DOCTOR COMMUNIS - Vaticano

88
LAWRENCE DEWAN, O.P.
We see, also, that in this text supposedly contemporaneous with Q2,
the explanation of the accidentality of predication in the answer to “is it”
is quite different from that given in Q2. There, it was the distinction
between the essence and the act of being which made for accidentality.
Here, it is the priority of extramental natural being over being in the
human mind which explains it. 21
What does Averroes actually say? 22 His crucial comment is as follows:
Sed debet scire universaliter quod hoc nomen ens quod significat
essentiam rei est aliud ab ente quod significat verum, et ideo expositores
diversantur in quaesito simplici, scilicet dicere verum aliquid
est in secundo Topicorum, 23 utrum collocetur in quaestionibus accidentis
aut generis. Qui enim intelligit de ente illud, quod est commune
decem praedicamentis, dicit quod collocatur in quaestionibus
generis; et qui intellexit de ente illud, quod intelligitur de vero, dicit
quod collocatur in quaestionibus accidentis. 24
I.e. Averroes distinguishes carefully between the earlier seen meaning of
“ens” which signifies the essence, divided by the categories, and the “ens”
21 Q2 presents the distinction between essence and act of being in creatures as the reason
why there are the two questions, “what is it” and “is it”, and links this with the explanation
of accidentality of predication for the reply to “is it”. CM 5.9 explains the accidentality
by the priority of extramental being itself over our knowledge of that being. This latter
explanation accords with the idea that God’s knowledge of creatures does not have the
mode of composition and division [cf. ST 1.14.14], and neither does angelic cognition [cf.
ST 1.58.4], i.e. it is not the ontology of creatures that gives rise to questioning and gradual
knowledge; it is rather the weakness of human intellectual light [1.58.3 and 4].
22 The texts of Aristotle and Averroes are to be found in Aristotelis Metaphysicorum
libri XIIII cum Averrois Cordubensis in eosdem Commentariis etc., Venetiis apud
Junctas, 1562 [t. 8 of the Opera Aristototelis cum Averrois Commentariis], 5, text. 14 [fol.
116vo-117ro]. The Aristotle text has:
Et etiam ens significat essentiam et veritatem rei, quoniam cum dixerimus
aliquid esse, demonstrabimus suam veritatem; et cum dixerimus aliquid non
esse, demonstrabimus ipsum esse non verum, sed falsum, et similiter in affirmativa
et negativa, sicut dicimus quod Socrates est musicus. Hoc enim est
verum, et dicimus quod Socrates non est albus, et hoc non est verum, et sicut
dicimus quod diameter est aequalis costae, et est falsum [fol. 116vo, K-L].
In his paraphrase, Averroes simply ignores the “significat essentiam”, which has no place
in introducing “being” as signifying the true. However, he does pick up the words in his
comment, in order precisely to distinguish between “being” as signifying the essence and
“being” as signifying the true.
23 This seems to be a reference to Aristotle, Topics 2.2 (109a36-b12), where the possible
confusion of generic and accidental predication is discussed.
24 Text. 14 [117ro (F) -vo (G)].