclude that the power of the heavenly bodies does not bring about necessity in the things done through reason and will. This is also the case in other corporeal effects of corruptible things, in which many things happen accidentally. What is accidental cannot be reduced to a per se cause in a natural power because the power of nature is directed to some one thing; but what is accidental is not one; whence it was said above that the enunciation "Socrates is a white musical being” is not one because it does not signify one thing. This is the reason the Philosopher says in the book De somno et vigilia [object] Close that many things of which the signs pre-exist in the heavenly bodies—for example in storm clouds and tempests—do not take place because they are accidentally impeded. And although this impediment considered as such is reduced to some celestial cause, the concurrence of these, since it is accidental, cannot be reduced to a cause acting naturally.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 15 Sed considerandum est quod id quod est per accidens potest ab intellectu accipi ut unum, sicut album esse musicum, quod quamvis secundum se non sit unum, tamen intellectus ut unum accipit, in quantum scilicet componendo format enunciationem unam. Et secundum hoc contingit id, quod secundum se per accidens evenit et casualiter, reduci in aliquem intellectum praeordinantem; sicut concursus duorum servorum ad certum locum est per accidens et casualis quantum ad eos, cum unus eorum ignoret de alio; potest tamen esse per se intentus a domino, qui utrumque mittit ad hoc quod in certo loco sibi occurrant.	15. However, what is accidental can be taken as one by the intellect. For example, "the white is musical,” which as such is not one, the intellect takes as one, i.e., insofar as it forms one enunciation by composing. And in accordance with this it is possible to reduce what in itself happens accidentally and fortuitously to a preordaining intellect For example, the meeting of two servants at a certain place may be accidental and fortuitous with respect to them, since neither knew the other would be there, but be per se intended by their master who sent each of them to encounter the other in a certain place.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 16 Et secundum hoc aliqui posuerunt omnia quaecumque in hoc mundo aguntur, etiam quae videntur fortuita vel casualia, reduci in ordinem providentiae divinae, ex qua dicebant dependere fatum. Et hoc quidem aliqui stulti negaverunt, iudicantes de intellectu divino ad modum intellectus nostri, qui singularia non cognoscit. Hoc autem est falsum: nam intelligere divinum et velle eius est ipsum esse ipsius. Unde sicut esse eius sua virtute comprehendit omne illud quod quocumque modo est, in quantum scilicet est per participationem ipsius; ita etiam suum intelligere et suum intelligibile comprehendit omnem cognitionem et omne cognoscibile; et suum velle et suum volitum comprehendit omnem appetitum et omne appetibile quod est bonum; ut, scilicet ex hoc ipso quod aliquid est cognoscibile cadat sub eius cognitione, et ex hoc ipso quod est bonum cadat sub eius voluntate: sicut ex hoc ipso quod est ens, aliquid cadit sub eius virtute activa, quam ipse perfecte comprehendit, cum sit per intellectum agens.	16. Accordingly, some have maintained that everything whatever that is effected in this world—even the things that seem fortuitous and casual—is reduced to the order of divine providence on which they said fate depends. Other foolish men have denied this, judging of the Divine Intellect in the mode of our intellect which does not know singulars. But the position of the latter is false, for His divine thinking and willing is His very being. Hence, just as His being by its power comprehends all that is in any way (i.e., inasmuch as it is through participation of Him) so also His thinking and what He thinks comprehend all knowing and everything knowable, and His willing and what He wills comprehend all desiring and every desirable good; in other words, whatever is knowable falls under His knowledge and whatever is good falls under His will, just as whatever is falls under His active power, which He comprehends perfectly, since He acts by His intellect.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 17 Sed si providentia divina sit per se causa omnium quae in hoc mundo accidunt, saltem bonorum, videtur quod omnia ex necessitate accidant. Primo quidem ex parte scientiae eius: non enim potest eius scientia falli; et ita ea quae ipse scit, videtur quod necesse sit evenire. Secundo ex parte voluntatis: voluntas enim Dei inefficax esse non potest; videtur ergo quod omnia quae vult, ex necessitate eveniant.	17. It may be objected, however, that if Divine Providence is the per se cause of everything that happens in this world, at least of good things, it would look as though everything takes place of necessity: first on the part of His knowledge, for His knowledge cannot be fallible, and so it would seem that what He knows happens necessarily; secondly, on the part of the will, for the will of God cannot be inefficacious; it would seem, therefore, that everything He wills happens of necessity.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 18 Procedunt autem hae obiectiones ex eo quod cognitio divini intellectus et operatio divinae voluntatis pensantur ad modum eorum, quae in nobis sunt, cum tamen multo dissimiliter se habeant.	18. These objections arise from judging of the cognition of the divine intellect and the operation of the divine will in the way in which these are in us, when in fact they are very dissimilar.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 19 Nam primo quidem ex parte cognitionis vel scientiae considerandum est quod ad cognoscendum ea quae secundum ordinem temporis eveniunt, aliter se habet vis cognoscitiva, quae sub ordine temporis aliqualiter continetur, aliter illa quae totaliter est extra ordinem temporis. Cuius exemplum conveniens accipi potest ex ordine loci: nam secundum philosophum in IV physicorum, secundum prius et posterius in magnitudine est prius et posterius in motu et per consequens in tempore. Si ergo sint multi homines per viam aliquam transeuntes, quilibet eorum qui sub ordine transeuntium continetur habet cognitionem de praecedentibus et subsequentibus, in quantum sunt praecedentes et subsequentes; quod pertinet ad ordinem loci. Et ideo quilibet eorum videt eos, qui iuxta se sunt et aliquos eorum qui eos praecedunt; eos autem qui post se sunt videre non potest. Si autem esset aliquis extra totum ordinem transeuntium, utpote in aliqua excelsa turri constitutus, unde posset totam viam videre, videret quidem simul omnes in via existentes, non sub ratione praecedentis et subsequentis (in comparatione scilicet ad eius intuitum), sed simul omnes videret, et quomodo unus eorum alium praecedit. Quia igitur cognitio nostra cadit sub ordine temporis, vel per se vel per accidens (unde et anima in componendo et dividendo necesse habet adiungere tempus, ut dicitur in III de anima), consequens est quod sub eius cognitione cadant res sub ratione praesentis, praeteriti et futuri. Et ideo praesentia cognoscit tanquam actu existentia et sensu aliqualiter perceptibilia; praeterita autem cognoscit ut memorata; futura autem non cognoscit in seipsis, quia nondum sunt, sed cognoscere ea potest in causis suis: per certitudinem quidem, si totaliter in causis suis sint determinata, ut ex quibus de necessitate evenient; per coniecturam autem, si non sint sic determinata quin impediri possint, sicut quae sunt ut in pluribus; nullo autem modo, si in suis causis sunt omnino in potentia non magis determinata ad unum quam ad aliud, sicut quae sunt ad utrumlibet. Non enim est aliquid cognoscibile secundum quod est in potentia, sed solum secundum quod est in actu, ut patet per philosophum in IX metaphysicae.	19. On the part of cognition or knowledge it should be noted that in knowing things that take place according to the order of time, the cognitive power that is contained in any way under the order of time is related to them in another way than the cognitive power that is totally outside of the order of time. The order of place provides a suitable example of this. According to the Philosopher in IV Physicorum [11:219a 14], before and after in movement, and consequently in time, corresponds to before and after in magnitude. Therefore, if there arc many men passing along some road, any one of those in the ranks has knowledge of those preceding and following as preceding and following, which pertains to the order of place. Hence any one of them sees those who are next to him and some of those who precede him; but he cannot see those who follow behind him. If, however, there were someone outside of the whole order of those passing along the road, for instance, stationed in some high tower where he could see the whole road, he would at once see all those who were on the road—not under the formality of preceding and subsequent (i.e., in relation to his view) but all at the same time and how one precedes another. Now, our cognition falls under the order of time, either per se or accidentally; whence the soul in composing and dividing necessarily includes time, as is said in III De anima [6: 430a 32]. Consequently, things are subject to our cognition under the aspect of present, past, and future. Hence the soul knows present things as existing in act and perceptible by sense in some way; past things it knows as remembered; future things are not known in themselves because they do not yet exist, but can be known in their causes—with certitude if they are totally determined in their causes so that they will take place of necessity; by conjecture if they are not so determined that they cannot be impeded, as in the case of those things that are for the most part; in no way if in their causes they are wholly in potency, i.e., not more determined to one than to another, as in the case of those that are indeterminate to either of two. The reason for this is that a thing is not knowable according as it is in potency, but only according as it is in act, as the Philosopher shows in IX Metaphysicae [9: 1051a 22].
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 20 Sed Deus est omnino extra ordinem temporis, quasi in arce aeternitatis constitutus, quae est tota simul, cui subiacet totus temporis decursus secundum unum et simplicem eius intuitum; et ideo uno intuitu videt omnia quae aguntur secundum temporis decursum, et unumquodque secundum quod est in seipso existens, non quasi sibi futurum quantum ad eius intuitum prout est in solo ordine suarum causarum (quamvis et ipsum ordinem causarum videat), sed omnino aeternaliter sic videt unumquodque eorum quae sunt in quocumque tempore, sicut oculus humanus videt Socratem sedere in seipso, non in causa sua.	20. God, however, is wholly outside the order of time, stationed as it were at the summit of eternity, which is wholly simultaneous, and to Him the whole course of time is subjected in one simple intuition. For this reason, He sees in one glance everything that is effected in the evolution of time, and each thing as it is in itself, and it is not future to Him in relation to His view as it is in the order of its causes alone (although He also sees the very order of the causes), but each of the things that are in whatever time is seen wholly eternally as the human eye sees Socrates sitting, not in its causes but in itself.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 21 Ex hoc autem quod homo videt Socratem sedere, non tollitur eius contingentia quae respicit ordinem causae ad effectum; tamen certissime et infallibiliter videt oculus hominis Socratem sedere dum sedet, quia unumquodque prout est in seipso iam determinatum est. Sic igitur relinquitur, quod Deus certissime et infallibiliter cognoscat omnia quae fiunt in tempore; et tamen ea quae in tempore eveniunt non sunt vel fiunt ex necessitate, sed contingenter.	21. Now from the fact that man sees Socrates sitting, the contingency of his sitting which concerns the order of cause to effect, is not destroyed; yet the eye of man most certainly and infallibly sees Socrates sitting while he is sitting, since each thing as it is in itself is already determined. Hence it follows that God knows all things that take place in time most certainly and infallibly, and yet the things that happen in time neither are nor take place of necessity, but contingently.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 22 Similiter ex parte voluntatis divinae differentia est attendenda. Nam voluntas divina est intelligenda ut extra ordinem entium existens, velut causa quaedam profundens totum ens et omnes eius differentias. Sunt autem differentiae entis possibile et necessarium; et ideo ex ipsa voluntate divina originantur necessitas et contingentia in rebus et distinctio utriusque secundum rationem proximarum causarum: ad effectus enim, quos voluit necessarios esse, disposuit causas necessarias; ad effectus autem, quos voluit esse contingentes, ordinavit causas contingenter agentes, idest potentes deficere. Et secundum harum conditionem causarum, effectus dicuntur vel necessarii vel contingentes, quamvis omnes dependeant a voluntate divina, sicut a prima causa, quae transcendit ordinem necessitatis et contingentiae. Hoc autem non potest dici de voluntate humana, nec de aliqua alia causa: quia omnis alia causa cadit iam sub ordine necessitatis vel contingentiae; et ideo oportet quod vel ipsa causa possit deficere, vel effectus eius non sit contingens, sed necessarius. Voluntas autem divina indeficiens est; tamen non omnes effectus eius sunt necessarii, sed quidam contingentes.	22. There is likewise a difference to be noted on the part of the divine Will, for the divine will must be understood as existing outside of the order of beings, as a cause producing the whole of being and all its differences. Now the possible and the necessary are differences of being, an(] therefore necessity and contingency in things and the distinction of each according to the nature of their proximate causes originate from the divine will itself, for He disposes necessary causes for the effects that He wills to be necessary, and He ordains causes acting contingently (i.e., able to fail) for the effects that He wills to be contingent. And according to the condition of these causes, effects are called either necessary or contingent, although all depend on the divine will as on a first cause, which transcends the order of necessity and contingency. This, however, cannot be said of the human will, nor of any other cause, for every other cause already falls under the order of necessity or contingency; hence, either the cause itself must be able to fail or, if not, its effect is not contingent, but necessary. The divine will, on the other hand, is unfailing; yet not all its effects are necessary, but some are contingent.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 23 Similiter autem aliam radicem contingentiae, quam hic philosophus ponit ex hoc quod sumus consiliativi, aliqui subvertere nituntur, volentes ostendere quod voluntas in eligendo ex necessitate movetur ab appetibili. Cum enim bonum sit obiectum voluntatis, non potest (ut videtur) ab hoc divertere quin appetat illud quod sibi videtur bonum; sicut nec ratio ab hoc potest divertere quin assentiat ei quod sibi videtur verum. Et ita videtur quod electio consilium consequens semper ex necessitate proveniat; et sic omnia, quorum nos principium sumus per consilium et electionem, ex necessitate provenient.	23. Some men, in their desire to show that the will in choosing is necessarily moved by the desirable, argued in such a way as to destroy the other root of contingency the Philosopher posits here, based on our deliberation. Since the good is the object of the will, they argue, it cannot (as is evident) be diverted so as not to seek that which seems good to it; as also it is not possible to divert reason so that it does not assent to that which seems true to it. So it seems that choice, which follows upon deliberation, always takes place of necessity; thus all things of which we are the principle through deliberation and choice, will take place of necessity.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 14 n. 24 Sed dicendum est quod similis differentia attendenda est circa bonum, sicut circa verum. Est autem quoddam verum, quod est per se notum, sicut prima principia indemonstrabilia, quibus ex necessitate intellectus assentit; sunt autem quaedam vera non per se nota, sed per alia. Horum autem duplex est conditio: quaedam enim ex necessitate consequuntur ex principiis, ita scilicet quod non possunt esse falsa, principiis existentibus veris, sicut sunt omnes conclusiones demonstrationum. Et huiusmodi veris ex necessitate assentit intellectus, postquam perceperit ordinem eorum ad principia, non autem prius. Quaedam autem sunt, quae non ex necessitate consequuntur ex principiis, ita scilicet quod possent esse falsa principiis existentibus veris; sicut sunt opinabilia, quibus non ex necessitate assentit intellectus, quamvis ex aliquo motivo magis inclinetur in unam partem quam in aliam. Ita etiam est quoddam bonum quod est propter se appetibile, sicut felicitas, quae habet rationem ultimi finis; et huiusmodi bono ex necessitate inhaeret voluntas: naturali enim quadam necessitate omnes appetunt esse felices. Quaedam vero sunt bona, quae sunt appetibilia propter finem, quae comparantur ad finem sicut conclusiones ad principium, ut patet per philosophum in II physicorum. Si igitur essent aliqua bona, quibus non existentibus, non posset aliquis esse felix, haec etiam essent ex necessitate appetibilia et maxime apud eum, qui talem ordinem perciperet; et forte talia sunt esse, vivere et intelligere et si qua alia sunt similia. Sed particularia bona, in quibus humani actus consistunt, non sunt talia, nec sub ea ratione apprehenduntur ut sine quibus felicitas esse non possit, puta, comedere hunc cibum vel illum, aut abstinere ab eo: habent tamen in se unde moveant appetitum, secundum aliquod bonum consideratum in eis. Et ideo voluntas non ex necessitate inducitur ad haec eligenda. Et propter hoc philosophus signanter radicem contingentiae in his quae fiunt a nobis assignavit ex parte consilii, quod est eorum quae sunt ad finem et tamen non sunt determinata. In his enim in quibus media sunt determinata, non est opus consilio, ut dicitur in III Ethicorum. Et haec quidem dicta sunt ad salvandum radices contingentiae, quas hic Aristoteles ponit, quamvis videantur logici negotii modum excedere.	24. In regard to this point there is a similar diversity with respect to the good and with respect to the true that must be noted. There are some truths that are known per se, such as the first indemonstrable principles; these the intellect assents to of necessity. There are others, however, which are not known per se, but through other truths. The condition of these is twofold. Some follow necessarily from the principles, i.e., so that they cannot be false when the principles are true. This is the case with all the conclusions of demonstrations, and the intellect assents necessarily to truths of this kind after it has perceived their order to the principles, but not before. There are others that do not follow necessarily from the principles, and these can be false even though the principles be true. This is the case with things about which there can be opinion. To these the intellect does not assent necessarily, although it may be inclined by some motive more to one side than another. Similarly, there is a good that is desirable for its own sake, such as happiness, which has the nature of an ultimate end. The will necessarily adheres to a good of this kind, for all men seek to be happy by a certain kind of natural necessity. There are other good things that are desirable for the sake of the end. These are related to the end as conclusions are to principles. The Philosopher makes this point clear in II Physicorum [7: 198a 35]. If, then, there were some good things without the existence of which one could not be happy, these would be desirable of necessity, and especially by the person who perceives such an order. Perhaps to be, to live, and to think, and other similar things, if there are any, are of this kind. However, particular good things with which human acts are concerned are not of this kind nor are they apprehended as bein,r such that without tbeni happiness is impossible, for instance, to eat this food or that, or abstain from it. Such things, nevertheless, do have in them that whereby they move the appetite according to some good considered in them. The will, therefore, is not induced to choose these of necessity. And on this account the Philosopher expressly designates the root of the contingency of things effected by us on the part of deliberation—which is concerned with those things that are for the end and yet are not determined. In those things in which the means are determined there is no need for deliberation, as is said in III Ethicorum [3: 1112a 30–1113a 14]. These things have been stated to save the roots of contingency that Aristotle posits here, although they may seem to exceed the mode of logical matter.

LECTURE 15

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 15 n. 1 Postquam philosophus ostendit esse impossibilia ea, quae ex praedictis rationibus sequebantur; hic, remotis impossibilibus, concludit veritatem. Et circa hoc duo facit: quia enim argumentando ad impossibile, processerat ab enunciationibus ad res, et iam removerat inconvenientia quae circa res sequebantur; nunc, ordine converso, primo ostendit qualiter se habeat veritas circa res; secundo, qualiter se habeat veritas circa enunciationes; ibi: quare quoniam orationes verae sunt et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ostendit qualiter se habeant veritas et necessitas circa res absolute consideratas; secundo, qualiter se habeant circa eas per comparationem ad sua opposita; ibi: et in contradictione eadem ratio est et cetera.	1. Now that the Philosopher has shown the impossibilities that follow from the foresaid arguments, he concludes what the truth is on this point. In arguing to the impossibility of the position, he proceeded from enunciations to things, and has already rejected the unlikely consequences in respect to things. Now, in the converse order, he first shows the way in which there is truth about things; secondly, the way in which there is truth in enunciations, where he says, And so, since speech is true as it corresponds to things, etc. With respect to truth about things be first shows the way in which there is truth and necessity about things absolutely considered; secondly, the way in which there is truth and necessity about things through a comparing of their opposites, where he says, And this is also the case with respect to contradiction, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 15 n. 2 Dicit ergo primo, quasi ex praemissis concludens, quod si praedicta sunt inconvenientia, ut scilicet omnia ex necessitate eveniant, oportet dicere ita se habere circa res, scilicet quod omne quod est necesse est esse quando est, et omne quod non est necesse est non esse quando non est. Et haec necessitas fundatur super hoc principium: impossibile est simul esse et non esse: si enim aliquid est, impossibile est illud simul non esse; ergo necesse est tunc illud esse. Nam impossibile non esse idem significat ei quod est necesse esse, ut in secundo dicetur. Et similiter, si aliquid non est, impossibile est illud simul esse; ergo necesse est non esse, quia etiam idem significant. Et ideo manifeste verum est quod omne quod est necesse est esse quando est; et omne quod non est necesse est non esse pro illo tempore quando non est: et haec est necessitas non absoluta, sed ex suppositione. Unde non potest simpliciter et absolute dici quod omne quod est, necesse est esse, et omne quod non est, necesse est non esse: quia non idem significant quod omne ens, quando est, sit ex necessitate, et quod omne ens simpliciter sit ex necessitate; nam primum significat necessitatem ex suppositione, secundum autem necessitatem absolutam. Et quod dictum est de esse, intelligendum est similiter de non esse; quia aliud est simpliciter ex necessitate non esse et aliud est ex necessitate non esse quando non est. Et per hoc videtur Aristoteles excludere id quod supra dictum est, quod si in his, quae sunt, alterum determinate est verum, quod etiam antequam fieret alterum determinate esset futurum.	2. He begins, then, as though concluding from premises: if the foresaid things are unlikely (namely, that all things take place of necessity), then the case with respect to things must be this: everything that is must be when it is, and everything that is not, necessarily not be when it is not. This necessity is founded on the principle that it is impossible at once to be and not be; for if something is, it is impossible that it at the same time not be; therefore it is necessary that it be at that time. For "impossible not to be” signifies the same thing as "necessary to be,” as Aristotle says in the second book. Similarly, if something is not, it is impossible that it at the same time be. Therefore it is necessary that it not be, for they also signify the same thing. Clearly it is true, then, that everything that is must be when it is, and everything that is not must not be when it is not. This is not absolute necessity, but necessity by supposition. Consequently, it cannot be said absolutely and simply that everything that is must be, and that everything that is not must not be. For "every being, when it is, necessarily is” does not signify the same thing as "every being necessarily is, simply. The first signifies necessity by supposition, the second, absolute necessity. What has been said about to be must be understood to apply also to not to be, for "necessarily not to be simply” and "necessarily not to be when it is not” are also different. By this Aristotle seems to exclude what was said above, namely, that if in those things that are, one of the two is determinately true, then even before it takes place one of the two would determinately be going to be.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 15 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: et in contradictione etc., ostendit quomodo se habeant veritas et necessitas circa res per comparationem ad sua opposita: et dicit quod eadem ratio est in contradictione, quae est in suppositione. Sicut enim illud quod non est absolute necessarium, fit necessarium ex suppositione eiusdem, quia necesse est esse quando est; ita etiam quod non est in se necessarium absolute fit necessarium per disiunctionem oppositi, quia necesse est de unoquoque quod sit vel non sit, et quod futurum sit aut non sit, et hoc sub disiunctione: et haec necessitas fundatur super hoc principium quod, impossibile est contradictoria simul esse vera vel falsa. Unde impossibile est neque esse neque non esse; ergo necesse est vel esse vel non esse. Non tamen si divisim alterum accipiatur, necesse est illud esse absolute. Et hoc manifestat per exemplum: quia necessarium est navale bellum esse futurum cras vel non esse; sed non est necesse navale bellum futurum esse cras; similiter etiam non est necessarium non esse futurum, quia hoc pertinet ad necessitatem absolutam; sed necesse est quod vel sit futurum cras vel non sit futurum: hoc enim pertinet ad necessitatem quae est sub disiunctione.	3. He shows how truth and necessity is had about things through the comparing of their opposites where he says, This is also the case with respect to contradiction, etc. The reasoning is the same, he says, in respect to contradiction and in respect to supposition. For just as that which is not absolutely necessary becomes necessary by supposition of the same (for it must be when it is), so also what in itself is not necessary absolutely, becomes necessary through the disjunction of the opposite, for of each thing it is necessary that it is or is not, and that it will or will not be in the future, and this under disjunction. This necessity is founded upon the principle that it is impossible for contradictories to be at once true and false. Accordingly, it is impossible that a thing neither be nor not be; therefore it is necessary that it either be or not be. However if one of these is taken separately [i.e., divisively], it is not necessary that that one be absolutely. This he manifests by example: it is necessary that there will be or will not be a naval battle tomorrow; but it is not necessary that a naval battle will take place tomorrow, nor is it necessary that it will not take place, for this pertains to absolute necessity. It is necessary, however, that it will take place or will not take place tomorrow. This pertains to the necessity which is under disjunction.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 15 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit: quare quoniam etc. ex eo quod se habet circa res, ostendit qualiter se habeat circa orationes. Et primo, ostendit quomodo uniformiter se habet in veritate orationum, sicut circa esse rerum et non esse; secundo, finaliter concludit veritatem totius dubitationis; ibi: quare manifestum et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod, quia hoc modo se habent orationes enunciativae ad veritatem sicut et res ad esse vel non esse (quia ex eo quod res est vel non est, oratio est vera vel falsa), consequens est quod in omnibus rebus quae ita se habent ut sint ad utrumlibet, et quaecumque ita se habent quod contradictoria eorum qualitercumque contingere possunt, sive aequaliter sive alterum ut in pluribus, ex necessitate sequitur quod etiam similiter se habeat contradictio enunciationum. Et exponit consequenter quae sint illae res, quarum contradictoria contingere queant; et dicit huiusmodi esse quae neque semper sunt, sicut necessaria, neque semper non sunt, sicut impossibilia, sed quandoque sunt et quandoque non sunt. Et ulterius manifestat quomodo similiter se habeat in contradictoriis enunciationibus; et dicit quod harum enunciationum, quae sunt de contingentibus, necesse est quod sub disiunctione altera pars contradictionis sit vera vel falsa; non tamen haec vel illa determinate, sed se habet ad utrumlibet. Et si contingat quod altera pars contradictionis magis sit vera, sicut accidit in contingentibus quae sunt ut in pluribus, non tamen ex hoc necesse est quod ex necessitate altera earum determinate sit vera vel falsa.	4. Then when he says, And so, since speech is true as it corresponds to things, etc., he shows how truth in speech corresponds to the way things are. First he shows in what way truth of speech conforms to the being and nonbeing of things; secondly, and finally, he arrives at the truth of the whole question, where he says, Therefore it is clear that it is not necessary that of every affirmation and negation of opposites, one is true and one false, etc. He says, then, that enunciative speech is related to truth in the way the thing is to being or nonbeing (for from the fact that a thing is or is not, speech is true or false). It follows, therefore, that when things are such as to be indeterminate to either of two, and when they are such that their contradictories could happen in whichever way, whether equally or one for the most part, the contradiction of enunciations must also be such. He explains next what the things are in which contradictories can happen. They are those that neither always are (i.e., the necessary), nor always are not (i.e., the impossible), but sometimes are and some times are not. He shows further how this is maintained in contradictory enunciations. In those enunciations that are about contingent things, one part of the contradiction must be true or false tinder disjunction; but it is related to either, not to this or that determinately. If it should turn out that one part of the contradiction is more true, as happens in contingents that are for the most part, it is nevertheless not necessary on this account that one of them is determinately true or false.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 15 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: quare manifestum est etc., concludit principale intentum et dicit manifestum esse ex praedictis quod non est necesse in omni genere affirmationum et negationum oppositarum, alteram determinate esse veram et alteram esse falsam: quia non eodem modo se habet veritas et falsitas in his quae sunt iam de praesenti et in his quae non sunt, sed possunt esse vel non esse. Sed hoc modo se habet in utriusque, sicut dictum est, quia scilicet in his quae sunt necesse est determinate alterum esse verum et alterum falsum: quod non contingit in futuris quae possunt esse et non esse. Et sic terminatur primus liber.	5. Then he says, Therefore, it is clear that it is not necessary that of every affirmation and negation of opposites, one is true and one, false, etc. This is the conclusion he principally intended. It is evident from what has been said that it is not necessary in every genus of affirmation and negation of opposites that one is determinately true and the other false, for truth and falsity is not had in the same way in regard to things that are already in the present and those that are not but which could be or not be. The position in regard to each has been explained. In those that are, it is necessary that one of them be determinately true and the other false; in things that are future, which could be or not be, the case is not the same. The first book ends with this.