In Librum Aristotelis de Generatione et Corruptione Expositio Commentary on Aristotle's Generation and Corruption Prooemium Prologue 1. Sicut tradit Philosophus in III De Anima, scientiae secantur quemadmodum et res: nam omnes habitus distinguuntur per obiecta, ex quibus speciem habent. Res autem quas considerat Naturalis, sunt motus et mobile: dicit enim Philosophus in II Physic. quod quaecumque mota movent, sunt physicae speculationis. Et ideo oportet quod secundum differentiam motuum et mobilium, distinguantur et ordinentur partes scientiae naturalis. 1. As the Philosopher says in On the Soul III, the sciences are divided off in the same manner as things are—for all habits are distinguished by their objects, from which they are specified. Now the things considered by natural science are motion and mobile being. Thus the Philosopher says in Physics II that whatever things move, they themselves being moved, these belong to physical speculation. Consequently, it is according to the differences between motions and mobiles that the parts of natural science must be distinguished and ordered. Primus autem motuum est motus localis, qui est perfectior ceteris, et communis omnibus corporibus naturalibus, ut probatur in VIII Physic. Et ideo post considerationem motuum et mobilium in communi, quae fuit tradita in libro Physicorum, primo oportuit quod tractaretur de corporibus secundum quod moventur motu locali, in libro de Caelo; quae est secunda pars scientiae naturalis. Restat igitur consideratio de motibus aliis consequentibus, qui non sunt communes omnibus corporibus, sed inveniuntur in solis inferioribus. Now the first motion is local motion, which is more perfect than the other kinds, and common to all natural bodies, as is proved in Physics VII. Therefore, after the study of motions and mobiles in common in the book of the Physics, it was first necessary to treat of bodies as they are moved with local motion. This was in the book On the Heavens, which is the second book of natural science. What remains, therefore, is to consider the other subsequent motions which are not common to all bodies but are found only in lower bodies. Inter quos principatum obtinet generatio et corruptio. Alteratio enim ordinatur ad generationem sicut ad finem, qui est perfectior naturaliter his quae sunt ad finem. Augmentum etiam consequenter se habet ad generationem: nam augmentum non fit sine quadam particulari generatione, qua scilicet nutrimentum convertitur in nutritum; sicut Philosophus dicit in II de Anima quod cibus nutrit inquantum est potentia caro, augmentat autem inquantum est potentia quanta caro. Et ideo necesse est, quia hi motus quodammodo consequenter se habent ad generationem, quod simul de his et de generatione et corruptione tractetur. Among these motions, generation and corruption obtain the primacy. For alteration is directed to generation as to its end, and the end is by nature more perfect than what leads to it. Growth, likewise, is subsequent to generation, for growth does not take place without a certain particular generation, namely, that by which food is converted into the thing fed. Thus the Philosopher says in On the Soul II that food nourishes in so far as it is potentially flesh, but it produces increase inasmuch as potentially it is quantified flesh. Therefore, since these motions are in a certain way consequent upon generation, they must be studied along with generation and corruption. 2. Est autem considerandum quod de unoquoque quod in pluribus invenitur, prius est considerandum in communi, quam ad species descendere: alioquin oporteret idem dicere multoties, ita scilicet quod in singulis id quod est commune repeteretur, sicut probat Philosophus in I de Partibus animalium. Et ideo prius oportuit de generatione et corruptione in communi determinare, quam ad partes eius descendere. Similiter etiam considerare oportet quod, si in aliquo genere aliquod primum invenitur quod sit causa aliorum, eiusdem considerationis est commune genus et id quod est primum in genere illo: quia illud primum est causa totius generis, oportet autem eum qui considerat genus aliquod, causas totius generis considerare. Et inde est quod Philosophus in Metaphysica simul determinat de ente in communi et de ente primo, quod est a materia separatum. Sunt autem in genere generabilium et corruptibilium quaedam prima principia, scilicet elementa, quae sunt causa generationis et corruptionis et alterationis in omnibus aliis corporibus. Et inde est quod Aristoteles in hoc libro, qui est tertia pars scientiae naturalis, determinat non solum de generatione et corruptione in communi et aliis motibus consequentibus, sed etiam de generatione et corruptione elementorum. 2. Now it should be noted that whatever is found in a number of things should first be considered in common before coming to the specific cases. Otherwise the same thing will be frequently repeated, in that what is common will be repeated in each individual case, as the Philosopher proves in On the Parts of Animals I. Consequently, generation and corruption should be considered in common before coming to the parts [i.e., species] thereof. Likewise, it should be noted that if in any genus there be found some first thing which is the cause of the other things in that genus, the study of the common genus and of that which is first in that genus will belong to the same study. For that first thing is the cause of the entire genus, and anyone who studies some genus must consider the causes of the entire genus. That is why the Philosopher in the Metaphysics at once studies being in general and first being, which is separated from matter. Now in the genus of generable and corruptible things there are found certain first principles, namely, the elements, which are the cause of generation and corruption and alteration in all other bodies. Hence Aristotle in this book, which is the third part of natural science, discusses not only generation and corruption in general and other consequent motions, but also generation and corruption of the elements. His igitur praelibatis ad demonstrandum intentionem Aristotelis in hoc libro, accedendum est ad expositionem eius. With these prefatory remarks to show Aristotle's intention in this book, we now arrive at its exposition. Liber 1 Book 1 Lectio 1 Lecture 1 Aristotle's Preface. Various previous opinions on the difference between generation and alteration. De generatione autem et corruptione natura generatorum et corruptorum, universaliter de omnibus et causas dividendum et rationes eorum determinandum est. Our next task is to study coming-to-be and passing-away. We are to distinguish the causes, and to state the definitions, of these processes considered in general—as changes predicable uniformly of all the things that come-to-be and pass-away by nature. Amplius de alteratione et augmentatione, quid utrumque sit: Further, we are to study growth and alteration. We must inquire what each of them is; et utrum existimandum sit eandem esse naturam alterationis et generationis, aut semotam, ut determinata sunt et nominibus. and whether alteration is to be identified with coming-to-be, or whether to these different names there correspond two separate processes with distinct natures. Antiquorum quidem igitur hi quidem vocatam generationem simplicem alterationem esse inquiunt, hi vero aliud generationem et aliud alterationem. On this question, indeed, the early philosophers are divided. Some of them assert that the so-called 'unqualified coming-to-be' is 'alteration', while others maintain that 'alteration' and coming-to-be are distinct. Quicumque igitur unum aliquid omne esse dicunt, et omnia ex uno generant, his quidem necesse est utique generationem alterationem esse dicere, et quod principaliter fit, alterari. For those who say that the universe is one something (i.e. those who generate all things out of one thing) are bound to assert that coming-to-be is 'alteration', and that whatever 'comes-to-be' in the proper sense of the term is 'being altered'. Quicumque autem plures materias una ponunt, utpote Empedocles et Anaxagoras et Leucippus, his aliud. But those who make the matter of things more than one must distinguish coming-to-be from 'alteration'. To this latter class belong Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Leucippus. Sed tamen Anaxagoras propriam vocem ignoravit. Dicit enim quod fieri et destrui idem existit quod alterari: multa autem dicit elementa, quemadmodum et alii. And yet Anaxagoras himself failed to understand his own utterance. He says, at all events, that coming-to-be and passing-away are the same as 'being altered':' yet, in common with other thinkers, he affirms that the elements are many. Empedocles quidem enim corporea quatuor, omnia autem cum moventibus sex ait numero: Anaxagoras autem et Leucippus et Democritus, infinita. Thus Empedocles holds that the corporeal elements are four, while all the elements—including those which initiate movement—are six in number; whereas Anaxagoras agrees with Leucippus and Democritus that the elements are infinite. Hic quidem homoeomera elementa ponit, utpote os, carnem et medullani, et alia quorum uniuscuiusque synonyma pars est. Democritus autem et Leucippus ex corporibus indivisibilibus haec alia componi inquiunt: haec autem infinita et multitudine et formis esse. Illa autem inter se differunt his ex quibus sunt, et positione et ordine horum. Anaxagoras posits as elements the 'homoeomeries', viz. bone, flesh, marrow, and everything else which is such that part and whole are the same in name and nature. while Democritus and Leucippus say that there are indivisible bodies, infinite both in number and in the varieties of their shapes, of which everything else is composed—the compounds differing one from another according to the shapes, 'positions', and 'groupings' of their constituents.) Contrarie autem videntur dicere qui circa Anaxagoram, eis qui circa Empedoclem. Hi quidem enim inquiunt ignem et aquam et aerem et terram quatuor elementa, et simplicia magis esse quam carnem et os et talia similium partium: hi autem haec quidem simplicia et elementa esse, terram autem et aquam et aerem et ignem composita; panspermiam enim horum esse. For the views of the school of Anaxagoras seem diametrically opposed to those of the followers of Empedocles. Empedocles says that Fire, Water, Air, and Earth are four elements, and are thus 'simple' rather than flesh, bone, and bodies which, like these, are 'homoeomeries'. But the followers of Anaxagoras regard the 'homoeomeries' as 'simple' and elements, whilst they affirm that Earth, Fire, Water, and Air are composite; for each of these is (according to them) a 'common seminary' of all the 'homoeomeries'. 3. In hoc igitur libro Philosophus primo ponit prooemium demonstrans suam intentionem: 3. In this book, therefore, the Philosopher first prefaces an introduction, in which he states his intention; secundo prosequitur propositum, ibi: Antiquorum quidem igitur etc. second, he carries it out, at on this question (314a6; [4]). Circa primum tria facit. In the introduction he does three things. Primo enim ponit id quod principaliter intendit. Et continuatur ad finem libri de Caelo, ubi dictum est: De gravi quidem igitur et levi determinatum sit hoc modo. Et subditur: de generatione autem et corruptione natura generatorum et corruptorum, idest eorum quae naturaliter generantur et corrumpuntur, universaliter de omnibus et causas dividendum est, ut scilicet assignemus alias causas generationis et alias corruptionis, vel etiam ut communes causas distinguamus, applicando singulis speciebus generatorum et corruptorum naturaliter, et rationes eorum determinandum est, vel generationis et corruptionis, vel etiam eorum quae naturaliter generantur et corrumpuntur: utrorumque enim definitiones scire oportet, Naturalis enim non solum considerat motum, sed etiam ipsa mobilia. Dicit autem natura generatorum et corruptorum, quia considerare de generatione et corruptione artificialium non pertinet ad Naturalem. First (314a1), he states what his main intention is. And this is in continuation with the end of the book On the Heavens, where he had said: we have now finished our examination of the heavy and the light. He now adds: our next task is to study coming-to-be and passing-away. Of all the things that come-to-be and pass-away by nature, i.e., of things that are naturally generated and corrupted, we are to distinguish the causes of these processes considered in general, assigning, namely, one set of causes for generation and another set for corruption, or else distinguishing the common causes by assigning them to the particular species of naturally generated and corrupted things, and state their definitions, i.e., either the definitions of generation and corruption or also of the things that are naturally generated and corrupted—for one must know the definitions of each, since natural science not only considers motions but mobile things themselves. He says, of things that come-to-be and pass-away by nature, because the study of the generation and corruption of artificial things does not pertain to natural science. Secundo cum dicit: Amplius, etc, promittit se determinaturum de aliis motibus consequentibus, scilicet de alteratione et augmentatione, quid sit utrumque. Second, when he says further, we are to study (314a3), he promises to reach conclusions on the other subsequent motions, namely, on alteration and growth, as to the nature of both. Tertio ibi: et utrum etc., promittit se determinaturum de comparatione praedictorum adinvicem: utrum scilicet sit existimandum (vel recipiendum) quod eadem sit natura et ratio alterationis et generationis, aut semota, idest distincta, ut scilicet ita differant ratione et natura, sicut sunt determinata, idest distincta, nominibus. Third, at and whether alteration (314a4), he promises to settle the matter of the comparison of the aforesaid to each other, namely, whether one should consider (or accept) the nature and notion of alteration and generation as being the same, or separate, i.e., distinct, so as to differ in notion and nature, as they are determinate, i.e., distinct, as to name. 4. Deinde cum dicit: antiquorum quidem igitur etc., prosequitur suum propositum. 4. Then, at on this question (314a6), he pursues his proposition. Et primo determinat de generatione et corruptione in communi, et etiam de consequentibus motibus; First, he determines concerning generation and corruption in common and also concerning the consequent motions; secundo determinat de generatione et corruptione elementorum, et hoc in secundo libro, qui incipit ibi: De mixtione quidem igitur etc. second, he determines concerning the generation and corruption of the elements, and he does this in book 2, at we have explained (328b26; [FIX]). Prima pars dividitur in duas: The first part is divided in two: in prima determinat de generatione et corruptione in communi, et aliis motibus consequentibus; in the first he determines concerning generation and corruption in common and concerning the other consequent motions; in secunda determinat de quibusdam quae ad hoc requiruntur, ibi: Quoniam autem primum oportet de materia etc. in the second he determines concerning certain things required for these, at we must first investigate (322b1; [FIX, L. 18]). Circa primum duo facit: As to the first he does two things: primo inquirit utrum generatio differat ab alteratione, quod erat tertium propositorum: oportuit tamen prius hoc tangere, quia, cum differentia constituat speciem, non posset sciri propria ratio generationis et corruptionis, hoc ignorato. First, he inquires whether generation differs from alteration. This was the third of the things brought forward; nevertheless it must be discussed first, because, since it is the difference that determines a species, the appropriate notion of generation and corruption could not be known, if this remained unknown. Secundo determinat de generatione et consequentibus motibus, ibi: Universaliter itaque de generatione etc. Second, he determines concerning generation and consequent motions, at we have therefore to discuss (315a26; [18]).