Expositio libri Peryermeneias

ARISTOTLE
ON
INTERPRETATION

Commentary by Thomas Aquinas
finished by Cardinal Cajetan

translated by
Jean T. Oesterle

Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962

(most technical notes are omitted)


CONTENTS

Dedication
Introduction

BOOK I

    LESSON
  1. The Order of This Treatise
  2. The Signification of Vocal Sound
  3. The Diverse Signification of Vocal Sound
  4. The Name
  5. On the Nature of the Verb and Its Conformity with the Name
  6. On Speech, the Formal Principle of the Enunciation
  7. The Definition of Enunciation
  8. The Division of Enunciation into Simple and Composite, Affirmative and Negative
  9. The Opposition of Affirmation and Negation Absolutely
  10. The Division of the Proposition on the Part of the Subject
    and the Opposition of Affirmation and Negation in Universal and in Indefinite Propositions
  11. The Opposition of Universal and Particular Enunciations
    and the Relation of an Opposed Affirmation and Negation to Truth and Falsity
  12. There Is Only One Negation Opposed to One Affirmation
  13. Truth and Falsity in Opposed Singular Propositions
    About the Future in Contingent Matter
  14. Contingency in Things and the Roots of Contingency in Relation to Singular Propositions
    About the Future in Contingent Matter
  15. It Is Concluded that Propositions Are True as They Correspond to the Way
    in Which Things Are in Reality

BOOK II

    LESSON
  1. The Distinction and Order of Simple Enunciations
    in Which the Finite or the Infinite Is Posited Only on the Part of the Subject
  2. The Number and Relationship of Simple Enunciations
    in Which the Verb “Is” Is Predicated As a Third Element
    and the Subject Is the Finite Name Not Universally Taken
  3. The Number and Relationship of Enunciations in Which the Verb “Is”
    Is Predicated and the Subject Is the Finite Name Taken Universally, or the Infinite Name,
    and of Those in Which the Adjective Verb Is Predicated
  4. Some Doubts About What Has Been Said Are Presented and Solved
  5. Ways in Which an Enunciation May Be Many Rather than One
  6. Some Predicates Said Divisively of a Subject Can Be Said Conjointly, Others Not
  7. Whether from an Enunciation Having Many Conjoined Predicates
    It Is Licit to Infer an Enunciation Which Contains the Same Predicates Divisively
  8. Modal Propositions and Their Opposition
  9. In Contradictions of Modal Propositions the Negation Must Be Added to the Modes, Not to the Verb
  10. The Logical Consequents of the Modals
  11. Whether “Possible To Be” Follows Upon “Necessary To Be”
  12. The Explanation of Potencies that Are Called Such Equivocally and the Determination,
    Through the Notion of the Impossible, of the Possible that Follows Upon the Necessary
  13. Contrariety of Opinions in the Mind Is Constituted by an Opposition of the True and the False
  14. The Opposition of True and False that Constitutes Contrariety of Opinions
    Is Opposition According to Affirmation and Negation of the Same Predicate of the Same Subject

Dedicatio Dedication
(translated by Joseph Kenny, O.P.)
Dilecto sibi praeposito Lovaniensi frater Thomas de Aquino salutem et verae sapientiae incrementa. To the beloved provost of Louvain himself, I, Brother Thomas Aquinas, wish you health and increase in true wisdom.
Diligentiae tuae, qua in iuvenili aetate non vanitati sed sapientiae intendis, studio provocatus, et desiderio satisfacere cupiens, libro Aristotelis, qui peri hermeneias dicitur, multis obscuritatibus involuto, inter multiplices occupationum mearum sollicitudines, expositionem adhibere curavi, My attention has been drawn to your diligence, whereby in your youthful state you pursue not vanity but the study of wisdom. Desiring to satisfy your desire, I have taken the trouble, in the midst of many demanding tasks, to undertake an exposition on the book of Aristotle called On Interpretation, which contains many obscure passages.
hoc gerens in animo sic altiora pro posse perfectioribus exhibere, ut tamen iunioribus proficiendi auxilia tradere non recusem. I aimed, as far as possible, to explain higher things to advanced students, without depriving the younger ones of the assistance they need to make progress.
Suscipiat ergo studiositas tua praesentis expositionis munus exiguum, ex quo si profeceris, provocare me poteris ad maiora Therefore, may your studious self accept the small gift of the present exposition. If it helps you to make progress, you may stimulate me to do you greater favors.

Prooemium INTRODUCTION
Sicut dicit philosophus in III de anima, duplex est operatio intellectus: una quidem, quae dicitur indivisibilium intelligentia, per quam scilicet intellectus apprehendit essentiam uniuscuiusque rei in seipsa; alia est operatio intellectus scilicet componentis et dividentis. Additur autem et tertia operatio, scilicet ratiocinandi, secundum quod ratio procedit a notis ad inquisitionem ignotorum. Harum autem operationum prima ordinatur ad secundam: quia non potest esse compositio et divisio, nisi simplicium apprehensorum. Secunda vero ordinatur ad tertiam: quia videlicet oportet quod ex aliquo vero cognito, cui intellectus assentiat, procedatur ad certitudinem accipiendam de aliquibus ignotis. There is a twofold operation of the intellect, as the Philosopher says in III De anima [6: 430a 26]. One is the understanding of simple objects, that is, the operation by which the intellect apprehends just the essence of a thing alone; the other is the operation of composing and dividing. There is also a third operation, that of reasoning, by which reason proceeds from what is known to the investigation of things that are unknown. The first of these operations is ordered to the second, for there cannot be composition and division unless things have already been apprehended simply. The second, in turn, is ordered to the third, for clearly we must proceed from some known truth to which the intellect assents in order to have certitude about something not yet known.
Cum autem logica dicatur rationalis scientia, necesse est quod eius consideratio versetur circa ea quae pertinent ad tres praedictas operationes rationis. De his igitur quae pertinent ad primam operationem intellectus, idest de his quae simplici intellectu concipiuntur, determinat Aristoteles in libro praedicamentorum. De his vero, quae pertinent ad secundam operationem, scilicet de enunciatione affirmativa et negativa, determinat philosophus in libro perihermeneias. De his vero quae pertinent ad tertiam operationem determinat in libro priorum et in consequentibus, in quibus agitur de syllogismo simpliciter et de diversis syllogismorum et argumentationum speciebus, quibus ratio de uno procedit ad aliud. Et ideo secundum praedictum ordinem trium operationum, liber praedicamentorum ordinatur ad librum perihermeneias, qui ordinatur ad librum priorum et sequentes. 2. Since logic is called rational science it must direct its consideration to the things that belong to the three operations of reason we have mentioned. Accordingly, Aristotle treats those belonging to the first operation of the intellect, i.e., those conceived by simple understanding, in the book Praedicamentorum; those belonging to the second operation, i.e., affirmative and negative enunciation, in the book Perihermeneias; those belonging to the third operation in the book Priorum and the books following it in which he treats the syllogism absolutely, the different kinds of syllogism, and the species of argumentation by which reason proceeds from one thing to another. And since the three operations of reason are ordered to each other so are the books: the Praedicamenta to the Perihermeneias and the Perihermeneias to the Priora and the books following it.
Dicitur ergo liber iste, qui prae manibus habetur, perihermeneias, quasi de interpretatione. Dicitur autem interpretatio, secundum Boethium, vox significativa, quae per se aliquid significat, sive sit complexa sive incomplexa. Unde coniunctiones et praepositiones et alia huiusmodi non dicuntur interpretationes, quia non per se aliquid significant. Similiter etiam voces significantes naturaliter, non ex proposito aut cum imaginatione aliquid significandi, sicut sunt voces brutorum animalium, interpretationes dici non possunt. Qui enim interpretatur aliquid exponere intendit. Et ideo sola nomina et verba et orationes dicuntur interpretationes, de quibus in hoc libro determinatur. 3. The one we are now examining is named Perihermeneias, that is, On Interpretation. Interpretation, according to Boethius, is “significant vocal sound—whether complex or incomplex—which signifies something by itself.” Conjunctions, then, and prepositions and other words of this kind are not called interpretations since they do not signify anything by themselves. Nor can sounds signifying naturally but not from purpose or in connection with a mental image of signifying something—such as the sounds of brute animals—be called interpretations, for one who interprets intends to explain something. Therefore only names and verbs and speech are called interpretations and these Aristotle treats in this book.
Sed tamen nomen et verbum magis interpretationis principia esse videntur, quam interpretationes. Ille enim interpretari videtur, qui exponit aliquid esse verum vel falsum. Et ideo sola oratio enunciativa, in qua verum vel falsum invenitur, interpretatio vocatur. Caeterae vero orationes, ut optativa et imperativa, magis ordinantur ad exprimendum affectum, quam ad interpretandum id quod in intellectu habetur. Intitulatur ergo liber iste de interpretatione, ac si dicetur de enunciativa oratione: in qua verum vel falsum invenitur. Non autem hic agitur de nomine et verbo, nisi in quantum sunt partes enunciationis. Est enim proprium uniuscuiusque scientiae partes subiecti tradere, sicut et passiones. The name and verb, however, seem to be principles of interpretation rather than interpretations, for one who interprets seems to explain something as either true or false. Therefore, only enunciative speech in which truth or falsity is found is called interpretation. Other kinds of speech, such as optatives and imperatives, are ordered rather to expressing volition than to interpreting what is in the intellect. This book, then, is entitled On Interpretation, that is to say, On Enunciative Speech in which truth or falsity is found. The name and verb are treated only insofar as they are parts of the enunciation; for it is proper to a science to treat the parts of its subject as well as its properties.
Patet igitur ad quam partem philosophiae pertineat liber iste, et quae sit necessitas istius, et quem ordinem teneat inter logicae libros. It is clear, then, to which part of philosophy this book belongs, what its necessity is, and what its place is among the books on logic.

ΑΡΙΣΤΟΤΗΛΟΥΣ
ΠΕΡΙ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑΣ

BOOK I

LESSON 1

(16a.) Πρῶτον δεῖ θέσθαι τί ὄνομα καὶ τί ῥῆμα, ἔπειτα τί ἐστιν ἀπόφασις καὶ κατάφασις καὶ ἀπόφανσις καὶ λόγος. 16a 1 First we must establish what a name1 is and what a verb2 is; then what negation3 is and affirmation, and the enunciation and speech.
Praemittit autem huic operi philosophus prooemium, in quo sigillatim exponit ea, quae in hoc libro sunt tractanda. Et quia omnis scientia praemittit ea, quae de principiis sunt; partes autem compositorum sunt eorum principia; ideo oportet intendenti tractare de enunciatione praemittere de partibus eius. Unde dicit: primum oportet constituere, idest definire quid sit nomen et quid sit verbum. In Graeco habetur, primum oportet poni et idem significat. Quia enim demonstrationes definitiones praesupponunt, ex quibus concludunt, merito dicuntur positiones. Et ideo praemittuntur hic solae definitiones eorum, de quibus agendum est: quia ex definitionibus alia cognoscuntur. 4. The Philosopher begins this work with an introduction in which he points out one by one the things that are to be treated. For, since every science begins with a treatment of the principles, and the principles of composite things are their parts, one who intends to treat enunciation must begin with its parts, Therefore Aristotle begins by saying: First we must determine, i.e., define, what a name is and what a verb is. In the Greek text it is First we must posit, which signifies the same thing, for demonstrations presuppose definitions, from which they conclude, and hence definitions are rightly called “positions.” This is the reason he only points out here the definitions of the things to be treated; for from definitions other things are known.
Si quis autem quaerat, cum in libro praedicamentorum de simplicibus dictum sit, quae fuit necessitas ut hic rursum de nomine et verbo determinaretur; ad hoc dicendum quod simplicium dictionum triplex potest esse consideratio. Una quidem, secundum quod absolute significant simplices intellectus, et sic earum consideratio pertinet ad librum praedicamentorum. Alio modo, secundum rationem, prout sunt partes enunciationis; et sic determinatur de eis in hoc libro; et ideo traduntur sub ratione nominis et verbi: de quorum ratione est quod significent aliquid cum tempore vel sine tempore, et alia huiusmodi, quae pertinent ad rationem dictionum, secundum quod constituunt enunciationem. Tertio modo, considerantur secundum quod ex eis constituitur ordo syllogisticus, et sic determinatur de eis sub ratione terminorum in libro priorum. 5. It might be asked why it is necessary to treat simple things again, i.e., the name and the verb, for they were treated in the book Praedicamentorum. In answer to this we should say that simple words can be considered in three ways: first, as they signify simple intellection absolutely, which is the consideration proper to the book Praedicamentorum; secondly, according to their function as parts of the enunciation, which is the way they are considered in this book. Hence, they are treated here under the formality of the name and the verb, and under this formality they signify something with time or without time and other things of the kind that belong to the formality of words as they are components of an enunciation. Finally, simple words may be considered as they are components of a syllogistic ordering. They are treated then under the formality of terms and this Aristotle does in the book Priorum.
Potest iterum dubitari quare, praetermissis aliis orationis partibus, de solo nomine et verbo determinet. Ad quod dicendum est quod, quia de simplici enunciatione determinare intendit, sufficit ut solas illas partes enunciationis pertractet, ex quibus ex necessitate simplex oratio constat. Potest autem ex solo nomine et verbo simplex enunciatio fieri, non autem ex aliis orationis partibus sine his; et ideo sufficiens ei fuit de his duabus determinare. Vel potest dici quod sola nomina et verba sunt principales orationis partes. Sub nominibus enim comprehenduntur pronomina, quae, etsi non nominant naturam, personam tamen determinant, et ideo loco nominum ponuntur: sub verbo vero participium, quod consignificat tempus: quamvis et cum nomine convenientiam habeat. Alia vero sunt magis colligationes partium orationis, significantes habitudinem unius ad aliam, quam orationis partes; sicut clavi et alia huiusmodi non sunt partes navis, sed partium navis coniunctiones. It might be asked why he treats only the name and verb and omits the other parts of speech. The reason could be that Aristotle intends to establish rules about the simple enunciation and for this it is sufficient to consider only the parts of the enunciation that are necessary for simple speech. A simple enunciation can be formed from just a name and a verb, but it cannot be formed from other parts of speech without these. Therefore, it is sufficient to treat these two. On the other hand, the reason could be that names and verbs are the principal parts of speech. Pronouns, which do not name a nature but determine a person—and therefore are put in place of names—are comprehended under names. The participle—although it has similarities with the name—signifies with time and is therefore comprehended under the verb. The others are things that unite the parts of speech. They signify relations of one part to another rather than as parts of speech; as nails and other parts of this kind are not parts of a ship, but connect the parts of a ship.
His igitur praemissis quasi principiis, subiungit de his, quae pertinent ad principalem intentionem, dicens: postea quid negatio et quid affirmatio, quae sunt enunciationis partes: non quidem integrales, sicut nomen et verbum (alioquin oporteret omnem enunciationem ex affirmatione et negatione compositam esse), sed partes subiectivae, idest species. Quod quidem nunc supponatur, posterius autem manifestabitur. 7. After he has proposed these parts [the name and the verb] as principles, Aristotle states what he principally intends to establish:... then what negation is and affirmation. These, too, are parts of the enunciation, not integral parts however, as are the name and the verb—otherwise every enunciation would have to be formed from an affirmation and negation—but subjective parts, i.e., species. This is supposed here but will be proved later.
Sed potest dubitari: cum enunciatio dividatur in categoricam et hypotheticam, quare de his non facit mentionem, sicut de affirmatione et negatione. Et potest dici quod hypothetica enunciatio ex pluribus categoricis componitur. Unde non differunt nisi secundum differentiam unius et multi. 8. Since enunciation is divided into categorical and hypothetical, it might be asked why he does not list these as well as affirmation and negation. In reply to this we could say that Aristotle has not added these because the hypothetical enunciation is composed of many categorical propositions and hence categorical and hypothetical only differ according to the difference of one and many.
Vel potest dici, et melius, quod hypothetica enunciatio non continet absolutam veritatem, cuius cognitio requiritur in demonstratione, ad quam liber iste principaliter ordinatur; sed significat aliquid verum esse ex suppositione: quod non sufficit in scientiis demonstrativis, nisi confirmetur per absolutam veritatem simplicis enunciationis. Et ideo Aristoteles praetermisit tractatum de hypotheticis enunciationibus et syllogismis. Or we could say—and this would be a better reason—that the hypothetical enunciation does not contain absolute truth, the knowledge of which is required in demonstration, to which this book is principally ordered; rather, it signifies something as true by supposition, which does not suffice for demonstrative sciences unless it is confirmed by the absolute truth of the simple enunciation. This is the reason Aristotle does not treat either hypothetical enunciations or syllogisms.
Subdit autem, et enunciatio, quae est genus negationis et affirmationis; et oratio, quae est genus enunciationis. He adds, and the enunciation, which is the genus of negation and affirmation; and speech, which is the genus of enunciation.
Si quis ulterius quaerat, quare non facit ulterius mentionem de voce, dicendum est quod vox est quoddam naturale; unde pertinet ad considerationem naturalis philosophiae, ut patet in secundo de anima, et in ultimo de generatione animalium. Unde etiam non est proprie orationis genus, sed assumitur ad constitutionem orationis, sicut res naturales ad constitutionem artificialium. 9. If it should be asked why, besides these, he does not mention vocal sound, it is because vocal sound is something natural and therefore belongs to the consideration of natural philosophy, as is evident in II De Anima [8: 420b 5-421a 6] and at the end of De generatione animalium [ch. 8]. Also, since it is something natural, vocal sound is not properly the genus of speech but is presupposed for the forming of speech, as natural things are presupposed for the formation of artificial things.
Videtur autem ordo enunciationis esse praeposterus: nam affirmatio naturaliter est prior negatione, et iis prior est enunciatio, sicut genus; et per consequens oratio enunciatione. Sed dicendum quod, quia a partibus inceperat enumerare, procedit a partibus ad totum. Negationem autem, quae divisionem continet, eadem ratione praeponit affirmationi, quae consistit in compositione: quia divisio magis accedit ad partes, compositio vero magis accedit ad totum. 10. In this introduction, however, Aristotle seems to have inverted the order of the enunciation, for affirmation is naturally prior to negation and enunciation prior to these as a genus; and consequently, speech to enunciation. We could say in reply to this that he began to enumerate from the parts and consequently he proceeds from the parts to the whole. He puts negation, which contains division, before affirmation, which consists of composition, for the same reason: division is closer to the parts, composition closer to the whole.
Vel potest dici, secundum quosdam, quod praemittitur negatio, quia in iis quae possunt esse et non esse, prius est non esse, quod significat negatio, quam esse, quod significat affirmatio. Or we could say, as some do, that he puts negation first because in those things that can be and not be, non-being, which negation signifies, is prior to being, which affirmation signifies.
Sed tamen, quia sunt species ex aequo dividentes genus, sunt simul natura; unde non refert quod eorum praeponatur. Aristotle, however, does not refer to the fact that one of them is placed before the other, for they are species equally dividing a genus and are therefore simultaneous according to nature.

LESSON 2
The Signification of Vocal Sound

Ἔστι μὲν οὖν τὰ ἐν τῇ φωνῇ τῶν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ παθημάτων σύμβολα, καὶ τὰ γραφόμενα τῶν ἐν τῇ φωνῇ. 16a 3 Now those that are in vocal sound are signs” of passions in the soul, and those that are written are signs of those in vocal sound.
καὶ ὥσπερ οὐδὲ γράμματα πᾶσι τὰ αὐτά, οὐδὲ φωναὶ αἱ αὐταί 16a 5 And just as letters are not the same for all men so neither are vocal sounds the same;
ὧν μέντοι ταῦτα σημεῖα πρώτων, ταὐτὰ πᾶσι παθήματα τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ ὧν ταῦτα ὁμοιώματα πράγματα ἤδη ταὐτά. 16a 6 but the passions of the soul, of which vocal sounds are the first signs are the same for all; and the things of which passions of the soul are likenesses are also the same.
περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ψυχῆς, —ἄλλης γὰρ πραγματείας 16a 8 This has been discussed, however, in our study of the soul for it belongs to another subject of inquiry.
Praemisso prooemio, philosophus accedit ad propositum exequendum. Et quia ea, de quibus promiserat se dicturum, sunt voces significativae complexae vel incomplexae, ideo praemittit tractatum de significatione vocum: et deinde de vocibus significativis determinat de quibus in prooemio se dicturum promiserat. Et hoc ibi: nomen ergo est vox significativa et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, determinat qualis sit significatio vocum; secundo, ostendit differentiam significationum vocum complexarum et incomplexarum; ibi: est autem quemadmodum et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo quidem, praemittit ordinem significationis vocum; secundo, ostendit qualis sit vocum significatio, utrum sit ex natura vel ex impositione; ibi: et quemadmodum nec litterae et cetera. 1. After his introduction the Philosopher begins to investigate the things he has proposed. Since the things he promised to speak of are either complex or incomplex significant vocal sounds, he prefaces this with a treatment of the signification of vocal sounds; then he takes up the significant vocal sounds he proposed in the introduction where he says, A name, then, is a vocal sound significant by convention, without time, etc. In regard to the signification of vocal sounds he first determines what kind of signification vocal sound has and then shows the difference between the signification of complex and incomplex vocal sounds where he says, As sometimes there is thought in the soul, etc. With respect to the first point, he presents the order of the signification of vocal sounds and then shows what kind of signification vocal sound has, i.e., whether it is from nature or by imposition. This he does where he says, And just as letters are not the same for all men, etc.
Est ergo considerandum quod circa primum tria proponit, ex quorum uno intelligitur quartum. Proponit enim Scripturam, voces et animae passiones, ex quibus intelliguntur res. Nam passio est ex impressione alicuius agentis; et sic passiones animae originem habent ab ipsis rebus. 2. Apropos of the order of signification of vocal sounds he proposes three things, from one of which a fourth is understood. He proposes writing, vocal sounds, and passions of the soul; things is understood from the latter, for passion is from the impression of something acting, and hence passions of the soul have their origin from things.
Et si quidem homo esset naturaliter animal solitarium, sufficerent sibi animae passiones, quibus ipsis rebus conformaretur, ut earum notitiam in se haberet; sed quia homo est animal naturaliter politicum et sociale, necesse fuit quod conceptiones unius hominis innotescerent aliis, quod fit per vocem; et ideo necesse fuit esse voces significativas, ad hoc quod homines ad invicem conviverent. Unde illi, qui sunt diversarum linguarum, non possunt bene convivere ad invicem. Now if man were by nature a solitary animal the passions of the soul by which he was conformed to things so as to have knowledge of them would be sufficient for him; but since he is by nature a political and social animal it was necessary that his conceptions be made known to others. This he does through vocal sound. Therefore there had to be significant vocal sounds in order that men might live together. Whence those who speak different languages find it difficult to live together in social unity.
Rursum si homo uteretur sola cognitione sensitiva, quae respicit solum ad hic et nunc, sufficeret sibi ad convivendum aliis vox significativa, sicut et caeteris animalibus, quae per quasdam voces, suas conceptiones invicem sibi manifestant: sed quia homo utitur etiam intellectuali cognitione, quae abstrahit ab hic et nunc; consequitur ipsum sollicitudo non solum de praesentibus secundum locum et tempus, sed etiam de his quae distant loco et futura sunt tempore. Unde ut homo conceptiones suas etiam his qui distant secundum locum et his qui venturi sunt in futuro tempore manifestet, necessarius fuit usus scripturae. Again, if man had only sensitive cognition, which is of the here and now, such significant vocal sounds as the other animals use to manifest their conceptions to each other would be sufficient for him to live with others. But man also has the advantage of intellectual cognition, which abstracts from the here and now, and as a consequence, is concerned with things distant in place and future in time as well as things present according to time and place. Hence the use of writing was necessary so that he might manifest his conceptions to those who are distant according to place and to those who will come in future time.
Sed quia logica ordinatur ad cognitionem de rebus sumendam, significatio vocum, quae est immediata ipsis conceptionibus intellectus, pertinet ad principalem considerationem ipsius; significatio autem litterarum, tanquam magis remota, non pertinet ad eius considerationem, sed magis ad considerationem grammatici. Et ideo exponens ordinem significationum non incipit a litteris, sed a vocibus: quarum primo significationem exponens, dicit: sunt ergo ea, quae sunt in voce, notae, idest, signa earum passionum quae sunt in anima. Dicit autem ergo, quasi ex praemissis concludens: quia supra dixerat determinandum esse de nomine et verbo et aliis praedictis; haec autem sunt voces significativae; ergo oportet vocum significationem exponere. 3. However, since logic is ordered to obtaining knowledge about things, the signification of vocal sounds, which is immediate to the conceptions of the intellect, is its principal consideration. The signification of written signs, being more remote, belongs to the consideration of the grammarian rather than the logician. Aristotle therefore begins his explanation of the order of signification from vocal sounds, not written signs. First he explains the signification of vocal sounds: Therefore those that are in vocal sound are signs of passions in the soul. He says “therefore” as if concluding from premises, because he has already said that we must establish what a name is, and a verb and the other things he mentioned; but these are significant vocal sounds; therefore, signification of vocal sounds must be explained.
Utitur autem hoc modo loquendi, ut dicat, ea quae sunt in voce, et non, voces, ut quasi continuatim loquatur cum praedictis. Dixerat enim dicendum esse de nomine et verbo et aliis huiusmodi. Haec autem tripliciter habent esse. Uno quidem modo, in conceptione intellectus; alio modo, in prolatione vocis; tertio modo, in conscriptione litterarum. Dicit ergo, ea quae sunt in voce etc.; ac si dicat, nomina et verba et alia consequentia, quae tantum sunt in voce, sunt notae. 4. When he says “Those that are in vocal sound,” and not “vocal sounds,” his mode of speaking implies a continuity with what he has just been saying, namely, we must define the name and the verb, etc. Now these have being in three ways: in the conception of the intellect, in the utterance of the voice, and in the writing of letters. He could therefore mean when he says “Those that are in vocal sound,” etc., names and verbs and the other things we are going to define, insofar as they are in vocal sound, are signs.
Vel, quia non omnes voces sunt significativae, et earum quaedam sunt significativae naturaliter, quae longe sunt a ratione nominis et verbi et aliorum consequentium; ut appropriet suum dictum ad ea de quibus intendit, ideo dicit, ea quae sunt in voce, idest quae continentur sub voce, sicut partes sub toto. On the other hand, he may be speaking in this way because not all vocal sounds are significant, and of those that are, some are significant naturally and hence are different in nature from the name and the verb and the other things to be defined. Therefore, to adapt what he has said to the things of which he intends to speak he says, “Those that are in vocal sound,” i.e., that are contained under vocal sound as parts under a whole.
Vel, quia vox est quoddam naturale, nomen autem et verbum significant ex institutione humana, quae advenit rei naturali sicut materiae, ut forma lecti ligno; ideo ad designandum nomina et verba et alia consequentia dicit, ea quae sunt in voce, ac si de lecto diceretur, ea quae sunt in ligno. There could be still another reason for his mode of speaking. Vocal sound is something natural. The name and verb, on the other hand, signify by human institution, that is, the signification is added to the natural thing as a form to matter, as the form of a bed is added to wood. Therefore, to designate names and verbs and the other things he is going to define he says, “Those that are in vocal sound,” in the same way he would say of a bed, “that which is in wood.”
Circa id autem quod dicit, earum quae sunt in anima passionum, considerandum est quod passiones animae communiter dici solent appetitus sensibilis affectiones, sicut ira, gaudium et alia huiusmodi, ut dicitur in II Ethicorum. Et verum est quod huiusmodi passiones significant naturaliter quaedam voces hominum, ut gemitus infirmorum, et aliorum animalium, ut dicitur in I politicae. Sed nunc sermo est de vocibus significativis ex institutione humana; et ideo oportet passiones animae hic intelligere intellectus conceptiones, quas nomina et verba et orationes significant immediate, secundum sententiam Aristotelis. Non enim potest esse quod significent immediate ipsas res, ut ex ipso modo significandi apparet: significat enim hoc nomen homo naturam humanam in abstractione a singularibus. Unde non potest esse quod significet immediate hominem singularem; unde Platonici posuerunt quod significaret ipsam ideam hominis separatam. Sed quia hoc secundum suam abstractionem non subsistit realiter secundum sententiam Aristotelis, sed est in solo intellectu; ideo necesse fuit Aristoteli dicere quod voces significant intellectus conceptiones immediate et eis mediantibus res. 5. When he speaks of passions in the soul we are apt to think of the affections of the sensitive appetite, such as anger, joy, and the other passions that are customarily and commonly called passions of the soul, as is the case in II Ethicorum [5: 1105b 21]. It is true that some of the vocal sounds man makes signify passions of this kind naturally, such as the groans of the sick and the sounds of other animals, as is said in I Politicae [2: 1253a 10-14]. But here Aristotle is speaking of vocal sounds that are significant by human institution. Therefore “passions in the soul” must be understood here as conceptions of the intellect, and names, verbs, and speech, signify these conceptions of the intellect immediately according to the teaching of Aristotle. They cannot immediately signify things, as is clear from the mode of signifying, for the name “man” signifies human nature in abstraction from singulars; hence it is impossible that it immediately signify a singular man. The Platonists for this reason held that it signified the separated idea of man. But because in Aristotle’s teaching man in the abstract does not really subsist, but is only in the mind, it was necessary for Aristotle to say that vocal sounds signify the conceptions of the intellect immediately and things by means of them.
Sed quia non est consuetum quod conceptiones intellectus Aristoteles nominet passiones; ideo Andronicus posuit hunc librum non esse Aristotelis. Sed manifeste invenitur in 1 de anima quod passiones animae vocat omnes animae operationes. Unde et ipsa conceptio intellectus passio dici potest. Vel quia intelligere nostrum non est sine phantasmate: quod non est sine corporali passione; unde et imaginativam philosophus in III de anima vocat passivum intellectum. Vel quia extenso nomine passionis ad omnem receptionem, etiam ipsum intelligere intellectus possibilis quoddam pati est, ut dicitur in III de anima. 6. Since Aristotle did not customarily speak of conceptions of the intellect as passions, Andronicus took the position that this book was not Aristotle’s. In I De anima, however, it is obvious that he calls all of the operations of the soul “passions” of the soul. Whence even the conception of the intellect can be called a passion and this either because we do not understand without a phantasm, which requires corporeal passion (for which reason the Philosopher calls the imaginative power the passive intellect) [De Anima III, 5: 430a 25]; or because by extending the name “passion” to every reception, the understanding of the possible intellect is also a kind of undergoing, as is said in III De anima [4: 429b 29].
Utitur autem potius nomine passionum, quam intellectuum: tum quia ex aliqua animae passione provenit, puta ex amore vel odio, ut homo interiorem conceptum per vocem alteri significare velit: tum etiam quia significatio vocum refertur ad conceptionem intellectus, secundum quod oritur a rebus per modum cuiusdam impressionis vel passionis. Aristotle uses the name “passion,” rather than “understanding,” however, for two reasons: first, because man wills to signify an interior conception to another through vocal sound as a result of some passion of the soul, such as love or hate; secondly, because the signification of vocal sound is referred to the conception of the intellect inasmuch as the conception arises from things by way of a kind of impression or passion.
Secundo, cum dicit: et ea quae scribuntur etc., agit de significatione Scripturae: et secundum Alexandrum hoc inducit ad manifestandum praecedentem sententiam per modum similitudinis, ut sit sensus: ita ea quae sunt in voce sunt signa passionum animae, sicut et litterae sunt signa vocum. Quod etiam manifestat per sequentia, cum dicit: et quemadmodum nec litterae etc.; inducens hoc quasi signum praecedentis. Quod enim litterae significent voces, significatur per hoc, quod, sicut sunt diversae voces apud diversos, ita et diversae litterae. Et secundum hanc expositionem, ideo non dixit, et litterae eorum quae sunt in voce, sed ea quae scribuntur: quia dicuntur litterae etiam in prolatione et Scriptura, quamvis magis proprie, secundum quod sunt in Scriptura, dicantur litterae; secundum autem quod sunt in prolatione, dicantur elementa vocis. 7. When he says, and those that are written are signs of those in vocal sound, he treats of the signification of writing. According to Alexander he introduces this to make the preceding clause evident by means of a similitude; and the meaning is: those that are in vocal sound are signs of the passions of the soul in the way in which letters are of vocal sound; then he goes On to manifest this point where he says, And just as letters are not the same for all men so neither are vocal sounds the same—by introducing this as a sign of the preceding. For when he says in effect, just as there are diverse vocal sounds among diverse peoples so there are diverse letters, he is signifying that letters signify vocal. sounds. And according to this exposition Aristotle said those that are written are signs... and not, letters are signs of those that are in vocal sound, because they are called letters in both speech and writing, alt bough they are more properly called letters in writing; in speech they are called elements of vocal sound.
Sed quia Aristoteles non dicit, sicut et ea quae scribuntur, sed continuam narrationem facit, melius est ut dicatur, sicut Porphyrius exposuit, quod Aristoteles procedit ulterius ad complendum ordinem significationis. Postquam enim dixerat quod nomina et verba, quae sunt in voce, sunt signa eorum quae sunt in anima, continuatim subdit quod nomina et verba quae scribuntur, signa sunt eorum nominum et verborum quae sunt in voce. Aristotle, however, does not say, just as those that are written, but continues with his account. Therefore it is better to say as Porphyry does, that Aristotle adds this to complete the order of signification; for after he says that names and verbs in vocal sound are signs of those in the soul, he adds—in continuity with this—that names and verbs that are written are signs of the names and verbs that are in vocal sound.
Deinde cum dicit: et quemadmodum nec litterae etc., ostendit differentiam praemissorum significantium et significatorum, quantum ad hoc, quod est esse secundum naturam, vel non esse. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo enim, ponit quoddam signum, quo manifestatur quod nec voces nec litterae naturaliter significant. Ea enim, quae naturaliter significant sunt eadem apud omnes. Significatio autem litterarum et vocum, de quibus nunc agimus, non est eadem apud omnes. Sed hoc quidem apud nullos unquam dubitatum fuit quantum ad litteras: quarum non solum ratio significandi est ex impositione, sed etiam ipsarum formatio fit per artem. Voces autem naturaliter formantur; unde et apud quosdam dubitatum fuit, utrum naturaliter significent. Sed Aristoteles hic determinat ex similitudine litterarum, quae sicut non sunt eaedem apud omnes, ita nec voces. Unde manifeste relinquitur quod sicut nec litterae, ita nec voces naturaliter significant, sed ex institutione humana. Voces autem illae, quae naturaliter significant, sicut gemitus infirmorum et alia huiusmodi, sunt eadem apud omnes. 8. Then where he says, And just as letters are not the same for all men so neither are vocal sounds the same, he shows that the foresaid things differ as signified and signifying inasmuch as they are either according to nature or not. He makes three points here. He first posits a sign to show that neither vocal sounds nor letters signify naturally; things that signify naturally are the same among all men; but the signification of letters and vocal sounds, which is the point at issue here, is not the same among all men. There has never been any question about this in regard to letters, for their character of signifying is from imposition and their very formation is through art. Vocal sounds, however, are formed naturally and hence there is a question as to whether they signify naturally. Aristotle determines this by comparison with letters: these are not the same among all men, and so neither are vocal sounds the same. Consequently, like letters, vocal sounds do not signify naturally but by human institution. The vocal sounds that do signify naturally, such as groans of the sick and others of this kind, are the same among all men.
Secundo, ibi: quorum autem etc., ostendit passiones animae naturaliter esse, sicut et res, per hoc quod eaedem sunt apud omnes. Unde dicit: quorum autem; idest sicut passiones animae sunt eaedem omnibus (quorum primorum, idest quarum passionum primarum, hae, scilicet voces, sunt notae, idest signa; comparantur enim passiones animae ad voces, sicut primum ad secundum: voces enim non proferuntur, nisi ad exprimendum interiores animae passiones), et res etiam eaedem, scilicet sunt apud omnes, quorum, idest quarum rerum, hae, scilicet passiones animae sunt similitudines. 9. Secondly, when he says, but the passions of the soul, of which vocal sounds are the first signs, are the same for all, he shows that passions of the soul exist naturally, just as things exist naturally, for they are the same among all men. For, he says, but the passions of the soul, i.e., just as the passions of the soul are the same for all men; of which first, i.e., of which passions, being first, these, namely, vocal sounds, are tokens,” i.e., signs” (for passions of the soul are compared to vocal sounds as first to second since vocal sounds are produced only to express interior passions of the soul), so also the things... are the same, i.e., are the same among all, of which, i.e., of which things, passions of the soul are likenesses.
Ubi attendendum est quod litteras dixit esse notas, idest signa vocum, et voces passionum animae similiter; passiones autem animae dicit esse similitudines rerum: et hoc ideo, quia res non cognoscitur ab anima nisi per aliquam sui similitudinem existentem vel in sensu vel in intellectu. Litterae autem ita sunt signa vocum, et voces passionum, quod non attenditur ibi aliqua ratio similitudinis, sed sola ratio institutionis, sicut et in multis aliis signis: ut tuba est signum belli. In passionibus autem animae oportet attendi rationem similitudinis ad exprimendas res, quia naturaliter eas designant, non ex institutione. Notice he says here that letters are signs, i.e., signs of vocal sounds, and similarly vocal sounds are signs of passions of the soul, but that passions of the soul are likenesses of things. This is because a thing is not known by the soul unless there is some likeness of the thing existing either in the sense or in the intellect. Now letters are signs of vocal sounds and vocal sounds of passions in such a way that we do not attend to any idea of likeness in regard to them but only one of institution, as is the case in regard to many other signs, for example, the trumpet as a sign of war. But in the passions of the soul we have to take into account the idea of a likeness to the things represented, since passions of the soul designate things naturally, not by institution.
Obiiciunt autem quidam, ostendere volentes contra hoc quod dicit passiones animae, quas significant voces, esse omnibus easdem. Primo quidem, quia diversi diversas sententias habent de rebus, et ita non videntur esse eaedem apud omnes animae passiones. 10. There are some who object to Aristotle’s position that passions of the soul, which vocal sounds signify, are the same for all men. Their argument against it is as follows: different men have different opinions about things; therefore, passions of the soul do not seem to be the same among all men.
Ad quod respondet Boethius quod Aristoteles hic nominat passiones animae conceptiones intellectus, qui numquam decipitur; et ita oportet eius conceptiones esse apud omnes easdem: quia, si quis a vero discordat, hic non intelligit. Boethius in reply to this objection says that here Aristotle is using “passions of the soul” to denote conceptions of the intellect, and since the intellect is never deceived, conceptions of the intellect must be the same among all men; for if someone is at variance with what is true, in this instance he does not understand.
Sed quia etiam in intellectu potest esse falsum, secundum quod componit et dividit, non autem secundum quod cognoscit quod quid est, idest essentiam rei, ut dicitur in III de anima; referendum est hoc ad simplices intellectus conceptiones (quas significant voces incomplexae), quae sunt eaedem apud omnes: quia, si quis vere intelligit quid est homo, quodcunque aliud aliquid, quam hominem apprehendat, non intelligit hominem. Huiusmodi autem simplices conceptiones intellectus sunt, quas primo voces significant. Unde dicitur in IV metaphysicae quod ratio, quam significat nomen, est definitio. Et ideo signanter dicit: quorum primorum hae notae sunt, ut scilicet referatur ad primas conceptiones a vocibus primo significatas. However, since what is false can also be in the intellect, not as it knows what a thing is, i.e., the essence of a thing, but as it composes and divides, as is said in III De anima [6: 430a 26]. Aristotle’s statement should be referred to the simple conceptions of the intellect—that are signified by the incomplex vocal sounds—which are the same among all men; for if someone truly understands what man is, whatever else than man he apprehends he does not understand as man. Simple conceptions of the intellect, which vocal sounds first signify, are of this kind. This is why Aristotle says in IV Metaphysicae [IV, 4: 1006b 4] that the notion which the name signifies is the definition.” And this is the reason he expressly says, “of which first [passions] these are signs,” i.e., so that this will be referred to the first conceptions first signified by vocal sounds.
Sed adhuc obiiciunt aliqui de nominibus aequivocis, in quibus eiusdem vocis non est eadem passio, quae significatur apud omnes. Et respondet ad hoc Porphyrius quod unus homo, qui vocem profert, ad unam intellectus conceptionem significandam eam refert; et si aliquis alius, cui loquitur, aliquid aliud intelligat, ille qui loquitur, se exponendo, faciet quod referet intellectum ad idem. 11. The equivocal name is given as another objection to this position, for in the case of an equivocal name the same vocal sound does not signify the same passion among all men. Porphyry answers this by pointing out that a man who utters a vocal sound intends it to signify one conception of the intellect. If the person to whom he is speaking understands something else by it, the one who is speaking, by explaining himself, will make the one to whom he is speaking refer his understanding to the same thing.
Sed melius dicendum est quod intentio Aristotelis non est asserere identitatem conceptionis animae per comparationem ad vocem, ut scilicet unius vocis una sit conceptio: quia voces sunt diversae apud diversos; sed intendit asserere identitatem conceptionum animae per comparationem ad res, quas similiter dicit esse easdem. However it is better to say that it is not Aristotle’s intention to maintain an identity of the conception of the soul in relation to a vocal sound such that there is one conception in relation to one vocal sound, for vocal sounds are different among different peoples; rather, he intends to maintain an identity of the conceptions of the soul in relation to things, which things he also says are the same.
Tertio, ibi: de his itaque etc., excusat se a diligentiori harum consideratione: quia quales sint animae passiones, et quomodo sint rerum similitudines, dictum est in libro de anima. Non enim hoc pertinet ad logicum negocium, sed ad naturale. 12. Thirdly when he says, This has been discussed, however, in our study of the soul, etc., he excuses himself from a further consideration of these things, for the nature of the passions of the soul and the way in which they are likenesses of things does not pertain to logic but to philosophy of nature and has already been treated in the book De anima [III, 4-8].

LESSON 3
The Diverse Signification of Vocal Sound

ἔστι δέ, ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ ὁτὲ μὲν νόημα ἄνευ τοῦ ἀληθεύειν ἢ ψεύδεσθαι ὁτὲ δὲ ἤδη ᾧ ἀνάγκη τούτων ὑπάρχειν θάτερον, οὕτω καὶ ἐν τῇ φωνῇ 16a 9 As sometimes there is thought in the soul without its being true or false, but sometimes it must be one or the other, so it is in vocal sound;
περὶ γὰρ σύνθεσιν καὶ διαίρεσίν ἐστι τὸ ψεῦδός τε καὶ τὸ ἀληθές. 16a 12 for in composition and division there is truth and falsity.
τὰ μὲν οὖν ὀνόματα αὐτὰ καὶ τὰ ῥήματα ἔοικε τῷ ἄνευ συνθέσεως καὶ διαιρέσεως νοήματι, οἷον τὸ ἄνθρωπος ἢ λευκόν, ὅταν μὴ προστεθῇ τι οὔτε γὰρ ψεῦδος οὔτε ἀληθές πω. 16a 13 Names and verbs, then, are like thought without composition or division, for example, “man” and “white” when nothing is added; for neither is yet true or false.
σημεῖον δ' ἐστὶ τοῦδε καὶ γὰρ ὁ τραγέλαφος σημαίνει μέν τι, οὔπω δὲ ἀληθὲς ἢ ψεῦδος, ἐὰν μὴ τὸ εἶναι ἢ μὴ εἶναι προστεθῇ ἢ ἁπλῶς ἢ κατὰ χρόνον. 16a 16 A sign of this is that “goat-stag” signifies something but is neither true nor false unless “to be” or “not to be” is added either absolutely or according to time.
Postquam philosophus tradidit ordinem significationis vocum, hic agit de diversa vocum significatione: quarum quaedam significant verum vel falsum, quaedam non. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, praemittit differentiam; secundo, manifestat eam; ibi: circa compositionem enim et cetera. Quia vero conceptiones intellectus praeambulae sunt ordine naturae vocibus, quae ad eas exprimendas proferuntur, ideo ex similitudine differentiae, quae est circa intellectum, assignat differentiam, quae est circa significationes vocum: ut scilicet haec manifestatio non solum sit ex simili, sed etiam ex causa quam imitantur effectus. 1. After the Philosopher has treated the order of the signification of vocal sounds, he goes on to discuss a diversity in the signification of vocal sounds, i.e., some of them signify the true or the false, others do not. He first states the difference and then manifests it where he says, for in composition and division there is truth and falsity. Now because in the order of nature conceptions of the intellect precede vocal sounds, which are uttered to express them, he assigns the difference in respect to the significations of vocal sounds from a likeness to the difference in intellection. Thus the manifestation is from a likeness and at the same time from the cause which the effects imitate.
Est ergo considerandum quod, sicut in principio dictum est, duplex est operatio intellectus, ut traditur in III de anima; in quarum una non invenitur verum et falsum, in altera autem invenitur. Et hoc est quod dicit quod in anima aliquoties est intellectus sine vero et falso, aliquoties autem ex necessitate habet alterum horum. Et quia voces significativae formantur ad exprimendas conceptiones intellectus, ideo ad hoc quod signum conformetur signato, necesse est quod etiam vocum significativarum similiter quaedam significent sine vero et falso, quaedam autem cum vero et falso. 2. The operation of the intellect is twofold, as was said in the beginning, and as is explained in III De anima [6: 430a 26]. Now truth and falsity is found in one of these operations but not in the other. This is what Aristotle says at the beginning of this portion of the text, i.e., that in the soul sometimes there is thought without truth and falsity, but sometimes of necessity it has one or the other of these. And since significant vocal sounds are formed to express these conceptions of the intellect, it is necessary that some significant vocal sounds signify without truth and falsity, others with truth and falsity—in order that the sign be conformed to what is signified.
Deinde cum dicit: circa compositionem etc., manifestat quod dixerat. Et primo, quantum ad id quod dixerat de intellectu; secundo, quantum ad id quod dixerat de assimilatione vocum ad intellectum; ibi: nomina igitur ipsa et verba et cetera. 3. Then when he says, for in composition and division there is truth and falsity, he manifests what he has just said: first with respect to what he has said about thought; secondly, with respect to what he has said about the likeness of vocal sounds to thought, where he says Names and verbs, then are like understanding without composition or division, etc.
Ad ostendendum igitur quod intellectus quandoque est sine vero et falso, quandoque autem cum altero horum, dicit primo quod veritas et falsitas est circa compositionem et divisionem. Ubi oportet intelligere quod una duarum operationum intellectus est indivisibilium intelligentia: in quantum scilicet intellectus intelligit absolute cuiusque rei quidditatem sive essentiam per seipsam, puta quid est homo vel quid album vel quid aliud huiusmodi. Alia vero operatio intellectus est, secundum quod huiusmodi simplicia concepta simul componit et dividit. Dicit ergo quod in hac secunda operatione intellectus, idest componentis et dividentis, invenitur veritas et falsitas: relinquens quod in prima operatione non invenitur, ut etiam traditur in III de anima. To show that sometimes there is thought without truth or falsity and sometimes it is accompanied by one of these, he says first that truth and falsity concern composition and division. To understand this we must note again that one of the two operations of the intellect is the understanding of what is indivisible. This the intellect does when it understands the quiddity or essence of a thing absolutely, for instance, what man is or what white is or what something else of this kind is. The other operation is the one in which it composes and divides simple concepts of this kind. He says that in this second operation of the intellect, i.e., composing and dividing, truth and falsity is found; the conclusion being that it is not found in the first, as he also says in III De anima [6: 430a 26].
Sed circa hoc primo videtur esse dubium: quia cum divisio fiat per resolutionem ad indivisibilia sive simplicia, videtur quod sicut in simplicibus non est veritas vel falsitas, ita nec in divisione. 4. There seems to be a difficulty about this point, for division is made by resolution to what is indivisible, or simple, and therefore it seems that just as truth and falsity is not in simple things, so neither is it in division.
Sed dicendum est quod cum conceptiones intellectus sint similitudines rerum, ea quae circa intellectum sunt dupliciter considerari et nominari possunt. Uno modo, secundum se: alio modo, secundum rationes rerum quarum sunt similitudines. Sicut imago Herculis secundum se quidem dicitur et est cuprum; in quantum autem est similitudo Herculis nominatur homo. Sic etiam, si consideremus ea quae sunt circa intellectum secundum se, semper est compositio, ubi est veritas et falsitas; quae nunquam invenitur in intellectu, nisi per hoc quod intellectus comparat unum simplicem conceptum alteri. Sed si referatur ad rem, quandoque dicitur compositio, quandoque dicitur divisio. Compositio quidem, quando intellectus comparat unum conceptum alteri, quasi apprehendens coniunctionem aut identitatem rerum, quarum sunt conceptiones; divisio autem, quando sic comparat unum conceptum alteri, ut apprehendat res esse diversas. Et per hunc etiam modum in vocibus affirmatio dicitur compositio, in quantum coniunctionem ex parte rei significat; negatio vero dicitur divisio, in quantum significat rerum separationem. To answer this it should be pointed out that the conceptions of the intellect are likenesses of things and therefore the things that are in the intellect can be considered and named in two ways: according to themselves, and according to the nature of the things of which they are the likenesses. For just as a statue—say of Hercules—in itself is called and is bronze but as it is a likeness of Hercules is named man, so if we consider the things that are in the intellect in themselves, there is always composition where there is truth and falsity, for they are never found in the intellect except as it compares one simple concept with another. But if the composition is referred to reality, it is sometimes called composition, sometimes division: composition when the intellect compares one concept to another as though apprehending a conjunction or identity of the things of which they are conceptions; division, when it so compares one concept with another that it apprehends the things to be diverse. In vocal sound, therefore, affirmation is called composition inasmuch as it signifies a conjunction on the part of the thing and negation is called division inasmuch as it signifies the separation of things.
Ulterius autem videtur quod non solum in compositione et divisione veritas consistat. Primo quidem, quia etiam res dicitur vera vel falsa, sicut dicitur aurum verum vel falsum. 5. There is still another objection in relation to this point. It seems that truth is not in composition and division alone, for a thing is also said to be true or false. For instance, gold is said to be true gold or false gold.
Dicitur etiam quod ens et verum convertuntur. Unde videtur quod etiam simplex conceptio intellectus, quae est similitudo rei, non careat veritate et falsitate. Furthermore, being and true are said to be convertible. It seems, therefore, that the simple conception of the intellect, which is a likeness of the thing, also has truth and falsity.
Praeterea, philosophus dicit in Lib. de anima quod sensus propriorum sensibilium semper est verus; sensus autem non componit vel dividit; non ergo in sola compositione vel divisione est veritas. Again, the Philosopher says in his book De anima [II, 6: 418a 15], that the sensation of proper sensibles is always true. But the sense does not compose or divide. Therefore, truth is not in composition and division exclusively.
Item, in intellectu divino nulla est compositio, ut probatur in XII metaphysicae; et tamen ibi est prima et summa veritas; non ergo veritas est solum circa compositionem et divisionem. Moreover, in the divine intellect there is no composition, as is proved in XII Metaphysicae [9: 1074b 15–1075a 11]. But the first and highest truth is in the divine intellect. Therefore, truth is not in composition and division exclusively.
Ad huiusmodi igitur evidentiam considerandum est quod veritas in aliquo invenitur dupliciter: uno modo, sicut in eo quod est verum: alio modo, sicut in dicente vel cognoscente verum. Invenitur autem veritas sicut in eo quod est verum tam in simplicibus, quam in compositis; sed sicut in dicente vel cognoscente verum, non invenitur nisi secundum compositionem et divisionem. Quod quidem sic patet. 6. To answer these difficulties the following considerations are necessary. Truth is found in something in two ways: as it is in that which is true, and as it is in the one speaking or knowing truth. Truth as it is in that which is true is found in both simple things and composite things, but truth in the one speaking or knowing truth is found only according to composition and division. This will become clear in what follows.
Verum enim, ut philosophus dicit in VI Ethicorum, est bonum intellectus. Unde de quocumque dicatur verum, oportet quod hoc sit per respectum ad intellectum. Comparantur autem ad intellectum voces quidem sicut signa, res autem sicut ea quorum intellectus sunt similitudines. Considerandum autem quod aliqua res comparatur ad intellectum dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, sicut mensura ad mensuratum, et sic comparantur res naturales ad intellectum speculativum humanum. Et ideo intellectus dicitur verus secundum quod conformatur rei, falsus autem secundum quod discordat a re. 7. Truth, as the Philosopher says in VI Ethicorum [2: 1139a 28-30], is the good of the intellect. Hence, anything that is said to be true is such by reference to intellect. Now vocal sounds are related to thought as signs, but things are related to thought as that of which thoughts are likenesses. It must be noted, however, that a thing is related to thought in two ways: in one way as the measure to the measured, and this is the way natural things are related to the human speculative intellect. Whence thought is said to be true insofar as it is conformed to the thing, but false insofar as it is not in conformity with the thing.
Res autem naturalis non dicitur esse vera per comparationem ad intellectum nostrum, sicut posuerunt quidam antiqui naturales, existimantes rerum veritatem esse solum in hoc, quod est videri: secundum hoc enim sequeretur quod contradictoria essent simul vera, quia contradictoria cadunt sub diversorum opinionibus. Dicuntur tamen res aliquae verae vel falsae per comparationem ad intellectum nostrum, non essentialiter vel formaliter, sed effective, in quantum scilicet natae sunt facere de se veram vel falsam existimationem; et secundum hoc dicitur aurum verum vel falsum. However, a natural thing is not said to be true in relation to our thought in the way it was taught by certain ancient natural philosophers who supposed the truth of things to be only in what they seemed to be. According to this view it would follow that contradictories could be at once true, since the opinions of different men can be contradictory. Nevertheless, some things are said to be true or false in relation to our thought—not essentially or formally, but effectively—insofar as they are so constituted naturally as to cause a true or false estimation of themselves. It is in this way that gold is said to be true or false.
Alio autem modo, res comparantur ad intellectum, sicut mensuratum ad mensuram, ut patet in intellectu practico, qui est causa rerum. Unde opus artificis dicitur esse verum, in quantum attingit ad rationem artis; falsum vero, in quantum deficit a ratione artis. In another way, things are compared to thought as measured to the measure, as is evident in the practical intellect, which is a cause of things. In this way, the work of an artisan is said to be true insofar as it achieves the conception in the mind of the artist, and false insofar as it falls short of that conception.
Et quia omnia etiam naturalia comparantur ad intellectum divinum, sicut artificiata ad artem, consequens est ut quaelibet res dicatur esse vera secundum quod habet propriam formam, secundum quam imitatur artem divinam. Nam falsum aurum est verum aurichalcum. Et hoc modo ens et verum convertuntur, quia quaelibet res naturalis per suam formam arti divinae conformatur. Unde philosophus in I physicae, formam nominat quoddam divinum. 8. Now all natural things are related to the divine intellect as artifacts to art and therefore a thing is said to be true insofar as it has its own form, according to which it represents divine art; false gold, for example, is true copper. It is in terms of this that being and true are converted, since any natural thing is conformed to divine art through its form. For this reason the Philosopher in I Physicae [9: 192a 17] says that form is something divine.
Et sicut res dicitur vera per comparationem ad suam mensuram, ita etiam et sensus vel intellectus, cuius mensura est res extra animam. Unde sensus dicitur verus, quando per formam suam conformatur rei extra animam existenti. Et sic intelligitur quod sensus proprii sensibilis sit verus. Et hoc etiam modo intellectus apprehendens quod quid est absque compositione et divisione, semper est verus, ut dicitur in III de anima. 9. And just as a thing is said to be true by comparison to its measure, so also is sensation or thought, whose measure is the thing outside of the soul. Accordingly, sensation is said to be true when the sense through its form is in conformity with the thing existing outside of the a soul. It is in this way that the sensation of proper sensibles is true, and the intellect apprehending what a thing is apart from composition and division is always true, as is said in III De anima [3: 427b 12; 428a 11; 6: 43a 26].
Est autem considerandum quod quamvis sensus proprii obiecti sit verus, non tamen cognoscit hoc esse verum. Non enim potest cognoscere habitudinem conformitatis suae ad rem, sed solam rem apprehendit; intellectus autem potest huiusmodi habitudinem conformitatis cognoscere; et ideo solus intellectus potest cognoscere veritatem. Unde et philosophus dicit in VI metaphysicae quod veritas est solum in mente, sicut scilicet in cognoscente veritatem. It should be noted, however, that although the sensation of the proper object is true the sense does not perceive the sensation to be true, for it cannot know its relationship of conformity with the thing but only apprehends the thing. The intellect, on the other hand, can know its relationship of conformity and therefore only the intellect can know truth. This is the reason the Philosopher says in VI Metaphysicae [4: 1027b 26] that truth is only in the mind, that is to say, in one knowing truth.
Cognoscere autem praedictam conformitatis habitudinem nihil est aliud quam iudicare ita esse in re vel non esse: quod est componere et dividere; et ideo intellectus non cognoscit veritatem, nisi componendo vel dividendo per suum iudicium. Quod quidem iudicium, si consonet rebus, erit verum, puta cum intellectus iudicat rem esse quod est, vel non esse quod non est. Falsum autem quando dissonat a re, puta cum iudicat non esse quod est, vel esse quod non est. Unde patet quod veritas et falsitas sicut in cognoscente et dicente non est nisi circa compositionem et divisionem. To know this relationship of conformity is to judge that a thing is such or is not, which is to compose and divide; therefore, the intellect does not know truth except by composing and dividing through its judgment. If the judgment is in accordance with things it will be true, i.e., when the intellect judges a thing to be what it is or not to be what it is not. The judgment will be false when it is not in accordance with the thing, i.e., when it judges that what is, is not, or that what is not, is. It is evident from this that truth and falsity as it is in the one knowing and speaking is had only in composition and division.
Et hoc modo philosophus loquitur hic. Et quia voces sunt signa intellectuum, erit vox vera quae significat verum intellectum, falsa autem quae significat falsum intellectum: quamvis vox, in quantum est res quaedam, dicatur vera sicut et aliae res. Unde haec vox, homo est asinus, est vere vox et vere signum; sed quia est signum falsi, ideo dicitur falsa. This is what the Philosopher is speaking of here. And since vocal sounds are signs of thought, that vocal sound will be true which signifies true thought, false which signifies false thought, although vocal sound insofar as it is a real thing is said to be true in the same way other things are. Thus the vocal sound “Man is an ass” is truly vocal sound and truly a sign, but because it is a sign of something false it is said to be false.
Sciendum est autem quod philosophus de veritate hic loquitur secundum quod pertinet ad intellectum humanum, qui iudicat de conformitate rerum et intellectus componendo et dividendo. Sed iudicium intellectus divini de hoc est absque compositione et divisione: quia sicut etiam intellectus noster intelligit materialia immaterialiter, ita etiam intellectus divinus cognoscit compositionem et divisionem simpliciter. 10. It should be noted that the Philosopher is speaking of truth here as it relates to the human intellect, which judges of the conformity of things and thought by composing and dividing. However, the judgment of the divine intellect concerning this is without composition and division, for just as our intellect understands material things immaterially, so the divine intellect knows composition and division simply.”
Deinde cum dicit: nomina igitur ipsa et verba etc., manifestat quod dixerat de similitudine vocum ad intellectum. Et primo, manifestat propositum; secundo, probat per signum; ibi: huius autem signum et cetera. 11. When he says, Names and verbs, then, are like thought without composition or division, he manifests what he has said about the likeness of vocal sounds to thought. Next he proves it by a sign when he says, A sign of this is that “goat-stag” signifies something but is neither true nor false, etc.
Concludit ergo ex praemissis quod, cum solum circa compositionem et divisionem sit veritas et falsitas in intellectu, consequens est quod ipsa nomina et verba, divisim accepta, assimilentur intellectui qui est sine compositione et divisione; sicut cum homo vel album dicitur, si nihil aliud addatur: non enim verum adhuc vel falsum est; sed postea quando additur esse vel non esse, fit verum vel falsum. Here he concludes from what has been said that since there is truth and falsity in the intellect only when there is composition or division, it follows that names and verbs, taken separately, are like thought which is without composition and division; as when we say “man” or “white,” and nothing else is added. For these are neither true nor false at this point, but when “to be” or “not to be” is added they be come true or false.
Nec est instantia de eo, qui per unicum nomen veram responsionem dat ad interrogationem factam; ut cum quaerenti: quid natat in mari? Aliquis respondet, piscis. Nam intelligitur verbum quod fuit in interrogatione positum. Et sicut nomen per se positum non significat verum vel falsum, ita nec verbum per se dictum. Nec est instantia de verbo primae et secundae personae, et de verbo exceptae actionis: quia in his intelligitur certus et determinatus nominativus. Unde est implicita compositio, licet non explicita. 12. Although one might think so, the case of someone giving a,, single name as a true response to a question is not an instance that can be raised against this position; for example, suppose someone asks, “What swims in the sea?” and the answer is “Fish”; this is not opposed to the position Aristotle is taking here, for the verb that was posited in the question is understood. And just as the name said by itself does not signify truth or falsity, so neither does the verb said by itself. The verbs of the first and second person and the intransitive verb” are not instances opposed to this position either, for in these a particular and determined nominative is understood. Consequently there is implicit composition, though not explicit.
Deinde cum dicit: signum autem etc., inducit signum ex nomine composito, scilicet Hircocervus, quod componitur ex hirco et cervus et quod in Graeco dicitur Tragelaphos; nam tragos est hircus, et elaphos cervus. Huiusmodi enim nomina significant aliquid, scilicet quosdam conceptus simplices, licet rerum compositarum; et ideo non est verum vel falsum, nisi quando additur esse vel non esse, per quae exprimitur iudicium intellectus. Potest autem addi esse vel non esse, vel secundum praesens tempus, quod est esse vel non esse in actu, et ideo hoc dicitur esse simpliciter; vel secundum tempus praeteritum, aut futurum, quod non est esse simpliciter, sed secundum quid; ut cum dicitur aliquid fuisse vel futurum esse. 13. Then he says, A sign of this is that “goat-stag” signifies something but is neither true nor false unless “to be or “not to be” is added either absolutely or according to time. Here he introduces as a sign the composite name “goat-stag,” from “goat” and “stag.” In Greek the word is “tragelaphos,” from “tragos” meaning goat and “elaphos” meaning stag. Now names of this kind signify something, namely, certain simple concepts (although the things they signify are composite), and therefore are not true or false unless “to be” or “not to be” is added, by which a judgment of the intellect is expressed. The “to be” or “not to be” can be added either according to present time, which is to be or not to be in act and for this reason is to be simply; or according to past or future time, which is to be relatively, not simply; as when we say that something has been or will be.
Signanter autem utitur exemplo ex nomine significante quod non est in rerum natura, in quo statim falsitas apparet, et quod sine compositione et divisione non possit verum vel falsum esse. Notice that Aristotle expressly uses as an example here a name signifying something that does not exist in reality, in which fictiveness is immediately evident, and which cannot be true or false without composition and division.

LESSON 4
The Name

Ὄνομα μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ φωνὴ σημαντικὴ κατὰ συνθήκην ἄνευ χρόνου, ἧς μηδὲν μέρος ἐστὶ σημαντικὸν κεχωρισμένον 16a 19 A name, then, is a vocal sound significant by convention, without time, no part of which is significant separately;
ἐν γὰρ τῷ Κάλλιππος τὸ ιππος οὐδὲν καθ' αὑτὸ σημαίνει, ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ καλὸς ἵππος. 16a 21 for in the name “Campbell” the part “bell,” as such signifies nothing, although in the expression “camp bell” it does.
οὐ μὴν οὐδ' ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς ἁπλοῖς ὀνόμασιν, οὕτως ἔχει καὶ ἐν τοῖς πεπλεγμένοις ἐν ἐκείνοις μὲν γὰρ οὐδαμῶς τὸ μέρος σημαντικόν, ἐν δὲ τούτοις βούλεται μέν, ἀλλ' οὐδενὸς κεχωρισμένον, οἷον ἐν τῷ ἐπακτροκέλης τὸ κελης. 16a 22 However the case is not exactly the same in simple names and composite names; for in the former the part is in no way significant, but in the latter the part has meaning but of nothing apart from the word, as “fast” in “breakfast.”
τὸ δὲ κατὰ συνθήκην, ὅτι φύσει τῶν ὀνομάτων οὐδέν ἐστιν, ἀλλ' ὅταν γένηται σύμβολον ἐπεὶ δηλοῦσί γέ τι καὶ οἱ ἀγράμματοι ψόφοι, οἷον θηρίων, ὧν οὐδέν ἐστιν ὄνομα. 16a 26 “By convention” is added because nothing is by nature a name, but it is a name when it is made a sign; for unlettered sounds, such as those of the brutes, designate but none of them is a name.
τὸ δ' οὐκ ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ὄνομα οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ κεῖται ὄνομα ὅ τι δεῖ καλεῖν αὐτό, -οὔτε γὰρ λόγος οὔτε ἀπόφασίς ἐστιν —ἀλλ' ἔστω ὄνομα ἀόριστον. 16a 29 “Non-man,” however, is not a name. No name has been imposed to designate this—for it is neither speech nor a negation—but let us call it an infinite name.
τὸ δὲ Φίλωνος ἢ Φίλωνι καὶ ὅσα (16b.) τοιαῦτα οὐκ ὀνόματα ἀλλὰ πτώσεις ὀνόματος. 16a 32 “Of Philo” and “to Philo” and all such expressions are not names but modes of names.
λόγος δέ ἐστιν αὐτοῦ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα κατὰ τὰ αὐτά, ὅτι δὲ μετὰ τοῦ ἔστιν ἢ ἦν ἢ ἔσται οὐκ ἀληθεύει ἢ ψεύδεται, -τὸ δ' ὄνομα ἀεί, - οἷον Φίλωνός ἐστιν ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν γάρ πω οὔτε ἀληθεύει οὔτε ψεύδεται. 16b 1 The definition of these is the same in all other respects as that of the name itself, but in conjunction with “is” or “has been” or “will be” they are not true or false, whereas if one of these is added to a name there is always truth or falsity; for example, “of Philo is,” or “of Philo is not” are neither true nor false.
Postquam philosophus determinavit de ordine significationis vocum, hic accedit ad determinandum de ipsis vocibus significativis. Et quia principaliter intendit de enunciatione, quae est subiectum huius libri; in qualibet autem scientia oportet praenoscere principia subiecti; ideo primo, determinat de principiis enunciationis; secundo, de ipsa enunciatione; ibi: enunciativa vero non omnis et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo enim, determinat principia quasi materialia enunciationis, scilicet partes integrales ipsius; secundo, determinat principium formale, scilicet orationem, quae est enunciationis genus; ibi: oratio autem est vox significativa et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, determinat de nomine, quod significat rei substantiam; secundo, determinat de verbo, quod significat actionem vel passionem procedentem a re; ibi: verbum autem est quod consignificat tempus et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo, definit nomen; secundo, definitionem exponit; ibi: in nomine enim quod est equiferus etc.; tertio, excludit quaedam, quae perfecte rationem nominis non habent, ibi: non homo vero non est nomen. 1. Having determined the order of the signification of vocal sounds, the Philosopher begins here to establish the definitions of the significant vocal sounds. His principal intention is to establish what an enunciation is—which is the subject of this book—but since in any science the principles of the subject must be known first, he begins with the principles of the enunciation and then establishes what an enunciation is where he says, All speech is not enunciative, etc.” With respect to the principles of the enunciation he first determines the nature of the quasi material principles, i.e., its integral parts, and secondly the formal principle, i.e., speech, which is the genus of the enunciation, where he says, Speech is significant vocal sound, etc.” Apropos of the quasi material principles of the enunciation he first establishes that a name signifies the substance of a thing and then that the verb signifies action or passion proceeding from a thing, where he says The verb is that which signifies with time, etc.” In relation to this first point, he first defines the name, and then explains the definition where he says, for in the name “Campbell” the part “bell,” as such, signifies nothing, etc., and finally excludes certain things—those that do not have the definition of the name perfectly—where he says, “Non-man,” however, is not a name, etc.
Circa primum considerandum est quod definitio ideo dicitur terminus, quia includit totaliter rem; ita scilicet, quod nihil rei est extra definitionem, cui scilicet definitio non conveniat; nec aliquid aliud est infra definitionem, cui scilicet definitio conveniat. 2. It should be noted in relation to defining the name, that a definition is said to be a limit because it includes a thing totally, i.e., such that nothing of the thing is outside of the definition, that is, there is nothing of the thing to which the definition does not belong; nor is any other thing under the definition, that is, the definition belongs to no other thing.
Et ideo quinque ponit in definitione nominis. Primo, ponitur vox per modum generis, per quod distinguitur nomen ab omnibus sonis, qui non sunt voces. Nam vox est sonus ab ore animalis prolatus, cum imaginatione quadam, ut dicitur in II de anima. Additur autem prima differentia, scilicet significativa, ad differentiam quarumcumque vocum non significantium, sive sit vox litterata et articulata, sicut biltris, sive non litterata et non articulata, sicut sibilus pro nihilo factus. Et quia de significatione vocum in superioribus actum est, ideo ex praemissis concludit quod nomen est vox significativa. 3. Aristotle posits five parts in the definition of the name. Vocal sound is given first, as the genus. This distinguishes the name from all sounds that are not vocal; for vocal sound is sound produced from the mouth of an animal and involves a certain kind of mental image, as is said in II De anima [8: 420b 30-34]. The second part is the first difference, i.e., significant, which differentiates the name from any non-significant vocal sound, whether lettered and articulated, such as “biltris,” or non-lettered and non-articulated, as a hissing for no reason. Now since he has already determined the signification of vocal sounds, he concludes from what has been established that a name is a significant vocal sound.
Sed cum vox sit quaedam res naturalis, nomen autem non est aliquid naturale sed ab hominibus institutum, videtur quod non debuit genus nominis ponere vocem, quae est ex natura, sed magis signum, quod est ex institutione; ut diceretur: nomen est signum vocale; sicut etiam convenientius definiretur scutella, si quis diceret quod est vas ligneum, quam si quis diceret quod est lignum formatum in vas. 4. But vocal sound is a natural thing, whereas a name is not natural but instituted by men; it seems, therefore, that Aristotle should have taken sign, which is from institution, as the genus of the name, rather than vocal sound, which is from nature. Then the definition would be: a name is a vocal sign, etc., just as a salver would be more suitably defined as a wooden dish than as wood formed into a dish.
Sed dicendum quod artificialia sunt quidem in genere substantiae ex parte materiae, in genere autem accidentium ex parte formae: nam formae artificialium accidentia sunt. Nomen ergo significat formam accidentalem ut concretam subiecto. Cum autem in definitione omnium accidentium oporteat poni subiectum, necesse est quod, si qua nomina accidens in abstracto significant quod in eorum definitione ponatur accidens in recto, quasi genus, subiectum autem in obliquo, quasi differentia; ut cum dicitur, simitas est curvitas nasi. Si qua vero nomina accidens significant in concreto, in eorum definitione ponitur materia, vel subiectum, quasi genus, et accidens, quasi differentia; ut cum dicitur, simum est nasus curvus. Si igitur nomina rerum artificialium significant formas accidentales, ut concretas subiectis naturalibus, convenientius est, ut in eorum definitione ponatur res naturalis quasi genus, ut dicamus quod scutella est lignum figuratum, et similiter quod nomen est vox significativa. Secus autem esset, si nomina artificialium acciperentur, quasi significantia ipsas formas artificiales in abstracto. 5. It should be noted, however, that while it is true that artificial things are in the genus of substance on the part of matter, they are in the genus of accident on the part of form, since the forms of artificial things are accidents. A name, therefore, signifies an accidental form made concrete in a subject. Now the subject must be posited in the definition of every accident; hence, when names signify an accident in the abstract the accident has to be posited directly (i.e., in the nominative case) as a quasi-genus in their definition and the subject posited obliquely (i.e., in an oblique case such as the genitive, dative, or accusative) as a quasi-difference; as for example, when we define snubness as curvedness of the nose. But when names signify an accident ill the concrete, the matter or subject has to be posited in their definition as a quasi-genus and the accident as a quasi-difference, as when we say that a snub nose is a curved nose. Accordingly, if the names of artificial things signify accidental forms as made concrete in natural subjects, then it is more appropriate to posit the natural thing in their definition as a quasi-genus. We would say, therefore, that a salver is shaped wood, and likewise, that a name is a significant vocal sound. It would be another matter if names of artificial things were taken as signifying artificial forms in the abstract.
Tertio, ponit secundam differentiam cum dicit: secundum placitum, idest secundum institutionem humanam a beneplacito hominis procedentem. Et per hoc differt nomen a vocibus significantibus naturaliter, sicut sunt gemitus infirmorum et voces brutorum animalium. 6. The third part is the second difference, i.e., by convention, namely, according to human institution deriving from the will of man. This differentiates names from vocal sounds signifying naturally, such as the groans of the sick and the vocal sounds of brute animals.
Quarto, ponit tertiam differentiam, scilicet sine tempore, per quod differt nomen a verbo. 7. The fourth part is the third difference, i.e., without time, which differentiates the name from the verb.
Sed videtur hoc esse falsum: quia hoc nomen dies vel annus significat tempus. This, however, seems to be false, for the name “day” or “year” signifies time.
Sed dicendum quod circa tempus tria possunt considerari. Primo quidem, ipsum tempus, secundum quod est res quaedam, et sic potest significari a nomine, sicut quaelibet alia res. Alio modo, potest considerari id, quod tempore mensuratur, in quantum huiusmodi: et quia id quod primo et principaliter tempore mensuratur est motus, in quo consistit actio et passio, ideo verbum quod significat actionem vel passionem, significat cum tempore. Substantia autem secundum se considerata, prout significatur per nomen et pronomen, non habet in quantum huiusmodi ut tempore mensuretur, sed solum secundum quod subiicitur motui, prout per participium significatur. Et ideo verbum et participium significant cum tempore, non autem nomen et pronomen. Tertio modo, potest considerari ipsa habitudo temporis mensurantis; quod significatur per adverbia temporis, ut cras, heri et huiusmodi. But there are three things that can be considered with respect to time; first, time itself, as it is a certain kind of thing or reality, and then it can be signified by a name just like any other thing; secondly, that which is measured by time, insofar as it is measured by time. Motion, which consists of action and passion, is what is measured first and principally by time, and therefore the verb, which signifies action and passion, signifies with time. Substance considered in itself, which a name or a pronoun signify, is not as such measured by time, but only insofar as it is subjected to motion, and this the participle signifies. The verb and the participle, therefore, signify with time, but not the name and pronoun. The third thing that can be considered is the very relationship of time as it measures. This is signified by adverbs of time such as “tomorrow,” “yesterday,” and others of this kind.
Quinto, ponit quartam differentiam cum subdit: cuius nulla pars est significativa separata, scilicet a toto nomine; comparatur tamen ad significationem nominis secundum quod est in toto. Quod ideo est, quia significatio est quasi forma nominis; nulla autem pars separata habet formam totius, sicut manus separata ab homine non habet formam humanam. Et per hoc distinguitur nomen ab oratione, cuius pars significat separata; ut cum dicitur, homo iustus. 8. The fifth part is the fourth difference, no part of which is significant separately, that is, separated from the whole name; but it is related to the signification of the name according as it is in the whole. The reason for this is that signification is a quasi-form of the name. But no separated part has the form of the whole; just as the hand separated from the man does not have the human form. This difference distinguishes the name from speech, some parts of which signify separately, as for example in “just man.”
Deinde cum dicit: in nomine enim quod est etc., manifestat praemissam definitionem. Et primo, quantum ad ultimam particulam; secundo, quantum ad tertiam; ibi: secundum vero placitum et cetera. Nam primae duae particulae manifestae sunt ex praemissis; tertia autem particula, scilicet sine tempore, manifestabitur in sequentibus in tractatu de verbo. Circa primum duo facit: primo, manifestat propositum per nomina composita; secundo, ostendit circa hoc differentiam inter nomina simplicia et composita; ibi: at vero non quemadmodum et cetera. 9. When he says, for in the name “Campbell” the part “bell” as such signifies nothing, etc., he explains the definition. First he explains the last part of the definition; secondly, the third part, by convention. The first two parts were explained in what preceded, and the fourth part, without time, will be explained later in the section on the verb. And first he explains the last part by means of a composite name; then he shows what the difference is between simple and composite names where he says, However the case is not exactly the same in simple names and composite names, etc.
Manifestat ergo primo quod pars nominis separata nihil significat, per nomina composita, in quibus hoc magis videtur. In hoc enim nomine quod est equiferus, haec pars ferus, per se nihil significat sicut significat in hac oratione, quae est equus ferus. Cuius ratio est quod unum nomen imponitur ad significandum unum simplicem intellectum; aliud autem est id a quo imponitur nomen ad significandum, ab eo quod nomen significat; sicut hoc nomen lapis imponitur a laesione pedis, quam non significat: quod tamen imponitur ad significandum conceptum cuiusdam rei. Et inde est quod pars nominis compositi, quod imponitur ad significandum conceptum simplicem, non significat partem conceptionis compositae, a qua imponitur nomen ad significandum. Sed oratio significat ipsam conceptionem compositam: unde pars orationis significat partem conceptionis compositae. First, then, he shows that a part separated from a name signifies nothing. To do this he uses a composite name because the point is more striking there. For in the name “Campbell” the part “bell” per se signifies nothing, although it does signify something in the phrase “camp bell.” The reason for this is that one name is imposed to signify one simple conception; but that from which a name is imposed to signify is different from that which a name signifies. For example, the name “pedigree”,4 is imposed from pedis and grus [crane’s foot] which it does not signify, to signify the concept of a certain thing. Hence, a part of the composite name—which composite name is imposed to signify a simple concept—does not signify a part of the composite conception from which the name is imposed to signify. Speech, on the other hand, does signify a composite conception. Hence, a part of speech signifies a part of the composite conception.
Deinde cum dicit: at vero non etc., ostendit quantum ad hoc differentiam inter nomina simplicia et composita, et dicit quod non ita se habet in nominibus simplicibus, sicut et in compositis: quia in simplicibus pars nullo modo est significativa, neque secundum veritatem, neque secundum apparentiam; sed in compositis vult quidem, idest apparentiam habet significandi; nihil tamen pars eius significat, ut dictum est de nomine equiferus. Haec autem ratio differentiae est, quia nomen simplex sicut imponitur ad significandum conceptum simplicem, ita etiam imponitur ad significandum ab aliquo simplici conceptu; nomen vero compositum imponitur a composita conceptione, ex qua habet apparentiam quod pars eius significet. 10. When he says, However, the case is not exactly the same in simple names and composite names, etc., he shows that there is a difference between simple and composite names in regard to their parts not signifying separately. Simple names are not the same as composite names in this respect because in simple names a part is in no way significant, either according to truth or according to appearance, but in composite names the part has meaning, i.e., has the appearance of signifying; yet a part of it signifies nothing, as is said of the name “breakfast.” The reason for this difference is that the simple name is imposed to signify a simple concept and is also imposed from a simple concept; but the composite name is imposed from a composite conception, and hence has the appearance that a part of it signifies.
Deinde cum dicit: secundum placitum etc., manifestat tertiam partem praedictae definitionis; et dicit quod ideo dictum est quod nomen significat secundum placitum, quia nullum nomen est naturaliter. Ex hoc enim est nomen, quod significat: non autem significat naturaliter, sed ex institutione. Et hoc est quod subdit: sed quando fit nota, idest quando imponitur ad significandum. Id enim quod naturaliter significat non fit, sed naturaliter est signum. Et hoc significat cum dicit: illitterati enim soni, ut ferarum, quia scilicet litteris significari non possunt. Et dicit potius sonos quam voces, quia quaedam animalia non habent vocem, eo quod carent pulmone, sed tantum quibusdam sonis proprias passiones naturaliter significant: nihil autem horum sonorum est nomen. Ex quo manifeste datur intelligi quod nomen non significat naturaliter. 11. Then he says, “By convention” is added because nothing is by nature a name, etc. Here Aristotle explains the third part of the definition. The reason it is said that the name signifies by convention, he says, is that no name exists naturally. For it is a name because it signifies; it does not signify naturally however, but by institution. This he adds when he says, but it is a name when it is made a sign, i.e., when it is imposed to signify. For that which signifies naturally is not made a sign, but is a sign naturally. he explains this when he says: for unlettered sounds, such as those of the brutes designate, etc., i.e., since they cannot be signified by letters. He says sounds rather than vocal sounds because some animals—those without lungs—do not have vocal sounds. Such animals signify proper passions by some kind of non-vocal sound which signifies naturally. But none of these sounds of the brutes is a name. We are given to understand from this that a name does not signify naturally.
Sciendum tamen est quod circa hoc fuit diversa quorumdam opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt quod nomina nullo modo naturaliter significant: nec differt quae res quo nomine significentur. Alii vero dixerunt quod nomina omnino naturaliter significant, quasi nomina sint naturales similitudines rerum. Quidam vero dixerunt quod nomina non naturaliter significant quantum ad hoc, quod eorum significatio non est a natura, ut Aristoteles hic intendit; quantum vero ad hoc naturaliter significant quod eorum significatio congruit naturis rerum, ut Plato dixit. 12. However, there were diverse opinions about this. Some men said that names in no way signify naturally and that it makes no difference which things are signified by which names. Others said that names signify naturally in every way, as if names were natural likenesses of things. Still others said names do not signify naturally, i.e., insofar as their signification is not from nature, as Aristotle maintains here, but that names do signify naturally in the sense that their signification corresponds to the natures of things, as Plato held.
Nec obstat quod una res multis nominibus significatur: quia unius rei possunt esse multae similitudines; et similiter ex diversis proprietatibus possunt uni rei multa diversa nomina imponi. Non est autem intelligendum quod dicit: quorum nihil est nomen, quasi soni animalium non habeant nomina: nominantur enim quibusdam nominibus, sicut dicitur rugitus leonis et mugitus bovis; sed quia nullus talis sonus est nomen, ut dictum est. The fact that one thing is signified by many names is not in opposition to Aristotle’s position here, for there can be many likenesses of one thing; and similarly, from diverse properties many diverse names can be imposed on one thing. When Aristotle says, but none of them is a name, he does not mean that the sounds of animals are not named, for we do have names for them; “roaring,” for example, is said of the sound made by a lion, and “lowing” of that of a cow. What he means is that no such sound is a name.
Deinde cum dicit: non homo vero etc., excludit quaedam a nominis ratione. Et primo, nomen infinitum; secundo, casus nominum; ibi: Catonis autem vel Catoni et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod non homo non est nomen. 13. When he says, “Non-man,” however, is not a name, etc., he points out that certain things do not have the nature of a name. First he excludes the infinite name; then the cases of the name where he says, “Of Philo” and “to Philo,” etc.
Omne enim nomen significat aliquam naturam determinatam, ut homo; aut personam determinatam, ut pronomen; aut utrumque determinatum, ut Socrates. Sed hoc quod dico non homo, neque determinatam naturam neque determinatam personam significat. Imponitur enim a negatione hominis, quae aequaliter dicitur de ente, et non ente. Unde non homo potest dici indifferenter, et de eo quod non est in rerum natura; ut si dicamus, Chimaera est non homo, et de eo quod est in rerum natura; sicut cum dicitur, equus est non homo. He says that “non-man” is not a name because every name signifies some determinate nature, for example, “man,” or a determinate person in the case of the pronoun, or both determinately, as in “Socrates.” But when we say “non-man” it signifies neither a determinate nature nor a determinate person, because it is imposed from the negation of man, which negation is predicated equally of being and non-being. Consequently, “non-man” can be said indifferently both of that which does not exist in reality, as in “A chimera is non-man,” and of that which does exist in reality, as in “A horse is non-man.”
Si autem imponeretur a privatione, requireret subiectum ad minus existens: sed quia imponitur a negatione, potest dici de ente et de non ente, ut Boethius et Ammonius dicunt. Quia tamen significat per modum nominis, quod potest subiici et praedicari, requiritur ad minus suppositum in apprehensione. Now if the infinite name were imposed from a privation it would require at least an existing subject, but since it is imposed from a negation, it can be predicated of being and nonbeing, as Boethius and Ammonius say. However, since it signifies in the mode of a name, and can therefore be subjected and predicated, a suppositum is required at least in apprehension.
Non autem erat nomen positum tempore Aristotelis sub quo huiusmodi dictiones concluderentur. Non enim est oratio, quia pars eius non significat aliquid separata, sicut nec in nominibus compositis; similiter autem non est negatio, id est oratio negativa, quia huiusmodi oratio superaddit negationem affirmationi, quod non contingit hic. Et ideo novum nomen imponit huiusmodi dictioni, vocans eam nomen infinitum propter indeterminationem significationis, ut dictum est. In the time of Aristotle there was no name for words of this kind. They are not speech since a part of such a word does not signify something separately, just as a part of a composite name does not signify separately; and they are not negations, i.e., negative speech, for speech of this kind adds negation to affirmation, which is not the case here. Therefore he imposes a new name for words of this kind, the “infinite name,” because of the indetermination of signification, as has been said.
Deinde cum dicit: Catonis autem vel Catoni etc., excludit casus nominis; et dicit quod Catonis vel Catoni et alia huiusmodi non sunt nomina, sed solus nominativus dicitur principaliter nomen, per quem facta est impositio nominis ad aliquid significandum. Huiusmodi autem obliqui vocantur casus nominis: quia quasi cadunt per quamdam declinationis originem a nominativo, qui dicitur rectus eo quod non cadit. Stoici autem dixerunt etiam nominativos dici casus: quos grammatici sequuntur, eo quod cadunt, idest procedunt ab interiori conceptione mentis. Et dicitur rectus, eo quod nihil prohibet aliquid cadens sic cadere, ut rectum stet, sicut stilus qui cadens ligno infigitur. 14. When he says, “Of Philo” and “to Philo” and all such expressions are not names but modes of names, he excludes the cases of names from the nature of the name. The nominative is the one that is said to be a name principally, for the imposition of the name to signify something was made through it. Oblique expressions of the kind cited are called cases of the name because they fall away from the nominative as a kind of source of their declension. On the other hand, the nominative, because it does not fall away, is said to be erect. The Stoics held that even the nominatives were cases (with which the grammarians agree), because they fall, i.e., proceed from the interior conception of the mind; and they said they were also called erect because nothing prevents a thing from falling in such a way that it stands erect, as when a pen falls and is fixed in wood.
Deinde cum dicit: ratio autem eius etc., ostendit consequenter quomodo se habeant obliqui casus ad nomen; et dicit quod ratio, quam significat nomen, est eadem et in aliis, scilicet casibus nominis; sed in hoc est differentia quod nomen adiunctum cum hoc verbo est vel erit vel fuit semper significat verum vel falsum: quod non contingit in obliquis. Signanter autem inducit exemplum de verbo substantivo: quia sunt quaedam alia verba, scilicet impersonalia, quae cum obliquis significant verum vel falsum; ut cum dicitur, poenitet Socratem, quia actus verbi intelligitur ferri super obliquum; ac si diceretur, poenitentia habet Socratem. 15. Then he says, The definition of these is the same in all other respects as that of the name itself, etc. Here Aristotle shows how oblique cases are related to the name. The definition, as it signifies the name, is the same in the others, namely, in the cases of the name. But they differ in this respect: the name joined to the verb “is” or “will be” or “has been” always signifies the true or false; in oblique cases this is not so. It is significant that the substantive verb is the one he uses as an example, for there are other verbs, i.e., impersonal verbs, that do signify the true or false when joined with a name in an oblique case, as in “It grieves Socrates,” because the act of the verb is understood to be carried over to the oblique cases, as though what were said were, “Grief possesses Socrates.”
Sed contra: si nomen infinitum et casus non sunt nomina, inconvenienter data est praemissa nominis definitio, quae istis convenit. 16. However, an objection could be made against Aristotle’s position in this portion of his text. If the infinite name and the cases of the name are not names, then the definition of the name (which belongs to these) is not consistently presented.
Sed dicendum, secundum Ammonium, quod supra communius definit nomen, postmodum vero significationem nominis arctat subtrahendo haec a nomine. Vel dicendum quod praemissa definitio non simpliciter convenit his: nomen enim infinitum nihil determinatum significat, neque casus nominis significat secundum primum placitum instituentis, ut dictum est. There are two ways of answering this objection. We could say, as Ammonius does, that Aristotle defines the name broadly, and afterward limits the signification of the name by subtracting these from it. Or, we could say that the definition Aristotle has given does not belong to these absolutely, since the infinite name signifies nothing determinate, and the cases of the name do not signify according to the first intent of the one instituting the name, as has been said.

LESSON 5
On the Nature of the Verb and Its Conformity with the Name

Ῥῆμα δέ ἐστι τὸ προσσημαῖνον χρόνον, οὗ μέρος οὐδὲν σημαίνει χωρίς ἔστι δὲ τῶν καθ' ἑτέρου λεγομένων σημεῖον. 16b 5 The verb is that which signifies with time; no part of it signifies separately, and it is a sign of something said of something else.
λέγω δ' ὅτι προσσημαίνει χρόνον, οἷον ὑγίεια μὲν ὄνομα, τὸ δ' ὑγιαίνει ῥῆμα προσσημαίνει γὰρ τὸ νῦν ὑπάρχειν. 16b 8 I mean by “signifies with time” that “maturity,” for example, is a name, but “matures” is a verb, for it connotes the present existence of maturity.
καὶ ἀεὶ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων σημεῖόν ἐστιν, οἷον τῶν καθ' ὑποκειμένου. 16b 10 Moreover, a verb is always a sign of something that belongs to something, i.e., of something present in a subject.
τὸ δὲ οὐχ ὑγιαίνει καὶ τὸ οὐ κάμνει οὐ ῥῆμα λέγω προσσημαίνει μὲν γὰρ χρόνον καὶ ἀεὶ κατά τινος ὑπάρχει, τῇ διαφορᾷ δὲ ὄνομα οὐ κεῖται ἀλλ' ἔστω ἀόριστον ῥῆμα, ὅτι ὁμοίως ἐφ' ὁτουοῦν ὑπάρχει καὶ ὄντος καὶ μὴ ὄντος. 16b 12 “Non-matures” and “non-declines” I do not call verbs. They signify with time and always belong to something but they differ from the verb and no name has been established for the difference. Let us call them infinite verbs, since they belong equally to anything whatever, to both what is and what is not.
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ ὑγίανεν ἢ τὸ ὑγιανεῖ οὐ ῥῆμα, ἀλλὰ πτῶσις ῥήματος διαφέρει δὲ τοῦ ῥήματος, ὅτι τὸ μὲν τὸν παρόντα προσσημαίνει χρόνον, τὰ δὲ τὸν πέριξ. 16b 16 Likewise, “has matured” and “will mature” are not verbs but modes of the verb. They differ from the verb in that the verb signifies with present time, whereas the modes signify time outside of the present.
αὐτὰ μὲν οὖν καθ' αὑτὰ λεγόμενα τὰ ῥήματα ὀνόματά ἐστι καὶ σημαίνει τι, 16b 19 Verbs in themselves, said alone, are names, and signify something
ἵστησι γὰρ ὁ λέγων τὴν διάνοιαν, καὶ ὁ ἀκούσας ἠρέμησεν, —ἀλλ' εἰ ἔστιν ἢ μή οὔπω σημαίνει οὐ γὰρ τὸ εἶναι ἢ μὴ εἶναι σημεῖόν ἐστι τοῦ πράγματος, οὐδ' ἐὰν τὸ ὂν εἴπῃς ψιλόν. αὐτὸ μὲν γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστιν, προσσημαίνει δὲ σύνθεσίν τινα, ἣν ἄνευ τῶν συγκειμένων οὐκ ἔστι νοῆσαι. 16b 20 —for in tittering a verb the one speaking informs the mind of the one hearing it and sets it at rest—but they do not yet signify whether a thing is or is not, for the verb is not a sign of the being or nonbeing of a thing. Nor would it be a sign of the being or nonbeing of a thing if you were to say alone, for it is nothing; it signifies with a composition which cannot be conceived apart from the things composing it.
Postquam philosophus determinavit de nomine: hic determinat de verbo. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo, definit verbum; secundo, excludit quaedam a ratione verbi; ibi: non currit autem, et non laborat etc.; tertio, ostendit convenientiam verbi ad nomen; ibi: ipsa quidem secundum se dicta verba, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ponit definitionem verbi; secundo exponit eam; ibi: dico autem quoniam consignificat et cetera. 1. After determining the nature of the name the Philosopher now determines the nature of the verb. First he defines the verb; secondly, he excludes certain forms of verbs from the definition, where he says, “Non-matures” and “non-declines” I do not call verbs, etc.; finally, he shows in what the verb and name agree where he says, Verbs in themselves, said alone, are names, etc. First, then, he defines the verb and immediately begins to explain the definition where he says, I mean by “signifies with time,” etc.
Est autem considerandum quod Aristoteles, brevitati studens, non ponit in definitione verbi ea quae sunt nomini et verbo communia, relinquens ea intellectui legentis ex his quae dixerat in definitione nominis. 2. In order to be brief, Aristotle does not give what is common to the name and the verb in the definition of the verb, but leaves this for the reader to understand from the definition of the name.
Ponit autem tres particulas in definitione verbi: quarum prima distinguit verbum a nomine, in hoc scilicet quod dicit quod consignificat tempus. Dictum est enim in definitione nominis quod nomen significat sine tempore. Secunda vero particula est, per quam distinguitur verbum ab oratione, scilicet cum dicitur: cuius pars nihil extra significat. He posits three elements in the definition of the verb. The first of these distinguishes the verb from the name, for the verb signifies with time, the name without time, as was stated in its definition. The second element, no part of which signifies separately, distinguishes the verb from speech.
Sed cum hoc etiam positum sit in definitione nominis, videtur hoc debuisse praetermitti, sicut et quod dictum est, vox significativa ad placitum. 3. This second element was also given in the definition of the name and therefore it seems that this second element along with vocal sound significant by convention, should have been omitted.
Ad quod respondet Ammonius quod in definitione nominis hoc positum est, ut distinguatur nomen ab orationibus, quae componuntur ex nominibus; ut cum dicitur, homo est animal. Quia vero sunt etiam quaedam orationes quae componuntur ex verbis; ut cum dicitur, ambulare est moveri, ut ab his distinguatur verbum, oportuit hoc etiam in definitione verbi iterari. Ammonius says in reply to this that Aristotle posited this in the definition of the name to distinguish it from speech which is composed of names, as in “Man is an animal”; but speech may also be composed of verbs, as in “To walk is to move”; therefore, this also bad to be repeated in the definition of the verb to distinguish it from speech.
Potest etiam aliter dici quod quia verbum importat compositionem, in qua perficitur oratio verum vel falsum significans, maiorem convenientiam videbatur verbum habere cum oratione, quasi quaedam pars formalis ipsius, quam nomen, quod est quaedam pars materialis et subiectiva orationis; et ideo oportuit iterari. We might also say that since the verb introduces the composition which brings about speech signifying truth or falsity, the verb seems to be more like speech (being a certain formal part of it) than the name which is a material and subjective part of it; therefore this had to be repeated.
Tertia vero particula est, per quam distinguitur verbum non solum a nomine, sed etiam a participio quod significat cum tempore; unde dicit: et est semper eorum, quae de altero praedicantur nota, idest signum: quia scilicet nomina et participia possunt poni ex parte subiecti et praedicati, sed verbum semper est ex parte praedicati. 4. The third element distinguishes the verb not only from the name, but also from the participle, which also signifies with time. He makes this distinction when he says, and it is a sign of something said of something else, i.e., names and participles can be posited on the part of the subject and the predicate, but the verb is always posited on the part of the predicate.
Sed hoc videtur habere instantiam in verbis infinitivi modi, quae interdum ponuntur ex parte subiecti; ut cum dicitur, ambulare est moveri. 5. But it seems that verbs are used as subjects. The verb in the infinitive mode is an instance of this, as in the example, “To walk is to be moving.”
Sed dicendum est quod verba infinitivi modi, quando in subiecto ponuntur, habent vim nominis: unde et in Graeco et in vulgari Latina locutione suscipiunt additionem articulorum sicut et nomina. Cuius ratio est quia proprium nominis est, ut significet rem aliquam quasi per se existentem; proprium autem verbi est, ut significet actionem vel passionem. Potest autem actio significari tripliciter: uno modo, per se in abstracto, velut quaedam res, et sic significatur per nomen; ut cum dicitur actio, passio, ambulatio, cursus et similia; alio modo, per modum actionis, ut scilicet est egrediens a substantia et inhaerens ei ut subiecto, et sic significatur per verba aliorum modorum, quae attribuuntur praedicatis. Sed quia etiam ipse processus vel inhaerentia actionis potest apprehendi ab intellectu et significari ut res quaedam, inde est quod ipsa verba infinitivi modi, quae significant ipsam inhaerentiam actionis ad subiectum, possunt accipi ut verba, ratione concretionis, et ut nomina prout significant quasi res quasdam. Verbs of the infinitive mode, however, have the force of names when they are used as subjects. (Hence in both Greek and ordinary Latin usage articles are added to them as in the case of names.) The reason for this is that it is proper to the name to signify something as existing per se, but proper to the verb to signify action or passion. Now there are three ways of signifying action or passion. It can be signified per se, as a certain thing in the abstract and is thus signified by a name such as “action,” “passion,” “walking,” “running,” and so on. It can also be signified in the mode of an action, i.e., as proceeding from a substance and inhering in it as in a subject; in this way action or passion is signified by the verbs of the different modes attributed to predicates. Finally—and this is the third way in which action or passion can be signified—the very process or inherence of action can be apprehended by the intellect and signified as a thing. Verbs of the infinitive mode signify such inherence of action in a subject and hence can be taken as verbs by reason of concretion, and as names inasmuch as they signify as things.
Potest etiam obiici de hoc quod etiam verba aliorum modorum videntur aliquando in subiecto poni; ut cum dicitur, curro est verbum. 6. On this point the objection may also be raised that verbs of other modes sometimes seem to be posited as subjects; for example when we say, “‘Matures’ is a verb.”
Sed dicendum est quod in tali locutione, hoc verbum curro, non sumitur formaliter, secundum quod eius significatio refertur ad rem, sed secundum quod materialiter significat ipsam vocem, quae accipitur ut res quaedam. Et ideo tam verba, quam omnes orationis partes, quando ponuntur materialiter, sumuntur in vi nominum. In such a statement, however, the verb “matures” is not taken formally according as its signification is referred to a thing, but as it signifies the vocal sound itself materially, which vocal sound is taken as a thing. When posited in this way, i.e., materially, verbs and all parts of speech are taken with the force of names.
Deinde cum dicit: dico vero quoniam consignificat etc., exponit definitionem positam. Et primo, quantum ad hoc quod dixerat quod consignificat tempus; secundo, quantum ad hoc quod dixerat quod est nota eorum quae de altero praedicantur, cum dicit: et semper est et cetera. Secundam autem particulam, scilicet: cuius nulla pars extra significat, non exponit, quia supra exposita est in tractatu nominis. 7. Then he says, I mean by “signifies with time” that “maturity,” for example, is a name, but “matures” is a verb, etc.”’ With this he begins to explain the definition of the verb: first in regard to signifies with time; secondly, in regard to the verb being a sign of something said of something else. He does not explain the second part, no part of which signifies separately, because an explanation of it has already been made in connection with the name.
Exponit ergo primum quod verbum consignificat tempus, per exemplum; quia videlicet cursus, quia significat actionem non per modum actionis, sed per modum rei per se existentis, non consignificat tempus, eo quod est nomen. Curro vero cum sit verbum significans actionem, consignificat tempus, quia proprium est motus tempore mensurari; actiones autem nobis notae sunt in tempore. Dictum est autem supra quod consignificare tempus est significare aliquid in tempore mensuratum. Unde aliud est significare tempus principaliter, ut rem quamdam, quod potest nomini convenire, aliud autem est significare cum tempore, quod non convenit nomini, sed verbo. First, he shows by an example that the verb signifies with time. “Maturity,” for example, because it signifies action, not in the mode of action but. in the mode of a thing existing per se, does not signify with time, for it is a name. But “matures,” since it is a verb signifying action, signifies with time, because to be measured by time is proper to motion; moreover, actions are known by us in time. We have already mentioned that to signify with time is to signify something measured in time. Hence it is one thing to signify time principally, as a thing, which is appropriate to the name; however, it is another thing to signify with time, which is not proper to the name but to the verb.
Deinde cum dicit: et est semper etc., exponit aliam particulam. Ubi notandum est quod quia subiectum enunciationis significatur ut cui inhaeret aliquid, cum verbum significet actionem per modum actionis, de cuius ratione est ut inhaereat, semper ponitur ex parte praedicati, nunquam autem ex parte subiecti, nisi sumatur in vi nominis, ut dictum est. Dicitur ergo verbum semper esse nota eorum quae dicuntur de altero: tum quia verbum semper significat id, quod praedicatur; tum quia in omni praedicatione oportet esse verbum, eo quod verbum importat compositionem, qua praedicatum componitur subiecto. 8. Then he says, Moreover, a verb is always a sign of something that belongs to something, i.e., of something present in a subject. Here he explains the last part of the definition of the verb. It should be noted first that the subject of an enunciation signifies as that in which something inheres. Hence, when the verb signifies action through the mode of action (the nature of which is to inhere) it is always posited on the part of the predicate and never on the part of the subject—unless it is taken with the force of a name, as was said. The verb, therefore, is always said to be a sign of something said of another, and this not only because the verb always signifies that which is predicated but also because there must be a verb in every predication, for the verb introduces the composition by which the predicate is united with the subject.
Sed dubium videtur quod subditur: ut eorum quae de subiecto vel in subiecto sunt. Videtur enim aliquid dici ut de subiecto, quod essentialiter praedicatur; ut, homo est animal; in subiecto autem, sicut accidens de subiecto praedicatur; ut, homo est albus. Si ergo verba significant actionem vel passionem, quae sunt accidentia, consequens est ut semper significent ea, quae dicuntur ut in subiecto. Frustra igitur dicitur in subiecto vel de subiecto. 9. The last phrase of this portion of the text presents a difficulty, namely, “of something belonging to [i.e., of] a subject or in a subject.” For it seems that something is said of a subject when it is predicated essentially, as in “Man is an animal”; but in a subject, when it is an accident that is predicated of a subject, as in “Man is white.” But if verbs signify action or passion (which are accidents), it follows that they always signify what is in a subject. It is useless, therefore, to say “belonging to [i.e., of] a subject or in a subject.”
Et ad hoc dicit Boethius quod utrumque ad idem pertinet. Accidens enim et de subiecto praedicatur, et in subiecto est. In answer to this Boethius says that both pertain to the same thing, for an accident is predicated of a subject and is also in a subject.
Sed quia Aristoteles disiunctione utitur, videtur aliud per utrumque significare. Et ideo potest dici quod cum Aristoteles dicit quod, verbum semper est nota eorum, quae de altero praedicantur, non est sic intelligendum, quasi significata verborum sint quae praedicantur, quia cum praedicatio videatur magis proprie ad compositionem pertinere, ipsa verba sunt quae praedicantur, magis quam significent praedicata. Est ergo intelligendum quod verbum semper est signum quod aliqua praedicentur, quia omnis praedicatio fit per verbum ratione compositionis importatae, sive praedicetur aliquid essentialiter sive accidentaliter. Aristotle, however, uses a disjunction, which seems to indicate that he means something different by each. Therefore it could be said in reply to this that when Aristotle says the verb is always a sign of those things that are predicated of another” it is not to be understood as though the things signified by verbs are predicated. For predication seems to pertain more properly to composition; therefore, the verbs themselves are what are predicated, rather than signify predicates.” The verb, then, is always a sign that something is being predicated because all predication is made through the verb by reason of the composition introduced, whether what is being predicated is predicated essentially or accidentally.
Deinde cum dicit: non currit vero et non laborat etc., excludit quaedam a ratione verbi. Et primo, verbum infinitum; secundo, verba praeteriti temporis vel futuri; ibi: similiter autem curret vel currebat. Dicit ergo primo quod non currit, et non laborat, non proprie dicitur verbum. Est enim proprium verbi significare aliquid per modum actionis vel passionis; quod praedictae dictiones non faciunt: removent enim actionem vel passionem, potius quam aliquam determinatam actionem vel passionem significent. Sed quamvis non proprie possint dici verbum, tamen conveniunt sibi ea quae supra posita sunt in definitione verbi. Quorum primum est quod significat tempus, quia significat agere et pati, quae sicut sunt in tempore, ita privatio eorum; unde et quies tempore mensuratur, ut habetur in VI physicorum. Secundum est quod semper ponitur ex parte praedicati, sicut et verbum: et hoc ideo, quia negatio reducitur ad genus affirmationis. Unde sicut verbum quod significat actionem vel passionem, significat aliquid ut in altero existens, ita praedictae dictiones significant remotionem actionis vel passionis. 10. When he says, “Non-matures” and “non-declines” I do not call verbs, etc., he excludes certain forms of verbs from the definition of the verb. And first he excludes the infinite verb, then the verbs of past and future time. “Non-matures” and “non-declines” cannot strictly speaking be called verbs for it is proper to the verb to signify something in the mode of action or passion. But these words remove action or passion rather than signify a determinate action or passion. Now while they cannot properly be called verbs, all the parts of the definition of the verb apply to them. First of all the verb signifies time, because it signifies to act or to be acted upon; and since these are in time so are their privations; whence rest, too, is measured by time, as is said in VI Physicorum [3:234a 24–234b 9; & 8: 238a 23–239b 41]. Again, the infinite verb is always posited on the part of the predicate just as the verb is; the reason is that negation is reduced to the genus of affirmation. Hence, just as the verb, which signifies action or passion, signifies something as existing in another, so the foresaid words signify the remotion of action or passion.
Si quis autem obiiciat: si praedictis dictionibus convenit definitio verbi; ergo sunt verba; dicendum est quod definitio verbi supra posita datur de verbo communiter sumpto. Huiusmodi autem dictiones negantur esse verba, quia deficiunt a perfecta ratione verbi. Nec ante Aristotelem erat nomen positum huic generi dictionum a verbis differentium; sed quia huiusmodi dictiones in aliquo cum verbis conveniunt, deficiunt tamen a determinata ratione verbi, ideo vocat ea verba infinita. Et rationem nominis assignat, quia unumquodque eorum indifferenter potest dici de eo quod est, vel de eo quod non est. Sumitur enim negatio apposita non in vi privationis, sed in vi simplicis negationis. Privatio enim supponit determinatum subiectum. Differunt tamen huiusmodi verba a verbis negativis, quia verba infinita sumuntur in vi unius dictionis, verba vero negativa in vi duarum dictionum. 11. Now someone might object that if the definition of the verb applies to the above words, then they are verbs. In answer to this it should be pointed out that the definition which has been given of the verb is the definition of it taken commonly. Insofar as these words fall short of the perfect notion of the verb, they are not called verbs. Before Aristotle’s time a name bad not been imposed for a word that differs from verbs as these do. He calls them infinite verbs because such words agree in some things with verbs and yet fall short of the determinate notion of the verb. The reason for the name, he says, is that an infinite verb can be said indifferently of what is or what is not; for the adjoined negation is taken, not with the force of privation, but with the force of simple negation since privation supposes a determinate subject. Infinite verbs do differ from negative verbs, however, for infinite verbs are taken with the force of one word, negative verbs with the force of two.
Deinde cum dicit: similiter autem curret etc., excludit a verbo verba praeteriti et futuri temporis; et dicit quod sicut verba infinita non sunt simpliciter verba, ita etiam curret, quod est futuri temporis, vel currebat, quod est praeteriti temporis, non sunt verba, sed sunt casus verbi. Et differunt in hoc a verbo, quia verbum consignificat praesens tempus, illa vero significant tempus hinc et inde circumstans. Dicit autem signanter praesens tempus, et non simpliciter praesens, ne intelligatur praesens indivisibile, quod est instans: quia in instanti non est motus, nec actio aut passio; sed oportet accipere praesens tempus quod mensurat actionem, quae incepit, et nondum est determinata per actum. Recte autem ea quae consignificant tempus praeteritum vel futurum, non sunt verba proprie dicta: cum enim verbum proprie sit quod significat agere vel pati, hoc est proprie verbum quod significat agere vel pati in actu, quod est agere vel pati simpliciter: sed agere vel pati in praeterito vel futuro est secundum quid. 12. When he says, Likewise, “has matured” and “will mature” are not verbs, but modes of verbs, etc., he excludes verbs of past and future time from the definition. For just as infinite verbs are not verbs absolutely, so “will mature,” which is of future time, and “has matured,” of past time, are not verbs. They are cases of the verb and differ from the verb—which signifies with present time—by signifying time before and after the present. Aristotle expressly says “present time” and not just “present” because he does not mean here the indivisible present which is the instant; for in the instant there is neither movement, nor action, nor passion. Present time is to be taken as the time that measures action which has begun and has not yet been terminated in act. Accordingly, verbs that signify with past or future time are not verbs in the proper sense of the term, for the verb is that which signifies to act or to be acted upon and therefore strictly speaking signifies to act or to be acted upon in act, which is to act or to be acted upon simply, whereas to act or to be acted upon in past or future time is relative.
Dicuntur etiam verba praeteriti vel futuri temporis rationabiliter casus verbi, quod consignificat praesens tempus; quia praeteritum vel futurum dicitur per respectum ad praesens. Est enim praeteritum quod fuit praesens, futurum autem quod erit praesens. 13. It is with reason that verbs of past or future time are called cases of the verb signifying with present time, for past or future are said with respect to the present, the past being that which was present, the future, that which will be present.
Cum autem declinatio verbi varietur per modos, tempora, numeros et personas, variatio quae fit per numerum et personam non constituit casus verbi: quia talis variatio non est ex parte actionis, sed ex parte subiecti; sed variatio quae est per modos et tempora respicit ipsam actionem, et ideo utraque constituit casus verbi. Nam verba imperativi vel optativi modi casus dicuntur, sicut et verba praeteriti vel futuri temporis. Sed verba indicativi modi praesentis temporis non dicuntur casus, cuiuscumque sint personae vel numeri. 14. Although the inflection of the verb is varied by mode, time, number, and person, the variations that are made in number and person do not constitute cases of the verb, the reason being that such variation is on the part of the subject, not on the part of the action. But variation in mode and time refers to the action itself and hence both of these constitute cases of the verb. For verbs of the imperative or optative modes are called cases as well as verbs of past or future time. Verbs of the indicative mode in present time, however, are not called cases, whatever their person and number.
Deinde cum dicit: ipsa itaque etc., ostendit convenientiam verborum ad nomina. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, proponit quod intendit; secundo, manifestat propositum; ibi: et significant aliquid et cetera. 15. He points out the conformity between verbs and names where he says, Verbs in themselves, said alone, are names. He proposes this first and then manifests it.
Dicit ergo primo, quod ipsa verba secundum se dicta sunt nomina: quod a quibusdam exponitur de verbis quae sumuntur in vi nominis, ut dictum est, sive sint infinitivi modi; ut cum dico, currere est moveri, sive sint alterius modi; ut cum dico, curro est verbum. He says then, first, that verbs said by themselves are names. Some have taken this to mean the verbs that are taken with the force of names, either verbs of the infinitive mode, as in “To run is to be moving,” or verbs of another mode, as in “‘Matures’ is a verb.”
Sed haec non videtur esse intentio Aristotelis, quia ad hanc intentionem non respondent sequentia. Et ideo aliter dicendum est quod nomen hic sumitur, prout communiter significat quamlibet dictionem impositam ad significandum aliquam rem. Et quia etiam ipsum agere vel pati est quaedam res, inde est quod et ipsa verba in quantum nominant, idest significant agere vel pati, sub nominibus comprehenduntur communiter acceptis. Nomen autem, prout a verbo distinguitur, significat rem sub determinato modo, prout scilicet potest intelligi ut per se existens. Unde nomina possunt subiici et praedicari. But this does not seem to be what Aristotle means, for it does not correspond to what he says next. Therefore “name” must be taken in another way here, i.e., as it commonly signifies any word whatever that is imposed to signify a thing. Now, since to act or to be acted upon is also a certain thing, verbs themselves as they name, i.e., as they signify to act or to be acted upon, are comprehended under names taken commonly. The name as distinguished from the verb signifies the thing under a determinate mode, i.e., according as the thing can be understood as existing per se. This is the reason names can be subjected and predicated.
Deinde cum dicit: et significant aliquid etc., probat propositum. Et primo, per hoc quod verba significant aliquid, sicut et nomina; secundo, per hoc quod non significant verum vel falsum, sicut nec nomina; ibi: sed si est, aut non est et cetera. 16. He proves the point he has just made when he says, and signify something, etc., first by showing that verbs, like names, signify something; then by showing that, like names, they do not signify truth or falsity when he says, for the verb is not a sign of the being or nonbeing of a thing.
Dicit ergo primo quod in tantum dictum est quod verba sunt nomina, in quantum significant aliquid. Et hoc probat, quia supra dictum est quod voces significativae significant intellectus. Unde proprium vocis significativae est quod generet aliquem intellectum in animo audientis. Et ideo ad ostendendum quod verbum sit vox significativa, assumit quod ille, qui dicit verbum, constituit intellectum in animo audientis. Et ad hoc manifestandum inducit quod ille, qui audit, quiescit. He says first that verbs have been said to be names only insofar as they signify a thing. Then he proves this: it has already been said that significant vocal sound signifies thought; hence it is proper to significant vocal sound to produce something understood in the mind of the one who hears it. To show, then, that a verb is significant vocal sound he assumes that the one who utters a verb brings about understanding in the mind of the one who bears it. The evidence he introduces for this is that the mind of the one who bears it is set at rest.
Sed hoc videtur esse falsum: quia sola oratio perfecta facit quiescere intellectum, non autem nomen, neque verbum si per se dicatur. Si enim dicam, homo, suspensus est animus audientis, quid de eo dicere velim; si autem dico, currit, suspensus est eius animus de quo dicam. 17. But what Aristotle says here seems to be false, for it is only perfect speech that makes the intellect rest. The name or the verb, if said by themselves, do not do this. For example, if I say “man,” the mind of the hearer is left in suspense as to what I wish to say about mail; and if I say “runs,” the bearer’s mind is left in suspense as to whom I am speaking of.
Sed dicendum est quod cum duplex sit intellectus operatio, ut supra habitum est, ille qui dicit nomen vel verbum secundum se, constituit intellectum quantum ad primam operationem, quae est simplex conceptio alicuius, et secundum hoc, quiescit audiens, qui in suspenso erat antequam nomen vel verbum proferretur et eius prolatio terminaretur; non autem constituit intellectum quantum ad secundam operationem, quae est intellectus componentis et dividentis, ipsum verbum vel nomen per se dictum: nec quantum ad hoc facit quiescere audientem. It should be said in answer to this objection that the operation of the intellect is twofold, as was said above, and therefore the one who utters a name or a verb by itself, determines the intellect with respect to the first operation, which is the simple conception of something. It is in relation to this that the one hearing, whose mind was undetermined before the name or the verb was being uttered and its utterance terminated, is set at rest. Neither the name nor the verb said by itself, however, determines the intellect in respect to the second operation, which is the operation of the intellect composing and dividing; nor do the verb or the name said alone set the hearer’s mind at rest in respect to this operation.
Et ideo statim subdit: sed si est, aut non est, nondum significat, idest nondum significat aliquid per modum compositionis et divisionis, aut veri vel falsi. Et hoc est secundum, quod probare intendit. Probat autem consequenter per illa verba, quae maxime videntur significare veritatem vel falsitatem, scilicet ipsum verbum quod est esse, et verbum infinitum quod est non esse; quorum neutrum per se dictum est significativum veritatis vel falsitatis in re; unde multo minus alia. 18. Aristotle therefore immediately adds, but they do not yet signify whether a thing is or is not, i.e., they do not yet signify something by way of composition and division, or by way of truth or falsity. This is the second thing he intends to prove, and he proves it by the verbs that especially seem to signify truth or falsity, namely the verb to be and the infinite verb to non-be, neither of which, said by itself, signifies real truth or falsity; much less so any other verbs.
Vel potest intelligi hoc generaliter dici de omnibus verbis. Quia enim dixerat quod verbum non significat si est res vel non est, hoc consequenter manifestat, quia nullum verbum est significativum esse rei vel non esse, idest quod res sit vel non sit. Quamvis enim omne verbum finitum implicet esse, quia currere est currentem esse, et omne verbum infinitum implicet non esse, quia non currere est non currentem esse; tamen nullum verbum significat hoc totum, scilicet rem esse vel non esse. This could also be understood in a more general way, i.e., that here he is speaking of all verbs; for he says that the verb does not signify whether a thing is or is not; he manifests this further, therefore, by saying that no verb is significative of a thing’s being or non-being, i.e., that a thing is or is not. For although every finite verb implies being, for “to run” is “to be running,” and every infinite verb implies nonbeing, for “to non-run” is “to be non-running,” nevertheless no verb signifies the whole, i.e., a thing is or a thing is not.
Et hoc consequenter probat per id, de quo magis videtur cum subdit: nec si hoc ipsum est purum dixeris, ipsum quidem nihil est. Ubi notandum est quod in Graeco habetur: neque si ens ipsum nudum dixeris, ipsum quidem nihil est. 19. He proves this point from something in which it will be clearer when he adds, Nor would it be a sign of the being or nonbeing of a thing if you were to say “is” alone, for it is nothing. It should be noted that the Greek text has the word “being” in place of “is” here.
Ad probandum enim quod verba non significant rem esse vel non esse, assumpsit id quod est fons et origo ipsius esse, scilicet ipsum ens, de quo dicit quod nihil est (ut Alexander exponit), quia ens aequivoce dicitur de decem praedicamentis; omne autem aequivocum per se positum nihil significat, nisi aliquid addatur quod determinet eius significationem; unde nec ipsum est per se dictum significat quod est vel non est. In order to prove that verbs do not signify that a thing is or is not, he takes the source and origin of to be [esse], i.e., being [ens] itself, of which he says, it is nothing. Alexander explains this passage in the following way: Aristotle says being itself is nothing because “being” [ens] is said equivocally of the ten predicaments; now an equivocal name used by itself signifies nothing unless something is added to determine its signification; hence, “is” [est] said by itself does not signify what is or is not.
Sed haec expositio non videtur conveniens, tum quia ens non dicitur proprie aequivoce, sed secundum prius et posterius; unde simpliciter dictum intelligitur de eo, quod per prius dicitur: tum etiam, quia dictio aequivoca non nihil significat, sed multa significat; et quandoque hoc, quandoque illud per ipsam accipitur: tum etiam, quia talis expositio non multum facit ad intentionem praesentem. But this explanation is not appropriate for this text. In the first place “being” is not, strictly speaking, said equivocally but according to the prior and posterior. Consequently, said absolutely, it is understood of that of which it is said primarily. Secondly, an equivocal word does not signify nothing, but many things, sometimes being taken for one, sometimes for another. Thirdly, such an explanation does not have much application here.
Unde Porphyrius aliter exposuit quod hoc ipsum ens non significat naturam alicuius rei, sicut hoc nomen homo vel sapiens, sed solum designat quamdam coniunctionem; unde subdit quod consignificat quamdam compositionem, quam sine compositis non est intelligere. Porphyry explains this passage in another way. He says that “being” [ens] itself does not signify the nature of a thing as the name “man” or “wise” do, but only designates a certain conjunction and this is why Aristotle adds, it signifies with a composition, which cannot be conceived apart from the things composing it.
Sed neque hoc convenienter videtur dici: quia si non significaret aliquam rem, sed solum coniunctionem, non esset neque nomen, neque verbum, sicut nec praepositiones aut coniunctiones. This explanation does not seem to be consistent with the text either, for if “being” itself does not signify a thing, but only a conjunction, it, like prepositions and conjunctions, is neither a name nor a verb.
Et ideo aliter exponendum est, sicut Ammonius exponit, quod ipsum ens nihil est, idest non significat verum vel falsum. Et rationem huius assignat, cum subdit: consignificat autem quamdam compositionem. Nec accipitur hic, ut ipse dicit, consignificat, sicut cum dicebatur quod verbum consignificat tempus, sed consignificat, idest cum alio significat, scilicet alii adiunctum compositionem significat, quae non potest intelligi sine extremis compositionis. Sed quia hoc commune est omnibus nominibus et verbis, non videtur haec expositio esse secundum intentionem Aristotelis, qui assumpsit ipsum ens quasi quoddam speciale. Therefore Ammonius thought this should be explained in another way. He says “being itself is nothing” means that it does not signify truth or falsity. And the reason for this is given when Aristotle says, it signifies with a composition. The “signifies with,” according to Ammonius, does not mean what it does when it is said that the verb signifies with time; “signifies with,” means here signifies with something, i.e., joined to another it signifies composition, which cannot be understood without the extremes of the composition. But this explanation does not seem to be in accordance with the intention of Aristotle, for it is common to all names and verbs not to signify truth or falsity, whereas Aristotle takes “being” here as though it were something special.
Et ideo ut magis sequamur verba Aristotelis considerandum est quod ipse dixerat quod verbum non significat rem esse vel non esse, sed nec ipsum ens significat rem esse vel non esse. Et hoc est quod dicit, nihil est, idest non significat aliquid esse. Etenim hoc maxime videbatur de hoc quod dico ens: quia ens nihil est aliud quam quod est. Et sic videtur et rem significare, per hoc quod dico quod et esse, per hoc quod dico est. Et si quidem haec dictio ens significaret esse principaliter, sicut significat rem quae habet esse, procul dubio significaret aliquid esse. Sed ipsam compositionem, quae importatur in hoc quod dico est, non principaliter significat, sed consignificat eam in quantum significat rem habentem esse. Unde talis consignificatio compositionis non sufficit ad veritatem vel falsitatem: quia compositio, in qua consistit veritas et falsitas, non potest intelligi, nisi secundum quod innectit extrema compositionis. 20. Therefore in order to understand what Aristotle is saying we should note that he has just said that the verb does not signify that a thing exists or does not exist [rem esse vel non esse]; nor does “being” [ens] signify that a thing exists or does not exist. This is what he means when he says, it is nothing, i.e., it does not signify that a thing exists. This is indeed most clearly seen in saying “being” [ens], because being is nothing other than that which is. And thus we see that it signifies both a thing, when I say “that which,” and existence [esse] when I say “is” [est]. If the word “being” [ens] as signifying a thing having existence were to signify existence [esse] principally, without a doubt it would signify that a thing exists. But the word “being” [ens] does not principally signify the composition that is implied in saying “is” [est]; rather, it signifies with composition inasmuch as it signifies the thing having existence. Such signifying with composition is not sufficient for truth or falsity; for the composition in which truth and falsity consists cannot be understood unless it connects the extremes of a composition.
Si vero dicatur, nec ipsum esse, ut libri nostri habent, planior est sensus. Quod enim nullum verbum significat rem esse vel non esse, probat per hoc verbum est, quod secundum se dictum, non significat aliquid esse, licet significet esse. Et quia hoc ipsum esse videtur compositio quaedam, et ita hoc verbum est, quod significat esse, potest videri significare compositionem, in qua sit verum vel falsum; ad hoc excludendum subdit quod illa compositio, quam significat hoc verbum est, non potest intelligi sine componentibus: quia dependet eius intellectus ab extremis, quae si non apponantur, non est perfectus intellectus compositionis, ut possit in ea esse verum, vel falsum. 21. If in place of what Aristotle says we say nor would “to be” itself [nec ipsum esse], as it is in our texts, the meaning is clearer. For Aristotle proves through the verb “is” [est] that no verb signifies that a thing exists or does not exist, since “is” said by itself does not signify that a thing exists, although it signifies existence. And because to be itself seems to be a kind of composition, so also the verb “is” [est], which signifies to be, can seem to signify the composition in which there is truth or falsity. To exclude this Aristotle adds that the composition which the verb “is” signifies cannot be understood without the composing things. The reason for this is that an understanding of the composition which “is” signifies depends on the extremes, and unless they are added, understanding of the composition is not complete and hence cannot be true or false.
Ideo autem dicit quod hoc verbum est consignificat compositionem, quia non eam principaliter significat, sed ex consequenti; significat enim primo illud quod cadit in intellectu per modum actualitatis absolute: nam est, simpliciter dictum, significat in actu esse; et ideo significat per modum verbi. Quia vero actualitas, quam principaliter significat hoc verbum est, est communiter actualitas omnis formae, vel actus substantialis vel accidentalis, inde est quod cum volumus significare quamcumque formam vel actum actualiter inesse alicui subiecto, significamus illud per hoc verbum est, vel simpliciter vel secundum quid: simpliciter quidem secundum praesens tempus; secundum quid autem secundum alia tempora. Et ideo ex consequenti hoc verbum est significat compositionem. 22. Therefore he says that the verb “is” signifies with composition; for it does not signify composition principally but consequently. it primarily signifies that which is perceived in the mode of actuality absolutely; for “is” said simply, signifies to be in act, and therefore signifies in the mode of a verb. However, the actuality which the verb “is” principally signifies is the actuality of every form commonly, whether substantial or accidental. Hence, when we wish to signify that any form or act is actually in some subject we signify it through the verb “is,” either absolutely or relatively; absolutely, according to present time, relatively, according to other times; and for this reason the verb “is” signifies composition, not principally, but consequently.

LESSON 6
On Speech, the Formal Principle of the Enunciation

Λόγος δέ ἐστι φωνὴ σημαντική, ἧς τῶν μερῶν τι σημαντικόν ἐστι κεχωρισμένον, ὡς φάσις ἀλλ' οὐχ ὡς κατάφασις. 16b 26 Speech” is significant vocal sound, some parts of which are significant separately, i.e., as words but not as an affirmation.
λέγω δέ, οἷον ἄνθρωπος σημαίνει τι, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὅτι ἔστιν ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν (ἀλλ' ἔσται κατάφασις ἢ ἀπόφασις ἐάν τι προστεθῇ) 16b 28 Let me explain. The word “animal” signifies something, but it does not signify that it is or that it is not; it will be an affirmation or negation, however, if something is added.
ἀλλ' οὐχ ἡ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου συλλαβὴ μία οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν τῷ μῦς τὸ υς σημαντικόν, ἀλλὰ φωνή ἐστι νῦν μόνον. ἐν δὲ τοῖς διπλοῖς σημαίνει μέν, ἀλλ' οὐ καθ' αὑτό, ὥσπερ εἴρηται. 16b 30 But one syllable of “animal” does not signify anything; similarly, in the word “fowl,” “owl” does not signify anything in itself, but is only a vocal sound. In composite names, however, the part does signify something, but not in itself, as has been said.
ἔστι δὲ λόγος ἅπας μὲν (17a.) σημαντικός, οὐχ ὡς ὄργανον δέ, ἀλλ' ὥσπερ εἴρηται κατὰ συνθήκην 16b 34 But all speech [i.e., words put together to express thought] is significant—not just as an instrument, however, but by convention, as has been said.
Postquam philosophus determinavit de nomine et de verbo, quae sunt principia materialia enunciationis, utpote partes eius existentes; nunc determinat de oratione, quae est principium formale enunciationis, utpote genus eius existens. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo enim, proponit definitionem orationis; secundo, exponit eam; ibi: dico autem ut homo etc.; tertio, excludit errorem; ibi: est autem oratio omnis et cetera. 1. Having established and explained the definition of the name and the verb, which are the material principles of the enunciation inasmuch as they are its parts, the Philosopher now determines and explains what speech is, which is the formal principle of the enunciation inasmuch as it is its genus. First he proposes the definition of speech; then he explains it where he says, Let me explain. The word “animal” signifies something, etc.; finally, he excludes an error where he says, But all speech is significant—not just as an instrument, however, etc.
Circa primum considerandum est quod philosophus in definitione orationis primo ponit illud in quo oratio convenit cum nomine et verbo, cum dicit: oratio est vox significativa, quod etiam posuit in definitione nominis, et probavit de verbo quod aliquid significet. Non autem posuit in eius definitione, quia supponebat ex eo quod positum erat in definitione nominis, studens brevitati, ne idem frequenter iteraret. Iterat tamen hoc in definitione orationis, quia significatio orationis differt a significatione nominis et verbi, quia nomen vel verbum significat simplicem intellectum, oratio vero significat intellectum compositum. 2. In defining speech the Philosopher first states what it has in common with the name and verb where he says, Speech is significant vocal sound. This was posited in the definition of the name but not repeated in the case of the verb, because it was supposed from the definition of the name. This was done for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition; but subsequently he did prove that the verb signifies something. He repeats this, however, in the definition of speech because the signification of speech differs from that of the name and the verb; for the name and the verb signify simple thought, whereas speech signifies composite thought.
Secundo autem ponit id, in quo oratio differt a nomine et verbo, cum dicit: cuius partium aliquid significativum est separatim. Supra enim dictum est quod pars nominis non significat aliquid per se separatum, sed solum quod est coniunctum ex duabus partibus. Signanter autem non dicit: cuius pars est significativa aliquid separata, sed cuius aliquid partium est significativum, propter negationes et alia syncategoremata, quae secundum se non significant aliquid absolutum, sed solum habitudinem unius ad alterum. Sed quia duplex est significatio vocis, una quae refertur ad intellectum compositum, alia quae refertur ad intellectum simplicem; prima significatio competit orationi, secunda non competit orationi, sed parti orationis. Unde subdit: ut dictio, non ut affirmatio. Quasi dicat: pars orationis est significativa, sicut dictio significat, puta ut nomen et verbum, non sicut affirmatio, quae componitur ex nomine et verbo. Facit autem mentionem solum de affirmatione et non de negatione, quia negatio secundum vocem superaddit affirmationi; unde si pars orationis propter sui simplicitatem non significat aliquid, ut affirmatio, multo minus ut negatio. 3. Secondly, he posits what differentiates speech from the name and verb when he says, of which some of the parts are significant separately; for a part of a name taken separately does not signify anything per se, except in the case of a name composed of two parts, as he said above. Note that he says, of which some of the parts are significant, and not, a part of which is significant separately; this is to exclude negations and the other words used to unite categorical words, which do not in themselves signify something absolutely, but only the relationship of one thing to another. Then because the signification of vocal sound is twofold, one being referred to composite thought, the other to simple thought (the first belonging to speech, the second, not to speech but to a part of speech), he adds, as words but not as an affirmation. What he means is that a part of speech signifies in the way a word signifies, a name or a verb, for instance; it does not signify in the way an affirmation signifies, which is composed of a name and a verb. He only mentions affirmation because negation adds something to affirmation as far as vocal sound is concerned for if a part of speech, since it is simple, does not signify as an affirmation, it will not signify as a negation.
Sed contra hanc definitionem Aspasius obiicit quod videtur non omnibus partibus orationis convenire. Sunt enim quaedam orationes, quarum partes significant aliquid ut affirmatio; ut puta, si sol lucet super terram, dies est; et sic de multis. 4. Aspasius objects to this definition because it does not seem to belong to all parts of speech. There is a kind of speech he says, in which some of the parts signify as an affirmation; for instance, “If the sun shines over the earth, it is day,” and so in many other examples.
Et ad hoc respondet Porphyrius quod in quocumque genere invenitur prius et posterius, debet definiri id quod prius est. Sicut cum datur definitio alicuius speciei, puta hominis, intelligitur definitio de eo quod est in actu, non de eo quod est in potentia; et ideo quia in genere orationis prius est oratio simplex, inde est quod Aristoteles prius definivit orationem simplicem. Porphyry says in reply to this objection that in whatever genus there is something prior and posterior, it is the prior thing that has to be defined. For example, when we give the definition of a species—say, of man—the definition is understood of that which is in act, not of that which is in potency. Since, then, in the genus of speech, simple speech is prior, Aristotle defines it first.
Vel potest dici, secundum Alexandrum et Ammonium, quod hic definitur oratio in communi. Unde debet poni in hac definitione id quod est commune orationi simplici et compositae. Habere autem partes significantes aliquid ut affirmatio, competit soli orationi, compositae; sed habere partes significantes aliquid per modum dictionis, et non per modum affirmationis, est commune orationi simplici et compositae. Et ideo hoc debuit poni in definitione orationis. Et secundum hoc non debet intelligi esse de ratione orationis quod pars eius non sit affirmatio: sed quia de ratione orationis est quod pars eius sit aliquid quod significat per modum dictionis, et non per modum affirmationis. Or, we can answer the objection in the way Alexander and Ammonius do. They say that speech is defined here commonly. Hence what is common to simple and composite speech ought to be stated in the definition. Now to have parts signifying something as an affirmation belongs only to composite speech, but to have parts signifying something in the mode of a word and not in the mode of an affirmation is common to simple and composite speech. Therefore this had to be posited in the definition of speech. We should not conclude, however, that it is of the nature of speech that its part not be an affirmation, but rather that it is of the nature of speech that its parts be something that signify in the manner of words and not in the manner of an affirmation.
Et in idem redit solutio Porphyrii quantum ad sensum, licet quantum ad verba parumper differat. Quia enim Aristoteles frequenter ponit dicere pro affirmare, ne dictio pro affirmatione sumatur, subdit quod pars orationis significat ut dictio, et addit non ut affirmatio: quasi diceret, secundum sensum Porphyrii, non accipiatur nunc dictio secundum quod idem est quod affirmatio. Porphyry’s solution reduces to the same thing as far as meaning is concerned, although it is a little different verbally. Aristotle frequently uses “to say” for “to affirm,” and hence to prevent “word” from being taken as “affirmation” when he says that a part of speech signifies as a word, he immediately adds, not as an affirmation, meaning—according to Porphyry’s view—“word” is not taken here in the sense in which it is the same as “affirmation.”
Philosophus autem, qui dicitur Ioannes grammaticus, voluit quod haec definitio orationis daretur solum de oratione perfecta, eo quod partes non videntur esse nisi alicuius perfecti, sicut omnes partes domus referuntur ad domum: et ideo secundum ipsum sola oratio perfecta habet partes significativas. A philosopher called John the Grammarian thought that this definition could only apply to perfect speech because there only seem to be parts in the case of something perfect, or complete; for example, a house to which all of the parts are referred. Therefore only perfect speech has significant parts.
Sed tamen hic decipiebatur, quia quamvis omnes partes referantur principaliter ad totum perfectum, quaedam tamen partes referuntur ad ipsum immediate, sicut paries et tectum ad domum, et membra organica ad animal: quaedam vero mediantibus partibus principalibus quarum sunt partes; sicut lapides referuntur ad domum mediante pariete; nervi autem et ossa ad animal mediantibus membris organicis, scilicet manu et pede et huiusmodi. Sic ergo omnes partes orationis principaliter referuntur ad orationem perfectam, cuius pars est oratio imperfecta, quae etiam ipsa habet partes significantes. Unde ista definitio convenit tam orationi perfectae, quam imperfectae. He was in error on this point, however, for while it is true that all the parts are referred principally to the perfect, or complete whole, some parts are referred to it immediately, for example, the walls and roof to a house and organic members to an animal; others, however, are referred to it through the principal parts of which they are parts; stones, for example, to the house by the mediate wall, and nerves and bones to the animal by the mediate organic members like the hand and the foot, etc. In the case of speech, therefore, all of the parts are principally referred to perfect speech, a part of which is imperfect speech, which also has significant parts. Hence this definition belongs both to perfect and to imperfect speech.
Deinde cum dicit: dico autem ut homo etc., exponit propositam definitionem. Et primo, manifestat verum esse quod dicitur; secundo, excludit falsum intellectum; ibi: sed non una hominis syllaba et cetera. 5. When he says, Let me explain. The word “animal” signifies something, etc., he elucidates the definition. First he shows that what he says is true; secondly, he excludes a false understanding of it where he says, But one syllable of “animal” does not signify anything, etc.
Exponit ergo quod dixerat aliquid partium orationis esse significativum, sicut hoc nomen homo, quod est pars orationis, significat aliquid, sed non significat ut affirmatio aut negatio, quia non significat esse vel non esse. Et hoc dico non in actu, sed solum in potentia. Potest enim aliquid addi, per cuius additionem fit affirmatio vel negatio, scilicet si addatur ei verbum. He explains that when he says some parts of speech are significant, he means that some of the parts signify something in the way the name “animal,” which is a part of speech, signifies something and yet does not signify as an affirmation or negation, because it does not signify to be or not to be. By this I mean it does not signify affirmation or negation in act, but only in potency; for it is possible to add something that will make it an affirmation or negation, i.e., a verb.
Deinde cum dicit: sed non una hominis etc., excludit falsum intellectum. Et posset hoc referri ad immediate dictum, ut sit sensus quod nomen erit affirmatio vel negatio, si quid ei addatur, sed non si addatur ei una nominis syllaba. Sed quia huic sensui non conveniunt verba sequentia, oportet quod referatur ad id, quod supra dictum est in definitione orationis, scilicet quod aliquid partium eius sit significativum separatim. Sed quia pars alicuius totius dicitur proprie illud, quod immediate venit ad constitutionem totius, non autem pars partis; ideo hoc intelligendum est de partibus ex quibus immediate constituitur oratio, scilicet de nomine et verbo, non autem de partibus nominis vel verbi, quae sunt syllabae vel litterae. Et ideo dicitur quod pars orationis est significativa separata, non tamen talis pars, quae est una nominis syllaba. 6. He excludes a false understanding of what has been said by his next statement. But one syllable of “animal” does not signify anything. This could be referred to what has just been said and the meaning would be that the name will be an affirmation or negation if something is added to it, but not if what is added is one syllable of a name. However, what he says next is not compatible with this meaning and therefore these words should be referred to what was stated earlier in defining speech, namely, to some parts of which are significant separately. Now, since what is properly called a part of a whole is that which contributes immediately to the formation of the whole, and not that which is a part of a part, “some parts” should be understood as the parts from which speech is immediately formed, i.e., the name and verb, and not as parts of the name or verb, which are syllables or letters. Hence, what is being said here is that a part of speech is significant separately but not such a part as the syllable of a name.
Et hoc manifestat in syllabis, quae quandoque possunt esse dictiones per se significantes: sicut hoc quod dico rex, quandoque est una dictio per se significans; in quantum vero accipitur ut una quaedam syllaba huius nominis sorex, soricis, non significat aliquid per se, sed est vox sola. Dictio enim quaedam est composita ex pluribus vocibus, tamen in significando habet simplicitatem, in quantum scilicet significat simplicem intellectum. Et ideo in quantum est vox composita, potest habere partem quae sit vox, inquantum autem est simplex in significando, non potest habere partem significantem. Unde syllabae quidem sunt voces, sed non sunt voces per se significantes. He manifests this by means of syllables that sometimes can be words signifying per se. “Owl,” for example, is sometimes one word signifying per se. When taken as a syllable of the name “fowl,” however, it does not signify something per se but is only a vocal sound. For a word is composed of many vocal sounds, but it has simplicity in signifying insofar as it signifies simple thought. Hence, a word inasmuch as it is a composite vocal sound can have a part which is a vocal sound, but inasmuch as it is simple in signifying it cannot have a signifying part. Whence syllables are indeed vocal sounds, but they are not vocal sounds signifying per se.
Sciendum tamen quod in nominibus compositis, quae imponuntur ad significandum rem simplicem ex aliquo intellectu composito, partes secundum apparentiam aliquid significant, licet non secundum veritatem. Et ideo subdit quod in duplicibus, idest in nominibus compositis, syllabae quae possunt esse dictiones, in compositione nominis venientes, significant aliquid, scilicet in ipso composito et secundum quod sunt dictiones; non autem significant aliquid secundum se, prout sunt huiusmodi nominis partes, sed eo modo, sicut supra dictum est. In contrast to this it should be noted that in composite names, which are imposed to signify a simple thing from some composite understanding, the parts appear to signify something, although according to truth they do not. For this reason he adds that in compound words, i.e., composite names, the syllables may be words contributing to the composition of a name, and therefore signify something, namely, in the composite, and according as they are words; but as parts of this kind of name they do not signify something per se, but in the way that has already been explained.
Deinde cum dicit: est autem oratio etc., excludit quemdam errorem. Fuerunt enim aliqui dicentes quod oratio et eius partes significant naturaliter, non ad placitum. Ad probandum autem hoc utebantur tali ratione. Virtutis naturalis oportet esse naturalia instrumenta: quia natura non deficit in necessariis; potentia autem interpretativa est naturalis homini; ergo instrumenta eius sunt naturalia. Instrumentum autem eius est oratio, quia per orationem virtus interpretativa interpretatur mentis conceptum: hoc enim dicimus instrumentum, quo agens operatur. Ergo oratio est aliquid naturale, non ex institutione humana significans, sed naturaliter. 7. Then he says, But all speech is significant—not just as an instrument, however, etc. Here he excludes the error of those who said that speech and its parts signify naturally rather than by convention. To prove their point they used the following argument. The instruments of a natural power must themselves be natural, for nature does not fail in regard to what is necessary; but the interpretive power is natural to man; therefore, its instruments are natural. Now the instrument of the interpretive power is speech since it is through speech that expression is given to the conception of the mind; for we mean by an instrument that by which an agent operates. Therefore, speech is something natural, signifying, not from human institution, but naturally.
Huic autem rationi, quae dicitur esse Platonis in Lib. qui intitulatur Cratylus, Aristoteles obviando dicit quod omnis oratio est significativa, non sicut instrumentum virtutis, scilicet naturalis: quia instrumenta naturalia virtutis interpretativae sunt guttur et pulmo, quibus formatur vox, et lingua et dentes et labia, quibus litterati ac articulati soni distinguuntur; oratio autem et partes eius sunt sicut effectus virtutis interpretativae per instrumenta praedicta. Sicut enim virtus motiva utitur naturalibus instrumentis, sicut brachiis et manibus ad faciendum opera artificialia, ita virtus interpretativa utitur gutture et aliis instrumentis naturalibus ad faciendum orationem. Unde oratio et partes eius non sunt res naturales, sed quidam artificiales effectus. Et ideo subdit quod oratio significat ad placitum, idest secundum institutionem humanae rationis et voluntatis, ut supra dictum est, sicut et omnia artificialia causantur ex humana voluntate et ratione. 8. Aristotle refutes this argument, which is said to be that of Plato in the Cratylus, when he says that all speech is significant, but not as an instrument of a power, that is, of a natural power; for the natural instruments of the interpretive power are the throat and lungs, by which vocal sound is formed, and the tongue, teeth and lips by which letters and articulate sounds are formulated. Rather, speech and its parts are effects of the interpretative power through the aforesaid instruments. For just as the motive power uses natural instruments such as arms and hands to make an artificial work, so the interpretative power uses the throat and other natural instruments to make speech. Hence, speech and its parts are not natural things, but certain artificial effects. This is the reason Aristotle adds here that speech signifies by convention, i.e., according to the ordinance of human will and reason.
Sciendum tamen quod, si virtutem interpretativam non attribuamus virtuti motivae, sed rationi; sic non est virtus naturalis, sed supra omnem naturam corpoream: quia intellectus non est actus alicuius corporis, sicut probatur in III de anima. Ipsa autem ratio est, quae movet virtutem corporalem motivam ad opera artificialia, quibus etiam ut instrumentis utitur ratio: non sunt autem instrumenta alicuius virtutis corporalis. Et hoc modo ratio potest etiam uti oratione et eius partibus, quasi instrumentis: quamvis non naturaliter significent. It should be noted, however, that if we do not attribute the interpretative power to a motive power, but to reason, then it is not a natural power but is beyond every corporeal nature, since thought is not an act of the body, as is proved in III De anima [4: 429a 10]. Moreover, it is reason itself that moves the corporeal motive power to make artificial works, which reason then uses as instruments; and thus artificial works are not instruments of a corporeal power. Reason can also use speech and its parts in this way, i.e., as instruments, although they do not signify naturally.

LESSON 7
The Definition of Enunciation

ἀποφαντικὸς δὲ οὐ πᾶς, ἀλλ' ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἀληθεύειν ἢ ψεύδεσθαι ὑπάρχει 17a 2 Yet not all speech is enunciative; but only speech in which there is truth or falsity.
οὐκ ἐν ἅπασι δὲ ὑπάρχει, οἷον ἡ εὐχὴ λόγος μέν, ἀλλ' οὔτ' ἀληθὴς οὔτε ψευδής. 17a 4 Truth and falsity is not present in all speech, however; a prayer, for example, is speech but it is neither true nor false.
οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι ἀφείσθωσαν, —ῥητορικῆς γὰρ ἢ ποιητικῆς οἰκειοτέρα ἡ σκέψις,— ὁ δὲ ἀποφαντικὸς τῆς νῦν θεωρίας. 17a 5 Let us therefore consider enunciative speech, which belongs to our present inquiry, and omit the other kinds, for the study of these belongs rather to rhetoric and poetics.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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.

LESSON 8
The Division of Enunciation into Simple and Composite, Affirmative and Negative

Ἔστι δὲ εἷς πρῶτος λόγος ἀποφαντικὸς κατάφασις, εἶτα ἀπόφασις οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι συνδέσμῳ εἷς. 17a 8 First affirmation, then negation, is enunciative speech that is one; the others are one by conjunction.
ἀνάγκη δὲ πάντα λόγον ἀποφαντικὸν ἐκ ῥήματος εἶναι ἢ πτώσεως καὶ γὰρ ὁ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου λόγος, ἐὰν μὴ τὸ ἔστιν ἢ ἔσται ἢ ἦν ἤ τι τοιοῦτο προστεθῇ, οὔπω λόγος ἀποφαντικός 17a 9 Every enunciative speech, however, must contain a verb or a mode of the verb; for the definition of man, if “is” or “was” or “will be” or something of the kind is not added, is not yet enunciative speech;
(διότι δὲ ἕν τί ἐστιν ἀλλ' οὐ πολλὰ τὸ ζῷον πεζὸν δίπουν,-οὐ γὰρ δὴ τῷ σύνεγγυς εἰρῆσθαι εἷς ἔσται,— ἔστι δὲ ἄλλης τοῦτο πραγματείας εἰπεῖν). 17a 13 (but then the question arises as to why the definition “terrestrial biped animal” is something one and not many—for clearly it will not be one by reason of the words being said in juxtaposition—but this belongs to another subject of inquiry).
ἔστι δὲ εἷς λόγος ἀποφαντικὸς ἢ ὁ ἓν δηλῶν ἢ ὁ συνδέσμῳ εἷς, πολλοὶ δὲ οἱ πολλὰ καὶ μὴ ἓν ἢ οἱ ἀσύνδετοι. 17a 15 Enunciative speech is one when it signifies one thing or is one by conjunction; but it is many when it signifies many things and not one, or many things not joined together.
τὸ μὲν οὖν ὄνομα καὶ τὸ ῥῆμα φάσις ἔστω μόνον, ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν οὕτω δηλοῦντά τι τῇ φωνῇ ὥστ' ἀποφαίνεσθαι, ἢ ἐρωτῶντός τινος, ἢ μὴ ἀλλ' αὐτὸν προαιρούμενον. 17a 17 Let us call the name or the verb a word only, since to speak in this way is not to signify something with the voice so as to enunciate, either in reply to someone asking a question or by one's own choice.
τούτων δ' ἡ μὲν ἁπλῆ ἐστὶν ἀπόφανσις, οἷον τὶ κατὰ τινὸς ἢ τὶ ἀπὸ τινός, ἡ δ' ἐκ τούτων συγκειμένη, οἷον λόγος τις ἤδη σύνθετος. 17a 20 Of enunciations that are one, simple enunciation is one kind, i.e., something affirmed of something or something denied of something; the other kind is composite, i.e., speech composed of these simple enunciations.
Ἔστι δ' ἡ μὲν ἁπλῆ ἀπόφανσις φωνὴ σημαντικὴ περὶ τοῦ εἰ ὑπάρχει τι ἢ μὴ ὑπάρχει, ὡς οἱ χρόνοι διῄρηνται 17a 23 A simple enunciation is vocal sound signifying that something belongs or does not belong to a subject according to the divisions of time.
κατάφασις δέ ἐστιν ἀπόφανσις τινὸς κατὰ τινός, ἀπόφασις δέ ἐστιν ἀπόφανσις τινὸς ἀπὸ τινός. 17a 25 Affirmation is the enunciation of something about something; negation the enunciation of something separated from something.
Postquam philosophus definivit enunciationem, hic dividit eam. Et dividitur in duas partes: in prima, ponit divisionem enunciationis; in secunda, manifestat eam; ibi: necesse est autem et cetera. 1. Having defined the enunciation the Philosopher now divides it. First he gives the division, and then manifests it where he says, Every enunciative speech however, must contain a verb, etc.
Circa primum considerandum est quod Aristoteles sub breviloquio duas divisiones enunciationis ponit. Quarum una est quod enunciationum quaedam est una simplex, quaedam est coniunctione una. Sicut etiam in rebus, quae sunt extra animam, aliquid est unum simplex sicut indivisibile vel continuum, aliquid est unum colligatione aut compositione aut ordine. Quia enim ens et unum convertuntur, necesse est sicut omnem rem, ita et omnem enunciationem aliqualiter esse unam. 2. It should be noted that Aristotle in his concise way gives two divisions of the enunciation. The first is the division into one simply and one by conjunction. This parallels things outside of the soul where there is also something one simply, for instance the indivisible or the continuum, and something one either by aggregation or composition or order. In fact, since being and one are convertible, every enunciation must in some way be one, just as every thing is.
Alia vero subdivisio enunciationis est quod si enunciatio sit una, aut est affirmativa aut negativa. 3. The other is a subdivision of the enunciation: the division of it as it is one into affirmative and negative.
Enunciatio autem affirmativa prior est negativa, triplici ratione, secundum tria quae supra posita sunt: ubi dictum est quod vox est signum intellectus, et intellectus est signum rei. Ex parte igitur vocis, affirmativa enunciatio est prior negativa, quia est simplicior: negativa enim enunciatio addit supra affirmativam particulam negativam. Ex parte etiam intellectus affirmativa enunciatio, quae significat compositionem intellectus, est prior negativa, quae significat divisionem eiusdem: divisio enim naturaliter posterior est compositione, nam non est divisio nisi compositorum, sicut non est corruptio nisi generatorum. Ex parte etiam rei, affirmativa enunciatio, quae significat esse, prior est negativa, quae significat non esse: sicut habitus naturaliter prior est privatione. The affirmative enunciation is prior to the negative for three reasons, which are related to three things already stated. It was said that vocal sound is a sign of thought and thought a sign of the thing. Accordingly, with respect to vocal sound, affirmative enunciation is prior to negative because it is simpler, for the negative enunciation adds a negative particle to the affirmative. With respect to thought, the affirmative enunciation, which signifies composition by the intellect, is prior to the negative, which signifies division, for division is posterior by nature to composition since division is only of composite things—just as corruption is only of generated things. With respect to the thing, the affirmative enunciation, which signifies to be is prior to the negative, which signifies not to be, as the having of something is naturally prior to the privation of it.
Dicit ergo quod oratio enunciativa una et prima est affirmatio, idest affirmativa enunciatio. Et contra hoc quod dixerat prima, subdit: deinde negatio, idest negativa oratio, quia est posterior affirmativa, ut dictum est. Contra id autem quod dixerat una, scilicet simpliciter, subdit quod quaedam aliae sunt unae, non simpliciter, sed coniunctione unae. 4. What he says, then, is this: Affirmation, i.e., affirmative enunciation, is one and the first enunciative speech. And in opposition to first he adds, then negation, i.e., negative speech, for it is posterior to affirmative, as we have said. In Opposition to one, i.e., one simply, he adds, certain others are one, not simply, but one by conjunction.
Ex hoc autem quod hic dicitur argumentatur Alexander quod divisio enunciationis in affirmationem et negationem non est divisio generis in species, sed divisio nominis multiplicis in sua significata. Genus enim univoce praedicatur de suis speciebus, non secundum prius et posterius: unde Aristoteles noluit quod ens esset genus commune omnium, quia per prius praedicatur de substantia, quam de novem generibus accidentium. 5. From what Aristotle says here Alexander argues that the division of enunciation into affirmation and negation is Dot a division of a genus into species, but a division of a multiple name into its meanings; for a genus is not predicated according to the prior and posterior, but is predicated univocally of its species; this is the reason Aristotle would not grant that being is a common genus of all things, for it is predicated first of substance, and then of the nine genera of accidents.
Sed dicendum quod unum dividentium aliquod commune potest esse prius altero dupliciter: uno modo, secundum proprias rationes, aut naturas dividentium; alio modo, secundum participationem rationis illius communis quod in ea dividitur. Primum autem non tollit univocationem generis, ut manifestum est in numeris, in quibus binarius secundum propriam rationem naturaliter est prior ternario; sed tamen aequaliter participant rationem generis sui, scilicet numeri: ita enim est ternarius multitudo mensurata per unum, sicut et binarius. Sed secundum impedit univocationem generis. Et propter hoc ens non potest esse genus substantiae et accidentis: quia in ipsa ratione entis, substantia, quae est ens per se, prioritatem habet respectu accidentis, quod est ens per aliud et in alio. 6. However, in the division of that which is common, one of the dividing members can be prior to another in two ways: according to the proper notions” or natures of the dividing members, or according to the participation of that common notion that is divided in them. The first of these does not destroy the univocity of a genus, as is evident in numbers. Twoness, according to its proper notion, is naturally prior to threeness, yet they equally participate in the notion of their genus, i.e., number; for both a multitude consisting of three and a multitude consisting of two is measured by one. The second, however, does impede the univocity of a genus. This is why being cannot be the genus of substance and accident, for in the very notion of being, substance, which is being per se, has priority in respect to accident, which is being through another and in another.
Sic ergo affirmatio secundum propriam rationem prior est negatione; tamen aequaliter participant rationem enunciationis, quam supra posuit, videlicet quod enunciatio est oratio in qua verum vel falsum est. Applying this distinction to the matter at hand, we see that affirmation is prior to negation in the first way, i.e., according to its notion, yet they equally participate in the definition Aristotle has given of the enunciation, i.e., speech in which there is truth or falsity.
Deinde cum dicit: necesse est autem etc., manifestat propositas divisiones. Et primo, manifestat primam, scilicet quod enunciatio vel est una simpliciter vel coniunctione una; secundo, manifestat secundam, scilicet quod enunciatio simpliciter una vel est affirmativa vel negativa; ibi: est autem simplex enunciatio et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, praemittit quaedam, quae sunt necessaria ad propositum manifestandum; secundo, manifestat propositum; ibi: est autem una oratio et cetera. 7. Where he says, Every enunciative speech, however, must contain a verb or a mode of the verb, etc., he explains the divisions. He gives two explanations, one of the division of enunciation into one simply and one by conjunction, the second of the division of the enunciation which is one simply into affirmative or negative. The latter explanation begins where he says, A simple enunciation is vocal sound signifying that something belongs or does not belong to a subject, etc. Before he explains the first division, i.e., into one simply and one by conjunction, he states certain things that are necessary for the evidence of the explanation, and then explains the division where he says, Enunciative speech is one when it signifies one thing, etc.
Circa primum duo facit: primo, dicit quod omnem orationem enunciativam oportet constare ex verbo quod est praesentis temporis, vel ex casu verbi quod est praeteriti vel futuri. Tacet autem de verbo infinito, quia eumdem usum habet in enunciatione sicut et verbum negativum. Manifestat autem quod dixerat per hoc, quod non solum nomen unum sine verbo non facit orationem perfectam enunciativam, sed nec etiam oratio imperfecta. Definitio enim oratio quaedam est, et tamen si ad rationem hominis, idest definitionem non addatur aut est, quod est verbum, aut erat, aut fuit, quae sunt casus verbi, aut aliquid huiusmodi, idest aliquod aliud verbum seu casus verbi, nondum est oratio enunciativa. 8. He states the first thing that is necessary for his explanation when he says that every enunciative speech must contain a verb in present time, or a case of the verb, i.e., in past or future time. (The infinite verb is not mentioned because it has the same function in the enunciation as the negative verb.) To manifest this he shows that one name, without a verb, does not even constitute imperfect enunciative speech, let alone perfect speech. Definition, he points out, is a certain kind of speech, and yet if the verb “is” or modes of the verb such as “was” or “has been” or something of the kind, is not added to the notion of man, i.e., to the definition, it is not enunciative speech.
Potest autem esse dubitatio: cum enunciatio constet ex nomine et verbo, quare non facit mentionem de nomine, sicut de verbo? 9. But, one might ask, why mention the verb and not the name, for the enunciation consists of a name and a verb?
Ad quod tripliciter responderi potest. Primo quidem, quia nulla oratio enunciativa invenitur sine verbo vel casu verbi; invenitur autem aliqua enunciatio sine nomine, puta cum nos utimur infinitivis verborum loco nominum; ut cum dicitur, currere est moveri. This can be answered in three ways. First of all because enunciative speech is not attained without a verb or a mode of the verb, but it is without a name, for instance, when infinitive forms of the verb are used in place of names, as in “To run is to be moving.”
Secundo et melius, quia, sicut supra dictum est, verbum est nota eorum quae de altero praedicantur. Praedicatum autem est principalior pars enunciationis, eo quod est pars formalis et completiva ipsius. Unde vocatur apud Graecos propositio categorica, idest praedicativa. Denominatio autem fit a forma, quae dat speciem rei. Et ideo potius fecit mentionem de verbo tanquam de parte principaliori et formaliori. Cuius signum est, quia enunciatio categorica dicitur affirmativa vel negativa solum ratione verbi, quod affirmatur vel negatur; sicut etiam conditionalis dicitur affirmativa vel negativa, eo quod affirmatur vel negatur coniunctio a qua denominatur. A second and better reason for speaking only of the verb is that the verb is a sign of what is predicated of another. Now the predicate is the principal part of the enunciation because it is the formal part and completes it. This is the reason the Greeks called the enunciation a categorical, i.e., predicative, proposition. It should also be noted that denomination is made from the form which gives species to the thing. He speaks of the verb, then, but not the name, because it is the more principal and formal part of the enunciation. A sign of this is that the categorical enunciation is said to be affirmative or negative solely by reason of the verb being affirmed or denied, and the conditional enunciation is said to be affirmative or negative by reason of the conjunction by which it is denominated being affirmed or denied.
Tertio, potest dici, et adhuc melius, quod non erat intentio Aristotelis ostendere quod nomen vel verbum non sufficiant ad enunciationem complendam: hoc enim supra manifestavit tam de nomine quam de verbo. Sed quia dixerat quod quaedam enunciatio est una simpliciter, quaedam autem coniunctione una; posset aliquis intelligere quod illa quae est una simpliciter careret omni compositione: sed ipse hoc excludit per hoc quod in omni enunciatione oportet esse verbum, quod importat compositionem, quam non est intelligere sine compositis, sicut supra dictum est. Nomen autem non importat compositionem, et ideo non exigit praesens intentio ut de nomine faceret mentionem, sed solum de verbo. A third and even better reason is that Aristotle did not intend to show that the name or verb is not sufficient for a complete enunciation, for he explained this earlier. Rather, he is excluding a misunderstanding that might arise from his saying that one kind of enunciation is one simply and another kind is one by conjunction. Some might think this means that the kind that is one simply, lacks all composition. But he excludes this by saying that there must be a verb in every enunciation; for the verb implies composition and composition cannot be understood apart from the things composed, as he said earlier.” The name, on the other hand, does not imply composition and therefore did not have to be mentioned.
Secundo; ibi: quare autem etc., ostendit aliud quod est necessarium ad manifestationem propositi, scilicet quod hoc quod dico, animal gressibile bipes, quae est definitio hominis, est unum et non multa. Et eadem ratio est de omnibus aliis definitionibus. Sed huiusmodi rationem assignare dicit esse alterius negocii. Pertinet enim ad metaphysicum; unde in VII et in VIII metaphysicae ratio huius assignatur: quia scilicet differentia advenit generi non per accidens sed per se, tanquam determinativa ipsius, per modum quo materia determinatur per formam. Nam a materia sumitur genus, a forma autem differentia. Unde sicut ex forma et materia fit vere unum et non multa, ita ex genere et differentia. 10. The other, point necessary for the evidence of the first division is made where he says, but then the question arises as to why the definition “terrestrial biped animal” is something one, etc. He indicates by this that “terrestrial biped animal,” which is a definition of man, is one and not many. The reason it is one is the same as in the case of all definitions but, he says, to assign the reason belongs to another subject of inquiry. It belongs, in fact, to metaphysics and he assigns the reason in VII and VIII Metaphysicae [VII, 12: 1037b 7; VIII, 6: 1045a 6] which is this: the difference does not accrue to the genus accidentally but per se and is determinative of it in the way in which form determines matter; for the genus is taken from matter, the difference from form. Whence, just as one thing—not many—comes to be from form and matter, so one thing comes to be from the genus and difference.
Excludit autem quamdam rationem huius unitatis, quam quis posset suspicari, ut scilicet propter hoc definitio dicatur unum, quia partes eius sunt propinquae, idest sine aliqua interpositione coniunctionis vel morae. 11. The reason for the unity of this definition might be supposed by some to be only that of juxtaposition of the parts, i.e., that “terrestrial biped animal” is said to be one only because the parts are side by side without conjunction or pause. But he excludes such a notion of its unity.
Et quidem non interruptio locutionis necessaria est ad unitatem definitionis, quia si interponeretur coniunctio partibus definitionis, iam secunda non determinaret primam, sed significarentur ut actu multae in locutione: et idem operatur interpositio morae, qua utuntur rhetores loco coniunctionis. Unde ad unitatem definitionis requiritur quod partes eius proferantur sine coniunctione et interpolatione: quia etiam in re naturali, cuius est definitio, nihil cadit medium inter materiam et formam: Now it is true that non-interruption of locution is necessary for the unity of a definition, for if a conjunction were put between the parts the second part would not determine the first immediately and the many in locution would consequently signify many in act. The pause used by rhetoricians in place of a conjunction would do the same thing. Whence it is a requirement for the unity of a definition that its parts be uttered without conjunction and interpolation, the reason being that in the natural thing, whose definition it is, nothing mediates between matter and form.
sed praedicta non interruptio non sufficit ad unitatem definitionis, quia contingit etiam hanc continuitatem prolationis servari in his, quae non sunt simpliciter unum, sed per accidens; ut si dicam, homo albus musicus. Sic igitur Aristoteles valde subtiliter manifestavit quod absoluta unitas enunciationis non impeditur, neque per compositionem quam importat verbum, neque per multitudinem nominum ex quibus constat definitio. Et est eadem ratio utrobique, nam praedicatum comparatur ad subiectum ut forma ad materiam, et similiter differentia ad genus: ex forma autem et materia fit unum simpliciter. However, non-interruption of locution is not the only thing that is needed for unity of the definition, for there can be continuity of utterance in regard to things that are not one simply, but are accidentally, as in white musical man.” Aristotle has therefore manifested very subtly that absolute unity of the enunciation is not impeded either by the composition which the verb implies or by the multitude of names from which a definition is established. And the reason is the same in both cases, i.e., the predicate is related to the subject as form to matter, as is the difference to a genus; but from form and matter a thing that is one simply comes into existence.
Deinde cum dicit: est autem una oratio etc., accedit ad manifestandam praedictam divisionem. Et primo, manifestat ipsum commune quod dividitur, quod est enunciatio una; secundo, manifestat partes divisionis secundum proprias rationes; ibi: harum autem haec simplex et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, manifestat ipsam divisionem; secundo, concludit quod ab utroque membro divisionis nomen et verbum excluduntur; ibi: nomen ergo et verbum et cetera. 12. He begins to explain the division when he says, Enunciative speech is one when it signifies one thing, etc. First he makes the common thing that is divided evident, i.e., the enunciation as it is one; secondly, he makes the parts of the division evident according to their own proper notions, where he says, Of enunciations that are one, simple enunciation is one kind, etc. After he has made the division of the common thing evident, i.e., enunciation, he then concludes that the name and the verb are excluded from each member of the division where he says, Let us call the name or the verb a word only, etc.
Opponitur autem unitati pluralitas; et ideo enunciationis unitatem manifestat per modos pluralitatis. Now plurality is opposed to unity. Therefore he is going to manifest the unity of the enunciation through the modes of plurality.
Dicit ergo primo quod enunciatio dicitur vel una absolute, scilicet quae unum de uno significat, vel una secundum quid, scilicet quae est coniunctione una. Per oppositum autem est intelligendum quod enunciationes plures sunt, vel ex eo quod plura significant et non unum: quod opponitur primo modo unitatis; vel ex eo quod absque coniunctione proferuntur: et tales opponuntur secundo modo unitatis. 13. He begins his explanation by saying that enunciation is either one absolutely, i.e., it signifies one thing said of one thing, or one relatively, i.e., it is one by conjunction. In opposition to these are the enunciations that are many, either because they signify not one but many things, which is opposed to the first mode of unity or because they are uttered without a connecting particle, which is opposed to the second mode of unity.
Circa quod considerandum est, secundum Boethium, quod unitas et pluralitas orationis refertur ad significatum; simplex autem et compositum attenditur secundum ipsas voces. Et ideo enunciatio quandoque est una et simplex puta cum solum ex nomine et verbo componitur in unum significatum; ut cum dico, homo est albus. Est etiam quandoque una oratio, sed composita, quae quidem unam rem significat, sed tamen composita est vel ex pluribus terminis; sicut si dicam, animal rationale mortale currit, vel ex pluribus enunciationibus, sicut in conditionalibus, quae quidem unum significant et non multa. Similiter autem quandoque in enunciatione est pluralitas cum simplicitate, puta cum in oratione ponitur aliquod nomen multa significans; ut si dicam, canis latrat, haec oratio plures est, quia plura significat, et tamen simplex est. Quandoque vero in enunciatione est pluralitas et compositio, puta cum ponuntur plura in subiecto vel in praedicato, ex quibus non fit unum, sive interveniat coniunctio sive non; puta si dicam, homo albus musicus disputat: et similiter est si coniungantur plures enunciationes, sive cum coniunctione sive sine coniunctione; ut si dicam, Socrates currit, Plato disputat. Et secundum hoc sensus litterae est quod enunciatio una est illa, quae unum de uno significat, non solum si sit simplex, sed etiam si sit coniunctione una. Et similiter enunciationes plures dicuntur quae plura et non unum significant: non solum quando interponitur aliqua coniunctio, vel inter nomina vel verba, vel etiam inter ipsas enunciationes; sed etiam si vel inconiunctione, idest absque aliqua interposita coniunctione plura significat, vel quia est unum nomen aequivocum, multa significans, vel quia ponuntur plura nomina absque coniunctione, ex quorum significatis non fit unum; ut si dicam, homo albus grammaticus logicus currit. 14. Boethius interprets this passage in the following way. “Unity” and “plurality” of speech refers to what is signified, whereas “simple” and “composite” is related to the vocal sounds. Accordingly, an enunciation is sometimes one and simple, namely, when one thing is signified by the composition of name and verb, as in “Man is white.” Sometimes it is one and composite. In this case it signifies one thing, but is composed either from many terms, as in “A mortal rational animal is running,” or from many enunciations, as in conditionals that signify one thing and not many. On the other hand, sometimes there is plurality along with simplicity, namely, when a name signifying many things is used, as in “The dog barks,” in which case the enunciation is many because it signifies many things [i.e., it signifies equivocally], but it is simple as far as vocal sound is concerned. But sometimes there is plurality and composition, namely, when many things are posited on the part of the subject or predicate from which one thing does not result, whether a conjunction intervenes or not, as in “The musical white man is arguing.” This is also the case if there are many enunciations joined together, with or without connecting particles as in “Socrates runs, Plato discusses. According to this exposition the meaning of the passage in question is this: an enunciation is one when it signifies one thing said of one thing, and this is the case whether the enunciation is one simply or is one by conjunction; an enunciation is many when it signifies not one but many things, and this not only when a conjunction is inserted between either the names or verbs or between the enunciations themselves, but even if there are many things that are not conjoined. In the latter case they signify many things either because an equivocal name is used or because many names signifying many things from which one thing does not result are used without conjunctions, as in “The white grammatical logical man is running.”
Sed haec expositio non videtur esse secundum intentionem Aristotelis. Primo quidem, quia per disiunctionem, quam interponit, videtur distinguere inter orationem unum significantem, et orationem quae est coniunctione una. Secundo, quia supra dixerat quod est unum quoddam et non multa, animal gressibile bipes. Quod autem est coniunctione unum, non est unum et non multa, sed est unum ex multis. Et ideo melius videtur dicendum quod Aristoteles, quia supra dixerat aliquam enunciationem esse unam et aliquam coniunctione unam, vult hic manifestare quae sit una. 15. However, this exposition does not seem to be what Aristotle had in mind. First of all the disjunction he inserts seems to indicate that he is distinguishing between speech signifying one thing and speech which is one by conjunction. In the second place, he has just said that terrestrial biped animal is something one and not many. Moreover, what is one by conjunction is not one, and not many, but one from many. Hence it seems better to say that since he has already said that one kind of enunciation is one simply and another kind is one by conjunction be is showing here what one enunciation is.
Et quia supra dixerat quod multa nomina simul coniuncta sunt unum, sicut animal gressibile bipes, dicit consequenter quod enunciatio est iudicanda una non ex unitate nominis, sed ex unitate significati, etiam si sint plura nomina quae unum significent. Vel si sit aliqua enunciatio una quae multa significet, non erit una simpliciter, sed coniunctione una. Et secundum hoc, haec enunciatio, animal gressibile bipes est risibile, non est una quasi coniunctione una, sicut in prima expositione dicebatur, sed quia unum significat. Having said, then, that many names joined together are something one as in the example “terrestrial biped animal,” he goes on to say that an enunciation is to be judged as one, not from the unity of the name but from the unity of what is signified, even if there are many names signifying the one thing; and if an enunciation which signifies many things is one, it will not be one simply, but one by conjunction. Hence, the enunciation “A terrestrial biped animal is risible,” is not one in the sense of one by conjunction as the first exposition would have it, but because it signifies one thing.
Et quia oppositum per oppositum manifestatur, consequenter ostendit quae sunt plures enunciationes, et ponit duos modos pluralitatis. Primus est, quod plures dicuntur enunciationes quae plura significant. Contingit autem aliqua plura significari in aliquo uno communi; sicut cum dico, animal est sensibile, sub hoc uno communi, quod est animal, multa continentur, et tamen haec enunciatio est una et non plures. Et ideo addit et non unum. Sed melius est ut dicatur hoc esse additum propter definitionem, quae multa significat quae sunt unum: 16. Then—because an opposite is manifested through an opposite—he goes on to show which enunciations are many, and he posits two modes of plurality. Enunciations are said to be many which signify many things. Many things may be signified in some one common thing however; when I say, for example, “An animal is a sentient being,” many things are contained under the one common thing, animal, but such an enunciation is still one, not many. Therefore Aristotle adds, and not one. It would be better to say, however, that the and not one is added because of definition, which signifies many things that are one.
et hic modus pluralitatis opponitur primo modo unitatis. Secundus modus pluralitatis est, quando non solum enunciationes plura significant, sed etiam illa plura nullatenus coniunguntur, et hic modus pluralitatis opponitur secundo modo unitatis. Et secundum hoc patet quod secundus modus unitatis non opponitur primo modo pluralitatis. Ea autem quae non sunt opposita, possunt simul esse. Unde manifestum est, enunciationem quae est una coniunctione, esse etiam plures: plures in quantum significat plura et non unum. The mode of plurality he has spoken of thus far is opposed to the first mode of unity. The second mode of plurality covers enunciations that not only signify many things but many that are in no way joined together. This mode is opposed to the second mode of unity. Thus it is evident that the second mode of unity is not opposed to the first mode of plurality. Now those things that are not opposed can be together. Therefore, the enunciation that is one by conjunction is also many many insofar as it signifies many and not one.
Secundum hoc ergo possumus accipere tres modos enunciationis. Nam quaedam est simpliciter una, in quantum unum significat; quaedam est simpliciter plures, in quantum plura significat, sed est una secundum quid, in quantum est coniunctione una; quaedam sunt simpliciter plures, quae neque significant unum, neque coniunctione aliqua uniuntur. According to this understanding of the text there are three modes of the enunciation: the enunciation that is one simply inasmuch as it signifies one thing; the enunciation that is many simply inasmuch as it signifies many things, but is one relatively inasmuch as it is one by conjunction; finally, the enunciations that are many simply—those that do not signify one thing and are not united by any conjunction.
Ideo autem Aristoteles quatuor ponit et non solum tria, quia quandoque est enunciatio plures, quia plura significat, non tamen est coniunctione una, puta si ponatur ibi nomen multa significans. Aristotle posits four kinds of enunciation rather than three, for an enunciation is sometimes many because it signifies many things, and yet is not one by conjunction; a case in point would be an enunciation in which a name signifying many things is used.
Deinde cum dicit: nomen ergo et verbum etc., excludit ab unitate orationis nomen et verbum. Dixerat enim quod enunciatio una est, quae unum significat: posset autem aliquis intelligere, quod sic unum significaret sicut nomen et verbum unum significant. Et ideo ad hoc excludendum subdit: nomen ergo, et verbum dictio sit sola, idest ita sit dictio, quod non enunciatio. Et videtur, ex modo loquendi, quod ipse imposuerit hoc nomen ad significandum partes enunciationis. 17. Where he says, Let us call the name or the verb a word only, etc., he excludes the name and the verb from the unity of speech. His reason for making this point is that his statement, “an enunciation is one inasmuch as it signifies one thing,” might be taken to mean that an enunciation signifies one thing in the same way the name or verb signify one thing. To prevent such a misunderstanding he says, Let us call the name or the verb a word only, i.e., a locution which is not an enunciation. From his mode of speaking it would seem that Aristotle himself imposed the name “phasis” [word] to signify such parts of the enunciation.
Quod autem nomen et verbum dictio sit sola manifestat per hoc, quod non potest dici quod ille enunciet, qui sic aliquid significat voce, sicut nomen, vel verbum significat. Et ad hoc manifestandum innuit duos modos utendi enunciatione. Quandoque enim utimur ipsa quasi ad interrogata respondentes; puta si quaeratur, quis sit in scholis? Respondemus, magister. Quandoque autem utimur ea propria sponte, nullo interrogante; sicut cum dicimus, Petrus currit. Then he shows that a name or verb is only a word by pointing out that we do not say that a person is enunciating when be signifies something in vocal sound in the way in which a name or verb signifies. To manifest this he suggests two ways of using the enunciation. Sometimes we use it to reply to questions; for example if someone asks “Who is it who discusses,” we answer “The teacher.” At other times we use the enunciation, not in reply to a question, but of our own accord, as when we say “Peter is running.”
Dicit ergo, quod ille qui significat aliquid unum nomine vel verbo, non enunciat vel sicut ille qui respondet aliquo interrogante, vel sicut ille qui profert enunciationem non aliquo interrogante, sed ipso proferente sponte. Introduxit autem hoc, quia simplex nomen vel verbum, quando respondetur ad interrogationem, videtur verum vel falsum significare: quod est proprium enunciationis. Sed hoc non competit nomini vel verbo, nisi secundum quod intelligitur coniunctum cum alia parte proposita in interrogatione. Ut si quaerenti, quis legit in scholis? Respondeatur, magister, subintelligitur, ibi legit. Si ergo ille qui enunciat aliquid nomine vel verbo non enunciat, manifestum est quod enunciatio non sic unum significat, sicut nomen vel verbum. Hoc autem inducit sicut conclusionem eius quod supra praemisit: necesse est omnem orationem enunciativam ex verbo esse vel ex casu verbi. What Aristotle is saying, then, is that the person who signifies something one by a name or a verb is not enunciating in the way in which either the person who replies to a question or who utters an enunciation of his own accord is enunciating. He introduces this point because the simple name or verb, when used in reply to a question seems to signify truth or falsity and truth or falsity is what is proper to the enunciation. Truth and falsity is not proper, however, to the name or verb unless it is understood as joined to another part proposed in a question; if someone should ask, for example, “Who reads in the schools,” we would answer, “The teacher,” understanding also, “reads there.” If, then, something expressed by a name or verb is not an enunciation, it is evident that the enunciation does not signify one thing in the same way as the name or verb signify one thing. Aristotle draws this by way of a conclusion from, Every enunciative speech must contain a verb or a mode of the verb, which was stated earlier.
Deinde cum dicit: harum autem haec simplex etc., manifestat praemissam divisionem secundum rationes partium. Dixerat enim quod una enunciatio est quae unum de uno significat, et alia est quae est coniunctione una. Ratio autem huius divisionis est ex eo quod unum natum est dividi per simplex et compositum. Et ideo dicit: harum autem, scilicet enunciationum, in quibus dividitur unum, haec dicitur una, vel quia significat unum simpliciter, vel quia una est coniunctione. Haec quidem simplex enunciatio est, quae scilicet unum significat. Sed ne intelligatur quod sic significet unum, sicut nomen vel verbum, ad excludendum hoc subdit: ut aliquid de aliquo, idest per modum compositionis, vel aliquid ab aliquo, idest per modum divisionis. Haec autem ex his coniuncta, quae scilicet dicitur coniunctione una, est velut oratio iam composita: quasi dicat hoc modo, enunciationis unitas dividitur in duo praemissa, sicut aliquod unum dividitur in simplex et compositum. Then when he says, Of enunciations that are one, simple enunciation is one kind, etc., he manifests the division of enunciation by the natures of the parts. He has said that the enunciation is one when it signifies one thing or is one by conjunction. The basis of this division is the nature of one, which is such that it can be divided into simple and composite. Hence, Aristotle says, Of these, i.e., enunciations into which one is divided, which are said to be one either because the enunciation signifies one thing simply or because it is one by conjunction, simple enunciation is one kind, i.e., the enunciation that signifies one thing. And to exclude the understanding of this as signifying one thing in the same way as the name or the verb signifies one thing he adds, something affirmed of something, i.e., by way of composition, or something denied of something, i.e., by way of division. The other kind—the enunciation that is said to be one by conjunction—is composite, i.e., speech composed of these simple enunciations. In other words, he is saying that the unity of the enunciation is divided into simple and composite, just as one is divided into simple and composite.
Deinde cum dicit: est autem simplex etc., manifestat secundam divisionem enunciationis, secundum videlicet quod enunciatio dividitur in affirmationem et negationem. Haec autem divisio primo quidem convenit enunciationi simplici; ex consequenti autem convenit compositae enunciationi; et ideo ad insinuandum rationem praedictae divisionis dicit quod simplex enunciatio est vox significativa de eo quod est aliquid: quod pertinet ad affirmationem; vel non est aliquid: quod pertinet ad negationem. Et ne hoc intelligatur solum secundum praesens tempus, subdit: quemadmodum tempora sunt divisa, idest similiter hoc habet locum in aliis temporibus sicut et in praesenti. 19. He manifests the second division of the enunciation where he says, A simple enunciation is vocal sound signifying that something belongs or does not belong to a subject, i.e., the division of enunciation into affirmation and negation. This is a division that belongs primarily to the simple enunciation and consequently to the composite enunciation; therefore, in order to suggest the basis of the division he says that a simple enunciation is vocal sound signifying that something belongs to a subject, which pertains to affirmation, or does not belong to a subject, which pertains to negation. And to make it clear that this is not to be understood only of present time he adds, according to the divisions of time, i.e., this holds for other times as well as the present.
Alexander autem existimavit quod Aristoteles hic definiret enunciationem; et quia in definitione enunciationis videtur ponere affirmationem et negationem, volebat hic accipere quod enunciatio non esset genus affirmationis et negationis, quia species nunquam ponitur in definitione generis. Id autem quod non univoce praedicatur de multis (quia scilicet non significat aliquid unum, quod sit unum commune multis), non potest notificari nisi per illa multa quae significantur. Et inde est quod quia unum non dicitur aequivoce de simplici et composito, sed per prius et posterius, Aristoteles in praecedentibus semper ad notificandum unitatem enunciationis usus est utroque. Quia ergo videtur uti affirmatione et negatione ad notificandum enunciationem, volebat Alexander accipere quod enunciatio non dicitur de affirmatione et negatione univoce sicut genus de suis speciebus. 20. Alexander thought that Aristotle was defining the enunciation here and because he seems to put affirmation and negation in the “definition” he took this to mean that enunciation is not the genus of affirmation and negation, for the species is never posited in the definition of the genus. Now what is not predicated univocally of many (namely, because it does not signify something one that is common to many) cannot be made known except through the many that are signified. “One” is not said equivocally of the simple and composite, but primarily and consequently, and hence Aristotle always used both “simple” and “composite” in the preceding reasoning to make the unity of the enunciation known. Now, here he seems to use affirmation and negation to make the enunciation known; therefore, Alexander took this to mean that enunciation is not said of affirmation and negation univocally as a genus of its species.
Sed contrarium apparet ex hoc, quod philosophus consequenter utitur nomine enunciationis ut genere, cum in definitione affirmationis et negationis subdit quod, affirmatio est enunciatio alicuius de aliquo, scilicet per modum compositionis, negatio vero est enunciatio alicuius ab aliquo, scilicet per modum divisionis. 21. But the contrary appears to be the case, for the Philosopher subsequently uses the name “enunciation” as a genus when in defining affirmation and negation he says, Affirmation is the enunciation of something about something, i.e., by way of composition; negation is the enunciation of something separated from something, i.e., by way of division.
Nomine autem aequivoco non consuevimus uti ad notificandum significata eius. Et ideo Boethius dicit quod Aristoteles suo modo breviloquio utens, simul usus est et definitione et divisione eius: ita ut quod dicit de eo quod est aliquid vel non est, non referatur ad definitionem enunciationis, sed ad eius divisionem. Moreover, it is not customary to use an equivocal name to make known the things it signifies. Boethius for this reason says that Aristotle with his customary brevity is using both the definition and its division at once. Therefore when he says that something belongs or does not belong to a subject he is not referring to the definition of enunciation but to its division.
Sed quia differentiae divisivae generis non cadunt in eius definitione, nec hoc solum quod dicitur vox significativa, sufficiens est definitio enunciationis; melius dici potest secundum Porphyrium, quod hoc totum quod dicitur vox significativa de eo quod est, vel de eo quod non est, est definitio enunciationis. Nec tamen ponitur affirmatio et negatio in definitione enunciationis sed virtus affirmationis et negationis, scilicet significatum eius, quod est esse vel non esse, quod est naturaliter prius enunciatione. Affirmationem autem et negationem postea definivit per terminos utriusque cum dixit: affirmationem esse enunciationem alicuius de aliquo, et negationem enunciationem alicuius ab aliquo. However, since the differences dividing a genus do not fall in its definition and since vocal sound signifying is not a sufficient definition of the enunciation, Porphyry thought it would be better to say that the whole expression, vocal sound signifying that something belongs or does not belong to a subject, is the definition of the enunciation. According to his exposition this is not affirmation and negation that is posited in the definition, but capacity for affirmation and negation, i.e., what the enunciation is a sign of, which is to be or not to be, which is prior in nature to the enunciation. Then immediately following this he defines affirmation and negation in terms of themselves when he says, Affirmation is the enunciation of something about something; negation the enunciation of something separated from something.
Sed sicut in definitione generis non debent poni species, ita nec ea quae sunt propria specierum. Cum igitur significare esse sit proprium affirmationis, et significare non esse sit proprium negationis, melius videtur dicendum, secundum Ammonium, quod hic non definitur enunciatio, sed solum dividitur. Supra enim posita est definitio, cum dictum est quod enunciatio est oratio in qua est verum vel falsum. In qua quidem definitione nulla mentio facta est nec de affirmatione, nec de negatione. But just as the species should not be stated in the definition of the genus, so neither should the properties of the species. Now to signify to be is the property of the affirmation, and to signify not to be the property of the negation. Therefore Ammonius thought it would be better to say that the enunciation was not defined here, but only divided. For the definition was posited above when it was said that the enunciation is speech in which there is truth or falsity—in which definition no mention is made of either affirmation or negation.
Est autem considerandum quod artificiosissime procedit: dividit enim genus non in species, sed in differentias specificas. Non enim dicit quod enunciatio est affirmatio vel negatio, sed vox significativa de eo quod est, quae est differentia specifica affirmationis, vel de eo quod non est, in quo tangitur differentia specifica negationis. Et ideo ex differentiis adiunctis generi constituit definitionem speciei, cum subdit: quod affirmatio est enunciatio alicuius de aliquo, per quod significatur esse; et negatio est enunciatio alicuius ab aliquo quod significat non esse. It should be noticed, however, that Aristotle proceeds very skillfully here, for he divides the genus, not into species, but into specific differences. He does not say that the enunciation is an affirmation or negation, but vocal sound signifying that something belongs to a subject, which is the specific difference of affirmation, or does not belong to a subject, which is the specific difference of negation. Then when he adds, Affirmation is the enunciation of something about something which signifies to be, and negation is the enunciation of something separated from something, which signifies not to be, he establishes the definition of the species by joining the differences to the genus.

LESSON 9
The Opposition of Affirmation and Negation Absolutely

ἐπεὶ δὲ ἔστι καὶ τὸ ὑπάρχον ἀποφαίνεσθαι ὡς μὴ ὑπάρχον καὶ τὸ μὴ ὑπάρχον ὡς ὑπάρχον καὶ τὸ ὑπάρχον ὡς ὑπάρχον καὶ τὸ μὴ ὑπάρχον ὡς μὴ ὑπάρχον, καὶ περὶ τοὺς ἐκτὸς δὲ τοῦ νῦν χρόνους ὡσαύτως, ἅπαν ἂν ἐνδέχοιτο καὶ ὃ κατέφησέ τις ἀποφῆσαι καὶ ὃ ἀπέφησε καταφῆσαι ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι πάσῃ καταφάσει ἐστὶν ἀπόφασις ἀντικειμένη καὶ πάσῃ ἀποφάσει κατάφασις. 17a 26 Since it is possible to enunciate that what belongs to a subject does not belong to it and what does not, does, and that what does belong to it, does, and what does not, does not, and to enunciate these in regard to those times outside of the present as well as of the present, it would be possible to deny whatever someone affirms and to affirm what he denies. It is evident, therefore, that there is a negation opposed to every affirmation and an affirmation opposed to every negation.
καὶ ἔστω ἀντίφασις τοῦτο, κατάφασις καὶ ἀπόφασις αἱ ἀντικείμεναι 17a 33 We will call this opposed affirmation and negation “contradiction.”
λέγω δὲ ἀντικεῖσθαι τὴν τοῦ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, -μὴ ὁμωνύμως δέ, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τῶν τοιούτων προσδιοριζόμεθα πρὸς τὰς σοφιστικὰς ἐνοχλήσεις. 17a 34 I mean by “opposed” the enunciation of the same thing of the same subject—not equivocally however, nor in any of the other ways that we have distinguished in reference to the specious difficulties of the sophists.
Posita divisione enunciationis, hic agit de oppositione partium enunciationis, scilicet affirmationis et negationis. Et quia enunciationem esse dixerat orationem, in qua est verum vel falsum, primo, ostendit qualiter enunciationes ad invicem opponantur; secundo, movet quamdam dubitationem circa praedeterminata et solvit; ibi: in his ergo quae sunt et quae facta sunt et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ostendit qualiter una enunciatio opponatur alteri; secundo, ostendit quod tantum una opponitur uni; ibi: manifestum est et cetera. Prima autem pars dividitur in duas partes: in prima, determinat de oppositione affirmationis et negationis absolute; in secunda, ostendit quomodo huiusmodi oppositio diversificatur ex parte subiecti; ibi: quoniam autem sunt et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ostendit quod omni affirmationi est negatio opposita et e converso; secundo, manifestat oppositionem affirmationis et negationis absolute; ibi: et sit hoc contradictio et cetera. 1. Having made the division of the enunciation, Aristotle now deals with the opposition of the parts of the enunciation, i.e., the opposition of affirmation and negation. He has already said that the enunciation is speech in which there is truth or falsity; therefore, he first shows how enunciations are opposed to each other; secondly, he raises a doubt about some things previously determined and then resolves it where he says, In enunciations about that which is or has taken place, etc. He not only shows how one enunciation is opposed to another, but that only one is opposed to one, where he says, It is evident also that there is one negation of one affirmation. In showing how one enunciation is opposed to another, he first treats of the opposition of affirmation and negation absolutely, and then shows in what way opposition of this kind is diversified on the part of the subject where he says, Since some of the things we are concerned with are universal and others singular, etc. With respect to the opposition of affirmation and negation absolutely, he first shows that there is a negation opposed to every affirmation and vice versa, and then where he says, We will call this opposed affirmation and negation “contradiction,” he explains the opposition of affirmation and negation absolutely.
Circa primum considerandum est quod ad ostendendum suum propositum philosophus assumit duplicem diversitatem enunciationis: quarum prima est ex ipsa forma vel modo enunciandi, secundum quod dictum est quod enunciatio vel est affirmativa, per quam scilicet enunciatur aliquid esse, vel est negativa per quam significatur aliquid non esse; 2. In relation to the first point, that there is a negation opposed to every affirmation and vice versa, the Philosopher assumes a twofold diversity of enunciation. The first arises from the very form or mode of enunciating. According to this diversity, enunciation is either affirmative—in which it is enunciated that something is—or negative—in which it is signified that something is not.
secunda diversitas est per comparationem ad rem, ex qua dependet veritas et falsitas intellectus et enunciationis. Cum enim enunciatur aliquid esse vel non esse secundum congruentiam rei, est oratio vera; alioquin est oratio falsa. The second is the diversity that arises by comparison to reality. Truth and falsity of thought and of the enunciation depend upon this comparison, for when it is enunciated that something is or is not, if there is agreement with reality, there is true speech; otherwise there is false speech.
Sic igitur quatuor modis potest variari enunciatio, secundum permixtionem harum duarum divisionum. Uno modo, quia id quod est in re enunciatur ita esse sicut in re est: quod pertinet ad affirmationem veram; puta cum Socrates currit, dicimus Socratem currere. Alio modo, cum enunciatur aliquid non esse quod in re non est: quod pertinet ad negationem veram; ut cum dicitur, Aethiops albus non est. Tertio modo, cum enunciatur aliquid esse quod in re non est: quod pertinet ad affirmationem falsam; ut cum dicitur, corvus est albus. Quarto modo, cum enunciatur aliquid non esse quod in re est: quod pertinet ad negationem falsam; ut cum dicitur, nix non est alba. 3. The enunciation can therefore be varied in four ways according to a combination of these two divisions: in the first way, what is in reality is enunciated to be as it is in reality. This is characteristic of true affirmation. For example, when Socrates runs, we say, “Socrates is running.” In the second way, it is enunciated that something is not what in reality it is not. This is characteristic of true negation, as when we say, “An Ethiopian is not white.” In the third way, it is enunciated that something is what in reality it is not. This is characteristic of a false affirmation, as in “The raven is white.” In the fourth way, it is enunciated that something is not what it is in reality. This is characteristic of a false negation, as in “Snow is not white.”
Philosophus autem, ut a minoribus ad potiora procedat, falsas veris praeponit: inter quas negativam praemittit affirmativae, cum dicit quod contingit enunciare quod est, scilicet in rerum natura, non esse. Secundo autem, ponit affirmativam falsam cum dicit: et quod non est, scilicet in rerum natura, esse. Tertio autem, ponit affirmativam veram, quae opponitur negativae falsae, quam primo posuit, cum dicit: et quod est, scilicet in rerum natura, esse. Quarto autem, ponit negativam veram, quae opponitur affirmationi falsae, cum dicit: et quod non est, scilicet in rerum natura, non esse. In order to proceed from the weaker to the stronger the Philosopher puts the false before the true, and among these he states the negative before the affirmative. He begins, then, with the false negative; it is possible to enunciate, that what is, namely, in reality, is not. Secondly, he posits the false affirmative, and that what is not, namely, in reality, is. Thirdly, he posits the true affirmative—which is opposed to the false negative he gave first—and that what is, namely, in reality, is. Fourthly, he posits the true negative—which is opposed to the false affirmative—and that what is not, namely, in reality, is not.
Non est autem intelligendum quod hoc quod dixit: quod est et quod non est, sit referendum ad solam existentiam vel non existentiam subiecti, sed ad hoc quod res significata per praedicatum insit vel non insit rei significatae per subiectum. Nam cum dicitur, corvus est albus, significatur quod non est, esse, quamvis ipse corvus sit res existens. 4. In saying what is and what is not, Aristotle is not referring only to the existence or nonexistence of a subject. What he is saying is that the reality signified by the predicate is in or is not in the reality signified by the subject. For what is signified in saying, “The raven is white,” is that what is not, is, although the raven itself is an existing thing.
Et sicut istae quatuor differentiae enunciationum inveniuntur in propositionibus, in quibus ponitur verbum praesentis temporis, ita etiam inveniuntur in enunciationibus in quibus ponuntur verba praeteriti vel futuri temporis. Supra enim dixit quod necesse est enunciationem constare ex verbo vel ex casu verbi. Et hoc est quod subdit: quod similiter contingit, scilicet variari diversimode enunciationem circa ea, quae sunt extra praesens tempus, idest circa praeterita vel futura, quae sunt quodammodo extrinseca respectu praesentis, quia praesens est medium praeteriti et futuri. 5. These four differences of enunciations are found in propositions in which there is a verb of present time and also in enunciations in which there are verbs of past or future time. He said earlier that every enunciative speech must contain a verb or a mode of the verb. Here he makes this point in relation to the four differences of enunciations: similarly it is possible to enunciate these, i.e., that the enunciation be varied in diverse ways in regard to those times outside of the present, i.e., with respect to the past or future, which are in a certain way extrinsic in respect to the present, since the present is between the past and the future.
Et quia ita est, contingit omne quod quis affirmaverit negare, et omne quod quis negaverit affirmare: quod quidem manifestum est ex praemissis. Non enim potest affirmari nisi vel quod est in rerum natura secundum aliquod trium temporum, vel quod non est; et hoc totum contingit negare. Unde manifestum est quod omne quod affirmatur potest negari, et e converso. 6. Since there are these four differences of enunciation in past and future time as well as in present time, it is possible to deny everything that is affirmed and to affirm everything that is denied. This is evident from the premises, for it is only possible to affirm either that which is in reality according to past, present, or future time, or that which is not; and it is possible to deny all of this. It is clear, then, that everything that is affirmed can be denied or vice versa.
Et quia affirmatio et negatio opposita sunt secundum se, utpote ex opposito contradictoriae, consequens est quod quaelibet affirmatio habeat negationem sibi oppositam et e converso. Cuius contrarium illo solo modo posset contingere, si aliqua affirmatio affirmaret aliquid, quod negatio negare non posset. Now, since affirmation and negation are per se opposed, i.e., in an opposition of contradiction, it follows that any affirmation would have a negation opposed to it, and conversely. The contrary of this could happen only if an affirmation could affirm something that the negation could not deny.
Deinde cum dicit: et sit hoc contradictio etc., manifestat quae sit absoluta oppositio affirmationis et negationis. Et primo, manifestat eam per nomen; secundo, per definitionem; ibi: dico autem et cetera. 7. When he says, We will call this opposed affirmation and negation “contradiction,” he explains what absolute opposition of affirmation and negation is. He does this first through the name; secondly, through the definition where he says, I mean by “opposed” the enunciation of the same thing of the same subject, etc.
Dicit ergo primo quod cum cuilibet affirmationi opponatur negatio, et e converso, oppositioni huiusmodi imponatur nomen hoc, quod dicatur contradictio. Per hoc enim quod dicitur, et sit hoc contradictio, datur intelligi quod ipsum nomen contradictionis ipse imposuerit oppositioni affirmationis et negationis, ut Ammonius dicit. “Contradiction,” he says, is the name imposed for the kind of opposition in which a negation is opposed to an affirmation and conversely. By saying We will call this “contradiction,” we are given to understand—as Ammonius points out—that he has himself imposed the name “contradiction” for the opposition of affirmation and negation.
Deinde cum dicit: dico autem opponi etc., definit contradictionem. Quia vero, ut dictum est, contradictio est oppositio affirmationis et negationis, illa requiruntur ad contradictionem, quae requiruntur ad oppositionem affirmationis et negationis. Oportet autem opposita esse circa idem. Et quia enunciatio constituitur ex subiecto et praedicato, requiritur ad contradictionem primo quidem quod affirmatio et negatio sint eiusdem praedicati: si enim dicatur, Plato currit, Plato non disputat, non est contradictio; secundo, requiritur quod sint de eodem subiecto: si enim dicatur, Socrates currit, Plato non currit, non est contradictio. Tertio, requiritur quod identitas subiecti et praedicati non solum sit secundum nomen, sed sit simul secundum rem et nomen. Nam si non sit idem nomen, manifestum est quod non sit una et eadem enunciatio. Similiter autem ad hoc quod sit enunciatio una, requiritur identitas rei: dictum est enim supra quod enunciatio una est, quae unum de uno significat; et ideo subdit: non autem aequivoce, idest non sufficit identitas nominis cum diversitate rei, quae facit aequivocationem. 8. Then he defines contradiction when he says, I mean by “opposed” the enunciation of the same thing of the same subject, etc. Since contradiction is the opposition of affirmation and negation, as he has said, whatever is required for the opposition of affirmation and negation is required for contradiction. Now, opposites must be about the same thing and since the enunciation is made up of a subject and predicate the first requirement for contradiction is affirmation and negation of the same predicate, for if we say “Plato runs” and “Plato does not discuss,” there is no contradiction. The second is that the affirmation and negation be of the same subject, for if we say “Socrates runs” and “Plato does not run,” there is no contradiction. The third requirement is identity of subject and predicate not only according to name but according to the thing and the name at once; for clearly, if the same name is not used there is not one and the same enunciation; similarly there must be identity of the thing, for as was said above, the enunciation is one when it signifies one thing said of one thing.”’ This is why he adds, not equivocally however, for identity of name with diversity of the thing—which is equivocation—is not sufficient for contradiction.
Sunt autem et quaedam alia in contradictione observanda ad hoc quod tollatur omnis diversitas, praeter eam quae est affirmationis et negationis: non enim esset oppositio si non omnino idem negaret negatio quod affirmavit affirmatio. Haec autem diversitas potest secundum quatuor considerari. Uno quidem modo, secundum diversas partes subiecti: non enim est contradictio si dicatur, Aethiops est albus dente et non est albus pede. Secundo, si sit diversus modus ex parte praedicati: non enim est contradictio si dicatur, Socrates currit tarde et non movetur velociter; vel si dicatur, ovum est animal in potentia et non est animal in actu. Tertio, si sit diversitas ex parte mensurae, puta loci vel temporis; non enim est contradictio si dicatur, pluit in Gallia et non pluit in Italia; aut, pluit heri, hodie non pluit. Quarto, si sit diversitas ex habitudine ad aliquid extrinsecum; puta si dicatur, decem homines esse plures quoad domum, non autem quoad forum. 9. There are also certain other things that must be observed with respect to contradiction in order that all diversity be destroyed except the diversity of affirmation and negation, for if the negation does not deny in every way the same thing that the affirmation affirms there will not be opposition. Inquiry can be made about this diversity in respect to four things: first, are there diverse parts of the subject, for if we say “An Ethiopian is white as to teeth” and “An Ethiopian is not white as to foot,” there is no contradiction; secondly, is there a diverse mode on the part of the predicate, for there is no contradiction if we say “Socrates runs slowly” and “Socrates is not moving swiftly,” or “An egg is an animal in potency” and “An egg is not an animal in act”; thirdly, is there diversity on the part of measure, for instance, of place or time, for there is no contradiction if we say “It is raining in Gaul” and “It is not raining in Italy,” or “It rained yesterday” and “It did not rain today”; fourthly, is there diversity from a relationship to something extrinsic, as when we say “Ten men are many in respect to a house, but not in respect to a court house.”
Et haec omnia designat cum subdit: et quaecumque caetera talium determinavimus, idest determinare consuevimus in disputationibus contra sophisticas importunitates, idest contra importunas et litigiosas oppositiones sophistarum, de quibus plenius facit mentionem in I elenchorum. Aristotle designates all of these when he adds, nor in any of the other ways that we have distinguished, i.e., that it is usual to determine in disputations against the specious difficulties of the sophists, i.e., against the fallacious and quarrelsome objections of the sophists, which he mentions more fully in I Elenchorum [5: 166b 28–167a 36].

LESSON 10
The Division of the Proposition on the Part of the Subject
and the Opposition of Affirmation and Negation in Universal and in Indefinite Propositions

Ἐπεὶ δέ ἐστι τὰ μὲν καθόλου τῶν πραγμάτων τὰ δὲ καθ' ἕκαστον, —λέγω δὲ καθόλου μὲν ὃ ἐπὶ πλειόνων πέφυκε κατηγορεῖσθαι, καθ' ἕκαστον δὲ ὃ μή, οἷον ἄνθρωπος μὲν (17b.) τῶν καθόλου Καλλίας δὲ τῶν καθ' ἕκαστον,— 17a 38 Since some of the things we are concerned with are universal and others singular”—by “universal” I mean that which is of such a nature as to be predicated of many, and by “singular” that which is not; for example “man” is universal, “Callias” singular—
ἀνάγκη δ' ἀποφαίνεσθαι ὡς ὑπάρχει τι ἢ μή, ὁτὲ μὲν τῶν καθόλου τινί, ὁτὲ δὲ τῶν καθ' ἕκαστον. 17b I we have to enunciate either of a universal or of a singular that something belongs or does not belong to it.
ἐὰν μὲν οὖν καθόλου ἀποφαίνηται ἐπὶ τοῦ καθόλου ὅτι ὑπάρχει ἢ μή, ἔσονται ἐναντίαι ἀποφάνσεις, —λέγω δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ καθόλου ἀποφαίνεσθαι καθόλου, οἷον πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός, οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός 17b 3 If, then, it is universally enunciated of a universal that something belongs or does not belong to it, the enunciations will be contraries. By universally enunciated of a universal” I mean such enunciations as “Every man is white,” “No man is white.”
ὅταν δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν καθόλου μέν, μὴ καθόλου δέ, οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐναντίαι, τὰ μέντοι δηλούμενα ἔστιν εἶναι ἐναντία, 4 17b 7 On the other hand, when the enunciations are of a universal but not universally enunciated, they are not contraries, although it is possible for the things signified to be contraries.
—λέγω δὲ τὸ μὴ καθόλου ἀποφαίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν καθόλου, οἷον ἔστι λευκὸς ἄνθρωπος, οὐκ ἔστι λευκὸς ἄνθρωπος καθόλου γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ ἄνθρωπος οὐχ ὡς καθόλου χρῆται τῇ ἀποφάνσει τὸ γὰρ πᾶς οὐ τὸ καθόλου σημαίνει ἀλλ' ὅτι καθόλου. 17b 8 I mean by “enunciated of a universal but not universally” such enunciations as “Man is white... Man is not white.” For, while “man” is a universal, it is not used as universal in the enunciation; for “every” does not signify the universal but signifies that it is taken universally.
ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ κατηγορουμένου τὸ καθόλου κατηγορεῖν καθόλου οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθές οὐδεμία γὰρ κατάφασις ἔσται, ἐν ᾗ τοῦ κατηγορουμένου καθόλου τὸ καθόλου κατηγορηθήσεται, οἷον ἔστι πᾶς ἄνθρωπος πᾶν ζῷον. 17b 12 But as regards the predicate the universal universally predicated is not true; for no affirmation will be true in which a universal predicate is predicated universally, for example, “Every man is every animal.”
Quia philosophus dixerat oppositionem affirmationis et negationis esse contradictionem, quae est eiusdem de eodem, consequenter intendit distinguere diversas oppositiones affirmationis et negationis, ut cognoscatur quae sit vera contradictio. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, praemittit quamdam divisionem enunciationum necessariam ad praedictam differentiam oppositionum assignandam; secundo, manifestat propositum; ibi: si ergo universaliter et cetera. Praemittit autem divisionem enunciationum quae sumitur secundum differentiam subiecti. Unde circa primum duo facit: primo, dividit subiectum enunciationum; secundo, concludit divisionem enunciationum, ibi: necesse est enunciare et cetera. 1. The Philosopher has just said that contradiction is the opposition of the affirmation and negation of the same thing of the same subject. Following upon this he distinguishes the diverse oppositions of affirmation and negation, the purpose being to know what true contradiction is. He first states a division of enunciation which is necessary in order to assign the difference of these oppositions; then he begins to manifest the different oppositions where he says, If, then, it is universally enunciated of a universal that something belongs or does not belong to it, etc. The division he gives is taken from the difference of the subject and therefore he divides the subject of enunciations first; then he concludes with the division of enunciation, where he says, we have to enunciate either of a universal or of a singular, etc.
Subiectum autem enunciationis est nomen vel aliquid loco nominis sumptum. Nomen autem est vox significativa ad placitum simplicis intellectus, quod est similitudo rei; et ideo subiectum enunciationis distinguit per divisionem rerum, et dicit quod rerum quaedam sunt universalia, quaedam sunt singularia. Manifestat autem membra divisionis dupliciter: primo quidem per definitionem, quia universale est quod est aptum natum de pluribus praedicari, singulare vero quod non est aptum natum praedicari de pluribus, sed de uno solo; secundo, manifestat per exemplum cum subdit quod homo est universale, Plato autem singulare. 2. Now the subject of an enunciation is a name or something taken in place of a Dame. A name is a vocal sound significant by convention of simple thought, which, in turn, is a likeness of the thing. Hence, Aristotle distinguishes the subject of enunciation by a division of things; and he says that of things, some are universals, others singulars. He then explains the members of this division in two ways. First he defines them. Then he manifests them by example when he says, “man” is universal, “Plato” singular.
Accidit autem dubitatio circa hanc divisionem, quia, sicut probat philosophus in VII metaphysicae, universale non est aliquid extra res existens. Item, in praedicamentis dicitur quod secundae substantiae non sunt nisi in primis, quae sunt singulares. Non ergo videtur esse conveniens divisio rerum per universalia et singularia: quia nullae res videntur esse universales, sed omnes sunt singulares. 3. There is a difficulty about this division, for the Philosopher proves in VII Metaphysicae [14: 1039a 23] that the universal is not something existing outside of the thing; and in the Predicamenta [5: 2a 11] he says that second substances are only in first substances, i.e., singulars. Therefore, the division of things into universals and singulars does not seem to be consistent, since according to him there are no things that are universal; on the contrary, all things are singular.
Dicendum est autem quod hic dividuntur res secundum quod significantur per nomina, quae subiiciuntur in enunciationibus: dictum est autem supra quod nomina non significant res nisi mediante intellectu; et ideo oportet quod divisio ista rerum accipiatur secundum quod res cadunt in intellectu. Ea vero quae sunt coniuncta in rebus intellectus potest distinguere, quando unum eorum non cadit in ratione alterius. In qualibet autem re singulari est considerare aliquid quod est proprium illi rei, in quantum est haec res, sicut Socrati vel Platoni in quantum est hic homo; et aliquid est considerare in ea, in quo convenit cum aliis quibusdam rebus, sicut quod Socrates est animal, aut homo, aut rationalis, aut risibilis, aut albus. Quando igitur res denominatur ab eo quod convenit illi soli rei in quantum est haec res, huiusmodi nomen dicitur significare aliquid singulare; quando autem denominatur res ab eo quod est commune sibi et multis aliis, nomen huiusmodi dicitur significare universale, quia scilicet nomen significat naturam sive dispositionem aliquam, quae est communis multis. 4. The things divided here, however, are things as signified by names—which names are subjects of enunciations. Now, Aristotle has already said that names signify things only through the mediation of the intellect; therefore, this division must be taken as a division of things as apprehended by the intellect. Now in fact, whatever is joined together in things can be distinguished by the intellect when one of them does not belong to the notion of the other. In any singular thing, we can consider what is proper to the thing insofar as it is this thing, for instance, what is proper to Socrates or to Plato insofar as he is this man. We can also consider that in which it agrees with certain other things, as, that Socrates is an animal, or man, or rational, or risible, or white. Accordingly, when a thing is denominated from what belongs only to this thing insofar as it is this thing, the name is said to signify a singular. When a thing is denominated from what is common to it and to many others, the name is said to signify a universal since it signifies a nature or some disposition which is common to many.
Quia igitur hanc divisionem dedit de rebus non absolute secundum quod sunt extra animam, sed secundum quod referuntur ad intellectum, non definivit universale et singulare secundum aliquid quod pertinet ad rem, puta si diceret quod universale extra animam, quod pertinet ad opinionem Platonis, sed per actum animae intellectivae, quod est praedicari de multis vel de uno solo. Immediately after giving this division of things, then—not of things absolutely as they are outside of the soul, but as they are referred to the intellect—Aristotle defines the universal and the singular through the act of the intellective soul, as that which is such as to be predicated of many or of only one, and not according to anything that pertains to the thing, that is, as if he were affirming such a universal outside of the soul, an opinion relating to Plato’s teaching.
Est autem considerandum quod intellectus apprehendit rem intellectam secundum propriam essentiam, seu definitionem: unde et in III de anima dicitur quod obiectum proprium intellectus est quod quid est. Contingit autem quandoque quod propria ratio alicuius formae intellectae non repugnat ei quod est esse in pluribus, sed hoc impeditur ab aliquo alio, sive sit aliquid accidentaliter adveniens, puta si omnibus hominibus morientibus unus solus remaneret, sive sit propter conditionem materiae, sicut est unus tantum sol, non quod repugnet rationi solari esse in pluribus secundum conditionem formae ipsius, sed quia non est alia materia susceptiva talis formae; et ideo non dixit quod universale est quod praedicatur de pluribus, sed quod aptum natum est praedicari de pluribus. 5. There is a further point we should consider in relation to this portion of the text. The intellect apprehends the thing—understood according to the thing’s essence or definition. This is the reason Aristotle says in III De anima [4:429b 10] that the proper object of the intellect is what the thing essentially is. Now, sometimes the proper nature of some understood form is not repugnant to being in many but is impeded by something else, either by something occurring accidentally (for instance if all men but one were to die) or because of the condition of matter; the sun, for instance, is only one, not because it is repugnant to the notion of the sun to be in many according to the condition of its form, but because there is no other matter capable of receiving such a form. This is the reason Aristotle did not say that the universal is that which is predicated of many, but that which is of such a nature as to be predicated of many.
Cum autem omnis forma, quae nata est recipi in materia quantum est de se, communicabilis sit multis materiis; dupliciter potest contingere quod id quod significatur per nomen, non sit aptum natum praedicari de pluribus. Uno modo, quia nomen significat formam secundum quod terminata est ad hanc materiam, sicut hoc nomen Socrates vel Plato, quod significat naturam humanam prout est in hac materia. Alio modo, secundum quod nomen significat formam, quae non est nata in materia recipi, unde oportet quod per se remaneat una et singularis; sicut albedo, si esset forma non existens in materia, esset una sola, unde esset singularis: et propter hoc philosophus dicit in VII Metaphys. quod si essent species rerum separatae, sicut posuit Plato, essent individua. 6. Now, since every form which is so constituted as to be received in matter is communicable to many matters, there are two ways in which what is signified by a name may not be of such a nature as to be predicated of many: in one way, because a name signifies a form as terminated in this matter, as in the case of the name “Socrates” or “Plato,” which signifies human nature as it is in this matter; in another way, because a name signifies a form which is not constituted to be received in matter and consequently must remain per se one and singular. Whiteness, for example, would be only one if it were a form not a existing in matter, and consequently singular. This is the reason the Philosopher says in VII Metaphysicae [6: 1045a 36–1045b 7] that if there were separated species of things, as Plato held, they would be individuals.
Potest autem obiici quod hoc nomen Socrates vel Plato est natum de pluribus praedicari, quia nihil prohibet multos esse, qui vocentur hoc nomine. Sed ad hoc patet responsio, si attendantur verba Aristotelis. Ipse enim non divisit nomina in universale et particulare, sed res. Et ideo intelligendum est quod universale dicitur quando, non solum nomen potest de pluribus praedicari, sed id, quod significatur per nomen, est natum in pluribus inveniri; hoc autem non contingit in praedictis nominibus: nam hoc nomen Socrates vel Plato significat naturam humanam secundum quod est in hac materia. Si vero hoc nomen imponatur alteri homini significabit naturam humanam in alia materia; et sic eius erit alia significatio; unde non erit universale, sed aequivocum. 7. It could be objected that the name “Socrates” or “Plato” is of such a kind as to be predicated of many, since there is nothing to prevent their being applied to many. The response to this objection is evident if we consider Aristotle’s words. Notice that he divides things into universal and particular, not names. It should be understood from this that what is said to be universal not only has a name that can be predicated of many but what is signified by the name is of such a nature as to be found in many. Now this is not the case in the above-mentioned names, for the name “Socrates” or “Plato” signifies human nature as it is in this matter. If one of these names is imposed on another man it will signify human nature in other matter and thus another signification of it. Consequently, it will be equivocal, not universal.
Deinde cum dicit: necesse est autem enunciare etc., concludit divisionem enunciationis. Quia enim semper enunciatur aliquid de aliqua re; rerum autem quaedam sunt universalia, quaedam singularia; necesse est quod quandoque enuncietur aliquid inesse vel non inesse alicui universalium, quandoque vero alicui singularium. 8. When he says, we have to enunciate either of a universal or of a singular that something belongs or does not belong to it, he infers the division of the enunciation. Since something is always enunciated of some thing, and of things some are universals and some singulars, it follows that sometimes it will be enunciated that something belongs or does not belong to something universal, sometimes to something singular.
Et est suspensiva constructio usque huc, et est sensus: quoniam autem sunt haec quidem rerum etc., necesse est enunciare et cetera. The construction of the sentence was interrupted by the explanation of universal and singular but now we can see the meaning: Since some of the things we are concerned with are universal and others singular... we have to enunciate either of a universal or of a singular that something belongs or does not belong to it.
Est autem considerandum quod de universali aliquid enunciatur quatuor modis. Nam universale potest uno modo considerari quasi separatum a singularibus, sive per se subsistens, ut Plato posuit, sive, secundum sententiam Aristotelis, secundum esse quod habet in intellectu. Et sic potest ei aliquid attribui dupliciter. Quandoque enim attribuitur ei sic considerato aliquid, quod pertinet ad solam operationem intellectus, ut si dicatur quod homo est praedicabile de multis, sive universale, sive species. Huiusmodi enim intentiones format intellectus attribuens eas naturae intellectae, secundum quod comparat ipsam ad res, quae sunt extra animam. Quandoque vero attribuitur aliquid universali sic considerato, quod scilicet apprehenditur ab intellectu ut unum, tamen id quod attribuitur ei non pertinet ad actum intellectus, sed ad esse, quod habet natura apprehensa in rebus, quae sunt extra animam, puta si dicatur quod homo est dignissima creaturarum. Hoc enim convenit naturae humanae etiam secundum quod est in singularibus. Nam quilibet homo singularis dignior est omnibus creaturis irrationalibus; sed tamen omnes homines singulares non sunt unus homo extra animam, sed solum in acceptione intellectus; et per hunc modum attribuitur ei praedicatum, scilicet ut uni rei. Alio autem modo attribuitur universali, prout est in singularibus, et hoc dupliciter. 9. In relation to the point being made here we have to consider the four ways in which something is enunciated of the universal. On the one band, the universal can be considered as though separated from singulars, whether subsisting per se as Plato held or according to the being it has in the intellect as Aristotle held; considered thus, something can be attributed to it in two ways. Sometimes we attribute something to it which pertains only to the operation of the intellect; for example when we say, “Man,” whether the universal or the species, “is predicable” of many. For the intellect forms intentions of this kind, attributing them to the nature understood according as it compares the nature to the things outside of the mind. But sometimes we attribute something to the universal thus considered (i.e., as it is apprehended by the intellect as one) which does not belong to the act of the intellect but to the being that the nature apprehended has in things outside of the soul; for example, when we say “Man is the noblest of creatures.” For this truly belongs to human nature as it is in singulars, since any single man is more noble than all irrational creatures; yet all singular men are not one man outside of the mind, but only in the apprehension of the intellect; and the predicate is attributed to it in this way, i.e., as to one thing.
Quandoque quidem ratione ipsius naturae universalis, puta cum attribuitur ei aliquid quod ad essentiam eius pertinet, vel quod consequitur principia essentialia; ut cum dicitur, homo est animal, vel homo est risibilis. Quandoque autem attribuitur ei aliquid ratione singularis in quo invenitur, puta cum attribuitur ei aliquid quod pertinet ad actionem individui; ut cum dicitur, homo ambulat. On the other hand, we attribute something to the universal as in singulars in another way, and this is twofold: sometimes it is in view of the universal nature itself; for instance, when we attribute something to it that belongs to its essence, or follows upon the essential principles, as in “Man is an animal,” or “Man is risible.” Sometimes it is in view of the singular in which the universal is found; for instance, when we attribute something to the universal that pertains to the action of the individual, as in “Man walks.
Singulari autem attribuitur aliquid tripliciter: uno modo, secundum quod cadit in apprehensione; ut cum dicitur, Socrates est singulare, vel praedicabile de uno solo. Quandoque autem, ratione naturae communis; ut cum dicitur, Socrates est animal. Quandoque autem, ratione sui ipsius; ut cum dicitur, Socrates ambulat. Moreover, something is attributed to the singular in three ways: in one way, as it is subject to the intellect, as when we say “Socrates is a singular,” or “predicable of only one”; in another way, by reason of the common nature, as when we say “Socrates is an animal”; in the third way, by reason of itself, as when we say “Socrates is walking.”
Et totidem etiam modis negationes variantur: quia omne quod contingit affirmare, contingit negare, ut supra dictum est. The negations are varied in the same number of ways, since everything that can be affirmed can also be denied, as was said above.
Est autem haec tertia divisio enunciationis quam ponit philosophus. Prima namque fuit quod enunciationum quaedam est una simpliciter, quaedam vero coniunctione una. Quae quidem est divisio analogi in ea de quibus praedicatur secundum prius et posterius: sic enim unum dividitur secundum prius in simplex et per posterius in compositum. 10. This is the third division the Philosopher has given of the enunciation. The first was the division of the enunciation into one simply and one by conjunction. This is an analogous division into those things of which one is predicated primarily and consequently, for one is divided according to the prior and posterior into simple and composite.
Alia vero fuit divisio enunciationis in affirmationem et negationem. Quae quidem est divisio generis in species, quia sumitur secundum differentiam praedicati ad quod fertur negatio; praedicatum autem est pars formalis enunciationis; et ideo huiusmodi divisio dicitur pertinere ad qualitatem enunciationis, qualitatem, inquam, essentialem, secundum quod differentia significat quale quid. The second was the division of enunciation into affirmation and negation. This is a division of genus into species, for it is taken from the difference of the predicate to which a negation is added. The predicate is the formal part of the enunciation and hence such a division is said to pertain to the quality of the enunciation. By “quality” I mean essential quality, for in this case the difference signifies the quality of the essence.
Tertia autem est huiusmodi divisio, quae sumitur secundum differentiam subiecti, quod praedicatur de pluribus vel de uno solo, et ideo dicitur pertinere ad quantitatem enunciationis, nam et quantitas consequitur materiam. The third division is based upon the difference of the subject as predicated of many or of only one, and is therefore a division that pertains to the quantity of the enunciation, for quantity follows upon matter.
Deinde cum dicit: si ergo universaliter etc., ostendit quomodo enunciationes diversimode opponantur secundum diversitatem subiecti. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, distinguit diversos modos oppositionum in ipsis enunciationibus; secundo, ostendit quomodo diversae oppositiones diversimode se habent ad verum et falsum; ibi: quocirca, has quidem impossibile est et cetera. 11. Aristotle shows next how enunciations are opposed in diverse ways according to the diversity of the subject when he says, If, then, it is universally enunciated of a universal that something belongs or does not belong to it, etc. He first distinguishes the diverse modes of opposition in enunciations; secondly, he shows how these diverse oppositions are related in different ways to truth and falsity where he says, Hence in the case of the latter it is impossible that both be at once true, etc.
Circa primum considerandum est quod cum universale possit considerari in abstractione a singularibus vel secundum quod est in ipsis singularibus, secundum hoc diversimode aliquid ei attribuitur, ut supra dictum est. Ad designandum autem diversos modos attributionis inventae sunt quaedam dictiones, quae possunt dici determinationes vel signa, quibus designatur quod aliquid de universali, hoc aut illo modo praedicetur. 12. First, then, he distinguishes the diverse modes of opposition and since these depend upon a diversity in the subject we must first consider the latter diversity. Now the universal can be considered either in abstraction from singulars or as it is in singulars, and by reason of this something is attributed in diverse modes to the universal, as we have already said. To designate diverse modes of attribution certain words have been conceived which may be called determinations or signs and which designate that something is predicated in this or that mode.
Sed quia non est ab omnibus communiter apprehensum quod universalia extra singularia subsistant, ideo communis usus loquendi non habet aliquam dictionem ad designandum illum modum praedicandi, prout aliquid dicitur in abstractione a singularibus. Sed Plato, qui posuit universalia extra singularia subsistere, adinvenit aliquas determinationes, quibus designaretur quomodo aliquid attribuitur universali, prout est extra singularia, et vocabat universale separatum subsistens extra singularia quantum ad speciem hominis, per se hominem vel ipsum hominem et similiter in aliis universalibus. But first we should note that since it is not commonly apprehended by all men that universals subsist outside of singulars there is no word in common speech to designate the mode of predicating in which something is said of a universal thus in abstraction from singulars. Plato, who held that universals subsist outside of singulars, did, however, invent certain determinations to designate the way in which something is attributed to the universal as it is outside of singulars. With respect to the species man he called the separated universal subsisting outside of singulars “man per se” or “man itself,” and he designated other such universals in like manner.
Sed universale secundum quod est in singularibus cadit in communi apprehensione hominum; et ideo adinventae sunt quaedam dictiones ad significandum modum attribuendi aliquid universali sic accepto. The universal as it is in singulars, however, does fall within the common apprehension of men and accordingly certain words have been conceived to signify the mode of attributing something to the universal taken in this way.
Sicut autem supra dictum est, quandoque aliquid attribuitur universali ratione ipsius naturae universalis; et ideo hoc dicitur praedicari de eo universaliter, quia scilicet ei convenit secundum totam multitudinem in qua invenitur; et ad hoc designandum in affirmativis praedicationibus adinventa est haec dictio, omnis, quae designat quod praedicatum attribuitur subiecto universali quantum ad totum id quod sub subiecto continetur. In negativis autem praedicationibus adinventa est haec dictio, nullus, per quam significatur quod praedicatum removetur a subiecto universali secundum totum id quod continetur sub eo. Unde nullus dicitur quasi non ullus, et in Graeco dicitur, udis quasi nec unus, quia nec unum solum est accipere sub subiecto universali a quo praedicatum non removeatur. 13. As was said above, sometimes something is attributed to the universal in view of the universal nature itself; for this reason it is said to be predicated of the universal universally, i.e., that it belongs to the universal according to the whole multitude in which it is found. The word “every” has been devised to designate this in affirmative predications. It designates that the predicate is attributed to the universal subject with respect to the whole of what is contained under the subject. In negative predications the word “no” has been devised to signify that the predicate is removed from the universal subject according to the whole of what is contained under it. Hence, saying nullus in Latin is like saying non ullus [not any] and in Greek ουδεις [none] is like ουδε εις [not one], for not a single one is understood under the universal subject from which the predicate is not removed.
Quandoque autem attribuitur universali aliquid vel removetur ab eo ratione particularis; et ad hoc designandum, in affirmativis quidem adinventa est haec dictio, aliquis vel quidam, per quam designatur quod praedicatum attribuitur subiecto universali ratione ipsius particularis; sed quia non determinate significat formam alicuius singularis, sub quadam indeterminatione singulare designat; unde et dicitur individuum vagum. In negativis autem non est aliqua dictio posita, sed possumus accipere, non omnis; ut sicut, nullus, universaliter removet, eo quod significat quasi diceretur, non ullus, idest, non aliquis, ita etiam, non omnis, particulariter removeat, in quantum excludit universalem affirmationem. Sometimes something is either attributed to or removed from the universal in view of the particular. To designate this in affirmative enunciations, the word “some,” or “a certain one,” has been devised. We designate by this that the predicate is attributed to the universal subject by reason of the particular. “Some,” or “a certain one,” however, does not signify the form of any singular determinately, rather, it designates the singular under a certain indetermination. The singular so designated is therefore called the vague individual. In negative enunciations there is no designated word, but “not all” can be used. just as “no,” then, removes universally, for it signifies the same thing as if we were to say “not any,” (i.e., “not some”) so also “not all” removes particularly inasmuch as it excludes universal affirmation.
Sic igitur tria sunt genera affirmationum in quibus aliquid de universali praedicatur. Una quidem est, in qua de universali praedicatur aliquid universaliter; ut cum dicitur, omnis homo est animal. Alia, in qua aliquid praedicatur de universali particulariter; ut cum dicitur, quidam homo est albus. Tertia vero est, in qua aliquid de universali praedicatur absque determinatione universalitatis vel particularitatis; unde huiusmodi enunciatio solet vocari indefinita. Totidem autem sunt negationes oppositae. 14. There are, therefore, three kinds of affirmations in which something is predicated of a universal: in one, something is predicated of the universal universally, as in “Every man is an animal”; in another, something is predicated of the universal particularly, as in “Some man is white.” The third is the affirmation in which something is predicated of the universal without a determination of universality or particularity. Enunciations of this kind are customarily called indefinite. There are the same number of opposed negations.
De singulari autem quamvis aliquid diversa ratione praedicetur, ut supra dictum est, tamen totum refertur ad singularitatem ipsius, quia etiam natura universalis in ipso singulari individuatur; et ideo nihil refert quantum ad naturam singularitatis, utrum aliquid praedicetur de eo ratione universalis naturae; ut cum dicitur, Socrates est homo, vel conveniat ei ratione singularitatis. 15. In the case of the singular, although something is predicated of it in a different respect, as was said above, nevertheless the whole is referred to its singularity because the universal nature is individuated in the singular; therefore it makes no difference as far as the nature of singularity is concerned whether something is predicated of the singular by reason of the universal nature, as in “Socrates is a man,” or belongs to it by reason of its singularity.
Si igitur tribus praedictis enunciationibus addatur singularis, erunt quatuor modi enunciationis ad quantitatem ipsius pertinentes, scilicet universalis, singularis, indefinitus et particularis. 16. If we add the singular to the three already mentioned there will be four modes of enunciation pertaining to quantity: universal singular, indefinite, and particular.
Sic igitur secundum has differentias Aristoteles assignat diversas oppositiones enunciationum adinvicem. Et primo, secundum differentiam universalium ad indefinitas; secundo, secundum differentiam universalium ad particulares; ibi: opponi autem affirmationem et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo, agit de oppositione propositionum universalium adinvicem; secundo, de oppositione indefinitarum; ibi: quando autem in universalibus etc.; tertio, excludit dubitationem; ibi: in eo vero quod et cetera. 17. Aristotle assigns the diverse oppositions of enunciations according to these differences. The first opposition is based on the difference of universals and indefinites; the second on the difference of universals and particulars, the latter being treated where he says, Affirmation is opposed to negation in the way I call contradictory, etc. With respect to the first opposition, the one between universals and indefinites, the opposition of universal propositions to each other is treated first, and then the opposition of indefinite enunciations where he says, On the other hand, when the enunciations are of a universal but not universally enunciated, etc. Finally he precludes a possible question where he says, In the predicate, however, the universal universally predicated is not true, etc.
Dicit ergo primo quod si aliquis enunciet de subiecto universali universaliter, idest secundum continentiam suae universalitatis, quoniam est, idest affirmative, aut non est, idest negative, erunt contrariae enunciationes; ut si dicatur, omnis homo est albus, nullus homo est albus. Huius autem ratio est, quia contraria dicuntur quae maxime a se distant: non enim dicitur aliquid nigrum ex hoc solum quod non est album, sed super hoc quod est non esse album, quod significat communiter remotionem albi, addit nigrum extremam distantiam ab albo. Sic igitur id quod affirmatur per hanc enunciationem, omnis homo est albus, removetur per hanc negationem, non omnis homo est albus. Oportet ergo quod negatio removeat modum quo praedicatum dicitur de subiecto, quem designat haec dictio, omnis. Sed super hanc remotionem addit haec enunciatio, nullus homo est albus, totalem remotionem, quae est extrema distantia a primo; quod pertinet ad rationem contrarietatis. Et ideo convenienter hanc oppositionem dicit contrarietatem. 18. He says first, then, that if someone enunciates universally of a universal subject, i.e., according to the content of its universality, that it is, i.e., affirmatively, or is not, i.e., negatively, these enunciations will be contrary; as when we say, “Every man is white,” “No man is white.” And the reason is that the things that are most distant from each other are said to be contraries. For a thing is not said to be black only because it is not white but because over and beyond not being white—which signifies the remotion of white commonly—it is, in addition, black, the extreme in distance from white. What is affirmed by the enunciation “Every man is white” then, is removed by the negation “Not every man is white”; the negation, therefore, removes the mode in which the predicate is said of the subject which the word “every” designates. But over and beyond this remotion, the enunciation “No man is white” which is most distant from “Every man is white,” adds total remotion, and this belongs to the notion of contrariety. He therefore appropriately calls this opposition contrariety.
Deinde cum dicit: quando autem etc., ostendit qualis sit oppositio affirmationis et negationis in indefinitis. Et primo, proponit quod intendit; secundo, manifestat propositum per exempla; ibi: dico autem non universaliter etc.; tertio, assignat rationem manifestationis; ibi: cum enim universale sit homo et cetera. 19. When he says, On the other hand, when the enunciations are of a universal but not universally enunciated, etc., he shows what kind of opposition there is between affirmation and negation in indefinite enunciations. First he states the point; he then manifests it by an example when he says, I mean by “enunciated of a universal but not universally,” etc. Finally he gives the reason for this when he says, For while “man” is a universal, it is not used as universal, etc.
Dicit ergo primo quod quando de universalibus subiectis affirmatur aliquid vel negatur non tamen universaliter, non sunt contrariae enunciationes, sed illa quae significantur contingit esse contraria. Deinde cum dicit: dico autem non universaliter etc., manifestat per exempla. Ubi considerandum est quod non dixerat quando in universalibus particulariter, sed non universaliter. Non enim intendit de particularibus enunciationibus, sed de solis indefinitis. Et hoc manifestat per exempla quae ponit, dicens fieri in universalibus subiectis non universalem enunciationem; cum dicitur, est albus homo, non est albus homo. Et rationem huius expositionis ostendit, quia homo, qui subiicitur, est universale, sed tamen praedicatum non universaliter de eo praedicatur, quia non apponitur haec dictio, omnis: quae non significat ipsum universale, sed modum universalitatis, prout scilicet praedicatum dicitur universaliter de subiecto; et ideo addita subiecto universali, semper significat quod aliquid de eo dicatur universaliter. He says first, then, that when something is affirmed or denied of a universal subject, but not universally, the enunciations are not contrary but the things that are signified may be contraries. He clarifies this with examples where he says, I mean by “enunciated of a universal but not universally,” etc. Note in relation to this that what he said just before this was “when... of universals but not universally enunciated” and not, “when... of universals particularly,” the reason being that he only intends to speak of indefinite enunciations, not of particulars. This he manifests by the examples he gives. When we say “Man is white” and “Man is not white,” the universal subjects do not make them universal enunciations. He gives as the reason for this, that although man, which stands as the subject, is universal, the predicate is not predicated of it universally because the word “every” is not added, which does not itself signify the universal, but the mode of universality, i.e., that the predicate is said universally of the subject. Therefore when “every” is added to the universal subject it always signifies that something is said of it universally.
Tota autem haec expositio refertur ad hoc quod dixerat: quando in universalibus non universaliter enunciatur, non sunt contrariae. This whole exposition relates to his saying, On the other hand, when the enunciations are of a universal but not universally enunciated, they are not contraries.
Sed hoc quod additur: quae autem significantur contingit esse contraria, non est expositum, quamvis obscuritatem contineat; et ideo a diversis diversimode exponitur. 20. Immediately after this he adds, although it is possible for the things signified to be contraries, and in spite of the fact that this is obscure he does not explain it. It has therefore been interpreted in different ways.
Quidam enim hoc referre voluerunt ad contrarietatem veritatis et falsitatis, quae competit huiusmodi enunciationibus. Contingit enim quandoque has simul esse veras, homo est albus, homo non est albus; et sic non sunt contrariae, quia contraria mutuo se tollunt. Contingit tamen quandoque unam earum esse veram et alteram esse falsam; ut cum dicitur, homo est animal, homo non est animal; et sic ratione significati videntur habere quamdam contrarietatem. Some related it to the contrariety of truth and falsity proper to enunciations of this kind, For such enunciations may be simultaneously true, as in “Man is white” and “Man is not white,” and thus not be contraries, for contraries mutually destroy each other. On the other hand, one may be true and the other false, as in “Man is an animal” and “Man is not an animal,” and thus by reason of what is signified seem to have a certain kind of contrariety.
Sed hoc non videtur ad propositum pertinere, tum quia philosophus nondum hic loquitur de veritate et falsitate enunciationum; tum etiam quia hoc ipsum posset de particularibus enunciationibus dici. But this does not seem to be related to what Aristotle has said: first, because the Philosopher has not yet taken up the point of truth and falsity of enunciations; secondly, because this very thing can also be said of particular enunciations.
Alii vero, sequentes Porphyrium, referunt hoc ad contrarietatem praedicati. Contingit enim quandoque quod praedicatum negatur de subiecto propter hoc quod inest ei contrarium; sicut si dicatur, homo non est albus, quia est niger; et sic id quod significatur per hoc quod dicitur, non est albus, potest esse contrarium. 21. Others, following Porphyry, relate this to the contrariety of the predicate. For sometimes the predicate may be denied of the subject because of the presence of the contrary in it, as when we say, “Man is not white” because he is black; thus it could be the contrary that is signified by “is not white.”
Non tamen semper: removetur enim aliquid a subiecto, etiam si contrarium non insit, sed aliquid medium inter contraria; ut cum dicitur, aliquis non est albus, quia est pallidus; vel quia inest ei privatio actus vel habitus seu potentiae; ut cum dicitur, aliquis non est videns, quia est carens potentia visiva, aut habet impedimentum ne videat, vel etiam quia non est aptus natus videre; puta si dicatur, lapis non videt. Sic igitur illa, quae significantur contingit esse contraria, sed ipsae enunciationes non sunt contrariae, quia ut in fine huius libri dicetur, non sunt contrariae opiniones quae sunt de contrariis, sicut opinio quod aliquid sit bonum, et illa quae est, quod aliquid non est bonum. This is not always the case, however, for we remove something from a subject even when it is not a contrary that is present in it but some mean between contraries, as in saying, “So-and-so is not white” because he is pale; or when there is a privation of act or habit or potency, as in saying, “So-and-so is non-seeing” because he lacks the power of sight or has an impediment so that he cannot see, or even because something is not of such a nature as to see, as in saying, “A stone does not see.” It is therefore possible for the things signified to be contraries, but the enunciations themselves not to be; for as is said near the end of this book, opinions that are about contraries are not contrary,”’ for example, an opinion that something is good and an opinion that something is evil.
Sed nec hoc videtur ad propositum Aristotelis pertinere, quia non agit hic de contrarietate rerum vel opinionum, sed de contrarietate enunciationum: et ideo magis videtur hic sequenda expositio Alexandri. 22. This does not seem to relate to what Aristotle has proposed either, for he is not treating here of contrariety of things or opinions, but of contrariety of enunciations. For this reason it seems better here to follow the exposition of Alexander.
Secundum quam dicendum est quod in indefinitis enunciationibus non determinatur utrum praedicatum attribuatur subiecto universaliter (quod faceret contrarietatem enunciationum), aut particulariter (quod non faceret contrarietatem enunciationum); et ideo huiusmodi enunciationes indefinitae non sunt contrariae secundum modum quo proferuntur. Contingit tamen quandoque ratione significati eas habere contrarietatem, puta, cum attribuitur aliquid universali ratione naturae universalis, quamvis non apponatur signum universale; ut cum dicitur, homo est animal, homo non est animal: quia hae enunciationes eamdem habent vim ratione significati; ac si diceretur, omnis homo est animal, nullus homo est animal. According to his exposition, in indefinite enunciations it is not determined whether the predicate is attributed to the subject universally (which would constitute contrariety of enunciations), or particularly (which would not constitute contrariety of enunciations). Accordingly, enunciations of this kind are not contrary in mode of expression. However, sometimes they have contrariety by reason of what is signified, i.e., when something is attributed to a universal in virtue of the universal nature although the universal sign is not added, as in “Man is an animal” and “Man is not an animal,” for in virtue of what is signified these enunciations have the same force as “Every man is an animal” and “No man is an animal.”
Deinde cum dicit: in eo vero quod etc., removet quoddam quod posset esse dubium. Quia enim posuerat quamdam diversitatem in oppositione enunciationum ex hoc quod universale sumitur a parte subiecti universaliter vel non universaliter, posset aliquis credere quod similis diversitas nasceretur ex parte praedicati, ex hoc scilicet quod universale praedicari posset et universaliter et non universaliter; et ideo ad hoc excludendum dicit quod in eo quod praedicatur aliquod universale, non est verum quod praedicetur universale universaliter. 23. When he says, But as regards the predicate the universal universally predicated is not true, etc., he precludes a certain difficulty. He has already stated that there is a diversity in the opposition of enunciations because of the universal being taken either universally or not universally on the part of the subject. Someone might think, as a consequence, that a similar diversity would arise on the part of the predicate, i.e., that the universal could be predicated both universally and not universally. To exclude this he says that in the case in which a universal is predicated it is not true that the universal is predicated universally.
Cuius quidem duplex esse potest ratio. Una quidem, quia talis modus praedicandi videtur repugnare praedicato secundum propriam rationem quam habet in enunciatione. Dictum est enim supra quod praedicatum est quasi pars formalis enunciationis, subiectum autem est pars materialis ipsius: cum autem aliquod universale profertur universaliter, ipsum universale sumitur secundum habitudinem quam habet ad singularia, quae sub se continet; sicut et quando universale profertur particulariter, sumitur secundum habitudinem quam habet ad aliquod contentorum sub se; et sic utrumque pertinet ad materialem determinationem universalis: et ideo neque signum universale neque particulare convenienter additur praedicato, sed magis subiecto: convenientius enim dicitur, nullus homo est asinus, quam, omnis homo est nullus asinus; et similiter convenientius dicitur, aliquis homo est albus, quam, homo est aliquid album. There are two reasons for this. The first is that such a mode of predicating seems to be repugnant to the predicate in relation to its status in the enunciation; for, as has been said, the predicate is a quasi-formal part of the enunciation, while the subject is a material part of it. Now when a universal is asserted universally the universal itself is taken according to the relationship it has to the singulars contained under it, and when it is asserted particularly the universal is taken according to the relationship it has to some one of what is contained under it. Thus both pertain to the material determination of the universal. This is why it is not appropriate to add either the universal or particular sign to the predicate, but rather to the subject; for it is more appropriate to say, “No man is an ass” than “Every man is no ass”; and likewise, to say, “Some man is white” than, “Man is some white.”
Invenitur autem quandoque a philosophis signum particulare appositum praedicato, ad insinuandum quod praedicatum est in plus quam subiectum, et hoc praecipue cum, habito genere, investigant differentias completivas speciei, sicut in II de anima dicitur quod anima est actus quidam. However, sometimes philosophers put the particular sign next to the predicate to indicate that the predicate is in more than the subject, and this especially when they have a genus in mind and are investigating the differences which complete the species. There is an instance of this in II De anima [1:412a 22] where Aristotle says that the soul is a certain act.”’
Alia vero ratio potest accipi ex parte veritatis enunciationis; et ista specialiter habet locum in affirmationibus quae falsae essent si praedicatum universaliter praedicaretur. Et ideo manifestans id quod posuerat, subiungit quod nulla affirmatio est in qua, scilicet vere, de universali praedicato universaliter praedicetur, idest in qua universali praedicato utitur ad universaliter praedicandum; ut si diceretur, omnis homo est omne animal. Oportet enim, secundum praedicta, quod hoc praedicatum animal, secundum singula quae sub ipso continentur, praedicaretur de singulis quae continentur sub homine; et hoc non potest esse verum, neque si praedicatum sit in plus quam subiectum, neque si praedicatum sit convertibile cum eo. Oporteret enim quod quilibet unus homo esset animalia omnia, aut omnia risibilia: quae repugnant rationi singularis, quod accipitur sub universali. The other reason is related to the truth of enunciations. This has a special place in affirmations, which would be false if the predicate were predicated universally. Hence to manifest what he has stated, he adds, for there is no affirmation in which, i.e., truly, a universal predicate will be predicated universally, i.e., in which a universal predicate is used to predicate universally, for example, “Every man is every animal.” If this could be done, the predicate “animal” according to the singulars contained under it would have to be predicated of the singulars contained under “man”; but such predication could not be true, whether the predicate is in more than the subject or is convertible with the subject; for then any one man would have to be all animals or all risible beings, which is repugnant to the notion of the singular, which is taken under the universal.
Nec est instantia si dicatur quod haec est vera, omnis homo est omnis disciplinae susceptivus: disciplina enim non praedicatur de homine, sed susceptivum disciplinae; repugnaret autem veritati si diceretur, omnis homo est omne susceptivum disciplinae. The truth of the enunciation “Every man is susceptible of every discipline” is not an instance that can be used as an objection to this position, for it is not “discipline” that is predicated of man but “susceptible of discipline.” It would be repugnant to truth if it were said that “Every man is everything susceptible of discipline.”
Signum autem universale negativum, vel particulare affirmativum, etsi convenientius ponantur ex parte subiecti, non tamen repugnat veritati etiam si ponantur ex parte praedicati. Contingit enim huiusmodi enunciationes in aliqua materia esse veras: haec enim est vera, omnis homo nullus lapis est; et similiter haec est vera, omnis homo aliquod animal est. Sed haec, omnis homo omne animal est, in quacumque materia proferatur, falsa est. Sunt autem quaedam aliae tales enunciationes semper falsae; sicut ista, aliquis homo omne animal est (quae habet eamdem causam falsitatis cum hac, omnis homo omne animal est); et si quae aliae similes, sunt semper falsae: in omnibus enim eadem ratio est. Et ideo per hoc quod philosophus reprobavit istam, omnis homo omne animal est, dedit intelligere omnes consimiles esse improbandas. 24. On the other hand, although the negative universal sign or the particular affirmative sign are more appropriately posited on the part of the subject, it is not repugnant to truth if they are posited on the part of the predicate, for such enunciations may be true in some matter. The enunciation “Every man is no stone,” for example, is true, and so is “Every man is some animal.” But the enunciation “Every man is every animal,” in whatever matter it occurs, is false. There are other enunciations of this kind that are always false, such as, “Some man is every animal” (which is false for the same reason as “Every man is every animal” is false). And if there are any others like these, they are always false; and the reason is the same in every case. And, therefore, in rejecting the enunciation “Every man is every animal,” the Philosopher meant it to be understood that all similar enunciations are to be rejected.

LESSON 11
The Opposition of Universal and Particular Enunciations
and the Relation of an Opposed Affirmation and Negation to Truth and Falsity

Ἀντικεῖσθαι μὲν οὖν κατάφασιν ἀποφάσει λέγω ἀντιφατικῶς τὴν τὸ καθόλου σημαίνουσαν τῷ αὐτῷ ὅτι οὐ καθόλου, οἷον πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός—οὐ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός, οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός—ἔστι τις ἄνθρωπος λευκός 17b 16 Affirmation is opposed to negation in the way I call contradictory when the one signifying universally is opposed to the same one not signifying universally, as in “Every man is white” and “Not every man is white”; “No man is white” and “Some man is white.”
ἐναντίως δὲ τὴν τοῦ καθόλου κατάφασιν καὶ τὴν τοῦ καθόλου ἀπόφασιν, οἷον πᾶς ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος—οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος l7b 20 They are opposed contrarily when the universal affirmation is opposed to the universal negation; as in “Every man is just” and “No man is just.”
διὸ ταύτας μὲν οὐχ οἷόν τε ἅμα ἀληθεῖς εἶναι, τὰς δὲ ἀντικειμένας αὐταῖς ἐνδέχεται ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, οἷον οὐ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός, καὶ ἔστι τις ἄνθρωπος λευκός. l7b 22 Hence in the case of the latter it is impossible that both be at once true, but it is possible for the contradictories of these contraries to be at once true with respect to the same subject, as in “Not every man is white” and “Some man is white.”
ὅσαι μὲν οὖν ἀντιφάσεις τῶν καθόλου εἰσὶ καθόλου, ἀνάγκη τὴν ἑτέραν ἀληθῆ εἶναι ἢ ψευδῆ, καὶ ὅσαι ἐπὶ τῶν καθ' ἕκαστα, οἷον ἔστι Σωκράτης λευκός—οὐκ ἔστι Σωκράτης λευκός l7b 26 Whenever there are contradictions with respect to universals signifying universally, one must be true, the other false; this is also the case when there are contradictions with respect to singulars, as in “Socrates is white” and “Socrates is not white.”
ὅσαι δ' ἐπὶ τῶν καθόλου μὴ καθόλου, οὐκ ἀεὶ ἡ μὲν ἀληθὴς ἡ δὲ ψευδής ἅμα γὰρ ἀληθές ἐστιν εἰπεῖν ὅτι ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκὸς καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός, καὶ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος καλὸς καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος καλός 17b 29 But when the contradictions are of universals not signifying universally, one is not always true and the other false; for it is at once true to say that man is white and man is not white, and man is beautiful and man is not beautiful.
εἰ γὰρ αἰσχρός, καὶ οὐ καλός καὶ εἰ γίγνεταί τι, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν. 17b 33 For if he is ugly, he is not beautiful; and if he is becoming something, he is not yet it.
δόξειε δ' ἂν ἐξαίφνης ἄτοπον εἶναι διὰ τὸ φαίνεσθαι σημαίνειν τὸ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός ἅμα καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός τὸ δὲ οὔτε ταὐτὸν σημαίνει οὔθ' ἅμα ἐξ ἀνάγκης. 17b 34 At first sight this might seem paradoxical, because “Man is not white” seems to signify the same thing as “No man is white”; but it neither signifies this, nor are they at once true necessarily.
Postquam philosophus determinavit de oppositione enunciationum, comparando universales enunciationes ad indefinitas, hic determinat de oppositione enunciationum comparando universales ad particulares. Circa quod considerandum est quod potest duplex oppositio in his notari: una quidem universalis ad particularem, et hanc primo tangit; alia vero universalis ad universalem, et hanc tangit secundo; ibi: contrariae vero et cetera. 1. Now that he has determined the opposition of enunciations by comparing universal enunciations with indefinite enunciations, Aristotle determines the opposition of enunciations by comparing universals to particulars. It should be noted that there is a twofold opposition in these enunciations, one of universal to particular, and he touches upon this first; the other is the opposition of universal to universal, and this he takes up next, where he says, They are opposed contrarily when the universal affirmation is opposed to the universal negation, etc.
Particularis vero affirmativa et particularis negativa, non habent proprie loquendo oppositionem, quia oppositio attenditur circa idem subiectum; subiectum autem particularis enunciationis est universale particulariter sumptum, non pro aliquo determinato singulari, sed indeterminate pro quocumque; et ideo, cum de universali particulariter sumpto aliquid affirmatur vel negatur, ipse modus enunciandi non habet quod affirmatio et negatio sint de eodem: quod requiritur ad oppositionem affirmationis et negationis, secundum praemissa. 2. The particular affirmative and particular negative do not have opposition properly speaking, because opposition is concerned with the same subject. But the subject of a particular enunciation is the universal taken particularly, not for a determinate singular but indeterminately for any singular. For this reason, when something is affirmed or denied of the universal particularly taken, the mode of enunciating is not such that the affirmation and negation are of the same thing; hence what is required for the opposition of affirmation and negation is lacking.
Dicit ergo primo quod enunciatio, quae universale significat, scilicet universaliter, opponitur contradictorie ei, quae non significat universaliter sed particulariter, si una earum sit affirmativa, altera vero sit negativa (sive universalis sit affirmativa et particularis negativa, sive e converso); ut cum dicitur, omnis homo est albus, non omnis homo est albus: hoc enim quod dico, non omnis, ponitur loco signi particularis negativi; unde aequipollet ei quae est, quidam homo non est albus; sicut et nullus, quod idem significat ac si diceretur, non ullus vel non quidam, est signum universale negativum. Unde hae duae, quidam homo est albus (quae est particularis affirmativa), nullus homo est albus (quae est universalis negativa), sunt contradictoriae. 3. First he says that the enunciation that signifies the universal, i.e., universally, is opposed contradictorily to the one that does not signify universally but particularly, if one of them is affirmative and the other negative (whether the universal is affirmative and the particular negative or conversely), as in “Every man is white,” “Not every man is white.” For, the “not every” is used in place of the particular negative sign; consequently, “Not every man is white” is equivalent to “Some man is not white.” In a parallel way “no,” which signifies the same thing as “not any” or “not some,” is the universal negative sign; consequently, the two enunciations, “Some man is white,” which is the particular affirmative, and “No man is white,” which is the universal negative, are contradictories.
Cuius ratio est quia contradictio consistit in sola remotione affirmationis per negationem; universalis autem affirmativa removetur per solam negationem particularis, nec aliquid aliud ex necessitate ad hoc exigitur; particularis autem affirmativa removeri non potest nisi per universalem negativam, quia iam dictum est quod particularis affirmativa non proprie opponitur particulari negativae. Unde relinquitur quod universali affirmativae contradictorie opponitur particularis negativa, et particulari affirmativae universalis negativa. 4. The reason for this is that contradiction consists in the mere removal of the affirmation by a negation. Now the universal affirmative is removed by merely the negation of the particular and nothing else is required of necessity; but the particular affirmative can only be removed by the universal negative because, as has already been said, the particular negative is not properly opposed to the particular affirmative. Consequently, the particular negative is opposed contradictorily to the universal affirmative and the universal negative to the particular affirmative.
Deinde cum dicit: contrariae vero etc., tangit oppositionem universalium enunciationum; et dicit quod universalis affirmativa et universalis negativa sunt contrariae; sicut, omnis homo est iustus, nullus homo est iustus, quia scilicet universalis negativa non solum removet universalem affirmativam, sed etiam designat extremam distantiam, in quantum negat totum quod affirmatio ponit; et hoc pertinet ad rationem contrarietatis; et ideo particularis affirmativa et negativa se habent sicut medium inter contraria. 5. When he says, They are opposed contrarily when the universal affirmation is opposed to the universal negation, etc., he touches on the opposition of universal enunciations. The universal affirmative and universal negative, he says, are contraries, as in “Every man is just... No man is just”; for the universal negative not only removes the universal affirmative but also designates an extreme of distance between them inasmuch as it denies the whole that the affirmation posits; and this belongs to the notion of contrariety. The particular affirmative and particular negative, for this reason, are related as a mean between contraries.
Deinde cum dicit: quocirca has quidem etc., ostendit quomodo se habeant affirmatio et negatio oppositae ad verum et falsum. Et primo, quantum ad contrarias; secundo, quantum ad contradictorias; ibi: quaecumque igitur contradictiones etc.; tertio, quantum ad ea quae videntur contradictoria, et non sunt; ibi: quaecumque autem in universalibus et cetera. 6. He shows how the opposed affirmation and negation are related to truth and falsity when he says, Hence in the case of the latter it is impossible that both be at once true, etc. He shows this first in regard to contraries; secondly, in regard to contradictories, where he says, Whenever there are contradictions with respect to universal signifying universally, etc.; thirdly, in regard to those that seem contradictory but are not, where he says, But when the contradictions are of universals not signifying universally, etc.
Dicit ergo primo quod quia universalis affirmativa et universalis negativa sunt contrariae, impossibile est quod sint simul verae. Contraria enim mutuo se expellunt. Sed particulares, quae contradictorie opponuntur universalibus contrariis, possunt simul verificari in eodem; sicut, non omnis homo est albus, quae contradictorie opponitur huic, omnis homo est albus, et, quidam homo est albus, quae contradictorie opponitur huic, nullus homo est albus. First, he says that because the universal affirmative and universal negative are contraries, it is impossible for them to be simultaneously true, for contraries mutually remove each other. However, the particular enunciations that are contradictorily opposed to the universal contraries, can be verified at the same time in the same thing, for example, “Not every man is white” (which is opposed contradictorily to “Every man is white”) and “Some man is white” (which is opposed contradictorily to “No man is white”) .
Et huiusmodi etiam simile invenitur in contrarietate rerum: nam album et nigrum numquam simul esse possunt in eodem, sed remotiones albi et nigri simul possunt esse: potest enim aliquid esse neque album neque nigrum, sicut patet in eo quod est pallidum. Et similiter contrariae enunciationes non possunt simul esse verae, sed earum contradictoriae, a quibus removentur, simul possunt esse verae. A parallel to this is found in the contrariety of things, for white and black can never be in the same thing at the same time; but the remotion of white and black can be in the same thing at the same time, for a thing may be neither white nor black, as is evident in something yellow. In a similar way, contrary enunciations cannot be at once true, but their contradictories, by which they are removed, can be true simultaneously.
Deinde cum dicit: quaecumque igitur contradictiones etc., ostendit qualiter veritas et falsitas se habeant in contradictoriis. Circa quod considerandum est quod, sicut dictum est supra, in contradictoriis negatio non plus facit, nisi quod removet affirmationem. Quod contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, quando est altera earum universalis, altera particularis, ut supra dictum est. Alio modo, quando utraque est singularis: quia tunc negatio ex necessitate refertur ad idem (quod non contingit in particularibus et indefinitis), nec potest se in plus extendere nisi ut removeat affirmationem. Et ideo singularis affirmativa semper contradicit singulari negativae, supposita identitate praedicati et subiecti. 7. Then he says, Whenever there are contradictions with respect to universals signifying universally, one must be true and the other false, etc. Here he shows how truth and falsity are related in contradictories. As was said above, in contradictories the negation does no more than remove the affirmation, and this in two ways: in one way when one of them is universal, the other particular; in another way when each is singular. In the case of the singular, the negation is necessarily referred to the same thing—which is not the case in particulars and indefinites—and cannot extend to more than removing the affirmation. Accordingly, the singular affirmative is always contradictory to the singular negative, the identity of subject and predicate being supposed.
Et ideo dicit quod, sive accipiamus contradictionem universalium universaliter, scilicet quantum ad unam earum, sive singularium enunciationum, semper necesse est quod una sit vera et altera falsa. Neque enim contingit esse simul veras aut simul falsas, quia verum nihil aliud est, nisi quando dicitur esse quod est, aut non esse quod non est; falsum autem, quando dicitur esse quod non est, aut non esse quod est, ut patet ex IV metaphysicorum. Aristotle says, therefore, that whether we take the contradiction of universals universally (i.e., one of the universals being taken universally) or the contradiction of singular enunciations, one of them must always be true and the other false. It is not possible for them to be at once true or at once false because to be true is nothing other than to say of what is, that it is, or of what is not that it is not; to be false, to say of what is not, that it is, or of what is, that it is not, as is evident in IV Metaphysicorum [7: 1011b 25].
Deinde cum dicit: quaecumque autem universalium etc., ostendit qualiter se habeant veritas et falsitas in his, quae videntur esse contradictoria, sed non sunt. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo proponit quod intendit; secundo, probat propositum; ibi: si enim turpis non probus etc.; tertio, excludit id quod facere posset dubitationem; ibi: videbitur autem subito inconveniens et cetera. 8. When he says, But when the contradictions are of universals not signifying universally, etc., he shows how truth and falsity are related to enunciations that seem to be contradictory, but are not. First he proposes how they are related; then he proves it where he says, For if he is ugly, he is not beautiful, etc.; finally, he excludes a possible difficulty where he says, At first sight this might seem paradoxical, etc.
Circa primum considerandum est quod affirmatio et negatio in indefinitis propositionibus videntur contradictorie opponi propter hoc, quod est unum subiectum non determinatum per signum particulare, et ideo videtur affirmatio et negatio esse de eodem. Sed ad hoc removendum philosophus dicit quod quaecumque affirmative et negative dicuntur de universalibus non universaliter sumptis, non semper oportet quod unum sit verum, et aliud sit falsum, sed possunt simul esse vera. Simul enim est verum dicere quod homo est albus, et, homo non est albus, et quod homo est probus, et, homo non est probus. With respect to the first point we should note that affirmation and negation in indefinite propositions seem to be opposed contradictorily because there is one subject in both of them and it is not determined by a particular sign. Hence, the affirmation and negation seem to be about the same thing. To exclude this, the Philosopher says that in the case of affirmative and negative enunciations of universals not taken universally, one need not always be true and the other false, but they can be at once true. For it is true to say both that “Man is white” and that “Man is not white,” and that “Man is honorable” and “Man is not honorable.
In quo quidem, ut Ammonius refert, aliqui Aristoteli contradixerunt ponentes quod indefinita negativa semper sit accipienda pro universali negativa. Et hoc astruebant primo quidem tali ratione: quia indefinita, cum sit indeterminata, se habet in ratione materiae; materia autem secundum se considerata, magis trahitur ad id quod indignius est; dignior autem est universalis affirmativa, quam particularis affirmativa; et ideo indefinitam affirmativam dicunt esse sumendam pro particulari affirmativa: sed negativam universalem, quae totum destruit, dicunt esse indigniorem particulari negativa, quae destruit partem, sicut universalis corruptio peior est quam particularis; et ideo dicunt quod indefinita negativa sumenda est pro universali negativa. 9. On this point, as Ammonius reports, some men, maintaining that the indefinite negative is always to be taken for the universal negative, have taken a position contradictory to Aristotle’s. They argued their position in the following way. The indefinite, since it is indeterminate, partakes of the nature of matter; but matter considered in itself is regarded as what is less worthy. Now the universal affirmative is more worthy than the particular affirmative and therefore they said that the indefinite affirmative was to be taken for the particular affirmative. But, they said, the universal negative, which destroys the whole, is less worthy than the particular negative, which destroys the part (just as universal corruption is worse than particular corruption); therefore, they said that the indefinite negative was to be taken for the universal negative.
Ad quod etiam inducunt quod philosophi, et etiam ipse Aristoteles utitur indefinitis negativis pro universalibus; sicut dicitur in libro Physic. quod non est motus praeter res; et in libro de anima, quod non est sensus praeter quinque. They went on to say in support of their position that philosophers, and even Aristotle himself, used indefinite negatives as universals. Thus, in the book Physicorum [III, 1: 200b 32] Aristotle says that there is not movement apart from the thing; and in the book De anima [III, 1: 424b 20], that there are not more than five senses.
Sed istae rationes non concludunt. Quod enim primo dicitur quod materia secundum se sumpta sumitur pro peiori, verum est secundum sententiam Platonis, qui non distinguebat privationem a materia, non autem est verum secundum Aristotelem, qui dicit in Lib. I Physic. quod malum et turpe et alia huiusmodi ad defectum pertinentia non dicuntur de materia nisi per accidens. Et ideo non oportet quod indefinita semper stet pro peiori. However, these reasons are not cogent. What they say about matter—that considered in itself it is taken for what is less worthy—is true according to the opinion of Plato, who did not distinguish privation from matter; however, it is not true according to Aristotle, who says in I Physicae [9: 192a 3 & 192a 22], that the evil and ugly and other things of this kind pertaining to defect, are said of matter only accidentally. Therefore the indefinite need not stand always for the more ignoble.
Dato etiam quod indefinita necesse sit sumi pro peiori, non oportet quod sumatur pro universali negativa; quia sicut in genere affirmationis, universalis affirmativa est potior particulari, utpote particularem affirmativam continens; ita etiam in genere negationum universalis negativa potior est. Oportet autem in unoquoque genere considerare id quod est potius in genere illo, non autem id quod est potius simpliciter. Even supposing it is necessary that the indefinite be taken for the less worthy, it ought not to be taken for the universal negative; for just as the universal affirmative is more powerful than the particular in the genus of affirmation, as containing the particular affirmative, so also the universal negative is more powerful in the genus of negations. Now in each genus one must consider what is more powerful in that genus, not what is more powerful simply.
Ulterius etiam, dato quod particularis negativa esset potior omnibus modis, non tamen adhuc ratio sequeretur: non enim ideo indefinita affirmativa sumitur pro particulari affirmativa, quia sit indignior, sed quia de universali potest aliquid affirmari ratione suiipsius, vel ratione partis contentae sub eo; unde sufficit ad veritatem eius quod praedicatum uni parti conveniat (quod designatur per signum particulare); et ideo veritas particularis affirmativae sufficit ad veritatem indefinitae affirmativae. Et simili ratione veritas particularis negativae sufficit ad veritatem indefinitae negativae, quia similiter potest aliquid negari de universali vel ratione suiipsius, vel ratione suae partis. Further, if we took the position that the particular negative is more powerful than all other modes, the reasoning still would not follow, for the indefinite affirmative is not taken for the particular affirmative because it is less worthy, but because something can be affirmed of the universal by reason of itself, or by reason of the part contained under it; whence it suffices for the truth of the particular affirmative that the predicate belongs to one part (which is designated by the particular sign); for this reason the truth of the particular affirmative suffices for the truth of the indefinite affirmative. For a similar reason the truth of the particular negative suffices for the truth of the indefinite negative, because in like manner, something can be denied of a universal either by reason of itself, or by reason of its part.
Utuntur autem quandoque philosophi indefinitis negativis pro universalibus in his, quae per se removentur ab universalibus; sicut et utuntur indefinitis affirmativis pro universalibus in his, quae per se de universalibus praedicantur. Apropos of the examples cited for their argument, it should be noted that philosophers sometimes use indefinite negatives for universals in the case of things that are per se removed from universals; and they use indefinite affirmatives for universals in the case of things that are per se predicated of universals.
Deinde cum dicit: si enim turpis est etc., probat propositum per id, quod est ab omnibus concessum. Omnes enim concedunt quod indefinita affirmativa verificatur, si particularis affirmativa sit vera. Contingit autem accipi duas affirmativas indefinitas, quarum una includit negationem alterius, puta cum sunt opposita praedicata: quae quidem oppositio potest contingere dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum perfectam contrarietatem, sicut turpis, idest inhonestus, opponitur probo, idest honesto, et foedus, idest deformis secundum corpus, opponitur pulchro. Sed per quam rationem ista affirmativa est vera, homo est probus, quodam homine existente probo, per eamdem rationem ista est vera, homo est turpis, quodam homine existente turpi. Sunt ergo istae duae verae simul, homo est probus, homo est turpis; sed ad hanc, homo est turpis, sequitur ista, homo non est probus; ergo istae duae sunt simul verae, homo est probus, homo non est probus: et eadem ratione istae duae, homo est pulcher, homo non est pulcher. 10. When he says, For if he is ugly, he is not beautiful, etc., he proves what he has proposed by something conceded by everyone, namely, that the indefinite affirmative is verified if the particular affirmative is true. We may take two indefinite affirmatives, one of which includes the negation of the other, as for example when they have opposed predicates. Now this opposition can happen in two ways. It can be according to perfect contrariety, as shameful (i.e., dishonorable) is opposed to worthy (i.e., honorable) and ugly (i.e., deformed in body) is opposed to beautiful. But the reasoning by which the affirmative enunciation, “Man is worthy,” is true, i.e., by some worthy man existing, is the same as the reasoning by which “Man is shameful” is true, i.e., by a shameful man existing. Therefore these two enunciations are at once true, “Man is worthy” and “Man is shameful.” But the enunciation, “Man is not worthy,” follows upon “Man is shameful.” Therefore the two enunciations, “ Man is worthy,” and “Man is not worthy,” are at once true; and by the same reasoning these two, “Man is beautiful” and “Man is not beautiful.”
Alia autem oppositio attenditur secundum perfectum et imperfectum, sicut moveri opponitur ad motum esse, et fieri ad factum esse: unde ad fieri sequitur non esse eius quod fit in permanentibus, quorum esse est perfectum; secus autem est in successivis, quorum esse est imperfectum. Sic ergo haec est vera, homo est albus, quodam homine existente albo; et pari ratione, quia quidam homo fit albus, haec est vera, homo fit albus; ad quam sequitur, homo non est albus. Ergo istae duae sunt simul verae, homo est albus, homo non est albus. The other opposition is according to the complete and incomplete, as to be in movement is opposed to to have been moved, and becoming to to have become. Whence the non-being of that which is coming to be in permanent things, whose being is complete, follows upon the becoming but this is not so in successive things, whose being is incomplete. Thus, “Man is white” is true by the fact that a white man exists; by the same reasoning, because a man is becoming white, the enunciation “Man is becoming white” is true, upon which follows, “Man is not white.” Therefore, the two enunciations, “Man is white” and “Man is not white” are at once true.
Deinde cum dicit: videbitur autem etc., excludit id quod faceret dubitationem circa praedicta; et dicit quod subito, id est primo aspectu videtur hoc esse inconveniens, quod dictum est; quia hoc quod dico, homo non est albus, videtur idem significare cum hoc quod est, nullus homo est albus. Sed ipse hoc removet dicens quod neque idem significant neque ex necessitate sunt simul vera, sicut ex praedictis manifestum est. 11. Then when he says, At first sight this might seem paradoxical, etc., he excludes what might present a difficulty in relation to what has been said. At first sight, he says, what has been stated seems to be inconsistent; for “Man is not white” seems to signify the same thing as “No man is white.” But he rejects this when he says that they neither signify the same thing, nor are they at once true necessarily, as is evident from what has been said.

LESSON 12
There Is Only One Negation Opposed to One Affirmation

φανερὸν δ' ὅτι καὶ μία ἀπόφασις μιᾶς καταφάσεως 17b 37 It is evident also that there is one negation of one affirmation;
τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ δεῖ ἀποφῆσαι τὴν ἀπόφασιν ὅπερ κατέφησεν ἡ κατάφασις, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, ἢ τῶν καθ' ἕκαστά (18a.) τινος ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν καθόλου τινός, ἢ ὡς καθόλου ἢ ὡς μὴ καθόλου 17b 39 for the negation must deny the same thing that the affirmation affirms, and of the same subject, either something singular, or something universal, and either universally or not universally.
λέγω δὲ οἷον ἔστι Σωκράτης λευκός-οὐκ ἔστι Σωκράτης λευκός (ἐὰν δὲ ἄλλο τι ἢ ἀπ' ἄλλου τὸ αὐτό, οὐχ ἡ ἀντικειμένη ἀλλ' ἔσται ἐκείνης ἑτέρα), τῇ δὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός ἡ οὐ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός, τῇ δὲ τὶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός ἡ οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός, τῇ δὲ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός ἡ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός. 18a 2 For example, the negation of “Socrates is white” is “Socrates is not white.” (If something else is said of the same subject or the same thing of a different subject, it will not be opposed to it but different from it.) The negation opposed to “Every man is white” is “Not every man is white”; to “Some man is white,” “No man is white”; to “Man is white,” “Man is not white.”
Ὅτι μὲν οὖν μία κατάφασις μιᾷ ἀποφάσει ἀντίκειται ἀντιφατικῶς, καὶ τίνες εἰσὶν αὗται, εἴρηται, καὶ ὅτι αἱ ἐναντίαι ἄλλαι, καὶ τίνες εἰσὶν αὗται, καὶ ὅτι οὐ πᾶσα ἀληθὴς ἢ ψευδὴς ἀντίφασις, καὶ διὰ τί, καὶ πότε ἀληθὴς ἢ ψευδής. 18a 7 We have said that there is one negation opposed contradictorily to one affirmation, and what these are; and that the others are contraries, and what these are; and that in every contradiction one is not always true and the other false, and what the reason is for this, and when it is the case that one is true and the other false.
μία δέ ἐστι κατάφασις καὶ ἀπόφασις ἡ ἓν καθ' ἑνὸς σημαίνουσα, ἢ καθόλου ὄντος καθόλου ἢ μὴ ὁμοίως, οἷον πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός ἐστιν—οὐκ ἔστι πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός, ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός-οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός, οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός—ἔστι τις ἄνθρωπος λευκός, εἰ τὸ λευκὸν ἓν σημαίνει. 18a 12 Affirmation or negation is one when one thing is signified of one thing, whether the subject is universal and is taken universally or not; as in “Every man is white” and “Not every man is white”; “Man is white” and “Man is not white”; “No man is white” and “Some man is white”; provided the “white” signifies one thing.
εἰ δὲ δυεῖν ἓν ὄνομα κεῖται, ἐξ ὧν μή ἐστιν ἕν, οὐ μία κατά φασις οἷον εἴ τις θεῖτο ὄνομα ἱμάτιον ἵππῳ καὶ ἀνθρώπῳ, τὸ ἔστιν ἱμάτιον λευκόν, αὕτη οὐ μία κατάφασις [οὐδὲ ἀπόφασις μία] 18a 18 But if one name is imposed for two things, from which there is not one thing, the affirmation is not one. For example, if someone were to impose the name “cloak” on horse and man, the enunciation “Cloak is white” would not be one affirmation, nor would “Cloak is not white” be one negation.
οὐδὲν γὰρ διαφέρει τοῦτο εἰπεῖν ἢ ἔστιν ἵππος καὶ ἄνθρωπος λευκός, τοῦτο δ' οὐδὲν διαφέρει τοῦ εἰπεῖν ἔστιν ἵππος λευκὸς καὶ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός. εἰ οὖν αὗται πολλὰ σημαίνουσι καὶ εἰσὶ πολλαί, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἡ πρώτη ἤτοι πολλὰ ἢ οὐδὲν σημαίνει,-οὐ γάρ ἐστιν τὶς ἄνθρωπος ἵππος 18a 21 For this is no different from saying “Horse and man is white,” and this no different from saying, “Horse is white” and “Man is white.” If, then, these signify many things and are many, it is evident that the first enunciation [“Cloak is white”] signifies many things—or nothing, for there is not such a thing as a horse-man.
ὥστε οὐδ' ἐν ταύταις ἀνάγκη τὴν μὲν ἀληθῆ τὴν δὲ ψευδῆ εἶναι ἀντίφασιν. 18a 26 Consequently, in such enunciations it is not necessary that one contradictory be true and the other false.
Postquam philosophus distinxit diversos modos oppositionum in enunciationibus, nunc intendit ostendere quod uni affirmationi una negatio opponitur, et circa hoc duo facit: primo, ostendit quod uni affirmationi una negatio opponitur; secundo, ostendit quae sit una affirmatio vel negatio, ibi: una autem affirmatio et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo, proponit quod intendit; secundo, manifestat propositum; ibi: hoc enim idem etc.; tertio, epilogat quae dicta sunt; ibi: manifestum est ergo et cetera. 1. Having distinguished the diverse modes of opposition in enunciations, the Philosopher now proposes to show that there is one negation opposed to one affirmation. First he shows that there is one negation opposed to one affirmation; then he manifests what one affirmation and negation are, where he says, Affirmation or negation is one when one thing is signified of one thing, etc. With respect to what he intends to do he first proposes the point; then he manifests it where he says, for the negation must deny the same thing that the affirmation affirms, etc. Finally, he gives a summary of what has been said, where he says, We have said that there is one negation opposed contradictorily to one affirmation, etc.
Dicit ergo primo, manifestum esse quod unius affirmationis est una negatio sola. Et hoc quidem fuit necessarium hic dicere: quia cum posuerit plura oppositionum genera, videbatur quod uni affirmationi duae negationes opponerentur; sicut huic affirmativae, omnis homo est albus, videtur, secundum praedicta, haec negativa opponi, nullus homo est albus, et haec, quidam homo non est albus. Sed si quis recte consideret huius affirmativae, omnis homo est albus, negativa est sola ista, quidam homo non est albus, quae solummodo removet ipsam, ut patet ex sua aequipollenti, quae est, non omnis homo est albus. Universalis vero negativa includit quidem in suo intellectu negationem universalis affirmativae, in quantum includit particularem negativam, sed supra hoc aliquid addit, in quantum scilicet importat non solum remotionem universalitatis, sed removet quamlibet partem eius. Et sic patet quod sola una est negatio universalis affirmationis: et idem apparet in aliis. 2. He says, then, that it is evident that there is only one negation of one affirmation. It is necessary to make this point here because he has posited many kinds of opposition and it might appear that two negations are opposed to one affirmation. Thus it might seem that the negative enunciations, “No man is white” and “Some man is not white” are both opposed to the affirmative enunciation, “Every man is white.” But if one carefully examines what has been said it will be evident that the only negative opposed to “Every man is white” is “Some man is not white,” which merely removes it, as is clear from its equivalent, “Not every man is white.” It is true that the negation of the universal affirmative is included in the understanding of the universal negative inasmuch as the universal negative includes the particular negative, but the universal negative adds something over and beyond this inasmuch as it not only brings about the removal of universality but removes every part of it. Thus it is evident that there is only one negation of a universal affirmation, and the same thing is evident in the others.
Deinde cum dicit: hoc enim etc., manifestat propositum: et primo, per rationem; secundo, per exempla; ibi: dico autem, ut est Socrates albus. 3. When he says, for the negation must deny the same thing that the affirmation affirms, etc., he manifests what he has said: first, from reason; secondly, by example.
Ratio autem sumitur ex hoc, quod supra dictum est quod negatio opponitur affirmationi, quae est eiusdem de eodem: ex quo hic accipitur quod oportet negationem negare illud idem praedicatum, quod affirmatio affirmavit et de eodem subiecto, sive illud subiectum sit aliquid singulare, sive aliquid universale, vel universaliter, vel non universaliter sumptum; sed hoc non contingit fieri nisi uno modo, ita scilicet ut negatio neget id quod affirmatio posuit, et nihil aliud; ergo uni affirmationi opponitur una sola negatio. The reasoning is taken from what has already been said, namely, that negation is opposed to affirmation when the enunciations are of the same thing of the same subject. Here he says that the negation must deny the same predicate the affirmation affirms, and of the same subject, whether that subject he something singular or something universal, either taken universally or not taken universally. But this can only be done in one way, i.e., when the negation denies what the affirmation posits, and nothing else. Therefore there is only one negation opposed to one affirmation.
Deinde cum dicit: dico autem, ut est etc., manifestat propositum per exempla. Et primo, in singularibus: huic enim affirmationi, Socrates est albus, haec sola opponitur, Socrates non est albus, tanquam eius propria negatio. Si vero esset aliud praedicatum vel aliud subiectum, non esset negatio opposita, sed omnino diversa; sicut ista, Socrates non est musicus, non opponitur ei quae est, Socrates est albus; neque etiam illa quae est, Plato est albus, huic quae est, Socrates non est albus. 4. In manifesting this by example, where he says, For example, the negation of “Socrates is white,” etc., he first takes examples of singulars. Thus, “Socrates is not white” is the proper negation opposed to “Socrates is white.” If there were another predicate or another subject, it would not be the opposed negation, but wholly different. For example, “Socrates is not musical” is not opposed to “Socrates is white,” nor is “Plato is white” opposed to “Socrates is not white.”
Secundo, manifestat idem quando subiectum affirmationis est universale universaliter sumptum; sicut huic affirmationi, omnis homo est albus, opponitur sicut propria eius negatio, non omnis homo est albus, quae aequipollet particulari negativae. Then he manifests the same thing in an affirmation with a universal universally taken as the subject. Thus, “Not every man is white,” which is equivalent to the particular negative, is the proper negation opposed to the affirmation, “Every man is white.”
Tertio, ponit exemplum quando affirmationis subiectum est universale particulariter sumptum: et dicit quod huic affirmationi, aliquis homo est albus, opponitur tanquam eius propria negatio, nullus homo est albus. Nam nullus dicitur, quasi non ullus, idest, non aliquis. Thirdly, he gives an example in which the subject of the affirmation is a universal taken particularly. The proper negation opposed to the affirmation “Some man is white” is “No man is white,” for to say “no” is to say “not any,” i.e., “not some.”
Quarto, ponit exemplum quando affirmationis subiectum est universale indefinite sumptum et dicit quod isti affirmationi, homo est albus, opponitur tanquam propria eius negatio illa quae est, non est homo albus. Finally, he gives as an example enunciations in which the subject of the affirmation is the universal taken indefinitely; “Man is not white” is the proper negation opposed to the affirmation “Man is white.”
Sed videtur hoc esse contra id, quod supra dictum est quod negativa indefinita verificatur simul cum indefinita affirmativa; negatio autem non potest verificari simul cum sua opposita affirmatione, quia non contingit de eodem affirmare et negare. 5. The last example used to manifest his point seems to be contrary to what he has already said, namely, that the indefinite negative and the indefinite affirmative can be simultaneously verified; but a negation and its opposite affirmation cannot be simultaneously verified, since it is not possible to affirm and deny of the same subject.
Sed ad hoc dicendum quod oportet quod hic dicitur intelligi quando negatio ad idem refertur quod affirmatio continebat; et hoc potest esse dupliciter: uno modo, quando affirmatur aliquid inesse homini ratione sui ipsius (quod est per se de eodem praedicari), et hoc ipsum negatio negat; alio modo, quando aliquid affirmatur de universali ratione sui singularis, et pro eodem de eo negatur. But what Aristotle is saying here must be understood of the negation when it is referred to the same thing the affirmation contained, and this is possible in two ways: in one way, when something is affirmed to belong to man by reason of what he is (which is per se to be predicated of the same thing), and this very thing the negation denies; secondly, when something is affirmed of the universal by reason of its singular, and the same thing is denied of it.
Deinde cum dicit: quod igitur una affirmatio etc., epilogat quae dicta sunt, et concludit manifestum esse ex praedictis quod uni affirmationi opponitur una negatio; et quod oppositarum affirmationum et negationum aliae sunt contrariae, aliae contradictoriae; et dictum est quae sint utraeque. Tacet autem de subcontrariis, quia non sunt recte oppositae, ut supra dictum est. Dictum est etiam quod non omnis contradictio est vera vel falsa; et sumitur hic large contradictio pro qualicumque oppositione affirmationis et negationis: nam in his quae sunt vere contradictoriae semper una est vera, et altera falsa. Quare autem in quibusdam oppositis hoc non verificetur, dictum est supra; quia scilicet quaedam non sunt contradictoriae, sed contrariae, quae possunt simul esse falsae. Contingit etiam affirmationem et negationem non proprie opponi; et ideo contingit eas esse veras simul. Dictum est autem quando altera semper est vera, altera autem falsa, quia scilicet in his quae vere sunt contradictoria. 6. He concludes by summarizing what has been said: We have said that there is one negation opposed contradictorily to one affirmation, etc. He considers it evident from what has been said that one negation is opposed to one affirmation; and that of opposite affirmations and negations, one kind are contraries, the other contradictories; and that what each kind is has been stated. He does not speak of subcontraries because it is not accurate to say that they are opposites, as was said above. He also says here that it has been shown that not every contradiction is true or false, “contradiction” being taken here broadly for any kind of opposition of affirmation and negation; for in enunciations that are truly contradictory one is always true and the other false. The reason why this may not be verified in some kinds of opposites has already been stated, namely, because some are not contradictories but contraries, and these can be false at the same time. It is also possible for affirmation and negation not to be properly opposed and consequently to be true at the same time. It has been stated, however, when one is always true and the other false, namely, in those that are truly contradictories.
Deinde cum dicit: una autem affirmatio etc., ostendit quae sit affirmatio vel negatio una. Quod quidem iam supra dixerat, ubi habitum est quod una est enunciatio, quae unum significat; sed quia enunciatio, in qua aliquid praedicatur de aliquo universali universaliter vel non universaliter, multa sub se continet, intendit ostendere quod per hoc non impeditur unitas enunciationis. 7. The Philosopher explains what one affirmation or negation is where he says, Affirmation or negation is one when one thing is signified of one thing, etc. He did in fact state this earlier when he said that an enunciation is one when it signifies one thing, but because the enunciation in which something is predicated of a universal, either universally or not universally, contains under it many things, he is going to show here that unity of enunciation is not impeded by this.
Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, ostendit quod unitas enunciationis non impeditur per multitudinem, quae continetur sub universali, cuius ratio una est; secundo, ostendit quod impeditur unitas enunciationis per multitudinem, quae continetur sub sola nominis unitate; ibi: si vero duobus et cetera. First he shows that unity of enunciation is not impeded by the multitude contained under the universal, whose notion is one. Then he shows that unity of enunciation is impeded by the multitude contained under the unity of a name only, where he says, But if one name is imposed for two things, etc.
Dicit ergo primo quod una est affirmatio vel negatio cum unum significatur de uno, sive illud unum quod subiicitur sit universale universaliter sumptum sive non sit aliquid tale, sed sit universale particulariter sumptum vel indefinite, aut etiam si subiectum sit singulare. Et exemplificat de diversis sicut universalis ista affirmativa est una, omnis homo est albus; et similiter particularis negativa quae est eius negatio, scilicet non est omnis homo albus. Et subdit alia exempla, quae sunt manifesta. In fine autem apponit quamdam conditionem, quae requiritur ad hoc quod quaelibet harum sit una, si scilicet album, quod est praedicatum, significat unum: nam sola multitudo praedicati impediret unitatem enunciationis. Ideo autem universalis propositio una est, quamvis sub se multitudinem singularium comprehendat, quia praedicatum non attribuitur multis singularibus, secundum quod sunt in se divisa, sed secundum quod uniuntur in uno communi. He says, then, that an affirmation or negation is one when one thing is signified of one thing, whether the one thing that is subjected be a universal taken universally, or not, i.e., it may be a universal taken particularly or indefinitely, or even a singular. He gives examples of the different kinds: such as, the universal affirmative “Every man is white” and the particular negative, which is its negation, “Not every man is white,” each of which is one. There are other examples which are evident. At the end he states a condition that is required for any of them to be one, i.e., provided the “white,” which is the predicate, signifies one thing; for a multiple predicate with a subject signifying one thing would also impede the unity of an enunciation. The universal proposition is therefore one, even though it comprehends a multitude of singulars under it, for the predicate is not attributed to many singulars according as each is divided from the other, but according as they are united in one common thing.
Deinde cum dicit: si vero duobus etc., ostendit quod sola unitas nominis non sufficit ad unitatem enunciationis. Et circa hoc quatuor facit: primo, proponit quod intendit; secundo, exemplificat; ibi: ut si quis ponat etc.; tertio, probat; ibi: nihil enim differt etc.; quarto, infert corollarium ex dictis; ibi: quare nec in his et cetera. 8. When he says, But if one name is imposed for two things, he shows that unity of name alone does not suffice for unity of an enunciation. He first makes the point; secondly, he gives an example, where he says, if someone were to impose the name “cloak” on horse and man, etc.; thirdly, he proves it where he says, For this is no different from saying “Horse and man is white,” etc.; finally, he infers a corollary from what has been said, where he says, Consequently, in such enunciations, it is not necessary, etc.
Dicit ergo primo quod si unum nomen imponatur duabus rebus, ex quibus non fit unum, non est affirmatio una. Quod autem dicit, ex quibus non fit unum, potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo, ad excludendum hoc quod multa continentur sub uno universali, sicut homo et equus sub animali: hoc enim nomen animal significat utrumque, non secundum quod sunt multa et differentia ad invicem, sed secundum quod uniuntur in natura generis. Alio modo, et melius, ad excludendum hoc quod ex multis partibus fit unum, sive sint partes rationis, sicut sunt genus et differentia, quae sunt partes definitionis: sive sint partes integrales alicuius compositi, sicut ex lapidibus et lignis fit domus. Si ergo sit tale praedicatum quod attribuatur rei, requiritur ad unitatem enunciationis quod illa multa quae significantur, concurrant in unum secundum aliquem dictorum modorum; unde non sufficeret sola unitas vocis. Si vero sit tale praedicatum quod referatur ad vocem, sufficiet unitas vocis; ut si dicam, canis est nomen. If one name is imposed for two things, he says, from which one thing is not formed, there is not one affirmation. The from which one thing is not formed can be understood in two ways. It can be understood as excluding the many that are contained under one universal, as man and horse under animal, for the name “animal” signifies both, not as they are many and different from each other but as they are united in the nature of the genus. It can also be understood—and this would be more accurate—as excluding the many parts from which something one is formed, whether the parts of the notion as known, as the genus and the difference, which are parts of the definition, or the integral parts of some composite, as the stones and wood from which a house is made. If, then, there is such a predicate which is attributed to a thing, the many that are signified must concur in one thing according to some of the modes mentioned in order that there be one enunciation; unity of vocal sound alone would not suffice. However, if there is such a predicate which is referred to vocal sound, unity of vocal sound would suffice, as in “‘Dog’ is a name.”
Deinde cum dicit: ut si quis etc., exemplificat quod dictum est, ut si aliquis hoc nomen tunica imponat ad significandum hominem et equum: et sic, si dicam, tunica est alba, non est affirmatio una, neque negatio una. 9. He gives an example of what he means where he says, For example, if someone were to impose the name “cloak,” etc. That is, if someone were to impose the name “cloak” to signify man and horse and then said, “Cloak is white,” there would not be one affirmation, nor would there be one negation.
Deinde cum dicit: nihil enim differt etc., probat quod dixerat tali ratione. Si tunica significat hominem et equum, nihil differt si dicatur, tunica est alba, aut si dicatur, homo est albus, et, equus est albus; sed istae, homo est albus, et equus est albus, significant multa et sunt plures enunciationes; ergo etiam ista, tunica est alba, multa significat. Et hoc si significet hominem et equum ut res diversas: si vero significet hominem et equum ut componentia unam rem, nihil significat, quia non est aliqua res quae componatur ex homine et equo. He proves this where he says, For this is no different from saying, etc. His argument is as follows. If “cloak” signifies man and horse there is no difference between saying “Cloak is white” and saying, “Man is white, and, Horse is white.” But “Man is white, and, horse is white” signify many and are many enunciations. Therefore, the enunciation, “Cloak is white,” signifies many things. This is the case if “cloak” signifies man and horse as diverse things; but if it signifies man and horse as one thing, it signifies nothing, for there is not any thing composed of man and horse.
Quod autem dicit quod non differt dicere, tunica est alba, et, homo est albus, et, equus est albus, non est intelligendum quantum ad veritatem et falsitatem. Nam haec copulativa, homo est albus et equus est albus, non potest esse vera nisi utraque pars sit vera: sed haec, tunica est alba, praedicta positione facta, potest esse vera etiam altera existente falsa; alioquin non oporteret distinguere multiplices propositiones ad solvendum rationes sophisticas. Sed hoc est intelligendum quantum ad unitatem et multiplicitatem. Nam sicut cum dicitur, homo est albus et equus est albus, non invenitur aliqua una res cui attribuatur praedicatum; ita etiam nec cum dicitur, tunica est alba. When Aristotle says that there is no difference between saying “Cloak is white” and, “Man is white, and, horse is white,” it is not to be understood with respect to truth and falsity. For the copulative enunciation “Man is white and horse is white” cannot be true unless each part is true; but the enunciation “Cloak is white,” under the condition given, can be true even when one is false; otherwise it would not be necessary to distinguish multiple propositions to solve sophistic arguments. Rather, it is to be understood with respect to unity and multiplicity, for just as in “Man is white and horse is white” there is not some one thing to which the predicate is attributed, so also in “Cloak is white.”
Deinde cum dicit: quare nec in his etc., concludit ex praemissis quod nec in his affirmationibus et negationibus, quae utuntur subiecto aequivoco, semper oportet unam esse veram et aliam falsam, quia scilicet negatio potest aliud negare quam affirmatio affirmet. 10. When he says, Consequently, it is not necessary in such enunciations, etc., he concludes from what has been said that in affirmations and negations that use an equivocal subject, one need not always be true and the other false since the negation may deny something other than the affirmation affirms.

LESSON 13
Truth and Falsity in Opposed Singular Propositions About the Future in Contingent Matter

Ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ὄντων καὶ γενομένων ἀνάγκη τὴν κατάφασιν ἢ τὴν ἀπόφασιν ἀληθῆ ἢ ψευδῆ εἶναι καὶ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν καθόλου ὡς καθόλου ἀεὶ τὴν μὲν ἀληθῆ τὴν δὲ ψευδῆ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν καθ' ἕκαστα, ὥσπερ εἴρηται ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν καθόλου μὴ καθόλου λεχθέντων οὐκ ἀνάγκη εἴρηται δὲ καὶ περὶ τούτων. 18a 28 In enunciations about that which is or has taken place, the affirmation or the negation must be true or false. And in enunciations of universals as universal, one is always true and the other false, and also in enunciations of singulars, as has been said; but in enunciations of universals not taken universally, it is not necessary that one be true and the other false. We have already spoken of these.
ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν καθ' ἕκαστα καὶ μελλόντων οὐχ ὁμοίως. However, in enunciations about future singular things the case is not the same.
εἰ γὰρ πᾶσα κατάφασις ἢ ἀπόφασις ἀληθὴς ἢ ψευδής, καὶ ἅπαν ἀνάγκη ἢ ὑπάρχειν ἢ μὴ ὑπάρχειν 18a 34 For if every affirmation or negation is true or false, then everything belongs or does not belong to a thing necessarily;
εἰ γὰρ ὁ μὲν φήσει ἔσεσθαί τι ὁ δὲ μὴ φήσει τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, δῆλον ὅτι ἀνάγκη ἀληθεύειν τὸν ἕτερον αὐτῶν, εἰ πᾶσα κατάφασις ἀληθὴς ἢ ψευδής ἄμφω γὰρ οὐχ ὑπάρξει ἅμα ἐπὶ τοῖςτοιούτοις. 18a 35 for if one person says a thing will be such, and another says it will not be this very thing, clearly one of them must be speaking the truth if every affirmation is true or false. For it will not both belong and not belong to the thing simultaneously in such cases.
εἰ γὰρ ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν ὅτι λευκὸν ἢ οὐ (18b.) λευκόν ἐστιν, ἀνάγκη εἶναι λευκὸν ἢ οὐ λευκόν, καὶ εἰ ἔστι λευκὸν ἢ οὐ λευκόν, ἀληθὲς ἦν φάναι ἢ ἀποφάναι καὶ εἰ μὴ ὑπάρχει, ψεύδεται, καὶ εἰ ψεύδεται, οὐχ ὑπάρχει ὥστ' ἀνάγκη τὴν κατάφασιν ἢ τὴν ἀπόφασιν ἀληθῆ εἶναι. οὐδὲν ἄρα οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτε γίγνεται οὔτε ἀπὸ τύχης οὔθ' ὁπότερ' ἔτυχεν, οὐδ' ἔσται ἢ οὐκ ἔσται, ἀλλ' ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἅπαντα καὶ οὐχ ὁπότερ' ἔτυχεν (ἢ γὰρ ὁ φὰς ἀληθεύει ἢ ὁ ἀποφάς) ὁμοίως γὰρ ἂν ἐγίγνετο ἢ οὐκ ἐγίγνετο τὸ γὰρ ὁπότερ' ἔτυχεν οὐδὲν μᾶλλον οὕτως ἢ μὴ οὕτως ἔχει ἢ ἕξει. 18a 39 For if it is true to say that a thing is white or is not white, it must necessarily be white or not white. And if it is white or not white, it was true to affirm or deny it. And if it does not belong to it, it is false to say that it does, and if it is false to say that it does, then it does not belong to it. Consequently, it is necessary that either the affirmation or negation be true. If this is so, then nothing either is, or takes place fortuitously or indeterminately in relation to two alternatives, or will be or will not be; but everything takes place of necessity and is not indeterminate to either of two alternatives (for the supposition is that either the one who affirms it or the one who denies it is speaking the truth). Whereas if everything does not take place of necessity, it could take place or not take place as well, for what is indeterminate to either of two alternatives happens or will happen no more in this way than not.
ἔτι εἰ ἔστι λευκὸν νῦν, ἀληθὲς ἦν εἰπεῖν πρότερον ὅτι ἔσται λευκόν, ὥστε ἀεὶ ἀληθὲς ἦν εἰπεῖν ὁτιοῦν τῶν γενομένων ὅτι ἔσται εἰ δ' ἀεὶ ἀληθὲς ἦν εἰπεῖν ὅτι ἔστιν ἢ ἔσται, οὐχ οἷόν τε τοῦτο μὴ εἶναι οὐδὲ μὴ ἔσεσθαι. ὃ δὲ μὴ οἷόν τε μὴ γενέσθαι, ἀδύνατον μὴ γενέσθαι ὃ δὲ ἀδύνατον μὴ γενέσθαι, ἀνάγκη γενέσθαι ἅπαντα οὖν τὰ ἐσόμενα ἀναγκαῖον γενέσθαι. οὐδὲν ἄρα ὁπότερ' ἔτυχεν οὐδ' ἀπὸ τύχης ἔσται εἰ γὰρ ἀπὸ τύχης, οὐκ ἐξ ἀνάγκης. 18b 9 Furthermore, on such a supposition, if something is now white, it was true to say formerly that it will be white; therefore it was always true to say of anything that has taken place that it will be. But if it was always true to say that it is or will be, it is not possible for this not to be, nor that it will not be; and when a thing cannot not take place, it is impossible that it not take place, and when it is impossible that it not take place, it is necessary that it take place; all things that will be, then, must necessarily take place. Therefore, nothing will be indeterminate to either of two alternatives, nor fortuitous; for if it were fortuitous it would not take place of necessity.
ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδ' ὡς οὐδέτερόν γε ἀληθὲς ἐνδέχεται λέγειν, οἷον ὅτι οὔτ' ἔσται οὔτε οὐκ ἔσται. 18b 17 But still it is not possible to say that neither is true; that is, to say that a thing neither will take place nor will not take place.
πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ οὔσης τῆς καταφάσεως ψευδοῦς ἡ ἀπόφασις οὐκ ἀληθής, καὶ ταύτης ψευδοῦς οὔσης τὴν κατάφασιν συμβαίνει μὴ ἀληθῆ εἶναι. 18b 18 In the first place, though the affirmation be false, the negation will not be true, and though the negation be false, the affirmation will not be true.
καὶ πρὸς τούτοις, εἰ ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν ὅτι λευκὸν καὶ μέλαν, δεῖ ἄμφω ὑπάρχειν, εἰ δὲ ὑπάρξειν εἰς αὔριον, ὑπάρξει εἰς αὔριον εἰ δὲ μήτ' ἔσται μήτε μὴ ἔσται αὔριον, οὐκ ἂν εἴη τὸ ὁπότερ' ἔτυχεν, οἷον ναυμαχία δέοι γὰρ ἂν μήτε γενέσθαι ναυμαχίαν μήτε μὴ γενέσθαι. 18b 20 Secondly, if it is true to say that a thing is white and large, both necessarily belong to it; and if they will belong to it the next day, they will necessarily belong to it the next day. But if a thing neither will be nor will not be tomorrow, it would not be indeterminate to either of two alternatives. For example, in the case of a naval battle, it would be necessary that the naval battle neither take place nor not take place tomorrow.
Postquam philosophus determinavit de oppositione enunciationum et ostendit quomodo dividunt verum et falsum oppositae enunciationes; hic inquirit de quodam quod poterat esse dubium, utrum scilicet id quod dictum est similiter inveniatur in omnibus enunciationibus vel non. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, proponit dissimilitudinem; secundo, probat eam; ibi: nam si omnis affirmatio et cetera. 1. Now that he, has treated opposition of enunciations and has shown the way in which opposed enunciations divide truth and falsity, the Philosopher inquires about a question that might arise, namely, whether what has been said is found to be so in all enunciations or not. And first he proposes a dissimilarity in enunciations with regard to dividing truth and falsity, then proves it where he says, For if every affirmation or negation is true or false, etc.
Circa primum considerandum est quod philosophus in praemissis triplicem divisionem enunciationum assignavit, quarum prima fuit secundum unitatem enunciationis, prout scilicet enunciatio est una simpliciter vel coniunctione una; secunda fuit secundum qualitatem, prout scilicet enunciatio est affirmativa vel negativa; tertia fuit secundum quantitatem, utpote quod enunciatio quaedam est universalis, quaedam particularis, quaedam indefinita et quaedam singularis. 2. In relation to the dissimilarity which he intends to prove we should recall that the Philosopher has given three divisions of the enunciation. The first was in relation to the unity of enunciation, and according to this it is divided into one simply and one by conjunction; the second was in relation to quality, and according to this it is divided into affirmative and negative; the third was in relation to quantity, and according to this it is either universal, particular, indefinite, or singular.
Tangitur autem hic quarta divisio enunciationum secundum tempus. Nam quaedam est de praesenti, quaedam de praeterito, quaedam de futuro; et haec etiam divisio potest accipi ex his quae supra dicta sunt: dictum est enim supra quod necesse est omnem enunciationem esse ex verbo vel ex casu verbi; verbum autem est quod consignificat praesens tempus; casus autem verbi sunt, qui consignificant tempus praeteritum vel futurum. 3. Here he treats of a fourth division of enunciation, a division according to time. Some enunciations are about the present, some about the past, some about the future. This division could be seen in what Aristotle has already said, namely, that every enunciation must have a verb or a mode of a verb, the verb being that which signifies the present time, the modes with past or future time.
Potest autem accipi quinta divisio enunciationum secundum materiam, quae quidem divisio attenditur secundum habitudinem praedicati ad subiectum: nam si praedicatum per se insit subiecto, dicetur esse enunciatio in materia necessaria vel naturali; ut cum dicitur, homo est animal, vel, homo est risibile. Si vero praedicatum per se repugnet subiecto quasi excludens rationem ipsius, dicetur enunciatio esse in materia impossibili sive remota; ut cum dicitur, homo est asinus. Si vero medio modo se habeat praedicatum ad subiectum, ut scilicet nec per se repugnet subiecto, nec per se insit, dicetur enunciatio esse in materia possibili sive contingenti. In addition, a fifth division of the enunciation can be made, a division in regard to matter. It is taken from the relationship of the predicate to the subject. If the predicate is per se in the subject, it will be said to be an enunciation in necessary or natural matter. Examples of this are “Man is an animal” and “Man is risible.” If the predicate is per se repugnant to the subject, as excluding the notion of it, it is said to be an enunciation in impossible or remote matter; for example, the enunciation “Man is an ass.” If the predicate is related to the subject in a way midway between these two, being neither per se repugnant to the subject nor per se in it, the enunciation is said to be in possible or contingent matter.
His igitur enunciationum differentiis consideratis, non similiter se habet iudicium de veritate et falsitate in omnibus. Unde philosophus dicit, ex praemissis concludens, quod in his quae sunt, idest in propositionibus de praesenti, et in his quae facta sunt, idest in enunciationibus de praeterito, necesse est quod affirmatio vel negatio determinate sit vera vel falsa. Diversificatur tamen hoc, secundum diversam quantitatem enunciationis; nam in enunciationibus, in quibus de universalibus subiectis aliquid universaliter praedicatur, necesse est quod semper una sit vera, scilicet affirmativa vel negativa, et altera falsa, quae scilicet ei opponitur. Dictum est enim supra quod negatio enunciationis universalis in qua aliquid universaliter praedicatur, est negativa non universalis, sed particularis, et e converso universalis negativa non est directe negatio universalis affirmativae, sed particularis; et sic oportet, secundum praedicta, quod semper una earum sit vera et altera falsa in quacumque materia. Et eadem ratio est in enunciationibus singularibus, quae etiam contradictorie opponuntur, ut supra habitum est. Sed in enunciationibus, in quibus aliquid praedicatur de universali non universaliter, non est necesse quod semper una sit vera et altera sit falsa, qui possunt ambae esse simul verae, ut supra ostensum est. 4. Given these differences of enunciations, the judgment of truth and falsity is not alike in all. Accordingly, the Philosopher says, as a conclusion from what has been established: In enunciations about that which is, i.e., in propositions about the present, or has taken place, i.e., in enunciations about the past, the affirmation or the negation must be determinately true or false. However, this differs according to the different quantity of the enunciations. In enunciations in which something is universally predicated of universal subjects, one must always be true, either the affirmative or negative, and the other false, i.e., the one opposed to it. For as was said above, the negation of a universal enunciation in which something is predicated universally, is not the universal negative, but the particular negative, and conversely, the universal negative is not directly the negation of the universal affirmative, but the particular negative. According to the foregoing, then, one of these must always be true and the other false in any matter whatever. And the same is the case in singular enunciations, which are also opposed contradictorily. However, in enunciations in which something is predicated of a universal but not universally, it is not necessary that one always be true and the other false, for both could be at once true.
Et hoc quidem ita se habet quantum ad propositiones, quae sunt de praeterito vel de praesenti: sed si accipiamus enunciationes, quae sunt de futuro, etiam similiter se habent quantum ad oppositiones, quae sunt de universalibus vel universaliter vel non universaliter sumptis. Nam in materia necessaria omnes affirmativae determinate sunt verae, ita in futuris sicut in praeteritis et praesentibus; negativae vero falsae. In materia autem impossibili, e contrario. In contingenti vero universales sunt falsae et particulares sunt verae, ita in futuris sicut in praeteritis et praesentibus. In indefinitis autem, utraque simul est vera in futuris sicut in praesentibus vel praeteritis. 5. The case as it was just stated has to do with propositions about the past or the present. Enunciations about the future that are of universals taken either universally or not universally are also related in the same way in regard to oppositions. In necessary matter all affirmative enunciations are determinately true; this holds for enunciations in future time as well as in past and present time; and negative enunciations are determinately false. In impossible matter the contrary is the case. In contingent matter, however, universal enunciations are false and particular enunciations true. This is the case in enunciations about the future as well as those of the past and present. In indefinite enunciations, both are at once true in future enunciations as well as in those of the present or the past.
Sed in singularibus et futuris est quaedam dissimilitudo. Nam in praeteritis et praesentibus necesse est quod altera oppositarum determinate sit vera et altera falsa in quacumque materia; sed in singularibus quae sunt de futuro hoc non est necesse, quod una determinate sit vera et altera falsa. Et hoc quidem dicitur quantum ad materiam contingentem: nam quantum ad materiam necessariam et impossibilem similis ratio est in futuris singularibus, sicut in praesentibus et praeteritis. 6. In singular future enunciations, however, there is a difference. In past and present singular enunciations, one of the opposites must be determinately true and the other false in any matter whatsoever, but in singulars that are about the future, it is not necessary that one be determinately true and the other false. This holds with respect to contingent matter; with respect to necessary and impossible matter the rule is the same as in enunciations about the present and the past.
Nec tamen Aristoteles mentionem fecit de materia contingenti, quia illa proprie ad singularia pertinent quae contingenter eveniunt, quae autem per se insunt vel repugnant, attribuuntur singularibus secundum universalium rationes. Aristotle has not mentioned contingent matter until now because those things that take place contingently pertain exclusively to singulars, whereas those that per se belong or are repugnant are attributed to singulars according to the notions of their universals.
Circa hoc igitur versatur tota praesens intentio: utrum in enunciationibus singularibus de futuro in materia contingenti necesse sit quod determinate una oppositarum sit vera et altera falsa. Aristotle is therefore wholly concerned here with this question: whether in singular enunciations about the future in contingent matter it is necessary that one of the opposites be determinately true and the other determinately false.
Deinde cum dicit: nam si omnis affirmatio etc., probat praemissam differentiam. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, probat propositum ducendo ad inconveniens; secundo, ostendit illa esse impossibilia quae sequuntur; ibi: quare ergo contingunt inconvenientia et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ostendit quod in singularibus et futuris non semper potest determinate attribui veritas alteri oppositorum; secundo, ostendit quod non potest esse quod utraque veritate careat; ibi: at vero neque quoniam et cetera. Circa primum ponit duas rationes, in quarum prima ponit quamdam consequentiam, scilicet quod si omnis affirmatio vel negatio determinate est vera vel falsa ita in singularibus et futuris sicut in aliis, consequens est quod omnia necesse sit vel determinate esse vel non esse. Deinde cum dicit: quare si hic quidem etc. vel, si itaque hic quidem, ut habetur in Graeco, probat consequentiam praedictam. Ponamus enim quod sint duo homines, quorum unus dicat aliquid esse futurum, puta quod Socrates curret, alius vero dicat hoc idem ipsum non esse futurum; supposita praemissa positione, scilicet quod in singularibus et futuris contingit alteram esse veram, scilicet vel affirmativam vel negativam, sequetur quod necesse sit quod alter eorum verum dicat, non autem uterque: quia non potest esse quod in singularibus propositionibus futuris utraque sit simul vera, scilicet affirmativa et negativa: sed hoc habet locum solum in indefinitis. Ex hoc autem quod necesse est alterum eorum verum dicere, sequitur quod necesse sit determinate vel esse vel non esse. Et hoc probat consequenter: quia ista duo se convertibiliter consequuntur, scilicet quod verum sit id quod dicitur, et quod ita sit in re. Et hoc est quod manifestat consequenter dicens quod si verum est dicere quod album sit, de necessitate sequitur quod ita sit in re; et si verum est negare, ex necessitate sequitur quod ita non sit. Et e converso: quia si ita est in re vel non est, ex necessitate sequitur quod sit verum affirmare vel negare. Et eadem etiam convertibilitas apparet in falso: quia, si aliquis mentitur falsum dicens, ex necessitate sequitur quod non ita sit in re, sicut ipse affirmat vel negat; et e converso, si non est ita in re sicut ipse affirmat vel negat, sequitur quod affirmans vel negans mentiatur. 7. He proves that there is a difference between these opposites and the others where he says, For if every affirmation or negation is true or false, etc. First he proves it by showing that the opposite position leads to what is unlikely; secondly, he shows that what follows from this position is impossible, where he says, These absurd consequences and others like them, etc. In his proof he first shows that in enunciations about future singulars, truth cannot always be determinately attributed to one of the opposites, and then he shows that both cannot lack truth, where he says, But still it is not possible to say that neither is true, etc. He gives two arguments with respect to the first point. In the first of these he states a certain consequence, namely, that if every affirmation or negation is determinately true or false, in future singulars as in the others, it follows that all things must determinately be or not be. He proves this consequence where he says, wherefore, if one person says, etc., or as it is in the Greek, for if one person says something will be, etc.”’ Let us suppose, he argues, that there are two men, one of whom says something will take place in the future, for instance, that Socrates will run, and the other says this same thing will not take place. If the foregoing position is supposed—that in singular future enunciations one of them will be true, either the affirmative or the negative it would follow that only one of them is saying what is true, because in singular future propositions both cannot be at once true, that is, both the affirmative and the negative. This occurs only in indefinite propositions. Moreover, from the fact that one of them must be speaking the truth, it follows that it must determinately be or not be. Then he proves this from the fact that these two follow upon each other convertibly, namely, truth is that which is said and which is so in reality. And this is what he manifests when he says that, if it is true to say that a thing is white, it necessarily follows that it is so in reality; and if it is true to deny it, it necessarily follows that it is not so. And conversely, for if it is so in reality, or is not, it necessarily follows that it is true to affirm or deny it. The same convertibility is also evident in what is false, for if someone lies, saying what is false, it necessarily follows that in reality it is not as he affirms or denies it to be; and conversely, if it is not in reality as he affirms or denies it to be, it follows that in affirming or denying it he lies.
Est ergo processus huius rationis talis. Si necesse est quod omnis affirmatio vel negatio in singularibus et futuris sit vera vel falsa, necesse est quod omnis affirmans vel negans determinate dicat verum vel falsum. Ex hoc autem sequitur quod omne necesse sit esse vel non esse. Ergo, si omnis affirmatio vel negatio determinate sit vera, necesse est omnia determinate esse vel non esse. Ex hoc concludit ulterius quod omnia sint ex necessitate. Per quod triplex genus contingentium excluditur. 8. The process of Aristotle’s reasoning is as follows. If it is necessary that every affirmation or negation about future singulars is true or false, it is necessary that everyone who affirms or denies, determinately says what is true or false. From this it follows that it is necessary that everything be or not be. Therefore, if every affirmation or negation is determinately true, it is necessary that everything determinately be or not be. From this he concludes further that all things are of necessity. This would exclude the three kinds of contingent things,
Quaedam enim contingunt ut in paucioribus, quae accidunt a casu vel fortuna. Quaedam vero se habent ad utrumlibet, quia scilicet non magis se habent ad unam partem, quam ad aliam, et ista procedunt ex electione. Quaedam vero eveniunt ut in pluribus; sicut hominem canescere in senectute, quod causatur ex natura. Si autem omnia ex necessitate evenirent, nihil horum contingentium esset. Et ideo dicit nihil est quantum ad ipsam permanentiam eorum quae permanent contingenter; neque fit quantum ad productionem eorum quae contingenter causantur; nec casu quantum ad ea quae sunt in minori parte, sive in paucioribus; nec utrumlibet quantum ad ea quae se habent aequaliter ad utrumque, scilicet esse vel non esse, et ad neutrum horum sunt determinata: quod significat cum subdit, nec erit, nec non erit. 9. The three kinds of contingent things are these: some, the ones that happen by chance or fortune, happen infrequently; others are in determinate to either of two alternatives because they are not inclined more to one part than to another, and these proceed from choice; still others occur for the most part, for example, men becoming gray in old age, which is caused by nature. If, however, everything took place of necessity, there would be none of these kinds of contingent things. Therefore, Aristotle says, nothing is with respect to the very permanence of those things that are contingently permanent; or takes place with respect to those that are caused contingently; by chance with respect to those that take place for the least part, or infrequently; or is indeterminate to either of two alternatives with respect to those that are related equally to either of two, i.e., to being or to nonbeing, and are determined to neither of these, which he signifies when he adds, or will be, or will not be.
De eo enim quod est magis determinatum ad unam partem possumus determinate verum dicere quod hoc erit vel non erit, sicut medicus de convalescente vere dicit, iste sanabitur, licet forte ex aliquo accidente eius sanitas impediatur. Unde et philosophus dicit in II de generatione quod futurus quis incedere, non incedet. De eo enim qui habet propositum determinatum ad incedendum, vere potest dici quod ipse incedet, licet per aliquod accidens impediatur eius incessus. Sed eius quod est ad utrumlibet proprium est quod, quia non determinatur magis ad unum quam ad alterum, non possit de eo determinate dici, neque quod erit, neque quod non erit. For of that which is more determined to one part we can truly and determinately say that it will be or will not be, as for example, the physician truly says of the convalescent, “He will be restored to health,” although perchance by some accident his cure may be impeded. The Philosopher makes this same point when he says in II De generatione [11: 337b 7], “A man about to walk might not walk.” For it can be truly said of someone who has the determined intention to walk that he will walk, although by some accident his walking might be impeded. But in the case of that which is indeterminate to either of two, it cannot determinately be said of it either that it will be or that it will not be, for it is proper to it not to be determined more to one than to another.
Quomodo autem sequatur quod nihil sit ad utrumlibet ex praemissa hypothesi, manifestat subdens quod, si omnis affirmatio vel negatio determinate sit vera, oportet quod vel ille qui affirmat vel ille qui negat dicat verum; et sic tollitur id quod est ad utrumlibet: quia, si esse aliquid ad utrumlibet, similiter se haberet ad hoc quod fieret vel non fieret, et non magis ad unum quam ad alterum. Then he manifests how it follows from the foregoing hypothesis that nothing is indeterminate to either of two when he adds that if every affirmation or negation is determinately true, then either the one who affirms or the one who denies must be speaking the truth. That which is indeterminate to either of two is therefore destroyed, for if there is something indeterminate to either of two, it would be related alike to taking place or not taking place, and no more to one than to the other.
Est autem considerandum quod philosophus non excludit hic expresse contingens quod est ut in pluribus, duplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia tale contingens non excludit quin altera oppositarum enunciationum determinate sit vera et altera falsa, ut dictum est. Secundo, quia remoto contingenti quod est in paucioribus, quod a casu accidit, removetur per consequens contingens quod est ut in pluribus: nihil enim differt id quod est in pluribus ab eo quod est in paucioribus, nisi quod deficit in minori parte. It should be, noted that the Philosopher is not expressly excluding the contingent that is for the most part. There are two reasons for this. In the first place, this kind of contingency still excludes the determinate truth of one of the opposite enunciations and the falsity of the other, as has been said. Secondly, when the contingent that is infrequent, i.e., that which takes place by chance, is removed, the contingent that is for the most part is removed as a consequence, for there is no difference between that which is for the most part and that which is infrequent except that the former fails for the least part.
Deinde cum dicit: amplius si est album etc., ponit secundam rationem ad ostendendum praedictam dissimilitudinem, ducendo ad impossibile. Si enim similiter se habet veritas et falsitas in praesentibus et futuris, sequitur ut quidquid verum est de praesenti, etiam fuerit verum de futuro, eo modo quo est verum de praesenti. Sed determinate nunc est verum dicere de aliquo singulari quod est album; ergo primo, idest antequam illud fieret album, erat verum dicere quoniam hoc erit album. Sed eadem ratio videtur esse in propinquo et in remoto; ergo si ante unum diem verum fuit dicere quod hoc erit album, sequitur quod semper fuit verum dicere de quolibet eorum, quae facta sunt, quod erit. Si autem semper est verum dicere de praesenti quoniam est, vel de futuro quoniam erit, non potest hoc non esse vel non futurum esse. Cuius consequentiae ratio patet, quia ista duo sunt incompossibilia, quod aliquid vere dicatur esse, et quod non sit. Nam hoc includitur in significatione veri, ut sit id quod dicitur. Si ergo ponitur verum esse id quod dicitur de praesenti vel de futuro, non potest esse quin illud sit praesens vel futurum. Sed quod non potest non fieri idem significat cum eo quod est impossibile non fieri. Et quod impossibile est non fieri idem significat cum eo quod est necesse fieri, ut in secundo plenius dicetur. Sequitur ergo ex praemissis quod omnia, quae futura sunt, necesse est fieri. Ex quo sequitur ulterius, quod nihil sit neque ad utrumlibet neque a casu, quia illud quod accidit a casu non est ex necessitate, sed ut in paucioribus; hoc autem relinquit pro inconvenienti; ergo et primum est falsum, scilicet quod omne quod est verum esse, verum fuerit determinate dicere esse futurum. 10. When he says, Furthermore, on such a supposition, if something is now white, it was true to say formerly that it will be white, etc., he gives a second argument to show the dissimilarity of enunciations about future singulars. This argument is by reduction to the impossible. If truth and falsity. are related in like manner in present and in future enunciations, it follows that whatever is true of the present was also true of the future, in the way in which it is true of the present. But it is now determinately true to say of some singular that it is white; therefore formerly, i.e., before it became white, it was true to say that this will be white. Now the same reasoning seems to hold for the proximate and the remote. Therefore, if yesterday it was true to say that this will be white, it follows that it was always true to say of anything that has taken place that it will be. And if it is always true to say of the present that it is, or of the future that it will be, it is not possible that this not be, or, that it will not be. The reason for this consequence is evident, for these two cannot stand together, that something truly be said to be, and that it not be; for this is included in the signification of the true, that that which is said, is. If therefore that which is said concerning the present or the future is posited to be true, it is not possible that this not be in the present or future. But that which cannot not take place signifies the same thing as that which is impossible not to take place. And that which is impossible not to take place signifies the same thing as that which necessarily takes place, as will be explained more fully in the second book. It follows, therefore, that all things that are future must necessarily take place. From this it follows further, that there is nothing that is indeterminate to either of two or that takes place by chance, for what happens by chance does not take place of necessity but happens infrequently. But this is unlikely. Therefore the first proposition is false, i.e., that of everything of which it is true that it is, it was determinately true to say that it would be.
Ad cuius evidentiam considerandum est quod cum verum hoc significet ut dicatur aliquid esse quod est, hoc modo est aliquid verum, quo habet esse. Cum autem aliquid est in praesenti habet esse in seipso, et ideo vere potest dici de eo quod est: sed quamdiu aliquid est futurum, nondum est in seipso, est tamen aliqualiter in sua causa: quod quidem contingit tripliciter. Uno modo, ut sic sit in sua causa ut ex necessitate ex ea proveniat; et tunc determinate habet esse in sua causa; unde determinate potest dici de eo quod erit. Alio modo, aliquid est in sua causa, ut quae habet inclinationem ad suum effectum, quae tamen impediri potest; unde et hoc determinatum est in sua causa, sed mutabiliter; et sic de hoc vere dici potest, hoc erit, sed non per omnimodam certitudinem. Tertio, aliquid est in sua causa pure in potentia, quae etiam non magis est determinata ad unum quam ad aliud; unde relinquitur quod nullo modo potest de aliquo eorum determinate dici quod sit futurum, sed quod sit vel non sit. 11. For clarification of this point, we must consider the following. Since “true” signifies that something is said to be what it is, something is true in the manner in which it has being. Now, when something is in the present it exists in itself, and hence it can be truly said of it that it is. But as long as something is future, it does not yet exist in itself, but it is in a certain way in its cause, and this in a threefold way. It may be in its cause in such a way that it comes from it necessarily. In this case it has being determinately in its cause, and therefore it can be determinately said of it that it will be. In another way, something is in its cause as it has an inclination to its effect but can be impeded. This, then, is determined in its cause, but changeably, and hence it can be truly a said of it that it will be but not with complete certainty. Thirdly, something is in its cause purely in potency. This is the case in which the cause is as yet not determined more to one thing than to another, and consequently it cannot in any way be said determinately of these that it is going to be, but that it is or is not going to be.
Deinde cum dicit: at vero neque quoniam etc., ostendit quod veritas non omnino deest in singularibus futuris utrique oppositorum; et primo, proponit quod intendit dicens quod sicut non est verum dicere quod in talibus alterum oppositorum sit verum determinate, sic non est verum dicere quod non utrumque sit verum; ut si quod dicamus, neque erit, neque non erit. 12. Then Aristotle says, But still it is not possible to say that neither is true, etc. Here he shows that truth is not altogether lacking to both of the opposites in singular future enunciations. First he says that just as it is not true to say that in such enunciations one of the opposites is determinately true, so it is not true to say that neither is true; as if we could say that a thing neither will take place nor will not take place.
Secundo, ibi: primum enim cum sit etc., probat propositum duabus rationibus. Quarum prima talis est: affirmatio et negatio dividunt verum et falsum, quod patet ex definitione veri et falsi: nam nihil aliud est verum quam esse quod est, vel non esse quod non est; et nihil aliud est falsum quam esse quod non est, vel non esse quod est; et sic oportet quod si affirmatio sit falsa, quod negatio sit vera; et e converso. Sed secundum praedictam positionem affirmatio est falsa, qua dicitur, hoc erit; nec tamen negatio est vera: et similiter negatio erit falsa, affirmatione non existente vera; ergo praedicta positio est impossibilis, scilicet quod veritas desit utrique oppositorum. Then when he says, In the first place, though the affirmation be false, etc., he gives two arguments to prove his point. The first is as follows. Affirmation and negation divide the true and the false. This is evident from the definition of true and false, for to be true is to be what in fact is, or not to be what in fact is not; and to be false is to be what in fact is not, or not to be what in fact is. Consequently, if the affirmation is false, the negation must be true, and conversely. But if the position is taken that neither is true, the affirmation, “This will be” is false, yet the negation is not true; likewise the negation will be false and the affirmation not be true. Therefore, the aforesaid position is impossible, i.e., that truth is lacking to both of the opposites.
Secundam rationem ponit; ibi: ad haec si verum est et cetera. Quae talis est: si verum est dicere aliquid, sequitur quod illud sit; puta si verum est dicere quod aliquid sit magnum et album, sequitur utraque esse. Et ita de futuro sicut de praesenti: sequitur enim esse cras, si verum est dicere quod erit cras. Si ergo vera est praedicta positio dicens quod neque cras erit, neque non erit, oportebit neque fieri, neque non fieri: quod est contra rationem eius quod est ad utrumlibet, quia quod est ad utrumlibet se habet ad alterutrum; ut navale bellum cras erit, vel non erit. Et ita ex hoc sequitur idem inconveniens quod in praemissis. The second argument begins where he says, Secondly, if it is true to say that a thing is white and large, etc. The argument is as follows. If it is true to say something, it follows that it is. For example, if it is true to say that something is large and white, it follows that it is both. And this is so of the future as of the present, for if it is true to say that it will be tomorrow, it follows that it will be tomorrow. Therefore, if the position that it neither will be or not be tomorrow is true, it will be necessary that it neither happen nor not happen, which is contrary to the nature of that which is indeterminate to either of two, for that which is indeterminate to either of two is related to either; for example, a naval battle will take place tomorrow, or will not. The same unlikely things follow, then, from this as from the first argument.

LESSON 14
Contingency in Things
and the Roots of Contingency in Relation to Singular Propositions About the Future in Contingent Matter

Τὰ μὲν δὴ συμβαίνοντα ἄτοπα ταῦτα καὶ τοιαῦθ' ἕτερα, εἴπερ πάσης καταφάσεως καὶ ἀποφάσεως, ἢ ἐπὶ τῶν καθόλου λεγομένων ὡς καθόλου ἢ ἐπὶ τῶν καθ' ἕκαστα, ἀνάγκη τῶν ἀντικειμένων εἶναι τὴν μὲν ἀληθῆ τὴν δὲ ψευδῆ, μηδὲν δὲ ὁπότερ' ἔτυχεν εἶναι ἐν τοῖς γιγνομένοις, ἀλλὰ πάντα εἶναι καὶ γίγνεσθαι ἐξ ἀνάγκης. ὥστε οὔτε βουλεύεσθαι δέοι ἂν οὔτε πραγματεύεσθαι, ὡς ἐὰν μὲν τοδὶ ποιήσωμεν, ἔσται τοδί, ἐὰν δὲ μὴ τοδί, οὐκ ἔσται. 18b 26 These absurd consequences and others like them result if of every affirmation and negation, whether in regard to universals taken universally or in regard to singulars, one of the opposites must be true and the other false: that nothing is indeterminate to either of two in things that come about but all are and take place of necessity; consequently, there will be no need to deliberate nor to take pains about something, as though if we were to do this, such a thing would follow and if we were not to do this, it would not follow.
οὐδὲν γὰρ κωλύει εἰς μυριοστὸν ἔτος τὸν μὲν φάναι τοῦτ' ἔσεσθαι τὸν δὲ μὴ φάναι, ὥστε ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἔσεσθαι ὁπότερον αὐτῶν ἀληθὲς ἦν εἰπεῖν τότε. 18b 33 For nothing prevents one person from saying that this will be so in ten thousand years and another person saying it will not; and on the aforesaid supposition, whichever of these was truly said at that time will take place of necessity.
ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ τοῦτο διαφέρει, εἴ τινες εἶπον τὴν ἀντίφασιν ἢ μὴ εἶπον δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι οὕτως ἔχει τὰ πράγματα, κἂν μὴ ὁ μὲν καταφήσῃ ὁ δὲ ἀποφήσῃ οὐ γὰρ διὰ τὸ καταφάναι ἢ ἀποφάναι ἔσται ἢ οὐκ ἔσται, οὐδ' εἰς (19a.) μυριοστὸν ἔτος μᾶλλον ἢ ἐν ὁποσῳοῦν χρόνῳ. 18b 36 Moreover, it makes no difference whether people have actually made the contradictory statements or not; for it is evident that things either will take place or will not even if one person has riot affirmed and the other denied it. For it is not because of the affirming or denying that it will be or will not be, whether in ten thousand years or any other space of time.
ὥστ' εἰ ἐν ἅπαντι τῷ χρόνῳ οὕτως εἶχεν ὥστε τὸ ἕτερον ἀληθεύεσθαι, ἀναγκαῖον ἦν τοῦτο γενέσθαι, καὶ ἕκαστον τῶν γενομένων ἀεὶ οὕτως ἔχειν ὥστε ἐξ ἀνάγκης γενέσθαι ὅ τε γὰρ ἀληθῶς εἶπέ τις ὅτι ἔσται, οὐχ οἷόν τε μὴ γενέσθαι καὶ τὸ γενόμενον ἀληθὲς ἦν εἰπεῖν ἀεὶ ὅτι ἔσται. Therefore, if throughout all time it was the case that one thing or the other was truly said, it would be necessary that this take place; and of every one of the things that takes place it was always the case that it would necessarily take place. For what anyone truly says will be, cannot not take place; and of that which takes place, it was always true to say that it would be.
Εἰ δὴ ταῦτα ἀδύνατα, ὁρῶμεν γὰρ ὅτι ἔστιν ἀρχὴ τῶν ἐσομένων καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πρᾶξαί τι, 19a 6 But these things appear to be impossible; for we see that both our deliberation about doing something and our action are principles of future events;
καὶ ὅτι ὅλως ἔστιν ἐν τοῖς μὴ ἀεὶ ἐνεργοῦσι τὸ δυνατὸν εἶναι καὶ μή, ἐν οἷς ἄμφω ἐνδέχεται καὶ τὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸ μὴ εἶναι, ὥστε καὶ τὸ γενέσθαι καὶ τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι 19a 9 and that universally in the things not always in act there is a potentiality to be and not to be. In these there is the possibility either of being or not being, and so they may either take place or not take place.
καὶ πολλὰ ἡμῖν δῆλά ἐστιν οὕτως ἔχοντα, οἷον ὅτι τουτὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον δυνατόν ἐστι διατμηθῆναι καὶ οὐ διατμηθήσεται, ἀλλ' ἔμπροσθεν κατατριβήσεται ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ μὴ διατμηθῆναι δυνατόν οὐ γὰρ ἂν ὑπῆρχε τὸ ἔμπροσθεν αὐτὸ κατατριβῆναι, εἴγε μὴ δυνατὸν ἦν τὸ μὴ διατμηθῆναι 19a 12 We can point to many clear instances of this. For example, this cloak could be cut in half, and yet might not be but wear out first; likewise it is possible that it not be cut in half, for it could not wear out first if it were not possible that it not be cut.
ὥστε καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων γενέσεων, ὅσαι κατὰ δύναμιν λέγονται τὴν τοιαύτην 19a 16 So it is, too, in other things that are said to take place according to this kind of potentiality.
φανερὸν ἄρα ὅτι οὐχ ἅπαντα ἐξ ἀνάγκης οὔτ' ἔστιν οὔτε γίγνεται, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν ὁπότερ' ἔτυχε καὶ οὐδὲν μᾶλλον ἢ ἡ κατάφασις ἢ ἡ ἀπόφασις ἀληθής, τὰ δὲ μᾶλλον μὲν καὶ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ θάτερον, οὐ μὴν ἀλλ' ἐνδέχεται γενέσθαι καὶ θάτερον, θάτερον δὲ μή. 19a 18 It is evident, then, that not all things are or take place of necessity, but some are indeterminate to either of two, in which case the affirmation is no more true than the negation; others take place more in one way than another, as in that which takes place for the most part, and yet it is possible for the other one to take place and the more frequent one not.
Ostenderat superius philosophus ducendo ad inconveniens quod non est similiter verum vel falsum determinate in altero oppositorum in singularibus et futuris, sicut supra de aliis enunciationibus dixerat; nunc autem ostendit inconvenientia ad quae adduxerat esse impossibilia. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, ostendit impossibilia ea quae sequebantur; secundo, concludit quomodo circa haec se veritas habeat; ibi: igitur esse quod est et cetera. 1. The Philosopher has shown—by leading the opposite position to what is unlikely—that in singular future enunciations truth or falsity is not determinately in one of the opposites, as it is in other enunciations. Now he is going to show that the unlikely things to which it has led are impossibilities. First he shows that the things that followed are impossibilities; then he concludes what the truth is, where he says, Now that which is, when it is, necessarily is, etc.
Circa primum tria facit: primo, ponit inconvenientia quae sequuntur; secundo, ostendit haec inconvenientia ex praedicta positione sequi; ibi: nihil enim prohibet etc.; tertio, ostendit esse impossibilia inconvenientia memorata; ibi: quod si haec possibilia non sunt et cetera. 2. With respect to the impossibilities that follow he first states the unlikely things that follow from the opposite position, then shows that these follow from the aforesaid position, where he says, For nothing prevents one person from saying that this will be so in ten thousand years, etc. Finally he shows that these are impossibilities where he says, But these things appear to be impossible, etc.
Dicit ergo primo, ex praedictis rationibus concludens, quod haec inconvenientia sequuntur, si ponatur quod necesse sit oppositarum enunciationum alteram determinate esse veram et alteram esse falsam similiter in singularibus sicut in universalibus, quod scilicet nihil in his quae fiunt sit ad utrumlibet, sed omnia sint et fiant ex necessitate. Et ex hoc ulterius inducit alia duo inconvenientia. Quorum primum est quod non oportebit de aliquo consiliari: probatum est enim in III Ethicorum quod consilium non est de his, quae sunt ex necessitate, sed solum de contingentibus, quae possunt esse et non esse. He says, then, concluding from the preceding reasoning, that these unlikely things follow—if the position is taken that of opposed enunciations one of the two must be determinately true and the other false in the same way in singular as in universal enunciations—namely, that in things that come about nothing is indeterminate to either of two, but all things are and take place of necessity. From this he infers two other unlikely things that follow. First, it will not be necessary to deliberate about anything; whereas he proved in III Ethicorum [3: 1112a 19] that counsel is not concerned with things that take place necessarily but only with contingent things, i.e., things which can be or not be.
Secundum inconveniens est quod omnes actiones humanae, quae sunt propter aliquem finem (puta negotiatio, quae est propter divitias acquirendas), erunt superfluae: quia si omnia ex necessitate eveniunt, sive operemur sive non operemur erit quod intendimus. Sed hoc est contra intentionem hominum, quia ea intentione videntur consiliari et negotiari ut, si haec faciant, erit talis finis, si autem faciunt aliquid aliud, erit alius finis. Secondly, all human actions that are for the sake of some end (for example, a business transaction to acquire riches) will be superfluous, because what we intend will take place whether we take pains to bring it about or not—if all things come about of necessity. This, however, is in opposition to the intention of men, for they seem to deliberate and to transact business with the intention that if they do this there will be such a result, but if they do something else, there will be another result.
Deinde cum dicit: nihil enim prohibet etc., probat quod dicta inconvenientia consequantur ex dicta positione. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, ostendit praedicta inconvenientia sequi, quodam possibili posito; secundo, ostendit quod eadem inconvenientia sequantur etiam si illud non ponatur; ibi: at nec hoc differt et cetera. 3. Where he says, For nothing prevents one person from saying that this will be so in ten thousand years, etc., he proves that the said unlikely things follow from the said position. First he shows that the unlikely things follow from the positing of a certain possibility; then he shows that the same unlikely things follow even if that possibility is not posited, where he says, Moreover, it makes no difference whether people have actually made the contradictory statements or not, etc.
Dicit ergo primo, non esse impossibile quod ante mille annos, quando nihil apud homines erat praecogitatum, vel praeordinatum de his quae nunc aguntur, unus dixerit quod hoc erit, puta quod civitas talis subverteretur, alius autem dixerit quod hoc non erit. Sed si omnis affirmatio vel negatio determinate est vera, necesse est quod alter eorum determinate verum dixerit; ergo necesse fuit alterum eorum ex necessitate evenire; et eadem ratio est in omnibus aliis; ergo omnia ex necessitate eveniunt. He says, then, that it is not impossible that a thousand years before, when men neither knew nor ordained any of the things that are taking place now, a man said, “This will be,” for example, that such a state would be overthrown, and another man said, “This will not be.” But if every affirmation or negation is determinately true, one of them must have spoken the truth. Therefore one of them had to take place of necessity; and this same reasoning holds for all other things. Therefore everything takes place of necessity.
Deinde cum dicit: at vero neque hoc differt etc., ostendit quod idem sequitur si illud possibile non ponatur. Nihil enim differt, quantum ad rerum existentiam vel eventum, si uno affirmante hoc esse futurum, alius negaverit vel non negaverit; ita enim se habebit res si hoc factum fuerit, sicut si hoc non factum fuerit. Non enim propter nostrum affirmare vel negare mutatur cursus rerum, ut sit aliquid vel non sit: quia veritas nostrae enunciationis non est causa existentiae rerum, sed potius e converso. Similiter etiam non differt quantum ad eventum eius quod nunc agitur, utrum fuerit affirmatum vel negatum ante millesimum annum vel ante quodcumque tempus. Sic ergo, si in quocumque tempore praeterito, ita se habebat veritas enunciationum, ut necesse esset quod alterum oppositorum vere diceretur; et ad hoc quod necesse est aliquid vere dici sequitur quod necesse sit illud esse vel fieri; consequens est quod unumquodque eorum quae fiunt, sic se habeat ut ex necessitate fiat. Et huiusmodi consequentiae rationem assignat per hoc, quod si ponatur aliquem vere dicere quod hoc erit, non potest non futurum esse. Sicut supposito quod sit homo, non potest non esse animal rationale mortale. Hoc enim significatur, cum dicitur aliquid vere dici, scilicet quod ita sit ut dicitur. Eadem autem habitudo est eorum, quae nunc dicuntur, ad ea quae futura sunt, quae erat eorum, quae prius dicebantur, ad ea quae sunt praesentia vel praeterita; et ita omnia ex necessitate acciderunt, et accidunt, et accident, quia quod nunc factum est, utpote in praesenti vel in praeterito existens, semper verum erat dicere, quoniam erit futurum. 4. Then he shows that the same thing follows if this possibility is not posited where he says, Moreover, it makes no difference whether people have actually made the contradictory statements or not, etc. It makes no difference in relation to the existence or outcome of things whether a person denies that this is going to take place when it is affirmed, or not; for as was previously said, the event will either take place or not whether the affirmation and denial have been made or not. That something is or is not does not result from a change in the course of things to correspond to our affirmation or denial, for the truth of our enunciation is not the cause of the existence of things, but rather the converse. Nor does it make any difference to the outcome of what is now being done whether it was affirmed or denied a thousand years before, or at any other time before. Therefore, if in all past time, the truth of enunciations was such that one of the opposites had to have been truly said and if upon the necessity of something being truly said it follows that this must be or take place, it will follow that everything that takes place is such that it takes place of necessity. The reason he assigns for this consequence is the following. If it is posited that someone truly says this will be, it is not possible that it will not be, just as having supposed that man is, he cannot not be a rational mortal animal. For to be truly said means that it is such as is said. Moreover, the relationship of what is said. now to what will be is the same as the relationship of what was said previously to what is in the present or the past. Therefore, all things have necessarily happened, and they are necessarily happening, and they will necessarily happen, for of what is accomplished now, as existing in the present or in the past, it was always true to say that it would be.
Deinde cum dicit: quod si haec possibilia non sunt etc., ostendit praedicta esse impossibilia: et primo, per rationem; secundo, per exempla sensibilia; ibi: et multa nobis manifesta et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ostendit propositum in rebus humanis; secundo, etiam in aliis rebus; ibi: et quoniam est omnino et cetera. 5. When he says, But these things appear to be impossible, etc., he shows that what has been said is impossible. He shows this first by reason, secondly by sensible examples, where he says, We can point to many clear instances of this, etc.
Quantum autem ad res humanas ostendit esse impossibilia quae dicta sunt, per hoc quod homo manifeste videtur esse principium eorum futurorum, quae agit quasi dominus existens suorum actuum, et in sua potestate habens agere vel non agere; quod quidem principium si removeatur, tollitur totus ordo conversationis humanae, et omnia principia philosophiae moralis. Hoc enim sublato non erit aliqua utilitas persuasionis, nec comminationis, nec punitionis aut remunerationis, quibus homines alliciuntur ad bona et retrahuntur a malis, et sic evacuatur tota civilis scientia. First he argues that the position taken is impossible in relation to human affairs, for clearly man seems to be the principle of the future things that he does insofar as he is the master of his own actions and has the power to act or not to act. Indeed, to reject this principle would be to do away with the whole order of human association and all the principles of moral philosophy. For men are attracted to good and withdrawn from evil by persuasion and threat, and by punishment and reward; but rejection of this principle would make these useless and thus nullify the whole of civil science.
Hoc ergo philosophus accipit pro principio manifesto quod homo sit principium futurorum; non est autem futurorum principium nisi per hoc quod consiliatur et facit aliquid: ea enim quae agunt absque consilio non habent dominium sui actus, quasi libere iudicantes de his quae sunt agenda, sed quodam naturali instinctu moventur ad agendum, ut patet in animalibus brutis. Unde impossibile est quod supra conclusum est quod non oporteat nos negotiari vel consiliari. Et sic etiam impossibile est illud ex quo sequebatur, scilicet quod omnia ex necessitate eveniant. Here the Philosopher accepts it as an evident principle that man is the principle of future things. However, he is not the principle of future things unless he deliberates about a thing and then does it. In those things that men do without deliberation they do not have dominion over their acts, i.e., they do not judge freely about things to be done, but are moved to act by a kind of natural instinct such as is evident in the case of brute animals. Hence, the conclusion that it is not necessary for us to take pains about something or to deliberate is impossible; likewise what it followed from is impossible, i.e., that all things take place of necessity.
Deinde cum dicit: et quoniam est omnino etc., ostendit idem etiam in aliis rebus. Manifestum est enim etiam in rebus naturalibus esse quaedam, quae non semper actu sunt; ergo in eis contingit esse et non esse: alioquin vel semper essent, vel semper non essent. Id autem quod non est, incipit esse aliquid per hoc quod fit illud; sicut id quod non est album, incipit esse album per hoc quod fit album. Si autem non fiat album permanet non ens album. Ergo in quibus contingit esse et non esse, contingit etiam fieri et non fieri. Non ergo talia ex necessitate sunt vel fiunt, sed est in eis natura possibilitatis, per quam se habent ad fieri et non fieri, esse et non esse. 6. Then he shows that this is also the case in other things where he says, and that universally in the things not always in act, there is a potentiality to be and not to be, etc. In natural things, too, it is evident that there are some things not always in act; it is therefore possible for them to be or not be, otherwise they would either always be or always not be. Now that which is not begins to be something by becoming it; as for example, that which is not white begins to be white by becoming white. But if it does not become white it continues not to be white. Therefore, in things that have the possibility of being and not being, there is also the possibility of becoming and not becoming. Such things neither are nor come to be of necessity but there is in them the kind of possibility which disposes them to becoming and not becoming, to being and not being.
Deinde cum dicit: ac multa nobis manifesta etc., ostendit propositum per sensibilia exempla. Sit enim, puta, vestis nova; manifestum est quod eam possibile est incidi, quia nihil obviat incisioni, nec ex parte agentis nec ex parte patientis. Probat autem quod simul cum hoc quod possibile est eam incidi, possibile est etiam eam non incidi, eodem modo quo supra probavit duas indefinitas oppositas esse simul veras, scilicet per assumptionem contrarii. Sicut enim possibile est istam vestem incidi, ita possibile est eam exteri, idest vetustate corrumpi; sed si exteritur non inciditur; ergo utrumque possibile est, scilicet eam incidi et non incidi. Et ex hoc universaliter concludit quod in aliis futuris, quae non sunt in actu semper, sed sunt in potentia, hoc manifestum est quod non omnia ex necessitate sunt vel fiunt, sed eorum quaedam sunt ad utrumlibet, quae non se habent magis ad affirmationem quam ad negationem; alia vero sunt in quibus alterum eorum contingit ut in pluribus, sed tamen contingit etiam ut in paucioribus quod altera pars sit vera, et non alia, quae scilicet contingit ut in pluribus. 7. Next he shows the impossibility of what was said by examples perceptible to the senses, where he says, We can point to many clear instances of this, etc. Take a new garment for example. It is evident that it is possible to cut it, for nothing stands in the way of cutting it either on the part of the agent or the patient. He proves it is at once possible that it be cut and that it not be cut in the same way he has already proved that two opposed indefinite enunciations are at once true, i.e., by the assumption of contraries. just as it is possible that the garment be cut, so it is possible that it wear out, i.e., be corrupted in the course of time. But if it wears out it is not cut. Therefore both are possible, i.e., that it be cut and that it not be cut. From this he concludes universally in regard to other future things which are not always in act, but are in potency, that not all are or take place of necessity; some are indeterminate to either of two, and therefore are not related any more to affirmation than to negation; there are others in which one possibility happens for the most part, although it is possible, but for the least part, that the other part be true, and not the part which happens for the most part.
Est autem considerandum quod, sicut Boethius dicit hic in commento, circa possibile et necessarium diversimode aliqui sunt opinati. Quidam enim distinxerunt ea secundum eventum, sicut Diodorus, qui dixit illud esse impossibile quod nunquam erit; necessarium vero quod semper erit; possibile vero quod quandoque erit, quandoque non erit. 8. With regard to this question about the possible and the necessary, there have been different opinions, as Boethius says in his Commentary, and these will have to be considered. Some who distinguished them according to result—for example, Diodorus—said that the impossible is that which never will be, the necessary, that which always will be, and the possible, that which sometimes will be, sometimes not.
Stoici vero distinxerunt haec secundum exteriora prohibentia. Dixerunt enim necessarium esse illud quod non potest prohiberi quin sit verum; impossibile vero quod semper prohibetur a veritate; possibile vero quod potest prohiberi vel non prohiberi. The Stoics distinguished them according to exterior restraints. They said the necessary was that which could not be prevented from being true, the impossible, that which is always prevented from being true, and the possible, that which can be prevented or not be prevented.
Utraque autem distinctio videtur esse incompetens. Nam prima distinctio est a posteriori: non enim ideo aliquid est necessarium, quia semper erit; sed potius ideo semper erit, quia est necessarium: et idem patet in aliis. Secunda autem assignatio est ab exteriori et quasi per accidens: non enim ideo aliquid est necessarium, quia non habet impedimentum, sed quia est necessarium, ideo impedimentum habere non potest. However, the distinctions in both of those cases seem to be inadequate. The first distinctions are a posteriori, for something is not necessary because it always will be, but rather, it always will be because it is necessary; this holds for the possible as well as the impossible. The second designation is taken from what is external and accidental, for something is not necessary because it does not have an impediment, but it does not have an impediment because it is necessary.
Et ideo alii melius ista distinxerunt secundum naturam rerum, ut scilicet dicatur illud necessarium, quod in sua natura determinatum est solum ad esse; impossibile autem quod est determinatum solum ad non esse; possibile autem quod ad neutrum est omnino determinatum, sive se habeat magis ad unum quam ad alterum, sive se habeat aequaliter ad utrumque, quod dicitur contingens ad utrumlibet. Others distinguished these better by basing their distinction on the nature of things. They said that the necessary is that which in its nature is determined only to being, the impossible, that which is determined only to nonbeing, and the possible, that which is not altogether determined to either, whether related more to one than to another or related equally to both. The latter is known as that which is indeterminate to either of two.
Et hoc est quod Boethius attribuit Philoni. Sed manifeste haec est sententia Aristotelis in hoc loco. Assignat enim rationem possibilitatis et contingentiae, in his quidem quae sunt a nobis ex eo quod sumus consiliativi, in aliis autem ex eo quod materia est in potentia ad utrumque oppositorum. Boethius attributes these distinctions to Philo. However, this is clearly the opinion of Aristotle here, for he gives as the reason for the possibility and contingency in the things we do the fact that we deliberate, and in other things the fact that matter is in potency to either it of two opposites.
Sed videtur haec ratio non esse sufficiens. Sicut enim in corporibus corruptibilibus materia invenitur in potentia se habens ad esse et non esse, ita etiam in corporibus caelestibus invenitur potentia ad diversa ubi, et tamen nihil in eis evenit contingenter, sed solum ex necessitate. Unde dicendum est quod possibilitas materiae ad utrumque, si communiter loquamur, non est sufficiens ratio contingentiae, nisi etiam addatur ex parte potentiae activae quod non sit omnino determinata ad unum; alioquin si ita sit determinata ad unum quod impediri non potest, consequens est quod ex necessitate reducat in actum potentiam passivam eodem modo. 9. But this reasoning does not seem to be adequate either. While it is true that in corruptible bodies matter is in potency to being and nonbeing, and in celestial bodies there is potency to diverse location; nevertheless nothing happens contingently in celestial bodies, but only of necessity. Consequently, we have to say that the potentiality of matter to either of two, if we are speaking generally, does not suffice as a reason for contingency unless we add on the part of the active potency that it is not wholly determined to one; for if it is so determined to one that it cannot be impeded, it follows that it necessarily reduces into act the passive potency in the same mode.
Hoc igitur quidam attendentes posuerunt quod potentia, quae est in ipsis rebus naturalibus, sortitur necessitatem ex aliqua causa determinata ad unum quam dixerunt fatum. Quorum Stoici posuerunt fatum in quadam serie, seu connexione causarum, supponentes quod omne quod in hoc mundo accidit habet causam; causa autem posita, necesse est effectum poni. Et si una causa per se non sufficit, multae causae ad hoc concurrentes accipiunt rationem unius causae sufficientis; et ita concludebant quod omnia ex necessitate eveniunt. 10. Considering this, some maintained that the very potency which is in natural things receives necessity from some cause determined to one. This cause they called fate. The Stoics, for example, held that fate was to be found in a series or interconnection of causes on the assumption that everything that happens has a cause; but when a cause has been posited the effect is posited of necessity, and if one per se cause does not suffice, many causes concurring for this take on the nature of one sufficient cause; so, they concluded, everything happens of necessity.
Sed hanc rationem solvit Aristoteles in VI metaphysicae interimens utramque propositionum assumptarum. Dicit enim quod non omne quod fit habet causam, sed solum illud quod est per se. Sed illud quod est per accidens non habet causam; quia proprie non est ens, sed magis ordinatur cum non ente, ut etiam Plato dixit. Unde esse musicum habet causam, et similiter esse album; sed hoc quod est, album esse musicum, non habet causam: et idem est in omnibus aliis huiusmodi. 11. Aristotle refutes this reasoning in VI Metaphysicae [2: 1026a 33] by destroying each of the assumed propositions. He says there that not everything that takes place has a cause, but only what is per se has a cause. What is accidental does not have a cause, for it is not properly being but is more like nonbeing, as Plato also held. Whence, to be musical has a cause and likewise to be white, but to be musical white does not have a cause; and the same is the case with all others of this kind.
Similiter etiam haec est falsa, quod posita causa etiam sufficienti, necesse est effectum poni: non enim omnis causa est talis (etiamsi sufficiens sit) quod eius effectus impediri non possit; sicut ignis est sufficiens causa combustionis lignorum, sed tamen per effusionem aquae impeditur combustio. It is also false that when a cause has been posited—even a sufficient one—the effect must be posited, for not every cause (even if it is sufficient) is such that its effect cannot be impeded. For example, fire is a sufficient cause of the combustion of wood, but if water is poured on it the combustion is impeded.
Si autem utraque propositionum praedictarum esset vera, infallibiliter sequeretur omnia ex necessitate contingere. Quia si quilibet effectus habet causam, esset effectum (qui est futurus post quinque dies, aut post quantumcumque tempus) reducere in aliquam causam priorem: et sic quousque esset devenire ad causam, quae nunc est in praesenti, vel iam fuit in praeterito; si autem causa posita, necesse est effectum poni, per ordinem causarum deveniret necessitas usque ad ultimum effectum. Puta, si comedit salsa, sitiet: si sitiet, exibit domum ad bibendum: si exibit domum, occidetur a latronibus. Quia ergo iam comedit salsa, necesse est eum occidi. Et ideo Aristoteles ad hoc excludendum ostendit utramque praedictarum propositionum esse falsam, ut dictum est. 12. However, if both of the aforesaid propositions were true, it would follow infallibly that everything happens necessarily. For if every effect has a cause, then it would be possible to reduce an effect (which is going to take place in five days or whatever time) to some prior cause, and so on until it reaches a cause which is now in the present or already has been in the past. Moreover, if when the cause is posited it is necessary that the effect be posited, the necessity would reach through an order of causes all the way to the ultimate effect. For instance, if someone eats salty food, he will be thirsty; if he is thirsty, he will go outside to drink; if he goes outside to drink, he will be killed by robbers. Therefore, once he has eaten salty food, it is necessary that he be killed. To exclude this position, Aristotle shows that both of these propositions are false.
Obiiciunt autem quidam contra hoc, dicentes quod omne per accidens reducitur ad aliquid per se, et ita oportet effectum qui est per accidens reduci in causam per se. 13. However, some persons object to this on the grounds that everything accidental is reduced to something per se and therefore an effect that is accidental must be reduced to a per se cause.
Sed non attendunt quod id quod est per accidens reducitur ad per se, in quantum accidit ei quod est per se, sicut musicum accidit Socrati, et omne accidens alicui subiecto per se existenti. Et similiter omne quod in aliquo effectu est per accidens consideratur circa aliquem effectum per se: qui quantum ad id quod per se est habet causam per se, quantum autem ad id quod inest ei per accidens non habet causam per se, sed causam per accidens. Oportet enim effectum proportionaliter referre ad causam suam, ut in II physicorum et in V methaphysicae dicitur. Those who argue in this way fail to take into account that the accidental is reduced to the per se inasmuch as it is accidental to that which is per se; for example, musical is accidental to Socrates, and every accident to some subject existing per se. Similarly, everything accidental in some effect is considered in relation to some per se effect, which effect, in relation to that which is per se, has a per se cause, but in relation to what is in it accidentally does not have a per se cause but an accidental one. The reason for this is that the effect must be proportionately referred to its cause, as is said in II Physicorum [3: 195b 25-28] and in V Metaphysicae [2: 1013b 28].
Quidam vero non attendentes differentiam effectuum per accidens et per se, tentaverunt reducere omnes effectus hic inferius provenientes in aliquam causam per se, quam ponebant esse virtutem caelestium corporum in qua ponebant fatum, dicentes nihil aliud esse fatum quam vim positionis syderum. 14. Some, however, not considering the difference between accidental and per se effects, tried to reduce all the effects that come about in this world to some per se cause. They posited as this cause the power of the heavenly bodies and assumed fate to be dependent on this power—fate being, according to them, nothing else but the power of the position of the constellations.
Sed ex hac causa non potest provenire necessitas in omnibus quae hic aguntur. Multa enim hic fiunt ex intellectu et voluntate, quae per se et directe non subduntur virtuti caelestium corporum: cum enim intellectus sive ratio et voluntas quae est in ratione, non sint actus organi corporalis, ut probatur in libro de anima, impossibile est quod directe subdantur intellectus seu ratio et voluntas virtuti caelestium corporum: nulla enim vis corporalis potest agere per se, nisi in rem corpoream. Vires autem sensitivae in quantum sunt actus organorum corporalium per accidens subduntur actioni caelestium corporum. Unde philosophus in libro de anima opinionem ponentium voluntatem hominis subiici motui caeli adscribit his, qui non ponebant intellectum differre a sensu. Indirecte tamen vis caelestium corporum redundat ad intellectum et voluntatem, in quantum scilicet intellectus et voluntas utuntur viribus sensitivis. Manifestum autem est quod passiones virium sensitivarum non inferunt necessitatem rationi et voluntati. Nam continens habet pravas concupiscentias, sed non deducitur, ut patet per philosophum in VII Ethicorum. Sic igitur ex virtute caelestium corporum non provenit necessitas in his quae per rationem et voluntatem fiunt. But such a cause cannot bring about necessity in all the things accomplished in this world, since many things come about from intellect and will, which are not subject per se and directly to the power of the heavenly bodies. For the intellect, or reason, and the will which is in reason, are not acts of a corporeal organ (as is proved in the treatise De anima [III, 4: 429a 18]) and consequently cannot be directly subject to the power of the heavenly bodies, since a corporeal force, of itself, can only act on a corporeal thing. The sensitive powers, on the other hand, inasmuch as they are acts of corporeal organs, are accidentally subject to the action of the heavenly bodies. Hence, the Philosopher in his book De anima [III, 3: 427a 21] ascribes the opinion that the will of man is subject to the movement of the heavens to those who hold the position that the intellect does not differ from sense. The power of the heavenly bodies, however, does indirectly redound to the intellect and will inasmuch as the agent intellect and will use the sensitive powers. But clearly the passions of the sensitive powers do not induce necessity of reason and will, for the continent man has wrong desires but is not seduced by them, as is shown in VII Ethicorum [3: 1146a 5]. Therefore, we may conclude that the power of the heavenly bodies does not bring about necessity in the things done through reason and will.
Similiter nec in aliis corporalibus effectibus rerum corruptibilium, in quibus multa per accidens eveniunt. Id autem quod est per accidens non potest reduci ut in causam per se in aliquam virtutem naturalem, quia virtus naturae se habet ad unum; quod autem est per accidens non est unum; unde et supra dictum est quod haec enunciatio non est una, Socrates est albus musicus, quia non significat unum. Et ideo philosophus dicit in libro de somno et vigilia quod multa, quorum signa praeexistunt in corporibus caelestibus, puta in imbribus et tempestatibus, non eveniunt, quia scilicet impediuntur per accidens. Et quamvis illud etiam impedimentum secundum se consideratum reducatur in aliquam causam caelestem; tamen concursus horum, cum sit per accidens, non potest reduci in aliquam causam naturaliter agentem. This is also the case in other corporeal effects of corruptible things, in which many things happen accidentally. What is accidental cannot be reduced to a per se cause in a natural power because the power of nature is directed to some one thing; but what is accidental is not one; whence it was said above that the enunciation “Socrates is a white musical being” is not one because it does not signify one thing. This is the reason the Philosopher says in the book De somno et vigilia5 that many things of which the signs pre-exist in the heavenly bodies—for example in storm clouds and tempests—do not take place because they are accidentally impeded. And although this impediment considered as such is reduced to some celestial cause, the concurrence of these, since it is accidental, cannot be reduced to a cause acting naturally.
Sed considerandum est quod id quod est per accidens potest ab intellectu accipi ut unum, sicut album esse musicum, quod quamvis secundum se non sit unum, tamen intellectus ut unum accipit, in quantum scilicet componendo format enunciationem unam. Et secundum hoc contingit id, quod secundum se per accidens evenit et casualiter, reduci in aliquem intellectum praeordinantem; sicut concursus duorum servorum ad certum locum est per accidens et casualis quantum ad eos, cum unus eorum ignoret de alio; potest tamen esse per se intentus a domino, qui utrumque mittit ad hoc quod in certo loco sibi occurrant. 15. However, what is accidental can be taken as one by the intellect. For example, “the white is musical,” which as such is not one, the intellect takes as one, i.e., insofar as it forms one enunciation by composing. And in accordance with this it is possible to reduce what in itself happens accidentally and fortuitously to a preordaining intellect For example, the meeting of two servants at a certain place may be accidental and fortuitous with respect to them, since neither knew the other would be there, but be per se intended by their master who sent each of them to encounter the other in a certain place.
Et secundum hoc aliqui posuerunt omnia quaecumque in hoc mundo aguntur, etiam quae videntur fortuita vel casualia, reduci in ordinem providentiae divinae, ex qua dicebant dependere fatum. Et hoc quidem aliqui stulti negaverunt, iudicantes de intellectu divino ad modum intellectus nostri, qui singularia non cognoscit. Hoc autem est falsum: nam intelligere divinum et velle eius est ipsum esse ipsius. Unde sicut esse eius sua virtute comprehendit omne illud quod quocumque modo est, in quantum scilicet est per participationem ipsius; ita etiam suum intelligere et suum intelligibile comprehendit omnem cognitionem et omne cognoscibile; et suum velle et suum volitum comprehendit omnem appetitum et omne appetibile quod est bonum; ut, scilicet ex hoc ipso quod aliquid est cognoscibile cadat sub eius cognitione, et ex hoc ipso quod est bonum cadat sub eius voluntate: sicut ex hoc ipso quod est ens, aliquid cadit sub eius virtute activa, quam ipse perfecte comprehendit, cum sit per intellectum agens. 16. Accordingly, some have maintained that everything whatever that is effected in this world—even the things that seem fortuitous and casual—is reduced to the order of divine providence on which they said fate depends. Other foolish men have denied this, judging of the Divine Intellect in the mode of our intellect which does not know singulars. But the position of the latter is false, for His divine thinking and willing is His very being. Hence, just as His being by its power comprehends all that is in any way (i.e., inasmuch as it is through participation of Him) so also His thinking and what He thinks comprehend all knowing and everything knowable, and His willing and what He wills comprehend all desiring and every desirable good; in other words, whatever is knowable falls under His knowledge and whatever is good falls under His will, just as whatever is falls under His active power, which He comprehends perfectly, since He acts by His intellect.
Sed si providentia divina sit per se causa omnium quae in hoc mundo accidunt, saltem bonorum, videtur quod omnia ex necessitate accidant. Primo quidem ex parte scientiae eius: non enim potest eius scientia falli; et ita ea quae ipse scit, videtur quod necesse sit evenire. Secundo ex parte voluntatis: voluntas enim Dei inefficax esse non potest; videtur ergo quod omnia quae vult, ex necessitate eveniant. 17. It may be objected, however, that if Divine Providence is the per se cause of everything that happens in this world, at least of good things, it would look as though everything takes place of necessity: first on the part of His knowledge, for His knowledge cannot be fallible, and so it would seem that what He knows happens necessarily; secondly, on the part of the will, for the will of God cannot be inefficacious; it would seem, therefore, that everything He wills happens of necessity.
Procedunt autem hae obiectiones ex eo quod cognitio divini intellectus et operatio divinae voluntatis pensantur ad modum eorum, quae in nobis sunt, cum tamen multo dissimiliter se habeant. 18. These objections arise from judging of the cognition of the divine intellect and the operation of the divine will in the way in which these are in us, when in fact they are very dissimilar.
Nam primo quidem ex parte cognitionis vel scientiae considerandum est quod ad cognoscendum ea quae secundum ordinem temporis eveniunt, aliter se habet vis cognoscitiva, quae sub ordine temporis aliqualiter continetur, aliter illa quae totaliter est extra ordinem temporis. Cuius exemplum conveniens accipi potest ex ordine loci: nam secundum philosophum in IV physicorum, secundum prius et posterius in magnitudine est prius et posterius in motu et per consequens in tempore. Si ergo sint multi homines per viam aliquam transeuntes, quilibet eorum qui sub ordine transeuntium continetur habet cognitionem de praecedentibus et subsequentibus, in quantum sunt praecedentes et subsequentes; quod pertinet ad ordinem loci. Et ideo quilibet eorum videt eos, qui iuxta se sunt et aliquos eorum qui eos praecedunt; eos autem qui post se sunt videre non potest. Si autem esset aliquis extra totum ordinem transeuntium, utpote in aliqua excelsa turri constitutus, unde posset totam viam videre, videret quidem simul omnes in via existentes, non sub ratione praecedentis et subsequentis (in comparatione scilicet ad eius intuitum), sed simul omnes videret, et quomodo unus eorum alium praecedit. 19. On the part of cognition or knowledge it should be noted that in knowing things that take place according to the order of time, the cognitive power that is contained in any way under the order of time is related to them in another way than the cognitive power that is totally outside of the order of time. The order of place provides a suitable example of this. According to the Philosopher in IV Physicorum [11:219a 14], before and after in movement, and consequently in time, corresponds to before and after in magnitude. Therefore, if there arc many men passing along some road, any one of those in the ranks has knowledge of those preceding and following as preceding and following, which pertains to the order of place. Hence any one of them sees those who are next to him and some of those who precede him; but he cannot see those who follow behind him. If, however, there were someone outside of the whole order of those passing along the road, for instance, stationed in some high tower where he could see the whole road, he would at once see all those who were on the road—not under the formality of preceding and subsequent (i.e., in relation to his view) but all at the same time and how one precedes another.
Quia igitur cognitio nostra cadit sub ordine temporis, vel per se vel per accidens (unde et anima in componendo et dividendo necesse habet adiungere tempus, ut dicitur in III de anima), consequens est quod sub eius cognitione cadant res sub ratione praesentis, praeteriti et futuri. Et ideo praesentia cognoscit tanquam actu existentia et sensu aliqualiter perceptibilia; praeterita autem cognoscit ut memorata; futura autem non cognoscit in seipsis, quia nondum sunt, sed cognoscere ea potest in causis suis: per certitudinem quidem, si totaliter in causis suis sint determinata, ut ex quibus de necessitate evenient; per coniecturam autem, si non sint sic determinata quin impediri possint, sicut quae sunt ut in pluribus; nullo autem modo, si in suis causis sunt omnino in potentia non magis determinata ad unum quam ad aliud, sicut quae sunt ad utrumlibet. Non enim est aliquid cognoscibile secundum quod est in potentia, sed solum secundum quod est in actu, ut patet per philosophum in IX metaphysicae. Now, our cognition falls under the order of time, either per se or accidentally; whence the soul in composing and dividing necessarily includes time, as is said in III De anima [6: 430a 32]. Consequently, things are subject to our cognition under the aspect of present, past, and future. Hence the soul knows present things as existing in act and perceptible by sense in some way; past things it knows as remembered; future things are not known in themselves because they do not yet exist, but can be known in their causes—with certitude if they are totally determined in their causes so that they will take place of necessity; by conjecture if they are not so determined that they cannot be impeded, as in the case of those things that are for the most part; in no way if in their causes they are wholly in potency, i.e., not more determined to one than to another, as in the case of those that are indeterminate to either of two. The reason for this is that a thing is not knowable according as it is in potency, but only according as it is in act, as the Philosopher shows in IX Metaphysicae [9: 1051a 22].
Sed Deus est omnino extra ordinem temporis, quasi in arce aeternitatis constitutus, quae est tota simul, cui subiacet totus temporis decursus secundum unum et simplicem eius intuitum; et ideo uno intuitu videt omnia quae aguntur secundum temporis decursum, et unumquodque secundum quod est in seipso existens, non quasi sibi futurum quantum ad eius intuitum prout est in solo ordine suarum causarum (quamvis et ipsum ordinem causarum videat), sed omnino aeternaliter sic videt unumquodque eorum quae sunt in quocumque tempore, sicut oculus humanus videt Socratem sedere in seipso, non in causa sua. 20. God, however, is wholly outside the order of time, stationed as it were at the summit of eternity, which is wholly simultaneous, and to Him the whole course of time is subjected in one simple intuition. For this reason, He sees in one glance everything that is effected in the evolution of time, and each thing as it is in itself, and it is not future to Him in relation to His view as it is in the order of its causes alone (although He also sees the very order of the causes), but each of the things that are in whatever time is seen wholly eternally as the human eye sees Socrates sitting, not in its causes but in itself.
Ex hoc autem quod homo videt Socratem sedere, non tollitur eius contingentia quae respicit ordinem causae ad effectum; tamen certissime et infallibiliter videt oculus hominis Socratem sedere dum sedet, quia unumquodque prout est in seipso iam determinatum est. Sic igitur relinquitur, quod Deus certissime et infallibiliter cognoscat omnia quae fiunt in tempore; et tamen ea quae in tempore eveniunt non sunt vel fiunt ex necessitate, sed contingenter. 21. Now from the fact that man sees Socrates sitting, the contingency of his sitting which concerns the order of cause to effect, is not destroyed; yet the eye of man most certainly and infallibly sees Socrates sitting while he is sitting, since each thing as it is in itself is already determined. Hence it follows that God knows all things that take place in time most certainly and infallibly, and yet the things that happen in time neither are nor take place of necessity, but contingently.
Similiter ex parte voluntatis divinae differentia est attendenda. Nam voluntas divina est intelligenda ut extra ordinem entium existens, velut causa quaedam profundens totum ens et omnes eius differentias. Sunt autem differentiae entis possibile et necessarium; et ideo ex ipsa voluntate divina originantur necessitas et contingentia in rebus et distinctio utriusque secundum rationem proximarum causarum: ad effectus enim, quos voluit necessarios esse, disposuit causas necessarias; ad effectus autem, quos voluit esse contingentes, ordinavit causas contingenter agentes, idest potentes deficere. Et secundum harum conditionem causarum, effectus dicuntur vel necessarii vel contingentes, quamvis omnes dependeant a voluntate divina, sicut a prima causa, quae transcendit ordinem necessitatis et contingentiae. 22. There is likewise a difference to be noted on the part of the divine Will, for the divine will must be understood as existing outside of the order of beings, as a cause producing the whole of being and all its differences. Now the possible and the necessary are differences of being, an(] therefore necessity and contingency in things and the distinction of each according to the nature of their proximate causes originate from the divine will itself, for He disposes necessary causes for the effects that He wills to be necessary, and He ordains causes acting contingently (i.e., able to fail) for the effects that He wills to be contingent. And according to the condition of these causes, effects are called either necessary or contingent, although all depend on the divine will as on a first cause, which transcends the order of necessity and contingency.
Hoc autem non potest dici de voluntate humana, nec de aliqua alia causa: quia omnis alia causa cadit iam sub ordine necessitatis vel contingentiae; et ideo oportet quod vel ipsa causa possit deficere, vel effectus eius non sit contingens, sed necessarius. Voluntas autem divina indeficiens est; tamen non omnes effectus eius sunt necessarii, sed quidam contingentes. This, however, cannot be said of the human will, nor of any other cause, for every other cause already falls under the order of necessity or contingency; hence, either the cause itself must be able to fail or, if not, its effect is not contingent, but necessary. The divine will, on the other hand, is unfailing; yet not all its effects are necessary, but some are contingent.
Similiter autem aliam radicem contingentiae, quam hic philosophus ponit ex hoc quod sumus consiliativi, aliqui subvertere nituntur, volentes ostendere quod voluntas in eligendo ex necessitate movetur ab appetibili. Cum enim bonum sit obiectum voluntatis, non potest (ut videtur) ab hoc divertere quin appetat illud quod sibi videtur bonum; sicut nec ratio ab hoc potest divertere quin assentiat ei quod sibi videtur verum. Et ita videtur quod electio consilium consequens semper ex necessitate proveniat; et sic omnia, quorum nos principium sumus per consilium et electionem, ex necessitate provenient. 23. Some men, in their desire to show that the will in choosing is necessarily moved by the desirable, argued in such a way as to destroy the other root of contingency the Philosopher posits here, based on our deliberation. Since the good is the object of the will, they argue, it cannot (as is evident) be diverted so as not to seek that which seems good to it; as also it is not possible to divert reason so that it does not assent to that which seems true to it. So it seems that choice, which follows upon deliberation, always takes place of necessity; thus all things of which we are the principle through deliberation and choice, will take place of necessity.
Sed dicendum est quod similis differentia attendenda est circa bonum, sicut circa verum. Est autem quoddam verum, quod est per se notum, sicut prima principia indemonstrabilia, quibus ex necessitate intellectus assentit; sunt autem quaedam vera non per se nota, sed per alia. Horum autem duplex est conditio: quaedam enim ex necessitate consequuntur ex principiis, ita scilicet quod non possunt esse falsa, principiis existentibus veris, sicut sunt omnes conclusiones demonstrationum. Et huiusmodi veris ex necessitate assentit intellectus, postquam perceperit ordinem eorum ad principia, non autem prius. Quaedam autem sunt, quae non ex necessitate consequuntur ex principiis, ita scilicet quod possent esse falsa principiis existentibus veris; sicut sunt opinabilia, quibus non ex necessitate assentit intellectus, quamvis ex aliquo motivo magis inclinetur in unam partem quam in aliam. 24. In regard to this point there is a similar diversity with respect to the good and with respect to the true that must be noted. There are some truths that are known per se, such as the first indemonstrable principles; these the intellect assents to of necessity. There are others, however, which are not known per se, but through other truths. The condition of these is twofold. Some follow necessarily from the principles, i.e., so that they cannot be false when the principles are true. This is the case with all the conclusions of demonstrations, and the intellect assents necessarily to truths of this kind after it has perceived their order to the principles, but not before. There are others that do not follow necessarily from the principles, and these can be false even though the principles be true. This is the case with things about which there can be opinion. To these the intellect does not assent necessarily, although it may be inclined by some motive more to one side than another.
Ita etiam est quoddam bonum quod est propter se appetibile, sicut felicitas, quae habet rationem ultimi finis; et huiusmodi bono ex necessitate inhaeret voluntas: naturali enim quadam necessitate omnes appetunt esse felices. Quaedam vero sunt bona, quae sunt appetibilia propter finem, quae comparantur ad finem sicut conclusiones ad principium, ut patet per philosophum in II physicorum. Si igitur essent aliqua bona, quibus non existentibus, non posset aliquis esse felix, haec etiam essent ex necessitate appetibilia et maxime apud eum, qui talem ordinem perciperet; et forte talia sunt esse, vivere et intelligere et si qua alia sunt similia. Sed particularia bona, in quibus humani actus consistunt, non sunt talia, nec sub ea ratione apprehenduntur ut sine quibus felicitas esse non possit, puta, comedere hunc cibum vel illum, aut abstinere ab eo: habent tamen in se unde moveant appetitum, secundum aliquod bonum consideratum in eis. Et ideo voluntas non ex necessitate inducitur ad haec eligenda. Et propter hoc philosophus signanter radicem contingentiae in his quae fiunt a nobis assignavit ex parte consilii, quod est eorum quae sunt ad finem et tamen non sunt determinata. In his enim in quibus media sunt determinata, non est opus consilio, ut dicitur in III Ethicorum. Similarly, there is a good that is desirable for its own sake, such as happiness, which has the nature of an ultimate end. The will necessarily adheres to a good of this kind, for all men seek to be happy by a certain kind of natural necessity. There are other good things that are desirable for the sake of the end. These are related to the end as conclusions are to principles. The Philosopher makes this point clear in II Physicorum [7: 198a 35]. If, then, there were some good things without the existence of which one could not be happy, these would be desirable of necessity, and especially by the person who perceives such an order. Perhaps to be, to live, and to think, and other similar things, if there are any, are of this kind. However, particular good things with which human acts are concerned are not of this kind nor are they apprehended as being such that without them happiness is impossible, for instance, to eat this food or that, or abstain from it. Such things, nevertheless, do have in them that whereby they move the appetite according to some good considered in them. The will, therefore, is not induced to choose these of necessity. And on this account the Philosopher expressly designates the root of the contingency of things effected by us on the part of deliberation—which is concerned with those things that are for the end and yet are not determined. In those things in which the means are determined there is no need for deliberation, as is said in III Ethicorum [3: 1112a 30–1113a 14].
Et haec quidem dicta sunt ad salvandum radices contingentiae, quas hic Aristoteles ponit, quamvis videantur logici negotii modum excedere. These things have been stated to save the roots of contingency that Aristotle posits here, although they may seem to exceed the mode of logical matter.

LESSON 15
It Is Concluded that Propositions Are True as They Correspond to the Way in Which Things Are in Reality

Τὸ μὲν οὖν εἶναι τὸ ὂν ὅταν ᾖ, καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν μὴ εἶναι ὅταν μὴ ᾖ, ἀνάγκη οὐ μέντοι οὔτε τὸ ὂν ἅπαν ἀνάγκη εἶναι οὔτε τὸ μὴ ὂν μὴ εἶναι-οὐ γὰρ ταὐτόν ἐστι τὸ ὂν ἅπαν εἶναι ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὅτε ἔστιν, καὶ τὸ ἁπλῶς εἶναι ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος. 19a 23 Now that which is, when it is, necessarily is, and that which is not, when it is not, necessarily is not. But it is not necessary for everything that is, to be, nor is it necessary for that which is not, not to be. For these are not the same: that everything be necessarily when it is and to be simply from necessity. And the case is similar with respect to that which is not.
καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀντιφάσεως ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος εἶναι μὲν ἢ μὴ εἶναι ἅπαν ἀνάγκη, καὶ ἔσεσθαί γε ἢ μή οὐ μέντοι διελόντα γε εἰπεῖν θάτερον ἀναγκαῖον. λέγω δὲ οἷον ἀνάγκη μὲν ἔσεσθαι ναυμαχίαν αὔριον ἢ μὴ ἔσεσθαι, οὐ μέντοι γενέσθαι αὔριον ναυμαχίαν ἀναγκαῖον οὐδὲ μὴ γενέσθαι γενέσθαι μέντοι ἢ μὴ γενέσθαι ἀναγκαῖον. 19a 27 And this is also the case with respect to contradiction. It is necessary that everything be or not be; and that it will be or will not be; however, taking them separately, it is not possible to say one of the two is necessary. For example, it is necessary that there will or will not be a naval battle tomorrow; however, it is not necessary that a naval battle take place tomorrow, nor is it necessary that it not take place. Yet it is necessary that it either take place or not take place.
ὥστε, ἐπεὶ ὁμοίως οἱ λόγοι ἀληθεῖς ὥσπερ τὰ πράγματα, δῆλον ὅτι ὅσα οὕτως ἔχει ὥστε ὁπότερ' ἔτυχε καὶ τὰ ἐναντία ἐνδέχεσθαι, ἀνάγκη ὁμοίως ἔχειν καὶ τὴν ἀντίφασιν ὅπερ συμβαίνει ἐπὶ τοῖς μὴ ἀεὶ οὖσιν ἢ μὴ ἀεὶ μὴ οὖσιν τούτων γὰρ ἀνάγκη μὲν θάτερον μόριον τῆς ἀντιφάσεως ἀληθὲς εἶναι ἢ ψεῦδος, οὐ μέντοι τόδε ἢ τόδε ἀλλ' ὁπότερ' ἔτυχεν, καὶ μᾶλλον μὲν ἀληθῆ τὴν ἑτέραν, οὐ μέντοι ἤδη ἀληθῆ ἢ ψευδῆ. 19a 32 And so, since speech is true as it corresponds to things, it is clear that when things are such that they are indeterminate to either of two, and opposites are possible, the corresponding contradiction must be similar. This is the case iii those things that do not always exist or always not exist. Of these it is necessary that one part of the contradiction be true or false, riot however this or that part, but either of the two indeterminately. One may be more likely to be true, but it is riot yet actually true or false.
ὥστε δῆλον (19b.) ὅτι οὐκ ἀνάγκη πάσης καταφάσεως καὶ ἀποφάσεως τῶν ἀντικειμένων τὴν μὲν ἀληθῆ τὴν δὲ ψευδῆ εἶναι οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ὄντων οὕτως ἔχει καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν μὴ ὄντων, δυνατῶν δὲ εἶναι ἢ μὴ εἶναι, ἀλλ' ὥσπερ εἴρηται. 19a 39 Therefore it is clear that it is not necessary that of every affirmation and negation of opposites, one is true and one false. For the case is riot the same in regard to those things that are and those that are riot but could be or not be. It is as we have just stated.
Postquam philosophus ostendit esse impossibilia ea, quae ex praedictis rationibus sequebantur; hic, remotis impossibilibus, concludit veritatem. Et circa hoc duo facit: quia enim argumentando ad impossibile, processerat ab enunciationibus ad res, et iam removerat inconvenientia quae circa res sequebantur; nunc, ordine converso, primo ostendit qualiter se habeat veritas circa res; secundo, qualiter se habeat veritas circa enunciationes; ibi: quare quoniam orationes verae sunt et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ostendit qualiter se habeant veritas et necessitas circa res absolute consideratas; secundo, qualiter se habeant circa eas per comparationem ad sua opposita; ibi: et in contradictione eadem ratio est et cetera. 1. Now that the Philosopher has shown the impossibilities that follow from the foresaid arguments, he concludes what the truth is on this point. In arguing to the impossibility of the position, he proceeded from enunciations to things, and has already rejected the unlikely consequences in respect to things. Now, in the converse order, he first shows the way in which there is truth about things; secondly, the way in which there is truth in enunciations, where he says, And so, since speech is true as it corresponds to things, etc. With respect to truth about things be first shows the way in which there is truth and necessity about things absolutely considered; secondly, the way in which there is truth and necessity about things through a comparing of their opposites, where he says, And this is also the case with respect to contradiction, etc.
Dicit ergo primo, quasi ex praemissis concludens, quod si praedicta sunt inconvenientia, ut scilicet omnia ex necessitate eveniant, oportet dicere ita se habere circa res, scilicet quod omne quod est necesse est esse quando est, et omne quod non est necesse est non esse quando non est. Et haec necessitas fundatur super hoc principium: impossibile est simul esse et non esse: si enim aliquid est, impossibile est illud simul non esse; ergo necesse est tunc illud esse. Nam impossibile non esse idem significat ei quod est necesse esse, ut in secundo dicetur. 2. He begins, then, as though concluding from premises: if the foresaid things are unlikely (namely, that all things take place of necessity), then the case with respect to things must be this: everything that is must be when it is, and everything that is not, necessarily not be when it is not. This necessity is founded on the principle that it is impossible at once to be and not be; for if something is, it is impossible that it at the same time not be; therefore it is necessary that it be at that time. For “impossible not to be” signifies the same thing as “necessary to be,” as Aristotle says in the second book.
Et similiter, si aliquid non est, impossibile est illud simul esse; ergo necesse est non esse, quia etiam idem significant. Et ideo manifeste verum est quod omne quod est necesse est esse quando est; et omne quod non est necesse est non esse pro illo tempore quando non est: et haec est necessitas non absoluta, sed ex suppositione. Similarly, if something is not, it is impossible that it at the same time be. Therefore it is necessary that it not be, for they also signify the same thing. Clearly it is true, then, that everything that is must be when it is, and everything that is not must not be when it is not.
Unde non potest simpliciter et absolute dici quod omne quod est, necesse est esse, et omne quod non est, necesse est non esse: quia non idem significant quod omne ens, quando est, sit ex necessitate, et quod omne ens simpliciter sit ex necessitate; nam primum significat necessitatem ex suppositione, secundum autem necessitatem absolutam. This is not absolute necessity, but necessity by supposition. Consequently, it cannot be said absolutely and simply that everything that is must be, and that everything that is not must not be. For “every being, when it is, necessarily is” does not signify the same thing as “every being necessarily is, simply. The first signifies necessity by supposition, the second, absolute necessity.
Et quod dictum est de esse, intelligendum est similiter de non esse; quia aliud est simpliciter ex necessitate non esse et aliud est ex necessitate non esse quando non est. What has been said about to be must be understood to apply also to not to be, for “necessarily not to be simply” and “necessarily not to be when it is not” are also different.
Et per hoc videtur Aristoteles excludere id quod supra dictum est, quod si in his, quae sunt, alterum determinate est verum, quod etiam antequam fieret alterum determinate esset futurum. By this Aristotle seems to exclude what was said above, namely, that if in those things that are, one of the two is determinately true, then even before it takes place one of the two would determinately be going to be.
Deinde cum dicit: et in contradictione etc., ostendit quomodo se habeant veritas et necessitas circa res per comparationem ad sua opposita: et dicit quod eadem ratio est in contradictione, quae est in suppositione. Sicut enim illud quod non est absolute necessarium, fit necessarium ex suppositione eiusdem, quia necesse est esse quando est; ita etiam quod non est in se necessarium absolute fit necessarium per disiunctionem oppositi, quia necesse est de unoquoque quod sit vel non sit, et quod futurum sit aut non sit, et hoc sub disiunctione: et haec necessitas fundatur super hoc principium quod, impossibile est contradictoria simul esse vera vel falsa. Unde impossibile est neque esse neque non esse; ergo necesse est vel esse vel non esse. Non tamen si divisim alterum accipiatur, necesse est illud esse absolute. Et hoc manifestat per exemplum: quia necessarium est navale bellum esse futurum cras vel non esse; sed non est necesse navale bellum futurum esse cras; similiter etiam non est necessarium non esse futurum, quia hoc pertinet ad necessitatem absolutam; sed necesse est quod vel sit futurum cras vel non sit futurum: hoc enim pertinet ad necessitatem quae est sub disiunctione. 3. He shows how truth and necessity is had about things through the comparing of their opposites where he says, This is also the case with respect to contradiction, etc. The reasoning is the same, he says, in respect to contradiction and in respect to supposition. For just as that which is not absolutely necessary becomes necessary by supposition of the same (for it must be when it is), so also what in itself is not necessary absolutely, becomes necessary through the disjunction of the opposite, for of each thing it is necessary that it is or is not, and that it will or will not be in the future, and this under disjunction. This necessity is founded upon the principle that it is impossible for contradictories to be at once true and false. Accordingly, it is impossible that a thing neither be nor not be; therefore it is necessary that it either be or not be. However if one of these is taken separately [i.e., divisively], it is not necessary that that one be absolutely. This he manifests by example: it is necessary that there will be or will not be a naval battle tomorrow; but it is not necessary that a naval battle will take place tomorrow, nor is it necessary that it will not take place, for this pertains to absolute necessity. It is necessary, however, that it will take place or will not take place tomorrow. This pertains to the necessity which is under disjunction.
Deinde cum dicit: quare quoniam etc. ex eo quod se habet circa res, ostendit qualiter se habeat circa orationes. Et primo, ostendit quomodo uniformiter se habet in veritate orationum, sicut circa esse rerum et non esse; secundo, finaliter concludit veritatem totius dubitationis; ibi: quare manifestum et cetera. 4. Then when he says, And so, since speech is true as it corresponds to things, etc., he shows how truth in speech corresponds to the way things are. First he shows in what way truth of speech conforms to the being and nonbeing of things; secondly, and finally, he arrives at the truth of the whole question, where he says, Therefore it is clear that it is not necessary that of every affirmation and negation of opposites, one is true and one false, etc.
Dicit ergo primo quod, quia hoc modo se habent orationes enunciativae ad veritatem sicut et res ad esse vel non esse (quia ex eo quod res est vel non est, oratio est vera vel falsa), consequens est quod in omnibus rebus quae ita se habent ut sint ad utrumlibet, et quaecumque ita se habent quod contradictoria eorum qualitercumque contingere possunt, sive aequaliter sive alterum ut in pluribus, ex necessitate sequitur quod etiam similiter se habeat contradictio enunciationum. He says, then, that enunciative speech is related to truth in the way the thing is to being or nonbeing (for from the fact that a thing is or is not, speech is true or false). It follows, therefore, that when things are such as to be indeterminate to either of two, and when they are such that their contradictories could happen in whichever way, whether equally or one for the most part, the contradiction of enunciations must also be such.
Et exponit consequenter quae sint illae res, quarum contradictoria contingere queant; et dicit huiusmodi esse quae neque semper sunt, sicut necessaria, neque semper non sunt, sicut impossibilia, sed quandoque sunt et quandoque non sunt. Et ulterius manifestat quomodo similiter se habeat in contradictoriis enunciationibus; et dicit quod harum enunciationum, quae sunt de contingentibus, necesse est quod sub disiunctione altera pars contradictionis sit vera vel falsa; non tamen haec vel illa determinate, sed se habet ad utrumlibet. Et si contingat quod altera pars contradictionis magis sit vera, sicut accidit in contingentibus quae sunt ut in pluribus, non tamen ex hoc necesse est quod ex necessitate altera earum determinate sit vera vel falsa. He explains next what the things are in which contradictories can happen. They are those that neither always are (i.e., the necessary), nor always are not (i.e., the impossible), but sometimes are and some times are not. He shows further how this is maintained in contradictory enunciations. In those enunciations that are about contingent things, one part of the contradiction must be true or false tinder disjunction; but it is related to either, not to this or that determinately. If it should turn out that one part of the contradiction is more true, as happens in contingents that are for the most part, it is nevertheless not necessary on this account that one of them is determinately true or false.
Deinde cum dicit: quare manifestum est etc., concludit principale intentum et dicit manifestum esse ex praedictis quod non est necesse in omni genere affirmationum et negationum oppositarum, alteram determinate esse veram et alteram esse falsam: quia non eodem modo se habet veritas et falsitas in his quae sunt iam de praesenti et in his quae non sunt, sed possunt esse vel non esse. Sed hoc modo se habet in utriusque, sicut dictum est, quia scilicet in his quae sunt necesse est determinate alterum esse verum et alterum falsum: quod non contingit in futuris quae possunt esse et non esse. Et sic terminatur primus liber. 5. Then he says, Therefore, it is clear that it is not necessary that of every affirmation and negation of opposites, one is true and one, false, etc. This is the conclusion he principally intended. It is evident from what has been said that it is not necessary in every genus of affirmation and negation of opposites that one is determinately true and the other false, for truth and falsity is not had in the same way in regard to things that are already in the present and those that are not but which could be or not be. The position in regard to each has been explained. In those that are, it is necessary that one of them be determinately true and the other false; in things that are future, which could be or not be, the case is not the same. The first book ends with this.

BOOK II

LESSON 1
The Distinction and Order of Simple Enunciations
in Which the Finite or the Infinite Name Is Posited Only on the Part of the Subject

Ἐπεὶ δέ ἐστι τὶ κατὰ τινὸς ἡ κατάφασις σημαίνουσα, τοῦτο δ' ἐστὶν ἢ ὄνομα ἢ τὸ ἀνώνυμον, ἓν δὲ δεῖ εἶναι καὶ καθ' ἑνὸς τὸ ἐν τῇ καταφάσει 19b 5 Since an affirmation signifies something about something, and the subject is either the name or that which has no name, and one thing must be signified about one thing in an affirmation
(τὸ δὲ ὄνομα εἴρηται καὶ τὸ ἀνώνυμον πρότερον τὸ γὰρ οὐκ ἄνθρωπος ὄνομα μὲν οὐ λέγω ἀλλὰ ἀόριστον ὄνομα, —ἓν γάρ πως σημαίνει ἀόριστον,— ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ οὐχ ὑγιαίνει οὐ ῥῆμα), 19b 7 (we have already stated what a name is and that which has no name: I do not call “non-man” a name but an infinite name—for an infinite name also signifies one thing in a certain way—nor “non-matures” a verb, but an infinite verb),
ἔσται πᾶσα κατάφασις ἢ ἐξ ὀνόματος καὶ ῥήματος ἢ ἐξ ἀορίστου ὀνόματος καὶ ῥήματος. 19b 10 every affirmation will be made up of a name and a verb or an infinite name and a verb.
ἄνευ δὲ ῥήματος οὐδεμία κατάφασις οὐδ' ἀπόφασιςτὸ γὰρ ἔστιν ἢ ἔσται ἢ ἦν ἢ γίγνεται ἢ ὅσα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα, ῥήματα ἐκ τῶν κειμένων ἐστίν προσσημαίνει γὰρ χρόνον. 19b 12 There can be no affirmation or negation without a verb; for according to what has been established, “is,” or “will be,” or “was,” or “becomes,” or any others such as these are verbs since they signify with time.
ὥστε πρώτη κατάφασις καὶ ἀπόφασις τὸ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος—οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος, εἶτα ἔστιν οὐκ ἄνθρωπος—οὐκ ἔστιν οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, πάλιν ἔστι πᾶς ἄνθρωπος-οὐκ ἔστι πᾶς ἄνθρωπος, ἔστι πᾶς οὐκ ἄνθρωπος—οὐκ ἔστι πᾶς οὐκ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐκτὸς δὲ χρόνων ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος. 19b 14 Therefore the primary affirmation and negation is “Man is... Man is not”; then, “Non-man is,” “Non-man is not”; and then “Every man is,” “Not every man is”; “Every non-man is... Not every non-man is”; and there are similar affirmations and negations with regard to times outside of the present.
Postquam philosophus in primo libro determinavit de enunciatione simpliciter considerata; hic determinat de enunciatione, secundum quod diversificatur per aliquid sibi additum. 1. In the first book, the Philosopher has dealt with the enunciation considered simply. Now he is going to treat of the enunciation as it is diversified by the addition of something to it.
Possunt autem tria in enunciatione considerari: primo, ipsae dictiones, quae praedicantur vel subiiciuntur in enunciatione, quas supra distinxit per nomina et verba; secundo, ipsa compositio, secundum quam est verum vel falsum in enunciatione affirmativa vel negativa; tertio, ipsa oppositio unius enunciationis ad aliam. There are three things that can be considered in the enunciation: first, the words that are predicated or subjected, which he has already distinguished into names and verbs; secondly, the composition, according to which there is truth or falsity in the affirmative or negative enunciation; finally, the opposition of one enunciation to another.
Dividitur ergo haec pars in tres partes: in prima, ostendit quid accidat enunciationi ex hoc quod aliquid additur ad dictiones in subiecto vel praedicato positas; secundo, quid accidat enunciationi ex hoc quod aliquid additur ad determinandum veritatem vel falsitatem compositionis; ibi: his vero determinatis etc.; tertio, solvit quamdam dubitationem circa oppositiones enunciationum provenientem ex eo, quod additur aliquid simplici enunciationi; ibi: utrum autem contraria est affirmatio et cetera. This book is divided into three parts which are related to these three things in the enunciation. In the first, he shows what happens to the enunciation when something is added to the words posited as the subject or predicate; in the second, what happens when something is added to determine the truth or falsity of the composition. He begins this where he says, Having determined these things, we must consider in what way negations and affirmations of the possible and not possible, etc. In the third part he solves a question that arises about the oppositions of enunciations in which something is added to the simple enunciation. This he takes up where he says, There is a question as to whether the contrary of an affirmation is a negation, or whether the contrary of an affirmation is another affirmation, etc.
Est autem considerandum quod additio facta ad praedicatum vel subiectum quandoque tollit unitatem enunciationis, quandoque vero non tollit, sicut additio negationis infinitantis dictionem. Circa primum ergo duo facit: primo, ostendit quid accidat enunciationibus ex additione negationis infinitantis dictionem; secundo, ostendit quid accidat circa enunciationem ex additione tollente unitatem; ibi: at vero unum de pluribus et cetera. With respect to additions made to the words used in the enunciation, it should be noted that an addition made to the predicate or the subject sometimes destroys the unity of the enunciation, and sometimes not, the latter being the case in which the addition is a negative making a word infinite. Consequently, he first shows what happens to the enunciation when the added negation makes a word infinite. Secondly, he shows what happens when an addition destroys the unity of the enunciation where he says, Neither the affirmation nor the negation which affirms or denies one predicate of many subjects or many predicates of one subject is one, unless something one is constituted from the many, etc.
Circa primum duo facit: primo, determinat de enunciationibus simplicissimis, in quibus nomen finitum vel infinitum ponitur tantum ex parte subiecti; secundo, determinat de enunciationibus, in quibus nomen finitum vel infinitum ponitur non solum ex parte subiecti, sed etiam ex parte praedicati; ibi: quando autem est tertium adiacens et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, proponit rationes quasdam distinguendi tales enunciationes; secundo, ponit earum distinctionem et ordinem; ibi: quare prima est affirmatio et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ponit rationes distinguendi enunciationes ex parte nominum; secundo, ostendit quod non potest esse eadem ratio distinguendi ex parte verborum; ibi: praeter verbum autem et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo, proponit rationes distinguendi enunciationes; secundo, exponit quod dixerat; ibi: nomen autem dictum est etc.; tertio, concludit intentum; ibi: erit omnis affirmatio et cetera. In relation to the first point he first investigates the simplest of enunciations, in which a finite or infinite name is posited only on the part of the subject. Then he considers the enunciation in which a finite or infinite name is posited not only on the part of the subject, but also on the part of the predicate, where he says, But when “is” is predicated as a third element in the enunciation, etc. Apropos of these simple enunciations, he proposes certain grounds for distinguishing such enunciations and then gives their distinction and order where he says, Therefore the primary affirmation and negation is “Man is,” “Man is not,” etc. And first he gives the grounds for distinguishing enunciations on the part of the name; secondly, he shows that there are not the same grounds for a distinction on the part of the verb, where he says, There can be no affirmation or negation without a verb, etc. First, then, he proposes the grounds for distinguishing these enunciations; secondly, he explains this where he says, we have already stated what a name is, etc.; finally, he arrives at the conclusion he intended where he says, every affirmation will be made up of a name and a verb, or an infinite name and a verb.
Resumit ergo illud, quod supra dictum est de definitione affirmationis, quod scilicet affirmatio est enunciatio significans aliquid de aliquo; et, quia verbum est proprie nota eorum quae de altero praedicantur, consequens est ut illud, de quo aliquid dicitur, pertineat ad nomen; nomen autem est vel finitum vel infinitum; et ideo, quasi concludens subdit quod quia affirmatio significat aliquid de aliquo, consequens est ut hoc, de quo significatur, scilicet subiectum affirmationis, sit vel nomen, scilicet finitum (quod proprie dicitur nomen, ut in primo dictum est), vel innominatum, idest infinitum nomen: quod dicitur innominatum, quia ipsum non nominat aliquid cum aliqua forma determinata, sed solum removet determinationem formae. Et ne aliquis diceret quod id quod in affirmatione subiicitur est simul nomen et innominatum, ad hoc excludendum subdit quod id quod est, scilicet praedicatum, in affirmatione, scilicet una, de qua nunc loquimur, oportet esse unum et de uno subiecto; et sic oportet quod subiectum talis affirmationis sit vel nomen, vel nomen infinitum. 2. First of all, he goes back to what was said above in defining affirmation, namely, that affirmation is an enunciation signifying something about something; and, since it is peculiar to the verb to be a sign of what is predicated of another, it follows that that about which something is said pertains to the name; but the name is either finite or infinite; therefore, as if drawing a conclusion, he says that since affirmation signifies something about something it follows that that about which something is signified, i.e., the subject of an affirmation, is either a finite name (which is properly called a name), or unnamed, i.e., an infinite name. It is called “unnamed” because it does not name something with a determinate form but removes the determination of form. And lest anyone think that what is subjected in an affirmation is at once a name and unnamed, he adds, and one thing must be signified about one thing in an affirmation, i.e., in the enunciation, of which we are speaking now; and hence the subject of such an affirmation must be either the name or the infinite name.
Deinde cum dicit: nomen autem etc., exponit quod dixerat, et dicit quod supra dictum est quid sit nomen, et quid sit innominatum, idest infinitum nomen: quia, non homo, non est nomen, sed est infinitum nomen, sicut, non currit, non est verbum, sed infinitum verbum. Interponit autem quoddam, quod valet ad dubitationis remotionem, videlicet quod nomen infinitum quodam modo significat unum. Non enim significat simpliciter unum, sicut nomen finitum, quod significat unam formam generis vel speciei aut etiam individui, sed in quantum significat negationem formae alicuius, in qua negatione multa conveniunt, sicut in quodam uno secundum rationem. Unum enim eodem modo dicitur aliquid, sicut et ens; unde sicut ipsum non ens dicitur ens, non quidem simpliciter, sed secundum quid, idest secundum rationem, ut patet in IV metaphysicae, ita etiam negatio est unum secundum quid, scilicet secundum rationem. Introducit autem hoc, ne aliquis dicat quod affirmatio, in qua subiicitur nomen infinitum, non significet unum de uno, quasi nomen infinitum non significet unum. 3. When he says, we have already stated what a name is, etc., he relates what he has previously said. We have already stated, he says, what a name is and what that which is unnamed is, i.e., the infinite name. “Non-man” is not a name but an infinite name, and “non-runs” is not a verb but an infinite verb. Then he interposes a point that is useful for the preclusion of a difficulty, i.e., that an infinite name in a certain way does signify one thing. It does not signify one thing simply as the finite name does, which signifies one form of a genus or species, or even of an individual; rather it signifies one thing insofar as it signifies the negation of a form, in which negation many things are united, as in something one according to reason. For something is said to be one in the same way it is said to be a being. Hence, just as nonbeing is said to be being, not simply, but according to something, i.e., according to reason, as is evident in IV Metaphysicae [21: 1003b 6], so also a negation is one according to something, i.e., according to reason. Aristotle introduces this point so that no one will say that an affirmation in which an infinite name is the subject does not signify one thing about one subject on the grounds that an infinite name does not signify something one.
Deinde cum dicit: erit omnis affirmatio etc., concludit propositum scilicet quod duplex est modus affirmationis. Quaedam enim est affirmatio, quae constat ex nomine et verbo; quaedam autem est quae constat ex infinito nomine et verbo. Et hoc sequitur ex hoc quod supra dictum est quod hoc, de quo affirmatio aliquid significat, vel est nomen vel innominatum. Et eadem differentia potest accipi ex parte negationis, quia de quocunque contingit affirmare, contingit et negare, ut in primo habitum est. 4. When he says, every affirmation will be made up of a name and a verb or an infinite name and a verb, he concludes that the mode of affirmation is twofold. One consists of a name and a verb, the other of an infinite name and a verb. This follows from what has been said, namely, that that about which an affirmation signifies something is either a name or unnamed. The same difference can be taken on the part of negation, for of whatever something can be affirmed it can be denied, as was said in the first book.
Deinde cum dicit: praeter verbum etc., ostendit quod differentia enunciationum non potest sumi ex parte verbi. Dictum est enim supra quod, praeter verbum nulla est affirmatio vel negatio. Potest enim praeter nomen esse aliqua affirmatio vel negatio, videlicet si ponatur loco nominis infinitum nomen: loco autem verbi in enunciatione non potest poni infinitum verbum, duplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia infinitum verbum constituitur per additionem infinitae particulae, quae quidem addita verbo per se dicto, idest extra enunciationem posito, removet ipsum absolute, sicut addita nomini, removet formam nominis absolute: et ideo extra enunciationem potest accipi verbum infinitum per modum unius dictionis, sicut et nomen infinitum. Sed quando negatio additur verbo in enunciatione posito, negatio illa removet verbum ab aliquo, et sic facit enunciationem negativam: quod non accidit ex parte nominis. Non enim enunciatio efficitur negativa nisi per hoc quod negatur compositio, quae importatur in verbo: et ideo verbum infinitum in enunciatione positum fit verbum negativum. Secundo, quia in nullo variatur veritas enunciationis, sive utamur negativa particula ut infinitante verbum vel ut faciente negativam enunciationem; et ideo accipitur semper in simpliciori intellectu, prout est magis in promptu. Et inde est quod non diversificavit affirmationem per hoc, quod sit ex verbo vel infinito verbo, sicut diversificavit per hoc, quod est ex nomine vel infinito nomine. 5. When he says, There can be no affirmation or negation without a verb, etc., he intends to show that enunciations cannot be differentiated on the part of the verb. He made the point earlier that there is no affirmation or negation without a verb. However there can be an affirmation or negation without a name, i.e., when an infinite name is posited in place of a name.” An infinite verb, on the other hand, cannot be posited in an enunciation in place of a verb, and this for two reasons. First of all, the infinite verb is constituted by the addition of an infinite particle which, when added to a verb said by itself (i.e., posited outside of the enunciation), removes it absolutely, just as it removes the form of the name absolutely when added to it. Therefore, outside of the enunciation, the infinite verb, as well as the infinite name, can be taken in the mode of one word. But when a negation is added to the verb in an enunciation it removes the verb from something and thus makes the enunciation negative, which is not the case with respect to the name. For an enunciation is made negative by denying the composition which the verb introduces; hence, an infinite verb posited in the enunciation becomes a negative verb. Secondly, whichever way we use the negative particle, whether as making the verb infinite or as making a negative enunciation, the truth of the enunciation is not changed. The negative particle, therefore, is always taken in the more absolute sense, as being clearer. This, then, is why Aristotle does not diversify the affirmation as made up of a verb or infinite verb, but as made up of a name or an infinite name.
Est autem considerandum quod in nominibus et in verbis praeter differentiam finiti et infiniti est differentia recti et obliqui. Casus enim nominum, etiam verbo addito, non constituunt enunciationem significantem verum vel falsum, ut in primo habitum est: quia in obliquo nomine non concluditur ipse rectus, sed in casibus verbi includitur ipsum verbum praesentis temporis. Praeteritum enim et futurum, quae significant casus verbi, dicuntur per respectum ad praesens. Unde si dicatur, hoc erit, idem est ac si diceretur, hoc est futurum; hoc fuit, hoc est praeteritum. Et propter hoc, ex casu verbi et nomine fit enunciatio. Et ideo subiungit quod sive dicatur est, sive erit, sive fuit, vel quaecumque alia huiusmodi verba, sunt de numero praedictorum verborum, sine quibus non potest fieri enunciatio: quia omnia consignificant tempus, et alia tempora dicuntur per respectum ad praesens. It should also be noted that besides the difference of finite and infinite there is the difference of nominative and oblique cases. The cases of names even with a verb added do not constitute an enunciation signifying truth or falsity, as was said in the first book, for the nominative is not included in an oblique name. The verb of present time, however, is included in the cases of the verb, for the past and future, which the cases of the verb signify, are said with respect to the present. Whence, ‘if we say, “This will be,” it is the same as if we were to say, “This is future”; and “This has been” the same as “This is past.” A name, then, and a case of the verb do constitute an enunciation. Therefore Aristotle adds that “is,” or “will be,” or “was,” or any other verb of this kind that we use are of the number of the foresaid verbs without which an enunciation cannot be made, since they all signify with time and past and future time are said with respect to the present.
Deinde cum dicit: quare prima erit affirmatio etc., concludit ex praemissis distinctionem enunciationum in quibus nomen finitum vel infinitum ponitur solum ex parte subiecti, in quibus triplex differentia intelligi potest: una quidem, secundum affirmationem et negationem; alia, secundum subiectum finitum et infinitum; tertia, secundum subiectum universaliter, vel non universaliter positum. Nomen autem finitum est ratione prius infinito sicut affirmatio prior est negatione; unde primam affirmationem ponit, homo est, et primam negationem, homo non est. Deinde ponit secundam affirmationem, non homo est, secundam autem negationem, non homo non est. Ulterius autem ponit illas enunciationes in quibus subiectum universaliter ponitur, quae sunt quatuor, sicut et illae in quibus est subiectum non universaliter positum. 6. When he says, Therefore the primary affirmation and negation is, etc., he infers from the premises the distinction of enunciations in which the finite and infinite name is posited only on the part of the subject. Among these there is a threefold difference to be noted: the first, according to affirmation and negation; the second, according to finite and infinite subject; the third, according as the subject is posited universally or not universally. Now the finite name is prior in notion to the infinite name just as affirmation is prior to negation. Accordingly, he posits “Man is” as the first affirmation and “Man is not” as the first negation. Then he posits the second affirmation, “Non-man is,” and the second negation, “Non-man is not.” Finally he posits the enunciations in which the subject is universally posited. These are four, as are those in which the subject is not universally posited.
Praetermisit autem ponere exemplum de enunciationibus, in quibus subiicitur singulare, ut, Socrates est, Socrates non est, quia singularibus nominibus non additur aliquod signum. Unde in huiusmodi enunciationibus non potest omnis differentia inveniri. Similiter etiam praetermittit exemplificare de enunciationibus, quarum subiecta particulariter ponuntur, quia tale subiectum quodammodo eamdem vim habet cum subiecto universali, non universaliter sumpto. The reason he does not give examples of the enunciation with a singular subject, such as “Socrates is” and “Socrates is not,” is that no sign is added to singular names, and hence not every difference can be found in them. Nor does he give examples of the enunciation in which the subject is taken particularly, for such a subject in a certain way has the same force as a universal subject not universally taken.
Non ponit autem aliquam differentiam ex parte verbi, quae posset sumi secundum casus verbi, quia sicut ipse dicit, in extrinsecis temporibus, idest in praeterito et in futuro, quae circumstant praesens, est eadem ratio sicut et in praesenti, ut iam dictum est. He does not posit any difference on the part of the verb according to its cases because, as he himself says, affirmations and negations in regard to extrinsic times, i.e., past and future time which surround the present, are similar to these, as has already been said.

LESSON 2

The Number and Relationship of Simple Enunciations
in Which the Verb “Is” Is Predicated As a Third Element
and the Subject Is the Finite Name Not Universally Taken

Ὅταν δὲ τὸ ἔστι τρίτον προσκατηγορηθῇ, διχῶς λέγονται αἱ ἀντιθέσεις. 19b 19 But when “is” is predicated as a third element in the enunciation, there are two oppositions.
λέγω δὲ οἷον ἔστι δίκαιος ἄνθρωπος, τὸ ἔστι τρίτον φημὶ συγκεῖσθαι ὄνομα ἢ ῥῆμα ἐν τῇ καταφάσει. 19b 20 I mean by this that in an enunciation such as “Man is just,” the “is” is a third name or verb contained in the affirmation.
ὥστε διὰ τοῦτο τέτταρα ἔσται ταῦτα, ὧν τὰ μὲν δύο πρὸς τὴν κατάφασιν καὶ ἀπόφασιν ἕξει κατὰ τὸ στοιχοῦν ὡς αἱ στερήσεις, τὰ δὲ δύο οὔ 19b 22 In this case, therefore, there will be four enunciations, two of which will correspond in their sequence, in respect of affirmation and negation, with the privations but two will not.
λέγω δὲ ὅτι τὸ ἔστιν ἢ τῷ δικαίῳ προσκείσεται ἢ τῷ οὐ δικαίῳ, ὥστε καὶ ἡ ἀπόφασις. τέτταρα οὖν ἔσται. 19b 24 I mean that the “is” will be added either to “just” or to “non-just”; and so also in the case of the negative. Thus there will be four.
νοῶμεν δὲ τὸ λεγόμενον ἐκ τῶν ὑπογεγραμμένων ἔστι δίκαιος ἄνθρωπος—ἀπόφασις τούτου, οὐκ ἔστι δίκαιος ἄνθρωπος ἔστιν οὐ δίκαιος ἄνθρωπος—τούτου ἀπόφασις, οὐκ ἔστιν οὐ δίκαιος ἄνθρωπος. 19b 27 The following diagram will make this clear.
Man is just
(Affirmation)

Man is not non-just
(Negation)
Man is not just
(Negation)

Man is non-just
(Affirmation)

τὸ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐνταῦθα καὶ τὸ οὐκ ἔστιν τῷ δικαίῳ καὶ τῷ οὐ δικαίῳ πρόσκειται. Here the “is” and the “is not” are added to “just” and “non-just.” This, then, is the way these are arranged, as we have said in the [Prior] Analytics [I, 46: 51b 5].
Postquam philosophus distinxit enunciationes, in quibus nomen finitum vel infinitum ponitur solum ex parte subiecti, hic accedit ad distinguendum illas enunciationes, in quibus nomen finitum vel infinitum ponitur ex parte subiecti et ex parte praedicati. Et circa hoc duo facit; primo, distinguit huiusmodi enunciationes; secundo, manifestat quaedam quae circa eas dubia esse possent; ibi: quoniam vero contraria est et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, agit de enunciationibus in quibus nomen praedicatur cum hoc verbo, est; secundo de enunciationibus in quibus alia verba ponuntur; ibi: in his vero in quibus et cetera. 1. After distinguishing enunciations in which either a finite or an infinite name is posited only on the part of the subject, the Philosopher begins here to distinguish enunciations in which either a finite or an infinite name is posited as the subject and as the predicate. First he distinguishes these enunciations, and then he manifests certain things that might be doubtful in relation to them where he says, Since the negation contrary to “Every animal is just,” is the one signifying “No animal is just,” etc. With respect to their distinction he first deals with enunciations in which the name is predicated with the verb “is”; secondly, with those in which other verbs are used, where he says, In enunciations in which “is” does not join the predicate to the subject, for example, when the verb “matures” or “walks” is used, etc.”
Distinguit autem huiusmodi enunciationes sicut et primas, secundum triplicem differentiam ex parte subiecti consideratam: primo namque, agit de enunciationibus in quibus subiicitur nomen finitum non universaliter sumptum; secundo de illis in quibus subiicitur nomen finitum universaliter sumptum; ibi: similiter autem se habent etc.; tertio, de illis in quibus subiicitur nomen infinitum; ibi: aliae autem habent ad id quod est non homo et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo, proponit diversitatem oppositionis talium enunciationum; secundo, concludit earum numerum et ponit earum habitudinem; ibi: quare quatuor etc.; tertio, exemplificat; ibi: intelligimus vero et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, proponit quod intendit; secundo, exponit quoddam quod dixerat; ibi: dico autem et cetera. He distinguishes these enunciations as he did the primary enunciations, according to a threefold difference on the part of the subject, first treating those in which the subject is a finite name not taken universally, secondly, those in which the subject is a finite name taken universally where he says, The same is the case when the affirmation is of a name taken universally, etc.” Thirdly, he treats those in which an infinite name is the subject, where he says, and there are two other pairs, if something is added to non-man” as a subject, etc. With respect to the first enunciations [in which the subject is a finite name not taken universally] he proposes a diversity of oppositions and then concludes as to their number and states their relationship, where he says, In this case, therefore, there will be four enunciations, etc. Finally, he exemplifies this with a table.
Circa primum duo oportet intelligere: primo quidem, quid est hoc quod dicit, est tertium adiacens praedicatur. Ad cuius evidentiam considerandum est quod hoc verbum est quandoque in enunciatione praedicatur secundum se; ut cum dicitur, Socrates est: per quod nihil aliud intendimus significare, quam quod Socrates sit in rerum natura. Quandoque vero non praedicatur per se, quasi principale praedicatum, sed quasi coniunctum principali praedicato ad connectendum ipsum subiecto; sicut cum dicitur, Socrates est albus, non est intentio loquentis ut asserat Socratem esse in rerum natura, sed ut attribuat ei albedinem mediante hoc verbo, est; et ideo in talibus, est, praedicatur ut adiacens principali praedicato. Et dicitur esse tertium, non quia sit tertium praedicatum, sed quia est tertia dictio posita in enunciatione, quae simul cum nomine praedicato facit unum praedicatum, ut sic enunciatio dividatur in duas partes et non in tres. 2. In relation to the first point two things have to be understood. First, what is meant by “is” is predicated as a third element in the enunciation. To clarify this we must note that the verb “is” itself is sometimes predicated in an enunciation, as in “Socrates is.” By this we intend to signify that Socrates really is. Sometimes, however, “is” is not predicated as the principal predicate, but is joined to the principal predicate to connect it to the subject, as in “Socrates is white.” Here the intention is not to assert that Socrates really is, but to attribute whiteness to him by means of the verb “is.” Hence, in such enunciations “is” is predicated as added to the principal predicate. It is said to be third, not because it is a third predicate, but because it is a third word posited in the enunciation, which together with the name predicated makes one predicate. The enunciation is thus divided into two parts and not three.
Secundo, considerandum est quid est hoc, quod dicit quod quando est, eo modo quo dictum est, tertium adiacens praedicatur, dupliciter dicuntur oppositiones. Circa quod considerandum est quod in praemissis enunciationibus, in quibus nomen ponebatur solum ex parte subiecti, secundum quodlibet subiectum erat una oppositio; puta si subiectum erat nomen finitum non universaliter sumptum, erat sola una oppositio, scilicet est homo, non est homo. Sed quando est tertium adiacens praedicatur, oportet esse duas oppositiones eodem subiecto existente secundum differentiam nominis praedicati, quod potest esse finitum vel infinitum; sicut haec est una oppositio, homo est iustus, homo non est iustus: alia vero oppositio est, homo est non iustus, homo non est non iustus. Non enim negatio fit nisi per appositionem negativae particulae ad hoc verbum est, quod est nota praedicationis. 3. Secondly, we must consider what he means by when “is” is predicated as a third element in the enunciation, in the mode in which we have explained, there are two oppositions. In the enunciations already treated, in which the name is posited only on the part of the subject, there was one opposition in relation to any subject. For example, if the subject was a finite name not taken universally there was only one opposition, “Man is,” “Man is not.” But when “is” is predicated in addition there are two oppositions with regard to the same subject corresponding to the difference of the predicate name, which can be finite or infinite. There is the opposition of “Man is just,” “Man is not just,” and the opposition, “Man is non-just,” “Man is not non-just.” For the negation is effected by applying the negative particle to the verb “is,” which is a sign of a predication.
Deinde cum dicit: dico autem, ut est iustus etc., exponit quod dixerat, est tertium adiacens, et dicit quod cum dicitur, homo est iustus, hoc verbum est, adiacet, scilicet praedicato, tamquam tertium nomen vel verbum in affirmatione. Potest enim ipsum est, dici nomen, prout quaelibet dictio nomen dicitur, et sic est tertium nomen, idest tertia dictio. Sed quia secundum communem usum loquendi, dictio significans tempus magis dicitur verbum quam nomen, propter hoc addit, vel verbum, quasi dicat, ad hoc quod sit tertium, non refert utrum dicatur nomen vel verbum. 4. When he says, I mean by this that in an enunciation such as“Man is just,” etc., he explains what he means by when “is” is predicated as a third element in the enunciation. When we say “Man is just,” the verb “is” is added to the predicate as a third name or verb in the affirmation. Now “is,” like any other word, may be called a name, and thus it is a third name, i.e., word. But because, according to common usage, a word signifying time is called a verb rather than a name Aristotle adds here, or verb, as if to say that with respect to the fact that it is a third thing, it does not matter whether it is called a name or a verb.
Deinde cum dicit: quare quatuor erunt etc., concludit numerum enunciationum. Et primo, ponit conclusionem numeri; secundo, ponit earum habitudinem; ibi: quarum duae quidem etc.; tertio, rationem numeri explicat; ibi: dico autem quoniam est et cetera. 5. He goes on to say, In this case, therefore, there will be four enunciations, etc. Here he concludes to the number of the enunciations, first giving the number, and then their relationship where he says, two of which will correspond in their sequence, in respect of affirmation and negation, with the privations but two will not. Finally, he explains the reason for the number where he says, I mean that the “is” will be added either to “just” or to “non-just,” etc.
Dicit ergo primo quod quia duae sunt oppositiones, quando est tertium adiacens praedicatur, cum omnis oppositio sit inter duas enunciationes, consequens est quod sint quatuor enunciationes illae in quibus est, tertium adiacens, praedicatur, subiecto finito non universaliter sumpto. Deinde cum dicit: quarum duae quidem etc., ostendit habitudinem praedictarum enunciationum ad invicem; et dicit quod duae dictarum enunciationum se habent ad affirmationem et negationem secundum consequentiam, sive secundum correlationem, aut analogiam, ut in Graeco habetur, sicut privationes; aliae vero duae minime. Quod quia breviter et obscure dictum est, diversimode a diversis expositum est. He says first, then, that since there are two oppositions when “is” is predicated as a third element in the enunciation, and since every opposition is between two enunciations, it follows that there are four enunciations in which “is” is predicated as a third element when the subject is finite and is not taken universally. When he says, two of which will correspond in their sequence, etc., he shows their relationship. Two of these enunciations are related to affirmation and negation according to consequence (or according to correlation or proportion, as it is in the Greek) like privations; the other two are not. Because this is said so briefly and obscurely, it has been explained in diverse ways.
Ad cuius evidentiam considerandum est quod tripliciter nomen potest praedicari in huiusmodi enunciationibus. Quandoque enim praedicatur nomen finitum, secundum quod assumuntur duae enunciationes, una affirmativa et altera negativa, scilicet homo est iustus, et homo non est iustus; quae dicuntur simplices. Quandoque vero praedicatur nomen infinitum, secundum quod etiam assumuntur duae aliae, scilicet homo est non iustus, homo non est non iustus; quae dicuntur infinitae. Quandoque vero praedicatur nomen privativum, secundum quod etiam sumuntur duae aliae, scilicet homo est iniustus, homo non est iniustus; quae dicuntur privativae. 6. Before we take up the various explanations of this passage there is a general point in relation to it that needs to be clarified. In this kind of enunciation a name can be predicated in three ways. We can predicate a finite name and by this we obtain two enunciations, one affirmative and one negative, “Man is just” and “Man is not just.” These are called simple enunciations. Or, we can predicate an infinite name and by this we obtain two other enunciations, “Man is non-just” and “Man is not non-just,” These are called infinite enunciations. Finally, we can predicate a privative name and again we will have two, “Man is unjust” and “Man is not unjust.” These are called privative.
Quidam ergo sic exposuerunt, quod duae enunciationes earum, quas praemiserat scilicet illae, quae sunt de infinito praedicato, se habent ad affirmationem et negationem, quae sunt de praedicato finito secundum consequentiam vel analogiam, sicut privationes, idest sicut illae, quae sunt de praedicato privativo. Illae enim duae, quae sunt de praedicato infinito, se habent secundum consequentiam ad illas, quae sunt de finito praedicato secundum transpositionem quandam, scilicet affirmatio ad negationem et negatio ad affirmationem. Nam homo est non iustus, quae est affirmatio de infinito praedicato, respondet secundum consequentiam negativae de praedicato finito, huic scilicet homo non est iustus. Negativa vero de infinito praedicato, scilicet homo non est non iustus, affirmativae de finito praedicato, huic scilicet homo est iustus. Propter quod Theophrastus vocabat eas, quae sunt de infinito praedicato, transpositas. 7. Now the passage in question has been explained by some in the following way. Two of the enunciations he has given, those with an infinite predicate, are related to the affirmation and negation of the finite predicate according to consequence or analogy, as are privations, i.e., as those with a privative predicate. For the two with an infinite predicate are related according to consequence to those with a finite predicate but in a transposed way, namely, affirmation to negation and negation to affirmation. That is, “Man is non-just,” the affirmation of the infinite predicate, corresponds according to consequence to the negative of the finite predicate, i.e., to “Man is not just”; the negative of the infinite predicate, “Man is not non-just,” corresponds to the affirmative of the finite predicate, i.e., to “Man is just.” Theophrastus for this reason called those with the infinite predicate, “transposed.”
Et similiter etiam affirmativa de privativo praedicato respondet secundum consequentiam negativae de finito praedicato, scilicet haec, homo est iniustus, ei quae est, homo non est iustus. Negativa vero affirmativae, scilicet haec, homo non est iniustus, ei quae est, homo est iustus. Disponatur ergo in figura. Et in prima quidem linea ponantur illae, quae sunt de finito praedicato, scilicet homo est iustus, homo non est iustus. In secunda autem linea, negativa de infinito praedicato sub affirmativa de finito et affirmativa sub negativa. In tertia vero, negativa de privativo praedicato similiter sub affirmativa de finito et affirmativa sub negativa: ut patet in subscripta figura. (Figura). The affirmative with a privative predicate also corresponds according to consequence to the negative with a finite predicate, i.e., “Man is unjust” to “Man is not just”; and the negative of the privative predicate to the affirmative of the finite predicate, “Man is not unjust” to “Man is just.” These enunciations can therefore be placed in a table in the following way:
Man is just
Man is not non-just
Man is not unjust
Man is not just
Man is non-just
Man is unjust

Sic ergo duae, scilicet quae sunt de infinito praedicato, se habent ad affirmationem et negationem de finito praedicato, sicut privationes, idest sicut illae quae sunt de privativo praedicato. This makes it clear that two, those with the infinite predicate, are related to the affirmation and negation of the finite predicate in the way privations are, i.e., as those that have a privative predicate.
Sed duae aliae quae sunt de infinito subiecto, scilicet non homo est iustus, non homo non est iustus, manifestum est quod non habent similem consequentiam. Et hoc modo exposuit herminus hoc quod dicitur, duae vero, minime, referens hoc ad illas quae sunt de infinito subiecto. Sed hoc manifeste est contra litteram. Nam cum praemisisset quatuor enunciationes, duas scilicet de finito praedicato et duas de infinito, subiungit quasi illas subdividens, quarum duae quidem et cetera. Duae vero, minime; ubi datur intelligi quod utraeque duae intelligantur in praemissis. Illae autem quae sunt de infinito subiecto non includuntur in praemissis, sed de his postea dicetur. Unde manifestum est quod de eis nunc non loquitur. It is also evident that there are two others that do not have a similar consequence, i.e., those with an infinite subject, “Non-man is just” and “Non-man is not just.” This is the way Herminus explained the words but two will not, i.e., by referring it to enunciations with an infinite subject. This, however, is clearly contrary to the words of Aristotle, for after giving the four enunciations, two with a finite predicate and two with an infinite predicate, he adds two of which... but two will not, as though he were subdividing them, which can only mean that both pairs are comprised in what he is saying. He does not include among these the ones with an infinite subject but will mention them later. It is clear, then, that he is not speaking of these here.
Et ideo, ut Ammonius dicit, alii aliter exposuerunt, dicentes quod praedictarum quatuor propositionum duae, scilicet quae sunt de infinito praedicato, sic se habent ad affirmationem et negationem, idest ad ipsam speciem affirmationis et negationis, ut privationes, idest ut privativae affirmationes seu negationes. Haec enim affirmatio, homo est non iustus, non est simpliciter affirmatio, sed secundum quid, quasi secundum privationem affirmatio; sicut homo mortuus non est homo simpliciter, sed secundum privationem; et idem dicendum est de negativa, quae est de infinito praedicato. Duae vero, quae sunt de finito praedicato, non se habent ad speciem affirmationis et negationis secundum privationem, sed simpliciter. Haec enim, homo est iustus, est simpliciter affirmativa, et haec, homo non est iustus, est simpliciter negativa. 8. Since this exposition is not consonant with Aristotle’s words, others, Ammonius says, have explained this in another way. According to them, two of the four propositions, those of the infinite predicate, are related to affirmation and negation, i.e., to the species itself of affirmation and negation, as privations, that is, as privative affirmations and negations. For the affirmation, “Man is non-just,” is not an affirmation simply, but relatively, as though according to privation; as a dead man is not a man simply, but according to privation. The same thing applies to the negative enunciation with an infinite predicate. However, the two enunciations having finite predicates are not related to the species of affirmation and negation according to privation, but simply, for the enunciation “Man is just” is simply affirmative and “Man is not just” is simply negative.
Sed nec hic sensus convenit verbis Aristotelis. Dicit enim infra: haec igitur quemadmodum in resolutoriis dictum est, sic sunt disposita; ubi nihil invenitur ad hunc sensum pertinens. Et ideo Ammonius ex his, quae in fine I priorum dicuntur de propositionibus, quae sunt de finito vel infinito vel privativo praedicato, alium sensum accipit. But this meaning does not correspond to the words of Aristotle either, for he says further on: This, then, is the way these are arranged, as we have said in the Analytics, but there is nothing in that text pertaining to this meaning. Ammonius, therefore, interprets this differently and in accordance with what is said at the end of I Priorum [46: 51b 5] about propositions having a finite or infinite or privative predicate.
Ad cuius evidentiam considerandum est quod, sicut ipse dicit, enunciatio aliqua virtute se habet ad illud, de quo totum id quod in enunciatione significatur vere praedicari potest: sicut haec enunciatio, homo est iustus, se habet ad omnia illa, de quorum quolibet vere potest dici quod est homo iustus; et similiter haec enunciatio, homo non est iustus, se habet ad omnia illa, de quorum quolibet vere dici potest quod non est homo iustus. 9. To make Ammonius’ explanation clear, it must be noted that, as Aristotle himself says, the enunciation, by some power, is related to that of which the whole of what is signified in the enunciation can be truly predicated. The enunciation, “Man is just,” for example, is related to all those of which in any way “is a just man” can be truly said. So, too, the enunciation “Man is not just” is related to all those of which in any way “is not a just man” can be truly said.
Secundum ergo hunc modum loquendi, manifestum est quod simplex negativa in plus est quam affirmativa infinita, quae ei correspondet. Nam, quod sit homo non iustus, vere potest dici de quolibet homine, qui non habet habitum iustitiae; sed quod non sit homo iustus, potest dici non solum de homine non habente habitum iustitiae, sed etiam de eo qui penitus non est homo: haec enim est vera, lignum non est homo iustus; tamen haec est falsa, lignum est homo non iustus. Et ita negativa simplex est in plus quam affirmativa infinita; sicut etiam animal est in plus quam homo, quia de pluribus verificatur. According to this mode of speaking it is evident, then, that the simple negative is wider than the infinite affirmative which corresponds to it. Thus, “is a non-just man” can truly be said of any man who does not have the habit of justice; but “is not a just man” can be said not only of a man not having the habit of justice, but also of what is not a man at all. For example, it is true to say “Wood is not a just man,” but false to say, “Wood is a non-just man.” The simple negative, then, is wider than the infinite affirmative-just as animal is wider than man, since it is verified of more.
Simili etiam ratione, negativa simplex est in plus quam affirmativa privativa: quia de eo quod non est homo non potest dici quod sit homo iniustus. Sed affirmativa infinita est in plus quam affirmativa privativa: potest enim dici de puero et de quocumque homine nondum habente habitum virtutis aut vitii quod sit homo non iustus, non tamen de aliquo eorum vere dici potest quod sit homo iniustus. Affirmativa vero simplex in minus est quam negativa infinita: quia quod non sit homo non iustus potest dici non solum de homine iusto, sed etiam de eo quod penitus non est homo. Similiter etiam negativa privativa in plus est quam negativa infinita. Nam, quod non sit homo iniustus, potest dici non solum de homine habente habitum iustitiae, sed de eo quod penitus non est homo, de quorum quolibet potest dici quod non sit homo non iustus: sed ulterius potest dici de omnibus hominibus, qui nec habent habitum iustitiae neque habent habitum iniustitiae. For a similar reason the simple negative is wider than the privative affirmative, for “is an unjust man” cannot be said of what is not man. But the infinite affirmative is wider than the private affirmative, for “is a non-just man” can be truly said of a boy or of any man not yet having a habit of virtue or vice, but “is an unjust man” cannot. And the simple affirmative is narrower than the infinite negative, for “is not a non-just man” can be said not only of a just man, but also of what is not man at all. Similarly, the privative negative is wider than the infinite negative. For “is not an unjust man” can be said not only of a man having the habit of justice and of what is not man at all—of which “is not a non-just man” can be said—but over and beyond this can be said about all men who neither have the habit of justice nor the habit of injustice.
His igitur visis, facile est exponere praesentem litteram hoc modo. Quarum, scilicet quatuor enunciationum praedictarum, duae quidem, scilicet infinitae, se habebunt ad affirmationem et negationem, idest ad duas simplices, quarum una est affirmativa et altera negativa, secundum consequentiam, idest in modo consequendi ad eas, ut privationes, idest sicut duae privativae: quia scilicet, sicut ad simplicem affirmativam sequitur negativa infinita, et non convertitur (eo quod negativa infinita est in plus), ita etiam ad simplicem affirmativam sequitur negativa privativa, quae est in plus, et non convertitur. Sed sicut simplex negativa sequitur ad infinitam affirmativam; quae est in minus, et non convertitur; ita etiam negativa simplex sequitur ad privativam affirmativam, quae est in minus, et non convertitur. Ex quo patet quod eadem est habitudo in consequendo infinitarum ad simplices quae est etiam privativarum. 10. With these points in mind it is easy to explain the present sentence in Aristotle. Two of which, i.e., the infinites, will be related to the simple affirmation and negation according to consequence, i.e., in their mode of following upon the two simple enunciations, the infinitives will be related as are privations, i.e., as the two privative enunciations. For just as the infinite negative follows upon the simple affirmative, and is not convertible with it (because the infinite negative is wider), so also the privative negative which is wider follows upon the simple affirmative and is not convertible. But just as the simple negative follows upon the infinite affirmative, which is narrower and is not convertible with it, so also the simple negative follows upon the privative affirmative, which is narrower and is not convertible. From this it is clear that there is the same relationship, with respect to consequence, of infinites to simple enunciations as there is of privatives.
Sequitur, duae autem, scilicet simplices, quae relinquuntur, remotis duabus, scilicet infinitis, a quatuor praemissis, minime, idest non ita se habent ad infinitas in consequendo, sicut privativae se habent ad eas; quia videlicet, ex una parte simplex affirmativa est in minus quam negativa infinita, sed negativa privativa est in plus quam negativa infinita: ex alia vero parte, negativa simplex est in plus quam affirmativa infinita, sed affirmativa privativa est in minus quam infinita affirmativa. Sic ergo patet quod simplices non ita se habent ad infinitas in consequendo, sicut privativae se habent ad infinitas. 11. He goes on to say, but two, i.e., the simple enunciations that are left after the two infinite enunciations have been taken care of, will not, i.e., are not related to infinites according to consequence as privatives are related to them, because, on the one hand, the simple affirmative is narrower than the infinite negative, and the privative negative wider than the infinite negative; and on the other hand, the simple negative is wider than the infinite affirmative, and the privative affirmative narrower than the infinite affirmative. Thus it is clear that simple enunciations are riot related to infinites in respect to consequence as privatives are related to infinites.
Quamvis autem secundum hoc littera philosophi subtiliter exponatur, tamen videtur esse aliquantulum expositio extorta. Nam littera philosophi videtur sonare diversas habitudines non esse attendendas respectu diversorum; sicut in praedicta expositione primo accipitur similitudo habitudinis ad simplices, et postea dissimilitudo habitudinis respectu infinitarum. Et ideo simplicior et magis conveniens litterae Aristotelis est expositio Porphyrii quam Boethius ponit; secundum quam expositionem attenditur similitudo et dissimilitudo secundum consequentiam affirmativarum ad negativas. Unde dicit: quarum, scilicet quatuor praemissarum, duae quidem, scilicet affirmativae, quarum una est simplex et alia infinita, se habebunt secundum consequentiam ad affirmationem et negationem; ut scilicet ad unam affirmativam sequatur alterius negativa. Nam ad affirmativam simplicem sequitur negativa infinita; et ad affirmativam infinitam sequitur negativa simplex. Duae vero, scilicet negativae, minime, idest non ita se habent ad affirmativas, ut scilicet ex negativis sequantur affirmativae, sicut ex affirmativis sequebantur negativae. Et quantum ad utrumque similiter se habent privativae sicut infinitae. 12. But although this explains the words of the Philosopher in a subtle manner the explanation appears a bit forced. For the words of the Philosopher seem to say that diverse relationships will not apply in respect to diverse things; however, in the exposition we have just seen, first there is an explanation of a similitude of relationship to simple enunciations and then an explanation of a dissimilitude of relationship in respect to infinites. The simpler exposition of this passage of Aristotle by Porphyry, which Boethius gives, is therefore more apposite. According to Porphyry’s explanation there is similitude and dissimilitude according to consequence of affirmatives and negatives. Thus Aristotle is saying: Of which, i.e., the four enunciations we are discussing, two, i.e., affirmatives, one simple and the other infinite, will be related according to consequence in regard to affirmation and negation, i.e., so that upon one affirmative follows the other negative, for the infinite negative follows upon the simple affirmative and the simple negative upon the infinite affirmative. But two, i.e., the negatives, will not, i.e., are not so related to affirmatives, i.e., so that affirmatives follow from negatives. And with respect to both, privatives are related in the same way as the infinites.
Deinde cum dicit: dico autem quoniam etc., manifestat quoddam quod supra dixerat, scilicet quod sint quatuor praedictae enunciationes: loquimur enim nunc de enunciationibus, in quibus hoc verbum est solum praedicatur secundum quod est adiacens alicui nomini finito vel infinito: puta secundum quod adiacet iusto; ut cum dicitur, homo est iustus, vel secundum quod adiacet non iusto; ut cum dicitur, homo est non iustus. Et quia in neutra harum negatio apponitur ad verbum, consequens est quod utraque sit affirmativa. Omni autem affirmationi opponitur negatio, ut supra in primo ostensum est. Relinquitur ergo quod praedictis duabus enunciationibus affirmativis respondet duae aliae negativae. Et sic consequens est quod sint quatuor simplices enunciationes. 13. Then Aristotle says, I mean that the “is” will be added either to “just” or to “non-just,” etc. Here he shows how, under these circumstances, we get four enunciations. We are speaking now of enunciations in which the verb “is” is predicated as added to some finite or infinite name, for instance as it adjoins “just” in “Man is just,” or “non-just” in “Man is non-just.” Now since the negation is not applied to the verb in either of these, each is affirmative. However, there is a negation opposed to every affirmation as was shown in the first book. Therefore, two negatives correspond to the two foresaid affirmative enunciations, making four simple enunciations.
Deinde cum dicit: intelligimus vero etc., manifestat quod supra dictum est per quandam figuralem descriptionem. Dicit enim quod id, quod in supradictis dictum est, intelligi potest ex sequenti subscriptione. Sit enim quaedam quadrata figura, in cuius uno angulo describatur haec enunciatio, homo est iustus, et ex opposito describatur eius negatio quae est, homo non est iustus; sub quibus scribantur duae aliae infinitae, scilicet homo est non iustus, homo non est non iustus. (Figura). 14. Then he says, The following diagram will make this clear. Here he manifests what he has said by a diagrammatic description; for, as he says, what has been stated can be understood from the following diagram. Take a four-sided figure and in one corner write the enunciation “Man is just.” Opposite it write its negation “Man is not just,” and under these the two infinite enunciations, “Man is non-just,” “Man is not non-just.”
Man is just




Man is not non-just
Man is not just




Man is non-just

In qua descriptione apparet quod hoc verbum est, affirmativum vel negativum, adiacet iusto et non iusto. Et secundum hoc diversificantur quatuor enunciationes. It is evident from this table that the verb “is” whether affirmative or negative is adjoined to “just” and “non-just.” It is according to this that the four enunciations are diversified.
Ultimo autem concludit quod praedictae enunciationes disponuntur secundum ordinem consequentiae, prout dictum est in resolutoriis, idest in I priorum. 15. Finally, he concludes that these enunciations are disposed according to an order of consequence that he has stated in the Analytics, i.e., in I Priorum [46: 51b 5].
Alia littera habet: dico autem, quoniam est aut homini aut non homini adiacebit, et in figura, est, hoc loco homini et non homini adiacebit. Quod quidem non est intelligendum, ut homo, et non homo accipiatur ex parte subiecti, non enim nunc agitur de enunciationibus quae sunt de infinito subiecto. Unde oportet quod homo et non homo accipiantur ex parte praedicati. Sed quia philosophus exemplificat de enunciationibus in quibus ex parte praedicati ponitur iustum et non iustum, visum est Alexandro, quod praedicta littera sit corrupta. Quibusdam aliis videtur quod possit sustineri et quod signanter Aristoteles nomina in exemplis variaverit, ut ostenderet quod non differt in quibuscunque nominibus ponantur exempla. There is a variant reading of a previous portion of this text, namely, I mean that “is” will be added either to “man” or to non-man,” and in the diagram “is” is added to “man” and “non-man. This cannot be understood to mean that “man” and “non-man” are taken on the part of the subject; for Aristotle is not treating here of enunciations with an infinite subject and hence “man” and “non-man” must be taken on the part of the predicate. This variant text seemed to Alexander to be corrupt, for the Philosopher has been explicating enunciations in which “just” and “non-just” are posited on the part of the predicate. Others think it can be sustained and that Aristotle has intentionally varied the names to show that it makes no difference what names are used in the examples.

LESSON 3

The Number and Relationship of Enunciations in Which the Verb “Is” Is Predicated
and the Subject Is the Finite Name Taken Universally, or the Infinite Name,
and of Those in Which the Adjective Verb is Predicated

ταῦτα μὲν οὖν, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς Ἀναλυτικοῖς λέγεται, οὕτω τέτακται. ὁμοίως δὲ ἔχει κἂν καθόλου τοῦ ὀνόματος ᾖ ἡ κατάφασις, οἷον πᾶς ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος—[ἀπόφασις] οὐ πᾶς ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος, πᾶς ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος οὐ δίκαιος—οὐ πᾶς ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος οὐ δίκαιος. 19b 32 The same is the case when the affirmation is of a name taken universally, as in the following:
Every man is just
(Affirmation)

Not every man is just
(Negation)
Not every man is non-just
(Negation)

Every man is non-just
(Affirmation)
πλὴν οὐχ ὁμοίως τὰς κατὰ διάμετρον ἐνδέχεται συναληθεύεσθαι, ἐνδέχεται δὲ ποτέ. 19b 35 But it is not possible, in the same way as in the former case, that those on the diagonal both be true; it is sometimes possible, however.
αὗται μὲν οὖν δύο ἀντίκεινται, ἄλλαι δὲ πρὸς τὸ οὐκ ἄνθρωπος ὡς ὑποκείμενόν τι προστεθέντος ἔστι δίκαιος οὐκ ἄνθρωπος—οὐκ ἔστι δίκαιος οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, ἔστιν οὐ δίκαιος οὐκ ἄνθρωπος—οὐκ ἔστιν οὐ δίκαιος (20a.) οὐκ ἄνθρωπος. 19b 36 These two pairs, then, are opposed; and there are two other pairs if something is added to “non-man” as a subject. Thus:
Non-man is just
(Affirmation)

Non-man is not just
(Negation)
Non-man is not non-just
(Negation)
Non-man is non-just
(Affirmation)
πλείους δὲ τούτων οὐκ ἔσονται ἀντιθέσεις 20a 1 There will be no more opposites than these.
αὗται δὲ χωρὶς ἐκείνων αὐταὶ καθ' αὑτάς εἰσιν, ὡς ὀνόματι τῷ οὐκ ἄνθρωπος χρώμεναι. 20a 1 The latter, however, are separate from the former and distinct from them because of the use of “non-man” as a name.
Ἐφ' ὅσων δὲ τὸ ἔστι μὴ ἁρμόττει, οἷον ἐπὶ τοῦ ὑγιαίνειν καὶ βαδίζειν, ἐπὶ τούτων τὸ αὐτὸ ποιεῖ οὕτω τιθέμενα ὡς ἂν εἰ τὸ ἔστι προσήπτετο οἷον ὑγιαίνει πᾶς ἄνθρωπος—οὐχ ὑγιαίνει πᾶς ἄνθρωπος, ὑγιαίνει πᾶς οὐκ ἄνθρωπος—οὐχ ὑγιαίνει πᾶς οὐκ ἄνθρωπος 20a 3 In enunciations in which “is” does not join the predicate to the subject, for example when the verb “matures” or “walks” is used, the same scheme applies, and they are arranged in the same way as when “is” was added. For example:
Every man matures
(Affirmation)

Not every man matures
(Negation)
Not every non-man matures
(Negation)
Every non-man matures
(Affirmation)
οὐ γάρ ἐστι τὸ οὐ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λεκτέον, ἀλλὰ τὸ οὔ, τὴν ἀπόφασιν, τῷ ἄνθρωπος προσθετέον τὸ γὰρ πᾶς οὐ τὸ καθόλου σημαίνει, ἀλλ' ὅτι καθόλου 20a 7 We must not say “non-every man” but must add the negation to “man”; for the “every” does not signify a universal but that a universal is taken universally.
δῆλον δὲ ἐκ τοῦδε, ὑγιαίνει ἄνθρωπος—οὐχ ὑγιαίνει ἄνθρωπος, ὑγιαίνει οὐκ ἄνθρωπος—οὐχ ὑγιαίνει οὐκ ἄνθρωπος ταῦτα γὰρ ἐκείνων διαφέρει τῷ μὴ καθόλου ὥστε τὸ πᾶς ἢ μηδείς οὐδὲν ἄλλο προσσημαίνει ἢ ὅτι καθόλου τοῦ ὀνόματος κατάφησιν ἢ ἀπόφησιν 20a 10 This is evident from the following: “Man matures,” “Man does not mature”; “Non-man matures,” “Non-man does not mature.” For these differ from the former in that they are not taken universally; the “every” and the “no,” then, only signify that the affirmation or negation is of a name universally.
τὰ οὖν ἄλλα τὰ αὐτὰ δεῖ προστιθέναι. 20a 14 All else in enunciations in which “is” does not join the predicate to the subject will be the same as in the case in which “is” is the second element.

COMMENTARY BY CARDINAL CAJETAN

Postquam philosophus distinxit enunciationes in quibus subiicitur nomen infinitum non universaliter sumptum, hic intendit distinguere enunciationes, in quibus subiicitur nomen finitum universaliter sumptum. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo, ponit similitudinem istarum enunciationum ad infinitas supra positas; secundo, ostendit dissimilitudinem earumdem; ibi: sed non similiter etc.; tertio, concludit numerum oppositionum inter dictas enunciationes; ibi: hae duae igitur et cetera. 1. Having distinguished enunciations in which the subject is an infinite name not taken universally, Aristotle now distinguishes enunciations in which the subject is a finite name taken universally. He first proposes a similarity between these enunciations and the infinite enunciations already discussed, and then shows their difference where he says, But it is not possible, in the same way as in the former case, that those on the diagonal both be true, etc. Finally, he concludes with the number of oppositions there are between these enunciations where he says, These two pairs, then, are opposed, etc.
Dicit ergo primo quod similes sunt enunciationes, in quibus est nominis universaliter sumpti affirmatio. He says first, then, that enunciations in which the affirmation is of a name taken universally are similar to those already discussed.
Quoad primum notandum est quod in enunciationibus indefinitis supra positis erant duae oppositiones et quatuor enunciationes, et affirmativae inferebant negativas, et non inferebantur ab eis, ut patet tam in expositione Ammonii, quam Porphyrii. Ita in enunciationibus in quibus subiicitur nomen finitum universaliter sumptum inveniuntur duae oppositiones et quatuor enunciationes: et affirmativae inferunt negativas et non e contra. Unde similiter se habent enunciationes supradictae, si nominis in subiecto sumpti fiat affirmatio universaliter. Fient enim tunc quatuor enunciationes: duae de praedicato finito, scilicet omnis homo est iustus, et eius negatio quae est non omnis homo est iustus; et duae de praedicato infinito, scilicet omnis homo est non iustus, et eius negatio quae est, non omnis homo est non iustus. Et quia quaelibet affirmatio cum sua negatione unam integrat oppositionem, duae efficiuntur oppositiones, sicut et de indefinitis dictum est. Nec obstat quod de enunciationibus universalibus loquens particulares inseruit; quoniam sicut supra de indefinitis et suis negationibus sermonem fecit, ita nunc de affirmationibus universalibus sermonem faciens de earum negationibus est coactus loqui. Negatio siquidem universalis affirmativae non est universalis negativa, sed particularis negativa, ut in I libro habitum est. 2. It is to be noted in relation to Aristotle’s first point that in indefinite enunciations there were two oppositions and four enunciations, the affirmatives inferring the negatives and not being inferred by them, as is clear in the exposition of Ammonius as well as of Porphyry. In enunciations in which the finite name universally taken is the subject there are also two oppositions and four enunciations, the affirmatives inferring the negatives and not the contrary. Hence, enunciations are related in a similar way if the affirmation is made universally of the name taken as the subject. For again, four enunciations will be made, two with a finite predicate-“Every man is just,” and its negation, “Not every man is just”-and two with an infinite predicate-“Every man is non-just” and its negation, “Not every man is non-just.” And since any affirmation together with its negation makes one whole opposition, two oppositions are made, as was also said of indefinite enunciations. There might seem to be an objection to his use of particulars when speaking of universal enunciations, but this cannot be objected to, for just as in dealing with indefinite enunciations he spoke of their negations, so now in dealing with universal affirmatives be is forced to speak of their negations. The negation of the universal affirmative, however, is not the do universal but the particular negative as was stated in the first book.
Quod autem similis sit consequentia in istis et supradictis indefinitis patet exemplariter. Et ne multa loquendo res clara prolixitate obtenebretur, formetur primo figura de indefinitis, quae supra posita est in expositione Porphyrii, 3. A table will make it evident that the consequence is similar in these and in indefinite enunciations. And lest what is clear be made obscure by prolixity let us first make a diagram of the indefinites posited in the last lesson, based upon the exposition of Porphyry.
scilicet ex una parte ponatur affirmativa finita, et sub ea negativa infinita, et sub ista negativa privativa. Ex altera parte primo negativa finita, et sub ea affirmativa infinita, et sub ea affirmativa privativa. Deinde sub illa figura formetur alia figura similis illi universaliter: ponatur scilicet ex una parte universalis affirmativa de praedicato finito, et sub ea particularis negativa de praedicato infinito, et ad complementum similitudinis sub ista particularis negativa de praedicato privativo; ex altera vero parte ponatur primo particularis negativa de praedicato infinito, et sub ea universalis affirmativa de praedicato finito, et sub ista universalis affirmativa de praedicato privativo, hoc modo: (Figura). Place the finite affirmative on one side and under it the infinite negative, and under this the privative negative. On the other side put the finite negative first, under it the infinite affirmative, and under this the privative affirmative. Then under this diagram make another similar to it but of universals. On one side put the universal affirmative of the finite predicate, under it the particular negative of the infinite predicate, and to complete the parallel put the particular negative of the privative predicate under this. On the other side, first put the particular negative of the infinite predicate, under it the universal affirmative of the finite predicate,” and under this the universal affirmative of the privative predicate. Thus:

DIAGRAM OF THE INDEFINITES
Man is justMan is not just
Man is not non-justMan is non-just
Man is not unjustMan is unjust

DIAGRAM OF THE UNIVERSALS
Every man is justNot every man is just.
Not every man is non-justEvery man is non-just
Not every man is unjustEvery man is unjust

Quibus ita dispositis, exerceatur consequentia semper in ista proxima figura, sicut supra in indefinitis exercita est: sive sequendo expositionem Ammonii, ut infinitae se habeant ad finitas, sicut privativae se habent ad ipsas finitas; finitae autem non se habeant ad infinitas medias, sicut privativae se habent ad ipsas infinitas: sive sectando expositionem Porphyrii, ut affirmativae inferant negativas, et non e contra. Utrique enim expositioni suprascriptae deserviunt figurae, ut patet diligenter indaganti. Similiter ergo se habent enunciationes istae universales ad indefinitas in tribus, scilicet in numero propositionum, et numero oppositionum, et modo consequentiae. In this disposition of enunciations, the consequence always follows in the second diagram just as it followed in regard to indefinites in the first diagram. This is true if we follow the exposition of Ammonius in which infinites are related to finites as privatives are related to the same finites, and the finites not related to the infinite middle enunciations as privatives are related to those infinites. It is equally true if we follow the exposition of Porphyry, in which affirmatives infer negatives and not vice versa. That the tables serve both expositions will be clear to one studying them. These universal enunciations, therefore, are related in like manner to indefinite enunciations in three things: the number of propositions, the number of oppositions, and the mode of consequence.
Deinde cum dicit: sed non similiter angulares etc., ponit dissimilitudinem inter istas universales et supradictas indefinitas, in hoc quod angulares non similiter contingit veras esse. Quae verba primo exponenda sunt secundum eam, quam credimus esse ad mentem Aristotelis, expositionem; deinde secundum alios. 4. When he says, But it is not possible, in the same way as in the former case, that those on the diagonal both be true, etc., he proposes a difference between the universals and the indefinites, i.e., that it is not possible for the diagonals to be true in the case of universals. First we will explain these words according to the exposition we believe Aristotle had in mind, then according to the opinion of others.
Angulares enunciationes in utraque figura suprascripta vocat eas quae sunt diametraliter oppositae, scilicet affirmativam finitam ex uno angulo, et affirmativam infinitam sive privativam ex alio angulo: et similiter negativam finitam ex uno angulo, et negativam infinitam vel privativam ex alio angulo. Aristotle means by diagonal enunciations those that are diametrically opposed in the diagram above, i.e., the finite affirmative in one corner and the infinite affirmative or the privative in the other; and the finite negative in one corner and the, infinite negative or privative in the other.
Enunciationes ergo in qualitate similes angulares vocatae, eo quod angulares, idest diametraliter distant, dissimilis veritatis sunt apud indefinitas et universales. Angulares enim indefinitae tam in diametro affirmationum, quam in diametro negationum possunt esse simul verae, ut patet in suprascripta figura indefinitarum. Et hoc intellige in materia contingenti. Angulares vero in figura universalium non sic se habent, quoniam angulares secundum diametrum affirmationum impossibile est esse simul veras in quacumque materia. Angulares autem secundum diametrum negationum quandoque possunt esse simul verae, quando scilicet fiunt in materia contingenti: in materia enim necessaria et remota impossibile est esse ambas veras. Haec est Boethii, quam veram credimus, expositio. 5. Enunciations that are similar in quality, and called diagonal because diametrically distant, are dissimilar in truth, then, in the case of indefinites and universals. The indefinites on the corners, both oil the diagonal of affirmations and the diagonal of negations can be simultaneously true, as is evident in the table of the indefinite enunciations. This is to be understood in regard to contingent matter. But diagonals of universals are not so related, for angulars on the diagonal of affirmations cannot be simultaneously true in any matter. Those on the diagonal of negations, however, can sometimes be true simultaneously, i.e., when they are in contingent matter. In necessary and remote matter it is impossible for both of these to be true. This is the exposition of Boethius, which we believe to be the true one.
Herminus autem, Boethio referente, aliter exponit. Licet enim ponat similitudinem inter universales et indefinitas quoad numerum enunciationum et oppositionum, oppositiones tamen aliter accipit in universalibus et aliter in indefinitis. Oppositiones siquidem indefinitarum numerat sicut et nos numeravimus, alteram scilicet inter finitas affirmativam et negativam, et alteram inter infinitas affirmativam et negativam, quemadmodum nos fecimus. Universalium vero non sic numerat oppositiones, sed alteram sumit inter universalem affirmativam finitam et particularem negativam finitam, scilicet omnis homo est iustus, non omnis homo est iustus, et alteram inter eamdem universalem affirmativam finitam et universalem affirmativam infinitam, scilicet omnis homo est iustus, omnis homo est non iustus. Inter has enim est contrarietas, inter illas vero contradictio. 6. Herminus, however, according to Boethius, explains this in another way. He takes the oppositions in one way in universals and in another in indefinites, although he holds that there is a likeness between universals and indefinites with respect to the n timber of enunciations and of oppositions. He arrives at the oppositions of indefinites we have, i.e., one between the affirmative and negative finites, and the other between the affirmative and negative infinites. But he disposes the oppositions of universals in another way, taking one between the finite universal affirmative and finite particular negative, “Every man is just” and “Not every man is just,” and the other between the same finite universal affirmative and the infinite universal affirmative, “Every man is just” and “Every man is non-just.” Between the latter there is contrariety, between the former contradiction.
Dissimilitudinem etiam universalium ad indefinitas aliter ponit. Non enim nobiscum fundat dissimilitudinem inter angulares universalium et indefinitarum supra differentiam quae est inter angulares universalium affirmativas et negativas, sed supra differentiam quae est inter ipsas universalium angulares inter se ex utraque parte. Format namque talem figuram, in qua ex una parte sub universali affirmativa finita, universalis affirmativa infinita est; et ex alia parte sub particulari negativa finita, particularis negativa infinita ponitur; sicque angulares sunt disparis qualitatis, et similiter indefinitarum figuram format hoc modo: (Figura). He also proposes the dissimilarity between universals and indefinites in another way. He does not base the dissimilarity between diagonals of universals and indefinites on the difference between affirmative and negative diagonals of universals, as we do, but on the difference between the diagonals of universals on both sides among themselves. Hence he forms his diagram in this way: under the finite universal affirmative be places the infinite universal affirmative, and on the other side, under the finite particular negative the infinite particular negative. Thus the diagonals are of different quality. He also diagrams the indefinites in this way.
Every man is just contradictories Not every man is just

contraries

subcontraries
Every man is non-just contradictories Not every man is non-just

Man is just





Man is non-just
Man is not just





Man is not non-just

Quibus ita dispositis, ait in hoc stare dissimilitudinem, quod angulares indefinitarum mutuo se invicem compellunt ad veritatis sequelam, ita quod unius angularis veritas suae angularis veritatem infert undecumque incipias. Universalium vero angulares non se mutuo compellunt ad veritatem, sed ex altera parte necessitas deficit illationis. Si enim incipias ab aliquo universalium et ad suam angularem procedas, veritas universalis non ita potest esse simul cum veritate angularis, quod compellit eam ad veritatem: quia si universalis est vera, sua universalis contraria erit falsa: non enim possunt esse simul verae. Et si ista universalis contraria est falsa, sua contradictoria particularis, quae est angularis primae universalis assumptae, erit necessario vera: impossibile est enim contradictorias esse simul falsas. Si autem incipias e converso ab aliqua particularium et ad suam angularem procedas, veritas particularis ita potest stare cum veritate suae angularis, quod tamen non necessario infert eius veritatem: quia licet sequatur: particularis est vera; ergo sua universalis contradictoria est falsa; non tamen sequitur ultra: ista universalis contradictoria est falsa; ergo sua universalis contraria, quae est angularis particularis assumpti, est vera. Possunt enim contrariae esse simul falsae. With enunciations disposed in this way he says their difference is this: that in indefinite enunciations, one on the diagonal is true as a necessary consequence of the truth of the other, so that the truth of one enunciation infers the truth of its diagonal from wherever you begin * But there is no such mutual necessary consequence in universals—from the truth of one on a diagonal to the other—since the necessity of inference fails in part. If you begin from any of the universals and proceed to its diagonal, the truth of the universal cannot be simultaneous with the truth of its diagonal so as to compel it to truth. For if the universal is true its universal contrary will be false, since they cannot be at once true; and if this universal contrary is false, its particular contradictory, which is the diagonal of the first universal assumed, will necessarily be true, since it is impossible for contradictories to be at once false; but if, conversely, you begin with a particular enunciation and proceed to its diagonal, the truth of the particular can so stand with the truth of its diagonal that it does not infer its truth necessarily. For this follows: the particular is true, therefore its universal contradictory is false. But this does not follow: this universal contradictory is false, therefore its universal contrary, which is the diagonal of the particular assumed, is true. For contraries can be at once false.
Sed videtur expositio ista deficere ab Aristotelis mente quoad modum sumendi oppositiones. Non enim intendit hic loqui de oppositione quae est inter finitas et infinitas, sed de ea quae est inter finitas inter se, et infinitas inter se. Si enim de utroque modo oppositionis exponere volumus, iam non duas, sed tres oppositiones inveniemus: primam inter finitas, secundam inter infinitas, tertiam quam ipse herminus dixit inter finitam et infinitam. Figura etiam quam formavit, conformis non est ei, quam Aristoteles in fine I priorum formavit, ad quam nos remisit, cum dixit: haec igitur quemadmodum in resolutoriis dictum est, sic sunt disposita. In Aristotelis namque figura, angulares sunt affirmativae affirmativis, et negativae negativis. 7. But the way in which oppositions are taken in this exposition does not seem to be what Aristotle had in mind. He did not intend to speak here of the opposition between finites and infinites, but of the opposition between finites themselves and infinites themselves. For if we meant to explain each mode of opposition, there would not be two but three oppositions: first, between finites; second, between infinites; and third, the one Herminus states between finite and infinite. Even the diagram Herminus makes is not like the one Aristotle makes at the end of I Priorum, to which Aristotle himself referred us in the last lesson when he said, This, then, is the way these are arranged, as we have said in the Analytics; for in Aristotle’s diagram affirmatives are diagonal to affirmatives and negatives to negatives.
Deinde cum dicit: hae igitur duae etc., concludit numerum propositionum. Et potest dupliciter exponi; primo, ut ly hae demonstret universales, et sic est sensus, quod hae universales finitae et infinitae habent duas oppositiones, quas supra declaravimus; secundo, potest exponi ut ly hae demonstret enunciationes finitas et infinitas quoad praedicatum sive universales sive indefinitas, et tunc est sensus, quod hae enunciationes supradictae habent duas oppositiones, alteram inter affirmationem finitam et eius negationem, alteram inter affirmationem infinitam et eius negationem. Placet autem mihi magis secunda expositio, quoniam brevitas cui Aristoteles studebat, replicationem non exigebat, sed potius quia enunciationes finitas et infinitas quoad praedicatum secundum diversas quantitates enumeraverat, ad duas oppositiones omnes reducere, terminando earum tractatum, voluit. 8. Then Aristotle says, These two pairs, then, are opposed, etc. Here he concludes to the number of propositions. What he says here can be interpreted in two ways. In the first way, “these” designates universals, and thus the meaning is that the finite and infinite universals have two oppositions, which we have explained above. In the second, “these” designates enunciations which are finite and infinite with respect to the predicate, whether universal or indefinite, and then the meaning is that these enunciations have two oppositions, one between the finite affirmation and its negation and the other between the infinite affirmation and its negation. The second exposition seems more satisfactory to me, for the brevity for which, Aristotle strove allows for no repetition; hence, in terminating his treatment of the enunciations he had enumerated—those with a finite and infinite predicate according to diverse quantities—he meant to reduce all the oppositions to two.
Deinde cum dicit: aliae autem ad id quod est etc., intendit declarare diversitatem enunciationum de tertio adiacente, in quibus subiicitur nomen infinitum. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo, proponit et distinguit eas; secundo, ostendit quod non dantur plures supradictis; ibi: magis autem etc.; tertio, ostendit habitudinem istarum ad alias; ibi: hae autem extra et cetera. 9. When he says, and there, are two other pairs if something is added to “non-man” as a subject, etc., he shows the diversity of enunciations when “is” is added as a third element and the subject is an infinite name. First, he proposes and distinguishes them; secondly, he shows that there are no more opposites than these where he says, There will be no more opposites than these; thirdly, he shows the relationship of these to the others where he says, The latter, however, are separate from the former and distinct from them, etc.
Ad evidentiam primi advertendum est tres esse species enunciationum de inesse, in quibus explicite ponitur hoc verbum est. Quaedam sunt, quae subiecto sive finito sive infinito nihil habent additum ultra verbum, ut, homo est, non homo est. Quaedam vero sunt quae subiecto finito habent, praeter verbum, aliquid additum sive finitum sive infinitum, ut, homo est iustus, homo est non iustus. Quaedam autem sunt quae subiecto infinito, praeter verbum, habent aliquid additum sive finitum sive infinitum, ut, non homo est iustus, non homo est non iustus. Et quia de primis iam determinatum est, ideo de ultimis tractare volens, ait: aliae autem sunt, quae habent aliquid, scilicet praedicatum, additum supra verbum est, ad id quod est, non homo, quasi ad subiectum, idest ad subiectum infinitum. Dixit autem quasi, quia sicut nomen infinitum deficit a ratione nominis, ita deficit a ratione subiecti. Significatum siquidem nominis infiniti non proprie substernitur compositioni cum praedicato quam importat, est, tertium adiacens. With respect to the first point, it should be noted that there are three species of absolute [de inesse] enunciations in which the verb “is” is posited explicitly. Some have nothing added to the subject—which can be either finite or infinite—beyond the verb, as in “Man is,” “Non-man is.” Some have, besides the verb, something either finite or infinite added to a finite subject, as in “Man is just,” “Man is non-just.” Finally, some have, besides the verb, something either finite or infinite added to an infinite subject, as in “Non-man is just,” “Non-man is non-just.” He has already treated the first two and now intends to take tip the last ones. And there are two other pairs, he says, that have something, namely a predicate. added beside the verb “is” to “non-man” as if to a subject, i.e., to an infinite subject. He says “as if” because the infinite name falls short of the notion of a subject insofar as it falls short of the notion of a name. Indeed, the signification of an infinite name is not properly submitted to composition with the predicate, which “is,” the third element added, introduces.
Enumerat quoque quatuor enunciationes et duas oppositiones in hoc ordine, sicut in superioribus fecit. Distinguit etiam istas ex finitate vel infinitate praedicata. Unde primo, ponit oppositiones inter affirmativam et negativam habentes subiectum infinitum et praedicatum finitum, dicens: ut, non homo est iustus, non homo non est iustus. Secundo, ponit oppositionem alteram inter affirmativam et negativam, habentes subiectum infinitum et praedicatum infinitum, dicens: ut, non homo est non iustus, non homo non est non iustus. Aristotle enumerates four enunciations and two oppositions in this order as he did in the former. In addition he distinguishes these from the former finiteness and infinity. First, he posits the opposition between affirmative and negative enunciations with an infinite subject and a finite predicate, “Non-man is just,” “Non-man is not just.” Then he posits another opposition between those with an infinite subject and an infinite predicate, “Non-man is non-just,” “Non-man is not non-just.
Deinde cum dicit: magis autem plures etc., ostendit quod non dantur plures oppositiones enunciationum supradictis. Ubi notandum est quod enunciationes de inesse, in quibus explicite ponitur hoc verbum est, sive secundum, sive tertium adiacens, de quibus loquimur, non possunt esse plures quam duodecim supra positae; et consequenter oppositiones earum secundum affirmationem et negationem non sunt nisi sex. Cum enim in tres ordines divisae sint enunciationes, scilicet in illas de secundo adiacente, in illas de tertio subiecti finiti, et in illas de tertio subiecti infiniti, et in quolibet ordine sint quatuor enunciationes; fiunt omnes enunciationes duodecim, et oppositiones sex. Et quoniam subiectum earum in quolibet ordine potest quadrupliciter quantificari, scilicet universalitate, particularitate, et singularitate et indefinitione; ideo istae duodecim multiplicantur in quadraginta octo. Quater enim duodecim quadraginta octo faciunt. Nec possibile est plures his imaginari. 10. Then he says, There will be no more opposites than these. Here he points out that there are no more oppositions of enunciations than the ones be has already given. We should note, then, that simple [or absolute] enunciations—of which we have been speaking—in which the verb “is” is explicitly posited whether it is the second or third element added, cannot be more than the twelve posited. Consequently, their oppositions according to affirmation and negation are only six. For enunciations are divided into three orders: those with the second element added, those with the third element added to a finite subject, and those with the third element added to an infinite subject; and in any order there are four enunciations. And since their subject in any order can be quantified in four ways, i.e., by universality, particularity, singularity, and indefiniteness, these twelve will be increased to forty-eight (four twelves being forty-eight). Nor is it possible to imagine more than these.
Et licet Aristoteles nonnisi viginti harum expresserit, octo in primo ordine, octo in secundo, et quatuor in tertio, attamen per eas reliquas voluit intelligi. Sunt autem sic enumerandae et ordinandae secundum singulos ordines, ut affirmationi negatio prima ex opposito situetur, ut oppositionis intentum clarius videatur. Et sic contra universalem affirmativam non est ordinanda universalis negativa, sed particularis negativa, quae est illius negatio; et e converso, contra particularem affirmativam non est ordinanda particularis negativa, sed universalis negativa quae est eius negatio. Ad clarius autem intuendum numerum, coordinandae sunt omnes, quae sunt similis quantitatis, simul in recta linea, distinctis tamen ordinibus tribus supradictis. Aristotle has only expressed twenty of these, eight in the first order, eight in the second, and four in the third, but through them be intended the rest to be understood. They are to be enumerated and disposed according to each order so that the primary negation is placed opposite an affirmation in order to make the relation of opposition more evident. Thus, the universal negative should not be ordered as opposite to the universal affirmative, but the particular negative, which is its negation. Conversely, the particular negative should not be ordered as opposite to the particular affirmative, but the universal negative, which is its negation. For a clearer look at their number all those of similar quantity should be co-ordered in a straight line and in the three distinct orders given above.
Quod ut clarius elucescat, in hac subscripta videatur figura: (Figura). The following diagram will make this clear.

FIRST ORDER
Socrates isSocrates is notNon-Socrates isNon-Socrates is not
Some man isSome man is notSome non-man isSome non-man is not
Man isMan is notNon-man isNon-man is not
Every man isNo man isEvery non-man isNo non-man is

SECOND ORDER
Socrates is justSocrates is not justSocrates is non-justSocrates is not non-just
Some man is justSome man is not justSome man is non-justSome man is not non-just
Man is justMan is not justMan is non-justMan is not non-just
Every man is justNo man is justEvery man is non-justNo man is non-just

THIRD ORDER
Non-Socrates is justNon-Socrates is not justNon-Socrates is non-justNon-Socrates is not non-just
Some non-man is justSome non-man is not justSome non-man is non-justSome non-man is not non-just
Non-man is justNon-man is not justNon-man is non-justNon-man is not non-just
Every non-man is justNo non-man is justEvery non-man is non-justNo non-man is non-just

Quod autem plures his non sint, ex eo patet quod non contingit pluribus modis variari subiectum et praedicatum penes finitum et infinitum, nec pluribus modis variantur finitum et infinitum subiectum. Nulla enim enunciatio de secundo adiacente potest variari penes praedicatum finitum vel infinitum, sed tantum penes subiectum quod sufficienter factum apparet. Enunciationes autem de tertio adiacente quadrupliciter variari possunt, quia aut sunt subiecti et praedicati finiti, aut utriusque infiniti, aut subiecti finiti et praedicati infiniti, aut subiecti infiniti et praedicati finiti. Quarum nullam praetermissam esse superior docet figura. It is evident that there are no more than these, for the subject and the predicate cannot be varied in any other way with respect to finite and infinite. Nor can the finite and infinite subject be varied in any other way, for the enunciation with a second adjoining element cannot be varied with a finite and infinite predicate but only in respect to the subject. This is clear enough. But enunciations with a third adjoining element can be varied in four ways: they may have either a finite subject and predicate, or an infinite subject and predicate, or a finite subject and infinite predicate, or an infinite subject and finite predicate. These variations are all evident in the above table.
Deinde cum dicit: hae autem extra illas etc., ostendit habitudinem harum quas in tertio ordine numeravimus ad illas, quae in secundo sitae sunt ordine, et dicit quod istae sunt extra illas, quia non sequuntur ad illas, nec e converso. Et rationem assignans subdit: ut nomine utentes eo quod est non homo, idest ideo istae sunt extra illas, quia istae utuntur nomine infinito loco nominis, dum omnes habent subiectum infinitum. Notanter autem dixit enunciationes subiecti infiniti uti ut nomine, infinito nomine, quia cum subiici in enunciatione proprium sit nominis, praedicari autem commune nomini et verbo, omne subiectum enunciationis ut nomen subiicitur. 11. Then when he says, The latter, however, are separate from the former and distinct from them, etc., he shows the relationship of those we have put in the third order to those in the second order. The former, he says, are distinct from the latter because they do not follow upon the latter, nor conversely. He assigns the reason when he adds: because of the use of “non-man” as a name, i.e., the former are separate from the latter because the former use an infinite name in place of a name, since they all have an infinite subject. It should be noted that he says enunciations of an infinite subject use an infinite name as a name; for to be subjected in an enunciation is proper to a name, to be predicated common to a name and a verb, and therefore every subject of an enunciation is subjected as a name.
Deinde cum dicit: in his vero in quibus est etc., determinat de enunciationibus in quibus ponuntur verba adiectiva. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo, distinguit eas; secundo, respondet cuidam tacitae quaestioni; ibi: non enim dicendum est etc.; tertio, concludit earum conditiones; ibi: ergo et caetera eadem et cetera. \ 12. Next he takes up enunciations in which adjective verbs are posited, when he says, In enunciations in which “is” does not join the predicate to the subject, etc. First, he distinguishes these adjective verbs; secondly, he answers an implied question where he says, We must not say “non-every man,” etc.; thirdly, he concludes with their conditions where he says, All else in the enunciations in which “is” does not join the predicate to the subject will be the same, etc.
Ad evidentiam primi resumendum est, quod inter enunciationes in quibus ponitur est secundum adiacens, et eas in quibus ponitur est tertium adiacens talis est differentia quod in illis, quae sunt de secundo adiacente, simpliciter fiunt oppositiones, scilicet ex parte subiecti tantum variati per finitum et infinitum; in his vero, quae habent est tertium adiacens dupliciter fiunt oppositiones, scilicet et ex parte praedicati et ex parte subiecti, quia utrumque variari potest per finitum et infinitum. Unde unum ordinem tantum enunciationum de secundo adiacente fecimus, habentem quatuor enunciationes diversimode quantificatas et duas oppositiones. Enunciationes autem de tertio adiacente oportuit partiri in duos ordines, quia sunt in eis quatuor oppositiones et octo enunciationes, ut supra dictum est. Considerandum quoque est quod enunciationes, in quibus ponuntur verba adiectiva, quoad significatum aequivalent enunciationibus de tertio adiacente, resoluto verbo adiectivo in proprium participium et est, quod semper fieri licet, quia in omni verbo adiectivo clauditur verbum substantivum. Unde idem significant ista, omnis homo currit, quod ista, omnis homo est currens. Propter quod Boethius vocat enunciationes cum verbo adiectivo de secundo adiacente secundum vocem, de tertio autem secundum potestatem, quia potest resolvi in tertium adiacens, cui aequivalet. It is necessary to note here that there is a difference between enunciations in which “is” is posited as a second adjoining element and those in which it is posited as a third element. In those with “is” as a second element oppositions are simple, i.e., varied only on the part of the subject by finite and infinite. In those having “is” as a third element oppositions are made in two ways—on the part of the predicate and on the part of the subject—for both can be varied by finite and infinite. Hence we made only one order of enunciations with “is” as the second element. It had four enunciations quantified in diverse ways, and two oppositions. But enunciations with “is” as a third element must be divided into two orders, because in them there are four oppositions and eight enunciations, as we said above. Enunciations with adjective verbs are made equivalent in signification to enunciations with “is” as the third element by resolving the adjective verb into its proper participle and “is,” which may always be done because a substantive verb is contained in every adjective verb. For example, “Every man runs” signifies the same thing as “Every man is running.” Because of this Boethius calls enunciations having an adjective verb “enunciations of the second adjoining element according to vocal sound, but of the third adjoining element according to power.” He designates them in this manner because they can be resolved into enunciations with a third adjoining element to which they are equivalent.
Quoad numerum autem enunciationum et oppositionum, enunciationes verbi adiectivi formaliter sumptae non aequivalent illis de tertio adiacente, sed aequivalent enunciationibus, in quibus ponitur est secundum adiacens. Non possunt enim fieri oppositiones dupliciter in enunciationibus adiectivis, scilicet ex parte subiecti et praedicati, sicut fiebant in substantivis de tertio adiacente, quia verbum, quod praedicatur in adiectivis, infinitari non potest. Sed oppositiones adiectivarum fiunt simpliciter, scilicet ex parte subiecti tantum variati per infinitum et finitum diversimode quantificati, sicut fieri didicimus supra in enunciationibus substantivis de secundo adiacente, eadem ducti ratione, quia praeter verbum nulla est affirmatio vel negatio, sicut praeter nomen esse potest. With respect to the number and oppositions of enunciations, those with an adjective verb, formally taken, are not equivalent to those with a third adjoining element but to those in which “is” is posited as the second element. For oppositions cannot be made in two ways in adjectival enunciations as they are in the case of substantival enunciations with a third adjoining element, namely, on the part of the subject and predicate, because the verb which is predicated in adjectival enunciations cannot be made infinite. Hence oppositions of adjectival enunciations are made simply, i.e., only by the subject quantified in diverse ways being varied by finite and infinite, as was done above in substantival enunciations with a second adjoining element, and for the same reason, i.e., there can be no affirmation or negation without a verb but there can be without a name.
Quia autem in praesenti tractatu non de significationibus, sed de numero enunciationum et oppositionum sermo intenditur, ideo Aristoteles determinat diversificandas esse enunciationes adiectivas secundum modum, quo distinctae sunt enunciationes in quibus ponitur est secundum adiacens. Et ait quod in his enunciationibus, in quibus non contingit poni hoc verbum est formaliter, sed aliquod aliud, ut, currit, vel, ambulat, idest in enunciationibus adiectivis, idem faciunt quoad numerum oppositionum et enunciationum sic posita, scilicet nomen et verbum, ac si est secundum adiacens subiecto nomini adderetur. Habent enim et istae adiectivae, sicut illae, in quibus ponitur est, duas oppositiones tantum, alteram inter finitas, ut, omnis homo currit, omnis homo non currit, alteram inter infinitas quoad subiectum, ut, omnis non homo currit, omnis non homo non currit. Since the present treatment is not of significations but of the number of enunciations and oppositions, Aristotle determines that adjectival enunciations are to be diversified according to the mode in which enunciations with “is” as the second adjoining element are distinguished. And he says that in enunciations in which the verb “is” is not posited formally, but some other verb, such as “matures” or “walks,” i.e., in adjectival enunciations, the name and verb form the same scheme with respect to the number of oppositions and enunciations as when is as a second adjoining element is added to the name as a subject. For these adjectival enunciations, like the ones in which “is” is posited, have only two oppositions, one between the finites, as in “Every man runs,” “Not every man runs,” the other between the infinites with respect to subject, as in “Every non-man runs,” “Not every non-man runs.”
Deinde cum dicit: non enim dicendum est etc., respondet tacitae quaestioni. Et circa hoc facit duo: primo, ponit solutionem quaestionis; deinde, probat eam; ibi: manifestum est autem et cetera. 13. Then he answers an implied question when he says, We, must not say “non-every man” but must add the negation to man, etc. First he states the solution of the question, then he proves it where he says, This is evident from the following, etc.
Est ergo quaestio talis: cur negatio infinitans numquam addita est supra signo universali aut particulari, ut puta, cum vellemus infinitare istam, omnis homo currit, cur non sic infinitata est, non omnis homo currit, sed sic, omnis non homo currit? The question is this: Why is the negation that makes a word infinite never added to the universal or particular sign? For example, when we wish to make “Every man runs” infinite, why do we do it in this way “Every non-man runs,” and not in this, “Non-every man runs.”
Huic namque quaestioni respondet, dicens quod quia nomen infinitabile debet significare aliquid universale, vel singulare; omnis autem et similia signa non significant aliquid universale aut singulare, sed quoniam universaliter aut particulariter; ideo non est dicendum, non omnis homo, si infinitare volumus (licet debeat dici, si negare quantitatem enunciationis quaerimus), sed negatio infinitans ad ly homo, quod significat aliquid universale, addenda est, et dicendum, omnis non homo. He answers the question by saying that to be capable of being made infinite a name has to signify something universal or singular. “Every” and similar signs, however, do not signify something universal or singular, but that something is taken universally or particularly. Therefore, we should not say “non-every man” if we wish to infinitize (although it may be used if we wish to deny the quantity of an enunciation), but must add the infinitizing negation to “man,” which signifies something universal, and say “every non-man.”
Deinde cum dicit: manifestum est autem ex eo quod est etc., probat hoc quod dictum est, scilicet quod omnis et similia non significant aliquod universale, sed quoniam universaliter tali ratione. Illud, in quo differunt enunciationes praecise differentes per habere et non habere ly omnis, est non universale aliquod, sed quoniam universaliter; sed illud in quo differunt enunciationes praecise differentes per habere et non habere ly omnis, est significatum per ly omnis; ergo significatum per ly omnis est non aliquid universale, sed quoniam universaliter. Minor huius rationis, tacita in textu, ex se clara est. Id enim in quo, caeteris paribus, habentia a non habentibus aliquem terminum differunt, significatum est illius termini. Maior vero in littera exemplariter declaratur sic. Illae enunciationes homo currit, et omnis homo currit, praecise differunt ex hoc, quod in una est ly omnis, et in altera non. Tamen non ita differunt ex hoc, quod una sit universalis, alia non universalis. Utraque enim habet subiectum universale, scilicet ly homo, sed differunt, quia in ea, ubi ponitur ly omnis, enunciatur de subiecto universaliter, in altera autem non universaliter. Cum enim dico, homo currit, cursum attribuo homini universali, sive communi, sed non pro tota humana universitate; cum autem dico, omnis homo currit, cursum inesse homini pro omnibus inferioribus significo. Simili modo declarari potest de tribus aliis, quae in textu adducuntur, scilicet, homo non currit, respectu suae universalis universaliter, omnis homo non currit: et sic de aliis. Relinquitur ergo, quod, omnis et nullus et similia signa nullum universale significant, sed tantummodo significant, quoniam universaliter de homine affirmant vel negant. 14. Where he says, This is evident from the following, etc., he proves that “every” and similar words do not signify a universal but that a universal is taken universally. His argument is the following: That by which enunciations having or not having the “every” differ is not the universal; rather, they differ in that the universal is taken universally. But that by which enunciations having and not having the “every” differ is signified by the “every.” Therefore, that which is signified by the “every” is not a universal but that the universal is taken universally. The minor of the argument is evident, though not explicitly given in the text: that in which the having of some term differs from the not having of it, other things being equal, is the signification of that term. The major is made evident by examples. The enunciations “Man matures” and “Every man matures” differ precisely by the fact that in one there is an “every,” in the other not. However, they do not differ in such a way by this that one is universal, the other not universal, for both have the universal subject, “man”; they differ because in the one in which “every” is posited, the enunciation is of the subject universally, but in the other not universally. For when I say, “Man matures,” I attribute maturing to “man” as universal or common but not to man as to the whole human race; when I say, “Every man matures,” however, I signify maturing to be present to man according to all the inferiors. This is evident, too, in the three other examples of enunciations in Aristotle’s text. For example, “Non-man matures” when its universal is taken universally becomes “Every non-man matures,” and so of the others. It follows, therefore, that “every” and “no” and similar signs do not signify a universal but only signify that they affirm or deny of man universally.
Notato hic duo: primum est quod non dixit omnis et nullus significat universaliter, sed quoniam universaliter; secundum est, quod addit, de homine affirmant vel negant. Primi ratio est, quia signum distributivum non significat modum ipsum universalitatis aut particularitatis absolute, sed applicatum termino distributo. Cum enim dico, omnis homo, ly omnis denotat universitatem applicari illi termino homo, ita quod Aristoteles dicens quod omnis significat quoniam universaliter, per ly quoniam insinuavit applicationem universalitatis importatam in ly omnis in actu exercito, sicut et in I posteriorum, in definitione scire applicationem causae notavit per illud verbum quoniam, dicens: scire est rem per causam cognoscere, et quoniam illius est causa. 15. Two things should be noted here: first, that Aristotle does not say “every” and “no” signify universally, but that the universal is taken universally; secondly, that he adds, they affirm or deny of man. The reason for the first is that the distributive sign does not signify the mode of universality or of particularity absolutely, but the mode applied to a distributed term. When I say, “every man” the “every” denotes that universality is applied to the term “man.” Hence, when Aristotle says “every” signifies that a universal is taken universally, by the “that” he conveys the application in actual exercise of the universality denoted by the “every,” just as in I Posteriorum [2: 71b 10] in the definition of “to know,” namely, To know scientifically is to know a thing through its cause and that this is its cause, he signifies by the word “that” the application of the cause.
Ratio autem secundi insinuat differentiam inter terminos categorematicos et syncategorematicos. Illi siquidem ponunt significata supra terminos absolute; isti autem ponunt significata sua supra terminos in ordine ad praedicata. Cum enim dicitur, homo albus, ly albus denominat hominem in seipso absque respectu ad aliquod sibi addendum. Cum vero dicitur, omnis homo, ly omnis etsi hominem distribuat, non tamen distributio intellectum firmat, nisi in ordine ad aliquod praedicatum intelligatur. Cuius signum est, quia, cum dicimus, omnis homo currit, non intendimus distribuere hominem pro tota sua universitate absolute, sed in ordine ad cursum. Cum autem dicimus, albus homo currit, determinamus hominem in seipso esse album et non in ordine ad cursum. The reason for the second is to imply the difference between categorematic and syneategorematic terms. The former apply what is signified to the terms absolutely; the latter apply what they signify to the terms in relation to the predicates. For example, in “white man” the “white” denominates man in himself apart from any regard to something to be added; but in “every man,” although the “every” distributes man,” the distribution does not confirm the intellect unless it is under stood in relation to some predicate. A sign of this is that when we say “Every man runs” we do not intend to distribute “man” in its whole universality absolutely, but only in relation to “running.” When we say “White man runs,” on the other hand, we designate man in himself as “white” and not in relation to “running.”
Quia ergo omnis et nullus, sicut et alia syncategoremata, nil aliud in enunciatione faciunt, nisi quia determinant subiectum in ordine ad praedicatum, et hoc sine affirmatione et negatione fieri nequit; ideo dixit quod nil aliud significant, nisi quoniam universaliter de nomine, idest de subiecto, affirmant vel negant, idest affirmationem vel negationem fieri determinant, ac per hoc a categorematicis ea separavit. Potest etiam referri hoc quod dixit, affirmant vel negant, ad ipsa signa, scilicet omnis et nullus, quorum alterum positive distribuit, alterum removendo. Therefore, since “every” and “no” and the other syncategorematic terms do nothing except determine the subject in relation to the predicate in the enunciation, and this cannot be done without affirmation and negation, Aristotle says that they only signify that the affirmation or negation is of a name, i.e., of a subject, universally, i.e., they prescribe the affirmation or negation that is being formed, and by this he separates them from categorematic terms. They affirm, or deny can also be referred to the signs themselves i.e., “every” and “no,” one of which distributes positively, the other distributes by removing.
Deinde cum dicit: ergo et caetera eadem etc., concludit adiectivarum enunciationum conditiones. Dixerat enim quod adiectivae enunciationes idem faciunt quoad oppositionum numerum, quod substantivae de secundo adiacente; et hoc declaraverat, oppositionum numero exemplariter subiuncto. Et quia ad hanc convenientiam sequitur convenientia quoad finitationem praedicatorum, et quoad diversam subiectorum quantitatem, et earum multiplicationem ex ductu quaternarii in seipsum, et si qua sunt huiusmodi enumerata; ideo concludit: ergo et caetera, quae in illis servanda erant, eadem, idest similia istis apponenda sunt. 16. When he says All else in enunciations in which “is” does not join the predicate to the subject, etc., he concludes the treatment of the conditions of adjectival enunciations. He has already stated that adjectival enunciations are the same with respect to the number of oppositions as substantival enunciations with “is” as the second element, and has clarified this by a table showing the number of oppositions. Now, since upon this conformity follows conformity both with respect to finiteness of predicates and with respect to the diverse quantity of subjects, and also-if any enunciations of this kind are enumerated—their multiplication in sets of four, he concludes, Therefore also the other things, which are to be observed in them, are to be considered the same, i.e., similar to these.

LESSON 4
Some Doubts About What Has Been Said Are Presented and Solved

Ἐπεὶ δ' ἐναντία ἀπόφασίς ἐστι τῇ ἅπαν ἐστὶ ζῷον δίκαιον ἡ σημαίνουσα ὅτι οὐδέν ἐστι ζῷον δίκαιον, αὗται μὲν φανερὸν ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔσονται οὔτε ἀληθεῖς ἅμα οὔτε ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, αἱ δὲ ἀντικείμεναι ταύταις ἔσονταί ποτε οἷον οὐ πᾶν ζῷον δίκαιον καὶ ἔστι τι ζῷον δίκαιον. 20a 16 Since the negation contrary to “Every animal is just,” is the one signifying “No animal is just,” it is evident that these will never be at once true, or in reference to the same thing, but the opposites of these will sometimes be true, i.e., “Not every animal is just” and “Some animal is just.”
ἀκολουθοῦσι δ' αὗται, τῇ μὲν πᾶς ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος οὐ δίκαιος ἡ οὐδείς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος, τῇ δὲ ἔστι τις δίκαιος ἄνθρωπος ἡ ἀντικειμένη ὅτι οὐ πᾶς ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος οὐ δίκαιος ἀνάγκη γὰρ εἶναί τινα. 20a 20 Now the enunciation “No man is just” follows upon the enunciation “Every man is non-just”; and “Not every man is non-just,” which is its opposite, follows upon “Some man is just,” for its opposite [i.e. the opposite of “every man”] must be “some man.”
φανερὸν δὲ ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν καθ' ἕκαστον, εἰ ἀληθὲς ἐρωτηθέντα ἀποφῆσαι, ὅτι καὶ καταφῆσαι ἀληθές, οἷον ἆρά γε Σωκράτης σοφός; οὔ Σωκράτης ἄρα οὐ σοφός. ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν καθόλου οὐκ ἀληθὴς ἡ ὁμοίως λεγομένη, ἀληθὴς δὲ ἡ ἀπόφασις, οἷον ἆρά γε πᾶς ἄνθρωπος σοφός; οὔ πᾶς ἄρα ἄνθρωπος οὐ σοφός τοῦτο γὰρ ψεῦδος, ἀλλὰ τὸ οὐ πᾶς ἄρα ἄνθρωπος σοφός ἀληθές αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ ἀντικειμένη, ἐκείνη δὲ ἡ ἐναντία. 20a 23 And it is also clear with respect to the singular that if a question is asked and a negative answer is the true one, there is also a true affirmation. Take the example, “Is Socrates wise?” and the answer, “No”; then, “Socrates is non-wise.” But in the case of universals , the affirmative inference is not true, but the negation is true. For example, in the question, “Is every man wise?” and the true answer, “No,” the inference “Then every man is non-wise” is clearly false, but “Not every man is wise” is true. The latter is the opposite, the former the contrary.
Αἱ δὲ κατὰ τὰ ἀόριστα ἀντικείμεναι ὀνόματα καὶ ῥήματα, οἷον ἐπὶ τοῦ μὴ ἄνθρωπος καὶ μὴ δίκαιος, ὥσπερ ἀποφάσεις ἄνευ ὀνόματος καὶ ῥήματος δόξαιεν ἂν εἶναι οὐκ εἰσὶ δέ ἀεὶ γὰρ ἀληθεύειν ἀνάγκη ἢ ψεύδεσθαι τὴν ἀπόφασιν, ὁ δ' εἰπὼν οὐκ ἄνθρωπος οὐδὲν μᾶλλον τοῦ ἄνθρωπος ἀλλὰ καὶ ἧττον ἠλήθευκέ τι ἢ ἔψευσται, ἐὰν μή τι προστεθῇ. 20a 31 The antitheses in infinite names and verbs, as in “non-man” and “non-just,” might seem to be negations without a name or a verb; they are not, however. For the negation must always be either true or false; but the person who says “non-man” says nothing more than one who says “man,” and be is even further from saying something true or false if something is not added.
σημαίνει δὲ τὸ ἔστι πᾶς οὐκ ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος οὐδεμιᾷ ἐκείνων ταὐτόν, οὐδ' ἡ ἀντικειμένη ταύτῃ ἡ οὐκ ἔστι πᾶς οὐκ ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος 20a 37 Moreover, “Every non-man is just” does not signify the same thing as any of the other enunciations, nor does the opposite of this, “Not every non-man is just.”
τὸ δὲ πᾶς οὐ δίκαιος οὐκ ἄνθρωπος τῷ οὐδεὶς δίκαιος οὐκ ἄνθρωπος ταὐτὸν σημαίνει. (20b.) 20a 39 But “Every non-man is non-just” signifies the same thing as “No non-man is just.”
Μετατιθέμενα δὲ τὰ ὀνόματα καὶ τὰ ῥήματα ταὐτὸν σημαίνει, οἷον ἔστι λευκὸς ἄνθρωπος—ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός 20b 1 When the names and verbs, are transposed, the enunciations signify the same thing; for example, “Man is white” and “White is man.”
εἰ γὰρ μὴ τοῦτό ἐστιν, τοῦ αὐτοῦ πλείους ἔσονται ἀποφάσεις, ἀλλ' ἐδέδεικτο ὅτι μία μιᾶς. τοῦ μὲν γὰρ ἔστι λευκὸς ἄνθρωπος ἀπόφασις τὸ οὐκ ἔστι λευκὸς ἄνθρωπος τοῦ δὲ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός, εἰ μὴ ἡ αὐτή ἐστι τῇ ἔστι λευκὸς ἄνθρωπος, ἔσται ἀπόφασις ἤτοι τὸ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐκ ἄνθρωπος λευκός ἢ τὸ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός. ἀλλ' ἡ ἑτέρα μέν ἐστιν ἀπόφασις τοῦ ἔστιν οὐκ ἄνθρωπος λευκός, ἡ ἑτέρα δὲ τοῦ ἔστι λευκὸς ἄνθρωπος, ὥστε ἔσονται δύο μιᾶς. ὅτι μὲν οὖν μετατιθεμένου τοῦ ὀνόματος καὶ τοῦ ῥήματος ἡ αὐτὴ γίγνεται κατάφασις καὶ ἀπόφασις, δῆλον. 20b 3 For if this is not the case there will be more than one negation of the same enunciation; but it has been shown that there is only one negation of one affirmation, for the negation of “Man is white” is “Man is not white,” and if “White is man” is not the same as “Man is white,” the negation of it [“White is man”] will be “White is not non-man” and “White is not man.” The former, however, is the negation of “White is non-man”; the latter of “Man is white.” Therefore, there will be two [negations] of one [affirmation]. It is clear, therefore, that when the name and the verb are transposed the signification of the affirmation and negation is the same.
Postquam determinatum est de diversitate enunciationum, hic intendit removere quaedam dubia circa praedicta. Et circa hoc facit sex secundum numerum dubiorum, quae suis patebunt locis. 1. Having treated the diversity of enunciations Aristotle now answers certain questions about them. He takes up six points related to the number of difficulties. These will become evident as we come to them.
Quia ergo supra dixerat quod in universalibus non similiter contingit angulares esse simul veras, quia affirmativae angulares non possunt esse simul verae, negativae autem sic; poterat quispiam dubitare, quae est causa huius diversitatis. Ideo nunc illius dicti causam intendit assignare talem, quia, scilicet, angulares affirmativae sunt contrariae inter se; contrarias autem in nulla materia contingit esse simul veras. Angulares autem negativae sunt subcontrariae illis oppositae; subcontrarias autem contingit esse simul veras. Since he has said that in universal enunciations the diagonals in one case cannot be at once true but can be in another, for the diagonal affirmatives cannot be at once true but the negatives can,” someone might raise a question as to the cause of this diversity. Therefore, it is his intention now to assign the cause of this: namely, that the diagonal affirmatives are contrary to each other, and contraries cannot be at once true in any matter; but the diagonal negatives are subcontraries opposed to these and can be at once true.
Et circa haec duo facit: primo, declarat conditiones contrariarum et subcontrariarum; secundo, quod angulares affirmativae sint contrariae et quod angulares negativae sint subcontrariae; ibi: sequuntur vero et cetera. In relation to this he first states the conditions for contraries and subcontraries. Then he shows that diagonal affirmatives are contraries and that diagonal negatives are subcontraries where he says, Now the enunciation “No man is just” follows upon the enunciation “Every man is non-just,” etc.
Dicit ergo resumendo: quoniam in primo dictum est quod enunciatio negativa contraria illi affirmativae universali, scilicet, omne animal est iustum, est ista, nullum animal est iustum; manifestum est quod istae non possunt simul, idest in eodem tempore, neque in eodem ipso, idest de eodem subiecto esse verae. His vero oppositae, idest subcontrariae inter se, possunt esse simul verae aliquando, scilicet in materia contingenti, ut, quoddam animal est iustum, non omne animal est iustum. By way of resumé, therefore, he says that in the first book it was said that the negative enunciation contrary to the universal affirmative “Every animal is just” is “No animal is just.” It is evident that these cannot be at once true, i.e., at the same time, nor of the same thing, i.e., of the same subject. But the opposites of these, i.e., the subcontraries, can sometimes be at once true, i.e., in contingent matter, as in “Some animal is just” and “Not every animal is just.”
Deinde cum dicit: sequuntur vero etc., declarat quod angulares affirmativae supra positae sint contrariae, negativae vero subcontrariae. Et primum quidem ex eo quod universalis affirmativa infinita et universalis negativa simplex aequipollent; et consequenter utraque earum est contraria universali affirmativae simplici, quae est altera angularis. Unde dicit quod hanc universalem negativam finitam, nullus homo est iustus, sequitur aequipollenter illa universalis affirmativa infinita, omnis homo est non iustus. 2. When he says, Now the enunciation, “No man is just” follows upon the enunciation “Every man is non-just,” etc., he shows that the diagonal affirmatives previously posited are contraries, the negatives subcontraries. First he manifests this from the fact that the infinite universal affirmative and the simple universal negative are equal in meaning, and consequently each of them is contrary to the simple universal affirmative, which is the other diagonal. Hence, he says that the infinite universal affirmative “Every man is non-just” follows upon the finite universal negative “No man is just,” equivalently.
Secundum vero declarat ex eo quod particularis affirmativa finita et particularis negativa infinita aequipollent. Et consequenter utraque earum est subcontraria particulari negativae simplici, quae est altera angularis, ut in figura supra posita inspicere potes. Unde subdit quod illam particularem affirmativam finitam, aliquis homo est iustus, opposita sequitur aequipollenter (opposita intellige non istius particularis, sed illius universalis affirmativae infinitae), non omnis homo est non iustus. Haec enim est contradictoria eius. Secondly he shows this from the fact that the finite particular affirmative and the infinite particular negative are equal in meaning, and consequently each of these is subcontrary to the simple particular negative, which is the other diagonal. This you can see in the previous diagram. He says, then, that the opposite “Not every man is non-just” follows upon the finite particular “Some man is just” equivalently (understand “the opposite” not of this particular but of the infinite universal affirmative, for this is its contradictory).
Ut autem clare videatur quomodo supra dictae enunciationes sint aequipollentes, formetur figura quadrata, in cuius uno angulo ponatur universalis negativa finita, et sub ea contradictoria particularis affirmativa finita; ex alia vero parte locetur universalis affirmativa infinita, et sub ea contradictoria particularis negativa infinita, noteturque contradictio inter angulares et collaterales inter se, hoc modo: (Figura). In order to see clearly how these enunciations are equivalent, make a four-sided figure, putting the finite universal negative in one corner and under it the contradictory, the finite particular affirmative. On the other side, put the infinite universal affirmative and under it the contradictory, the infinite particular negative. Now indicate the contradiction between diagonals and the contradiction between collaterals.
No man is justequivalentsEvery man is non-just


contradictories



contradictories

Some man is justequivalentsNot every man is non-just

His siquidem sic dispositis, patet primo ipsarum universalium mutua consequentia in veritate et falsitate, quia si altera earum est vera, sua angularis contradictoria est falsa; et si ista est falsa, sua collateralis contradictoria, quae est altera universalis, erit vera, et similiter procedit quoad falsitatem particularium. Deinde eodem modo manifestatur mutua sequela. Si enim altera earum est vera, sua angularis contradictoria est falsa, ista autem existente falsa, sua contradictoria collateralis, quae est altera particularis erit vera; simili quoque modo procedendum est quoad falsitatem. This arrangement makes the mutual consequence of the universals in truth and falsity evident, for if one of them is true, its diagonal contradictory is false; and if this is false, its collateral contradictory, which is the other universal, will be true. With respect to the falsity of the particulars the procedure is the same. Their mutual consequence is made evident in the same way, for if one of them is true, its diagonal contradictory is false, and if this is false, its contradictory collateral, which is the other particular, will be true; the procedure is the same with respect to falsity.
Sed est hic unum dubium. In I enim priorum, in fine, Aristoteles ex proposito determinat non esse idem iudicium de universali negativa et universali affirmativa infinita; et superius in hoc secundo, super illo verbo: quarum duae se habent secundum consequentiam, duae vero minime, Ammonius, Porphyrius, Boethius et sanctus Thomas dixerunt quod negativa simplex sequitur affirmativam infinitam, sed non e converso. 3. However, a question arises with respect to this. At the end of I Priorum [46: 51b 5], Aristotle determines from what he has proposed that the judgment of the universal negative and the infinite universal affirmative is not the same. Furthermore, in the second book of the present work, in relation to the phrase Of which two are related according to consequence, two are not. Ammonius, Porphyry, Boethius, and St. Thomas say that the simple negative follows upon the infinite affirmative and not conversely.”
Ad hoc dicendum est, secundum Albertum, quod negativam finitam sequitur affirmativa infinita subiecto constante; negativa vero simplex sequitur affirmativam absolute. Unde utrumque dictum verificatur, et quod inter eas est mutua consequentia cum subiecti constantia, et quod inter eas non est mutua consequentia absolute. Albert answers this latter difficulty by pointing out that the infinite affirmative follows upon the finite negative when the subject is constant, but the simple negative follows upon the affirmative absolutely. Hence both positions are verified, for with a constant subject there is a mutual consequence between them, but there is not a mutual consequence between them absolutely.
Potest dici secundo, quod supra locuti sumus de infinita enunciatione quoad suum totalem significatum ad formam praedicati reductum; et secundum hoc, quia negativa finita est superior affirmativa infinita, ideo non erat mutua consequentia: hic autem loquimur de ipsa infinita formaliter sumpta. Unde s. Thomas tunc adducendo Ammonii expositionem dixit, secundum hunc modum loquendi: negativa simplex, in plus est quam affirmativa infinita. We could also answer this difficulty in this way. In Book II, Lesson 2 we were speaking of the infinite enunciation with the whole of what it signified reduced to the form of the predicate, and according to this there was not a mutual consequence, since the finite negative is superior to the infinite affirmative. But here we are speaking of the infinite itself formally taken. Hence St. Thomas, when he introduced the exposition of Ammonius in his commentary on the above passage, said that according to this mode of speaking the simple negative is wider than the infinite affirmative.
Textus vero I priorum ultra praedicta loquitur de finita et infinita in ordine ad syllogismum. Manifestum est autem quod universalis affirmativa sive finita sive infinita non concluditur nisi in primo primae. Universalis autem negativa quaecumque concluditur et in secundo primae, et primo et secundo secundae. In the above mentioned text in I Priorum [46: 52a 36], Aristotle is speaking of finite and infinite enunciations in relation to the syllogism. It is evident, however, that the universal affirmative, whether finite or infinite is only inferred in the first mode of the first figure, while any universal negative whatever is inferred in the second mode of the first figure and in the first and second modes of the second figure.
Deinde cum dicit: manifestum est autem etc., movet secundum dubium de vario situ negationis, an scilicet quoad veritatem et falsitatem differat praeponere et postponere negationem. Oritur autem haec dubitatio, quia dictum est nunc quod non refert quoad veritatem si dicatur, omnis homo est non iustus, aut si dicatur, omnis homo non est iustus; et tamen in altera postponitur negatio, in altera praeponitur, licet multum referat quoad affirmationem et negationem. 4. When he says, And it is also clear with respect to the singular that if a question is asked and a negative answer is the true one, there is also a true affirmation, etc., he presents a difficulty relating to the varying position of the negation, i.e., whether there is a difference as to truth and falsity when the negation is a part of the predicate or a part of the verb. This difficulty arises from what he has just said, namely, that it is of no consequence as to truth or falsity whether you say, “Every man is non-just” or “Every man is not just”; yet in one case the negation is a part of the predicate, in the other part of the copula, and this makes a great deal of difference with respect to affirmation and negation.
Hanc, inquam, dubitationem solvere intendens cum distinctione, respondet quod in singularibus enunciationibus eiusdem veritatis sunt singularis negatio et infinita affirmatio eiusdem, in universalibus autem non est sic. Si enim est vera negatio ipsius universalis non oportet quod sit vera infinita affirmatio universalis. Negatio enim universalis est particularis contradictoria, qua existente vera, non est necesse suam subalternam, quae est contraria suae contradictoriae esse veram. Possunt enim duae contrariae esse simul falsae. Unde dicit quod in singularibus enunciationibus manifestum est quod, si est verum negare interrogatum, idest, si est vera negatio enunciationis singularis, de qua facta est interrogatio, verum etiam est affirmare, idest, vera erit affirmatio infinita eiusdem singularis. Verbi gratia: putasne Socrates est sapiens? Si vera est ista responsio, non; Socrates igitur non sapiens est, idest, vera erit ista affirmatio infinita, Socrates est non sapiens. To solve this problem Aristotle makes a distinction: in singular enunciations, the singular negation and infinite affirmation of the same subject are of the same truth, but in universals this is not so. For if the negation of the universal is true it is not necessary that the infinite affirmation of the universal is true. The negation of the universal is the contradictory particular, but if it is true [i.e., the contradictory particular] it is not necessary that the subaltern, which is the contrary of the contradictory, be true, for two contraries can be at once false. Hence he says that in singular enunciations it is evident that if it is true to deny the thing asked, i.e., if the negation of a singular enunciation, which has been made into an interrogation, is true, there will also be a true affirmation, i.e., the infinite affirmation of the same singular will be true. For example, if the question “Do you think Socrates is wise?” has “No” as a true response, then “Socrates is non-wise,” i.e., the infinite affirmation “Socrates is non-wise” will be true.
In universalibus vero non est vera, quae similiter dicitur, idest, ex veritate negationis universalis affirmativae interrogatae non sequitur vera universalis affirmativa infinita, quae similis est quoad quantitatem et qualitatem enunciationi quaesitae; vera autem est eius negatio, idest, sed ex veritate responsionis negativae sequitur veram esse eius, scilicet universalis quaesitae negationem, idest, particularem negativam. Verbi gratia: putasne omnis homo est sapiens? Si vera est ista responsio, non; affirmativa similis interrogatae quam quis ex hac responsione inferre intentaret est illa: igitur omnis homo est non sapiens. Haec autem non sequitur ex illa negatione. Falsum est enim hoc, scilicet quod sequitur ex illa responsione; sed inferendum est, igitur non omnis homo sapiens est. Et ratio utriusque est, quia haec particularis ultimo illata est opposita, idest contradictoria illi universali interrogatae quam respondens falsificavit; et ideo oportet quod sit vera. Contradictoriarum enim si una est falsa, reliqua est vera. But in the case of universals the affirmative inference is not true, i.e., from the truth of a negation to a universal affirmative question, the truth of the infinite universal affirmative (which is similar in quantity and quality to the enunciation asked) does not follow. But the negation is true, i.e., from the truth of the negative response it follows that its negation is true, i.e., the negation of the universal asked, which is the particular negative. Consider, for example, the question “Do you think every man is wise?” If the response “No” is true, one would be tempted to infer the affirmative similar to the question asked, i.e., then “Every man is non-wise.” This, however, does not follow from the negation, for this is false as it follows from that response. Rather, what must be inferred is “Then not every man is wise.” And the reason for both is that the particular enunciation inferred last is the opposite, i.e., the contradictory of the universal question, which, being falsified by the negative response, makes the contradictory of the universal affirmative true, for of contradictories, if one is false the other is true.
Illa vero, scilicet universalis affirmativa infinita primo illata, est contraria illi eidem universali interrogatae. Non est autem opus quod si universalium altera sit falsa, quod reliqua sit vera. The infinite universal affirmative first inferred, however, is contrary to the same universal question. Should it not also be true? No, because it is not necessary in the case of universals that if one is false the other is true.
In promptu est autem causa huius diversitatis inter singulares et universales. In singularibus enim varius negationis situs non variat quantitatem enunciationis; in universalibus autem variat, ut patet. Ideo fit ut non sit eadem veritas negantium universalem in quarum altera praeponitur, in altera autem postponitur negatio, ut de se patet. The cause of the diversity between singulars and universals is now clear. In singulars the varying position of the negation does not vary the quantity of the enunciation ‘ but in universals it does. Therefore there is not the same truth in enunciations denying a universal when in one the negation is a part of the predicate and in the other a part of the verb.
Deinde cum dicit: illae vero secundum infinita etc., solvit tertiam dubitationem, an infinita nomina vel verba sint negationes. Insurgit autem hoc dubium, quia dictum est quod aequipollent negativa et infinita. Et rursus dictum est nunc quod non refert in singularibus praeponere et postponere negationem: si enim infinitum nomen est negatio, tunc enunciatio, habens subiectum infinitum vel praedicatum, erit negativa et non affirmativa. 5. Then he says, The antitheses in infinite names and verbs, as in “ non-man” and “non-just,” might seem to be negations without a name or a verb, etc. Here he raises the third difficulty, i.e., whether infinite names or verbs are negations. This question arises from his having said that the negative and infinite are equivalent and from having just said that in singular enunciations it makes no difference whether the negative is a part of the predicate or a part of the verb. For if the infinite name is a negation, then the enunciation having an infinite subject or predicate will be negative and not affirmative.
Hanc dubitationem solvit per interpretationem, probando quod nec nomina nec verba infinita sint negationes, licet videantur. Unde duo circa hoc facit: primo, proponit solutionem dicens: illae vero, scilicet dictiones, contraiacentes: verbi gratia: non homo, et, homo non iustus et iustus. Vel sic: illae vero, scilicet dictiones, secundum infinita, idest secundum infinitorum naturam, iacentes contra nomina et verba (utpote quae removentes quidem nomina et verba significant, ut non homo et non iustus et non currit, quae opponuntur contra ly homo ly iustus et ly currit), illae, inquam, dictiones infinitae videbuntur prima facie esse quasi negationes sine nomine et verbo ex eo quod comparatae nominibus et verbis contra quae iacent, ea removent, sed non sunt secundum veritatem. Dixit sine nomine et verbo quia nomen infinitum, nominis natura caret, et verbum infinitum verbi natura non possidet. Dixit quasi, quia nec nomen infinitum a nominis ratione, nec verbum infinitum a verbi proprietate omnino semota sunt. Unde, si negationes apparent, videbuntur sine nomine et verbo non omnino sed quasi.  He resolves this question by an interpretation which proves that neither infinite names nor verbs are negations although they seem to be. First he proposes the solution saying, The antitheses in infinite names and verbs, i.e., words contraposed, e.g., “non-man,” and “non-just man” and “just man”; or this may be read as, Those (namely, words) corresponding to infinites, i.e., corresponding to the nature of infinites, placed in opposition to names or verbs (namely, removing what the names and verbs signify, as in “non-man,” “non-just,” and “non-runs,” which are opposed to “man,” “just” and “runs”), would seem at first sight to be quasi-negations without Dame and verb, because, as related to the names and verbs before which they are placed, they remove them; they are not truly negations however. He says without a name or a verb because the infinite name lacks the nature of a name and the infinite verb does not have the nature of a verb. He says quasi because the infinite name does not fall short of the notion of the name in every way, nor the infinite verb of the nature of the verb. Hence, if it is thought that they are negations, they will be regarded as without a name or a verb, not in every way but as though they were without a name or a verb.
Deinde probat distinctiones infinitas non esse negationes tali ratione. Semper est necesse negationem esse veram vel falsam, quia negatio est enunciatio alicuius ab aliquo; nomen autem infinitum non dicit verum vel falsum; igitur dictio infinita non est negatio. Minorem declarat, quia qui dixit, non homo, nihil magis de homine dixit quam qui dixit, homo. Et quoad significatum quidem clarissimum est: non homo, namque, nihil addit supra hominem, imo removet hominem. Quoad veritatis vero vel falsitatis conceptum, nihil magis profuit qui dixit, non homo, quam qui dixit, homo, si aliquid aliud non addatur, imo minus verus vel falsus fuit, idest magis remotus a veritate et falsitate, qui dixit, non homo, quam qui dixit, homo: quia tam veritas quam falsitas in compositione consistit; compositioni autem vicinior est dictio finita, quae aliquid ponit, quam dictio infinita, quae nec ponit, nec componit, idest nec positionem nec compositionem importat. He proves that infinitizing signs of separation are not negations by pointing out that it is always necessary for the negation to be true or false since a negation is an enunciation of something separated from something. The infinite name, however, does not assert what is true or false. Therefore the infinite word is not a negation. He manifests the minor when he says that the one who says “non-man” says nothing more of man than the one who says “man.” Clearly this is so with respect to what is signified, for “non-man” adds nothing beyond “man”; rather, it removes “man.” Moreover, with respect to a conception of truth or falsity, it is of no more use to say “non-man” than to say “man” if something else is not added; rather, it is less true or false, i.e., one who says non-man is more removed from truth and falsity than one who says man,” for both truth and falsity depend on composition, and the finite word which posits something is closer to composition than the infinite word, which neither posits nor composes, i.e., it implies neither positing nor composition.
Deinde cum dicit: significat autem etc., respondet quartae dubitationi, quomodo scilicet intelligatur illud verbum supradictum de enunciationibus habentibus subiectum infinitum: hae autem extra illas, ipsae secundum se erunt. Et ait quod intelligitur quantum ad significati consequentiam, et non solum quantum ad ipsas enunciationes formaliter. Unde duas habentes subiectum infinitum, universalem scilicet affirmativam et universalem negativam adducens, ait quod neutra earum significat idem alicui illarum, scilicet habentium subiectum finitum. Haec enim universalis affirmativa, omnis non homo est iustus, nulli habenti subiectum finitum significat idem: non enim significat idem quod ista, omnis homo est iustus; neque quod ista, omnis homo est non iustus. Similiter opposita negatio et universalis negativa habens subiectum infinitum, quae est contrarie opposita supradictae, scilicet omnis non homo non est iustus, nulli illarum de subiecto finito significat idem. Et hoc clarum est ex diversitate subiecti in istis et in illis. 6. When he says, Moreover, “Every non-man is just does not signify the same thing as any of the other enunciations, etc., he answers a fourth difficulty, i.e., how the earlier statement concerning enunciations having an infinite subject is to be understood. The statement was that these stand by themselves and are distinct from the former [in consequence of using the name “non-man”]. This is to be understood not just with respect to the enunciations themselves formally, but with respect to the consequence of what is signified. Hence, giving two examples of enunciations with an infinite subject, the universal affirmative and universal negative,” he says that neither of these signifies the same thing as any of those, namely of those having a finite subject. The universal affirmative “Every non-man is just” does not signify the same thing as any of the enunciations with a finite subject; for it does not signify “Every man is just” nor “Every man is non-just.” Nor do the opposite negation, or the universal negative having an infinite subject which is contrarily opposed to the universal affirmative, signify the same thing as enunciations with a finite subject; i.e., “Not every non-man is just” and “No non-man is just,” do not signify the same thing as any of those with a finite subject. This is evident from the diversity of subject in the latter and the former.
Deinde cum dicit: illa vero quae est etc., respondet quintae quaestioni, an scilicet inter enunciationes de subiecto infinito sit aliqua consequentia. Oritur autem dubitatio haec ex eo, quod superius est inter eas ad invicem assignata consequentia. Ait ergo quod etiam inter istas est consequentia. Nam universalis affirmativa de subiecto, et praedicato infinitis et universalis negativa de subiecto infinito, praedicato vero finito, aequipollent. Ista namque, omnis non homo est non iustus, idem significat illi, nullus non homo est iustus. Idem autem est iudicium de particularibus indefinitis et singularibus similibus supradictis. Cuiuscunque enim quantitatis sint, semper affirmativa de utroque extremo infinita et negativa subiecti quidem infiniti, praedicati autem finiti, aequipollent, ut facile potes exemplis videre. Unde Aristoteles universales exprimens, caeteras ex illis intelligi voluit. 7. When he says, But “Every non-man is non-just” signifies the same thing as “No non-man is just,” he answers a fifth difficulty, i.e., is there a consequence among enunciations with an infinite subject? This question arises from the fact that consequences were assigned among them earlier.” He says, therefore, that there is a consequence even among these, for the universal affirmative with an infinite subject and predicate and the universal negative with an infinite subject but a finite predicate are equivalent, i.e., “Every non-man is non-just” signifies the same thing as “No non-man is just.” This is also the case in particular infinites and singulars which are similar to the foresaid, for no matter what their quantity, the affirmative with both extremes infinite and the negative with an infinite subject and a finite predicate are always equivalent, as may be easily seen by examples. Hence, Aristotle in giving the universals intends the others to be understood from these.
Deinde cum dicit: transposita vero nomina etc., solvit sextam dubitationem, an propter nominum vel verborum transpositionem varietur enunciationis significatio. Oritur autem haec quaestio ex eo, quod docuit transpositionem negationis variare enunciationis significationem. Aliud enim dixit significare, omnis homo non est iustus, et aliud, non omnis homo est iustus. Ex hoc, inquam, dubitatur, an similiter contingat circa nominum transpositionem, quod ipsa transposita enunciationem varient, sicut negatio transposita. 8. When he says, When the names and verbs are transposed, the enunciations signify the same thing, etc., he resolves a sixth difficulty: whether the signification of the enunciation is varied because of the transposition of names or verbs. This question arises from his having shown that the transposition of the negation varies the signification of the enunciation. “Every man is non-just,” he said, does not signify the same thing as “Not every man is just.” This raises the question as to whether a similar thing happens when we transpose names. Would this vary the enunciation as the transposed negation does?
Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, ponit solutionem dicens, quod transposita nomina et verba idem significant: verbi gratia, idem significat, est albus homo, et, est homo albus, ubi est transpositio nominum. Similiter transposita verba idem significant, ut, est albus homo, et, homo albus est. First he states the solution, saying that transposed names and verbs signify the same thing, e.g., “Man is white” signifies the same thing as “White is man.” Transposed verbs also signify the same thing, as in “Man is white” and “Man white is.”
Deinde cum dicit: nam si hoc non est etc., probat praedictam solutionem ex numero negationum contradictoriarum ducendo ad impossibile, tali ratione. Si hoc non est, idest si nomina transposita diversificant enunciationem, eiusdem affirmationis erunt duae negationes; sed ostensum est in I libro, quod una tantum est negatio unius affirmationis; ergo a destructione consequentis ad destructionem antecedentis transposita nomina non variant enunciationem. 9. Then he proves the solution from the number of contradictory negations when he says, For if this is not the case there will be more than one negation of the same enunciation, etc. He does this by a reduction to the impossible and his reasoning is as follows. If this is not so, i.e., if transposed names diversify enunciations, there will be two negations of the same affirmation. But in the first book it was shown that there is only one negation of one affirmation. Going, then, from the destruction of the consequent to the destruction of the antecedent, transposed names do not vary the enunciation.
Ad probationis autem consequentiae claritatem formetur figura, ubi ex uno latere locentur ambae suprapositae affirmationes, transpositis nominibus; et ex altero contraponantur duae negativae, similes illis quoad terminos et eorum positiones. Deinde, aliquantulo interiecto spatio, sub affirmativis ponatur affirmatio infiniti subiecti, et sub negativis illius negatio. Et notetur contradictio inter primam affirmationem et duas negationes primas, et inter secundam affirmationem et omnes tres negationes, ita tamen quod inter ipsam et infimam negationem notetur contradictio non vera, sed imaginaria. Notetur quoque contradictio inter tertiam affirmationem et tertiam negationem inter se. Hoc modo: (Figura). To clarify the proof of the consequent, make a figure in which both of the affirmations posited above, with the names transposed are located on one side. Put the two negatives similar to them in respect to terms and position on the opposite side. Then leaving a little space, under the affirmatives put the affirmation with an infinite subject and under the negatives the negation of it. Mark the contradiction between the first affirmation and the first two negations and between the second affirmation and all three negations, but in the latter case mark the contradiction between it and the lowest negation as not true but imaginary. Mark, also, the contradiction between the third affirmation and negation.
(1) Man is white————contradictories————Man is not white
(2) White is man————contradictories————White is not man
(3) Non-man is white————contradictories————Non-man is not white

His ita dispositis, probat consequentiam Aristoteles sic. Illius affirmationis, est albus homo, negatio est, non est albus homo; illius autem secundae affirmationis, quae est, est homo albus, si ista affirmatio non est eadem illi supradictae affirmationi, scilicet, est albus homo, propter nominum transpositionem, negatio erit altera istarum, scilicet aut, non est non homo albus, aut, non est homo albus. Sed utraque habet affirmationem oppositam alia ab illa assignatam, scilicet, est homo albus. Nam altera quidem dictarum negationum, scilicet, non est non homo albus, negatio est illius quae dicit, est non homo albus; alia vero, scilicet, non est homo albus, negatio est eius affirmationis, quae dicit, est albus homo, quae fuit prima affirmatio. Ergo quaecunque dictarum negationum afferatur contradictoria illi mediae, sequitur quod sint duae unius, idest quod unius negationis sint duae affirmationes, et quod unius affirmationis sint duae negationes: quod est impossibile. Et hoc, ut dictum est, sequitur stante hypothesi erronea, quod illae affirmationes sint propter nominum transpositionem diversae. Now we can see how Aristotle proves the consequent. The negation of the affirmation “Man is white” is “Man is not white.” But if the second affirmation, “White is man,” is not the same as “Man is white,” because of the transposition of the names, its negation, [i.e., of “White is man”] will be either of these two: “Non-man is not white,” or “White is not man.” But each of these has another opposed affirmation than that assigned, namely, than “White is man.” For one of the negations, namely, “Non-man is not white,” is the negation of “Non-man is white”; the other, “White is not man” is the negation of the affirmation “Man is white,” which was the first affirmation. Therefore whatever negation is given as contradictory to the middle enunciation, it follows that there are two of one, i.e., two affirmations of one negation, and two negations of one affirmation, which is impossible. And this, as has been said, follows upon an erroneously set up hypothesis, i.e., that these affirmations are diverse because of the transposition of names.
Adverte hic primo quod Aristoteles per illas duas negationes, non est non homo albus, et, non est homo albus, sub disiunctione sumptas ad inveniendam negationem illius affirmationis, est homo albus, caeteras intellexit, quasi diceret: aut negatio talis affirmationis acceptabitur illa quae est vere eius negatio, aut quaecunque extranea negatio ponetur; et quodlibet dicatur, semper, stante hypothesi, sequitur unius affirmationis esse plures negationes, unam veram quae est contradictoria suae comparis habentis nomina transposita, et alteram quam tu ut distinctam acceptas, vel falso imaginaris; et e contra multarum affirmationum esse unicam negationem, ut patet in opposita figura. Ex quacunque enim illarum quatuor incipias, duas sibi oppositas aspicis. Unde notanter concludit indeterminate: quare erunt duae unius. Notice first that Aristotle through these two negations, “Non-man is not white” and “White is not man,” taken under disjunction to find the negation of the affirmation “Man is white,” has comprehended other things. It is as though he said: The negation which will be taken will either be the true negation of such an affirmation or some extraneous negation; and whichever is taken, it always follows, given the hypothesis, that there are many negations of one affirmation—one which is the contradictory of it, having equal truth with the one having its name transposed, and the other which you accept as distinct, or you imagine falsely. And conversely, there is a single negation of many affirmations, as is clear in the diagram. Hence, from whichever of these four you begin, you see two opposed to it. It is significant, therefore, that Aristotle concludes indeterminately: Therefore, there will be two [negations] of one [affirmation].
Nota secundo quod Aristoteles contempsit probare quod contradictoria primae affirmationis sit contradictoria secundae, et similiter quod contradictoria secundae affirmationis sit contradictoria primae. Hoc enim accepit tamquam per se notum, ex eo quod non possunt simul esse verae neque simul falsae, ut manifeste patet praeposito sibi termino singulari. Non stant enim simul aliquo modo istae duae, Socrates est albus homo, Socrates non est homo albus. Nec turberis quod eas non singulares proposuit. Noverat enim supra dictum esse in primo quae affirmatio et negatio sint contradictoriae et quae non, et ideo non fuit sollicitus de exemplorum claritate. 11. Note secondly that Aristotle does not consider it important to prove that the contradictory of the first affirmation is the contradictory of the second, and similarly that the contradictory of the second affirmation is the contradictory of the first. This he accepts as self-evident since they can neither be true at the same time nor false at the same time. This is manifestly clear when a singular term is placed first, for “Socrates is a white man” and “Socrates is not a white man” cannot be maintained at the same time in any mode. You should not be disturbed by the fact that he does not propose these singulars here, for he was undoubtedly aware that he had already stated in the first book which affirmation and negation are contradictories and which not and for this reason felt that a careful elaboration of the examples was not necessary here.
Liquet ergo ex eo quod negationes affirmationum de nominibus transpositis non sunt diversae quod nec ipsae affirmationes sunt diversae et sic nomina et verba transposita idem significant. It is therefore evident that since negations of affirmations with transposed names are not diverse the affirmations themselves are not diverse, and hence transposed names and verbs signify the same thing.
Occurrit autem dubium circa hoc, quia non videtur verum quod nominibus transpositis eadem sit affirmatio. Non enim valet: omnis homo est animal; ergo omne animal est homo. Similiter, transposito verbo, non valet: homo est animal rationale; ergo homo animal rationale est, de secundo adiacente. Licet enim nugatio committatur, tamen non sequitur primam. 12. A doubt does arise, however, about the point Aristotle is making here, for it does not seem true that with transposed names the affirmation is the same. This, for example, is not valid: “Every man is an animal”; therefore, “Every animal is a man.” Nor is the following example with a transposed verb valid: “Man is a rational animal and (taking “is” as the second element), therefore “Man animal rational is”; for although it is nugatory as a whole combination, nevertheless it does not follow upon the first.
Ad hoc est dicendum quod sicut in rebus naturalibus est duplex transmutatio, scilicet localis, scilicet de loco ad locum, et formalis de forma ad formam; ita in enunciationibus est duplex transmutatio, situalis scilicet, quando terminus praepositus postponitur, et e converso, et formalis, quando terminus, qui erat praedicatum efficitur subiectum, et e converso vel quomodolibet, simpliciter et cetera. Et sicut quandoque fit in naturalibus transmutatio pure localis, puta quando res transfertur de loco ad locum, nulla alia variatione facta; quandoque autem fit transmutatio secundum locum, non pura sed cum variatione formali, sicut quando transit de loco frigido ad locum calidum: ita in enunciationibus quandoque fit transmutatio pure situalis, quando scilicet nomen vel verbum solo situ vocali variatur; quandoque autem fit transmutatio situalis et formalis simul, sicut contingit cum praedicatum fit subiectum, vel cum verbum tertium adiacens fit secundum. The answer to this is as follows. just as there is a twofold transmutation in natural things, i.e., local, from place to place, and formal, from form to form, so in enunciations there is a twofold transmutation: a positional transmutation when a term placed before is placed after, and conversely, and a formal transmutation when a term that was a predicate is made a subject, and conversely, or in whatever mode, simply, etc. And just as in natural things sometimes a purely local transmutation is made (for instance, when a thing is transferred from place to place, with no other variation made) and sometimes a transmutation is made according to place—not simply but with a formal variation (as when a thing passes from a cold place to a hot place), so in enunciations a transmutation is sometimes made which is purely positional, i.e., when the name and verb are varied only in vocal position, and sometimes a transmutation is made which is at once formal and positional, as when the predicate becomes the subject, or the verb which is the third element added becomes the second.
Et quoniam hic intendit Aristoteles de transmutatione nominum et verborum pure situali, ut transpositionis vocabulum praesefert, ideo dixit quod transposita nomina et verba idem significant, insinuare volens quod, si nihil aliud praeter transpositionem nominis vel verbi accidat in enunciatione, eadem manet oratio. Unde patet responsio ad instantias. Manifestum est namque quod in utraque non sola transpositio fit, sed transmutatio de subiecto in praedicatum, vel de tertio adiacente in secundum. Et per hoc patet responsio ad similia. Aristotle’s purpose here was to treat of the purely positional transmutation of names and verbs, as the vocabulary of the transposition indicates; when he says, then, that transposed names and verbs signify the same thing, he intends to imply that if nothing other than the transposition of name and verb takes place in the enunciation, what is said remains the same. Hence, the response to the present objection is clear, for in both examples there is not only a transposition but a transmutation of subject to predicate in one case, and from an enunciation with a third element to one with a second element in the other. The response to similar questions is evident from this.

LESSON 5
Ways in Which An Enunciation May Be Many Rather than One

τὸ δὲ ἓν κατὰ πολλῶν ἢ πολλὰ καθ' ἑνὸς καταφάναι ἢ ἀποφάναι, ἐὰν μὴ ἕν τι ᾖ τὸ ἐκ τῶν πολλῶν συγκείμενον, οὐκ ἔστι κατάφασις μία οὐδὲ ἀπόφασις. λέγω δὲ ἓν οὐκ ἐὰν ὄνομα ἓν ᾖ κείμενον, μὴ ᾖ δὲ ἕν τι ἐξ ἐκείνων, οἷον ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἴσως ἐστὶ καὶ ζῷον καὶ δίπουν καὶ ἥμερον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕν τι γίγνεται ἐκ τούτων ἐκ δὲ τοῦ λευκοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ βαδίζειν οὐχ ἕν. ὥστε οὔτ' ἐὰν ἕν τι κατὰ τούτων καταφήσῃ τις μία κατάφασις, ἀλλὰ φωνὴ μὲν μία καταφάσεις δὲ πολλαί, οὔτ' ἐὰν καθ' ἑνὸς ταῦτα, ἀλλ' ὁμοίως πολλαί. 20b 12 Neither the affirmation nor the negation which affirms or denies one predicate of many subjects or many predicates of one subject is one, unless something one is constituted from the many. I do not use “one” of those things which, although one name may be imposed, do not constitute something one. For example, man probably is animal and biped and civilized, but there is also something one formed from these; whereas from “white” and “man” and “walking” there is not. Consequently, if someone affirms something one of these latter there will not be one affirmation, except in vocal sound; on the contrary, there will be many affirmations. Nor will there be one affirmation if someone affirms these of one subject; in this case too there will be many.
εἰ οὖν ἡ ἐρώτησις ἡ διαλεκτικὴ ἀποκρίσεώς ἐστιν αἴτησις, ἢ τῆς προτάσεως ἢ θατέρου μορίου τῆς ἀντιφάσεως, ἡ δὲ πρότασις ἀντιφάσεως μιᾶς μόριον, οὐκ ἂν εἴη μία ἀπόκρισις πρὸς ταῦτα οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡ ἐρώτησις μία, οὐδ' ἂν ᾖ ἀληθής. 20b 22 In fact, if dialectical interrogation is a request for an answer, i.e., either for the admission of a premise or one part of a contradiction—and a premise is a part of one contradiction—there would not be one answer in reference to the above predicates. There would not be one answer even if there is a true answer, for there would not be a single question.
εἴρηται δὲ ἐν τοῖς Τοπικοῖς περὶ αὐτῶν. 20b 26 But we have spoken about these things in the Topics [VIII, 7].
ἅμα δὲ δῆλον ὅτι οὐδὲ τὸ τί ἐστιν ἐρώτησίς ἐστι διαλεκτική δεῖ γὰρ δεδόσθαι ἐκ τῆς ἐρωτήσεως ἑλέσθαι ὁπότερον βούλεται τῆς ἀντιφάσεως μόριον ἀποφήνασθαι. ἀλλὰ δεῖ τὸν ἐρωτῶντα προσδιορίσαι πότερον τόδε ἐστὶν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἢ οὐ τοῦτο. At the same time it is clear that the question “What is it?” is not a dialectical one. For the dialectical interrogation must provide for choosing whichever part of a contradiction one wishes to enunciate. For this the interrogator must specifically word the question so that the parts of the contradiction are clear; for example, by asking whether man is this or not.
Postquam Aristoteles determinavit diversitatem enunciationis unius provenientem ex additione negationis infinitatis, hic intendit determinare quid accidat enunciationi ex hoc quod additur aliquid subiecto vel praedicato tollens eius unitatem. Et circa hoc duo facit: quia primo, determinat diversitatem earum; secundo, consequentias earum; ibi: quoniam vero haec quidem et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ponit earum diversitatem; secundo, probat omnes enunciationes esse plures; ibi: si ergo dialectica et cetera. 1. After the Philosopher has treated the diversity in an enunciation arising from the addition of the infinite negation, he explains what happens to an enunciation when something is added to the subject or predicate which takes away its unity. He first determines their diversity, and then proves that all the enunciations are many where he says, In fact, if dialectical interrogation is a request for an answer, etc. Secondly, he determines their consequences, where he says, Some things predicated separately are such that they unite to form one predicate, etc.
Dicit ergo quoad primum, resumendo quod in primo dictum fuerat, quod affirmare vel negare unum de pluribus, vel plura de uno, si ex illis pluribus non fit unum, non est enunciatio una affirmativa vel negativa. Et declarando quomodo intelligatur unum debere esse subiectum aut praedicatum, subdit quod unum dico non si nomen unum impositum sit, idest ex unitate nominis, sed ex unitate significati. Cum enim plura conveniunt in uno nomine, ita quod ex eis non fiat unum illius nominis significatum, tunc solum vocis unitas est. Cum autem unum nomen pluribus impositum est, sive partibus subiectivis, sive integralibus, ut eadem significatione concludat, tunc et vocis et significati unitas est, et enunciationis unitas non impeditur. He begins by taking up something he said in the first book: there is not one affirmative enunciation nor one negative enunciation when one thing is affirmed or denied of many or many of one, if one thing is not constituted from the many. Then he explains what he means by the subject or predicate having to be one where he says, I do not use “one” of those things which, although one name may be imposed, do not constitute something one, i.e., a subject or predicate is one, not from the unity of the name, but from the unity of what is signified. For when many things are brought together under one name in such a way that what is signified by that name is not one, then the unity is only one of vocal sound. But when one name has been imposed for many, whether for subjective or for integral parts, so that it encloses them in the same signification, then there is unity both of vocal sound and what is signified. In the latter case, unity of the enunciation is not impeded.
Secundum quod subiungit: ut homo est fortasse animal et mansuetum et bipes obscuritate non caret. Potest enim intelligi ut sit exemplum ab opposito, quasi diceret: unum dico non ex unitate nominis impositi pluribus ex quibus non fit tale unum, quemadmodum homo est unum quoddam ex animali et mansueto et bipede, partibus suae definitionis. Et ne quis crederet quod hae essent verae definitionis nominis partes, interposuit, fortasse. 2. Then he adds, For example, man probably is an animal and biped and civilized. This, however, is obscure, for it can be understood as all example of the opposite, as if he were saying, “I do not mean by ‘one’ such a ‘one’ as the unity of the name imposed upon many from which one thing is not constituted, for instance, ‘man’ as ‘one’ from the parts of the definition, animal and civilized and biped.” And to prevent anyone from thinking these are true parts of the definition of the name he interposes perhaps.
Porphyrius autem, Boethio referente et approbante, separat has textus particulas, dicens quod Aristoteles hucusque declaravit enunciationem illam esse plures, in qua plura subiicerentur uni, vel de uno praedicarentur plura, ex quibus non fit unum. In istis autem verbis: ut homo est fortasse etc., intendit declarare enunciationem aliquam esse plures, in qua plura ex quibus fit unum subiiciuntur vel praedicantur; sicut cum dicitur, homo est animal et mansuetum et bipes, copula interiecta, vel morula, ut oratores faciunt. Ideo autem addidisse aiunt, fortasse, ut insinuaret hoc contingere posse, necessarium autem non esse. Porphyry, however, referred to with approval by Boethius, separates these parts of the text. He says Aristotle first states that that enunciation is many in which many are subjected to one, or many are predicated of one, when one thing is not constituted from these. And when he says, For example, man perhaps is, etc., he intends to show that an enunciation is many when many from which one thing is constituted are subjected or predicated, as in the example “Man is an animal and civilized and biped,” with copulas interjected or a pause such as orators make. He added perhaps, they say, to imply that this could happen, but it need not.
Possumus in eamdem Porphyrii, Boethii et Alberti sententiam incidentes subtilius textum introducere, ut quatuor hic faciat. Et primo quidem, resumit quae sit enunciatio in communi dicens: enunciatio plures est, in qua unum de pluribus, vel plura de uno enunciantur. Si tamen ex illis pluribus non fit unum, ut in primo dictum et expositum fuit. 3. While agreeing with the opinion of Porphyry, Boethius, and Albert, we think a more subtle construction can be made of the text. According to it Aristotle makes four points here. First, he reviews what an enunciation is in general when he says, The enunciation is many in which one is enunciated of many or many of one, unless from the many something one is constituted... as he stated and explained in the first book.
Deinde dilucidat illum terminum de uno, sive unum, dicens: dico autem unum, idest, unum nomen voco, non propter unitatem vocis, sed significationis, ut supra dictum est. Deinde tertio, dividendo declarat, et declarando dividit, quot modis contingit unum nomen imponi pluribus ex quibus non fit unum, ut ex hoc diversitatem enunciationis multiplicis insinuet. Et ponit duos modos, quorum prior est, quando unum nomen imponitur pluribus ex quibus fit unum, non tamen in quantum ex eis fit unum. Tunc enim, licet materialiter et per accidens loquendo nomen imponatur pluribus ex quibus fit unum, formaliter tamen et per se loquendo nomen unum imponitur pluribus, ex quibus non fit unum: quia imponitur eis non in quantum ex eis est unum, ut fortasse est hoc nomen, homo, impositum ad significandum animal et mansuetum et bipes, idest, partes suae definitionis, non in quantum adunantur in unam hominis naturam per modum actus et potentiae, sed ut distinctae sint inter se actualitates. Et insinuavit quod accipit partes definitionis ut distinctas per illam coniunctionem, et per illud quoque adversative additum: sed si ex his unum fit, quasi diceret, cum hoc tamen stat quod ex eis unum fit. Secondly, he clarifies the term “one,” when he says, I do not use “one” of those things, etc., i.e., I call a name one, not by reason of the unity of vocal sound, but of signification, as was said above. Thirdly, he manifests (by dividing) and divides (by manifesting) the number of ways in which one name may be imposed on many things from which one thing is not constituted. From this he implies the diversity of the multiple enunciation. And he posits two ways in which one name may be imposed on many things from which one thing is not constituted: first, when one name is imposed upon many things from which one thing is constituted but not as one thing is constituted from them. In this case, materially and accidentally speaking, the name is imposed on many from which one thing is constituted, but it is formally and per se imposed on many from which one thing is not constituted; for it is not imposed upon them in the respect in which they constitute one thing; as perhaps the name “man” is imposed to signify animal and civilized and biped (i.e., parts of its definition) not as they are united in the one nature of man in the mode of act and potency, but as they are themselves distinct actualities. Aristotle implies that he is taking these parts of the definition as distinct by the conjunctions and by also adding adversatively, but if there is something one formed from these,6 as if to say, “when however it holds that one thing is constituted from these.”
Addidit autem, fortasse, quia hoc nomen, homo, non est impositum ad significandum partes sui definitivas, ut distinctae sunt. Sed si impositum esset aut imponeretur, esset unum nomen pluribus impositum ex quibus non fit unum. Et quia idem iudicium est de tali nomine, et illis pluribus; ideo similiter illae plures partes definitivae possunt dupliciter accipi. Uno modo, per modum actualis et possibilis, et sic unum faciunt; et sic formaliter loquendo vocantur plura, ex quibus fit unum, et pronunciandae sunt continuata oratione, et faciunt enunciationem unam dicendo, animal rationale mortale currit. Est enim ista una sicut et ista, homo currit. Alio modo, accipiuntur praedictae definitionis partes ut distinctae sunt inter se actualitates, et sic non faciunt unum: ex duobus enim actibus ut sic, non fit unum, ut dicitur VII metaphysicae; et sic faciunt enunciationes plures et pronunciandae sunt vel cum pausa, vel coniunctione interposita, dicendo, homo est animal et mansuetum et bipes; sive, homo est animal, mansuetum, bipes, rhetorico more. Quaelibet enim istarum est enunciatio multiplex. Et similiter ista, Socrates est homo, si homo est impositum ad illa, ut distinctae actualitates sunt, significandum. He adds perhaps because the name “man” is not imposed to signify its definitive parts as they are distinct. But if it had been so imposed or were imposed, it would be one name imposed on many things from which no one thing is constituted. And since the judgment with respect to such a name and those many things is the same, the many definitive parts can also be taken in two ways: first, in the mode of the actual and possible, and thus they constitute one thing, and formally speaking are called many from which one thing is constituted, and they are to be pronounced in continuous speech and they make one enunciation, for example, “A mortal rational animal is running.” For this is one enunciation, just as is “Man is running.” In the second way, the foresaid parts of the definition are taken as they are distinct actualities, and thus they do not constitute one thing, for one thing is not constituted from two acts as such, as Aristotle says in VII Metaphysicae [13: 1039a 5]. In this case they constitute many enunciations and are pronounced either with conjunctions interposed or with a pause in the rhetorical manner, for example, “Man is an animal and civilized and biped” or “Man is an animal–civilized–biped.” Each of these is a multiple enunciation. And so is the enunciation, “Socrates is a man” if “man” is imposed to signify animal, civilized, and biped as they are distinct actualities.
Secundus autem modus, quo unum nomen impositum est pluribus ex quibus non fit unum, subiungitur, cum dicit: ex albo autem et homine et ambulante etc., idest, alio modo hoc fit, quando unum nomen imponitur pluribus, ex quibus non potest fieri unum, qualia sunt: homo, album, et ambulans. Cum enim ex his nullo modo possit fieri aliqua una natura, sicut poterat fieri ex partibus definitivis, clare liquet quod nomen aliquod si eis imponeretur, esset nomen non unum significans, ut in primo dictum fuit de hoc nomine, tunica, imposito homini et equo. Aristotle takes up the second way in which one name is imposed on many from which one thing is not constituted where he says, whereas from “white” and “man” and “walking” there is not [something one formed]. Since in no way can any one nature be constituted from “man,” white,” and “walking” (as there can be from the definitive parts), it is evident that if a name were imposed on these it would be a name that does not signify one thing, as was said in the first book of the name “cloak” imposed for man and horse.
Habemus ergo enunciationis pluris seu multiplicis duos modos, quorum, quia uterque fit dupliciter, efficiuntur quatuor modi. Primus est, quando subiicitur vel praedicatur unum nomen impositum pluribus, ex quibus fit unum, non in quantum sunt unum; secundus est, quando ipsa plura ex quibus fit unum, in quantum sunt distinctae actualitates, subiiciuntur vel praedicantur; tertius est, quando ibi est unum nomen impositum pluribus ex quibus non fit unum; quartus est, quando ista plura ex quibus non fit unum, subiiciuntur vel praedicantur. Et notato quod cum enunciatio secundum membra divisionis illius, qua divisa est, in unam et plures, quadrupliciter variari possit, scilicet cum unum de uno praedicatur, vel unum de pluribus, vel plura de uno, vel plura de pluribus; postremum sub silentio praeterivit, quia vel eius pluralitas de se clara est, vel quia, ut inquit Albertus, non intendebat nisi de enunciatione, quae aliquo modo una est, tractare. 4. We have, therefore, two modes of the many (i.e., the multiple enunciation) and since both are constituted in two ways, there will be four modes: first, when one name imposed on many from which one thing is constituted is subjected or predicated as though the name stands for many; the second, when the many from one which one thing is constituted are subjected or predicated as distinct actualities; the third, when one name is imposed for a many from which nothing one is constituted; the fourth, when many which do not constitute one thing are subjected or predicated. Note that the enunciation, according to the members of the division by which it has been divided into one and many, can be varied in four ways, i.e., one is predicated of one, one of many, many of one, and many of many. Aristotle has not spoken of the last one, either because its plurality is clear enough or because, as Albert says, he only intends to treat of the enunciation which is one in some way.
Demum concludit totam sententiam, dicens: quare nec si aliquis affirmet unum de his pluribus, erit affirmatio una secundum rem: sed vocaliter quidem erit una, significative autem non una, sed multae fient affirmationes. Nec si e converso de uno ista plura affirmabuntur, fiet affirmatio una. Ista namque, homo est albus, ambulans et musicus, importat tres affirmationes, scilicet, homo est albus et est ambulans et est musicus, ut patet ex illius contradictione. Triplex enim negatio illi opponitur correspondens triplici affirmationi positae. Finally [fourthly], he concludes with this summary: Consequently, if someone affirms something one of these latter there will not be one affirmation according to the thing: vocally it will be one; significatively, it will not be one, but many. And conversely, if the many are affirmed of one subject, there will not be one affirmation. For example, “Man is white, walking, and musical” implies three affirmations, i.e., “Man is white” and “is walking” and “is musical,” as is clear from its contradiction, for a threefold negation is opposed to it, corresponding to the threefold affirmation.
Deinde cum dicit: si ergo dialectica etc., probat a posteriori supradictas enunciationes esse plures. Circa quod duo facit: primo, ponit rationem ipsam ad hoc probandum per modum consequentiae; deinde probat antecedens dictae consequentiae; ibi: dictum est autem de his et cetera. Quoad primum talem rationem inducit. 5. Then when he says, In fact, if dialectical interrogation is a request for an answer, etc., he proves a posteriori that the foresaid enunciations are many. First he states an argument to prove this by way of the consequent; then he proves the antecedent of the given consequent where he says, But we have spoken about these things in the Topics, etc.
Si interrogatio dialectica est petitio responsionis, quae sit propositio vel altera pars contradictionis, nulli enunciationum supradictarum interrogative formatae erit responsio una; ergo nec ipsa interrogatio est una, sed plures. Cuius rationis primo ponit antecedens: si ergo et cetera. Ad huius intelligendos terminos nota quod idem sonant enunciatio, interrogatio et responsio. Cum enim dicitur, caelum est animatum, in quantum enunciat praedicatum de subiecto, enunciatio vocatur; in quantum autem quaerendo proponitur, interrogatio; ut vero quaesito redditur, responsio appellatur. Idem ergo erit probare non esse responsionem unam, et interrogationem non esse unam, et enunciationem non esse unam. Now if dialectical questioning is a request for an answer, either a proposition or one part of a contradiction, none of the foresaid enunciations, put in the form of a question, will have one answer. Therefore, the question is not one, but many. Aristotle first states the antecedent of the argument, if dialectical interrogation is a request for an answer, etc. To understand this it should be noted that an enunciation, a question, and an answer sound the same. For when we say, “The region of heaven is animated,” we call it an enunciation inasmuch as it enunciates a predicate of a subject, but when it is proposed to obtain an answer we call it an interrogation, and as applied to what was asked we call it a response. Therefore, to prove that there is not one response or one question or one enunciation will be the same thing.
Adverte secundo interrogationem esse duplicem. Quaedam enim est utram partem contradictionis eligendam proponens; et haec vocatur dialectica, quia dialecticus habet viam ex probabilibus ad utramque contradictionis partem probandam. Altera vero determinatam ad unum responsionem exoptat; et haec est interrogatio demonstrativa, eo quod demonstrator in unum determinate tendit. It should also be noted that interrogation is twofold. One proposes either of the two parts of a contradiction to choose from. This is called dialectical interrogation because the dialectician knows the way to prove either part of a contradiction from probable positions. The other kind of interrogation seeks one determinate response. This is the demonstrative interrogation, for the demonstrator proceeds determinately toward a single alternative.
Considera ulterius quod interrogationi dialecticae dupliciter responderi potest. Uno modo, consentiendo interrogationi, sive affirmative sive negative; ut si quis petat, caelum est animatum? Et respondeatur, est; vel, Deus non movetur? Et respondeatur, non: talis responsio vocatur propositio. Note, finally, that it is possible to reply to a dialectical question in two ways. We may consent to the question, either affirmatively or negatively; for example, when someone asks, “Is the region of heaven animated,” we may respond, “It is,” or to the question “Is not God moved,” we may say, “No.” Such a response is called a proposition.
Alio modo, potest responderi interimendo; ut si quis petat, caelum est animatum? Et respondeatur, non; vel Deus non movetur? Et respondeatur, movetur: talis responsio vocatur contradictionis altera pars, eo quod affirmationi negatio redditur et negationi affirmatio. The second way of replying is by destroying; for example, when someone asks “Is the region of heaven animated?” and we respond, “No,” or to the question, “Is not God moved?” we respond, “He is moved.” Such a response is called the other part of a contradiction, because a negation is given to an affirmation and an affirmation to a negation.
Interrogatio ergo dialectica est petitio annuentis responsionis, quae est propositio, vel contradicentis, quae est altera pars contradictionis secundum supradictam Boethii expositionem. Dialectical interrogation, then, according to the exposition just given, which is that of Boethius, is a request for the admission of a response which is a proposition, or which is one part of a contradiction.
Deinde subdit probationem consequentiae, cum ait: propositio vero unius contradictionis est et cetera. Ubi notandum est quod si responsio dialectica posset esse plures, non sequeretur quod responsio enunciationis multiplicis non posset esse dialectica; sed si responsio dialectica non potest esse nisi una enunciatio, tunc recte sequitur quod responsio enunciationis pluris, non est responsio dialectica, quae una est. 6. He adds the proof of the consequent when he says, and a proposition is a part of one contradiction. In relation to this it should be noted that if a dialectical response could be many, it would not follow that a response to a multiple enunciation would not be dialectical. However, if the dialectical response can only be one enunciation then it follows that a response to a plural enunciation is not a dialectical response, for it is one [i.e., it inclines to one part of a contradiction at a time].
Notandum etiam quod si enunciatio aliqua plurium contradictionum pars est, una non esse comprobatur: una enim uni tantum contradicit. Si autem unius solum contradictionis pars est, una est eadem ratione, quia scilicet unius affirmationis unica est negatio, et e converso. It should also be noted that if an enunciation is a part of many contradictions, it is thereby proven not to be one, for one contradicts only one. But if an enunciation is a part of only one contradiction, it is one by the same reasoning, i.e., because there is only one negation of one affirmation, and conversely.
Probat ergo Aristoteles consequentiam ex eo quod propositio, idest responsio dialectica unius contradictionis est, idest una enunciatio est affirmativa vel negativa. Ex hoc enim, ut iam dictum est, sequitur quod nullius enunciationis multiplicis sit responsio dialectica, et consequenter nec una responsio sit. Hence Aristotle proves the consequent from the fact that the proposition, i.e., the dialectical response, is a part of one contradiction, i.e., it is one affirmative or one negative enunciation. It follows from this, as has been said, that there is no dialectical response of a multiple enunciation, and consequently not one response.
Nec praetereas quod cum propositionem, vel alteram partem contradictionis, responsionemque praeposuerit dialecticae interrogationis, de sola propositione subiunxit, quod est una; quod ideo fecit, quia illius alterius vocabulum ipsum unitatem praeferebat. Cum enim alteram contradictionis partem audis, unam affirmationem vel negationem statim intelligis. It should not be overlooked that when he designates a proposition or one part of a contradiction as the response to a dialectical interrogation, it is only of the proposition that he adds that it is one, because the very wording shows the unity of the other. For when you hear one part of a contradiction, you immediately understand one affirmation or negation.
Adiunxit autem antecedenti ly ergo, vel insinuans hoc esse aliunde sumptum, ut postmodum in speciali explicabit, vel, permutato situ, notam consequentiae huius inter antecedens et consequens locandam, antecedenti praeposuit; sicut si diceretur, si ergo Socrates currit, movetur; pro eo quod dici deberet, si Socrates currit, ergo movetur. He puts the “therefore” with the antecedent, either implying that this is taken from another place and he will explain in particular afterward, or having changed the structure, he places the sign of the consequent, which should be between the antecedent and consequent before the antecedent, as when one says, “Therefore if Socrates runs, he is moved,” for “If Socrates runs, therefore he is moved.”
Sequitur deinde consequens: non erit una responsio ad hoc; et infert principalem conclusionem subdens, quod neque una erit interrogatio et cetera. Si enim responsio non potest esse una, nec interrogatio ipsa una erit. Then the consequent follows: there will not be one answer to this, etc.; and the inference of the principal conclusion, for there would not be a single question. For if the response cannot be one, the question will not be one.
Quod autem addidit: nec si sit vera, eiusmodi est. Posset aliquis credere, quod licet interrogationi pluri non possit dari responsio una, quando id de quo quaestio fit non potest de omnibus illis pluribus affirmari vel negari (ut cum quaeritur, canis est animal? Quia non potest vere de omnibus responderi, est, propter caeleste sidus, nec vere de omnibus responderi, non est, propter canem latrabilem, nulla possit dari responsio una); attamen quando id quod sub interrogatione cadit potest vere de omnibus affirmari aut negari, tunc potest dari responsio una; ut si quaeratur, canis est substantia? Quia potest vere de omnibus responderi, est, quia esse substantiam omnibus canibus convenit, unica responsio dari possit. Hanc erroneam existimationem removet dicens: nec si sit vera, idest, et dato quod responsio data enunciationi multiplici de omnibus verificetur, nihilominus non est una, quia unum non significat, nec unius contradictionis est pars, sed plures responsio illa habet contradictorias, ut de se patet. 7. He adds, even if there is a true answer, because someone might think that although one response cannot be given to a plural interrogation when the question concerns something that cannot be affirmed or denied of all of the many (for example, when someone asks, “Is a dog an animal?” no one response can be given, for we cannot truly say of every dog that it is an animal because of the star by that name; nor can we truly say of every dog that it is not an animal, because of the barking dog), nevertheless one response could be given when that which falls tinder the interrogation can be truly said of all. For example, when someone asks, “Is a dog a substance?” a single response can be given because it can truly he said of every dog that it is a substance, for to be a substance belongs to all dogs. Aristotle adds the phrase, even if there is a true answer, to remove such an erroneous judgment. For even if the response to the multiple enunciation is verified of all, it is nonetheless not one, since it does not signify one thing, nor is it a part of one contradiction. Rather, as is evident, this response has many contradictories.
Deinde cum dicit: dictum est autem de his in Topicis etc., probat antecedens dupliciter: primo, auctoritate eorum quae dicta sunt in Topicis; secundo, a signo. 8. Where he says, But we have spoken about these things in the Topics, etc., he proves the antecedent in two ways. First, he proves it on the basis of what was said in the Topics; secondly, by a sign.
Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo, ponit ipsum signum, dicens: quod similiter etc., cum auctoritate topicorum, manifestum est, scilicet, antecedens assumptum, scilicet quod dialectica interrogatio est petitio responsionis affirmativae vel negativae. Quoniam nec ipsum quid est, idest ex eo quod nec ipsa quaestio quid est, est interrogatio dialectica: verbi gratia; si quis quaerat, quid est animal? Talis non quaerit dialectice. The sign is given first where he says, Similarly it is clear that the question “What is it?” is not a dialectical one, etc. That is, given the doctrine in the Topics, it is clear (i.e., assuming the antecedent that the dialectical interrogation is a request for an affirmative or negative response) that the question “What is it?” is not a dialectical interrogation, e.g., when someone asks, “What is an animal?” he does not interrogate dialectically.
Deinde subiungit probationem assumpti, scilicet quod ipsum quid est, non est quaestio dialectica; et intendit quod quia interrogatio dialectica optionem respondenti offerre debet, utram velit contradictionis partem, et ipsa quaestio quid est talem libertatem non proponit (quia cum dicimus, quid est animal? Respondentem ad definitionis assignationem coarctamus, quae non solum ad unum determinata est, sed etiam omni parte contradictionis caret, cum nec esse, nec non esse dicat); ideo ipsa quaestio quid est, non est dialectica interrogatio. Unde dicit: oportet enim ex data, idest ex proposita interrogatione dialectica, hunc respondentem eligere posse utram velit contradictionis partem, quam contradictionis utramque partem interrogantem oportet determinare, idest determinate proponere, hoc modo: utrum hoc animal sit homo an non: ubi evidenter apparet optionem respondenti offerri. Habes ergo pro signo cum quaestio dialectica petat responsionem propositionis, vel alterius contradictionis partem, elongationem quaestionis quid est a quaestionibus dialecticis. Secondly, he gives the proof of what was assumed, namely, that the question “What is it?” is not a dialectical question. He states that a dialectical interrogation must offer to the one responding the option of whichever part of the contradiction he wishes. The question “What is it?” does not offer such liberty, for in saying “What is an animal?” the one responding is forced to assign a definition, and a definition is not only determined to one but is also entirely devoid of contradiction, since it affirms neither being nor non-being. Therefore, the question “What is it?” is not a dialectical interrogation. Whence he says, For the dialectical interrogation must provide, i.e., from the proposed dialectical interrogation the one responding must be able to choose whichever part of the contradiction he wishes, which parts of the contradiction the interrogator must specify, i.e., he must propose the question in this way: “Is this animal man or not?” wherein the wording of the question clearly offers an option to the one answering. Therefore, you have as a sign that a dialectical question is seeking a response of a proposition or of one part of a contradiction, the setting apart of the question “What is it?” from dialectical questions.

LESSON 6

Some Predicates Said Divisively of a Subject Can Be Said Conjointly, Others Not

Ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ μὲν κατηγορεῖται συντιθέμενα, ὡς ἓν τὸ πᾶν κατηγόρημα τῶν χωρὶς κατηγορουμένων, τὰ δὲ οὔ, τίς ἡ διαφορά; κατὰ γὰρ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν καὶ χωρὶς ζῷον καὶ χωρὶς δίπουν, καὶ ὡς ἕν, καὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ λευκόν, καὶ ταῦθ' ὡς ἕν ἀλλ' οὐχί, εἰ σκυτεὺς καὶ ἀγαθός, καὶ σκυτεὺς ἀγαθός. 20b 31 Some things predicated separately are such that they unite to form one predicate; others, however, do not. What, then, is the difference? For it is true to say separately of man that he is an animal and that he is biped, and it is also true to say these as one. It is also true to say “man” and “white” separately of him and to say these as one. But if a man is a shoemaker and also good, it is not true to say that he is a good shoemaker.
εἰ γάρ, ὅτι ἑκάτερον, καὶ τὸ συνάμφω, πολλὰ καὶ ἄτοπα ἔσται. κατὰ γὰρ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τὸ ἄνθρωπος ἀληθὲς καὶ τὸ λευκόν, ὥστε καὶ τὸ ἅπαν πάλιν εἰ τὸ λευκόν, καὶ τὸ ἅπαν, ὥστε ἔσται ἄνθρωπος λευκὸς λευκός, καὶ τοῦτο εἰς ἄπειρον καὶ πάλιν (21a.) μουσικὸς λευκὸς βαδίζων, καὶ ταῦτα πολλάκις πεπλεγμένα. ἔτι εἰ ὁ Σωκράτης Σωκράτης καὶ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ Σωκράτης ἄνθρωπος, καὶ εἰ ἄνθρωπος καὶ δίπους, καὶ ἄνθρωπος δίπους. 20b 36 For if we hold that whenever each is truly said of a subject, both together must also be true, many absurdities will follow. For example, it is true to say of man that he is man and that he is white; therefore these two taken together can also be truly said of him; again, if it is true to say that he is white and that he is also the two combined predicates above, he will be white white man; and so to infinity. Or, again, “musical,” “white,” and “walking” may be truly said of man; and these combined many times. Furthermore, if Socrates is Socrates and a man, Socrates is a Socrates man; and if he is man and biped, he is a biped man.
Ὅτι μὲν οὖν, εἴ τις ἁπλῶς θήσει τὰς συμπλοκὰς γίγνεσθαι, πολλὰ συμβαίνει λέγειν ἄτοπα, δῆλον ὅπως δὲ θετέον, λέγομεν νῦν. It is clear, therefore, that if anyone says these combinations can always be made simply, many absurd things follow. Now we will state how this must be resolved.
τῶν δὴ κατηγορουμένων, καὶ ἐφ' οἷς κατηγορεῖσθαι συμβαίνει, ὅσα μὲν λέγεται κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἢ κατὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἢ θάτερον κατὰ θατέρου, ταῦτα οὐκ ἔσται ἕν οἷον ἄνθρωπος λευκός ἐστι καὶ μουσικός, ἀλλ' οὐχ ἓν τὸ λευκὸν καὶ τὸ μουσικόν συμβεβηκότα γὰρ ἄμφω τῷ αὐτῷ. οὐδ' εἰ τὸ λευκὸν μουσικὸν ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, ὅμως οὐκ ἔσται τὸ μουσικὸν λευκὸν ἕν τι κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς γὰρ τὸ μουσικὸν λευκόν, ὥστε οὐκ ἔσται τὸ λευκὸν μουσικόν. 21a 7 Those things that are predicated—taken in relation to that to which they are joined in predication—which are said accidentally, either of the same subject or one another, will not be one. For example, man is white and musical; but whiteness and being musical are not one, for both are accidental to the same thing. Even if it were true to say that whatever is white is musical, musical and white will not be one thing, for that which is musical is white accidentally; consequently, that which is white will not be musical.
διὸ οὐδ' ὁ σκυτεὺς ἁπλῶς ἀγαθός, ἀλλὰ ζῷον δίπουν οὐ γὰρ κατὰ συμβεβηκός. 21a 14 This is the reason “good” and “shoemaker” cannot be combined simply; but “biped” and “animal” can, for these are not accidental.
ἔτι οὐδ' ὅσα ἐνυπάρχει ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ διὸ οὔτε τὸ λευκὸν πολλάκις οὔτε ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος ζῷον ἢ δίπουν ἐνυπάρχει γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ δίπουν καὶ τὸ ζῷον. 21a 16 Furthermore, predicates that are present in one another cannot be combined simply. This is the reason we cannot combine “white” many times, nor is “man” an “animal-man,” or a “biped-man,” for the notion man includes both biped and animal.
Postquam declaravit diversitatem multiplicis enunciationis, intendit determinare de earum consequentiis. Et circa hoc duo facit, secundum duas dubitationes quas solvit. Secunda incipit; ibi: verum autem est dicere et cetera. 1. Having explained the diversity of the multiple enunciation Aristotle now proposes to determine the consequences of this. He treats this in relation to two questions which he solves. The second begins where he says, On the other hand, it is also true to say predicates of something singly, etc.
Circa primum tria facit: primo, proponit quaestionem; secundo, ostendit rationabilitatem quaestionis; ibi: si enim quoniam etc.; tertio, solvit eam; ibi: eorum igitur et cetera. With respect to the other question, first he proposes it, then he shows that the question is a reasonable one where he says, For if we hold that whenever each is truly said of a subject, both together must also be true, many absurdities will follow, etc. Finally, he solves it where he says, Those things that are predicated—taken in relation to that to which they are joined in predication, etc.
Est ergo dubitatio prima: quare ex aliquibus divisim praedicatis de uno sequitur enunciatio, in qua illamet unita praedicantur de eodem, et ex aliquibus non. Unde haec diversitas oritur? Verbi gratia; ex istis, Socrates est animal et est bipes; sequitur, ergo Socrates est animal bipes; et similiter ex istis, Socrates est homo et est albus; sequitur, ergo Socrates est homo albus. Ex illis vero, Socrates est bonus, et est citharoedus; non sequitur, ergo est bonus citharoedus. Unde proponens quaestionem inquit: quoniam vero haec, scilicet praedicta, ita praedicantur composita, idest coniuncta, ut unum sit praedicamentum quae extra praedicantur, idest, ut ex eis extra praedicatis unite fiat praedicatio, alia vero praedicata non sunt talia, quae est inter differentia; unde talis innascitur diversitas? The first question is this: Why is it that from some things predicated divisively of a subject an enunciation follows in which they are predicated of the same subject unitedly, and from others not? What is the reason for this diversity? For example, from “Socrates is an animal and he is biped” follows, “Therefore, Socrates is a biped animal”; and similarly, from “Socrates is a man and he is white” follows, “Therefore, Socrates is a white man.” But from “Socrates is good and he is a lute player,” the enunciation, “Therefore, he is a good lute player” does not follow. Hence in proposing the question Aristotle says, Some things, i.e., predicates, are so predicated when combined, that there is one predicate from what is predicated separately, i.e., from some things that are predicated separately, a united predication is made but from others this is riot so. What is the difference between these; whence does such a diversity arise?
Et subdit exempla iam adducta, et ad propositum applicata: quorum primum continet praedicata ex quibus fit unum per se, scilicet, animal et bipes, genus et differentia; secundum autem praedicata ex quibus fit unum per accidens, scilicet, homo albus; tertium vero praedicata ex quibus neque unum per se neque unum per accidens inter se fieri sequitur; ut, citharoedus et bonus, ut declarabitur. He adds the examples which we have already cited and applied to the question. Of these examples, the first contains predicates from which something one per se is formed, i.e., “animal” and “biped,” a genus and difference; the second contains predicates from which something accidentally one is formed, namely, “white man”; the third contains predicates from which neither one per se nor one accidentally is formed, “lute player” and “good,” as will be explained.
Deinde cum dicit: si enim quoniam etc., declarat veritatem diversitatis positae, ex qua rationabilis redditur quaestio: si namque inter praedicata non esset talis diversitas, irrationabilis esset dubitatio. Ostendit autem hoc ratione ducente ad inconveniens, nugationem scilicet. 2. When he says, For if we hold that whenever each is truly said of a subject, both together must also be true, etc., he shows that there truly is such a diversity among predicates and in so doing renders the question reasonable, for if there were not such a diversity among predicates the question would be pointless. He shows this by reasoning leading to an absurdity, i.e., to something nugatory.
Et quia nugatio duobus modis committitur, scilicet explicite et implicite; ideo primo deducit ad nugationem explicitam, secundo ad implicitam; ibi: amplius, si Socrates et cetera. Now, something nugatory is effected in two ways, explicitly and implicitly. Therefore, he first makes a deduction to the explicitly nugatory, secondly to the implicitly, where he says, Furthermore, if Socrates is Socrates and a man, Socrates is a Socrates man, etc.
Ait ergo quod si nulla est inter quaecumque praedicata differentia, sed de quolibet indifferenter censetur quod quia alterutrum separatum dicitur, quod utrumque coniunctim dicatur, multa inconvenientia sequentur. De aliquo enim homine, puta Socrate, verum est separatim dicere quod, homo est, et albus est; quare et omne, idest et coniunctim dicetur, Socrates est homo albus. Rursus et de eodem Socrate potest dici separatim quod, est homo albus, et quod, est albus; quare et omne, idest, igitur coniunctim dicetur, Socrates est homo albus albus: ubi manifesta est nugatio. Rursus si de eodem Socrate iterum dicas separatim quod, est homo albus albus, verum dices et congrue quod est albus, et secundum hoc, si iterum hoc repetes separatim, a veritate simili non discedes, et sic in infinitum sequetur, Socrates est homo albus, albus, albus in infinitum. If, he says, there is no difference between predicates, and it is supposed of any of them indifferently that because both are said separately both may he said conjointly, many absurdities will follow. For of some man, say Socrates, it is true to say separately that he is a man and he is white; therefore both -together, i.e., we may also say conjointly, “Socrates is a white man.” Again, of the same Socrates we can say separately that he is a white man and that he is white, and both together, i.e., therefore conjointly, “Socrates is a white white man.” Here the nugatory expression is evident. Further, if of the same Socrates that you again say separately is a white white man it will be true and consistent to say that he is white, and according to this, if again repeating this separately, you will not deviate from a similar truth, and this will follow to infinity, then Socrates is a white white white man to infinity.
Simile quod ostenditur in alio exemplo. Si quis de Socrate dicat quod, est musicus, albus, ambulans, cum possit et separatim dicere quod, est musicus, et quod, est albus, et quod, est ambulans; sequetur, Socrates est musicus, albus, ambulans, musicus, albus, ambulans. Et quia pluries separatim, in eodem tamen tempore, enunciari potest, procedit nugatio sine fine. The same thing can be shown by another example, If someone says of Socrates that he is musical, white, and walking, since it is also possible to say separately that he is musical, and that he is white, and that he is walking, it will follow that Socrates is musical, white, walking, musical, white, walking. And since these can be enunciated many times separately, yet at the same time, the nugatory statement proceeds without end.
Deinde deducit ad implicitam nugationem, dicens, cum de Socrate vere dici possit separatim quod, est homo, et quod, est bipes, si coniunctim inferre licet, sequetur quod, Socrates sit homo bipes. Ubi est implicita nugatio. Bipes enim circumloquens differentiam hominis actu et intellectu clauditur in hominis ratione. Unde ponendo loco hominis suam rationem (quod fieri licet, ut docet Aristoteles II topicorum), apparebit manifeste nugatio. Dicetur enim: Socrates est homo, idest, animal bipes, bipes. Quoniam ergo plurima inconvenientia sequuntur si quis ponat complexiones, idest, adunationes praedicatorum fieri simpliciter, idest, absque diversitate aliqua, manifestum est ex dictis; quomodo autem faciendum est, nunc, idest, in sequentibus dicemus. Then he makes a deduction to the implicitly nugatory. Since it can be truly said of Socrates separately that he is man and that he is biped, it will follow that Socrates is a biped man, if it is licit to infer conjointly. This is implicitly nugatory because the “biped,” which indirectly expresses the difference of man in act and in understanding, is included in the notion of man. Hence, if we posit the definition of man in place of “man” (which it is licit to do, as Aristotle teaches in II Topicorum [2: 110a 5]) the nugatory character of the enunciation will be evident, for when we say “Socrates is a biped man,” we are saying “Socrates is a biped biped animal.” From what has been said it is evident that many absurdities follow if anyone proposes that combinations, i.e., unions of predicates, be made simply, i.e., without any distinction.
Et nota quod iste textus non habetur uniformiter apud omnes quoad verba, sed quia sententia non discrepat, legat quicunque ut vult. Now, i.e., in what follows, we will state how this must be settled. This particular text is not uniformly worded in the manuscripts, but since no discrepancy of thought is involved one may read it as he wishes.
Deinde cum dicit: eorum igitur etc., solvit propositam quaestionem. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, respondet instantiis in ipsa propositione quaestionis adductis; secundo, satisfacit instantiis in probatione positis; ibi: amplius nec quaecumque et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo namque, declarat veritatem; secundo, applicat ad propositas instantias; ibi: quocirca et cetera. 3. When he says, Those things that are predicated—taken in relation to that to which they are joined in predication, etc., he solves the proposed question. First he makes an answer with respect to the instances cited in proposing the question; secondly, he solves the problem as related to the instances posited in his proof where he says, Furthermore, predicates that are present in one another cannot be combined simply. In relation to the first answer, he states the true position first and then applies it to the instances where he says, This is the reason “good” and “shoemaker” cannot be combined simply, etc.
Determinat ergo dubitationem tali distinctione. Praedicatorum sive subiectorum plurium duo sunt genera: quaedam sunt per accidens, quaedam per se. Si per accidens, hoc dupliciter contingit, vel quia ambo dicuntur per accidens de uno tertio, vel quia alterum de altero mutuo per accidens praedicatur. Quando illa plura divisim praedicata sunt per accidens quovis modo, ex eis non sequitur coniunctim praedicatum; quando autem sunt per se, tum ex eis sequitur coniuncte praedicatum. Unde continuando se ad praecedentia ait: eorum igitur quae praedicantur, et de quibus praedicantur, idest subiectorum, quaecumque dicuntur secundum accidens (et per hoc innuit oppositum membrum, scilicet per se), vel de eodem, idest accidentaliter concurrunt ad unius tertii denominationem, vel alterutrum de altero, idest accidentaliter mutuo se denominant (et per hoc ponit membra duplicis divisionis), haec, scilicet plura per accidens, non erunt unum, idest non inferent praedicationem coniunctam. He settles the question with this distinction: there are two kinds of multiple predicates and subjects. Some are accidental, some per se. If they are accidental this occurs in two ways, either because both are said accidentally of a third thing or because they are predicated of each other accidentally. Now when the many predicated divisively are in any way accidental, a conjoined predicate does not follow from them; but when they are per se, a conjoined predicate does follow from them. In answering the question, therefore, Aristotle connects what he is saying with what has gone before: Of those things that are predicated and those of which they are predicated, i.e., subjects, whichever are said accidentally (by which he intimates the opposite member, i.e., per se), either of the same subject, i.e., they unite accidentally for the denomination of one third thing, or of one another, i.e., they denominate each other accidentally (and by this he posits the members of a two-fold division), these (i.e., these many accidentally) will not be one, i.e., do not produce a conjoined predication.
Et explanat utrumque horum exemplariter. Et primo, primum, quando scilicet illa plura per accidens dicuntur de tertio, dicens: ut si homo albus est et musicus divisim. Sed non est idem, idest non sequitur adunatim, ergo homo est musicus albus. Utraque enim sunt accidentia eidem tertio. 4. He explains both of these by examples. First, the many said accidentally of a third; for example, man is white and musical divisively. But they are not the same, i.e., it does not follow unitedly that “Man is musical white” for both are accidental to the same third thing.
Deinde explanat secundum, quando solum illa plura per accidens de se mutuo praedicantur, subdens: nec si album musicum verum est dicere, idest, et etiamsi de se invicem ista praedicantur per accidens ratione subiecti in quo uniuntur, ut dicatur, homo est albus, et est musicus, et album est musicum, non tamen sequitur quod album musicum unite praedicetur, dicendo, ergo homo est albus musicus. Et causam assignat, quia album dicitur de musico per accidens, et e converso. Then he explains the second member by an example. In it the many are predicated only of one another. Even if it were true to say white is musical, i.e., even if these are predicated accidentally of each other by reason of the subject in which they are united, so that we may say “Man is white and he is musical, and white is musical,” it still does not follow that “musical white” is predicated as a unity when we say, “Therefore, man is musical white.” He gives as the cause of this that “white” is said of “musical” accidentally and conversely.
Notandum est hic quod cum duo membra per accidens enumerasset, unico tamen exemplo utrumque membrum explanavit, ut insinuaret quod distinctio illa non erat in diversa praedicata per accidens, sed in eadem diversimode comparata; album enim et musicum, comparata ad hominem, sub primo cadunt membro; comparata autem inter se, sub secundo. Diversitatem ergo comparationis pluralitate membrorum, identitatem autem praedicatorum unitate exempli astruxit. 5. It must be noted here that although he has enumerated two accidental members, he explains both members by this single example so as to imply that the distinction is not one of different accidental predicates, but of the same predicates compared in different ways. “White” and “musical” compared to “man” fall under the first member, but compared with each other, under the second. Hence he has provided diversity of comparison by the plurality of the members, but identity of predicates by the unity of the example.
Advertendum est ulterius, ad evidentiam divisionis factae in littera, quod, secundum accidens, potest dupliciter accipi. 6. To make this division evident it must also be noted that accidentally can be taken in two ways.
Uno modo, ut distinguitur contra perseitatem posterioristicam, et sic non sumitur hic: quoniam cum dicitur plura praedicata secundum accidens, aut ly secundum accidens determinaret coniunctionem inter se, et sic manifeste esset falsa regula; quoniam inter prima praedicata, animal bipes, seu, animal rationale, est praedicatio secundum accidens hoc modo (differentia enim in nullo modo perseitatis praedicatur de genere, et tamen Aristoteles in textu dicit ea non esse praedicata per accidens, et asserit quod est optima illatio, est animal et bipes, ergo est animal bipes); aut determinaret coniunctionem illarum ad subiectum, et sic etiam inveniretur falsitas in regula: bene namque dicitur, paries est coloratus, et est visibilis, et tamen coloratum visibile non per se inest parieti. It may be taken as it is distinguished from “posterioristic perseity.” This is not the way it is taken here, for “many predicates accidentally” would then mean that the “accidentally” determines a conjunction between predicates, and thus the rule would clearly be false, for the first predicates he gave as examples are predicated accidentally in this way, namely, “biped animal,” or “rational animal” (for a difference is not predicated of a genus in any mode of perseity, and yet Aristotle says in the text that these are not predicated accidentally, and has asserted that “He is an animal and biped, therefore he is a biped animal” is a good inference). Or it would mean that the “accidentally” determines a conjunction of the predicates with the subject, and thus also the rule would be false, for it is valid to say, “The wall is colored and it is visible,” yet visible colored is not per se in the wall.
Alio modo, accipitur ly secundum accidens, ut distinguitur contra hoc quod dico, ratione sui, seu, non propter aliud, et sic idem sonat, quod, per aliud: et hoc modo accipitur hic. Quaecunque enim sunt talis naturae quod non ratione sui iunguntur, sed propter aliud, ab illatione coniuncta deficere necesse est, ex eo quod coniuncta illatio unum alteri substernit, et ratione sui ea adunata denotat ut potentiam et actum. Accidentally” taken in the second way is distinguished from what I call “on its own account,” i.e., not because of something else; “accidentally” then means “through another.” This is the way it is taken here, for whatever are of such a nature that they are joined because of something else, and not on their own account, do not admit of conjoined inference, because a conjoined inference subjects one to the other, and denotes the things united on their own account as potency and act.
Est ergo sensus divisionis, quod praedicatorum plurium, quaedam sunt per accidens, quaedam per se, idest, quaedam adunantur inter se ratione sui, quaedam propter aliud. Ea quae per se uniuntur inferunt coniunctum, ea autem quae propter aliud, nequaquam. Therefore, the sense of the division is this: of many predicates, some are accidental, some per se, i.e., some are united among themselves on their own account, some on account of another. Those that are per se united infer conjointly; those that are united on account of another do not infer conjointly in any way.
Deinde cum dicit: quocirca nec citharoedus etc., applicat declaratam veritatem ad partes quaestionis. Et primo, ad secundam partem, quia scilicet non sequitur: est bonus et est citharoedus; ergo est bonus citharoedus, dicens: quocirca nec citharoedus bonus etc.; secundo, ad aliam partem quaestionis, quare sequebatur: est animal et est bipes; ergo est animal bipes: et ait: sed animal bipes et cetera. Et subiungit huius ultimi dicti causam, quia, animal bipes, non sunt praedicata secundum accidens coniuncta inter se aut in tertio, sed per se. Et per hoc explanavit alterum membrum primae divisionis, quod adhuc positum non fuerat explicite. 7. When he says, This is the reason “good” and “shoemaker” cannot be combined simply, etc., he applies the truth he has stated to the parts of the question. He applies it first to the second part, i.e., why this does not follow: “He is good and he is a shoemaker, therefore he is a good shoemaker.” Then he applies it to the other part of the question, i.e., why this follows: “He is an animal and he is biped, therefore he is a biped animal.” He adds the reason in the case of the latter: “biped” and “animal” are not predicates accidentally conjoined among themselves, nor in a third thing, but per se. This also explains the other member of the first division which has not yet been explicitly posited.
Adverte quod Aristoteles, eamdem tenens sententiam de citharoedo et bono et musico et albo, conclusit quod album et musicum non inferunt coniunctum praedicatum; ideo nec citharoedus et bonus inferunt citharoedus bonus simpliciter, idest coniuncte. Est autem ratio dicti, quia licet musica et albedo dissimiles sint bonitati et arti citharisticae in hoc, quod bonitas nata est denominare et subiectum tertium, puta hominem et ipsam artem citharisticam (propter quod falsitas manifeste cernitur, quando dicitur: est bonus et citharoedus; ergo bonus citharoedus), musica vero et albedo subiectum tertium natae sunt denominare tantum, et non se invicem (propter quod latentior est casus cum proceditur: est albus et est musicus; ergo est musicus albus), licet, inquam, in hoc sint dissimiles, et propter istam dissimilitudinem processus Aristotelis minus sufficiens videatur; attamen similes sunt in hoc quod, si servetur identitas omnimoda praedicatorum quam servari oportet, si illamet divisa debent inferri coniunctim, sicut musica non denominat albedinem, neque contra, ita nec bonitas, de qua fit sermo, cum dicitur, homo est bonus, denominat artem citharisticam, neque e converso. Cum enim bonum sit aequivocum, licet a consilio, alia ratione dicitur de perfectione citharoedi, et alia de perfectione hominis. Quando namque dicimus, Socrates est bonus, intelligimus bonitatem moralem, quae est hominis bonitas simpliciter (analogum siquidem simpliciter positum sumitur pro potiori); cum autem infertur, citharoedus bonus, non bonitatem moris sed artis praedicas: unde terminorum identitas non salvatur; sufficienter igitur et subtiliter Aristoteles eamdem de utrisque protulit sententiam, quia eadem est haec, et ibi ratio et cetera. Notice that he maintains the same judgment is to be made about lute player and good, and musical and white. He has concluded that “white” and “musical” do not infer a conjoined predicate; hence neither do “lute player” and “good” infer “good lute player” simply, i.e., conjointly. There is a reason for saying this. For although there is a difference between musical and white, and goodness and the art of lute-playing, they are also similar. Let us consider their difference first. Goodness is of such a nature that it denominates both a third subject, namely, man, and the art of lute-playing. This is the reason the falsity is clearly discernible when we say “He is good and a lute player, therefore he is a good lute player.” Musical and whiteness, on the other band, are of such a nature that they denominate only a third subject, and not each other, and hence, the error is less obvious in “He is white and be is musical, therefore he is musical white.” Now it is this difference that makes Aristotle’s process of reasoning appear somewhat inconclusive. However, they are similar. For if identity of predicates is kept in every way that is required for the same things divided to be inferred conjointly, then, just as “musical” does not denominate “whiteness,” nor the contrary, so neither does “goodness,” of which we are speaking when we say “Man is good,” denominate the art of lute-playing, nor conversely. For “good” is equivocal—by choice though—and therefore is said of the perfection of the lute player by means of one notion and of the perfection of man by means of another. For example, when we say, “Socrates is good” we understand moral goodness, which is the goodness of man absolutely (for the analogous term posited simply, stands for what is mainly so); but when good lute player is inferred, it is not the goodness of morality that is predicated but the goodness of art; whence identity of the terms is not saved. Therefore, Aristotle has adequately and subtly expressed the same judgment about both, i.e., “white” and “musical,” and “good” and “lute player,” for the reason here is the same as there.
Nec praetereundum est quod, cum tres consequentias adduxit quaestionem proponendo, scilicet; est animal et bipes; ergo est animal bipes: et, est homo et albus; ergo est homo albus: et, est citharoedus et bonus; ergo est homo albus: et, est citharoedus et bonus; ergo est bonus citharoedus; et duas primas posuerat esse bonas, tertiam vero non; huius diversitatis causam inquirere volens, cur solvendo quaestionem nullo modo meminerit secundae consequentiae, sed tantum primae et tertiae. Indiscussum namque reliquit an illa consequentia sit bona an mala. Et ad hoc videtur mihi dicendum quod ex his paucis verbis etiam illius consequentiae naturam insinuavit. Profundioris enim sensus textus capax apparet cum dixit quod, non sunt unum album et musicum etc., ut scilicet non tantum indicet quod expositum est, sed etiam eius causam, ex qua natura secundae consequentiae elucescit. Causa namque quare album et musicum non inferunt coniunctam praedicationem est, quia in praedicatione coniuncta oportet alteram partem alteri supponi, ut potentiam actui, ad hoc ut ex eis fiat aliquo modo unum, et altera a reliqua denominetur (hoc enim vis coniunctae praedicationis requirit, ut supra diximus de partibus definitionis); album autem et musicum secundum se non faciunt unum per se, ut patet, neque unum per accidens. Licet enim ipsa ut adunantur in subiecto uno sint unum subiecto per accidens, tamen ipsamet quae adunantur in uno, tertio subiecto, non faciunt inter se unum per accidens: tum quia neutrum informat alterum (quod requiritur ad unitatem per accidens aliquorum inter se, licet non in tertio); tum quia non considerata subiecti unitate, quae est extra eorum rationes, nulla remanet inter ea unitatis causa. Dicens ergo quod album et musicum non sunt unum, scilicet inter se, aliquo modo, causam expressit quare coniunctim non infertur ex eis praedicatum. Et quia oppositorum eadem est disciplina, insinuavit per illamet verba bonitatem illius consequentiae. Ex eo enim quod homo et albus se habent sicut potentia et actus (et ita albedo informet, denominet atque unum faciat cum homine ratione sui), sequitur quod ex divisis potest inferri coniuncta praedicatio; ut dicatur: est homo et albus; ergo est homo albus. Sicut per oppositum dicebatur quod ideo musicum et album non inferunt coniunctum praedicatum quia neutrum alterum informabat. 8. There is another point that must be mentioned. Aristotle in proposing the question draws three consequences: “He is an animal and biped, therefore he is a biped animal” and “He is a man and white, therefore he is a white man” and “He is a lute player and good, therefore he is a good lute player.” Then he states that the first two consequences are good, the third not. His intention was to inquire into the cause of this diversity, but in solving the question he mentions only the first and third consequences, leaving the goodness or badness of the second consequence undiscussed. Why is this? I would say in answer to this that in these few words he has also implied the nature of the second consequence, for there is a more profound meaning to the statement in the text that whiteness and being musical is not one. It is a meaning that not only indicates what has already been explained but also its cause, and from this the nature of the second consequence is apparent. For the reason “white” and “musical” do not infer a conjoined predication is that in conjoined predication one part must be subjected to the other as potency to act such that in some way one thing is formed from them and one is denominated from the other (for the force of the conjoined predication requires this, as we have said above concerning the parts of the definition). “White” and “musical,” however, do not in themselves form one thing per se, as is evident, nor do they form one thing accidentally. For while it is true that as united in a subject they are one in subject accidentally, nevertheless things that are united in one third subject do not form one thing accidentally among themselves: first, because neither informs the other (which is required for accidental unity of things among themselves, although not in a third thing); secondly, because, considered apart from the unity of a subject, which is outside of their notions, there is no cause of unity between them. Therefore, when Aristotle says that whiteness and being musical are not one, i.e., among themselves, in some measure he expresses the reason why a predicate is not conjointly inferred from them. And since the same discipline extends to opposites, the goodness of the second consequence is implied by these words. That is, man and white are related as potency and act (and so, on its own account whiteness informs, denominates, and forms one thing with ‘man’); therefore from these taken divisively a conjoined predication can be inferred, i.e., “He is man and white, therefore be is a white man”; just as, in the opposite case, it was said that “musical” and “white” do not infer a conjoined predicate because neither informs the other.
Nec obstat quod album faciat unum per accidens cum homine: non enim dictum est quod unitas per accidens aliquorum impedit ex diversis inferre coniunctum, sed quod unitas per accidens aliquorum ratione tertii tantum est illa quae impedit. Talia enim quae non sunt unum per accidens nisi ratione tertii, inter se nullam habent unitatem; et propterea non potest inferri coniunctum, ut dictum est, quod unitatem importat. Illa vero quae sunt unum per accidens ratione sui, seu inter se, ut, homo albus, cum coniuncta accipiuntur, unitate necessaria non carent, quia inter se unitatem habent. Notanter autem apposui ly tantum: quoniam si aliqua duo sunt unum per accidens, ratione tertii subiecti scilicet, sed non tantum ex hoc habent unitatem, sed etiam ratione sui, ex hoc quod alterum reliquum informat, ex istis divisis non prohibetur inferri coniunctum. Verbi gratia, optime dicitur: est quantum et est coloratum; ergo est quantum coloratum: quia color informat quantitatem.  9. There is no opposition between the position just stated and the fact that white forms an accidental unity with man. For we did not say that accidental unity of certain things impedes inferring a conjunction from divided things,” but that accidental unity of certain things only by reason of a third thing is the one that impedes. Things that are one accidentally only by reason of a third thing have no unity among them selves; and for this reason a conjunction, which implies unity, cannot be inferred, as we have said. But things that are one accidentally on their own account, i.e., among themselves, as for example, “white man,” when taken conjointly, have the necessary unity because they have unity among themselves. Notice that I have added “only.” The reason is that if any two C are one accidentally, namely, by reason of a third subject, and they not only have unity from this but also on their own account (because one informs the other), then from these taken divisively a conjoined inference can be made. For example, we can infer, “It is a quantity and it is colored, therefore it is a colored quantity,” because color informs quantity.
Potes autem credere quod secunda illa consequentia, quam non explicite confirmavit Aristoteles respondendo, sit bona et ex eo quod ipse proponendo quaestionem asseruit bonam, et ex eo quod nulla instantia reperitur. Insinuavit autem et Aristoteles quod sola talis unitas impedit illationem coniunctam, quando dixit quaecumque secundum accidens dicuntur vel de eodem vel alterutrum de altero. Cum enim dixit, secundum accidens de eodem, unitatem eorum ex sola adunatione in tertio posuit (sola enim haec per accidens praedicantur de eodem, ut dictum est); cum autem addidit, vel alterutrum de altero, mutuam accidentalitatem ponens, ex nulla parte inter se unitatem reliquit. Utraque ergo per accidens adducta praedicata, in tertio scilicet vel alterutrum, quae impediant illationem coniunctam, nonnisi in tertio unitatem habent. 10. You can hold as true that this second consequence is good even though Aristotle has not explicitly confirmed it by returning to it, both from the fact that in proposing the question he has claimed it as good and also because there is no instance opposed to it. Moreover, Aristotle has implied that it is only such unity that impedes the conjoined inference where he says: which are said accidentally, either of the same subject or of one another. By accidentally of the same subject, he posits their unity to be only from union in a third thing (for only these are predicated accidentally of the same subject, as was said). When he adds, or of one another—positing mutual accidentality—no unity at all is left between them. Therefore, both kinds of accidental predicates, namely, in a third thing or in one another, that impede a conjoined inference have unity only in a third thing.
Deinde cum dicit: amplius nec etc., satisfacit instantiis in probatione adductis, et in illis in quibus explicita committebatur nugatio, et in illis in quibus implicita; et ait quod non solum inferre ex divisis coniunctum non licet quando praedicata illa sunt per accidens, sed nec etiam quaecunque insunt in alio: idest, sed nec hoc licet quando praedicata includunt se, ita quod unum includatur in significato formali alterius intrinsece, sive explicite, ut album in albo, sive implicite, ut animal et bipes in homine. Quare neque album frequenter dictum divisim infert coniunctum, neque homo divisim ab animali vel bipede enunciatum, animal bipes, coniunctum cum homine infert; ut dicatur, ergo Socrates est homo bipes, vel animal homo. Insunt enim in hominis ratione, animal et bipes actu et intellectu, licet implicite. 11. Then when he says, Furthermore, predicates that are present in one another cannot be combined simply, etc., he gives the solution for the instances (both the explicitly nugatory and the implicitly nugatory) cited in the proof. It is not only not licit, he says, to infer a union from divided predicates when these are accidental, but it is not licit when the predicates are present in one another. That is, it is not licit to infer a conjoined predicate from divided predicates when the predicates include one another in such a way that one is included in the formal signification of another intrinsically, or explicitly, as “white” in white,” or implicitly, as “animal” and “biped” in “man.” Therefore, white” said repeatedly and divisively does not infer a conjoined predication, nor does “man” divisively enunciated from “animal” or “biped” infer “biped” or “animal” conjoined with man, such that we could say, “Therefore, Socrates is a biped-man” or “animal-man.” For animal and biped are included in the notion of man in act and in understanding, although implicitly.
Stat ergo solutio quaestionis in hoc, quod unitas plurium per accidens in tertio tantum et nugatio, impediunt ex divisis inferri coniunctum; et consequenter, ubi neutrum horum invenitur, ex divisis licebit inferre coniunctum. Et hoc intellige quando divisae sunt simul verae de eodem et cetera. The solution of the question, then, is this: the inferring of a conjunction from divided predicates is impeded when there is unity of the many accidentally only in a third thing and when there is a nugatory result. Consequently, where neither of these is found it will be licit to infer a conjunction from divided predicates. It is to be understood that this applies when the divided predicates are at once true of the same subject.

LESSON 7

Whether from an Enunciation Having Many Conjoined Predicates
It Is Licit to Infer an Enunciation that Contains the Same Predicates Divisively

ἀληθὲς δ' ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν κατὰ τοῦ τινὸς καὶ ἁπλῶς, οἷον τὸν τινὰ ἄνθρωπον ἄνθρωπον ἢ τὸν τινὰ λευκὸν ἄνθρωπον λευκόν οὐκ ἀεὶ δέ, 21a 18 On the other hand, it is also true to say predicates of something singly; for example, it is true to say that some man is a man, or that some white man is white. However, this is not always the case.
ἀλλ' ὅταν μὲν ἐν τῷ προσκειμένῳ τῶν ἀντικειμένων τι ἐνυπάρχῃ οἷς ἕπεται ἀντίφασις, οὐκ ἀληθὲς ἀλλὰ ψεῦδος, —οἷον τὸν τεθνεῶτα ἄνθρωπον ἄνθρωπον εἰπεῖν,— ὅταν δὲ μὴ ἐνυπάρχῃ, ἀληθές. 21a 21 When something opposed is present in the adjunct, from which a contradiction follows, it will not be true to predicate them singly, but false e.g., to say that a dead man is a man. When something opposed is not present in the adjunct, however, it is true to predicate them singly.
ἢ ὅταν μὲν ἐνυπάρχῃ, ἀεὶ οὐκ ἀληθές, ὅταν δὲ μὴ ἐνυπάρχῃ, οὐκ ἀεὶ ἀληθές ὥσπερ Ὅμηρός ἐστί τι, οἷον ποιητής ἆρ' οὖν καὶ ἔστιν, ἢ οὔ; κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς γὰρ κατηγορεῖται τὸ ἔστιν τοῦ Ὁμήρου 21a 24 Or, rather, when something opposed is present in it, it is never true; but when something opposed is not present, it is not always true. For example, Homer is something, say, a poet. Is it therefore true to say also that Homer is, or not?
ὅτι γὰρ ποιητής ἐστιν, ἀλλ' οὐ καθ' αὑτό, κατηγορεῖται κατὰ τοῦ Ὁμήρου τὸ ἔστιν. 21a26 The “is” here is predicated accidentally of Homer, for the “is” is predicated of him with regard to the fact that he is a poet, not in itself.
ὥστ' ἐν ὅσαις κατηγορίαις μήτε ἐναντιότης ἔνεστιν, ἐὰν λόγοι ἀντ' ὀνομάτων λέγωνται, καὶ καθ' αὑτὰ κατηγορῆται καὶ μὴ κατὰ συμβεβηκός, ἐπὶ τούτων τὸ τὶ καὶ ἁπλῶς ἀληθὲς ἔσται εἰπεῖν. 21a 29 Therefore, in whatever predications no contrariety is present when definitions are put in place of the names, and wherein predicates are predicated per se and not accidentally, it will also be true to predicate each one singly.
τὸ δὲ μὴ ὄν, ὅτι δοξαστόν, οὐκ ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν ὄν τι δόξα γὰρ αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτι ἔστιν, ἀλλ' ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν. 21a 32 In the case of non-being, however, it is not true to say that because it is a matter of opinion it is something; for the opinion of it is not that it is, but that it is not.
Postquam expedita est prima dubitatio, tractat secundam dubitationem. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo, movet ipsam quaestionem; secundo, solvit eam; ibi: sed quando in adiecto etc., tertio, ex hoc excludit quemdam errorem; ibi: quod autem non est et cetera. 1. Aristotle now takes up the second question in relation to multiple enunciations. He first presents it, and then solves it where he says, When something opposed is present in the adjunct, from which a contradiction follows, it will not be true to predicate them singly, but false, etc. Finally, he excludes an error where he says, In the case of non-being, however, it is not true to say that because it is a matter of opinion, it is something, etc.
Est ergo quaestio: an ex enunciatione habente praedicatum coniunctum, liceat inferre enunciationes dividentes illud coniunctum; et est quaestio contraria superiori. Ibi enim quaesitum est an ex divisis inferatur coniunctum; hic autem quaeritur an ex coniuncto sequantur divisa. The second question is this: Is it licit to infer from an enunciation having a conjoined predication, enunciations dividing that conjunction? This question is the contrary of the first question. The first asked whether a conjoined predicate could be inferred from divided predicates; the present one asks whether divided predicates follow from conjoined predicates.
Unde movendo quaestionem dicit: verum autem aliquando est dicere de aliquo et simpliciter, idest divisim, quod scilicet prius dicebatur coniunctim, ut quemdam hominem album esse hominem, aut quoddam album hominem album esse, idest ut ex ista, Socrates est homo albus, sequitur divisim, ergo Socrates est homo, ergo Socrates est albus. Non autem semper, idest aliquando autem ex coniuncto non inferri potest divisim; non enim sequitur, Socrates est bonus citharoedus, ergo est bonus. Unde haec est differentia, quod quandoque licet et quandoque non. Et adverte quod notanter adduxit exemplum de homine albo, inferendo utramque partem divisim, ut insinuaret quod intentio quaestionis est investigare quando ex coniuncto potest utraque pars divisim inferri, et non quando altera tantum. When he presents the question he says, on the other hand, it is also true to say predicates of something singly, i.e., what was previously said conjointly may be said divisively; for example, that some white man is a man, or that some white man is white. That is, from “Socrates is a white man,” follows divisively, “Therefore Socrates is a man,” “There fore Socrates is white.” However, this is not always the case, i.e., some times it is not possible to infer divisively from conjoined predicates, for this does not follow: “Socrates is a good lute player, therefore he is good.” Hence, sometimes it is licit, sometimes not. Note that in inferring each part divisively he takes as an ex ample “white man.” This is significant, for by it he means to imply that his intention is to investigate when each part can be inferred divisively from a conjoined predicate, and not when only one of the two can be inferred.
Deinde cum dicit: sed quando in adiecto etc., solvit quaestionem. Et duo facit: primo, respondet parti negativae quaestionis, quando scilicet non licet; secundo, ibi: quare in quantiscumque etc., respondet parti affirmativae, quando scilicet licet. 2. When he says, When something opposed is present in the adjunct, etc., he solves the question, first by responding to the negative part of the question, i.e., when it is not licit; secondly, to the affirmative part, i.e., when it is licit, where he says, Therefore, in whatever predications no contrariety is present when definitions are put in place of the names, and wherein predicates are predicated per se and not accidentally, etc.
Circa primum considerandum quod quia dupliciter contingit fieri praedicatum coniunctum, uno modo ex oppositis, alio modo ex non oppositis, ideo duo facit: primo, ostendit quod numquam ex praedicato coniuncto ex oppositis possunt inferri eius partes divisim; secundo, quod nec hoc licet universaliter in praedicato coniuncto ex non oppositis, ibi: vel etiam quando et cetera. It should be noted, in relation to the negative part of the question, that a conjoined predicate may be formed in two ways: from opposites and from non-opposites. Therefore, he shows first that the parts in a conjoined predicate of opposites can never be inferred divisively. Secondly, he shows that this is not licit universally in a conjoined predicate of non-opposites, where he says, Or, rather, when something opposed is present in it, it is never true; but when something opposed is not present, it is not always true.
Ait ergo quod quando in termino adiecto inest aliquid de numero oppositorum, ad quae sequitur contradictio inter ipsos terminos, non verum est, scilicet inferre divisim, sed falsum. Verbi gratia cum dicitur, Caesar est homo mortuus, non sequitur, ergo est homo: quia ly mortuus, adiacens homini, oppositionem habet ad hominem, quam sequitur contradictio inter hominem et mortuum: si enim est homo, non est mortuus, quia non est corpus inanimatum; et si est mortuus, non est homo, quia mortuum est corpus inanimatum. Aristotle says, then, that when something that is an opposite is contained in the adjacent term, which results in a contradiction between the terms themselves, it is not true, namely, to infer divisively, but false. For example, when we say, “Caesar is a dead man,” it does not follow, “Therefore he is a man,” because the contradiction between 11 man” and “dead” which results from adding the “dead” to “man” is opposed to man, for if he is a man he is not dead, because he is not an inanimate body; and if he is dead he is not a man, because as dead he is an inanimate body.
Quando autem non inest, scilicet talis oppositio, verum est, scilicet inferre divisim. Ratio autem quare, quando est oppositio in adiecto, non sequitur illatio divisa est, quia alter terminus ex adiecti oppositione corrumpitur in ipsa enunciatione coniuncta. Corruptum autem seipsum absque corruptione non infert, quod illatio divisa sonaret. When something opposed is not present, i.e., there is no such opposition, it is true, i.e., it is true to infer divisively. The reason a divided inference does not follow when there is opposition in the added term is that in a conjoined enunciation the other term is destroyed by the opposition of the added term. But that which has been destroyed is not inferred apart from the destruction, which is what the divided inference would signify.
Dubitatur hic primo circa id quod supponitur, quomodo possit vere dici, Caesar est homo mortuus, cum enunciatio non possit esse vera, in qua duo contradictoria simul de aliquo praedicantur. Hoc enim est primum principium. Homo autem et mortuus, ut in littera dicitur, contradictoriam oppositionem includunt, quia in homine includitur vita, in mortuo non vita. 3. Two questions arise at this point. The first concerns something assumed here: how can it ever be true to make such a statement as “Caesar is a dead man,” since an enunciation cannot be true in which two contradictories are predicated at the same time of something (for this is a first principle). But “man” and “dead,” as is said in the text, include contradictory opposition, for in man is included life, and in dead, non-life.
Dubitatur secundo circa ipsam consequentiam, quam reprobat Aristoteles: videtur enim optima. Cum enim ex enunciatione praedicante duo contradictoria possit utrumque inferri (quia aequivalet copulativae), aut neutrum (quia destruit seipsam), et enunciatio supradicta terminos oppositos contradictorie praedicet, videtur sequi utraque pars, quia falsum est neutram sequi. The second question concerns the consequent that Aristotle rejects, which appears to be good. The enunciation given as an example predicates terms that are opposed contradictorily. But from an enunciation predicating two contradictory terms, either both can be inferred (because it is equivalent to a copulative enunciation), or neither (because it destroys itself); therefore both parts seem to follow, since it is false that neither follows.
Ad hoc simul dicitur quod aliud est loqui de duobus terminis secundum se, et aliud de eis ut unum stat sub determinatione alterius. Primo namque modo, homo et mortuus, contradictionem inter se habent, et impossibile est quod simul in eodem inveniantur. Secundo autem modo, homo et mortuus, non opponuntur, quia homo transmutatus iam per determinationem corruptivam importatam in ly mortuus, non stat pro suo significato secundum se, sed secundum exigentiam termini additi, a quo suum significatum distractum est. Ad utrunque autem insinuandum Aristoteles duo dixit, et quod habent oppositionem quam sequitur contradictio, attendens significata eorum secundum se, et quod etiam ex eis formatur una vera enunciatio cum dicitur, Socrates est homo mortuus, attendens coniunctionem eorum alterius corruptivam. Unde patet quid dicendum sit ad dubitationes. 4. These two questions can be answered simultaneously. It is one thing to speak of two terms in themselves, and another to speak of them as one stands under the determination of another. Taken in the first way, “man” and “dead” have a contradiction between them and it is impossible that they be found in the same thing at the same time. In the second way, however, “man” and “dead” are not opposed, since “man,” changed by the destructive element introduced by “dead,” no longer stands for what it signifies as such, but as determined by the term added, by which what is signified is removed. Aristotle, in order to imply both, says two things: that they have the opposition upon which contradiction follows if you regard what they signify in themselves; and, that one true enunciation is formed from them as in “Socrates is a dead man,” if you regard their conjunction as destructive of one of them.
Ad utramque siquidem dicitur, quod non enunciantur duo contradictoria simul de eodem, sed terminus ut stat sub distractione, seu transmutatione alterius, cui secundum se esset contradictorius. Accordingly, the answer to the two questions is evident. In a case such as this two contradictories are not enunciated of the same thing at the same time, but one term as it stands under dissolution or transmutation from the other, to which by itself it would be contradictory.
Dubitatur quoque circa id quod ait: inest aliquid oppositorum quae consequitur contradictio; superflue enim videtur addi illa particula, quae consequitur contradictio. Omnia enim opposita consequitur contradictio, ut patet discurrendo in singulis; pater enim est non filius, et album non nigrum, et videns non caecum et cetera. 5. There is also a question about something else that Aristotle says, namely, something opposed is present... from which a contradiction follows. The phrase from which a contradiction follows seems to be superfluous, for contradiction follows upon all opposites, as is evident in discoursing about singulars; for a father is not a son, and white is not black, and one seeing is not blind, etc.
Et ad hoc dicendum est quod opposita possunt dupliciter accipi: uno modo formaliter, idest secundum sua significata; alio modo denominative, seu subiective. Verbi gratia, pater et filius possunt accipi pro paternitate et filiatione, et possunt accipi pro eo qui denominatur pater vel filius. Rursus cum omnis distinctio fiat oppositione aliqua, ut dicitur in X metaphysicae, supponatur omnino distincta esse opposita. Opposites, however, can be taken in two ways: formally, i.e., according to what they signify, and denominatively, or subjectively. For example, father and son can be taken for paternity and filiation, or they can be taken for the one who is denominated a father or a son. But, again, since every distinction is made by some opposition, as is said in X Metaphysicae [3: 1054a 20], it could be supposed that opposites are wholly distinct.
Dicendum ergo est quod, licet ad omnia opposita seu distincta contradictio sequatur inter se formaliter sumpta, non tamen ad omnia opposita sequitur contradictio inter ipsa denominative sumpta. Quamvis enim pater et filius mutuam sui negationem inferant inter se formaliter, quia paternitas est non filiatio, et filiatio est non paternitas; in relatione tamen ad denominatum, contradictionem non necessario inferunt. Non enim sequitur, Socrates est pater; ergo non est filius; nec e converso. Ut persuaderet igitur Aristoteles quod non quaecunque opposita colligata impediunt divisam illationem (quia non illa quae habent contradictionem annexam formaliter tantum, sed illa quae habent contradictionem et formaliter et secundum rem denominatam), addidit: quae consequitur contradictio, in tertio scilicet denominato. Et usus est satis congrue vocabulo, scilicet, consequitur: contradictio enim ista in tertio est quodammodo extra ipsa opposita.  It must be pointed out, therefore, that although contradiction follows between all opposites or distinct things formally taken, nevertheless, contradiction does not follow upon all opposites denominatively taken. Father and son formally taken infer a mutual negation of one another, for paternity is not filiation and filiation is not paternity, but in respect to what is denominated they do not necessarily infer a contradiction. It does not follow, for example, that “Socrates is a father; therefore he is not a son,” nor conversely. Aristotle, therefore, in order to establish that not all combined opposites prevent a divided inference (since those having a contradiction applying only formally do not prevent a divided inference, but those having a contradiction both formally and according to the thing denominated do prevent a divided inference) adds, from which a contradiction follows, namely, in the third thing denominated. And appropriately enough he uses the word follows, for the contradiction in “ the third thing denominated is in a certain way outside of the opposites themselves.
Deinde cum dicit: vel etiam quando est etc., declarat quod ex non oppositis in tertio coniunctis secundum unum praedicatum, non universaliter possunt inferri partes divisim. Et primo, hoc proponit quasi emendans quod immediate dixerat, subiungens: vel etiam quando est, scilicet oppositio inter terminos coniunctos, falsum est semper, scilicet inferre divisim; quasi diceret: dixi quod quando inest oppositio, non verum sed falsum est inferre divisim; quando autem non inest talis oppositio, verum est inferre divisim. Vel etiam ut melius dicatur, quod quando est oppositio, falsum est semper, quando autem non inest talis oppositio, non semper verum est. Et sic modificavit supradicta addendo ly semper, et, non semper. 6. When he says, Or, rather, when something opposed is present in it, it is never true, etc., he explains that the parts cannot universally be inferred divisively in the case of a conjoined predicate in which there is a non-opposite as the third thing denominated. He proposes this—Or, rather, when something opposed is contained in it, i.e., opposition between the terms conjoined—as if amending what he has just said, namely, it is always false, i.e., to infer divisively. What he is saying, then, is this: I have said that when there is inherent opposition it is not true but false to infer divisively; but when there is not such opposition it is true to infer divisively; or, even better, when there is opposition it is always false but when there is not such opposition it is not always true. That is, he modifies what he first said by the addition of “always” and “not always.”
Et subdens exemplum quod non semper ex non oppositis sequatur divisio, ait: ut, Homerus est aliquid ut poeta; ergo etiam est? Non. Ex hoc coniuncto, est poeta, de Homero enunciato, altera pars, ergo Homerus est, non sequitur; et tamen clarum est quod istae duae partes colligatae, est et poeta, non habent oppositionem, ad quam sequitur contradictio. Igitur non semper ex non oppositis coniunctis illatio divisa tenet et cetera. Then he adds an example to show that division does not always follow from non-opposites: For example, Homer is something, say, a poet. Is it therefore true to say also that Homer “is,” or not? From the conjoined predicate, is a poet, enunciated of Homer, one part, Therefore Homer is, does not follow; yet it is evident that these two conjoined parts, “is” and “poet,” do not have the opposition upon which contradiction follows. Therefore, in the case of conjoined non-opposites a divided inference does not always hold.
Deinde cum dicit: secundum accidens etc., probat hoc, quod modo dictum est, ex eo quod altera pars istius compositi, scilicet, est, in antecedente coniuncto praedicatur de Homero secundum accidens, idest ratione alterius, quoniam, scilicet poeta, praedicatur de Homero, et non praedicatur secundum se ly est de Homero; quod tamen infertur, cum concluditur: ergo Homerus est. 7. When he says, The “is” here is predicated accidentally of Homer, he proves what he has said. One part of this composite, namely, “is,” is predicated of Homer in the antecedent conjunction accidentally, i.e., by reason of another, namely, with regard to the “poet” which is predicated of Homer; it is not predicated as such of Homer. Nevertheless, this is what is inferred when one concludes “Therefore Homer is.”
Considerandum est hic quod ad solvendam illam conclusionem negativam, scilicet, —non semper ex non oppositis coniunctis infertur divisim,— sufficit unam instantiam suae oppositae universali affirmativae afferre. Et hoc fecit Aristoteles adducendo illud genus enunciationum, in quo altera pars coniuncti est aliquid pertinens ad actum animae. Loquimur enim modo de Homero vivente in poematibus suis in mentibus hominum. In his siquidem enunciationibus partes coniunctae non sunt oppositae in tertio, et tamen non licet inferre utramque partem divisim. Committitur enim fallacia secundum quid ad simpliciter. Non enim valet, Caesar est laudatus, ergo est: et simile est de esse in effectu dependente in conservari. To validate his negative conclusion, namely, that it is not always true to infer divisively from conjoined non-opposites, it was sufficient to give one instance of the opposite of the universal affirmative. To do this Aristotle introduces that genus of enunciation in which one part of the conjunction is something pertaining to an act of the mind (for we are speaking only of Homer living in his poems in the minds of men). In such enunciations the parts conjoined are not opposed in the third thing denominated; nevertheless it is not licit to infer each part divisively, for the fallacy of going from the relative to the absolute will be committed. For example, it is not valid to say, “Caesar is praiseworthy, therefore he is,” which is a parallel case, i.e., of an effect whose existence requires maintenance.
Quomodo autem intelligenda sit ratio ad hoc adducta ab Aristotele in sequenti particula dicetur. Aristotle will explain in the following sections of the text how the reasoning in the above text is to be understood.
Deinde cum dicit: quare in quantiscunque etc., respondet parti affirmativae quaestionis, quando scilicet ex coniunctis licet inferre divisim. Et ponit duas conditiones oppositas supradictis debere convenire in unum, ad hoc ut possit fieri talis consequentia; scilicet, quod nulla inter partes coniuncti oppositio sit, et quod secundum se praedicentur. 8. When he says, Therefore, in whatever predications no contrariety is present when definitions are put in place of the names, etc., he replies to the affirmative part of the question, i.e., when it is licit to infer divisively from conjoined predicates. He maintains that two conditions—opposed to what has been said earlier in this portion of the text—must combine in one enunciation in order that such a consequence be effected: there must be no opposition between the parts conjoined, and they must be predicated per se.
Unde dicit inferendo ex dictis: quare in quantiscunque praedicamentis, idest praedicatis ordine quodam adunatis, neque contrarietas aliqua, in cuius ratione ponitur contradictio in tertio (contraria enim sunt quae mutuo se ab eodem expellunt), aut universaliter nulla oppositio inest, ex qua scilicet sequatur contradictio in tertio, si definitiones pro nominibus sumantur. Dixit hoc, quia licet in quibusdam non appareat oppositio, solis nominibus positis, sicut, homo mortuus, et in quibusdam appareat, ut, vivum mortuum; hoc tamen non obstante, si, positis nominum definitionibus loco nominum, oppositio appareat, inter opposita collocamus. Sicut, verbi gratia, homo mortuus, licet oppositionem non praeseferat, tamen si loco hominis et mortui eorum definitionibus utamur, videbitur contradictio. Dicemus enim corpus animatum rationale, corpus inanimatum irrationale. He says, then, inferring from what has been said: Therefore, in whatever predicaments, i.e., predicates joined in a certain order, no contrariety, in virtue of which contradiction is posited in the third thing denominated (for contraries mutually remove each other from the same thing), is present, or universally, no opposition is present, i.e., upon which a contradiction follows in the third thing denominated, when definitions are taken in place of the names.... He says this because it may be the case that the opposition is not apparent from the names alone, as in “dead man,” and again it may be, as in “living dead,” but whether apparent or not it will be evident that we are putting together opposites if we posit the definitions of the names in place of the names. For example, in the case of “dead man,” if we replace “man” and “dead,” with their definitions, the contradiction will be evident, for what we are saying is “rational animate body, irrational inanimate body.”
In quantiscunque, inquam, coniunctis nulla est oppositio, et secundum se, et non secundum accidens praedicantur, in his verum erit dicere et simpliciter, idest divisim quod fuerat coniunctim enunciatum. In whatever conjoined predicates, then, there is no opposition, and wherein predicates are predicated per se and not accidentally, in these it will also be true to predicate them singly, i.e., say divisively what had been enunciated conjointly.
Ad evidentiam secundae conditionis hic positae, nota quod ly secundum se potest dupliciter accipi: uno modo positive, et sic dicit perseitatem primi, secundi, universaliter, quarti modi; alio modo negative, et sic idem sonat quod non per aliud. 9. In order to make this second condition clear, it should be noted that “per se” can be taken in two ways: positively, and thus it refers to “perseity” of the first, of the second, and of the fourth mode universally; or negatively, and thus it means the same as not through something else.
Rursus considerandum est quod cum Aristoteles dixit de praedicato coniuncto quod, secundum se praedicetur, ly secundum se potest ad tria referri, scilicet, ad partes coniuncti inter se, ad totum coniunctum respectu subiecti, et ad partes coniuncti respectu subiecti. Si ergo accipiatur ly secundum se positive, licet non falsus, extraneus tamen a mente Aristotelis reperitur sensus ad quodcunque illorum trium referatur. Licet enim valeat, est homo risibilis, ergo est homo et est risibilis, et, est animal rationale, ergo est animal et est rationale; tamen his oppositae inferunt similes consequentias. Dicimus enim, est albus musicus, ergo est musicus et est albus: ubi nulla est perseitas, sed est coniunctio per accidens, tam inter partes inter se, quam inter totum et subiectum, quam etiam inter partes et subiectum. Liquet igitur quod non accipit Aristoteles ly secundum se positive, ex eo quod vana fuisset talis additio, quae ab oppositis non facit in hoc differentiam. Ad quid enim addidit, secundum se, et non, secundum accidens, si tam illae quae sunt secundum se, modo exposito, quam illae quae sunt secundum accidens ex coniuncto, inferunt divisum? It should also be noted that when Aristotle says of a conjoined predicate that it is predicated “per se,” the “per se” can be referred to three things: to the parts of the conjunction among themselves, to the whole conjunction with respect to the subject, and to the parts of the conjoined predicate with respect to the subject. Now if “per se” is taken positively, although it will not be false, nevertheless in reference to any of these three the meaning will be found to be foreign to the mind of Aristotle. For, although these are valid: “He is a risible man, therefore he is man and he is risible” and “He is a rational animal, therefore he is animal and he is rational,” nevertheless the opposite kind of predication infers consequences in a similar way. For example, there is no 11 perseity” in “He is a white musician, therefore he is white and he is a musician”; rather, there is an accidental conjunction, not only between the parts among themselves and between the whole and the subject, but even between the parts and the subject. It is evident, therefore, that Aristotle is not taking “per se” positively, for an addition that does not differentiate this kind of predication from the opposed kind of predication would be useless. Why add “per se and not accidentally,” if both those that are per se in the way explained and those that are conjoined accidentally infer divisively?
Si vero accipiatur secundum se, negative, idest, non per aliud, et referatur ad partes coniuncti inter se, falsa invenitur regula. Nam non licet dicere, est bonus citharoedus; ergo est bonus et citharoedus; et tamen ars citharizandi et bonitas eius sine medio coniunguntur. Et similiter contingit, si referatur ad totum coniunctum respectu subiecti, ut in eodem exemplo apparet. Totum enim hoc, citharoedus bonus, non propter aliud convenit homini; et tamen non infert, ut dictum est, divisionem. Superest ergo ut ad partem coniuncti respectu subiecti referatur, et sit sensus: quando aliqua coniunctim praedicata, secundum se, idest, non per aliud, praedicantur, idest, quod utraque pars praedicatur de subiecto non propter alteram, sed propter seipsam et subiectum, tunc ex coniuncto infertur divisa praedicatio. If “per se” is taken negatively, i.e., as not through another, and is referred to the parts of the conjoined predicate among themselves, the rule is found to be false. It is not licit, for example, to say, “He is a good lute player, therefore he is good and a lute player”; yet the art of lute-playing and its goodness are conjoined without anything as a medium. And the case is the same if it is referred to the whole conjoined predicate with respect to the subject, as is clear in the same example, for the whole, “good lute player,” does not belong to man on account of another, and yet it does not infer the division, as has already been said. Therefore, “per se” is referred to the parts of the conjoined predicate with respect to the subject and the meaning is: when the predicates are conjointly predicated per se, i.e., not through another, i.e., each part is predicated of the subject, not on account of another but on account of itself and the subject, then a divided predication is inferred from the conjoined predication.
Et hoc modo exponunt Averroes et Boethius; et vera invenitur regula, ut inductive facile manifestari potest, et ratio ipsa suadet. Si enim partes alicuius coniuncti praedicati ita inhaerent subiecto quod neutra propter alteram insit, earum separatio nihil habet quod veritatem impediat divisarum. Est et verbis Aristotelis consonus sensus iste. Quoniam et per hoc distinguit inter enunciationes ex quibus coniunctum infert divisam praedicationem, et eas quibus haec non inest consequentia. Istae siquidem ultra habentes oppositiones in adiecto, sunt habentes praedicatum coniunctum, cuius una partium alterius est ita determinatio, quod nonnisi per illam subiectum respicit, sicut apparet in exemplo ab Aristotele adducto, Homerus est poeta. Est siquidem ibi non respicit Homerum ratione ipsius Homeri, sed praecise ratione poesis relictae; et ideo non licet inferre, ergo Homerus est. Et simile est in negativis. Si quis enim dicat, Socrates non est paries, non licet inferre, ergo Socrates non est, eadem ratione, quia esse non est negatum de Socrate, sed de pariete in Socrate. 10. This is the way in which Averroes and Boethius explain this and, explained in this way, a true rule is found, as can easily be manifested inductively; moreover, the reasoning is compelling. For, if the parts of some conjoined predicate so inhere in the subject that neither is in it on account of another, their separation produces nothing that could impede the truth of the divided predicates. And this meaning is consonant with the words of Aristotle, for by this he also distinguishes between enunciations in which the conjoined predicate infers a divided predicate, and those in which this consequence is not inherent. For besides the predicates having opposition in the additional determining element, there are those with a conjoined predicate wherein one part is a determination of the other in such a way that only through it does it regard the subject, as is evident in Aristotle’s example, “Homer is a poet.” The “is” does not regard Homer by reason of Homer himself, but precisely by reason of the poetry he left. Hence it is not licit to infer, “Therefore Homer is.” The same is true with respect to negative enunciations of this type, for it is not licit to infer from “Socrates is not a wall,” “Therefore Socrates is not.” And the reason is the same: “to be” is not denied of Socrates, but of “wallness” in Socrates.
Et per hoc patet qualiter sit intelligenda ratio in textu superiore adducta. Accipitur enim ibi, secundum se negative, modo hic exposito, et secundum accidens, idest propter aliud. In eadem ergo significatione est usus ly secundum accidens, solvendo hanc et praecedentem quaestionem: utrobique enim intellexit secundum accidens, idest, propter aliud, coniuncta, sed ad diversa retulit. Ibi namque ly secundum accidens determinabat coniunctionem duorum praedicatorum inter se; hic vero determinat partem coniuncti praedicati in ordine ad subiectum. Unde ibi, album et musicum, inter ea quae secundum accidens sunt, numerabantur; hic autem non. 11. Accordingly, it is evident how the reasoning in the text above is to be understood. “Per se” is taken negatively in the way explained here, and “accidentally” as “on account of another.” The “accidentally” is used with the same signification in solving this and the preceding question. In both he understands “accidentally” to mean conjoined on account of another, but it is referred to diverse things. In the preceding question “accidentally” determines the way in which two predicates are conjoined among themselves; in the latter question it determines the way in which the part of the conjoined predicate is ordered to the subject. Hence, in the former, “white” and “musician” are numbered among the things that are accidental, but in the latter they are not.
Sed occurrit circa hanc expositionem dubitatio non parva. Si enim ideo non licet ex coniuncto inferre divisim, quia altera pars coniuncti non respicit subiectum propter se, sed propter alteram partem (ut dixit Aristoteles de ista enunciatione, Homerus est poeta), sequetur quod numquam a tertio adiacente ad secundum erit bona consequentia: quia in omni enunciatione de tertio adiacente, est respicit subiectum propter praedicatum et non propter se et cetera. 12. This exposition seems a bit dubious, however. For if it is not licit to infer divisively from a conjoined predicate because one part of the conjoined predicate does not regard the subject on account of itself but on account of another part (as Aristotle says of the enunciation, “Homer is a poet”), it will follow that there will never be a good consequence from the third determinant to the second, since in every enunciation with a third determinant, “is” regards the subject on account of the predicate and not on account of itself.
Ad huius difficultatis evidentiam, nota primo hanc distinctionem. Aliud est tractare regulam, quando ex tertio adiacente infertur secundum et quando non, et aliud quando ex coniuncto fit illatio divisa et quando non. Illa siquidem est extra propositum, istam autem venamur. Illa compatitur varietatem terminorum, ista non. Si namque unus terminorum, qui est altera pars coniuncti, secundum significationem seu suppositionem varietur in separatione, non infertur ex coniuncto praedicato illudmet divisim, sed aliud. 13. To make this difficulty clear, we must first note a distinction. It is one thing to treat of the rule when inferring a second determinant from a third determinant, and when not; it is quite another thing when a divided inference is made from a conjoined predicate, and when not. The former is an additional point; the latter is the question we have been inquiring about. The former is compatible with variety of the terms, the latter not. For if one of the terms which is one part of a conjoined predicate will be varied according to signification, or supposition when taken separately, it is not inferred divisively from the conjoined predicate, but the other is.
Nota secundo hanc propositionem: cum ex tertio adiacente infertur secundum, non servatur identitas terminorum. Liquet ista quoad illum terminum, est. Dictum siquidem fuit supra a sancto Thoma, quod aliud importat est secundum adiacens, et aliud est tertium adiacens. Illud namque importat actum essendi simpliciter, hoc autem habitudinem inhaerentiae vel identitatis praedicati ad subiectum. Fit ergo varietas unius termini cum ex tertio adiacente infertur secundum, et consequenter non fit illatio divisi ex coniuncto. Secondly, note this proposition: when a second determinant is inferred from a third, identity of the terms is not kept. This is evident with respect to the term “is.” Indeed, St. Thomas said above that “is” as the second determinant implies one thing and “is” as the third determinant another. The former implies the act of being simply, the latter implies the relationship of inherence, or identity of the predicate with the subject. Therefore, when the second determinant is inferred from the third, one term is varied and consequently an inference is not made of the divided from the conjoined.
Unde praelucet responsio ad obiectionem, quod, licet ex tertio adiacente quandoque possit inferri secundum, numquam tamen ex tertio adiacente licet inferri secundum tamquam ex coniuncto divisum, quia inferri non potest divisim, cuius altera pars ipsa divisione perit. Negetur ergo consequentia obiectionis et ad probationem dicatur quod, optime concludit quod talis illatio est illicita infra limites illationum, quae ex coniuncto divisionem inducunt, de quibus hic Aristoteles loquitur. Accordingly, the response to the objection is clear, for although the second determinant can sometimes be inferred from the third, it is never licit for the second to be inferred from the third as divided from conjoined, because you cannot infer divisively when one part is destroyed by that very division. Therefore, let the consequence of the objection be denied and for proof let it be said that the conclusion that such an inference is illicit under the limits of inferences which induce division from a conjoined predicate-is good, for this is what Aristotle is speaking of here.
Sed contra hoc instatur. Quia etiam tanquam ex coniuncto divisa fit illatio, Socrates est albus, ergo est, per locum a parte in modo ad suum totum, ubi non fit varietas terminorum. 14. But the objection is raised against this that in the case of “Socrates is white, therefore be is,” a divided inference can be made as from a conjoined predicate, in virtue of the argument that we can go from what is in the mode of part to its whole as long as the terms remain the same.
Et ad hoc dicitur quod licet homo albus sit pars in modo hominis (quia nihil minuit de hominis ratione albedo, sed ponit hominem simpliciter), tamen est album non est pars in modo ipsius est, eo quod pars in modo est universale cum conditione non minuente, ponente illud simpliciter. Clarum est autem quod album minuit rationem ipsius est, et non ponit ipsum simpliciter: contrahit enim ad esse secundum quid. Unde apud philosophos, cum fit aliquid album, non dicitur generari, sed generari secundum quid. The answer to this is as follows. It is true that white man is a part in the mode of man (because white diminishes nothing of the notion of man but posits man simply); is white, however, is not a part in the mode of is, because a part in the mode of its whole is a universal, the condition not diminishing the positing of it simply. But it is evident that white diminishes the notion of is, and does not posit it simply, for it contracts it to relative being. Whence when something becomes white, philosophers do not say that it is generated, but generated relatively.
Sed instatur adhuc quia secundum hoc, dicendo, est animal, ergo est, fit illatio divisa per eumdem locum. Animal enim non minuit rationem ipsius est. 15. In accordance with this, the objection is raised that in saying “It is an animal, therefore it is,” a divided inference is made in virtue of the same argument; for animal does not diminish the notion of is itself.
Ad hoc est dicendum quod ly est, si dicat veritatem propositionis, manifeste peccatur a secundum quid ad simpliciter. Si autem dicat actum essendi, illatio est bona, sed non est de tertio, sed de secundo adiacente. The answer to this is that if the is asserts the truth of a proposition, the fallacy is committed of going from the relative to the absolute; if the is asserts the act of being, the inference is good, but it is of the second determinant, not of the third.
Potest ulterius dubitari circa principale: quia sequitur, est quantum coloratum, ergo est quantum, et, est coloratum; et tamen coloratum respicit subiectum mediante quantitate: ergo non videtur recta expositio supra adducta. 16. There is another doubt, this time about the principle in the exposition; for this follows, “It is a colored quantity, therefore it is a quantity and it is colored”; but “colored” regards the subject through the medium of quantity; therefore the exposition given above does not seem to be correct.
Ad hoc et similia dicendum est quod coloratum non ita inest subiecto per quantitatem quod sit eius determinatio et ratione talis determinationis subiectum denominet, sicut bonitas artem citharisticam determinat; cum dicitur, est citharoedus bonus; sed potius subiectum ipsum primo coloratum denominatur, quantum vero secundario coloratum dicitur, licet color media quantitate suscipiatur. Unde notanter supra diximus, quod tunc altera pars coniuncti praedicatur per accidens, quando praecise denominat subiectum, quia denominat alteram partem. Quod nec in similibus instantiis invenitur. The answer to this and to similar objections is that “colored” is not so present in a subject by means of quantity that it is its determination, and by reason of such a determination denominates the subject; as goodness,” for instance, determines the art of lute-playing when we say “He is a good lute player.” Rather, the subject itself is first denominated “colored” and quantity is called “colored” secondarily, although color is received through the medium of quantity. Hence, we made a point of saying earlier that one part of a conjoined predicate is predicated accidentally when it denominates the subject precisely because it denominates the other part. This is not the case here nor in similar instances.
Deinde cum dicit: quod autem non est etc., excludit quorumdam errorem qui, quod non est, esse tali syllogismo concludere satagebant: quod est, opinabile est. Quod non est, est opinabile. Ergo quod non est, est. Hunc siquidem processum elidit Aristoteles destruendo primam propositionem, quae partem coniuncti in subiecto divisim praedicat, ac si diceret: est opinabile, ergo est. Unde assumendo subiectum conclusionis illorum ait: quod autem non est; et addit medium eorum, quoniam opinabile est; et subdit maiorem extremitatem, non est verum dicere, esse aliquid. Et causam assignat, quia talis opinatio non propterea est, quia illud sit, sed potius quia non est. 17. When he says, In the case of non-being, however, it is not true to say that it is something, etc., he excludes the error of those who were satisfied to conclude that what is not, is. This is the syllogism they use: “That which is, is ‘opinionable’; that which is not, is ‘opinionable’; therefore what is not, is.” Aristotle destroys this process of reasoning by destroying the first proposition, which predicates divisively a part of what is conjoined in the subject, as if it said “It is ‘opinionable,’ therefore it is.” Hence, assuming the subject of their conclusion, he says, In the case of that which is not, however; and he adds their middle term, because it is a matter of opinion; then he adds the major extreme, it is not true to say that it is something. He then assigns the cause: it is not because it is but rather because it is not, that there is such opinion.

LESSON 8
Modal Propositions and Their Opposition

Τούτων δὲ διωρισμένων σκεπτέον ὅπως ἔχουσιν αἱ ἀποφάσεις καὶ καταφάσεις πρὸς ἀλλήλας αἱ τοῦ δυνατὸν εἶναι καὶ μὴ δυνατόν, καὶ ἐνδεχόμενον καὶ μὴ ἐνδεχόμενον, καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου τε καὶ ἀναγκαίου ἔχει γὰρ ἀπορίας τινάς. 21a 34 Having determined these things, we must consider in what way negations and affirmations of the possible and not possible, contingent and not contingent, and of the impossible and necessary are related to each other—a question of considerable difficulty.
εἰ γὰρ τῶν συμπλεκομένων αὗται ἀλλήλαις ἀντίκεινται αἱ ἀντιφάσεις, ὅσαι κατὰ τὸ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι τάττονται, οἷον (21b.) τοῦ εἶναι ἄνθρωπον ἀπόφασις τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἄνθρωπον, οὐ τὸ εἶναι μὴ ἄνθρωπον, καὶ τοῦ εἶναι λευκὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸ μὴ εἶναι λευκὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ' οὐ τὸ εἶναι μὴ λευκὸν ἄνθρωπον, —εἰ γὰρκατὰ παντὸς ἡ κατάφασις ἢ ἡ ἀπόφασις, τὸ ξύλον ἔσται ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν εἶναι μὴ λευκὸν ἄνθρωπον εἰ δὲ οὕτως, καὶ ὅσοις τὸ εἶναι μὴ προστίθεται, τὸ αὐτὸ ποιήσει τὸ ἀντὶ τοῦ εἶναι λεγόμενον, οἷον τοῦ ἄνθρωπος βαδίζει οὐ τὸ οὐκ ἄνθρωπος βαδίζει ἀπόφασις, ἀλλὰ τὸ οὐ βαδίζει ἄνθρωπος οὐδὲν γὰρ διαφέρει εἰπεῖν ἄνθρωπον βαδίζειν ἢ ἄνθρωπον βαδίζοντα εἶναι— ὥστε εἰ οὕτω πανταχοῦ, καὶ τοῦ δυνατὸν εἶναι ἀπόφασις τὸ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι, ἀλλ' οὐ τὸ μὴ δυνατὸν εἶναι. 21a 38 Let us grant that of mutually related enunciations, contradictories are those opposed to each other by being related in a certain way according to “to be” and “not to be”; for example, the negation of “Man is” is “Man is not” and not, “Non-man is,” and of “Man is white,” “Man is not white,” and not, “Man is non-white.” For if this is not so, it will be true to say that “wood” is nonwhite man since of anything either the affirmation or the negation is true. Now in those in which “to be” is not the determining word added, that which is said in place of “to be” will effect the same thing; for example, the negation of “Man walks” will be “Man does not walk” and not, “Non-man walks.” The reason, of course, is that there is no difference between “Man walks” and “Man is walking.” And if this is always the case, then the negation of “possible to be” will be “possible not to be” and not, “not possible to be.”
δοκεῖ δὲ τὸ αὐτὸ δύνασθαι καὶ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι πᾶν γὰρ τὸ δυνατὸν τέμνεσθαι ἢ βαδίζειν καὶ μὴ βαδίζειν καὶ μὴ τέμνεσθαι δυνατόν λόγος δ' ὅτι ἅπαν τὸ οὕτω δυνατὸν οὐκ ἀεὶ ἐνεργεῖ, ὥστε ὑπάρξει αὐτῷ καὶ ἡ ἀπόφασις δύναται γὰρ καὶ μὴ βαδίζειν τὸ βαδιστικὸν καὶ μὴ ὁρᾶσθαι τὸ ὁρατόν. ἀλλὰ μὴν ἀδύνατον κατὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀληθεύεσθαι τὰς ἀντικειμένας φάσεις οὐκ ἄρα αὕτη ἀπόφασις 21b 12 However, it seems that the same thing is possible to be and possible not to be; for everything that has the possibility to be cut or to walk has the possibility not to be cut and not to walk; and the reason is that everything that is possible in this way is not always in act, and so the negation will also be inherent in it; for that which could walk could also not walk, and that which could be seen, not be seen. But it is impossible that opposed assertions in respect to the same thing be true. Therefore, the negation of “possible to be” is not, “possible not to be.”
συμβαίνει γὰρ ἐκ τούτων ἢ τὸ αὐτὸ φάναι καὶ ἀποφάναι ἅμα κατὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, ἢ μὴ κατὰ τὸ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι τὰ προστιθέμενα γίγνεσθαι φάσεις καὶ ἀποφάσεις. εἰ οὖν ἐκεῖνο ἀδύνατον, τοῦτ' ἂν εἴη αἱρετόν. 21b 19 For it follows from what we have said, either that the same thing is asserted and denied at once of the same subject or that assertions and denials of modals are not made by the addition of “to be” or “not to be” respectively. If the former alternative is impossible, the latter must obtain.
Postquam determinatum est de enunciationibus, quarum partibus aliud additur tam remanente quam variata unitate, hic intendit declarare quid accidat enunciationi, ex eo quod aliquid additur, non suis partibus, sed compositioni eius. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, determinat de oppositione earum; secundo, de consequentiis; ibi: consequentiae vero et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, proponit quod intendit; secundo, exequitur; ibi: nam si eorum et cetera. 1. Now that he has treated enunciations in which something added to the parts leaves the unity intact on the one hand, and varies it on the other, Aristotle begins to explain what happens to the enunciation when something is added, not to its parts, but to its composition. First, he explains their opposition; secondly, he treats of the consequences of their opposition where he says, Logical sequences result from modals ordered thus, etc. With respect to the first point, he proposes the question he intends to consider and then begins his consideration where he says, Let us grant that of mutually related enunciations, contradictories are those opposed to each other, etc.
Proponit ergo quod iam perspiciendum est, quomodo se habeant affirmationes et negationes enunciationum de possibili et non possibili et cetera. Et causam subdit: habent enim multas dubitationes speciales. He proposes that we must now investigate the way in which affirmations and negations of the possible and not possible are related. He gives the reason when he adds, for the question has many special difficulties.
Sed antequam ulterius procedatur, quoniam de enunciationibus, quae modales vocantur, sermo inchoatur, praelibandum est esse quasdam modales enunciationes, et qui et quot sunt modi reddentes propositiones modales; et quid earum sit subiectum et quid praedicatum; et quid sit ipsa enunciatio modalis; quisque sit ordo earum ad praecedentes; et quae necessitas sit specialem faciendi tractatum de his. However, before we proceed with the consideration of enunciations that are called modal, we must first see that there are such things as modal enunciations, and which and how many modes render propositions modal; we must also know what their subject is and their predicate, what the modal enunciation itself is, what the order is between modal enunciations and the enunciations already treated, and finally, why a special treatment of them is necessary.
Quia ergo possumus dupliciter de rebus loqui; uno modo, componendo rem unam cum alia, alio modo, compositionem factam declarando qualis sit, insurgunt duo enunciationum genera; quaedam scilicet enunciantes aliquid inesse vel non inesse alteri, et hae vocantur de inesse, de quibus superius habitus est sermo; quaedam vero enunciantes modum compositionis praedicati cum subiecto, et hae vocantur modales, a principaliori parte sua, modo scilicet. Cum enim dicitur, Socratem currere est possibile, non enunciatur cursus de Socrate, sed qualis sit compositio cursus cum Socrate, scilicet possibilis. Signanter autem dixi modum compositionis, quoniam modus in enunciatione positus duplex est. Quidam enim determinat verbum, vel ratione significati ipsius verbi ut Socrates currit velociter, vel ratione temporis consignificati, ut Socrates currit hodie; quidam autem determinat compositionem ipsam praedicati cum subiecto; sicut cum dicitur, Socratem currere est possibile. In illis namque determinatur qualis cursus insit Socrati, vel quando; in hac autem, qualis sit coniunctio cursus cum Socrate. Modi ergo non illi qui rem verbi, sed qui compositionem determinant, modales enunciationes reddunt, eo quod compositio veluti forma totius totam enunciationem continet. 2. We can speak about things in two ways: in one, composing one thing with another; in the other, declaring the kind of composition that exists between the two things. To signify these two ways of speaking about things we form two kinds of enunciations. One kind enunciates that something belongs or does not belong to something. These are called absolute [de inesse] enunciations; these we have already discussed. The other enunciates the mode of composition of the predicate with the subject. These are called modal, from their principal part, the mode. For when we say, “That Socrates run is possible,” it is not the running of Socrates that is enunciated but the kind of composition there is between running and Socrates-in this case, possible. I have said “mode of composition” expressly, for there are two kinds of mode posited in the enunciation. One modifies the verb, either with respect to what it signifies, as in “Socrates runs swiftly,” or with respect to the time signified along with the verb, as in “Socrates runs today.” The other kind modifies the very composition of the predicate with the subject, as in the example, “That Socrates run is possible.” The former determines how or when running is in Socrates; the latter determines the kind of conjunction there is between running and Socrates. The former, which affects the actuality of the verb, does not make a modal enunciation. Only the modes that affect the composition make a modal enunciation, the reason being that the composition, as the form of the whole, contains the whole enunciation.
Sunt autem huiusmodi modi quatuor proprie loquendo, scilicet possibile et impossibile, necessarium et contingens. Verum namque et falsum, licet supra compositionem cadant cum dicitur, Socratem currere est verum, vel hominem esse quadrupedem est falsum, attamen modificare proprie non videntur compositionem ipsam. Quia modificari proprie dicitur aliquid, quando redditur aliquale, non quando fit secundum suam substantiam. Compositio autem quando dicitur vera, non aliqualis proponitur, sed quod est: nihil enim aliud est dicere, Socratem currere est verum, quam quod compositio cursus cum Socrate est. Et similiter quando est falsa, nihil aliud dicitur, quam quod non est: nam nihil aliud est dicere, Socratem currere est falsum, quam quod compositio cursus cum Socrate non est. Quando vero compositio dicitur possibilis aut contingens, iam non ipsam esse, sed ipsam aliqualem esse dicimus: cum siquidem dicitur, Socratem currere est possibile, non substantificamus compositionem cursus cum Socrate, sed qualificamus, asserentes illam esse possibilem. 3. This kind of mode, properly speaking, is fourfold: possible, impossible, necessary, and contingent. True and false are not included because, strictly speaking, they do not seem to modify the composition even though they fall upon the composition itself, as is evident in “That Socrates runs is true,” and “That man is four-footed is false.” For something is said to be modified in the proper sense of the term when it is caused to be in a certain way, not when it comes to be according to its substance. Now, when a composition is said to be true it is not proposed that it is in a certain way, but that it is. To say, “That Socrates runs is true,” for example, is to say that the composition of running with Socrates is. The case is similar when it is false, for what is said is that it is not; for example, to say, “That Socrates runs is false” is to say that the composition of running with Socrates is not. On the other hand, when the composition is said to be possible or contingent, we are not saying that it is but that it is in a certain way. For example, when we say, “That Socrates run is possible,” we do not make the composition of running with Socrates substantial, but we qualify it, asserting that it is possible.
Unde Aristoteles hic modos proponens, veri et falsi nullo modo meminit, licet infra verum et non verum inferat, propter causam ibi assignandam. Consequently, Aristotle in proposing the modes, does not mention the true and false at all, although later on he infers the true and the not true, and assigns the reason for it where he does this.
Et quia enunciatio modalis duas in se continet compositiones, alteram inter partes dicti, alteram inter dictum et modum, intelligendum est eam compositionem modificari, idest, quae est inter partes dicti, non eam quae est inter modum et dictum. Quod sic perpendi potest. Huius enunciationis modalis, Socratem esse album est possibile, duae sunt partes; altera est, Socratem esse album, altera est, possibile. Prima dictum vocatur, eo quod est id quod dicitur per eius indicativam, scilicet, Socrates est albus: qui enim profert hanc, Socrates est albus, nihil aliud dicit nisi Socratem esse album: secunda vocatur modus, eo quod modi adiectio est. 4. Since the modal enunciation contains two compositions, one between the parts of what is said, the other between what is said and the mode, it must be understood that it is the former composition that is modified, i.e., the composition between the parts of what is said, not the composition between what is said and the mode. This can be seen in an example. In the modal enunciation, “That Socrates be white is possible,” there are two parts: one, “That Socrates be white,” the other, “is possible.” The first is called the dictum because it is that which is asserted by the indicative, namely, “Socrates is white”; for in saying “Socrates is white” we are simply saying, “That Socrates be white.” The second part is called the mode because it is the addition of a restriction.
Prima compositionem quandam in se continet ex Socrate et albo; secunda pars primae opposita compositionem aliquam sonat ex dicti compositione et modo. Prima rursus pars, licet omnia habeat propria, subiectum scilicet, et praedicatum, copulam et compositionem, tota tamen subiectum est modalis enunciationis; secunda autem est praedicatum. Dicti ergo compositio subiicitur et modificatur in enunciatione modali. Qui enim dicit, Socratem esse album est possibile, non significat qualis est coniunctio possibilitatis cum hoc dicto, Socratem esse album, sed insinuat qualis sit compositio partium dicti inter se, scilicet albi cum Socrate, scilicet quod est compositio possibilis. Non dicit igitur enunciatio modalis aliquid inesse, vel non inesse, sed dicti potius modum enunciat. Nec proprie componit secundum significatum, quia compositionis non est compositio, sed rerum compositioni modum apponit. Unde nihil aliud est enunciatio modalis, quam enunciatio dicti modificativa. The first part of the modal enunciation consists of a certain composition of Socrates and white; the second part, opposed to the first, 4 indicates a composition from the composition of dictum and mode. Again, the first part, although it has all the properties of an enunciation—subject, predicate, copula, and composition—is, in its entirety, the subject of the modal enunciation; the second part, the mode, is the predicate. In a modal enunciation, therefore, the composition of the dictum is subjected and modified; for when we say, “That Socrates be white is possible,” it does not signify the kind of conjunction of possibility there is with the dictum “That Socrates be white,” but it implies the kind of composition there is of the parts of the dictum among themselves, i.e., of white with Socrates, namely, that it is a possible composition. The modal enunciation, therefore, does not say that something is present in or not present in a subject, but rather, it enunciates a mode of the dictum. Nor properly speaking does it compose according to what is signified, since it is not a composition of the composition; rather, it adds a mode to the composition of the things. Hence the modal enunciation is simply an enunciation in which the dictum is modified.
Nec propterea censenda est enunciatio plures modalis, quia omnia duplicata habeat: quoniam unum modum de unica compositione enunciat, licet illius compositionis plures sint partes. Plura enim illa ad dicti compositionem concurrentia, veluti plura ex quibus fit unum subiectum concurrunt, de quibus dictum est supra quod enunciationis unitatem non impediunt. Sicut nec cum dicitur, domus est alba, est enunciatio multiplex, licet domus ex multis consurgat partibus. 5. Because the modal enunciation has everything duplicated, it must not on that account be thought to be many. It enunciates one mode of only one composition, although there are many parts of that composition. The many concurring for the composition of the dictum are like the many that concur to make one subject, of which it was said above that it does not impede the unity of the enunciation.” The enunciation, “The house is white,” is also a case in point, for it is not multiple, although a house is built of many parts.
Merito autem est, post enunciationes de inesse, de modalibus tractandum, quia partes naturaliter sunt toto priores, et cognitio totius ex partium cognitione dependet; et specialis sermo de his est habendus, quia proprias habet difficultates. 6. Modal enunciations are rightly treated after the absolute enunciation, for parts are naturally prior to the whole, and knowledge of the whole depends on knowledge of the parts. Moreover, a special discussion of them was necessary because the modal enunciation has its own peculiar difficulties.
Notavit quoque Aristoteles in textu multa. Horum ordinem scilicet, cum dixit: his vero determinatis etc.; modos qui et quot sunt, cum eos expressit et inseruit; variationem eiusdem modi, per affirmationem et negationem, cum dixit: possibile et non possibile, contingens et non contingens; necessitatem cum addidit: habent enim multas dubitationes proprias et cetera. Aristotle indicates in his text many of the things we have taken up here: the order of modal enunciations, when he says, Having determined these things, etc.; what and how many modes there are when he expresses and lists them, the variation of the same mode by affirmation and negation when he says, the possible and not possible, contingent and not contingent; the necessity of treating them, when he adds, for they have many difficulties of their own.
Deinde cum dicit: nam si eorum etc., exequitur tractatum de oppositione modalium. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, movendo quaestionem arguit ad partes; secundo, determinat veritatem; ibi: contingit autem et cetera. 7. Then he investigates the opposition of modal enunciations, where he says, Let us grant that of those things that are combined, contradictories are those opposed to each other by being related in a certain way according to “to be” and “not to be,” etc. First, he presents the question and in so doing gives arguments for the parts; secondly, he determines the truth, where he says, For it follows from what we have said, either that the same thing is asserted and denied at once of the same subject, etc.
Est autem dubitatio: an in enunciationibus modalibus fiat contradictio negatione apposita ad verbum dicti, quod dicit rem; an non, sed potius negatione apposita ad modum qui qualificat. Et primo, arguit ad partem affirmativam, quod scilicet addenda sit negatio ad verbum; secundo, ad partem negativam, quod non apponenda sit negatio ipsi verbo; ibi: videtur autem et cetera. The question with respect to the opposition of modals is this: Is a contradiction made in modal enunciations by a negation added to the verb of the dictum, which expresses what is; or is it not, but rather by a negation added to the mode which qualifies? Aristotle first argues for the affirmative part, that the negation must be added to the verb; then he argues for the negative part, that the negation must not be added to the verb, where he says, However it seems that the same thing is possible to be and possible not to be, etc.
Intendit ergo primo tale argumentum; si complexorum contradictiones attenduntur penes esse et non esse (ut patet inductive in enunciationibus substantivis de secundo adiacente et de tertio, et in adiectivis), contradictionesque omnium hoc modo sumendae sunt, contradictoria huius, possibile esse, erit, possibile non esse, et non illa, non possibile esse. Et consequenter apponenda est negatio verbo, ad sumendam oppositionem in modalibus. 8. His first argument is this. If of combined things, contradictions are those related according to “to be” and “not to be” (as is clear inductively in substantive enunciations with a second determinant, in those with a third determinant, and in adjectival enunciations) and all contradictions must be obtained in this way, the contradictory of “possible to be” will be “possible not to be,” and not, “not possible to be.” Consequently, the negation must be added to the verb to get opposition in modal enunciations.
Patet consequentia, quia cum dicitur, possibile esse, et, possibile non esse, negatio cadit supra esse. Unde dicit: nam si eorum, quae complectuntur, idest complexorum, illae sibi invicem sunt oppositae contradictiones, quae secundum esse vel non esse disponuntur, idest in quarum una affirmatur esse, et in altera negatur. The consequence is clear, for when we say “possible to be” and possible not to be” the negation falls on “to be.” Accordingly, he says, Let us grant that of those things that are combined, i.e., of complex things, contradictions are those opposed to each other which are disposed according to “to be” and “not to be,” i.e., in one of which “to be” is affirmed and in the other denied.
Et subdit inductionem, inchoans a secundo adiacente: ut, eius enunciationis quae est, esse hominem, idest, homo est, negatio est, non esse hominem, ubi verbum negatur, idest, homo non est; et non est eius negatio ea quae est, esse non hominem, idest, non homo est: haec enim non est negativa, sed affirmativa de subiecto infinito, quae simul est vera cum illa prima, scilicet, homo est. 9. He goes on to give an induction, beginning with an enunciation having a second determinant. The negation of “Man is,” is, “Man is not,” in which the verb is negated. The negation of “Man is,” is not, “Non-man is,” for this is not the negative but the affirmative of the infinite subject, which is true at the same time as the first enunciation, “Man is.”
Deinde prosequitur inductionem in substantivis de tertio adiacente: ut, eius quae est, esse album hominem idest, ut illius enunciationis, homo est albus, negatio est, non esse album hominem, ubi verbum negatur, idest, homo non est albus; et non est negatio illius ea, quae est, esse non album hominem, idest, homo est non albus. Haec enim non est negativa, sed affirmativa de praedicato infinito. 10. He continues the induction with substantive enunciations having a third determinant. The negation of the enunciation “Man is white” is “Man is not white,” in which the verb is negated. The negation is not “Man is nonwhite,” for this is not the negative, but the affirmative of the infinite predicate.
Et quia istae duae affirmativae de praedicato finito et infinito non possunt de eodem verificari, propterea quia sunt de praedicatis oppositis, posset aliquis credere quod sint contradictoriae; et ideo ad hunc errorem tollendum interponit rationem probantem quod hae duae non sunt contradictoriae. Est autem ratio talis. Contradictoriorum talis est natura quod de omnibus aut dictio, idest affirmatio aut negatio verificatur. Inter contradictoria siquidem nullum potest inveniri medium; sed hae duae enunciationes, scilicet, est homo albus, et, est homo non albus, sunt contradictoriae per se; ergo sunt talis naturae quod de omnibus altera verificatur. Et sic, cum de ligno sit falsum dicere, est homo albus, erit verum dicere de eo, scilicet ligno, esse non album hominem, idest, lignum est homo non albus. Quod est manifeste falsum: lignum enim neque est homo albus, neque est homo non albus. Restat ergo ex quo utraque est simul falsa de eodem, quod non sit inter eas contradictio. Sed contradictio fit quando negatio apponitur verbo. Now it might be thought that the affirmatives of the finite and infinite predicates are contradictories since they cannot be verified of the same thing because of their opposed predicates. To obviate this error, Aristotle interposes an argument proving that these two are not contradictories. The nature of contradictories, he reasons, is such that either the assertion, i.e., the affirmation, or the negation, is verified of anything, for between contradictories no middle is possible. Now the two enunciations, that something “is white man” and “is nonwhite man” are per se contradictories. Therefore, they are of such a nature that one of them is verified of anything. For example, it is false to say “is white man” of wood; hence “is nonwhite man” will be true to say of it, namely of wood, i.e., “Wood is nonwhite man.” This is manifestly false, for wood is neither white man nor nonwhite man. Consequently, there is not a contradiction in the case in which each is at once false of the same subject. Therefore, contradiction is effected when the negation is added to the verb.
Deinde prosequitur inductionem in enunciationibus adiectivi verbi, dicens: quod si hoc modo, scilicet supradicto, accipitur contradictio, et in quantiscunque enunciationibus esse non ponitur explicite, idem faciet quoad oppositionem sumendam, id quod pro esse dicitur (idest verbum adiectivum, quod locum ipsius esse tenet, pro quanto, propter eius veritatem in se inclusam, copulae officium facit), ut eius enunciationis quae est, homo ambulat, negatio est, non ea quae dicit, non homo ambulat (haec enim est affirmativa de subiecto infinito), sed negatio illius est, homo non ambulat; sicut et in illis de verbo substantivo, negatio verbo addenda erat. Nihil enim differt dicere verbo adiectivo, homo ambulat, vel substantivo, homo est ambulans. 11. He continues his induction with enunciations having an adjective verb: Now if the case is as we have stated it, i.e., contradiction is taken as said above, then in enunciations in which “to be” is not the determining word added (explicitly), that which is said in place of “to be” will effect the same thing with respect to the opposition obtained (i.e., the adjective verb that occupies the place of “to be,” inasmuch as the truth of “to be” is included in it, effects the function of the copula). For example, the negation of the enunciation “Man walks” is not, “Non-man walks” (for this is the affirmative of the infinite subject) but “Man is not walking.” In this case, as in that of the substantive verb, the negation must be added to the verb, for there is no difference between using the adjective verb, as in “Man walks,” and using the substantive verb, as in “Man is walking.”
Deinde ponit secundam partem inductionis dicens: et si hoc modo in omnibus sumenda est contradictio, scilicet, apponendo negationem ad esse, concluditur quod et eius enunciationis, quae dicit, possibile esse, negatio est, possibile non esse, et non illa quae dicit, non possibile esse. Patet conclusionis sequela: quia in illa, possibile non esse, negatio apponitur verbo; in ista autem non. 12. Then he posits the second part of the induction: And if this is always the case, i.e., that contradiction must be gotten by adding the negation to “to be,” we must conclude that the negation of the enunciation that asserts “Possible to be” is “possible not to be,” and not, “not possible to be.” The consequent of the conclusion is evident, for in “possible not to be” the negation is added to the verb, in “not possible to be,” it is not.
Dixit autem in principio huius rationis: eorum quae complectuntur, idest complexorum, contradictiones fiunt secundum esse et non esse, ad differentiam incomplexorum quorum oppositio non fit negatione dicente non esse, sed ipsi incomplexo apposita, ut, homo, et, non homo, legit, et non legit. At the beginning of this argument, Aristotle said, Of those things that are combined, i.e., complex things, the contradictions are effected according to “to be” and “not to be.” He said this in reference to the difference between complex and incomplex things, for opposition in the latter is not made by the negation expressing “not to be,” but by adding the negative to the incomplex thing itself, as in “man” and “non-man,” “reads” and “non-reads.”
Deinde cum dicit: videtur autem idem etc., arguit ad quaestionis partem negativam (scilicet quod ad sumendam contradictionem in modalibus non addenda est negatio verbo), tali ratione. Impossibile est duas contradictorias esse simul veras de eodem; sed supradictae, scilicet, possibile esse, et, possibile non esse, simul verificantur de eodem; ergo istae non sunt contradictoriae: igitur contradictio modalium non attenditur penes verbi negationem. 13. When he says, However, it seems that the same thing is possible to be and possible not to be, etc., he argues for the negative part of the question, namely, to get a contradiction in modals the negation should not be added to the verb. His reasoning is the following: It is impossible for two contradictories to be true at once of the same subject; but “possible to be” and “possible not to be” are verified at once of the same thing; therefore, these are not contradictories. Consequently, contradiction of the modals is not obtained by negation of the verb.
Huius rationis primo ponitur in littera minor cum sua probatione; secundo maior; tertio conclusio. Minor quidem cum dicit: videtur autem idem possibile esse, et, non possibile esse. Sicut verbi gratia, omne quod est possibile dividi est etiam possibile non dividi, et quod est possibile ambulare est etiam possibile non ambulare. Ratio autem huius minoris est, quoniam omne quod sic possibile est (sicut, scilicet, est possibile ambulare et dividi), non semper actu est: non enim semper actualiter ambulat, qui ambulare potest; nec semper actu dividitur, quod dividi potest. Quare inerit etiam negatio possibilis, idest, ergo non solum possibilis est affirmatio, sed etiam negatio eiusdem. In this reasoning, the minor is posited first, with its proof; secondly, the major; finally, the conclusion. The minor is: However, it seems that the same thing is possible to be and possible not to be. For instance, everything that has the possibility of being divided also has the possibility of not being divided, and that which has the possibility of walking also has the possibility of not walking. The proof of this minor is that everything that is possible in this way (as are possible to walk and to be divided) is not always in act; for he who is able to walk is not always actually walking, nor is that which can be divided always divided. And so the negation of the possible will also be inherent in it, i.e., therefore not only is the affirmation possible but also the negation.
Adverte quod quia possibile est multiplex, ut infra dicetur, ideo notanter Aristoteles addidit ly sic, assumens, quod sic possibile est, non semper actu est. Non enim de omni possibili verum est dicere quod non semper actu est, sed de aliquo, eo scilicet quod est sic possibile, quemadmodum ambulare et dividi. Notice that since the possible is manifold, as will be said further on, Aristotle explicitly adds “in this way” when he assumes here that that which is possible is not always in act. For it is not true to say of every possible that it is not always in act, but only of some, namely, those that are possible in the way in which to walk and to be divided are possible.
Nota ulterius quod quia tale possibile habet duas conditiones, scilicet quod potest actu esse et quod non semper actu est, sequitur necessario quod de eo simul est verum dicere, possibile esse, et, non esse. Ex eo enim quod potest actu esse, sequitur quod sit possibile esse; ex eo vero quod non semper actu est, sequitur quod sit possibile non esse. Quod enim non semper est, potest non esse. Bene ergo intulit Aristoteles ex his duobus: quare inerit etiam negatio possibilis et non solum affirmatio; potest igitur et non ambulare, quod est ambulabile, et non videri, quod est visibile. Note also that “possible in this way” has two conditions: that it is able to be in act, and that it is not always in act. It follows necessarily, then, that it is true to say of it simultaneously that it is both possible to be and possible not to be. From the fact that it can be in act it follows that it is possible to be; from the fact that it is not always in act it follows that it is possible not to be, for that which not always is, is able not to be. Aristotle, then, rightly infers from these two: and so the negation of the possible will also be inherent in it; and not just the affirmation, for that which could walk could also not walk and that which could be seen not be seen.
Maior vero subiungitur, cum ait: at vero impossibile est de eodem veras esse contradictiones. Infertur quoque ultimo conclusio: non est igitur ista (scilicet, possibile non esse) negatio illius, quae dicit, possibile esse: quia sunt simul verae de eodem. The major is: But it is impossible that contradictions in respect to the same thing be true. The final conclusion inferred is: Therefore, the negation of “possible to be” is not, “possible not to be” because they are true at once of the same thing.
Caveto autem ne ex isto textu putes possibile, ut est modus, debere semper accipi pro possibili ad utrumlibet: quoniam hoc infra declarabitur esse falsum; sed considera quod satis fuit intendenti declarare quod in modalibus non sumitur contradictio ex verbi negatione, afferre instantiam in una modali, quae continetur sub modalibus de possibili. In relation to this part of the text, be careful not to suppose that possible as it is a mode, is always to be taken for possible to either of two alternatives, for this will be shown to be false later on. If you consider the matter carefully you will see that it was enough for his intention to give as an instance one modal contained under the modals of the possible in order to show that contradiction in modals is not obtained by negation of the verb.
Deinde cum dicit: contingit autem unum ex his etc., determinat veritatem huius dubitationis. Et quia duo petebat, scilicet, an contradictio modalium ex negatione verbi fiat an non, et, an potius ex negatione modi; ideo primo, determinat veritatem primae petitionis, quod scilicet contradictio harum non fit negatione verbi; secundo determinat veritatem secundae petitionis, quod scilicet fiat modalium contradictio ex negatione modi; ibi: est ergo negatio et cetera. 14. Aristotle establishes the truth with respect to this difficulty where he says, For it follows from what we have said, either that the same thing is asserted and denied at once of the same subject, etc. Since he is investigating two things, i.e., whether contradiction of modals is made by the negation of the verb or not; and, whether it is not rather by negation of the mode, he first determines the truth in relation to the first question, namely, that contradiction of modals is not made by negation of the verb; then he determines the truth in relation to the second, namely, that contradiction of modals is made by negation of the mode, where he says, Therefore, the negation of “possible to be” is “not possible to be,” etc.
Dicit ergo quod propter supradictas rationes evenit unum ex his duobus, quae conclusimus determinare, aut idem ipsum, idest, unum et idem dicere, idest affirmare et negare simul de eodem: idest, aut quod duo contradictoria simul verificantur de eodem, ut prima ratio conclusit; aut affirmationes vel negationes modalium, quae opponuntur contradictorie, fieri non secundum esse vel non esse, idest, aut contradictio modalium non fiat ex negatione verbi, ut secunda ratio conclusit. Si ergo illud est impossibile, scilicet quod duo contradictoria possunt simul esse vera de eodem, hoc, scilicet quod contradictio modalium non fiat secundum verbi negationem, erit magis eligendum. Impossibilia enim semper vitanda sunt. Ex ipso autem modo loquendi innuit quod utrique earum aliquid obstat. Sed quia primo obstat impossibilitas quae acceptari non potest, secundo autem nihil aliud obstat nisi quod negatio supra enunciationis copulam cadere debet, si negativa fieri debet enunciatio, et hoc aliter fieri potest quam negando dicti verbum, ut infra declarabitur; ideo hoc secundum, scilicet quod contradictio modalium non fiat secundum negationem verbi, eligendum est: primum vero est omnino abiiciendum. Hence he says that because of the foresaid reasoning one of these two follows: first, that either the same thing, i.e., one and the same thing is said, i.e., is asserted and denied at once of the same subject, i.e., either two contradictories are verified at once of the same thing, as the first argument concluded; or secondly, that assertions and denials of modals, which are opposed contradictorily are not made by the addition of “to be” or “not to be,” i.e., contradiction of modals is not made by the negation of the verb, as the second argument concluded. If the former alternative is impossible, namely, that two contradictories can be true of the same thing at once, the latter, that contradiction of modals is not made according to negation of the verb, must obtain, for impossible things must always be avoided. His mode of speaking here indicates that there is some obstacle to each alternative. But since in the first the obstacle is an impossibility that cannot be accepted, while in the second the only obstacle is that the negation must fall upon the copula of the enunciation if a negative enunciation is to be formed, and this can be done otherwise than by denying the verb of the dictum, as will be shown later on, then the second alternative must be chosen, i.e., that the contradiction of modals is not made according to negation of the verb, and the first alternative is to be rejected.

LESSON 9
In Contradictions of Modal Propositions the Negation Must Be Added to the Modes, Not to the Verb

ἔστιν ἄρα ἀπόφασις τοῦ δυνατὸν εἶναι τὸ μὴ δυνατὸν εἶναι. ὁ δ' αὐτὸς λόγος καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἐνδεχόμενον εἶναι καὶ γὰρ τούτου ἀπόφασις τὸ μὴ ἐνδεχόμενον εἶναι. καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων δὲ ὁμοιοτρόπως, οἷον ἀναγκαίου τε καὶ ἀδυνάτου. 21b 23 Therefore, the negation of “possible to be” is “not possible to be.” The reasoning is the same in regard to “contingent to be,” for its negation is “not contingent to be.” So, too, in the others, that is, the necessary and the impossible.
γίγνεται γάρ, ὥσπερ ἐπ' ἐκείνων τὸ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι προσθέσεις, τὰ δ' ὑποκείμενα πράγματα τὸ μὲν λευκὸν τὸ δὲ ἄνθρωπος, οὕτως ἐνταῦθα τὸ μὲν εἶναι ὡς ὑποκείμενον γίγνεται, τὸ δὲ δύνασθαι καὶ ἐνδέχεσθαι προσθέσεις διορίζουσαι, ὥσπερ ἐπ' ἐκείνων τὸ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι τὸ ἀληθές, ὁμοίως αὗται ἐπὶ τοῦ εἶναι δυνατὸν καὶ εἶναι οὐ δυνατόν. 21b 26 For just as “to be” and “not to be” are the determining additions in the former [i.e., absolute enunciations] and the things subjected are “white” and “man,” so here “to be” is as the subject and “is possible” and “is contingent” are determining additions; and just as “to be” and “not to be” determine the true [and the false] in the former, in like manner these determine the true [and the false] in regard to what is possible and not possible.
Τοῦ δὲ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι ἀπόφασις τὸ οὐ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι. διὸ καὶ ἀκολουθεῖν ἂν δόξαιεν ἀλλήλαις αἱ δυνατὸν εἶναι-δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ δυνατὸν εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι οὐ γὰρ ἀντιφάσεις ἀλλήλων αἱ τοιαῦται. ἀλλὰ τὸ δυνατὸν εἶναι καὶ (22a.) μὴ δυνατὸν εἶναι οὐδέποτε ἅμα ἀντίκεινται γάρ. οὐδέ γε τὸ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι καὶ οὐ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι οὐδέποτε ἅμα. 21b 33 The negation, then, of “possible not to be” is “not possible not to be.” Wherefore “possible to be” and “possible not to be” would appear to be consequent to each other; for the same thing is “possible to be” and “possible not to be,” since these are not contradictory to each other. But “possible to be” and “not possible to be” are never true at once of the same subject, for they are opposed. Nor are “possible not to be” and “not possible not to be” ever true at once of the same subject.
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τοῦ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι ἀπόφασις οὐ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον μὴ εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοῦ δὲ ἀναγκαῖον μὴ εἶναι τὸ μὴ ἀναγκαῖον μὴ εἶναι. The case is the same with respect to the necessary. The negation of necessary to be” is not, “necessary not to be” but, “not necessary to be”; and the negation of “necessary not to be,” “not necessary not to be.”
καὶ τοῦ ἀδύνατον εἶναι οὐ τὸ ἀδύνατον μὴ εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ ἀδύνατον εἶναι τοῦ δὲ ἀδύνατον μὴ εἶναι τὸ οὐκ ἀδύνατον μὴ εἶναι. Likewise, the negation of “impossible to be” is not, “impossible not to be” but, “not impossible to be”; and of “impossible not to be,” “not impossible not to be.”
καὶ καθόλου δέ, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, τὸ μὲν εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι δεῖ τιθέναι ὡς τὰ ὑποκείμενα, κατάφασιν δὲ καὶ ἀπόφασιν ταῦτα ποιοῦντα πρὸς τὸ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι συνάπτειν. καὶ ταύτας οἴεσθαι χρὴ εἶναι τὰς ἀντικειμένας φάσεις, δυνατόν—οὐ δυνατόν, ἐνδεχόμενον—οὐκ ἐνδεχόμενον, ἀδύνατον— οὐκ ἀδύνατον, ἀναγκαῖον—οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον, ἀληθές-οὐκ ἀληθές. 22a 8 And universally, as has been said, “to be” and “not to be” must be posited as the subject, and those that produce affirmation and negation [i.e., possible, not possible, contingent, not contingent, etc.] must be joined to “to be” and “not to be.” And these are the words that are to be considered opposed:

possible — not possible
contingent — not contingent
impossible — not impossible
necessary — not necessary
true — not true

Determinat ubi ponenda sit negatio ad assumendam modalium contradictionem. Et circa hoc quatuor facit: primo, determinat veritatem summarie; secundo, assignat determinatae veritatis rationem, quae dicitur rationi ad oppositum inductae; ibi: fiunt enim etc.; tertio, explanat eamdem veritatem in omnibus modalibus; ibi: eius vero etc.; quarto, universalem regulam concludit; ibi: universaliter vero et cetera. 1. Aristotle now determines where the negation must be placed in order to obtain contradiction in modals. He first determines the truth summarily; secondly, he presents the argument for the truth of the position, which is also the answer to the reasoning induced for the opposite position, where he says, For just as “to be” and “not to be” are the determining additions in the former, and the things subjected are “white” and “man,” etc.; thirdly, he makes this truth evident in all the modals, where he says, The negation, then, of “possible not to be” is “not possible not to be,” etc.; fourthly, he arrives at a universal rule where he says, And universally, as has been said, “to be” and “not to be must be posited as the subject, etc.
Quia igitur negatio aut verbo aut modo apponenda est, et quod verbo non addenda est, declaratum est per locum a divisione; concludendo determinat: est ergo negatio eius quae est possibile esse, ea quae est non possibile esse, in qua negatur modus. Et eadem est ratio in enunciationibus de contingenti. Huius enim, quae est, contingens esse, negatio est, non contingens esse. Et in aliis, scilicet de necesse et impossibile idem est iudicium. Since the negation must be added either to the verb or to the mode and it was shown above in virtue of an argument from division that it is not to be added to the verb, he concludes: Therefore, the negation of “possible to be” is “not possible to be”, that is, the mode is negated. The reasoning is the same with respect to enunciations of the contingent, for the negation of “contingent to be” is “not contingent to be.” And the judgment is the same in the others, i.e., the necessary and the impossible.
Deinde cum dicit: fiunt enim in illis appositiones etc., subdit huius veritatis rationem talem. Ad sumendam contradictionem inter aliquas enunciationes oportet ponere negationem super appositione, idest coniunctione praedicati cum subiecto; sed in modalibus appositiones sunt modi; ergo in modalibus negatio apponenda est modo, ut fiat contradictio. 2. When he says, For just as “to be” and “not to be” are the determining additions in the former, and the things subjected are “white” and “man,” etc., he gives the argument for the truth of his position. To obtain contradiction among any enunciations the negation must be applied to the determining addition, i.e., to the word that joins the predicate with the subject; but in modals the determining additions are the modes; therefore, to get a contradiction in modals, the negation must be added to the mode.
Huius rationis, maiore subintellecta, minor ponitur in littera per secundam similitudinem ad illas de inesse. Et dicitur quod quemadmodum in illis enunciationibus de inesse appositiones, idest praedicationes, sunt esse et non esse, idest verba significativa esse vel non esse (verbum enim semper est nota eorum quae de altero praedicantur), subiective vero appositionibus res sunt, quibus esse vel non esse apponitur, ut album, cum dicitur, album est, vel homo, cum dicitur, homo est; eodem modo hoc in loco in modalibus accidit: esse quidem subiectum fit, idest dictum significans esse vel non esse subiecti locum tenet; contingere vero et posse oppositiones, idest modi, praedicationes sunt. Et quemadmodum in illis de inesse penes esse et non esse veritatem vel falsitatem determinavimus, ita in istis modalibus penes modos. Hoc est enim quod subdit, determinantes, scilicet, fiunt ipsi modi veritatem, quemadmodum in illis esse et non esse, eam determinat. The major of the argument is subsumed; the minor is stated in Aristotle’s wording by a further similitude to absolute enunciations. In absolute enunciations the determining additions, i.e., the predications, are “to be” and “not to be,” i.e., the verb signifying “to be” or “not to be” (for the verb is always a sign of those things that are predicated of another). The things subjected to the determining additions, i.e., to which to be” and “not to be” are applied, are “white,” in “White is, “or man,” in “Man is.” This happens in modals in the same way but in a manner appropriate to them. “To be” is as the subject, i.e., the dictum signifying “to be” or “not to be” holds the place of the subject; “is possible” and “is contingent,” i.e., the modes, are the predicates. And just as in absolute enunciations we determine truth or falsity with “to be” and “not to be,” so in modals with the modes. He makes this point when he says, determining additions, i.e., these modes effect truth just as “to be” and “not to be” determine truth and falsity in the others.
Et sic patet responsio ad argumentum in oppositum primo adductum, concludens quod negatio verbo apponenda sit, sicut illis de inesse. Dicitur enim quod cum modalis enunciet modum de dicto sicut enunciatio de inesse, esse vel esse tale, puta esse album de subiecto, eumdem locum tenet modus hic, quem ibi verbum; et consequenter super idem proportionaliter cadit negatio hic et ibi. Eadem enim, ut dictum est, proportio est modi ad dictum, quae est verbi ad subiectum. 3. Thus the response to the argument for the opposite position, which he gave first, is evident. That argument concluded that the negation should be added to the verb as it is in absolute enunciations. But since the modal enunciates a mode of a dictum—as the absolute enunciation enunciates “to be” or “not to be” such, for instance, “to be white” of a subject—the mode holds the same place here that the verb does there. Consequently, the negation falls upon the same thing proportionally here and there, for the proportion of mode to dictum is the same as the proportion of verb to subject.
Rursus cum veritas et falsitas affirmationem et negationem sequantur, penes idem attendenda est affirmatio vel negatio enunciationis, et veritas vel falsitas eiusdem; sicut autem in enunciationibus de inesse veritas vel falsitas esse vel non esse consequitur, ita in modalibus modum. Illa namque modalis est vera quae sic modificat dictum sicut dicti compositio patitur, sicut illa de inesse est vera, quae sic significat esse sicut est. Est ergo negatio modo hic apponenda, sicut ibi verbo, cum sit eadem utriusque vis quoad veritatem et falsitatem enunciationis. Again, since truth and falsity follow upon affirmation and negation, the affirmation and negation of an enunciation and its truth and falsity must be controlled by the same thing. In absolute enunciations truth and falsity follow upon “to be” or “not to be,” hence in the modals they follow upon the mode; for that modal is true which modifies the dictum as the composition of the dictum permits, just as that absolute enunciation is true which signifies that something is as it is. Therefore, negation is added here to the mode just as it is added there to the verb, since the power of each is the same with respect to the truth and falsity of an enunciation.
Adverte quod modos, appositiones, idest, praedicationes vocavit, sicut esse in illis de inesse, intelligens per modum totum praedicatum enunciationis modalis, puta, est possibile. In cuius signum modos ipsos verbaliter protulit dicens: contingere vero et posse appositiones sunt. Contingit enim et potest, totum praedicatum modalis continent. Notice that he calls the modes “determining additions,” i.e., predications—as “to be” is in absolute enunciations—understanding by the mode the whole predicate of the modal enunciation, for example, “is possible.” As a sign of this he expresses the modes themselves verbally when he says, “is possible” and “is contingent” are determining additions. For “is contingent” and “is possible” comprise the whole predicate of the modal enunciation.
Deinde cum dicit: eius vero quod est possibile est non esse etc., explanat determinatam veritatem in omnibus modalibus, scilicet de possibili, et necessario, et impossibili. Contingens convertitur cum possibili. Et quia quilibet modus facit duas modales affirmativas, alteram habentem dictum affirmatum, et alteram habentem dictum negatum; ideo explanat in singulis modis quae cuiusque affirmationis negatio sit. Et primo in illis de possibili. Et quia primae affirmativae de possibili (quae scilicet habet dictum affirmatum) scilicet possibile esse, negatio assignata fuit, non possibile esse; ideo ad reliquam affirmativam de possibili transiens ait: eius vero, quae est possibile non esse (ubi dictum negatur) negatio est non possibile non esse. Et hoc consequenter probat per hoc quod contradictoria huius, possibile non esse, aut est, possibile esse, aut illa, quam diximus, scilicet, non possibile non esse. Sed illa, scilicet, possibile esse, non est eius contradictoria. Non enim sunt sibi invicem contradicentes, possibile esse, et, possibile non esse, quia possunt simul esse verae. Unde et sequi sese invicem putabuntur: quoniam, ut supra dictum fuit, idem est, possibile esse, et, non esse, et consequenter sicut ad, posse esse, sequitur, posse non esse, ita e contra ad, posse non esse, sequitur, posse esse; sed contradictoria illius, possibile esse, quae non potest simul esse vera est, non possibile esse: hae enim, ut dictum est, opponuntur. Remanet ergo quod huius negatio, possibile non esse, sit illa, non possibile non esse: hae namque simul nunquam sunt verae vel falsae. 4. When he says, The negation, then, of “possible not to be” is [not, “not possible to be” but] “not possible not to be,” etc., he makes this truth evident in all the modals, i.e., the possible, the necessary, and the impossible (the contingent being convertible with the possible). And since any mode makes two modal affirmatives, one having an affirmed dictum and the other having a negated dictum, he shows what the negation of each affirmation is in each mode. First he takes those of the possible. The negation of the first affirmative of the possible (the one with an affirmed dictum), i.e., “possible to be,” was assigned as “not possible to be.” Hence, going on to the remaining affirmative of the possible he says, The negation, then, of “possible not to be” [wherein the dictum is negated] is, “not possible not to be.” Then he a proves this. The contradictory of “possible not to be” is either “Possible to be” or “not possible not to be.” But the former, i.e., “possible to be,” is not the contradictory of “possible not to be,” for they can be at once true. Hence they are also thought to follow upon each other, for, as was said above, the same thing is possible to be and not to be. Consequently, just as “possible not to be” follows upon “possible to be,” so conversely “possible to be” follows upon “possible not to be.” But the contradictory of “possible to be,” which cannot be true at the same time, is “not possible to be,” for these, as has been said, are opposed. Therefore, the negation of “possible not to be” is, “not possible not to be,” for these are never at once true or false.
Dixit quod possibile esse et non esse sequi se invicem putabuntur, et non dixit quod se invicem consequuntur: quia secundum veritatem universaliter non sequuntur se, sed particulariter tantum, ut infra dicetur; propter quod putabitur quod simpliciter se invicem sequantur. Note that he says, Wherefore “possible to be” and “possible not to be” would appear to be consequent to each other, and not that they do follow upon each other, for it is not true that they follow upon each other universally, but only particularly (as will be said later); this is the reason they appear to follow upon each other simply.
Deinde declarat hoc idem in illis de necessario. Et primo, in affirmativa habente dictum affirmatum, dicens: similiter eius quae est, necessarium esse, negatio non est ea, quae dicit necessarium non esse, ubi modus non negatur, sed ea quae est, non necessarium esse. Deinde subdit de affirmativa de necessario habente dictum negatum, et ait: eius vero, quae est, necessarium non esse, negatio est ea, quae dicit, non necessarium non esse. Then he manifests the same thing in the modals of the necessary, and first in the affirmative with an affirmed dictum: The case is the same with respect to the necessary. The negation of “necessary to be” is not, “necessary not to be” (in which the mode is not negated) but, “not necessary to be.” Next he adds the affirmative of the necessary with a negated dictum: and the negation of “necessary not to be is “not necessary not to be.”
Deinde transit ad illas de impossibili, eumdem ordinem servans, et inquit: et eius, quae dicit, impossibile esse, negatio non est ea quae dicit, impossibile non esse, sed, non impossibile esse: ubi iam modus negatur. Alterius vero affirmativae, quae est, impossibile non esse, negatio est ea quae dicit non impossibile non esse. Et sic semper modo negatio addenda est.  Next, he takes up the impossible, keeping the same order. The negation of “impossible to be” is not, “impossible not to be” but, “not impossible to be,” in which the mode is negated. The negation of the other affirmative, “impossible not to be” is “not impossible not to be.” The negation, therefore, is always added to the mode.
Deinde cum dicit: universaliter vero etc., concludit regulam universalem dicens quod, quemadmodum dictum est, dicta importantia esse et non esse oportet ponere in modalibus ut subiecta, negationem vero et affirmationem hoc, idest contradictionis oppositionem, facientem, oportet apponere tantummodo ad suum eumdem modum, non ad diversos modos. Debet namque illemet modus negari, qui prius affirmabatur, si contradictio esse debet. Et exemplariter explanans quomodo hoc fiat, subdit: et oportet putare has esse oppositas dictiones, idest affirmationes et negationes in modalibus, possibile et non possibile, contingens et non contingens. 5. Then he says, And universally, as has been said, “to be” and “not to be” must be posited as the subject, and those that produce affirmation and negation must be joined to “to be” and “not to be,” etc. Here he concludes with the universal rule. As has been said, the dictums denoting “to be” and “not to be” must be posited in the modals as subjects, and the one making this an affirmation and negation, i.e., the opposition of contradiction, must be added only to the selfsame mode, not to diverse modes, for the selfsame mode which was previously affirmed must be denied if there is to be a contradiction. He gives examples of how this is to be done when he adds, And these are the words that are to be considered opposed, i.e., affirmations and negations in modals, possible–not possible, contingent–not contingent.
Item cum dixit negationem alio tantum modo ad modum apponi debere, non exclusit modi copulam, sed dictum. Hoc enim est singulare in modalibus quod eamdem oppositionem facit, negatio modo addita, et eius verbo. Contradictorie enim opponitur huic, possibile est esse, non solum illa, non possibile est esse, sed ista, possibile non est esse; meminit autem modi potius, et propter hoc quod nunc diximus, ut scilicet insinuaret quod negatio verbo modi postposita, modo autem praeposita, idem facit ac si modali verbo praeponeretur, et quia, cum modo numquam caret modalis enunciatio, semper negatio supra modum poni potest. Non autem sic de eius verbo: verbo enim modi carere contingit modalem, ut cum dicitur, Socrates currit necessario; et ideo semper verbo negatio aptari potest. Moreover, when he said elsewhere but in another way that the negation must be applied only to the mode, he did not exclude the copula of the mode, but the copula of the dictum. For it is unique to modals that the same opposition is made by adding a negation to the mode and to its verb. The contradictory of “is possible to be,” for instance, is not only “is not possible to be,” but also “not is possible to be.” There are two reasons, however, for his mentioning the mode rather than the verb: first, for the reason we have just given, namely, so as to imply that the negation placed after the verb of the mode, the mode having been put first, accomplishes the same thing as if it were placed before the modal verb; and secondly, because the modal enunciation is never without a mode; hence the negation can always be put on the mode. However, it cannot always be put on the verb of a mode, for the modal enunciation may lack the verb of a mode as for example in “Socrates runs necessarily,” in which case the negation can always be adapted to the verb.
Quod autem in fine addidit, verum et non verum, insinuat, praeter quatuor praedictos modos, alios inveniri, qui etiam compositionem enunciationis determinant, puta, verum et non verum, falsum et non falsum: quos tamen inter modos supra non posuit, quia, ut declaratum fuit, non proprie modificant. In adding “true” and “not true” at the end he implies that besides the four modes mentioned previously there are others that also determine the composition of the enunciation, for example, “true” and “not true,” “false” and “not false”; nevertheless he did not posit these among the modes first given because, as was shown, they do not properly modify.

LESSON 10
The Logical Consequents of the Modals

Καὶ αἱ ἀκολουθήσεις δὲ κατὰ λόγον γίγνονται οὕτω τιθεμένοις τῷ μὲν γὰρ δυνατῷ εἶναι τὸ ἐνδέχεσθαι εἶναι, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκείνῳ ἀντιστρέφει, καὶ τὸ μὴ ἀδύνατον εἶναι καὶ τὸ μὴ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τῷ δὲ δυνατῷ μὴ εἶναι καὶ ἐνδεχομένῳ μὴ εἶναι τό τε μὴ ἀναγκαῖον μὴ εἶναι καὶ οὐκ ἀδύνατον μὴ εἶναι, τῷ δὲ μὴ δυνατῷ εἶναι καὶ μὴ ἐνδεχομένῳ εἶναι τὸ ἀναγκαῖον μὴ εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἀδύνατον εἶναι, τῷ δὲ μὴ δυνατῷ μὴ εἶναι καὶ μὴ ἐνδεχομένῳ μὴ εἶναι τὸ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἀδύνατον μὴ εἶναι. θεωρείσθω δὲ ἐκ τῆς ὑπογραφῆς ὡς λέγομεν 22a 14 Logical sequences result from modals ordered thus. From “possible to be” follows “contingent to be” and the latter is convertible with the former; “not impossible to be” and “not necessary to be” also follow from “possible to be.” From “possible not to be” follows “contingent not to be,” “not necessary not to be,” and “not impossible not to be.” From “not possible to be” and “not contingent to be” follows “necessary not to be” and “impossible to be.” From “not possible not to be” and “not contingent not to be” follows “necessary to be” and “impossible not to be.” Let us consider these with the help of a table. 22a24
δυνατὸν εἶναι οὐ δυνατὸν εἶναι
ἐνδεχόμενον εἶναι οὐκ ἐνδεχόμενον εἶναι
οὐκ ἀδύνατον εἶναι ἀδύνατον εἶναι
οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι
 
δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι οὐ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι
ἐνδεχόμενον μὴ εἶναι οὐκ ἐνδεχόμενον μὴ εἶναι
οὐκ ἀδύνατον μὴ εἶναι ἀδύνατον μὴ εἶναι
οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον μὴ εἶναι ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι.
possible to benot possible to be
contingent to benot contingent to be
not impossible to beimpossible to be
not necessary to benecessary not to be
 
possible not to benot possible not to be
contingent not to benot contingent not to be
not impossible not to beimpossible not to be
not necessary not to benecessary to be
Τὸ μὲν οὖν ἀδύνατον καὶ οὐκ ἀδύνατον τῷ ἐνδεχομένῳ καὶ δυνατῷ καὶ οὐκ ἐνδεχομένῳ καὶ μὴ δυνατῷ ἀκολουθεῖ μὲν ἀντιφατικῶς, ἀντεστραμμένως δέ τῷ μὲν γὰρ δυνατῷ εἶναι ἡ ἀπόφασις τοῦ ἀδυνάτου, τῇ δὲ ἀποφάσει ἡ κατάφασις τῷ γὰρ οὐ δυνατῷ εἶναι τὸ ἀδύνατον εἶναι κατάφασις γὰρ τὸ ἀδύνατον εἶναι, τὸ δὲ οὐκ ἀδύνατον ἀπόφασις. 22a 32 Now the impossible and the not impossible follow contradictorily upon the contingent and the possible and the not contingent and the not possible, but inversely. The negation of “impossible to be” follows upon “possible to be” and the affirmation of the former follows upon the negation of the latter, i.e., “impossible to be” follows upon “not possible to be”; for “impossible to be” is an affirmation, “not impossible to be” a negation.
Τὸ δ' ἀναγκαῖον πῶς, ὀπτέον. φανερὸν δὴ ὅτι οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλ' αἱ ἐναντίαι ἕπονται, αἱ δ' ἀντιφάσεις χωρίς. 22a 38 Now we must consider how enunciations predicating necessity are related to these. It is evident that the case here is not the same, for the contraries follow, but their contradictories are separated.
οὐ γάρ ἐστιν (22b.) ἀπόφασις τοῦ ἀνάγκη μὴ εἶναι τὸ οὐκ ἀνάγκη εἶναι ἐνδέχεται γὰρ ἀληθεύεσθαι ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀμφοτέρας τὸ γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον μὴ εἶναι οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι. 22a 39 For the negation of “necessary not to be” is not “not necessary to be,” since both may be true of the same subject, for the necessary not to be is not necessary to be.
αἴτιον δὲ τοῦ μὴ ἀκολουθεῖν ὁμοίως τοῖς ἑτέροις ὅτι ἐναντίως τὸ ἀδύνατον τῷ ἀναγκαίῳ ἀποδίδοται, τὸ αὐτὸ δυνάμενον εἰ γὰρ ἀδύνατον εἶναι, ἀναγκαῖον τοῦτο οὐχὶ εἶναι ἀλλὰ μὴ εἶναι εἰ δὲ ἀδύνατον μὴ εἶναι, τοῦτο ἀνάγκη εἶναι ὥστ' εἰ ἐκεῖνα ὁμοίως τῷ δυνατῷ καὶ μή, ταῦτα ἐξ ἐναντίας, ἐπεὶ σημαίνει γε ταὐτὸν τό τε ἀναγκαῖον καὶ τὸ ἀδύνατον, ἀλλ' ὥσπερ εἴρηται, ἀντεστραμμένως. 22b 3 Now the reason why enunciations predicating necessity do not follow in the same way as the others is that the impossible expresses contrarily the same thing as the necessary. For if it is impossible that this be, it is necessary, not that it be, but necessary that it not be; and if it is impossible that it not be, it is necessary that it be. So, if the impossible and not impossible follow in like manner from the possible and not possible, the necessary and not necessary follow contrarily, since the necessary and the impossible signify the same thing, but as has been said, inversely.
ἢ ἀδύνατον οὕτω κεῖσθαι τὰς τοῦ ἀναγκαίου ἀντιφάσεις; τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι δυνατὸν εἶναι εἰ γὰρ μή, ἡ ἀπόφασις ἀκολουθήσει ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἢ φάναι ἢ ἀποφάναι ὥστ' εἰ μὴ δυνατὸν εἶναι, ἀδύνατον εἶναι ἀδύνατον ἄρα εἶναι τὸ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι, ὅπερ ἄτοπον. ἀλλὰ μὴν τῷ γε δυνατὸν εἶναι τὸ οὐκ ἀδύνατον εἶναι ἀκολουθεῖ, τούτῳ δὲ τὸ μὴ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι ὥστε συμβαίνει τὸ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι μὴ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι, ὅπερ ἄτοπον. 22b 10 Or is it impossible to arrange the contradictions of enunciations predicating necessity in this way? For what is necessary to be, is possible to be (for if not, the negation will follow, since it is necessary either to affirm or deny; and if it is not possible to be, it is impossible to be; therefore, that which is necessary to be is impossible to be, which is absurd). But from “possible to be” “not impossible to be” follows, and from this, “not necessary to be”; and thus what is necessary to be is not necessary to be, which is absurd.
ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι ἀκολουθεῖ τῷ δυνατὸν εἶναι, οὐδὲ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον μὴ εἶναι τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἄμφω ἐνδέχεται συμβαίνειν, τούτων δ' ὁπότερον ἂν ἀληθὲς ᾖ, οὐκέτι ἔσται ἐκεῖνα ἀληθῆ ἅμα γὰρ δυνατὸν εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι εἰ δ' ἀνάγκη εἶναι ἢ μὴ εἶναι, οὐκ ἔσται δυνατὸν ἄμφω. λείπεται τοίνυν τὸ οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον μὴ εἶναι ἀκολουθεῖν τῷ δυνατὸν εἶναι 22b 17 But in fact neither “necessary to be” nor “necessary not to be” follow upon “possible to be”; for “to be possible” admits of two possibilities, whereas if either “necessary to be” or “necessary not to be” is true both possibilities will no longer be true. For a thing is at once possible to be and not to be, but if it is necessary to be or not to be, the two alternatives will not be possible. It remains, therefore, that “not necessary not to be” follows upon “possible to be”;
τοῦτο γὰρ ἀληθὲς καὶ κατὰ τοῦ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι. καὶ γὰρ αὕτη γίγνεται ἀντίφασις τῇ ἑπομένῃ τῷ οὐ δυνατῷ εἶναι ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἀκολουθεῖ τὸ ἀδύνατον εἶναι καὶ ἀναγκαῖον μὴ εἶναι, οὗ ἀπόφασις τὸ οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον μὴ εἶναι. 22b 23 for this is true also with respect to “necessary to be.” For “not necessary not to be” is the contradictory of what follows upon “not possible to be,” for “not possible to be” is followed by “impossible to be” and by “necessary not to be,” and the negation of this is “not necessary not to be.”
ἀκολουθοῦσιν ἄρα καὶ αὗται αἱ ἀντιφάσεις κατὰ τὸν εἰρημένον τρόπον, καὶ οὐδὲν ἀδύνατον συμβαίνει τιθεμένων οὕτως. 22b 26 Thus, these contradictions also follow in the way indicated, and nothing impossible follows when they are thus arranged..
Postquam determinavit de oppositione modalium, hic determinare intendit de consequentiis earum. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, tradit veritatem; secundo, movet quandam dubitationem circa determinata; ibi: dubitabit autem et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, ponit consequentias earum secundum opinionem aliorum; secundo, examinando et corrigendo dictam opinionem, determinat veritatem; ibi: ergo impossibile et cetera. 1. Having established the opposition of modals, Aristotle now intends to determine their consequents. He first presents the true doctrine; then, he raises a difficulty where he says, But it may be questioned whether “Possible to be follows upon “necessary to be,” etc. In presenting the true doctrine, he first posits the consequents of the opposition of modals according to the opinion of others; secondly, he determines the truth by examining and correcting their opinion, where he says, Now the impossible and the not impossible follow contradictorily upon the contingent and the possible and the not contingent and the not possible, but inversely, etc.
Quoad primum considerandum est quod cum quilibet modus faciat duas affirmationes, ut dictum fuit, et duabus affirmationibus opponantur duae negationes, ut etiam dictum fuit in primo; secundum quemlibet modum fient quatuor enunciationes, duae scilicet affirmativae et duae negativae. Cum autem modi sint quatuor, efficientur sexdecim modales: quaternarius enim in seipsum ductus sexdecim constituit. Et quoniam apud omnes, quaelibet cuiusque modi, undecumque incipias, habet unam tantum cuiusque modi se consequentem, ideo ad assignandas consequentias modalium, singulas ex singulis modis accipere oportet et ad consequentiae ordinem inter se adunare. 2. Before we consider these consequents according to the opinion of others, we must first note that since any mode makes two affirmations and there are two negations opposed to these, there will be four enunciations according to any one mode, two affirmatives and two negatives. And since there are four modes, there will be sixteen modals. Among these sixteen, anyone of each mode, from wherever you begin, has only one of each mode following upon it. Hence, to assign the consequents of the modals, we have to take one from each mode and arrange them among themselves to form an order of consequents.
Et hoc modo fecerunt antiqui, de quibus inquit Aristoteles: consequentiae vero fiunt secundum infrascriptum ordinem, antiquis ita ponentibus. Formaverunt enim quatuor ordines modalium, in quorum quolibet omnes quae se consequuntur collocaverunt. 3. The modals were ordered in this way by the ancients. They disposed them in four orders placing together in each order those that were a consequent to each other. Aristotle speaks of this order when he says, Logical consequents follow according to the order in the table below, which is the way in which the ancients posited them.
Ut autem confusio vitetur, vocetur, cum Averroe, de caetero, in quolibet modo, affirmativa de dicto, et modo, affirmativa simplex; affirmativa autem de modo et negativa de dicto, affirmativa declinata; negativa vero de modo et non dicto, negativa simplex; negativa autem de utroque, negativa declinata: ita quod modi affirmationem vel negationem simplicitas, dicti vero declinatio denominet.  Henceforth, however, to avoid confusion let us call the affirmative of dictum and mode in any one mode, the simple affirmative, as it is by Averroes, among others; affirmative of mode and negative of dictum, the declined affirmative; negative of mode and not of dictum, the simple negative; negative of both mode and dictum, the declined negative. Hence, simplicity of mode designates affirmation or negation, and so, too, does declination of dictum.
Dixerunt ergo antiqui quod affirmationem simplicem de possibili, scilicet, possibile est esse, sequitur affirmativa simplex de contingenti, scilicet, contingens est esse (contingens enim convertitur cum possibili); et negativa simplex de impossibili, scilicet, non impossibile esse; et similiter negativa simplex de necessario, scilicet, non necesse est esse. Et hic est primus ordo modalium consequentium se. The ancients said, then, that simple affirmation of the contingent, i.e., “contingent to be” follows upon simple affirmation of the possible, i.e., “Possible to be” (for the contingent is converted with the possible); the simple negative of the impossible also follows upon this, i.e., “not impossible to be”; and the simple negative of the necessary, i.e., “not necessary to be.” This is the first order of modal consequents.
In secundo autem dixerunt quod affirmativas declinatas de possibili et contingenti, scilicet, possibile non esse, et, contingens non esse, sequuntur negativae declinatae de necessario et impossibili, scilicet, non necessarium non esse, et, non impossibile non esse. In the second order they said that the declined negatives of the necessary and impossible, i.e., “not necessary not to be” and “not impossible not to be,” follow upon the declined affirmative of the possible and the contingent, i.e., “possible not to be” and “contingent not to be.”
In tertio vero ordine dixerunt quod negativas simplices de possibili et contingenti, scilicet, non possibile esse, non contingens esse, sequuntur affirmativa declinata de necessario, scilicet, necesse non esse, et affirmativa simplex de impossibili, scilicet, impossibile esse. In the third order, according to them, the declined affirmative of the necessary, i.e., “necessary not to be,” and the simple affirmative of of the impossible, i.e., “impossible to be,” follow upon the simple negatives of the possible and the contingent, i.e., “not possible to be” and not contingent to be.”
In quarto demum ordine dixerunt quod negativas declinatas de possibili et contingenti, scilicet, non possibile non esse, et, non contingens non esse, sequuntur affirmativa simplex de necessario, scilicet, necesse esse, et affirmativa declinata de impossibili, scilicet, impossibile est non esse. Finally, in the fourth order, the simple affirmative of the necessary, i.e., “necessary to be,” and the declined affirmative of the impossible, i.e., “impossible not to be,” follow upon the declined negatives of the possible and the contingent, i.e., “not possible not to be” and “not contingent not to be.”
Consideretur autem ex subscriptione appositae figurae, quemadmodum dicimus, ut clarius elucescat depictum. Consequentiae enunciationum modalium secundum quatuor ordines ab antiquis positae et ordinatae. (Figura). 4. To make this ordering more evident, let us consider it with the help of the following table.

CONSEQUENTS OF MODAL ENUNCIATIONS IN THE FOUR ORDERS POSITED AND ORDERED BY THE ANCIENTS
FIRST ORDER
It is possible to be
It is contingent to be
It is not impossible to be
It is not necessary to be

SECOND ORDER
It is possible not to be
It is contingent not to be
It is not impossible not to be
It is not necessary not to be

THIRD ORDER
It is not possible to be
It is not contingent to be
It is impossible to be
It is necessary not to be

FOURTH ORDER
It is not possible not to be
It is not contingent not to be
It is impossible not to be
It is necessary to be

Deinde cum dicit: ergo impossibile et non impossibile etc., examinando dictam opinionem, determinat veritatem. Et circa hoc duo facit: quia primo examinat consequentias earum de impossibili; secundo, illarum de necessario; ibi: necessarium autem et cetera. 5. When he says, Now the impossible and the not impossible follow contradictorily upon the contingent and the possible and the not contingent and the not possible, but inversely, etc., he determines the truth by examining the foresaid opinion. First, he examines the consequents of enunciations predicating impossibility; secondly, those predicating necessity, where he says, Now we must consider how enunciations predicating necessity are related to these, etc.
Unde ex praemissa opinione concludens et approbans, dicit: ergo istae, scilicet, impossibile, et, non impossibile, sequuntur illas, scilicet, contingens et possibile, non contingens, et, non possibile, sequuntur, inquam, contradictorie, idest ita ut contradictoriae de impossibili contradictorias de possibili et contingenti consequantur, sed conversim, idest, sed non ita quod affirmatio affirmationem et negatio negationem sequatur, sed conversim, scilicet, quod affirmationem negatio et negationem affirmatio. From the opinion advanced, then, he concludes with approval that the impossible and the not impossible follow upon the contingent and the possible and the not contingent and the not possible, contradictorily, i.e., the contradictories of the impossible follow upon the contradictories of the possible and the contingent, but inversely, i.e., not so that affirmation follows upon affirmation and negation upon negation, but inversely, i.e., negation follows upon affirmation and affirmation upon negation.
Et explanans hoc ait: illud enim quod est possibile esse, idest affirmationem possibilis negatio sequitur impossibilis, idest, non impossibile esse; negationem vero possibilis affirmatio sequitur impossibilis. Illud enim quod est, non possibile esse, sequitur ista, impossibile est esse; haec autem, scilicet, impossibile esse, affirmatio est; illa vero, scilicet, non possibile esse, negatio est: hic siquidem modus negatur; ibi, non. Bene igitur dixerunt antiqui in quolibet ordine quoad consequentias illarum de impossibili, quia, ut in suprascripta figura apparet, semper ex affirmatione possibilis negationem impossibilis, et ex negatione possibilis affirmationem impossibilis inferunt. He explains this when he says, The negation of “impossible to be” follows upon “possible to be,” i.e., the negation of the impossible, i.e., “not impossible to be,” follows upon the affirmation of the possible, and the affirmation of the impossible follows upon the negation of the possible. For the affirmation, “impossible to be” follows upon the negation, “not possible to be.” In the latter the mode is negated, in the former it is not. Therefore, the ancients were right in saying that in any order, the consequences of enunciations predicating impossibility are as follows: from affirmation of the possible, negation of the impossible is inferred; and from negation of the possible, affirmation of the impossible is inferred. This is apparent in the diagram.
Deinde cum dicit: necessarium autem etc., intendit examinando determinare consequentias de necessario. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo examinat dicta antiquorum; secundo, determinat veritatem intentam; ibi: at vero neque necessarium et cetera. Circa primum quatuor facit. Primo, declarat quid bene et quid male dictum sit ab antiquis in hac re. 6. When he says, Now we must consider how enunciations predicating necessity are related to these, etc., he proposes an examination of the consequents of enunciations predicating necessity in order to determine the truth about them. First he examines what was said by the ancients; secondly, he determines the truth, where he says, But in fact neither “ necessary to be” nor “necessary not to be” follow upon “possible to be,” etc. In his examination of the ancients, Aristotle makes four points. First, he shows what was well said by the ancients and what was badly said.
Ubi attendendum est quod cum quatuor sint enunciationes de necessario, ut dictum est, differentes inter se secundum quantitatem et qualitatem, adeo ut unam integrent figuram oppositionis iuxta morem illarum de inesse; duae earum sunt contrariae inter se, duae autem illis contrariis contradictoriae, ut patet in hac figura. (Figura). It must be noted in regard to this that, as we have said, there are four enunciations predicating necessity, which differ among themselves in quantity and quality, and hence they make up a diagram of opposition in the manner of the absolute enunciations. Two of them are contrary to each other, and two are contradictory to these contraries, as is clear in the diagram below.
necessary to becontrariesnecessary not to be
not necessary not to besubcontrariesnot necessary to be
Quia ergo antiqui universales contrarias bene intulerunt ex aliis, contradictorias autem earum, scilicet particulares, male intulerunt; ideo dicit quod considerandum restat de his, quae sunt de necessario, qualiter se habeant in consequendo illas de possibili et non possibili. Manifestum est autem ex dicendis quod non eodem modo istae de necessario illas de possibili consequuntur, quo easdem sequuntur illae de impossibili. Nam omnes enunciationes de impossibili recte illatae sunt ab antiquis. Enunciationes autem de necessario non omnes recte inferuntur: sed duae earum, quae sunt contrariae, scilicet, necesse est esse, et, necesse est non esse, sequuntur, idest recta consequentia deducuntur ab antiquis, in tertio scilicet et quarto ordine; reliquae autem duae de necessario, scilicet, non necesse non esse, et, non necesse esse, quae sunt contradictoriae supradictis, sunt extra consequentias illarum, in secundo scilicet et primo ordine. Unde antiqui in tertio et quarto ordine omnia recte fecerunt; in primo autem et in secundo peccaverunt, non quoad omnia, sed quoad enunciationes de necessario tantum. Now the ancients correctly inferred the universal contraries from the possibles, contingents, and impossibles, but incorrectly inferred their contradictories, namely, particulars. This is the reason Aristotle says that it remains to be considered how enunciations predicating necessity are related consequentially to the possible and not possible. From what Aristotle says, it is clear that those predicating necessity do not follow upon the possibles in the same way as those predicating impossibility follow upon the possibles, for all of the enunciations predicating impossibility were correctly inferred by the ancients, but those predicating necessity were not. Two of them, the contraries, “necessary to be” and “necessary not to be,” follow, i.e., correct consequents were deduced by the ancients in the third and fourth orders; the remaining two, “not necessary not to be” and “not necessary to be,” which are contradictories of the contraries, are outside of the consequents of these, i.e., in the second and first orders. Hence, the ancients represented everything correctly in the third and fourth orders, but in the first and second they erred, not with respect to all things, but only with respect to enunciations predicating necessity.
Secundo cum dicit: non enim est negatio eius etc., respondet cuidam tacitae obiectioni, qua defendi posset consequentia enunciationis de necessario in primo ordine ab antiquis facta. Est autem obiectio tacita talis. Non possibile esse, et, necesse non esse, convertibiliter se sequuntur in tertio ordine iam approbato; ergo, possibile esse, et, non necesse esse, invicem se sequi debent in primo ordine. Tenet consequentia: quia duorum convertibiliter se sequentium contradictoria mutuo se sequuntur; sed illae duae tertii ordinis convertibiliter se sequuntur, et istae duae primi ordinis sunt earum contradictoriae; ergo istae primi ordinis, scilicet, possibile esse, et, non necesse esse, mutuo se sequuntur. 7. Secondly, he says, For the negation of “necessary not to be” is not “not necessary to be,” since both may be true of the same subject, etc. Here he replies to a tacit objection. This reply could be used to defend the consequent of the enunciation of the necessary made by the ancients in the first order. The tacit objection is this: “not possible to be” and “necessary not to be” follow convertibly in the third order which has already been shown to be correct; therefore, “possible to be” and “not necessary to be” ought to follow upon each other in the first order. The consequent holds; for the contradictories of two that convertibly follow upon each other, mutually follow upon each other; but those two follow upon each other convertibly in the third order and these two in the first order are their contradictories; therefore, those of the first order, i.e., “possible to be” and “not necessary to be,” mutually follow upon each other.
Huic, inquam, obiectioni respondet Aristoteles hic interimendo minorem quoad hoc quod assumit, quod scilicet necessaria primi ordinis et necessaria tertii ordinis sunt contradictoriae. Unde dicit: non enim est negatio eius quod est, necesse non esse (quae erat in tertio ordine), illa quae dicit, non necesse est esse, quae sita erat in primo ordine. Et causam subdit, quia contingit utrasque simul esse veras in eodem; quod contradictoriis repugnat. Illud enim idem, quod est necessarium non esse, non est necessarium esse. Necessarium siquidem est hominem non esse lignum et non necessarium est hominem esse lignum. Adverte quod, ut infra patebit, istae duae de necessario, quas posuerunt antiqui in primo et tertio ordine, sunt subalternae (et ideo sunt simul verae), et deberent esse contradictoriae; et ideo erraverunt antiqui. Aristotle replies here to this objection by destroying what was assumed in the minor, i.e., that the necessary of the first order and the necessary of the third order are contradictories. He says, For the negation of “necessary not to be” (which is in the third order) is not “not necessary to be” (which has been placed in the first order). He also gives the reason: it is possible for both to be true at once of the same subject, which is repugnant to contradictories. For the same thing which is necessary not to be, is not necessary to be; for example, it is necessary that man not be wood and it is not necessary that man be wood. Notice, as will be clear later, that these two which the ancients posited in the first and third orders, are subalterns and therefore are at once true, whereas they should be contradictories; hence the ancients were in error.
Boethius autem et Averroes non reprehensive legunt tam hanc, quam praecedentem textus particulam, sed narrative utramque simul iungentes. Narrare enim aiunt Aristotelem qualitatem suprascriptae figurae quoad consequentiam illarum de necessario, postquam narravit quo modo se habuerint illae de impossibili, et dicere quod secundum praescriptam figuram non eodem modo sequuntur illas de possibili illae de necessario, quo sequuntur illae de impossibili. Nam contradictorias de possibili contradictoriae de impossibili sequuntur, licet conversim; contradictoriae autem de necessario non dicuntur sequi illas contradictorias de possibili, sed potius eas sequi dicuntur contrariae de necessario: non inter se contrariae, sed hoc modo, quod affirmationem possibilis negatio de necessario sequi dicitur, negationem vero possibilis non affirmatio de necessario sequi ponitur, quae sit contradictoria illi negativae quae ponebatur sequi ad possibilem, sed talis affirmationis de necessario contrario. Et quod hoc ita fiat in illa figura ut dicimus, patet ex primo et tertio ordine, quorum capita sunt negatio et affirmatio possibilis, et extrema sunt, non necesse esse, et, necesse non esse. Hae siquidem non sunt contradictoriae. Non enim est negatio eius, quae est, necesse non esse, non necesse esse (quoniam contingit eas simul verificari de eodem), sed illa scilicet, necesse non esse, est contraria contradictoriae huius, scilicet, non necesse esse, quae est, necesse est esse. 8. Boethius and Averroes read both this and the preceding part of the text, not reprovingly, but as explanatorily joined together. They say Aristotle explains the quality of the above table with respect to the consequents of enunciations predicating necessity after he has explained in what way those predicating impossibility are related. What Aristotle is saying, then, is that those of the necessary do not follow those of the possible in the same way as those of the impossible follow upon the possible. For contradictories of the impossible follow upon contradictories of the possible, although inversely; but contradictories of the necessary are not said to follow the contradictories of the possible, but rather the contraries of the necessary follow upon them. It is not the contraries among themselves that follow, but contraries in this way: the negation of the necessary is said to follow upon the affirmation of the possible; but what follows on the negation of this possible is not the affirmation of the necessary contradictory to that negative of the necessary following upon the possible, but the contrary of such an affirmation of the necessary. That this is the case is evident in the first and third orders. The sources are negation and affirmation of the possible, and the extremes are “not necessary to be” and “necessary not to be.” But these are not contradictories, for the negation of “necessary not to be” is not “not necessary to be,” for it is possible for them to be at once true of the same thing. “Necessary not to be” is the contrary of the contradictory of “not necessary to be,” which contradictory is “necessary to be.”
Sed quia sequenti litterae magis consona est introductio nostra, quae etiam Alberto consentit, et extorte videtur ab aliis exponi ly contrariae, ideo prima, iudicio meo, acceptanda est expositio et ad antiquorum reprehensionem referendus est textus. In my judgment, however, the first exposition should be accepted and this portion of the text taken as a reproof of the ancients, because the contraries seem to be explained in a forced way by others, whereas our introduction is more in accord with what follows in the next part of the text; in addition, it agrees with Albert’s interpretation.
Tertio cum dicit: causa autem cur etc., manifestat id quod praemiserat, scilicet, quod non simili modo ad illas de possibili sequuntur illae de impossibili et illae de necessario. Antiquorum enim hoc peccatum fuit tam in primo quam in secundo ordine, et quod simili modo intulerunt illas de impossibili et necessario. In primo siquidem ordine, sicut posuerunt negativam simplicem de impossibili, ita posuerunt negativam simplicem de necessario, et similiter in secundo ordine utranque negativam declinatam locaverunt. Hoc ergo quare peccatum sit, et causa autem quare necessarium non sequitur possibile, similiter, idest, eodem modo cum caeteris, scilicet, de impossibili, est, quoniam impossibile redditur idem valens necessario, idest, aequivalet necessario, contrarie, idest, contrario modo sumptum, et non eodem modo. Nam si, hoc esse est impossibile, non inferemus, ergo hoc esse est necesse, sed, hoc non esse est necesse. Quia ergo impossibile et necesse mutuo se sequuntur, quando dicta eorum contrario modo sumuntur, et non quando dicta eorum simili modo sumuntur, sequitur quod non eodem modo ad possibile se habeant impossibile et necessarium, sed contrario modo. Nam ad id possibile quod sequitur dictum affirmatum de impossibili, sequitur dictum negatum de necessario; et e contrario. Quare autem hoc accidit infra dicetur. Erraverunt igitur antiqui quod similes enunciationes de impossibili et necessario in primo et in secundo ordine locaverunt. 9. Thirdly, he says, Now the reason why enunciations predicating necessity do not follow in the same way as the others, etc. Here Aristotle shows why enunciations predicating impossibility and necessity do not follow in a similar way upon those predicating possibility. This was the error made by the ancients in both the first and second orders, for in the first order they posited the simple negative of the impossible, and in a similar way the simple negative of the necessary, and in the second order their declined negatives, the reason being that they inferred those predicating impossibility and necessity in a similar way. The cause of this error, then, and the reason why enunciations predicating necessity do not follow the possible in the same way, i.e., in a similar mode, as the others, i.e., as the impossibles, is that the impossible expresses the same meaning as the necessary, i.e., is equivalent to the necessary, contrarily, i.e., taken in a contrary mode, and not in the same mode. For if something is impossible to be, we do not infer, therefore it is necessary to be, but it is necessary not to be. Since, therefore, the impossible and necessary mutually follow each other when their dictums are taken in a contrary mode—and not when their dictums are taken in a similar mode—it follows that the impossible and necessary are not related in the same way to the possible, but in a contrary way. For the negated dictum of the necessary follows upon that possible which follows the affirmed dictum of the impossible, and contrarily. Why this is so will be explained later. Therefore, the ancients erred when they located similar enunciations of the impossible and necessary in the first and in the second orders.
Hinc apparet quod supra posita nostra expositio conformior est Aristoteli. Cum enim hunc textum induxerit ad manifestandum illa verba: manifestum est autem quoniam non eodem modo, etc., eo accipiendo sunt sensu illa verba, quo hic per causam manifestantur. Liquet autem quod hic redditur causa dissimilitudinis verae inter necessarias et impossibiles in consequendo possibiles, et non dissimilitudinis falso opinatae ab antiquis: quoniam ex vera causa nonnisi verum concluditur. Ergo reprehendendo antiquos, veram dissimilitudinem inter necessarias, et impossibiles in consequendo possibiles, quam non servaverunt illi, proposuisse tunc intelligendum est, et nunc eam manifestasse. Quod autem dissimilitudo illa, quam antiqui posuerunt inter necessarias et impossibiles, sit falso posita, ex infra dicendis patebit. Ostendetur enim quod contradictorias de possibili contradictoriae de necessario sequuntur conversim; et quod in hoc non differunt ab his quae sunt de impossibili, sed differunt in hoc quod modo diximus, quod possibilium et impossibilium se consequentium dictum est similiter, possibilium autem et necessariorum, se invicem consequentium dictum est contrarium, ut infra clara luce videbitur. 10. Hence it appears that our exposition is more in conformity with Aristotle. For he introduced this text to manifest these words: It is evident that the case here is not the same, etc. By taking this meaning, then, these words are made clear through the cause. Moreover, it is evident that here the cause is given of a true dissimilitude between necessaries and impossibles in following the possibles, and not of a dissimilitude falsely held by the ancients, for from a true cause only the truth is concluded. Therefore in reproving the ancients it must be understood that a true dissimilitude between the necessary and impossible in following the possible, which they did not heed, has been proposed, and now has been made manifest. It will be clear from what will be said later that the dissimilitude posited by the ancients between the necessary and impossible is falsely posited, for it will be shown that contradictories of the necessary follow contradictories of the possible inversely, and that in this they do not differ from enunciations predicating impossibility. They do differ, however, in the way we have indicated, i.e., the dictum of the possibles and of the impossibles following on them is similar, but the dictum of the possibles and of the necessaries following on them is contrary, as will be seen clearly later.
Quarto cum dicit: aut certe impossibile est etc., manifestat aliud quod proposuerat, scilicet, quod contradictoriae de necessario male situatae sint secundum consequentiam ab antiquis, qui contradictiones necessarii ita ordinaverunt. In primo ordine posuerunt contradictoriam negationem, necesse esse, idest, non necesse esse; et in secundo contradictoriam negationem, necesse non esse, idest, non necesse non esse. 11. Fourthly, when he says, Or is it impossible to arrange the contradictions of enunciations predicating necessity in this way? he manifests another point he had proposed, namely, that contradictories of enunciations predicating necessity were badly placed according to consequence by the ancients when they ordered them thus: the contradictory negation to “necessary to be,” i.e., “not necessary to be,” in the first order, and the contradictory negation to “necessary not to be,” i.e., “not necessary not to be,” in the second.
Et probat hunc consequentiae modum esse malum in primo ordine. Cognita enim malitia primi, facile est secundi ordinis agnoscere defectum. Probat autem hoc tali ratione ducente ad impossibile. Ad necessarium esse sequitur possibile esse: aliter sequeretur non possibile esse, quod manifeste implicat; ad possibile esse sequitur non impossibile esse, ut patet; ad non impossibile esse, secundum antiquos, sequitur in primo ordine non necessarium esse; ergo de primo ad ultimum, ad necessarium esse sequitur non necessarium esse: quod est inconveniens, quia est manifesta implicatio contradictionis. Relinquitur ergo quod male dictum sit, quod non necessarium esse consequatur in primo ordine. Aristotle only proves that this mode of consequence is incorrect in the first order, for when this is known the mistake in the second order is readily seen. He does this by an argument leading to an impossibility. “Possible to be” follows upon “necessary to be”; otherwise “not possible to be” would follow, which it manifestly implies. “Not impossible to be” follows upon “possible to be” as is evident, and, according to the ancients, in the first order, “not necessary to be” follows upon “not impossible to be.” Therefore, from first to last, “not necessary to be” follows upon “necessary to be,” which is inadmissible because there is an obvious implication of contradiction. Therefore, it is erroneous to say that “not necessary to be” follows in the first order.
Ait ergo et certe impossibile est poni sic secundum consequentiam, ut antiqui posuerunt, necessarii contradictiones, idest illas duas enunciationes de necessario, quae sunt negationes contradictoriae aliarum duarum de necessario. Nam ad id quod est, necessarium esse, sequitur, possibile est esse: nam si non, idest quoniam si hanc negaveris consequentiam, negatio possibilis sequitur illam, scilicet, necesse esse. Necesse est enim de necessario aut dicere, idest affirmare possibile, aut negare possibile: de quolibet enim est affirmatio vel negatio vera. Quare si dicas quod, ad necesse esse, non sequitur, possibile esse, sed, non possibile est esse; cum haec aequivaleat illi quae dicit, impossibile est esse, relinquitur quod ad, necesse esse, sequitur, impossibile esse, et idem erit, necesse esse et impossibile esse: quod est inconveniens. Bona ergo erat prima illatio, scilicet, necesse est esse, ergo possibile est esse. Tunc ultra. Illud quod est, possibile esse, sequitur, non impossibile esse, ut patet in primo ordine. He says, then, that in fact it is impossible to posit contradictions of the necessary according to consequence as the ancients posited them, i.e., in the first order the contradictory negation of “necessary to be,” i.e., “not necessary to be” and in the second the contradictory negation of “necessary not to be,” i.e., “not necessary not to be.” For “possible to be” follows upon “necessary to be”; if not, i.e., if you deny this consequence, the negation of the possible follows upon “necessary to be,” since the possible must either be asserted of the necessary or denied, the reason being that of anything there is a true affirmation or a true negation. Therefore, if you say that “possible to be” does not follow upon “necessary to be,” but “not possible to be” does follow, then, since the latter is equivalent to the former, i.e., “not possible to be” to “impossible to be,” “impossible to be” follows upon “necessary to be” and the same thing will be “necessary to be” and “impossible to be,” which cannot be admitted. Consequently, the first inference was good, i.e., “It is necessary to be, therefore it is possible to be.”
Ad hoc vero, scilicet, non impossibile esse, secundum antiquos eodem primo ordine, sequitur, non necesse est esse (quare contingit de primo ad ultimum); ad id quod est, necessarium esse, sequitur, non necessarium esse: quod est inconveniens, immo impossibile. But again, “possible to be” follows upon “not impossible to be,” as is evident in the first order, and according to the ancients, “not necessary to be” follows upon “not impossible to be” in the same first order. Therefore, from first to last we arrive at this: “not necessary to be” follows upon “necessary to be,” which is unlikely, not to say impossible.
Dubitatur hic: quia in I priorum dicitur quod ad possibile sequitur non necessarium, hic autem dicitur oppositum. 12. There is a doubt about this, for in I Priorum [13: 32a 28 and 32b 15], it is said that the not necessary follows upon the possible, while here the opposite is said.
Ad hoc est dicendum quod possibile sumitur dupliciter. Uno modo in communi, et sic est quoddam superius ad necessarium et contingens ad utrunque, sicut animal ad hominem et bovem; et sic ad possibile non sequitur non necessarium, sicut ad animal non sequitur non homo. Alio modo sumitur possibile pro una parte possibilis in communi, idest pro possibili seu contingenti, scilicet ad utrunque, scilicet quod potest esse et non esse; et sic ad possibile sequitur non necessarium. Quod enim potest esse et non esse, non necessarium est esse, et similiter non necessarium est non esse. The possible, however, is taken in two ways: commonly, and thus it is superior to the necessary and the contingent to either of two alternatives, as is the case with animal in relation to man and cow; taken in this way, the not necessary does not follow upon the possible, just as not-man does not follow upon animal. In another way the possible is taken for one part of the possible commonly, i.e., for the possible or contingent to either of two alternatives, namely, for what can be and not be. The not necessary follows upon the possible taken in this way, for what can be and not be is not necessary to be, and likewise is not necessary not to be.
Loquimur ergo hic de possibili in communi, ibi vero in speciali. In the Prior Analytics, then, Aristotle is speaking of the possible in particular; here of the possible commonly.
Deinde cum dicit: at vero neque necessarium etc., determinat veritatem intentam. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo, determinat quae enunciatio de necessario sequatur ad possibile; secundo, ordinat consequentias omnium modalium; ibi: sequuntur enim et cetera. 13. When he says, But in fact neither “necessary to be” nor “necessary not to be” follow upon “possible to be,” etc., he determines the truth. First he determines which enunciation of the necessary follows upon the possible; secondly, he orders the consequents of all of the modals, where he says, Thus, these contradictions also follow in the way indicated, etc.
Quoad primum, sicut duabus viis reprehendit antiquos, ita ex illis duobus motivis intentum probat. Et intendit quod, ad possibile esse, sequitur, non necesse non esse. Primum motivum est per locum a divisione. Ad, possibile esse, non sequitur (ut probatum est), non necesse esse, at vero neque, necesse esse, neque, necesse non esse. Reliquum est ergo ut sequatur ad eam, non necesse non esse: non enim dantur plures enunciationes de necessario. Aristotle has reproved the ancients in two ways; on the basis of these two he now proves which enunciation of the necessary follows upon the possible. What he intends to show is that “not necessary not to be” follows upon “possible to be.” The first argument is taken from a locus of division. “Not necessary to be” does not follow upon possible to be” (as has been proved), but neither does “necessary to be” nor “necessary not to be.” Therefore, “not necessary not to be” follows upon “possible to be,” since there are no more enunciations of the necessary.
Huius communis divisionis primo proponit reliqua duo membra excludenda, dicens: at vero neque necessarium esse, neque necessarium non esse, sequitur ad possibile non esse; secundo probat hoc sic. Nullum formale consequens minuit suum antecedens: tunc enim oppositum consequentis staret cum antecedente; sed utrumque horum, scilicet, necesse esse, et, necesse non esse, minuit possibile esse; ergo, et cetera. He first proposes the remaining two members that are to be excluded from this common division: But in fact neither “necessary to be” nor “necessary not to be” follow upon “possible to be.” Then he proves this: no formal consequent diminishes its antecedent, for if it did, the opposite of the consequent would stand with the antecedent; but both of these, namely, “necessary to be” and “necessary not to be,” diminish possible to be”; therefore, etc.
Unde, tacita maiore, ponit minoris probationem dicens: illi enim, scilicet, possibile esse, utraque, scilicet, esse et non esse, contingit accidere; horum autem, scilicet, necesse esse et necesse non esse, utrumlibet verum fuerit, non erunt illa duo, scilicet, esse et non esse, vera simul in potentia. Et primum horum explanans ait: cum dico, possibile esse, simul est possibile esse et non esse. Quoad secundum vero subdit. Si vero dicas, necesse esse vel necesse non esse, non remanet utrumque, scilicet, esse et non esse, possibile: si enim necesse est esse, possibilitas ad non esse excluditur; et si necesse est non esse, possibilitas ad esse removetur. Utrumque ergo istorum minuit illud antecedens, possibile esse, quoniam ad esse et non esse se extendit, et cetera. The major is therefore implied and he gives the proof of the minor when he says that “possible to be” admits of two possibilities, namely, “to be” and “not to be”; but of these, namely, “necessary to be” and “necessary not to be” (whichever should be true), these two, “to be” and “not to be,” will not be true at the same time in potency. He explains the first point thus: when I say “possible to be” it is at once possible to be and not to be. With respect to the second, he adds: if you should say, “necessary to be” or “necessary not to be,” both do not remain, i.e., possible to be and not to be do not remain, for if a thing is necessary to be, possibility not to be is excluded, and if it is necessary not to be, possibility to be is removed. Both of these, then, diminish the antecedent, possible to be, for it is extended to “to be” and “not to be,” etc.
Tertio subdit conclusionem: relinquitur ergo quod, non necessarium non esse, comes est ei quae dicit, possibile esse; et consequenter haec ponenda erit in primo ordine. Thirdly, he concludes: it remains, therefore, that “not necessary not to be” accompanies “possible to be,” and consequently will have to be placed in the first order.
Occurrit in hac parte dubium circa hoc quod dicit quod, ad possibile non sequitur necessarium, cum superius dixerit quod ad ipsum non sequitur non necessarium. Cum enim necessarium et non necessarium sint contradictoria opposita, et de quolibet sit affirmatio vel negatio vera, non videtur posse evadi quin ad possibile sequatur necessarium, vel, non necessarium. Et cum non sequatur necessarium, sequetur non necessarium, ut dicebant antiqui. Augetur et dubitatio ex eo quod Aristoteles nunc usus est tali argumentationis modo, volens probare quod ad necessarium sequatur possibile. Dixit enim: nam si non negatio possibilis consequatur. Necesse est enim aut dicere aut negare. 14. A difficulty arises at this point with respect to his saying that the necessary does not follow upon the possible, since he has also said that the not necessary does not follow upon it. For the necessary and the not necessary are opposed contradictorily, and since of anything there is a true affirmation or negation, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that either the necessary or the not necessary follows upon the possible; and since the necessary does not follow, the not necessary must follow, as the ancients said. Furthermore, the difficulty is augmented by the fact that Aristotle just used such a mode of argumentation when, to prove that the possible follows upon the necessary, he said, for if not, the negation will follow; for it is necessary either to affirm or deny.
Pro solutione huius, oportet reminisci habitudinis quae est inter possibile et necessarium, quod scilicet possibile est superius ad necessarium, et attendere quod superius potestate continet suum inferius et eius oppositum, ita quod neutrum eorum actualiter sibi vindicat, sed utrunque potest sibi contingere; sicut animali potest accidere homo et non homo: et consequenter inspicere debes quod, eadem est proportio superioris ad habendum affirmationem et negationem unius inferioris, quae est alicuius subiecti ad affirmativam et negativam futuri contingentis. Utrobique enim neutrum habetur, et salvatur potentia ad utrumlibet. Unde, sicut in futuris contingentibus nec affirmatio nec negatio est determinate vera, sed sub disiunctione altera est necessario vera, ut in fine primi conclusum est; ita nec affirmatio nec negatio inferioris sequitur determinate affirmationem vel negationem superioris, sed sub disiunctione altera sequitur necessario. Unde non valet, est animal, ergo est homo, neque, ergo non est homo, sed, ergo est homo vel non est homo. 15. In order to resolve this, we must recall the relationship between the possible and the necessary, namely, that the possible is superior to the necessary. Now the superior potentially contains its own inferior and the opposite of it in such a way that neither of them is actually appropriated by the superior, but each is possible to it; as in the case of man and not-man in relation to animal. We must also consider that the proportion of the superior as related to the affirmation and negation of one inferior is the same (which is the proportion of some subject to the affirmative and negative of a future contingent), for it is had by neither of the two, and the potency to either is kept. Accordingly, as in future contingents neither the affirmation nor the negation is determinately true, but under disjunction one is necessarily true (as was concluded at the end of the first book), so neither the affirmation nor negation of the inferior follows upon the affirmation or negation of the superior determinately, but under disjunction one follows necessarily. This, for instance, is not valid: “It is animal, therefore it is man,” nor is “therefore it is not man” valid, but, “therefore it is man or it is not man.”
Quia ergo possibile superius est ad necessarium, ideo optime determinavit Aristoteles neutram contradictionis partem de necessario determinate sequi ad possibile. Non tamen dixit quod sub disiunctione neutra sequatur; hoc enim est contra illud primum principium: de quolibet est affirmatio vera vel falsa. Since, then, the possible is superior to the necessary, Aristotle has correctly determined that neither part of the contradiction of the necessary determinately follows upon the possible. However, he has not said that under disjunction neither follows; for this would be opposed to the first principle, that of anything there is a true or false affirmation.
Ad id autem quod additur, ex eadem trahitur radice responsio. Quia enim necessarium inferius est ad possibile, et inferius non in potentia sed in actu includit suum superius, necesse est ad inferius determinate sequi suum superius: aliter determinate sequetur eius contradictorium. Unde per dissimilem habitudinem, quae est inter necessarium et possibile et non possibile, ex una parte, et inter possibile et necessarium et non necessarium, ex altera parte, ibi optimus fuit processus ad alteram contradictionis partem determinate, et hic optimus ad neutram determinate. The response to what was added, beginning with “Furthermore, the difficulty is augmented,” etc., is based upon the same point. Since the necessary is inferior to the possible, and the inferior does not include its superior in potency but in act, the superior must follow determinately upon the inferior; otherwise the contradiction of it would follow determinately. Hence, because of the dissimilar relationship between the necessary and the possible and not possible on the one hand, and between the possible and the necessary and not necessary on the other, the movement of the earlier argument to one part of the contradiction determinately was quite right, and the movement here to neither determinately was quite right.
Oritur quoque alia dubitatiuncula. Videtur enim quod Aristoteles difformiter accipiat ly possibile in praecedenti textu et in isto. Ibi enim accipit ipsum in communi, ut sequitur ad necessarium; hic videtur accipere ipsum specialiter pro possibili ad utrumlibet, quia dicit quod possibile est simul potens esse et non esse. 16. There is another slight difficulty, for it seems that Aristotle takes the possible in a different way in the preceding text and in this. There he takes it commonly as it follows upon the necessary; here he seems to take it specifically for the possible that is indifferent to alternatives, since he says that the possible is at once possible to be and not to be.
Et ad hoc dicendum est quod uniformiter usus est possibili. Nec eius verba obstant: quoniam et de possibili in communi verum est dicere quod potest sibi utrunque accidere, scilicet, esse et non esse: tum quia quidquid verificatur de suo inferiori, verificatur etiam de suo superiori, licet non eodem modo; tum quia possibile in communi neutram contradictionis partem sibi determinat, et consequenter utranque sibi advenire compatitur, licet non asserat potentiam ad utranque partem, quemadmodum possibile ad utrunque. But in fact Aristotle has used the possible uniformly. Nor are his words at variance, for it is also true to say of the possible as common that it admits of both possibilities, i.e., of “to be” and “not to be”; first, because whatever is verified of its inferior is verified also of its superior, although not in the same mode; secondly, because the possible as common determines neither part of the contradiction to itself and consequently admits of either happening, although it does not affirm a potency to each part, as does the possible to either of two alternatives.
Secundum motivum ad idem, correspondens tacitae obiectioni antiquorum quam supra exclusit, addit cum subdit: hoc enim verum est et cetera. Ubi notandum quod Aristoteles sub illa maiore adducta pro antiquis (scilicet, convertibiliter se consequentium contradictoria se mutuo consequuntur), subsumit minorem: sed horum convertibiliter se sequentium in tertio ordine (scilicet, non possibile esse et necesse non esse), contradictoria sunt, possibile esse et non necesse non esse (quoniam modi negatione eis opponuntur); ergo istae duae (scilicet, possibile esse et non necesse non esse) se consequuntur et in primo locandae sunt ordine. 17. The second grounds for proving the same thing corresponds to the tacit objection of the ancients he excluded above: For this, he says, is true also with respect to “necessary to be,” etc. It should be noted here that Aristotle subsumes under the major cited as a proof for the position of the ancients (namely, contradictories of consequences convertibly following each other mutually follow upon each other) this minor: but the contradictories of those following upon each other convertibly in the third order (i.e., of “not possible to be” and “necessary not to be”) are “possible to be” and “not necessary not to be” (for they are opposed to them by negation of mode); therefore, these two (i.e., “possible to be” and “not necessary not to be”) follow upon each other and are to be placed in the first order.
Unde motivum tangens ait: hoc enim, quod dictum est, verum est, idest verum esse ostenditur, et de necesse non esse, idest, et ex illius, scilicet, non necesse non esse, opposita, quae est, necesse non esse. Vel, hoc enim, scilicet, non necesse non esse, verum est, scilicet, contradictorium illius de necesse non esse. Et minorem subdens ait: haec enim, scilicet, non necesse non esse, fit contradictio eius, quae convertibiliter sequitur, non possibile esse. Hence, with respect to the basis of the above argument, he says, For this, i.e., what has been said, is true, i.e., is shown to be true, also with respect to “necessary not to be,” i.e., of the opposite of “not necessary not to be,” i.e., “necessary not to be.” Or, For this, namely, not necessary not to be,” is true, namely, is the true contradictory of necessary not to be.” He gives the minor when he says, For “not necessary not to be” is the contradictory of what follows upon “not possible to be.”
Et explanans hoc in terminis subdit. Illud enim, non possibile esse, quod est caput tertii ordinis, sequitur hoc de impossibili, scilicet, impossibile esse, et haec de necessario, scilicet, necesse non esse, cuius negatio seu contradictoria est, non necesse non esse. Et quia, caeteris paribus, modus negatur, et illa, possibile esse, est (subauditur) contradictoria illius, scilicet, non possibile; igitur ista duo mutuo se consequuntur, scilicet, possibile esse, et, non necesse non esse, tamquam contradictoria duorum se mutuo consequentium. Then he states this explicitly: for “not possible to be,” which is the source of the third order is followed by this impossible, namely, “impossible to be,” and by this one of the necessary, namely, “necessary not to be,” of which the negation or contradictory is “not necessary not to be.” And since, other things being equal, the mode is negated, and, “possible to be” is (it is understood) the contradictory of “not possible to be,” therefore, these two mutually follow upon each other, namely, “possible to be” and “not necessary not to be,” as contradictories of the two mutually following upon each other.
Deinde cum dicit: sequuntur enim etc., ordinat omnes consequentias modalium secundum opinionem propriam; et ait quod, hae contradictiones, scilicet, de necessario, sequuntur illas de possibili, secundum modum praedictum et approbatum illarum de impossibili. Sicut enim contradictorias de possibili contradictoriae de impossibili sequuntur, licet conversim; ita contradictorias de possibili contradictoriae de necessario sequuntur conversim: licet in hoc, ut dictum est, dissimilitudo sit quod, contradictoriarum de possibili et impossibili similiter est dictum, contradictoriarum autem de possibili et necessario contrarium est dictum, ut in sequenti videtur figura: consequentiae enunciationum modalium secundum quatuor ordines ab Aristotele positae et ordinatae. (Figura). 18. When he says, Thus, these contradictions also follow in the way indicated, etc., he orders all of the consequents of modals according to his own opinion. He says, then, that these contradictions, namely, of the necessary, follow those of the possible, according to the foresaid and approved mode of those of the impossible. For just as contradictories of the impossible follow upon contradictories of the possible, although inversely, so contradictories of the necessary follow contradictories of the possible inversely. In the latter, however, as has been said, there is a dissimilarity in that the dictum of the contradictories of the possible and impossible is similar, but the dictum of the contradictories of the possible and necessary is contrary. This can be seen in the following table.

CONSEQUENTS OF MODAL ENUNCIATIONS POSITED AND ORDERED BY ARISTOTLE ACCORDING TO FOUR ORDERS
FIRST ORDER
It is possible to be
It is contingent to be
It is not impossible to be
It is not necessary to be

SECOND ORDER
It is possible not to be
It is contingent not to be
It is not impossible not to be
It is not necessary not to be

THIRD ORDER
It is not possible to be
It is not contingent to be
It is impossible to be
It is necessary not to be

FOURTH ORDER
It is not possible not to be
It is not contingent not to be
It is impossible not to be
It is necessary to be

Ubi vides quod nulla est inter Aristotelem et antiquos differentia, nisi in duobus primis ordinibus quoad illas de necessario. Praepostero namque situ usi sunt antiqui, eam de necessario, quae locanda erat in primo ordine, in secundo ponentes, et eam quae in secundo ponenda erat, in primo locantes. Here you see that there is no difference between Aristotle and the ancients except in the first two orders with respect to those of the necessary. The ancients inverted the position of these, placing the necessary that should have been placed in the first order in the second order, and the one that should have been in the second in the first.
Et aspice quoque quod convertibiliter se consequentium semper contradictoria se consequi ordinavit. Singulis enim tertii ordinis singulae primi ordinis contradictoriae sunt; et similiter singulae quarti ordinis singulis, quae in secundo sunt, contradictoriae sunt. Quod antiqui non observarunt. Notice, too, that he has ordered them in such a way that the contradictories of those following upon each other convertibly, always follow each other, for each one in the first order is the contradictory of each one in the third order, and similarly, each of the fourth order the contradictory of each in the second. This the ancients did not observe.

LESSON 11
Whether “Possible To Be” Follows Upon “Necessary To Be”

Ἀπορήσειε δ' ἄν τις εἰ τῷ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὸ δυνατὸν εἶναι ἕπεται. εἴ τε γὰρ μὴ ἕπεται, ἡ ἀντίφασις ἀκολουθήσει, τὸ μὴ δυνατὸν εἶναι καὶ εἴ τις ταύτην μὴ φήσειεν εἶναι ἀντίφασιν, ἀνάγκη λέγειν τὸ δυνατὸν μὴ εἶναι ἅπερ ἄμφω ψευδῆ κατὰ τοῦ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι. 22b 29 But it may be questioned whether “possible to be” follows upon “necessary to be.” Yet if not, the contradictory, “not possible to be,” would have to follow; or if someone should say that this is not the contradictory, then “possible not to be.” But both of these are false in regard to that which is necessary to be.
ἀλλὰ μὴν πάλιν τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι δοκεῖ δυνατὸν τέμνεσθαι καὶ μὴ τέμνεσθαι, καὶ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι, ὥστε ἔσται τὸ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι ἐνδεχόμενον μὴ εἶναι τοῦτο δὲ ψεῦδος. 22b 33 On the other hand, it seems possible for the same thing to be cut and not to be cut, and to be and not to be, and thus it would follow that what is necessary to be is possible not to be, which is false.
φανερὸν δὴ ὅτι οὐ πᾶν τὸ δυνατὸν ἢ εἶναι ἢ βαδίζειν καὶ τὰ ἀντικείμενα δύναται, ἀλλ' ἔστιν ἐφ' ὧν οὐκ ἀληθές πρῶτον μὲν ἐπὶ τῶν μὴ κατὰ λόγον δυνατῶν, οἷον τὸ πῦρ θερμαντικὸν καὶ ἔχει δύναμιν ἄλογον, -αἱ μὲν οὖν μετὰ λόγου (23a.) δυνάμεις αἱ αὐταὶ πλειόνων καὶ τῶν ἐναντίων, αἱ δ' ἄλογοι οὐ πᾶσαι, ἀλλ' ὥσπερ εἴρηται, τὸ πῦρ οὐ δυνατὸν θερμαίνειν καὶ μή, οὐδ' ὅσα ἄλλα ἐνεργεῖ ἀεί ἔνια μέντοι δύναται καὶ τῶν κατὰ τὰς ἀλόγους δυνάμεις ἅμα τὰ ἀντικείμενα ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν τούτου χάριν εἴρηται, ὅτι οὐ πᾶσα δύναμις τῶν ἀντικειμένων, οὐδ' ὅσαι λέγονται κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ εἶδος, 22b 36 It is evident by now that not every possibility of being or walking is one that admits of opposites. There are those of which this is not true. First of all, this is not true of potentialities which are not according to reason, as fire, which has an irrational potentiality, the power to heat. Potentialities that are in conjunction with reason are capable of more than one and of contraries; but not all irrational potentialities are capable of contraries; as has been said, fire does not have the potentiality to heat and not to heat, nor does anything that always acts have this potentiality; however, even some of the irrational potencies are simultaneously capable of opposites. We have spoken of this in order to show that not every potentiality is a potentiality to opposites, not even all those that are called potentialities according to the same notion.
Postquam Aristoteles declaravit modalium consequentias, hic movet quandam dubitationem circa unum eorum quae determinata sunt, scilicet quod possibile sequitur ad necesse. Et duo facit: quia primo dubitationem absolvit; secundo, ex determinata quaestione alium ordinem earumdem consequentiarum modalibus statuit; ibi: et est fortasse et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo, movet quaestionem; secundo, determinat eam; ibi: manifestum est et cetera. 1. Now that he has explained the consequents of modals, Aristotle raises a question about one of the points that has already been determined, namely, that the possible follows upon the necessary. He first raises the question and then settles it where he says, It is evident by now that not every possibility of being or walking is one that admits of opposites, etc. Secondly, he establishes another order of the same consequents from the determination of the present question, where he says Indeed the necessary and not necessary may well be the principle of all that is or is not, etc.
Movet ergo quaestionem: primo dicens: dubitabit autem aliquis si ad id quod est necesse esse sequatur possibile esse; et secundo, arguit ad partem affirmativam subdens: nam si non sequatur, contradictoria eius sequetur, scilicet non possibile esse, ut supra deductum est: quia de quolibet est affirmatio vel negatio vera. Et si quis dicat hanc, scilicet, non possibile esse, non esse contradictoriam illius, scilicet, possibile esse, et propterea subterfugiendum velit argumentum, et dicere quod neutra harum sequitur ad necesse esse; talis licet falsum dicat, tamen concedatur sibi, quoniam necesse erit ipsum dicere illius contradictoriam fore, possibile non esse. Oportet namque aut non possibile esse aut possibile non esse, esse contradictoriam, possibile esse; et tunc in eumdem redibit errorem, quoniam utraeque, scilicet, non possibile esse et possibile non esse, falsae sunt de eo quod est, necesse esse. Et consequenter ad ipsum neutra sequi potest. Nulla enim enunciatio sequitur ad illam, cuius veritatem destruit. Relinquitur ergo quod, ad necesse esse sequitur possibile esse. First, then, he raises the question: But it may be questioned whether “Possible to be follows upon “necessary to be.” Secondly, he argues to the affirmative part: Yet if not, the contradictory, “not possible to be,” would have to follow, as was deduced earlier, for either the affirmation or the negation is true of anything. And if someone should say “not possible to be” is not the contradictory of “possible to be,” because he wants to avoid the conclusion by saying that neither of these follows upon “necessary to be,” this may be conceded, although what he says is false. But then he will have to say that the contradictory of “possible to be” is “possible not to be,” for the contradictory of “possible to be” has to be either “not possible to be” or “possible not to be.” But if he says this, he will fall into another error, for it is false to say it is not possible to be of that which is necessary to be, and it is false to say it is possible not to be. Consequently, neither follows upon it, for no enunciation follows upon an enunciation whose truth it destroys. Therefore, “possible to be” follows upon “necessary to be.”
Tertio, arguit ad partem negativam cum subdit: at vero rursus etc., et intendit talem rationem. Si ad necesse esse sequitur possibile esse, cum ad possibile sequatur possibile non esse (per conversionem in oppositam qualitatem, ut dicitur in I priorum, quia idem est possibile esse et non esse), sequetur de primo ad ultimum quod necesse est possibile non esse: quod est falsum manifeste. 2. Thirdly, he argues to the negative part where he says, On the other hand, it seems possible for the same thing to be cut and not to be cut, etc. His argument is as follows: If “possible to be” follows upon “necessary to be,” then, since “possible not to be” follows upon the possible (through conversion to the opposite quality, as is said in I Priorum [13: 32a 31], for the same thing is possible to be and not to be), from first to last it will follow that the necessary is possible not to be, which is clearly false.
Unde oppositionis hypothesim subdit: at vero rursus videtur idem possibile esse et non esse, ut domus, et possibile incidi et non incidi, ut vestis. Quare de primo ad ultimum necesse esse, erit contingens non esse. Hoc autem est falsum. Ergo hypothesis illa, scilicet, quod possibile sequatur ad necesse, est falsa. In this argument, Aristotle supplies a hypothesis opposed to the position that possible to be follows upon necessary to be: On the other hand, it seems possible for the same thing to be cut and not to be cut, for instance a garment, and to be and not to be, for instance a house. Therefore, from first to last, necessary to be will be possible not to be. But this is false. Therefore, the hypothesis that the possible follows upon the necessary is false.
Deinde cum dicit: manifestum est autem etc., respondet dubitationi. Et primo, declarat veritatem simpliciter; secundo, applicat ad propositum; ibi: hoc igitur possibile et cetera. 3. When he says, It is evident by now that not every possibility of being or walking, etc., he answers the question he proposed. First, he manifests the truth simply, then applies it to the question where he says, So it is not true to say the latter possible of what is necessary simply, etc.
Proponit ergo primo ipsam veritatem declarandam, dicens: manifestum est autem, ex dicendis, quod non omne possibile esse vel ambulare, idest operari: idest, non omne possibile secundum actum primum vel secundum ad opposita valet, idest ad opposita viam habet, sed est invenire aliqua possibilia, in quibus non sit verum dicere quod possunt in opposita. First, then, he proposes the truth he is going to explain: It is evident by now that not every possibility of being or walking, i.e., of operating; that is, not everything possible according to first or second act admits of opposites, i.e., has access to opposites; there are some possibles of which it is not true to say that they are capable of opposites.
Deinde, quia possibile a potentia nascitur, manifestat qualiter se habeat potentia ipsa ad opposita: ex hoc enim clarum erit quomodo possibile se habeat ad opposita. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo manifestat hoc in potentiis eiusdem rationis; secundo, in his quae aequivoce dicuntur potentiae; ibi: quaedam vero potentiae et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: quia primo manifestat qualiter potentia irrationalis se habeat ad opposita; et ait quod potentia irrationalis non potest in opposita. Then, since the possible arises from potency, he manifests how potency is related to opposites; for it will be clear from this bow the possible is related to opposites. First he manifests this in potencies having the same notion; secondly, in those that are called potencies equivocally where he says, But some are called potentialities equivocally, etc. With respect to the way in which potencies of the same specific notion are related to opposites, he does three things. First of all he manifests how an irrational potency is related to opposites; an irrational potency, he says, is not a potency that is capable of opposites.
Ubi notandum est quod, sicut dicitur IX Metaphys., potentia activa, cum nihil aliud sit quam principium quo in aliud agimus, dividitur in potentiam rationalem et irrationalem. Potentia rationalis est, quae cum ratione et electione operatur; sicut ars medicinae, qua medicus cognoscens quid sanando expediat infirmo, et volens applicat remedia. Potentia autem irrationalis vocatur illa, quae non ex ratione et libertate operatur, sed ex naturali sua dispositione; sicut calor ignis potentia irrationalis est, quia calefacit, non ut cognoscit et vult, sed ut natura sua exigit. 4. It must be noted in this connection that active potency, since it is the principle by which we act on something else, is divided into rational and irrational potency, as is said in IX Metaphysicae [2: 1046a 36]. Rational potency operates in connection with reason and choice; for example, the art of medicine by which the physician, knowing and willing what is expedient in healing an illness, applies a remedy. Irrational potency operates according to its own natural disposition, not according to reason and liberty; for example, the heat of fire is an irrational potency, because it heats, not as it knows and wills, but as its nature requires.
Assignatur autem ibidem duplex differentia proposito deserviens inter istas potentias. Prima est quod activa potentia irrationalis non potest duo opposita, sed est determinata ad unum oppositorum, sive sumatur oppositum contradictorie sive contrarie. Verbi gratia: calor non potest calefacere et non calefacere, quae sunt contradictorie opposita, neque potest calefacere et frigefacere, quae sunt contraria, sed ad calefactionem determinatus est. Et hoc intellige per se, quia per accidens calor frigefacere potest, vel resolvendo materiam caloris, humidum scilicet, vel per antiperistasin contrarii. Et similiter potest non calefacere per accidens, scilicet si calefactibile deest. Potentia autem rationalis potest in opposita et contradictorie et contrarie. Arte siquidem medicinae potest medicus adhibere remedia et non adhibere, quae sunt contradictoria; et adhibere remedia sana et nociva, quae sunt contraria. In the Metaphysics, a twofold difference between these potencies is assigned which is relevant here. The first is that an irrational active potency is not capable of two opposites, but is determined to one opposite, whether “opposite” is taken contradictorily or contrarily; e.g., heat cannot heat and not heat, which are opposed contradictorily; nor can it heat and cool, which are contraries, but is deter mined to heating. Understand this per se, for heat can cool accidentally, either by destroying the matter of heat, namely, the humid, or through alternation of the contrary. It also has the potentiality not to heat accidentally, if that which can be heated is lacking. A rational potency, on the other hand, is capable of opposites, both contradictorily and contrarily; for by the art of medicine the physician can employ a remedy and not employ it, which are contradictories, and employ healing and harmful remedies, which are contraries.
Secunda differentia est quod potentia activa irrationalis,