Authors/Thomas Aquinas/perihermenias/perihermenias II/L12

LECTURE 12

Latin	English
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 12 n. 1 Intendit declarare quomodo illae quae aequivocae dicuntur potentiae, se habeant ad opposita. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, declarat naturam talis potentiae; secundo, ponit differentiam et convenientiam inter ipsas et supradictas, ibi: et haec quidem et cetera. Ad evidentiam primi advertendum est quod V et IX Metaphys., Aristoteles dividit potentiam in potentias, quae eadem ratione potentiae dicuntur, et in potentias, quae non ea ratione qua praedictae potentiae nomen habent, sed alia. Et has appellat aequivoce potentias. Sub primo membro comprehenduntur omnes potentiae activae, et passivae, et rationales, et irrationales. Quaecunque enim posse dicuntur per potentiam activam vel passivam quam habeant, eadem ratione potentiae sunt, quia scilicet est in eis vis principiata alicuius activae vel passivae. Sub secundo autem membro comprehenduntur potentiae mathematicales et logicales. Mathematica potentia est, qua lineam posse dicimus in quadratum, et eo quod in semetipsam ducta quadratum constituit. Logica potentia est, qua duo termini coniungi absque contradictione in enunciatione possunt. Sub logica quoque potentia continetur quae ea ratione potentia dicitur, quia est. Hae vero merito aequivoce a primis potentiae dicuntur, eo quod istae nullam virtutem activam vel passivam praedicant; et quod possibile istis modis dicitur, non ea ratione possibile appellatur quia aliquis habeat virtutem ad hoc agendum vel patiendum, sicut in primis. Unde cum potentiae habentes se ad opposita sint activae vel passivae, istae quae aequivocae potestates dicuntur ad opposita non se habent. De his ergo loquens ait: quaedam vero potestates aequivocae sunt, et ideo ad opposita non se habent.	1. Aristotle now proposes to show in what way potencies that are called equivocal are related to opposites. He first explains the nature of this kind of potency, and then gives the difference and agreement all between these and the foresaid, where he says, This latter potentiality is only in that which is movable, but the former is also in the immovable, etc. In V and IX Metaphysicae [V, 12: 1019a 15; 12, 1: 1046a 4], Aristotle divides potency into those that are called potencies for the same reason, and those that have the name potency for another reason than the aforesaid potencies. The latter are named "potencies” equivocally. Under the first member are included all active and passive, rational and irrational potencies, for whatever are said to be possible through the active or passive potency they have, are potencies for the same reason, i.e., because there is in them the originative force of something active or passive. Mathematical and logical potencies are included under the second member of this division. That by which a line can lead to a square we call a mathematical potency, for a line constitutes a square when protracted back to itself. That by which two terms can be joined in an enunciation without contradiction is a logical potency. Logical potency also comprises that which is called "potency” because it is. The latter [mathematical and logical potencies] are named from the former equivocally because they predicate no active or passive capacity; and what is said to be possible in these ways is not termed possible in virtue of having the capacity to do or undergo as in the first case. Hence, since the potencies related to opposites are active or passive, the ones that are called potentialities equivocally are not related to opposites. These, then, are the potencies he speaks of when he says But some are called potentialities equivocally, and therefore they are not related to opposites.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 12 n. 2 Deinde declarans qualis sit ista potestas aequivoce dicta, subdit divisionem usitatam possibilis per quam hoc scitur, dicens: possibile enim non uno modo dicitur, sed duobus. Et uno quidem modo dicitur possibile eo quod verum est ut in actu, idest ut actualiter est; ut, possibile est ambulare, quando ambulat iam: et omnino, idest universaliter possibile est esse, quoniam est actu iam quod possibile dicitur. Secundo modo autem possibile dicitur aliquid non ea ratione quia est actualiter, sed quia forsitan aget, idest quia potest agere; ut possibile est ambulare, quoniam ambulabit. Ubi advertendum est quod ex divisione bimembri possibilis divisionem supra positam potentiae declaravit a posteriori. Possibile enim a potentia dicitur: sub primo siquidem membro possibilis innuit potentias aequivoce; sub secundo autem potentias univoce, activas scilicet et passivas. Intendebat ergo quod quia possibile dupliciter dicitur, quod etiam potestas duplex est. Declaravit autem potestates aequivocas ex uno earum membro tantum, scilicet ex his quae dicuntur possibilia quia sunt, quia hoc sat erat suo proposito.	2. To clarify the kind of potency that is called equivocal, he gives the usual division of the possible through which this is known. "Possible,” he says, is not said in one way, but in two. Something is said to be possible because it is true as in act, i.e., inasmuch as it actually is; for example, it is possible to walk when one is already walking, and in gene eral, i.e., universally, that is said to be possible which is possible to be because it is already in act. Something is said to be possible in the second way, not because it actually is, but because it is about to act, i.e., because it can act; for instance, it is possible for someone to walk because be is about to walk. Notice here that by this two-membered division of the possible he makes the division of potency posited above evident a posteriori, for the possible is named from potency. Under the first member of the possible he signifies potencies equivocally; under the second, potencies univocally, i.e., active and passive potencies. He means to show, then, that since possible is said in two ways, potentiality is also twofold. He explains equivocal potentialities in terms of only one member, namely, those that are called possible because they are, since this was sufficient for his purpose.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 12 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: et haec quidem etc., assignat differentiam inter utranque potentiam, et ait quod potentia haec ultimo dicta physica, est in solis illis rebus, quae sunt mobiles; illa autem est et in rebus mobilibus et immobilibus. Possibile siquidem a potentia dictum eo quod possit agere, non tamen agit, inveniri non potest absque mutabilitate eius, quod sic posse dicitur. Si enim nunc potest agere et non agit, si agere debet, oportet quod mutetur de otio ad operationem. Id autem quod possibile dicitur eo quod est, nullam mutabilitatem exigit in eo quod sic possibile dicitur. Esse namque in actu, quod talem possibilitatem fundat, invenitur et in rebus necessariis, et in immutabilibus, et in rebus mobilibus. Possibile ergo hoc, quod logicum vocatur, communius est illo quod physicum appellari solet.	3. When he says, This latter potentiality is only in that which is movable, but the former is also in the immovable, etc., he specifies the difference between each potency. This last potency, he says, [possible because it can be] which is called physical potency, is only in things that are movable; but the former is in movable and immovable things. The possible that is named from the potency which can act, but is not yet acting, cannot be found without the mutability of that which is said to be possible in this way. For if that which can act now and is not acting, should act, it is necessary that it be changed from rest to operation. On the other hand, that which is called possible because it is, requires no mutability in that which is said to be possible in this way, for to be in act, which is the basis of such a possibility, is found in necessary things, in immutable things, and in mobile things. Therefore, the possible which is called logical, is more common than the one we customarily call physical.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 12 n. 4 Deinde subdit convenientiam inter utrunque possibile, dicens quod in utrisque potestatibus et possibilibus verum est non impossibile esse, scilicet, ipsum ambulare, quod iam actu ambulat seu agit, et quod iam ambulabile est; idest, in hoc conveniunt quod, sive dicatur possibile ex eo quod actu est, sive ex eo quod potest esse, de utroque verificatur non impossibile; et consequenter necessario verificatur possibile, quoniam ad non impossibile sequitur possibile. Hoc est secundum genus possibilis, respectu cuius Aristoteles supra dixit: et primum quidem etc., in quo non invenitur via ad utrunque oppositorum, hoc, inquam, est possibile quod iam actu est. Quod enim tali ratione possibile dicitur, iam determinatum est ex eo quod actu esse suppositum est. Non ergo possibile omne ad utrunque possibile est, sive loquamur de possibili physice, sive logice.	4. Then he shows that there is a correspondence between these possibles when he adds that not impossible to be is true of both of these potentialities and possibles, e.g., to walk is not impossible for that which is already walking in act, i.e., acting, and it is not impossible for that which could now walk; that is, they agree in that not impossible is verified of both—of either what is said to be possible from the fact that it is in act or of what is said to be possible from the fact that it could be. Consequently, the necessary is verified as possible, for possible follows upon not impossible. The possible that is already in act is the second genus of the possible in which access is not found to both opposites, of which Aristotle spoke when he said, First of all this is not true of the potentialities which are not according to reason, etc. For that which is said to be possible because it is already in act is already determined, since it is supposed as being in act. Therefore, not every possible is the possible of alternatives, whether we speak of the physical possible or the logical.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 12 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: sic igitur possibile etc., applicat determinatam veritatem ad propositum. Et primo, concludendo ex dictis, declarat habitudinem utriusque possibilis ad necessarium, dicens quod hoc ergo possibile, scilicet physicum quod est in solis mobilibus, non est verum dicere et praedicare de necessario simpliciter: quia quod simpliciter necessarium est, non potest aliter esse. Possibile autem physicum potest sic et aliter esse, ut dictum est. Addit autem ly simpliciter, quoniam necessarium est multiplex. Quoddam enim est ad bene esse, quoddam ex suppositione: de quibus non est nostrum tractare, sed solummodo id insinuare. Quod ut praeservaret se ab illis modis necessarii qui non perfecte et omnino habent necessarii rationem, apposuit ly simpliciter. De tali enim necessario possibile physicum non verificatur. Alterum autem possibile logicum, quod in rebus immobilibus invenitur, verum est de illo enunciare, quoniam nihil necessitatis adimit. Et per hoc solvitur ratio inducta ad partem negativam quaestionis. Peccabat siquidem in hoc, quod ex necessario inferebat possibile ad utrunque quod convertitur in oppositam qualitatem.	5. When he says, So it is not true to say the latter possible of what is necessary simply, etc., he applies the truth he has determined to what has been proposed. First, by way of a conclusion from what has been said, he shows the relationship of each possible to the necessary. So, he says, it is not true to say and predicate this possible, namely physical, which is only in mobile things, of the necessary simply, because what is necessary simply cannot be otherwise. The physical possible, however, can be thus and otherwise, as has been said. He adds "simply” because the necessary is manifold. There is the necessary for well-being and there is also the necessary from supposition, but it is not our business to treat these, only to indicate them. In order, then, to avoid the modes of the necessary that do not have the notion of the necessary perfectly and in every way, he adds "simply.” Now the physical possible is not verified of this kind of necessary [i.e., of the necessary simply], but it is true to enunciate the logical possible, the one found in immovable things, of the necessary, since it takes away nothing of the necessity. The argument introduced for the negative part of this question”’ is destroyed by this. The error in that argument was the inference—by way of conversion into the opposite quality—of the possible to both alternatives from the necessary.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 12 n. 6 Deinde respondet quaestioni formaliter intendens quod affirmativa pars quaestionis tenenda sit, quod scilicet ad necessarium sequitur possibile; et assignat causam. Quia ad partem subiectivam sequitur constructive suum totum universale; sed necessarium est pars subiectiva possibilis: quia possibile dividitur in logicum et physicum, et sub logico comprehenditur necessarium; ergo ad necessarium sequitur possibile. Unde dicit: quare, quoniam partem, scilicet subiectivam, suum totum universale sequitur, illud quod ex necessitate est, idest necessarium, tamquam partem subiectivam, consequitur posse esse, idest possibile, tamquam totum universale. Sed non omnino, idest sed non ita quod omnis species possibilis sequatur; sicut ad hominem sequitur animal, sed non omnino, idest non secundum omnes suas partes subiectivas sequitur ad hominem: non enim valet: est homo, ergo est animal irrationale. Et per hoc confirmata ratione adducta ad partem affirmativam, expressius solvit rationem adductam ad partem negativam, quae peccabat secundum fallaciam consequentis, inferens ex necessario possibile, descendendo ad unam possibilis speciem, ut de se patet.	6. Then he replies to the question formally. He states that the affirmative part of the question must be held, namely, that the possible follows upon the necessary. Next, he assigns the cause. The whole universal follows constructively upon its subjective part; but the necessary is a subjective part of the possible, because the possible is divided into logical and physical and under the logical is comprehended the necessary; therefore, the possible follows upon the necessary. Hence he says, Therefore, since the universal follows upon the part, i.e., since the whole universal follows upon its subjective part, to be possible to be, i.e., possible, as the whole universal, follows upon that which necessarily is, i.e., necessary, as a subjective part. He adds: though not every kind of possible does, i.e., not every species of the possible follows; just as animal follows upon man, but not in every way, i.e., it does not follow upon man according to all its subjective parts, for it is not valid to say, "He is a man, therefore he is an irrational animal.” By this proof of the validity of the affirmative part, Aristotle has explicitly destroyed the reasoning adduced for the negative part, which, as is evident, erred according to the fallacy of the consequent in inferring the possible from the necessary by descending to one species of the possible.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 12 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: et est fortasse quidem etc., ordinat easdem modalium consequentias alio situ, praeponendo necessarium omnibus aliis modis. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, proponit quod intendit; secundo, assignat causam dicti ordinis; ibi: manifestum est autem et cetera. Dicit ergo: et est fortasse principium omnium enunciationum modalium vel esse vel non esse, idest, affirmativarum vel negativarum, necessarium et non necessarium. Et oportet considerare alia, scilicet, possibile contingere et impossibile esse, sicut horum, scilicet, necessarii et non necessarii, consequentia, hoc modo: consequentiae enunciationum modalium secundum quatuor ordines alio convenienti situ ab Aristotele positae et ordinatae: (Figura). Vides autem hic nihil immutatum, nisi quod necessariae quae ultimum locum tenebant, primum sortitae sunt. Quod vero dixit fortasse, non dubitantis, sed absque determinata ratione rem proponentis est.	7. When he says, Indeed the necessary and not necessary may well be the principle of all that is or is not, etc., he disposes the same consequences of modals in another arrangement, placing the necessary before all the other modes. First he proposes the order of modals and then assigns the cause of the order where he says, It is evident, then, from what has been said that that which necessarily is, actually is, etc. Indeed, he says, the necessary and not necessary may well be the principle of the "to be” or "not to be” of all modal enunciations, i.e., the necessary and not necessary is the principle of affirmatives or negatives. And the others, i.e., the possible, contingent, and impossible to be must be considered as consequent to these, i.e., to the necessary and not necessary. THE CONSEQUENTS OF MODAL ENUNCIATIONS ACCORDING TO THE FOUR ORDERS, POSITED AND DISPOSED BY ARISTOTLE IN ANOTHER APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENT FIRST ORDER It is necessary to be It is not possible not to be It is not contingent not to be It is impossible not to be SECOND ORDER It is necessary not to be It is not possible to be It is not contingent to be It is impossible to be It is not necessary to be It is possible not to be It is contingent not to be It is not impossible not to be FOURTH ORDER It is not necessary not to be It is possible to be It is contingent to be It is not impossible to be Nothing is changed here except the enunciations predicating necessity. They have been allotted the first place, whereas in the former table they were placed last. When he says "may well be,” it is not because he is in any doubt, but because he is proposing this here without a determinate proof.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 12 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: manifestum est autem etc., intendit assignare causam dicti ordinis. Et primo, assignat causam, quare praeposuerit necessarium possibili tali ratione. Sempiternum est prius temporali; sed necessarium dicit sempiternitatem (quia dicit esse in actu, excludendo omnem mutabilitatem, et consequenter temporalitatem, quae sine motu non est imaginabilis), possibile autem dicit temporalitatem (quia non excludit quin possit esse et non esse); ergo necesse merito prius ponitur quam possibile. Unde dicit, proponendo minorem: manifestum est autem ex his quae dicta sunt etc., tractando de necessario: quoniam id quod ex necessitate est, secundum actum est totaliter, scilicet quia omnem excludit mutabilitatem et potentiam ad oppositum: si enim mutari posset in oppositum aliquo modo, iam non esset necessarium. Deinde subdit maiorem per modum antecedentis conditionalis: quare si priora sunt sempiterna temporalibus et cetera. Ultimo ponit conclusionem: et quae actu sunt omnino, scilicet necessaria, priora sunt potestate, idest possibilibus, quae omnino actu esse non possunt, licet compatiantur.	8. When he says, It is evident, then, from what has been said that that which necessarily is, actually is, etc., he gives the cause of this order. First he gives the reason for placing the necessary before the possible: the sempiternal is prior to the temporal; but "necessary” signifies sempiternal (because it signifies "to be in act,” excluding all mutability and consequently temporality, which is not imaginable without movement) and the possible signifies temporality (since it does not exclude the possibility of being and not being); therefore, the necessary is rightly placed before the possible. He proposes the minor of this argument when he says, It is evident, then, from what has been said in treating the necessary, that that which necessarily is, is totally in act, since it excludes all mutability and potency to the opposite—for if it could be changed into the opposite in any way, then it would not be necessary. Next he gives the major, which is in the mode of an antecedent conditional: and if eternal things are prior to temporal, etc. Finally, he posits the conclusion: those that are wholly in act in every way, namely necessary, are prior to the potential, i.e., to possibles, which do not have being in act wholly although they are compatible with it.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 12 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit: et hae quidem etc., assignat causam totius ordinis a se inter modales statuti, tali ratione. Universi triplex est gradus. Quaedam sunt actu sine potestate, idest sine admixta potentia, ut primae substantiae, non illae quas in praesenti diximus primas, eo quod principaliter et maxime substent, sed illae quae sunt primae, quia omnium rerum sunt causae, intelligentiae scilicet. Alia sunt actu cum possibilitate, ut omnia mobilia, quae secundum id quod habent de actu sunt priora natura seipsis secundum id quod habent de potentia, licet e contra sit, aspiciendo ordinem temporis. Sunt enim secundum id quod habent de potentia priora tempore seipsis secundum id quod habent de actu. Verbi gratia, Socrates prius secundum tempus poterat esse philosophus, deinde fuit actualiter philosophus. Potentia ergo praecedit actum secundum ordinem temporis in Socrate, ordine autem naturae, perfectionis et dignitatis e converso contingit. Prior enim secundum dignitatem, idest dignior et perfectior habebatur Socrates cum philosophus actualiter erat, quam cum philosophus esse poterat. Praeposterus est igitur ordo potentiae et actus in unomet, utroque ordine, scilicet, naturae et temporis attento. Alia vero nunquam sunt actu sed potestate tantum, ut motus, tempus, infinita divisio magnitudinis, et infinita augmentatio numeri. Haec enim, ut IX Metaphys. dicitur, nunquam exeunt in actum, quoniam eorum rationi repugnat. Nunquam enim aliquid horum ita est quin aliquid eius expectetur, et consequenter nunquam esse potest nisi in potentia. Sed de his alio tractandum est loco.	9. Then he says, Some things are actualities without potentiality, namely, the primary substances, etc. Here he assigns the cause of the whole order established among modals. The grades of the universe are threefold. Some things are in act without potentiality, i.e., not combined with potency. These are the primary substances—not those we have called "first” in the present work because they principally and especially sustain—but those that are first because they are the causes of all things, namely, the Intelligences. In others, act is accompanied with possibility, as is the case with all mobile things, which, according to what they have of act, are prior in nature to themselves according to what they have of potency, although the contrary is the case in regard to the order of time. According to what they have of potency they are prior in time to themselves according to what they have of act. For example, according to time, Socrates first was able to be a philosopher, then he actually was a philosopher. In Socrates therefore, potency precedes act according to the order of time. The converse is the case, however, in the order of nature, perfection, and dignity, for when he actually was a philosopher, Socrates was regarded as prior according to dignity, i.e., more worthy and more perfect than when he was potentially a philosopher. Hence, when we consider each order, i.e., nature and time, in one and the same thing, the order of potency and act is reversed. Others never are in act but are only in potency, e.g., motion, time, the infinite division of magnitude, and the infinite augmentation of number. These, as is said in IX Metaphysicae [6: 1048b 9-17], never terminate in act, for it is repugnant to their nature. None of them is ever such that something of it is not expected, and consequently they can only be in potency. These, however, must be treated in another place.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 12 n. 10 Nunc haec ideo dicta sint ut, inspecto ordine universi, appareat quod illum imitati sumus in nostro ordine. Posuimus siquidem primo necessarium, quod sonat actu esse sine potestate seu mutabilitate, imitando primum gradum universi. Locavimus secundo loco possibile et contingens, quorum utrunque sonat actum cum possibilitate, et sic servatur conformitas ad secundum gradum universi. Praeposuimus autem possibile et non contingens, quia possibile respicit actum, contingens autem secundum vim nominis respicit defectum causae, qui ad potentiam pertinet: defectus enim potentiam sequitur; et ex hoc conforme est secundae parti universi, in qua actus est prior potentia secundum naturam, licet non secundum tempus. Ultimum autem locum impossibili reservavimus, eo quod sonat nunquam fore, sicut et ultima universi pars dicta est illa, quae nunquam actu est. Pulcherrimus igitur ordo statutus est, quando divinus est observatus.	10. This has been said so that once the order of the universe has been seen it should appear that we were imitating it in our present ordering. The necessary, which signifies "to be in act” without potentiality or mutability, has been placed first, in imitation of the first grade of the universe. We have put the possible and contingent, both of which signify act with possibility, in second place in conformity with the second grade of the universe. The possible has been Placed before the contingent because the possible relates to act whereas the contingent, as the force of the name suggests, relates to the defect of a cause-which pertains to potency, for defect follows upon potency. The order of these is similar to the order in the second part of the universe, where act is prior to potency according to nature, though not according to time. We have reserved the last place for the impossible because it signifies what never will be, just as the last part of the universe is said to be that which is never in act. Thus, a beautifully proportioned order is established when the divine is observed.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 12 n. 11 Quia autem suppositae modalium consequentiae nil aliud sunt quam aequipollentiae earum, quae ob varium negationis situm, qualitatem, vel quantitatem, vel utranque mutantis, fiunt; ideo ad completam notitiam consequentium se modalium, de earum qualitate et quantitate pauca admodum necessaria dicenda sunt. Quoniam igitur natura totius ex partium naturis consurgit, sciendum est quod subiectum enunciationis modalis et dicit esse vel non esse, et est dictum unicum, et continet in se subiectum dicti; praedicatum autem modalis enunciationis, modus scilicet, et totale praedicatum est (quia explicite vel implicite verbum continet, quod est semper nota eorum quae de altero praedicantur: propter quod Aristoteles dixit quod modus est ipsa appositio), et continet in se vim distributivam secundum partes temporis. Necessarium enim et impossibile distribuunt in omne tempus vel simpliciter vel tale; possibile autem et contingens pro aliquo tempore in communi.	11. Since the consequents of modals, i.e., those placed under each other, are their equivalents in meaning, and these are produced by the varying position of the negation changing the quality or quantity or both, a few things must be said about their quality and quantity to complete our knowledge of them. The nature of the whole arises from the parts, and therefore we should note the following things about the parts of the modal enunciation. The subject of the modal enunciation asserts to be or not to be, and is a singular dictum, and contains in itself the subject of the dictum. The predicate of a modal enunciation, namely, the mode, is the total predicate (since it explicitly or implicitly contains the verb, which is always a sign of something predicated of another, for which reason Aristotle says that the mode is a determining addition) and contains in itself distributive force according to the parts of time. The necessary and impossible distribute in all time either simply or in a limited way; the possible and contingent distribute according to some time commonly.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 12 n. 12 Nascitur autem ex his quinque conditionibus duplex in qualibet modali qualitas, et triplex quantitas. Ex eo enim quod tam subiectum quam praedicatum modalis verbum in se habet, duplex qualitas fit, quarum altera vocatur qualitas dicti, altera qualitas modi. Unde et supra dictum est aliquam esse affirmativam de modo et non de dicto, et e converso. Ex eo vero quod subiectum modalis continet in se subiectum dicti, una quantitas consurgit, quae vocatur quantitas subiecti dicti: et haec distinguitur in universalem, particularem et singularem, sicut et quantitas illarum de inesse. Possumus enim dicere, Socratem, quemdam hominem, vel omnem hominem, vel nullum hominem, possibile est currere. Ex eo autem quod subiectum unius modalis dictum unum est, consurgit alia quantitas, vocata quantitas dicti; et haec unica est singularitas: secundum omne enim dictum cuiusque modalis singulare est istius universalis, scilicet dictum. Quod ex eo liquet quod cum dicimus, hominem esse album est possibile, exponitur sic, hoc dictum, hominem esse album, est possibile. Hoc dictum autem singulare est, sicut et, hic homo. Propterea et dicitur quod omnis modalis est singularis quoad dictum, licet quoad subiectum dicti sit universalis vel particularis. Ex eo autem quod praedicatum modalis, modus scilicet, vim distributivam habet, alia quantitas consurgit vocata quantitas modi seu modalis; et haec distinguitur in universalem et particularem.	12. As a consequence of these five conditions there is a twofold quality and a threefold quantity in any modal. The twofold quality results from the fact that both the subject and the predicate of a modal have a verb in them. One of these is called the quality of the dictum, the other the quality of the mode. This is why it was said above that there is an enunciation which is affirmative of mode and not of dictum, and conversely. Of the threefold quantity of a modal enunciation, one arises from the fact that the subject of the modal contains in it the subject of the dictum. This is called the quantity of the subject of the dictum, and is distinguished into universal, particular, and singular, as in the case of the quantity of an absolute enunciation. For we can say: "That ‘Socrates,’ ‘some man,’ ‘every man,”’ or "‘no man,’ run is possible’ " The second quantity is that of the dictum, which arises from the fact that the subject of one modal is one dictum. This is a unique singularity, for every dictum of a modal is the singular of that universal, i.e.,dictum. "That man be white is possible” means "This dictum, ‘that man be white,’ is possible.” "This dictum” is singular in quantity, just as "this man” is. Hence, every modal is singular with respect to dictum, although with respect to the subject of the dictum it is universal or particular. The third quantity is that of the mode, or modal quantity, which arises from the fact that the predicate of the modal, i.e., the mode, has distributive force. This is distinguished into universal and particular.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 12 n. 13 Ubi diligenter duo attendenda sunt. Primum est quod hoc est singulare in modalibus, quod praedicatum simpliciter quantificat propositionem modalem, sicut et simpliciter qualificat. Sicut enim illa est simpliciter affirmativa, in qua modus affirmatur, et illa negativa, in qua modus negatur; ita illa est simpliciter universalis cuius modus est universalis, et illa particularis cuius modus est particularis. Et hoc quia modalis modi naturam sequitur. Secundum attendendum (quod est causa istius primi) est, quod praedicatum modalis, scilicet modus, non habet solam habitudinem praedicati respectu sui subiecti, scilicet esse et non esse, sed habitudinem syncategorematis distributivi, sed non secundum quantitatem partium subiectivarum ipsius subiecti, sed secundum quantitatem partium temporis eiusdem. Et merito. Sicut enim quia subiecti enunciationis de inesse propria quantitas est penes divisionem vel indivisionem ipsius subiecti (quia est nomen quod significat per modum substantiae, cuius quantitas est per divisionem continui: ideo signum quantificans in illis distribuit secundum partes subiectivas), ita quia subiecti enunciationis modalis propria quantitas est tempus (quia est verbum quod significat per modum motus, cuius propria quantitas est tempus), ideo modus quantificans distribuit ipsum suum subiectum, scilicet, esse vel non esse, secundum partes temporis. Unde subtiliter inspicienti apparebit quod quantitas ista modalis proprii subiecti modalis enunciationis quantitas est, scilicet, ipsius esse vel non esse. Ita quod illa modalis est simpliciter universalis, cuius proprium subiectum distribuitur pro omni tempore: vel simpliciter, ut, hominem esse animal est necessarium vel impossibile; vel accepto, ut, hominem currere hodie, vel, dum currit, est necessarium vel impossibile. Illa vero est particularis, in qua non pro omni, sed aliquo tempore distributio fit in communi tantum; ut, hominem esse animal, est possibile vel contingens. Est ergo et ista modalis quantitas subiecti sui passio (sicut et universaliter quantitas se tenet ex parte materiae), sed derivatur a modo, non in quantum praedicatum est (quod, ut sic, tenetur formaliter), sed in quantum syncategorematis officio fungitur, quod habet ex eo quod proprie modus est.	13. Now, there are two things about modal enunciations that must be carefully noted. The first—which is peculiar to modals—is that the predicate quantifies the modal proposition simply, as it also qualifies it simply. For just as the modal enunciation in which the mode is affirmed is affirmative simply, and negative when the mode is negated, so the modal enunciation in which the mode is universal is universal simply and particular in which the mode is particular. The reason for this is that the modal follows the nature of the mode. The second thing to be noted (which is the cause of the first) is that the predicate of a modal, i.e., the mode, not only has the relationship of a predicate to its subject (i.e., to "to be” and "not to be”), but also has the relationship to the subject, of a distributive syncategorematic term, which has the effect of distributing the subject, not according to the quantity of its subjective parts, but according to the quantity of the parts of its time. And rightly so, for just as the proper quantity of the subject of an absolute enunciation varies according to the division or lack of division of its subject (since the subject is a name which signifies in the mode of substance, whose quantity is from the division of the continuous, and therefore the quantifying sign distributes according to the subjective parts), so, because the proper quantity of the subject of a modal enunciation is time (since the subject is a verb, which signifies in the mode of movement, whose proper quantity is time), the quantifying mode distributes the subject, i.e., "to be” or "not to be” according to the parts of time. Hence, we arrive at the subtle point that the quantity of the modal is the quantity of the proper subject of the modal enunciation, namely, of "to be” or "not to be.” Therefore, a modal enunciation is universal simply when the proper subject is distributed throughout all time, either simply, as in "That man is an animal is necessary or impossible,” or taken in a limited way, as in "That man is running today,” or "while he is running, is necessary or impossible.” A modal enunciation is particular in which "to be” or "not to be” is distributed, not throughout all time, but commonly throughout some time, as in "That man is an animal is possible or contingent.” This modal quantity is therefore also a property of its subject (in that, universally, quantity comes from the matter) but is derived from the mode, not insofar as it is a predicate (because, as such, it is understood formally), but insofar as it performs a syncategorematic function, which it has in virtue of the fact that it is properly a mode.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 12 n. 14 Sunt igitur modalium (de propria earum quantitate loquendo) aliae universales affirmativae, ut illae de necessario, quia distribuunt ad semper esse; aliae universales negativae, ut illae de impossibili, quia distribuunt ad nunquam esse; aliae particulares affirmativae, ut illae de possibili et contingenti, quia distribuunt utrunque ad aliquando esse; aliae particulares negativae, ut illae de non necesse et non impossibili, quia distribuunt ad aliquando non esse: sicut in illis de inesse, omnis, nullus, quidam, non omnis, non nullus, similem faciunt diversitatem. Et quia, ut dictum est, haec quantitas modalium est inquantum modales sunt, et de his, inquantum huiusmodi, praesens tractatus fit ab Aristotele; idcirco aequipollentiae, seu consequentiae earum, ordinatae sunt negationis vario situ, quemadmodum aequipollentiae illarum de inesse: ut scilicet, negatio praeposita modo faciat aequipollere suae contradictoriae; negatio autem modo postposita, posita autem dicti verbo, suae aequipollere contrariae facit; praeposita vero et postposita suae subalternae, ut videre potes in consequentiarum figura ultimo ab Aristotele formata. In qua, tali praeformata oppositionum figura, clare videbis omnes se mutuo consequentes, secundum alteram trium regularum aequipollere, et consequenter, totum primum ordinem secundo contrarium, tertio contradictorium, quarto vero subalternum. (Figura).	14. Therefore, with respect to their proper quantity, some modals are universal affirmatives, i.e., those of the necessary because they distribute "to be” to all time. Others are universal negatives, i.e., those of the impossible because they distribute "to be” to no time. Still others are particular affirmatives, i.e., those signifying the possible and contingent, for both of these distribute "to be” to some time. Finally, there are particular negatives, i.e., those of the not necessary and not impossible, for they distribute "not to be” to some time. This is similar to the diversity in absolute enunciations from the use of "every,” "no” "some,” not all,” and "not none.” Now, since this quantity belongs to modals insofar as they are modals, as has been said, and since Aristotle is now considering them in this particular respect, the modal enunciations that are equivalent, i.e., their consequents, are ordered by the different location of the negation, as is the case with absolute enunciations that are equivalent. A negative placed before the mode makes an enunciation equivalent to its contradictory; placed after the mode, i.e., with the verb of the dictum, makes it equivalent to its contrary; placed before and after the mode makes it equivalent to its subaltern, as you can see in the last table of consequents given by Aristotle. In that table of oppositions, you see all the mutual consequents, according to one of the three rules for making enunciations equivalent. Consequently, the whole first order of equivalent enunciations is contrary to the second, contradictory to the third, and the fourth is subalternated to it. Necessary to be - contraries - Impossible to be subalterns subalterns Possible to be - subcontraries - Contingent not to be TABLE OF OPPOSITION OF EQUIPOLLENT MODALS This table is not Cajetan’s but is a full arrangement of the orders of modal enunciations asdeveloped in this lesson. Close I Universal Affirmatives It is necessary to be It is not possible not to be It is not contingent not to be It is impossible not to be contraries II Universal Negatives It is necessary not to be It is not possible to be It is not contingent to be It is impossible to be subalterns subalterns IV Particular Affirmatives It is not necessary not to be It is possible to be It is contingent to be It is not impossible to be subcontraries III Particular Negatives It is not necessary to be It is possible not to be It is contingent not to be It is not impossible not to be