Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber5/lect13

Lecture 13

Latin	English
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 1 Postquam distinxit nomina, quae significant partes unius, hic distinguit nomina significantia ordinem, scilicet prius et posterius. Unum enim quemdam ordinem importat, eo quod uni esse est principium esse, ut supra dictum est. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo assignat rationem communem prioris et posterioris. Secundo distinguit diversos modos prioris et posterioris secundum communem rationem, ibi, ut hoc quidem secundum locum. Dicit ergo primo, quod significatio prioris dependet a significatione principii. Nam principium in unoquoque genere est id, quod est primum in genere. Prius autem dicitur, quod est propinquius alicui determinato principio. Huiusmodi autem ordo principii, et eius, quod est principio propinquum, potest attendi multipliciter. Aut enim aliquid est principium et primum simpliciter et secundum naturam, sicut pater est principium filii. Aut est principium ad aliquid, idest per ordinem ad aliquid extrinsecum; sicut dicitur id, quod est secundum se posterius, esse prius quantum ad aliquid; vel quantum ad cognitionem, vel perfectionem, vel dignitatem, vel aliquo tali modo. Vel etiam dicitur aliquid esse principium et prius quantum ad ubi. Aut etiam aliquibus aliis modis.	936. Having given the various senses of the terms which signify the parts of unity, here Aristotle gives those which signify order, namely, prior and subsequent. For unity implies a certain order, because the essence of unity consists in being a principle, as was stated above (872). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he indicates the common meaning of the terms prior and subsequent; and second (936), he gives the various senses in which these terms are commonly taken (“For example, a thing”). He accordingly says, first, that the meaning of the term prior depends on that of the term principle (or starting point); for the principle in each class of things is what is first in that class, and the term prior means what is nearest to some determinate principle. Now the relationship between a principle of this kind and something which is near it can be considered from several points of view. For something is a principle or primary thing either in an absolute sense and by nature (as a father is a principle of a child), or “relatively,” i.e., in relation to some extrinsic thing (for example, something that is subsequent by nature is said to be prior in relation to something else). Things which are prior in this last sense are such either in reference to knowledge or to perfection or to dignity, or in some such way. Or a thing is also said to be a principle and to be prior in reference to place; or even in certain other ways.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit ut hoc distinguit modos diversos, quibus dicitur aliquid prius et posterius. Et quia prius et posterius dicuntur in ordinem ad principium aliquod, principium autem est, ut supra dictum est, quod est primum in esse, aut in fieri, aut in cognitione: ideo pars ista dividitur in partes tres. In prima dicit quomodo dicitur aliquid esse prius secundum motum et quantitatem; nam ordo in motu, sequitur ordinem in quantitate. Per prius enim et posterius in magnitudine, est prius et posterius in motu, ut dicitur in quarto physicorum. Secundo ostendit, quomodo aliquid dicitur prius altero in cognitione, ibi, alio vero modo. Tertio, quomodo dicitur aliquid altero prius in essendo, idest secundum naturam, ibi, alia vero secundum naturam. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quomodo aliquid sit prius et posterius secundum quantitatem in rebus continuis. Secundo, quomodo in rebus discretis, ibi, alia secundum ordinem.	937. Then he gives the various ways in which things are said to be prior and subsequent. And since the terms prior and subsequent are used in reference to some principle, and a principle is what is first either in being or in becoming or in knowledge (as has been stated above (404:C 761), this part is therefore divided into three sections. In the first he explains how a thing is said to be prior in motion and in quantity, because the order found in motion flows from that found in quantity. For the prior and subsequent in motion depends on the prior and subsequent in continuous quantity, as is stated in Book IV of the Physics. Second (946), he shows how one thing is said to be prior to another in knowledge (“In another way”). Third (950), he explains how one thing is said to be prior to another in being, i.e., in nature (“But others”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he shows how one thing is said to be prior and another subsequent in quantity in the case of continuous things; and second (944), how one thing is prior and another subsequent in the case of discrete things (“Other things are prior in arrangement”).
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 3 Et circa primum ponit tres modos. Primus modus attenditur secundum ordinem in loco: sicut aliquid dicitur esse prius secundum locum in hoc, quod est propinquius alicui loco determinato; sive ille locus determinatus accipiatur ut medium in aliqua magnitudine, sive ut extremum. Potest enim in ordine locali accipi ut principium, centrum mundi, ad quod feruntur gravia: ut sic ordinemus elementa, dicentes terram esse primum, aquam secundum et cetera. Et potest etiam accipi ut principium etiam ipsum caelum, ut si dicamus ignem esse primum, aerem secundum, et sic deinceps.	938. In treating the first member of this division he gives three ways in which things are prior. (1) The first has to do with place; for example, a thing is said to be prior in place inasmuch as it is nearer to some determinate place, whether that place be the middle point in some continuous quantity or an extreme. For the center of the world, to which heavy bodies gravitate, can be taken as the principle (or starting point) of the order involving place, and then we put the elements in the following. order, saying that earth is first, water second, and so on. Or the outermost sphere can be taken as the principle, and then we say that fire is first, air second, and so on.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 4 Propinquitas autem ad principium in loco, quidquid sit illud, potest esse dupliciter. Uno modo secundum ordinem naturalem: sicut aqua propinquior est medio naturaliter quam aer, aer vero propinquior extremo, scilicet caelo. Alio modo sicut evenit, idest secundum quod ordinantur aliqua in loco a casu, vel a quacumque causa praeter naturam; sicut in lapidibus superpositis invicem in acervo, supremus est prior uno ordine, et alio est prior infimus. Et sicut id quod est propinquius principio, est prius, ita quod remotius a principio, est posterius.	939. Now nearness to a principle of place, whatever it may be, can be taken in two ways: (a) in one way with reference to an order naturally determined, as water is naturally nearer to the middle of the universe than air, and air nearer to the extreme, i.e., the outermost sphere; (b) and in another way with reference to an order that depends “on chance,” i.e., insofar as some things have a certain order purely as a result of chance, or on some other cause than nature. For example, in the case of stones which lie on top of one another in a heap, the highest is prior according to one order, and the lowest according to another. And just as what is nearest to a principle is prior, in a similar way what is farther away from a principle is subsequent.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 5 Alia secundum tempus secundus modus attenditur secundum ordinem temporis; quem ponit, dicens, quod alia dicuntur priora secundum tempus, et diversimode. Quaedam namque dicuntur priora, eo quod sunt remotiora a praesenti nunc, ut accidit in factis, idest in praeteritis. Bella enim Troiana dicuntur priora bellis Medis et Persicis, quibus Xerses rex Persarum et Medorum Graeciam expugnavit, quia remotiora sunt a praesenti nunc. Quaedam vero dicuntur priora, quia sunt affiniora vel propinquiora ipsi nunc; sicut dicitur quod prius est Menelaus Pyrrho, quia propinquius alicui nunc praesenti, respectu cuius utrumque erat futurum. Videtur autem haec litera falsa esse, quia utrumque erat praeteritum tempore Aristotelis quando haec sunt scripta. In Graeco autem habetur, quod prius est Nemea Pythion, quae quidem erant duae nundinae vel duo festa, quorum unum erat propinquius illi nunc quo haec scripta sunt, cum tamen utrumque esset futurum.	940. Other things are prior in time (459). (2) Things are understood to be prior and subsequent in a second way with reference to the order in time. And he now describes this order, saying that other things are said to be prior in time, and this in various ways. For some things are prior because they are farther away from the present, as occurs “in the case of things which have taken place,” i.e., past events. For the Trojan wars are said to be prior to those of the Medes and the Persians (in which Xerxes, the king of the Persians and Medes, fought against the Greeks), because they are farther away from the present. And some things are said to be prior because they are closer or nearer to the present; for example, Meneleus is said to be prior to Pyrrho because he is nearer to some present moment in reference to which each was future. But this text seems to be false, because both of them lived before the time of Aristotle, when these words were written. And it is said in the Greek that the Nemean are prior to the Pythian, these being two holidays or feasts one of which was nearer to the moment at which these words were written although both were future.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 6 Patet autem quod in hoc utimur ipso nunc, ut principio et primo in tempore; quia per propinquitatem vel remotionem respectu eius, dicimus aliquid esse prius vel posterius. Et hoc necessarium est dicere secundum ponentes aeternitatem temporis. Non enim potest accipi hac positione facta, aliquod principium in tempore, nisi ab aliquo nunc, quod est medium praeteriti et futuri, ut ex utraque parte tempus in infinitum procedat.	941. Now it is clear that in this case we are using the present as a principle or starting point in time, because we say that something is prior or subsequent on the grounds that it is nearer to or farther away from the present. And those who hold that time is eternal must say this; for, when this is supposed, the only principle or starting point of time which can be taken is one that relates to some present moment, which is the middle point between the past and the future, inasmuch as time might proceed to infinity in both directions.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 7 Alia secundum motum tertius modus est secundum ordinem in motu: et hoc primo ponit quantum ad naturalia; dicens, quod aliqua dicuntur esse priora secundum ordinem in motu. Illud enim, quod est propinquius primo moventi, est prius; sicut puer est prius viro, quia est propinquior primo, scilicet generanti. Et hoc etiam prius dicitur per propinquitatem ad aliquod principium. Id enim, scilicet movens et generans, est principium quodammodo, non qualitercumque, sicut in loco accidebat, sed simpliciter et secundum naturam. Secundo ponit hunc ordinem motus etiam in rebus voluntariis; dicens, quod quaedam priora dicuntur secundum potestatem, sicuti homines, qui sunt in potestatibus constituti. Ille enim, qui excedit potestate, et qui est potentior, dicitur esse prior. Et hic est ordo dignitatis.	942. Other thins are prior in motion (460). (3) The term prior is used in a third way with reference to the order in motion; and (a) he first shows how this applies to natural things. He says that some things are said to be prior in the order found in motion; for what is nearer to a first cause of motion is prior. A boy, for example, is prior to a man because he is nearer to his primary mover, i.e., the one begetting him. And the latter is also said to be prior because of his nearness to some principle. For that—the one moving and begetting—is in a sense a principle, though not in just any way at all (as happened in the case of place), but in an absolute sense and by nature. (b) Second, he also mentions this order of motion in the realm of the voluntary, saying that some things are said to be prior in power, as men who are placed in positions of authority. For one who surpasses another in power, or is more powerful, is said to be prior. This is the order of dignity.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 8 Patet autem, quod hic ordo etiam est secundum motum, quia potentius et potestate excedens est secundum cuius praevoluntatem, idest propositum, necesse est sequi aliquid, quod est eo posterius in movendo; ita scilicet quod non movente illo potentiori vel priori, non moveatur posterius, et movente moveatur. Sicut se habet princeps in civitate. Nam ex eius imperio moventur alii ad exequendum imperata; eo vero non imperante, non moventur. Et patet, quod hoc etiam prius dicitur propter propinquitatem ad aliquod principium. Nam praevoluntas, idest propositum imperantis, hic accipitur ut principium, cui propinquiores sunt, et per consequens priores per quos propositum et imperium principis ad subditos defertur.	943. Now it is evident that this order also involves motion; for one who is more powerful, or surpasses another in power, is one “according to whose will,” i.e., intention, something necessarily follows, because it is through him that some subsequent thing is put in motion. Hence, when the more powerful or prior does not move, no subsequent thing moves; but when the former moves, the latter is also moved. This is the position of a prince in a state; for it is by his authority that others are moved to carry out the things which he commands, and if he does not command them they do not move. And it is clear that the term prior is used here too because of the nearness of a thing to some principle. For “the will,” i.e., the intention, of the ruler is taken here as a principle, and those who are nearer to the ruler, and therefore prior, are the ones through whom his commands are made known to his subjects.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 9 Deinde cum dicit alia secundum ordinem ponit modum secundum ordinem in rebus discretis; dicens, quod alia dicuntur priora secundum ordinem, qui invenitur in aliquibus rebus tantummodo quodam ordine associatis sibi, non per continuitatem, ut in praecedentibus accidebat. Huiusmodi autem sunt, quae distant ab aliquo uno determinato secundum aliquam rationem determinatam, ut parastata, tritostata. Parastata est prius tritostata. Parastata dicitur ille, qui stat iuxta aliquem, puta regem. Tritostata autem ille, qui stat tertius ab eo. Unde alia litera habet, praestans, tertio stante prius est. Patet autem, quod alia ratio distantiae est distare ut secundum, vel tertium. Et similiter paranitae sunt priores nitis. In chordis enim hypatae dicuntur quae sunt graves, nitae vero acutae dicuntur, mediocres autem vocantur mesae. Paranitae autem dicuntur quae sunt iuxta nitas mesis propinquiores.	944. Other things are prior in arrangement (461). He now explains how a thing is prior in the order found among discrete things. He says that some things are said to be prior in order only because they (the associated things) have some kind of arrangement, and not because of continuity, as happened in the previous cases. And things of this kind have a different place in relation to some one determinate thing from a given point of view, as one who stands second and one who stands third —the one who stands second being prior to the one who stands third. By one who stands second is meant one who stands next to someone, such as a king; and by one who stands third is meant one who stands third from the king. Hence another text reads, “The leader is prior to the one who stands third.” It is evident, then, that things are understood to have different places inasmuch as one is second and another third. And in a similar way the paranete is prior to the nete; for among the strings of the lyre the low-pitched string is called the hypate; the high-pitched, the nete; and the middle, the mese. And the paranete refers to that which is next to the nete and nearer to the mese.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 10 Patet etiam, quod hic dicitur etiam esse aliquid prius per propinquitatem ad aliquod principium. Sed differenter in utroque praedictorum exemplorum: quia in illis, scilicet parastata et tritostata, accipitur principium id quod est verum initium et extremum, scilicet ille, qui est summus inter alios vel vertex aliorum, ut rex vel aliquis alius talis. Sed in chordis accipitur ut principium, medium, et media chorda quae dicitur mesa, cui propinquiores dicuntur paranitae, et per hoc priores dicuntur nitis. Ista ergo dicuntur priora per hunc modum, scilicet per ordinem quantitatis vel continuae vel discretae.	945. It is also evident that something is said to be prior here because of its nearness to some principle, although this happens differently in both of the examples given above. For in the former case—that of one who stands second and one who stands third—the thing which is taken as a principle is a real starting point and extreme, namely, the one who is highest among them, or the chief of the others, as a king or some other person of this kind. But in the case of the strings of the lyre it is the middle one, i.e., the middle string, termed the mese, that is taken as the principle; and since those which are nearer to this are called the paranete, the paranete are therefore said to be prior to the nete. These things are said to be prior in this way, then, i.e., by the order in quantity, whether continuous or discrete.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 11 Secundo ibi alio vero ostendit quomodo aliquid dicitur prius altero in cognitione. Illud autem prius est cognitione, quod etiam prius est simpliciter, non secundum quid, sicut erat in loco: nam res per sua principia cognoscitur. Sed, cum cognitio sit duplex, scilicet intellectus vel rationis, et sensus, aliter dicimus aliqua priora secundum rationem, et aliter secundum sensum.	946. In another way (462). Here he shows how one thing is said to be prior to another in knowledge. Now what is prior in knowledge is also prior in an absolute sense and not in a qualified one, as was the case with place; for a thing is known through its principles. But since knowledge is twofold: intellectual or rational, and sensory, we say that things are prior in one way in reference to reason, and in another in reference to the senses.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 12 Ponit autem tres modos, secundum quos aliquid est prius ratione sive cognitione intellectiva; quorum primus est secundum quod universalia sunt priora singularibus, licet in cognitione sensitiva accidat e converso. Ibi enim singularia sunt priora. Ratio enim est universalium, sensus autem singularium. Unde sensus non cognoscit universalia nisi per accidens, inquantum cognoscit singularia, de quibus universalia praedicantur. Cognoscit enim hominem inquantum cognoscit Socratem, qui est homo. E contrario autem intellectus cognoscit Socratem inquantum cognoscit hominem. Semper autem quod est per se est prius eo quod est per accidens.	947. He gives three ways in which something is prior in reference to reason or intellectual knowledge: (1) First, there is the way in which universals are prior to singulars, although the opposite occurs in the case of sensory knowledge because there singulars are prior. For reason has to do with universals and the senses with singulars; and thus the senses know universals only accidentally inasmuch as they know the singular of which the universals are predicated. For a sense knows man inasmuch as it knows Socrates, who is a man; and in the opposite way the intellect knows Socrates inasmuch as it knows man. But what is essential is always prior to what is accidental.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 13 Secundum modum ponit et secundum dicit, quod secundum rationem prius est accidens quam totum, idest quam compositum ex subiecto et accidente; et musicus homo cognosci non potest sine ratione huius partis, quod est musicum. Eodem modo quaecumque alia simplicia sunt priora secundum rationem compositis, cum in sensu sit e converso. Nam sensui primo composita offeruntur.	948. And in the intelligible structure (463). (2) Here he gives the second way in which a thing is prior in reference to reason. He says that in the intelligible structure “the attribute is prior to the whole,” i.e., to the composite of subject and attribute; thus “musical man” cannot be known without grasping the meaning of the part “musical.” And in the same way all other simple things are prior in intelligibility to the composite, although the opposite is true from the viewpoint of the senses; for it is composite things which are first offered to the senses.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 14 Tertium modum ponit ibi amplius priora dicit, quod priora dicuntur etiam secundum rationem, passiones, sicut rectitudo habetur prior levitate. Rectitudo enim est per se passio lineae, levitas autem superficiei, linea vero naturaliter est prior superficie. Secundum autem sensum prior est superficies linea, et passiones compositorum passionibus simplicium. Haec igitur dicuntur priora per hunc modum, scilicet per ordinem cognoscendi.	949. Again, the attributes (464). (3) Then he gives the third way. He says that the attributes of prior things are also said to be prior from the viewpoint of reason, as straightness is said to be prior to smoothness. For straightness is an essential property of a line, and smoothness a property of surface, and a line is naturally prior to surface. But from the viewpoint of the senses surface is prior to a line, and the attributes of composite things are prior to those of simple ones. These things, then, are said to be prior in this way, namely, according to the order in knowing.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 15 Deinde cum dicit alia vero ponit modos, quibus dicitur aliquid prius secundum ordinem in essendo: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit tres modos, quibus dicitur aliquid esse prius in essendo. Secundo reducit eos ad unum, ibi, modo itaque quodam. Dicit ergo primo, quod quaedam dicuntur esse priora, secundum naturam et substantiam, idest secundum naturalem ordinem in essendo. Et hoc tripliciter. Primo ratione communitatis aut dependentiae: secundum quod priora dicuntur, quae possunt esse sine aliis et illa non possunt esse sine eis. Et hoc est prius a quo non convertitur essendi consequentia, ut dicitur in praedicamentis. Et hac divisione, idest isto modo prioris et posterioris contra alios diviso usus est Plato. Voluit enim quod propter hoc universalia essent priora in essendo quam singularia, et superficies quam corpora, et lineae quam superficies, et numerus quam omnia alia.	950. But others (465). He then gives the ways in which a thing is said to be prior according to the order in being, and in regard to this he does two things. First, he gives three ways in which a thing is said to be prior in being; and second (953), he reduces them to one (“In a sense, then”). He says, first, that some things are said to be prior in being, i.e., “in nature and substance,” or according to the natural order in being. And this is so for three reasons: (1) First, priority is attributed because of community or dependence; and according to this those things are said to be prior which can exist without others, although others cannot exist without them. And one thing is prior to another when the sequence of their being cannot be reversed, as is stated in the Categories. “This is the division,” i.e., the mode of division of prior and subsequent, which Plato used against others; for it was because of community or dependence that he wanted universals to be prior in being to singular things, surfaces prior to bodies, lines to surfaces, and numbers to all other things.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 16 Secundus modus attenditur secundum ordinem substantiae ad accidens. Quia enim ens multipliciter dicitur, et non univoce, oportet, quod omnes significationes entis reducantur ad unam primam, secundum quam dicitur ens, quod est subiectum aliorum entium per se existens. Et propter hoc primum subiectum dicitur esse prius: unde substantia prius est accidente.	951. (2) Second, things are said to be prior in being because of the relationship of substance to accident. For since the term being is used in many senses and not univocally, all senses of being must be reduced to one primary sense, according to which being is said to be the subject of other things and to subsist of itself. Hence the first subject is said to be prior; and thus substance is prior to accident.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 17 Tertius modus attenditur secundum divisionem entis in actum et potentiam. Nam uno modo dicitur aliquid esse prius secundum potentiam et alio modo secundum actum: secundum potentiam quidem dimidium rei est prius re ipsa, et quaelibet pars toto, et materia quam substantia, idest quam forma. Haec enim omnia sic comparantur ad ea, respectu quorum sic dicuntur priora, ut potentia ad actum: secundum actum vero dicuntur praedicta esse posteriora. Nam praedicta non efficiuntur in actu nisi per dissolutionem. Resoluto enim toto in partes, incipiunt partes esse in actu.	952. Third, things are said to be prior in being inasmuch as being is divided into the actual and the potential. For a thing is said to be prior in one way potentially and in another actually. A thing is said to be prior potentially in the sense that half a line is prior to an entire line, and any part to its whole, and matter “to substance,” i.e., to form. For all of the first things mentioned in these instances are related to the others, to which they are said to be prior, as something potential to something actual. However, from the viewpoint of actuality the first things mentioned are said to be subsequent, since they become actual only by the dissolution of some whole. For when a whole is dissolved into its parts, the parts then begin to exist actually.
lib. 5 l. 13 n. 18 Deinde cum dicit modo itaque concludit, quod omnes modi prioris et posterioris possunt reduci ad hos ultimos modos, et praecipue ad primum, prout prius dicitur quod potest esse sine aliis, et non e converso. Quaedam enim possunt esse sine aliis secundum generationem, per quem modum totum est prius partibus: quia, quando iam totum generatum est, partes non sunt in actu, sed in potentia. Quaedam vero contingit esse sine aliis secundum corruptionem, sicut pars sine toto, quando est iam totum corruptum et dissolutum in partes. Et similiter etiam alii modi prioris et posterioris ad hunc modum reduci possunt. Constat enim, quod priora non dependent a posterioribus, sicut e converso. Unde omnia priora aliquo modo possunt esse sine posterioribus, et non e converso.	953. In a sense, then (466). Here he concludes that all of the ways in which the terms prior and subsequent are used can be reduced to the last one given; and especially to the first of these inasmuch as the term prior means something which can exist without other things, but not the reverse. For from the viewpoint of generation some things can exist without others, and it is in this way that a whole is prior to its parts; for when a whole has been generated its parts do not exist actually but only potentially. And from the viewpoint of corruption some things can exist without others; for example, the parts can exist without the whole after the whole has been corrupted and dissolved into its parts. And in the same way too the other senses of prior and subsequent can be reduced to this sense. For it is certain that prior things do not depend upon subsequent ones, but the reverse. Hence all prior things can exist without subsequent ones, but not the reverse.