Authors/Thomas Aquinas/metaphysics/liber7/lect5

Lecture 5

Latin	English
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 1 Postquam determinavit philosophus quid est quod quid erat esse, et quorum, consequenter inquirit quomodo se habeat quod quid erat esse ad id cuius est, utrum scilicet ut idem, vel ut diversum. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo movet quaestionem. Secundo solvit eam, ibi, singulum enim non aliud. Tertio ostendit quod ex solutione praedicta, possunt solvi sophisticae rationes, quae circa haec fiunt, ibi, sophistici vero elenchi. Dicit ergo primo, quod perscrutandum est utrum quod quid erat esse cuiuscumque, et unumquodque cuius est quod quid erat esse, sit idem aut diversum; sicut utrum quod quid erat esse homini et homo sit idem aut diversum, et similiter de aliis. Hoc enim inquirere et manifestare, est aliquid praeopere, idest praenecessarium ad perscrutationem de substantia, quam intendimus facere in sequentibus. Intendit enim inquirere inferius, utrum universalia sint substantiae rerum, et utrum partes definitorum intrent in definitionem eorum; et ad hoc valet ista perscrutatio, quam nunc proponit.	1356. Having established what essence is, and to what things it belongs, the Philosopher next inquires how essence is related to the thing of which it is the essence, i.e., whether it is the same as that thing or different; and in regard to this he does three things. First (588)C 1356), he presents the problem. Second (589:C 1357), he gives its solution (“For each thing”). Third (597:C 1377,), he shows that the sophistical arguments which arise with regard to these matters can be met by using the above solution (“Moreover, it is evident”). He accordingly says, first (588), that it is necessary to inquire whether the essence of each thing and the thing of which it is the essence are the same or different, for example, whether the essence of a man and a man are the same or different; and it is the same in the case of other things. For to investigate this and make it evident is a “preamble to,” i.e., a basic requirement for, “the inquiry about substance,” which we intend to make in the following discussions. For it is his aim to investigate below whether universals are the substances of things, and whether the parts of things defined enter into their definition; and this inquiry which he now proposes to make is useful in solving that problem.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit singulum enim solvit propositam quaestionem. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit quaestionis solutionem. Secundo probat eam, ibi, in dictis vero secundum se. Tertio ostendit contrarium solutionis praedictae esse absurdum et impossibile, ibi, absurdum vero apparebit. Circa primum duo facit. Primo enim ostendit quid prima facie circa quaestionem propositam verum esse videatur. Secundo ostendit in quo eius contrarium accidat, ibi, in dictis quidem itaque. Dicit ergo primo, quod statim, in primo aspectu, hoc videtur esse dicendum, quod in omnibus rebus singulum non sit aliud a sui substantia. Hoc autem quod est quod quid erat esse, est substantia eius cuius est quod quid erat esse. Unde videtur per hanc rationem in primo aspectu quod quod quid erat esse sit idem, et non alterum ab unoquoque cuius est.	1357. For each thing (589). Then he gives the solution to the problem which has been raised; and in regard to this he does three things. First (589), he gives the solution to this problem. Second (591:C 1362), he proves it (“But in the case”). Third (595:C 1373), he shows that the opposite of the solution given above is absurd and impossible (“Now the absurdity”). In regard to the first he does two things. First (589:C 1357), he indicates what seems to be true at first glance with regard to the proposed problem. Second (590:C 1358), he shows what follows from the contrary of this problem (“Now in the case”). He accordingly says, first (589), that it seems necessary at first glance, i.e., at once, to say that there is no case in which a particular thing differs from its own substance; and the reason is that the essence of a thing is the substance of the very thing of which it is the essence. Hence according to this argument it seems at first glance that the essence of a thing is the same as the thing itself and that one does not differ from the other.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit in dictis quidem. Ostendit in quibus quod praemissum est non sit verum; dicens, quod quod quid erat esse pro tanto videtur esse non aliud ab eo cuius est, quia est eius substantia: itaque in illis, quae praedicantur secundum accidens, et non dicunt substantiam subiecti, videtur esse diversum quod quid erat esse praedicati a subiecto. Alterum enim est id quod est esse albo homini, idest quod quid erat esse albi hominis, ab eo quod est albus homo.	1358. Now in the case (590). Then he indicates the things to which the above premise does not apply. He says that insofar as the essence of a thing does not seem to differ from the thing of which it is the essence, since it is its substance, then in the case of accidental predications, which do not express the substance of their subject, the essence of the predicate seems to differ from the subject. For “the being of a white man,” i.e., the essence of a white man, differs from a white man.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 4 Quod sic videtur, quia cum dicitur, homo albus, supponitur homo; idem enim est homo, et homo albus, ut dicunt. Si enim albus haberet esse aliud a subiecto, aliquid praedicaretur de composito, ratione albi, vel posset praedicari, quia non esset contra rationem albi. Quod enim praedicatur de homine albo, non praedicatur de eo nisi quia praedicatur de homine. Accidens enim non est subiectum, nisi ratione substantiae. Unde secundum quod in albo intelligitur homo, homo et homo albus sunt idem; et pro tanto id quod erit esse albo homini, erit etiam esse homini. Si ergo quod quid erat esse albi hominis, sit idem albo homini, erit etiam idem homini: sed non est idem homini, ergo quod quid erat esse albi hominis non est idem albo homini. Et sic in his quae sunt secundum accidens, quod quid erat esse alicuius non erit idem cum eo cuius est quod quid erat esse.	1359. This seems to be the case because, when someone says “white man,” man is presupposed, for a man and a white man are the same, as they say. For if white had a different being than its subject, something might be predicated of the composite by means of the concept white, or it could be predicated of the composite because it was not opposed to the concept white. For whatever is predicated of a white man is so predicated only because it is predicated of a man; for an accident is a subject only by reason of a substance. Hence, insofar as man is understood in what is white, man and white are the same; and insofar as they are the same, then whatever constitutes the being of a white man will also constitute the being of a man. Hence if the essence of a white man is the same as a white man, it will also be the same as a man. But it is not the same as a man; and thus the essence of a white man is not the same as a white man. Therefore in the case of those things which are accidental, the essence of a thing and the thing itself are not the same.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 5 Quod autem quod quid erat esse albi hominis non sit idem homini, patet, quia non est necesse, quod quaecumque dicuntur secundum accidens de aliquo subiecto, quod sint eadem illi: subiectum enim est quodammodo medium inter duo accidentia, quae praedicantur de ipso, inquantum illa duo accidentia non uniuntur nisi unitate subiecti, sicut album et musicum unitate hominis de quo praedicantur: est ergo homo ut medium, album autem et musicum sunt extremitates. Si autem album esset idem homini per essentiam, pari ratione et musicum; et ita ista duo extrema album et musicum essent per essentiam idem; quia quaecumque uni et eidem sunt eadem, etiam sibiinvicem sunt eadem. Hoc autem est falsum, quod istae extremitates sint eaedem per essentiam: sed forsan hoc videtur esse verum, quod sint eaedem per accidens. Hoc autem certum est quod album et musicum sunt idem per accidens.	1360. Now it is evident that the essence of a white man is not the same as a man, because not everything that is predicated accidentally of a subject is necessarily the same as that subject. For a subject is in a sense a mean between two accidents which are predicated of it, inasmuch as these two accidents are one only because their subject is one; for example, white and musical are one because the man of whom they are predicated is one. Therefore man is a mean, and white and musical are extremes. Now if white were essentially the same as man, then by the same argument musical would also be the same as man. Thus the two extremes, white and musical, would be essentially the same, because two things that are identical with some other thing are themselves identical. But it is false that these two extreme terms are essentially the same, although perhaps it might seem to be true that they are accidentally the same. Now it is certain that white and musical are accidentally the same.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 6 Sed ex hoc posset aliquis opinari, quod sicut album et musicum sunt idem per accidens, ita etiam hoc, quod est esse albo, et quod est esse musico, idest quod quid est utriusque sit idem per accidens. Sed hoc non videtur esse verum. Album enim et musicum sunt idem per accidens ex hoc, quod utrumque est idem per accidens homini. Non autem quod quid est esse albi, nec hoc quod quid est musici, sunt idem cum eo quod est quod quid est esse hominis. Unde quod quid est esse albi, et quod quid est esse musici, non sunt idem per accidens, sed solum album et musicum.	1361. But according to this someone might think that, just as the white and the musical are accidentally the same, in a similar fashion “the being of white” and “the being of musical,” i.e., the essences of both, are accidentally the same. However, this does not seem to be true; for the white and the musical are accidentally the same because each is accidentally the same as a man. Now the being of white and the being of musical are not the same as the being of man. Hence the being of white and the being of musical are not accidentally the same, but only the white and the musical.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit in dictis vero manifestat solutionem propositam. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo manifestat eam quantum ad ea quae dicuntur per se. Secundo quantum ad ea quae dicuntur per accidens, ibi, secundum accidens vero dictum. Circa primum duo facit. Primo manifestat propositam quaestionem quantum ad ea quae dicuntur per se. Secundo concludit conclusionem intentam, ibi, necesse igitur est unum esse. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit, quod in his, quae dicuntur per se, non est aliud quod quid erat esse, et id cuius est. Secundo quod non est separatum, ibi, et siquidem absolute. Dicit ergo primo, quod in illis, quae dicuntur per se, semper necesse est idem esse quod quid erat esse et id cuius est. Quod patet si ponantur aliquae substantiae abstractae ab istis sensibilibus, quibus non sunt aliquae aliae substantiae abstractae nec aliquae naturae priores eis. Huiusmodi enim substantias Platonici dicunt esse ideas abstractas. Si enim quod quid erat esse est aliud ab eo cuius est, oportebit hoc esse verum in omnibus in quibus est quod quid erat esse, cuiuslibet autem substantiae est quod quid erat esse, erit ergo aliquid aliud a qualibet substantia quod quid erat esse eius. Et ita etiam quod quid erat esse substantiae idealis erit aliud ab ea; et ita si ipsum bonum, idest si idea boni, et quod est bono esse, idest quod quid erat esse huius ideae, est alterum; et similiter ipsum animal, et quod est animali esse; et ipsum ens, et quod est enti esse, et ita in omnibus aliis ideis; sequetur quod sicut istae substantiae ideales ponuntur praeter substantias sensibiles, ita erunt aliae substantiae, et aliae naturae et ideae praeter ideas dictas a Platonicis, quae erunt quod quid erat esse illarum idearum; et etiam illae aliae substantiae sunt priores ideis. Et hoc dico sequetur si quod quid erat esse, substantiae est, idest si quaelibet substantia habet quod quid erat esse, ut dictum est. Vel si hoc quod quid erat esse pertinet ad substantiam rei: illud enim, a quo substantia rei dependet, est prius ea.	1362. But in the case (590). Then he explains the proposed solution; and in regard to this he does two things. First (590), he explains the solution with reference to essential predications; and second (594:C 1372), with reference to accidental predications (“But it is not true”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he explains the proposed solution with reference to essential predications; and second (593:C 1367), he draws the conclusion at which he aims (“It is necessary”). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he shows that in the case of essential predications the essence of a thing does not differ from the thing of which it is the essence; and second (592:C 1363), that it is not separated from it (“And if”). He accordingly says, first (591), that in the case of essential predications the essence of a thing and the thing itself must always be the same. This becomes clear if one holds that there are substances which are separate from these sensible substances and have no other separated substances or natures prior to them; for the Platonists say that abstract ideas are substances of this kind. For if the essence of a thing differs from the thing itself, this will have to be true of all things which have an essence. Now every substance has an essence. Therefore the essence of every substance will differ from that substance. Hence the essence of an ideal substance will also differ from that substance. Thus “if the good itself,” i.e., the Idea of good, differs from “the being of the good,” i.e., from the essence of this Idea, and if animal-itself also differs from the being of an animal and if being-itself differs from the being of being, and so on in the case of the other Ideas, it follows that, just as there are held to be Ideas apart from sensible substances, in a similar fashion there will also be other substances and natures and Ideas apart from those mentioned by the Platonists. And these other substances will constitute the essence of these Ideas and will be prior to them. Now I say that this follows “if essence belongs to substance,” i.e., if each substance has an essence, as has been stated; or [in other words] if this essence belongs to the substance of the thing; for that on which a substance depends is prior to it.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit et si quidem. Ostendit quod hoc, quod est quod quid erat esse non est separatum ab eo cuius est, dicens, et si quidem sint absolute abinvicem, idest si quod quid erat esse et id cuius est, non solum sunt diversa, sed etiam sunt abinvicem separata, sequuntur duo inconvenientia: quorum primum est, quod harum rerum non sit scientia quarum quod quid est ab eis separatur. Secundum inconveniens est, quod haec eadem erunt non entia.	1363. And if (592). He shows that the essence of a thing is not separated from the thing of which it is the essence. He says, “And if they are separated from each other,” i.e., if the essence of a thing and the thing itself are not only different but also separated from each other, two absurdities follow. The first is that there will be no understanding of those things whose essence is separated from them; and the second is that these same things will not be beings.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 9 Et exponit quod dixerat absolute, ut videlicet nec ipsi bono, idest ideae boni, quae ponitur secundum Platonicos insit hoc quod est esse bono, idest quod quid est esse boni. Nec iterum scilicet huic bono, inest esse bonum, idest quidditas boni: quasi dicat absolutionem praedictam esse intelligendam secundum separationem quidditatis boni ab idea boni, et a particulari bono, quod dicitur per participationem ideae. Vel aliter. Nec huic esse bonum, idest nec hoc, scilicet quod quid erat esse, competit esse bonum, ut scilicet quod quid erat esse boni sit separatum a bono, et e converso.	1364. He also explains what he means by “separated,” namely, that “the being of the good,” i.e., the essence of the good, which the Platonists posit, “is not present in the good-itself,” i.e., in the Idea of good; and again that “being good,” i.e., the quiddity of good, is not present in this good; as if to say that the foregoing separation must be understood to mean the separation of the quiddity of the good both from the Idea of good and from a particular good, which is called such through participation in the Idea of good. Or according to another text, “And being good does not belong to this,” i.e., this essence is not proper to the being of the good in such a way that the essence of the good may be separated from the good, and vice versa.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 10 Et quod praedicta inconvenientia sequantur hac positione facta, patet: quia scientia uniuscuiusque in hoc consistit, quod sciatur quod quid erat esse illi: et hoc similiter se habet et in bono et in omnibus aliis. Quare sequitur, quod si huic quod est esse bono, idest quidditati boni, non inest bonum, nec etiam ei quod est esse enti, idest quidditati entis, inest ens, nec similiter ei quod est uni, inest unum; quia similiter aut omnia, aut nullum eorum sunt eadem cum suis quidditatibus. Si autem bonum propter separationem praedictam non inest ei, quod est esse bonum, ergo nec e contrario esse bonum inerit bono. Quare etiam nec quod est esse enti erit idem cum ente, nec aliquod aliorum habebit in se unum quod quid est. Et ita si unumquodque scitur per quod quid est, nulla res poterit sciri: quod fuit primum inconveniens.	1365. It is evident that the untenable conclusions mentioned above follow from the position described, because the understanding of each thing consists in a knowledge of its essence; and this applies in like manner both to the good and to all other things. Hence it follows that, if good is not present in “the being of the good,” i.e., its essence, neither is being present in “the being of being,” i.e., the essence of being, nor similarly is unity present in the being of the one, because either all of them alike or none of them are the same as their quiddities. If, however, by reason of the above-mentioned separation good is not present in the being of the good, then in an opposite way neither is the being of the good present in the good. Hence, too, neither will the essence of being be the same as being, nor will any other things have within themselves a single whatness. Thus if each thing is understood by means of its whatness, it follows that nothing can be known. This was the first absurdity mentioned.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 11 Iterum patet quod sequitur secundum, idest quod nihil erit ens, nec bonum, nec animal, nec aliquid huiusmodi; quia non poterit bonum esse illud, cui non inest hoc, quod est bono esse, idest quod quid est boni. Si igitur quod quid est boni est separatum a bono, et quod quid erat entis ab ente, sequetur quod ista, quae dicuntur bona et entia, non sunt bona, nec entia: quod fuit secundum inconveniens.	1366. It is also evident that “the second absurdity follows”—that nothing will be a being or a good or an animal or anything of this kind; because that cannot be good in which “the being of the good,” i.e., the whatness of the good, is not present. Hence if the whatness of the good is separated from the good, and the whatness of being is separated from being, it follows that the things which are said to be good and to be beings are neither good nor beings. This was the second absurdity mentioned.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 12 Deinde cum dicit necesse igitur concludit philosophus conclusionem principaliter intentam; dicens, quod ex quo per diversitatem et separationem eius quod quid erat esse a rebus, sequitur quod res nec sunt scitae, nec entes, quod est inconveniens, necesse est igitur esse unum benignum, et hoc quod est benigno esse, idest quod quid est benigni, et bonum et bono esse, idest quod quid est boni. Et ponit haec duo, ut benignum pertineat ad bona particularia, quae Platonici dicebant bona per participationem, bonum autem ad ipsam ideam boni. Et similiter est de omnibus aliis, quae dicuntur per se et primo, et non per aliud sive per accidens, quia in illis est alia ratio, ut dictum est. Ad hoc enim quod res sint scitae, et quod sint entes, hoc est sufficiens, scilicet quod quod quid erat rei sit idem cum re si extiterit, idest si fuerit verum, quamvis non sint species ideales, quas Platonici ponebant.	1367. It is necessary (593). The Philosopher now draws the conclusion in which he is chiefly interested. He says that, since it follows, as a result of the difference and separation of essence from things, that things are not understood and are not beings, and this is absurd, “it is necessary that the amicable be one with the being of the amicable,” or the whatness of the amicable, “and that the good be one with the being of the good,” i.e., the quiddity of the good. He gives these two examples: the amicable, pertaining to particular goods, which the Platonists said were good by participation; and the good, pertaining to the Idea of good. And it is similar in the case of all other predications which are essential and primary and which do not involve one thing being predicated of something else, i.e., accidental predications; for the latter type of predication is of a different nature, as has been stated (579:C 1313). For in order that things may both be understood and be beings, it is enough “if this is so,” i.e., if this is true, namely, that the quiddity of a thing is the same as the thing itself, even though the Ideal Forms which the Platonists posited do not exist.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 13 Licet non propter aliud ponerent Platonici species, nisi ut per eas possit haberi scientia de istis sensibilibus, ut per earum participationem essent. Sed forsan magis est sufficiens ad praedictam positionem, quod quod quid est esse rei sit idem cum re quam ipsae species, etiam si verum sit quod sint species, quia species sunt separatae a rebus. Magis autem aliquid cognoscitur et habet esse per id quod est sibi coniunctum et idem, quam per id quod est ab eo separatum.	1368. Now the Platonists claimed that there are separate Forms only for this reason, that certain knowledge of sensible things might be had by means of these Forms, inasmuch as sensible things would exist by participating in them. But perhaps it is sufficient for the foregoing position that the whatness of a thing should be the same as the thing itself rather than the Form, even if it is true that there are Forms, because the Forms exist apart from things. Moreover, a thing is understood and has being by means of something which is connected with it and is the same as itself, rather than by means of something which is separated from it.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 14 Ex hoc autem philosophus dat intelligere destructiones specierum. Si enim species non ponuntur nisi propter scientiam rerum, et esse earum, et ad hoc sufficit alia positio, etiam hoc non posito et eo posito magis quam hoc, sequitur quod vanum sit ponere species.	1369. And from this consideration the Philosopher wants us to understand that separate Forms are destroyed. For if the Forms are held merely to account for our understanding of things and their being, and another position sufficiently accounts for this when it is held and the Platonic position is not, it follows that it is pointless to posit separate Forms.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 15 Similiter ad idem ostendendum, scilicet quod non sunt species, palam est, quia si sunt ideae quales Platonici eas esse dicebant, sequetur quod id, quod est subiectum, scilicet quod haec res sensibilis non sit substantia. Ponebant enim Platonici, quod necesse est ideas esse substantias, et non esse de aliquo subiecto. Proprium enim est substantiae in subiecto non esse. Sed si ista subiecta, idest, si ista sensibilia sint substantiae, oportet quod sint secundum participationem illarum specierum; et ita illae species erunt de subiecto.	1370. Similarly, the same point of the non-existence of separate Forms is evident from another consideration. If there are Ideas, it follows that the thing which is their subject, namely, this particular sensible thing, is not a substance. For the Platonists adopted the position that Ideas must be substances and so not belong to any subject; for it is proper for a substance not to inhere in a subject. But if the subjects hereabout, i.e., the sensible things about us, are substances, they must be such by participating in these separate Forms. Hence these Forms will inhere in a subject.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 16 Ex his itaque rationibus manifestum est, quod unum est et idem non secundum accidens, unumquodque et quod quid erat esse eius. Et similiter in sciendo, idem est scire unumquodque, et scire quid est eius. Quare secundum expositionem prout unum esse dicuntur quae sunt unum in essendo et in sciendo, necesse est ambo, scilicet rem et quod quid erat esse eius, esse unum aliquid.	1371. From these arguments, then, it is evident that each thing and its whatness are one and the same in no accidental way; and similarly that in the act of understanding to know a particular thing is the same as to know its essence. “Hence according to this exposition” inasmuch as those things are said to be one which are one both from the viewpoint of being and that of being understood, it is necessary that both of these, i.e., a thing and its essence, should be one.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 17 Deinde cum dicit secundum accidens manifestat solutionem positam quantum ad ea, quae dicuntur secundum accidens; dicens, quod in his quae dicuntur secundum accidens non est verum dicere, quod sit idem quod quid erat esse, et ipsum cuius est quod quid erat esse. Et hoc propter duplex significare. Cum enim dicitur homo albus, ex parte subiecti potest aliquid attribui ei ratione subiecti, vel accidentis ratione. Si ergo diceremus, quod quod quid est albi hominis sit idem homini albo, duo possunt significari: scilicet quod sit idem homini, vel quod sit idem albo. Et hoc est quod dicit. Etenim potest significare subiectum cui accidit album, et accidens. Quare patet, quod quodammodo est idem quod quid est albi hominis cum homine albo, et quodammodo non idem. Non enim est idem homini, nec etiam albo homini respectu subiecti, sed tamen est idem ipsi passioni, idest albo. Idem enim est quod quid erat albo et album. Licet non possit dici quod sit idem cum homine albo, ne intelligatur esse idem cum subiecto.	1372. But it is not true (594). He explains the foregoing solution with reference to accidental predications. He says that in the case of accidental predications it is not true to say that the essence of a thing and the thing of which it is the essence are the same. This is so because of the twofold meaning of the term; for when a man is said to be white, something can be attributed to the subject either by reason of the subject or by reason of the accident. Hence if we were to say that the whatness of a white man is the same as a white man, two things could be meant: that it is either the same as a man or the same as white; for it can designate both the subject “to which the accident white belongs and the accident itself.” Hence it is clear that in one sense the whatness of a white man is the same as a white man, and in another it is not. For it is not the same as a man or even the same as white man as regards the subject, but it is the same as “the attribute,” i.e., white; for the essence of white and white itself are the same. However, it cannot be said that it is the same as a white man, lest it should be understood to be the same as the subject.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 18 Deinde cum dicit absurdum vero ostendit quod contrarium dictae solutionis est absurdum. Quod quidem necessarium fuit propter hoc, quod superius probavit solutionem positam esse veram suppositis speciebus, quas postmodum destruxerat. Unde necessarium fuit, ut reiteraret probationem, probans ex parte eius quod quid erat esse, quod supra probaverat ex parte specierum. Et circa hoc ponit duas rationes.	1373. Now the absurdity (595). He shows that the opposite of the solution mentioned is absurd; and it was necessary to do this because he had proved that the solution given above is true when separate Forms are posited; which is a position that he afterwards destroyed. Hence he had to repeat his proof, showing that what he had proved about the Forms also applies to a thing’s essence. In regard to this he gives two arguments.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 19 Circa quarum primam dicit, quod dicere aliud esse quod quid erat esse rei, et rem ipsam, apparebit absurdum si quis unicuique eorum quod quid erat esse imposuerit nomen. Tunc enim eadem ratione, et ipsum, et quod quid erat esse erit aliud quod quid erat esse. Verbi gratia. Equus est quaedam res habens quod quid erat esse equo. Quod quidem si sit alia res ab equo, habeat haec res quoddam nomen, et vocetur a. A ergo, cum sit quaedam res, habebit quod quid erat esse, alterum a se, sicut equus; et ita huic, quod est equo esse, erit aliud quod quid erat esse: quod patet esse absurdum. Procedit autem haec ratio eodem modo circa quod quid est, sicut prima ratio processerat circa ideas. Et si aliquis dicat quod quod quid est esse quidditatis equi, est ipsa substantia, quae est quidditas equi, quid prohibet statim a principio dicere, quod quaedam sunt suum quod quid erat esse? Quasi dicat, nihil.	1374. In the first of these arguments he says that to affirm that the essence of a thing and the thing itself are different will appear absurd if anyone gives a name to the essence of each of these; for by the same argument both the thing and its essence will then be different from its essence; for example, a horse is something having the essence of a horse. Now if this differs from a horse, this will have a different name, and let us call it A. Therefore, since A is a thing, it will have an essence different from itself, just as horse does. Thus this thing which constitutes the being of a horse will have a different essence. But this is clearly false. Now this argument proceeds in the same way with regard to the quiddity as the first argument did with regard to the Ideas. And if someone were to say that the essence of a horse is the substance itself, which is the quidditv of a horse, what will prevent us from saying right now at the very start that some things are their own essence? By this he implies the answer, “Nothing.”
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 20 Sed sciendum, quod non solum res et quod quid erat esse eius sunt unum quocumque modo, sed etiam sunt unum secundum rationem, ut ex dictis potest esse manifestum. Non enim est unum secundum accidens unum et quod quid erat esse uni; sed est unum per se; et ita sunt secundum rationem unum.	1375. But it must be understood that a thing and its essence are one in every respect, even in their intelligible structure, as can be made clear from what has been said. For the one and the essence of the one are one not in an accidental way but essentially; and thus they are one in their intelligible structure.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 21 Secundam rationem ponit ibi, amplius si quae talis est. Si aliud est quod quid erat esse rei et res, hoc procederet in infinitum. Oportet enim dicere quod sint duae res, quarum altera sit unum, et altera quod quid erat esse uni. Et eadem ratione erit tertia res quae est quod quid erat esse ei, quod est quod quid esse unius; et sic in infinitum. Cum ergo non sit procedere in infinitum, palam est quod unum et idem est in his, quae dicuntur primo et per se, et non per accidens, unumquodque et id quod est unicuique esse, idem esse.	1376. Again, if they are (596). Then he gives the second argument, which runs as follows: if the essence of a thing and the thing itself are different, there will be an infinite regress; for we must say that there are two things, one of which is the one, and the other the essence of the one; and by the same argument there will be a third thing, which would be the essence of the essence of the one, and so on to infinity. Now since an infinite regress is impossible, it is evident that, in the case of predications which are primary and essential and not accidental, each thing and its being are one and the same.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 22 Deinde cum dicit sophistici autem dicit palam esse quod eadem solutione qua soluta est prima quaestio, solvuntur sophistici elenchi, qui faciunt ad hanc positionem, ad ostendendum scilicet quod non idem sunt quod quid erat esse rei et res. Ut cum quaerunt sophistae, si est idem Socrates et Socrati esse, et ostendunt, quod non, quia si idem est Socrates et Socrati esse, Socrates autem est albus, sequetur quod idem sit album et Socrati esse et cetera. Solutio patet ex praecedentibus. Sic enim non differt, nec ex quibus interrogabit aliquis, nec ex quibus fuerit solvens, idest non differt ex quibus procedat aliquis argumentando, nec quibus quaestionibus adaptet aliquis solutionem, dummodo sit eadem radix solutionis. Patet igitur ex dictis, quando quod quid erat esse uniuscuiusque est idem cum unoquoque, et quando non. Est enim idem in his quae sunt per se, non in his quae sunt per accidens.	1377. Moreover, it is evident (597). He says that the sophistical arguments which are raised against this position in order to show that the essence of a thing and the thing itself are not the same, are clearly met by means of the same solution which was given to the first problem. For example, the Sophists ask if Socrates and the being of Socrates are the same, and they show that they are not by saying that, if Socrates and the being of Socrates are the same, and Socrates is white, it follows that white and the being of Socrates, and so on, are the same. Now the solution is clear from what has been said above. “For there is no difference either in the things from which one asks the question, or in those from which one solves it,” i.e., it makes no difference from what things one proceeds to argue, or to what questions one adapts the answer, inasmuch as the solution is basically the same. Hence from what has been said it is evident when the essence of each thing is the same as each thing and when it is not; for it is the same in the case of essential predications, but not in that of accidental ones. Distinction between abstract and concrete essence
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 23 Sciendum est etiam ad evidentiam eorum, quae dicta sunt, quod quod quid est esse est id quod definitio significat. Unde, cum definitio praedicetur de definito, oportet quod quid est esse de definito praedicari. Non igitur est quod quid est esse hominis humanitas quae de homine non praedicatur, sed animal rationale mortale. Humanitas enim non respondetur quaerenti quid est homo, sed animal rationale et mortale. Sed tamen humanitas accipitur ut principium formale eius, quod est quod quid erat esse; sicut animalitas sumitur ut principium generis, et non genus; rationalitas ut principium differentiae, et non ut differentia.	1378. In support of the statements which he has made it must also be noted that the whatness of a thing is what its definition signifies. Hence when a definition is predicated of the thing defined, the whatness of that thing must also be predicated of it. Therefore, (~) humanity, which is not predicated of man, is not the whatness of man, but (+) mortal rational animal is; for the word humanity does not answer the question, “What is man?” But mortal rational animal does. Yet humanity is taken as the formal principle of the essence, just as animality is taken as (+) the principle of the genus and not as (~) the genus, and as rationality is taken as the (+) principle of the difference and not as (~) the difference.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 24 Humanitas autem pro tanto non est omnino idem cum homine, quia importat tantum principia essentialia hominis, et exclusionem omnium accidentium. Est enim humanitas, qua homo est homo: nullum autem accidentium hominis est, quo homo sit homo, unde omnia accidentia hominis excluduntur a significatione humanitatis. Hoc autem ipsum quod est homo, est quod habet principia essentialia, et cui possunt accidentia inesse. Unde, licet in significatione hominis non includantur accidentia eius, non tamen homo significat aliquid separatum ab accidentibus; et ideo homo significat ut totum, humanitas significat ut pars.	1379. Now to this extent humanity is not absolutely the same as man, because it implies only the essential principles of man and excludes all accidents. For humanity is that by which man is man. But none of the accidents of a man is that whereby he is a man. Hence all accidents of man are excluded from the meaning of humanity. Now it is the particular thing itself, namely, a man, which contains the essential principles and is that in which accidents can inhere. Hence although a man’s accidents are not contained in his intelligible expression, still man does not signify something apart from his accidents. Therefore man signifies as a whole and humanity as a part.
lib. 7 l. 5 n. 25 Si autem est aliqua res, in qua non sit aliquod accidens, ibi necesse est, quod nihil differat abstractum a concreto. Quod maxime patet in Deo.	1380. Moreover, if there is some thing in which no accident is present, then this thing the abstract must differ in no way from the concrete. This is most evident in the case of God.