Authors/Thomas Aquinas/perihermenias/perihermenias I/L7

LECTURE 7

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