Authors/Thomas Aquinas/physics/L5/lect10

Lecture 10 Certain difficulties are resolved

Latin	English
	Lecture 10 Certain difficulties are resolved
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 1 Postquam philosophus determinavit de contrarietate motuum et quietum, hic movet quasdam dubitationes circa praemissa. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo ponit dubitationes et solvit eas; secundo manifestat quaedam, quae in illis dubitationibus possent esse dubia, ibi: dubitabit autem quis et cetera. Prima pars dividitur in tres, secundum tres dubitationes quas movet; et patent partes in littera. Circa primum duo facit: primo movet dubitationem; secundo solvit, ibi: at si est quod violentia fit et cetera.	737. After discussing the contrariety of motions and of rests, the Philosopher now raises some questions concerning these matters, About this he does two things: First he raises questions and solves them; Secondly, he explains certain matters that may still be doubtful in regard to these questions, at 747. The first part is divided into three sections, one for each question he raises. About the first point he does two things; First he raises a question; Secondly, he solves it, at 740.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 2 Movet ergo primo dubitationem, quare in genere motus localis inveniuntur quidam motus et quaedam quietes secundum naturam, et quaedam extra naturam, et in aliis generibus hoc non invenitur: puta quod una alteratio sit secundum naturam, et alia extra naturam; quia non videtur magis esse sanatio secundum naturam vel extra naturam, quam aegrotatio, cum utrumque procedat a principio naturali intrinseco. Et similiter est in dealbatione et denigratione, et in augmento et decremento: quia neque isti duo motus sic contrariantur ad invicem, ut unus sit secundum naturam et alter extra naturam, cum utrumque naturaliter proveniat. Neque augmentum sic contrariatur augmento, ut quoddam sit secundum naturam et quoddam extra naturam. Et eadem ratio est de generatione et corruptione: non enim potest dici quod generatio sit secundum naturam et corruptio extra naturam; quia senescere, quod est via in corruptionem, accidit secundum naturam. Neque etiam videmus quod una generatio sit secundum naturam et alia extra naturam.	738. Therefore he first (551 230 a18) raises the question why it is that in the genus of local motion, but not in the other general there are found some motions and rests that are according to nature and some not according to nature. For example, why in it that there are alterations according to nature but none not according to nature? For getting well does not seem to be according to nature or not according to nature any more than getting sick, since each originates from a natural intrinsic principle. The same is true in regard to getting white and getting black or in growing and decreasing, for the former motions are not so contrary to one another that one is according to nature and the other not, since each is a natural process. Nor is growing contrary to growing in such a way that one is according to nature and the other not. The same is true of generation and ceasing-to-be: for generation cannot be said to be according to nature and ceasing-to-be not according to nature, for growing old--which is the road to ceasing-to-be-is according to nature. Nor does it appear that one generation is according to nature and another not.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 3 Videtur autem quod hic dicitur esse contrarium ei, quod dicitur in II de caelo, quod senium, et omnis defectus et corruptio est contra naturam. Sed dicendum est, quod senium et corruptio et decrementum est quodammodo contra naturam, et quodammodo secundum naturam. Si enim consideretur propria natura alicuius rei, quae dicitur natura particularis, manifestum est quod omnis corruptio et defectus et decrementum est contra naturam: quia uniuscuiusque natura intendit conservationem proprii subiecti; contrarium autem accidit ex defectu seu debilitate naturae. Si autem consideretur natura in universali, tunc omnia huiusmodi proveniunt ex aliquo principio naturali intrinseco, sicut corruptio animalis ex contrarietate calidi et frigidi; et eadem ratio est in aliis.	739. Now it seems that what he says here is opposed to a declaration in On the Heavens, that old age and every defect and ceasing-to-be are against nature. But it must be said that old age and ceasing-to-be and decreasing are against nature in one sense and according to nature in another. For if we consider the specific nature of anything, i.e., its particular nature, it is clear that all ceasing-to-be and all defects and decrease are against nature: because each thing’s nature tends to preserve the subject in which it exists, whereas the contrary of this happens when the nature is weak or defective. But if we consider nature in general, all these things are the result of a natural intrinsic principle, as the destruction of an animal results from the contrariety of hot and cold; and the same is true for all the others.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit: at si est quod violentia etc., solvit propositam quaestionem per interemptionem. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo ostendit quod in quolibet genere motus invenitur secundum naturam et extra naturam; secundo ostendit quomodo haec duo in motibus et quietibus contrarientur, ibi: omnino quidem et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo determinat veritatem; secundo removet obiectionem, ibi: erunt igitur corruptiones et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod cum illud quod fit ex violentia, sit extra naturam (quia violentum est cuius principium est extra, nihil conferente vim passo; naturale autem est, cuius principium est intra), sequitur quod corruptio violenta sit corruptioni naturali contraria, sicut corruptio extra naturam ei quae est secundum naturam. Et per eandem rationem concludit quod quaedam generationes sunt violentae, et non fatatae, idest non procedentes secundum ordinem naturalium causarum (quia ipse ordo causarum naturalium fatum dici potest), sicut patet cum aliquis facit nasci rosas aut aliquos fructus per aliqua artificia, temporibus non suis; et similiter etiam aliquo artificio procuratur generatio ranarum, aut aliquorum huiusmodi naturalium. Unde cum hae generationes sint violentae, per consequens sunt extra naturam, quibus contrariantur generationes quae sunt secundum naturam. Idem etiam ostendit consequenter in augmento et decremento. Sunt enim quaedam augmenta violenta et extra naturam; sicut patet in illis qui velocius debito ad pubertatem perveniunt, propter teneritudinem vel propter alimentum, idest propter hoc, quod delitiose et abundanti alimento nutriuntur. Idem etiam apparet in augmento tritici: quandoque enim frumenta augentur innaturaliter propter abundantiam humorum, et non constringuntur, ut sint spissa et solida, per debitam digestionem. Et similiter apparet in alterationibus. Sunt enim quaedam alterationes violentae, et quaedam naturales, ut patet maxime in sanatione. Quidam enim dimittuntur a febribus, non in criticis diebus; et isti alterantur extra naturam: alii vero in criticis diebus; et isti alterantur secundum naturam.	740. Then at (552 230 a29) he answers this question by invalidating it. About this he does two things: First he shows that things according to nature and not according to nature are found in every genus; Secondly, how these two things are contrary when they occur in motions and it states of rest, at 742. About the first he does two things: First he determines the truth; Secondly, he removes an objection, at 741. He says therefore first (552 230 a29) that since what takes place through compulsion is contrary to nature (because compulsion arises from a principle outside a thing in such a way that the thing suffering compulsion does not cooperate, whereas what is natural comes from an intrinsic principle) it follows that compulsive ceasing-to-be is contrary to natural ceasing-to-be, just as a ceasing-to-be that is outside of nature is opposed to one according to nature. According to the same argument, he concludes that some generations are compulsory and not according to fate, i.e., not according to the order of natural causes (because the order of natural causes. can be called “fate”), as when a person grows roses or fruits by artificial means out of season or when the generation of frogs or other natural things is procured artificially. Consequently, since these generations are compulsory, they are outside of nature and are contrary to generations according to nature. He shows the same for growing and decreasing. For some cases of growth are compulsory and unnatural, as is evident in persons who reach the state of puberty in an abnormally short time, on account of soft living or on account of the food, i.e., they are fed abundantly and delicately. The same is also apparent in the growing of wheat, for sometimes the grains grow unnaturally through abundance of moisture and are not compact, i.e., made thick and solid by normal digestion. Likewise in alterations. Some are compulsory and some natural, as is especially evident in the process of getting well. For some recover from fever on the critical days and some not on the critical days. The former are cured according to nature and the latter not according to nature.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: erunt igitur corruptiones etc., obiicit contra praedicta. Cum enim id quod est extra naturam, contrarietur ei quod est secundum naturam, si inveniatur quaedam generatio secundum naturam et quaedam contra naturam, et corruptio similiter, sequetur quod corruptiones sint contrariae ad invicem, et non generationi: quia unum non potest esse duobus contrarium. Et hoc solvit, dicens quod nihil prohibet generationem generationi esse contrariam, et corruptionem corruptioni. Sic enim verum est hoc, etiam remota contrarietate eius quod est secundum naturam et eius quod est extra naturam: quia si est quaedam generatio et corruptio dulcis, et alia tristis, oportet generationem generationi esse contrariam, et corruptionem corruptioni. Dicitur autem generatio et corruptio dulcis, quando ex minus nobili corrupto, generatur magis nobile, sicut si ex aere corrupto generetur ignis; generatio autem et corruptio tristis, quando ex magis nobili corrupto, generatur minus nobile, ut si ex igne generetur aer. Non tamen sequitur, si corruptio opponitur corruptioni, quod non opponatur generationi: quia corruptio opponitur generationi secundum rationem sui generis; corruptio autem corruptioni, secundum rationem propriae speciei: sicut avaritia contrariatur largitati secundum contrarietatem vitii ad virtutem, prodigalitati vero secundum propriae speciei rationem. Et hoc est quod concludit, quod corruptio non est contraria corruptioni simpliciter, idest in universali: sed corruptionum haec quidem est talis, illa vero talis, idest violenta et extra naturam, vel dulcis et tristis.	741. Then at (553 230 b6) he raises an objection against the foregoing. For since what is outside the nature is contrary to what is according to nature, then if there are generations that are according to nature and some not, and the same for ceasing-to-be, it follows that instances of ceasing-to-be are contrary not to generation but to one another, because one thing cannot be contrary to two. But he solves this by saying that there is nothing to prevent generation from being contrary to generation, and ceasing-to-be to ceasing-to-be. This is true, even if you were to abstract from the contrariety between what is according to nature and what is against nature. For if you take the case of something sweet coming to be and then ceasing to be, and the case of something sad coming to be and ceasing to be, the two cases of coming-to-be would be contrary and the two of ceasing-to-be would be contrary. (When he speaks of the coming to be and the ceasing to be of the “sweet”, he means when “something more noble comes to be from the less noble that has ceased to be, as when fire is generated from air; on the other hand, the coming to be and ceasing to be of the “sad” refers to the less noble coming to be from the ceasing-to-be of the more noble, as when air is generated from fire). Now even though ceasing-to-be is contrary to ceasing-to-be, it does not follow that it is not opposed to coming-to-be, for ceasing-to-be is opposed to coming-to-be when both are taken generically, while ceasing-to-be is opposed to ceasing-to-be in a specific sense. For example, avarice is contrary to liberality in the way that a vice is contrary to a virtue, but it is opposed to prodigality as one species to another. So that what he concludes is this: ceasing-to-be is contrary to ceasing-to-be, not in a generic sense, but one ceasing-to-be is this and another that, i.e., compulsory and beyond nature, or sweet and sad.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: omnino quidem igitur contrarii etc., ostendit quomodo sit contrarietas in motu et quiete per id quod est extra naturam et secundum naturam. Et dicit quod non solum generatio est contraria generationi et corruptioni per id quod est secundum naturam et extra naturam, sed etiam universaliter motus et quietes sunt hoc modo contrarii. Sicut motus qui est sursum, est contrarius motui qui est deorsum (quia sursum et deorsum sunt contrarietates loci), et uterque istorum motuum est naturalis alicui corporum; ignis enim naturaliter fertur sursum, terra vero deorsum. Et iterum utriusque horum motuum est accipere contrarias differentias has, scilicet quod est secundum naturam et extra naturam. Et hoc est quod dicit, et contrariae ipsorum, scilicet motuum differentiae sunt. Vel potest intelligi quod ipsorum corporum quae moventur, sunt contrariae differentiae motuum, scilicet secundum naturam et extra naturam: motus enim sursum est quidem naturalis igni, sed moveri deorsum est ei extra naturam. Et sic patet quod motus qui est secundum naturam, est contrarius ei qui est extra naturam. Et similiter est de quietibus. Quia quies quae est sursum, est contraria motui qui est de sursum in deorsum. Sed illa quies est terrae innaturalis: sed motus qui est deorsum est ei secundum naturam. Unde patet secundum praemissa, quod quies quae est extra naturam, est contraria motui naturali eiusdem corporis: quia etiam in eodem corpore motus sic contrariantur ad invicem, quod scilicet motus naturalis unius corporis est contrarius motui non naturali eiusdem corporis. Et sic est etiam de quiete: quia alia quietum contrariarum erit secundum naturam, ut sursum igni et deorsum terrae; alia vero extra naturam, ut deorsum igni, sursum terrae.	742. Then at (554 230 b10) he explains contrariety in motion and rest on the basis of their being outside nature and according to nature. And he says that not only coming-to-be is contrary to coming-to-be and to ceasing-to-be from the viewpoint of being outside nature and according to nature, but in general all motions and rests are contrary in this way. For example, an upward motion is contrary to a downward one (because up and down are contrarieties of place) and each of these motions is natural to certain bodies: for fire is naturally carried upward and earth downward. And again in regard to each of these motions, one can take as contrary differences that which is according to nature and that which is outside the nature. And this is what he means when he says that “these contrarieties in motion are differences”, or he might mean that in respect to the very bodies that are moved there are contrary differences in their motions, namely, according to nature and outside their nature. For an upward motion is natural to fire but a downward not. So it is clear that a motion which is according to nature is contrary to one that is outside nature. Likewise for states of rest. For rest which is above is contrary to a downward movement. But rest above is not natural to earth, whereas a downward motion is. According to the foregoing then, it is clear that rest which is outside the nature is contrary to the natural motion of the body involved, for even in the same body, motions ate mutually contrary, in the sense that the natural motion of one body is contrary to an unnatural motion of the same body. The same is true of rest; for some contrary rests will be according to nature, as rest above for fire and rest down for earth; others are outside the nature? as down for fire and up for earth.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: habet autem dubitationem etc., movet secundam dubitationem: utrum scilicet omnis quietis, quae non semper fuit, sit aliqua generatio, et generatio quietis vocatur stare; ut per stare non intelligamus idem quod quiescere, sed stare sit idem quod pervenire ad quietem; quod forte in Graeco magis proprie sonat. Et videtur determinare in partem negativam per duas rationes. Quarum prima est, quod si omnis quietis quae non semper fuit, est generatio, sequetur quod quietis quae est extra naturam (sicut quando terra quiescit sursum), sit aliqua generatio. Quies autem generari non potest nisi per motum praecedentem: motus autem praecedens quietem innaturalem est violentus. Sic ergo sequitur quod cum terra per violentiam ferebatur sursum, quod tunc stetit, idest quod tunc generabatur eius quies. Sed hoc non potest esse, quia semper quod stat videtur ferri velocius, idest dum generatur quies per motum, semper quanto magis appropinquat ad quietem, tanto est motus velocior. Cum enim res generata sit perfectio generationis; unumquodque autem quanto est propinquius suae perfectioni, tanto est virtuosius et intensius; sequitur quod motus per quem generatur quies, tanto sit velocior, quanto magis appropinquat ad quietem, ut apparet manifeste in motibus naturalibus. Sed in his quae moventur per violentiam, accidit contrarium: quia semper invenitur remissior, quanto magis appropinquat ad quietem. Non ergo quies violenta habet generationem. Et hoc est quod dicit, quod erit aliquid quiescens violente, sed non factum quiescens, idest absque hoc quod sua quies generetur.	743. Then at (555 230 b21) he raises the second question; Has every state of rest that is not eternal a becoming, which becoming is called a coming to a standstill? The answer seems to be “no” for two reasons. First of all, if there is coming-to-be of every state of rest that is not eternal, it will follow that there is coming-to-be for states of rest which are outside nature (as when earth is at rest above). Now rest can be produced only by a previous motion, and the motion preceding an unnatural state of rest is compulsory. Consequently, it follows that when earth is violently projected upwards, it is then that rest comes to be. But this cannot be, because “the velocity of that which comes to a standstill seems always to increase”, i.e., when rest is being generated through motion, it is true that as the state of rest gets closer, the motion gets swifter. For since the perfection of coming-to-be is the thing produced, and since each thing gets stronger and more intense as it gets closer to its perfection, it follows that the motion through which rest is produced is swifter the more it approaches rest, as is abundantly clear in natural motions. But in things that are moved by compulsion the contrary happens: for the motion grows less intense the closer it gets to the state of rest. Consequently, compulsory rest is not generated. This is what he means when he says that some things come to rest by compulsion “without having become so”, i.e., in such a way that their rest is not generated.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 8 Secundam rationem ponit ibi: amplius videtur ipsum stare etc., quae talis est: quia stare, idest generari quietem, aut omnino est idem cum motu naturali quo aliquid fertur in proprium locum, aut simul cum eo accidit. Et manifestum est quod sunt idem subiecto, sed differunt ratione. Terminus enim motus naturalis est esse in loco naturali: esse autem in loco naturali et quiescere in eo, sunt idem subiecto: unde et motus naturalis et generatio quietis sunt idem subiecto, sed differunt ratione tantum. Manifestum est autem quod quies violenta non generatur per motum naturalem: ergo quies violenta non habet stationem, seu generationem.	744. He gives the second reason at (556 230 b26) and it is this: Coming to a standstill, i.e., the coming-to-be of rest, is either entirely the same as the natural motion by which something is carried to its natural place or it is something that happens to accompany it. Now it is clear that both are the same reality though differing in conception. For the goal of a natural motion is to be in a natural place, but to be in a natural place and to be at rest in it are really the same thing. Consequently, a natural motion and the coming-to-be of rest are the same thing in reality and differ only in conception. However, it is evident that compulsory rest is not brought about by a natural motion. Therefore, coming to a standstill is not present in compulsory states of rest, i.e., such states are not generated.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit: habet autem dubitationem si contraria etc., movet tertiam quaestionem de hoc quod supra dictum est, quod quies quae est in aliquo termino, contrariatur motui quo receditur ab illo termino. Sed hoc videtur esse falsum: quia cum aliquis moveatur ex hoc termino sicut ex loco, aut abiiciatur ille terminus, sicut qualitas vel quantitas, adhuc dum movetur, videtur habere illud quod abiectum est vel derelictum. Non enim subito deserit aliquid totum locum, sed successive; et similiter successive amittit albedinem. Ergo dum movetur, adhuc remanet in termino a quo. Si igitur quies qua aliquid manet in termino a quo, contrariatur motui quo inde recedit, sequitur quod duo contraria sint simul; quod est impossibile.	745. Then at (557 230 b28) he raises a third question about a point mentioned in Lecture 3, that rest in A is contrary to motion from A. Now this seems to be false, because when something is moved from A as from a place, or A is being abandoned, as in the case of a quality or quantity, while it is being moved it still seems to have that which is cast off or left behind. For a thing does not leave its entire place all of a sudden but successively; likewise, it is only gradually that it loses whiteness. Therefore, while it is being moved it still retains something of the starting point. If, therefore, the state of rest whereby something remains in a starting point is contrary to the motion by which departure is made therefrom, it follows that two contraries are together—which is impossible.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 10 Solvit autem hanc dubitationem cum dicit: aut aliquo modo quiescit et cetera. Et dicit quod illud quod movetur recedendo a termino, quiescit in termino a quo recedit, non simpliciter sed secundum quid, scilicet secundum quod adhuc manet in illo non totaliter, sed partim: quia hoc est universaliter verum, quod semper eius quod movetur, una pars est ibi, scilicet in termino a quo, et alia in termino ad quem. Nec est inconveniens quod unum contrariorum secundum quid permisceatur alteri; sed quanto est magis impermixtum, tanto est magis contrarium. Et ideo motus est magis contrarius motui, cum nunquam ei permisceatur, quam quies, quae quodammodo permiscetur. Et ultimo epilogat quod dictum est de motu et quiete, quomodo in eis sit unitas et contrarietas.	746. So at (558 230 b32) he solves this difficulty. And he says that what is being moved by departing from its starting point is at rest therein not absolutely but in a certain sense only, i.e., in the sense that it is there not in its entirety but partly, because it is universally true that in all cases of motion, part of the mobile is in the terminus a quo and part in the terminus ad quem. Nor is it unacceptable that one contrary be mixed with another in a certain respect; but the less it is mixed, the more perfectly is it contrary. Therefore, a motion is more contrary to another motion (since they are never intermingled) than a rest is, which somehow intermingles. Finally, in summary, he says that we have spoken about motion and rest and how unity and contrariety are found therein.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit: dubitabit autem quis etc., ponit quaedam ad manifestationem praemissorum, quae tamen in exemplaribus Graecis dicuntur non haberi; et Commentator etiam dicit quod in quibusdam exemplaribus Arabicis non habentur: unde magis videntur esse assumpta de dictis Theophrasti vel alicuius alterius expositoris Aristotelis. Tria tamen ponuntur hic ad manifestationem praecedentium. Quorum primum pertinet ad quaestionem quam supra movit de generatione quietis non naturalis. Unde dicit quod dubitabit aliquis de ipso stare, quod est generari quietem: quia si omnes motus qui sunt praeter naturam, habent quietem oppositam, scilicet non naturalem, utrum et illa quies habeat stare, idest generari? Quia si dicatur quod non sit aliqua statio quietis violentae, sequetur inconveniens. Manifestum est enim quod id quod per violentiam movetur, quandoque manebit, idest quiescet, et hoc per violentiam. Quare sequetur quod aliquid erit quiescens non semper, sine hoc quod fiat quiescens: quod videtur impossibile. Sed palam est quod erit quandoque quies violenta. Sicut enim movetur aliquid praeter naturam, ita et quiescit aliquid praeter naturam. Est autem hic attendendum, quod hoc quod hic dicitur, videtur esse contrarium ei quod supra dictum est. Unde Averroes dicit quod dubitatio superius mota, hic solvitur. Sed melius est ut dicatur quod id quod supra positum est, est magis verum: licet et quod hic dicitur quodammodo sit verum. Quies enim violenta non habet generationem proprie, sicut procedentem ab aliqua causa per se factiva quietis, sicut quies naturalis generatur: sed habet generationem per accidens, per defectum virtutis factivae: quia quando cessat violentia moventis vel impeditur, tunc fit quies violenta. Et propter hoc motus violentus in fine remittitur; naturalis autem in fine intenditur. Sciendum tamen est quod alia littera invenitur in hoc loco, quam oportet ad aliam intentionem referre. Dicit enim sic: quod quaeret aliquis utrum motui extra naturam contrarietur aliqua quies non secundum naturam. Non quod quies quae est contra naturam, opponatur motui qui est contra naturam proprie, ut supra Aristoteles docuit: sed hic dicitur large et improprie, secundum communem oppositionem quietis ad motum. Et dicit quod irrationabile videtur, si non inveniatur quaedam quies non naturalis. Manifestum est enim quod violentia moventis remanebit, idest cessabit quandoque: et nisi quies aliqua fiat consequenter, motus non perveniet ad statum. Unde manifestum est quod motibus violentis opponitur quies violenta: quia quod extra naturam movetur, habet etiam extra naturam quiescere.	747. Then at (559 231 a5) he states some things that will clarify the foregoing. (These passages are said not to be found in the Greek MSS. and, according to the Commentator, not even in the Arabic MSS.; consequently, these statements seem to have been lifted from the sayings of Theophrastus or some other expositor of Aristotle). Three things are here posited in an attempt to clarify the foregoing. The first pertains to the question previously raised about the generation of unnatural rest. And he says that someone may wonder about “Coming to a standstill”, i.e., about the coming-to-be of rest, for if all motions that are outside nature have an opposing state of rest, i.e., an unnatural one, does that state of rest come to be? If it is held that there is no “coming to a standstill” in cases of compulsory rest, something unacceptable follows. For it is clear that a thing in compulsory motion will sometimes remain, i.e., come to rest, by compulsion. Consequently, it will follow that something will be at rest not eternally without having come to rest—which seems impossible. But it is plain that sometimes there is compulsory rest. For just as things are moved outside their nature, so also they rest outside their nature. Rut it should be observed that what is said here appears contrary to what was said above (at 743). Hence Averroes says that a solution is now being given to a question previously raised. However, it is better to say that the previous doctrine contains more truth, although what is being said here is somehow true also. For compulsory rest is not, strictly speaking, generated in the sense that it proceeds from a cause that is essentially productive of rest, as happens when natural rests are generated. But compulsory rest is generated per accidens through lack of a productive force, because when the compulsion of the mover either ceases or meets an obstacle, the state of compulsory rest comes to be. This is why compulsory motions peter out at the end, whereas natural ones become more intense. It should be noted also that there is found another text for this place, to which we should give our attention. For it reads., Someone may ask whether to a motion outside nature there is any contrary rest not according to nature? This does not inquire whether, properly speaking, a state of rest that is contrary to nature is opposed to a motion that is contrary to nature, as Aristotle taught above; rather, here one is now speaking in wide and loose terms in the sense of the general opposition between rest and motion. And he says that it seems unreasonable not to find unnatural states of rest. For it is clear that the violence of the mover will cease at some time and unless rest eventuates, the motion will not come to a standstill. Hence it is clear that. to compulsory motions are opposed compulsory states of rest, because to what is moved outside its nature there belongs to rest outside its nature.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit: quoniam autem est quibusdam etc., ponit secundum, ad explanationem eius quod dictum est de contrarietate motus naturalis et violenti. Et dicit quod, cum in quibusdam sit motus secundum naturam et praeter naturam, sicut ignis, qui movetur sursum secundum naturam et deorsum praeter naturam: quaeritur utrum motui naturali ignis sursum, sit contrarius motus violentus ignis deorsum, vel motus terrae, quae naturaliter movetur deorsum. Et solvit quod ambo ei contrariantur, sed non eodem modo: sed motus terrae deorsum contrariatur motui ignis sursum, sicut naturalis naturali; motus autem ignis deorsum contrariatur motui ignis sursum, sicut violentus naturali. Et eadem ratio est de contrarietate quietum.	748. Then at (560 231 a9) he mentions a second fact to explain his doctrine on the contrariety of natural and compulsory motion. And he says that since certain things are subject to motions that are according to nature and outside their nature, as fire is moved upward according to nature and downward outside its nature, the question arises whether the natural upward motion of fire has for its contrary the compulsory downward motion of fire or the natural downward motion of earth. He answers that both are contrary to the natural upward motion of fire but not in the same way. For the downward motion of earth is contrary to the upward motion of fire as something natural contrary to something natural, whereas a downward motion of fire is contrary to the upward motion of fire as something natural contrary to something compulsory. The same is true for the contrariety of states of rest.
lib. 5 l. 10 n. 13 Deinde cum dicit: forte autem quieti etc., ponit tertium, ad manifestandum id quod dictum est de contrarietate quietis ad motum. Et dicit quod forte quieti motus aliquatenus opponitur, et non simpliciter. Cum enim aliquis movetur ex hoc in quo quieverat, et abiiciat illud, videtur adhuc habere illud quod abiicitur. Unde si quies quae est hic, sit contraria motui qui est hinc in contrarium, sequitur quod simul sint contraria. Sed adhuc aliquatenus quiescit dum manet in termino a quo; et universaliter eius quod movetur, aliquid est in termino a quo, et aliquid in termino ad quem: unde quies minus opponitur motui quam motus contrarius, sicut supra expositum est. Et ultimo recapitulat, ut per se manifestum est. Ex hoc autem ipso quod eadem verba repetuntur, quae supra dicta sunt, manifestum esse potest, quod non sunt verba Aristotelis, sed alicuius expositoris.	749. Then at (561 231 a17) he mentions a third point to explain what he previously said about contrariety of rest to motion. And he says that perhaps motion is not strictly opposed to rest, but only in some sense. For when someone is being moved from A, in which he was at rest, and is doffing it, it seems to retain something of A. Hence if rest in this place is contrary to a motion from this place to a contrary place, it follows that contraries are together. But yet a thing is somehow still at rest while it perseveres in A; indeed, speaking generally of a thing in motion, part of it is in the terminus a quo and part in the terminus ad quem. Consequently, rest is less contrary to motion than a contrary motion is, as was explained above. Finally, he sums up, as is clear of itself. Now the fact that the same words that appeared in an earlier passage (see end of 246 above) are repeated, lends support to the possibility that they are not the words of Aristotle, but of some expositor.