I. To the Question

A. The Opinion of Others

5. Here the statement is made that, just as nature is of itself formally nature, so it is of itself singular, such that to look for a cause of singularity beside the cause of nature (as if nature is nature first - first in time or in nature - before it is singular, and then is narrowed down by something additional so as to become singular) is not necessary.

6. This is proved by a likeness: that just as nature has of itself true existence outside the soul but does not have existence within the soul save from something else, that is, from the soul itself (and the reason is that true existence belongs to nature simply, but existence within the soul is its existence in a certain respect), so universality only belongs to a thing according to existence in a certain respect, namely existence in the soul, but singularity belongs to a thing according to true existence, and thus belongs to it of itself and simply.     Therefore one must look for a cause as to why a nature is universal (and the intellect is to be given as the cause), but a cause other than the nature of the thing as to why a nature is singular - a cause mediating between the nature and its singularity - is not to be looked for, but the same causes that are causes of the unity of a thing are causes also of its singularity; therefore etc     .Vatican Editors: Several other reasons for this opinion are given by Scotus in Metaphysics 7 q.13 n.16. ⁴⁴,a

a.a [Interpolation] Against this there is argument as follows, and first on the part of the communicability of nature: if a nature is of itself a ‘this’, then communicability [to several] is repugnant to it, as is plain about the divine essence [sc. communicability by division] - and so it is also in the case of angels, if the nature of them were of itself a ‘this’. Another proof is that that to which one opposite of itself belongs, to it the other is repugnant; but communicability is not repugnant to material nature. Again, if a nature were, according to what it is in reality, of itself a ‘this’, then to understand it to be universal would be impossible unless one understood it under the opposite idea of understanding such an object [n.7]. Again, if singularity is included in the idea of a nature, then being a ‘not-this’ (and thus being a universal) is repugnant to it [n.48], because whatever is repugnant to what is included in a thing is also repugnant to the thing that includes it [Scotus Rep IIA d.12 q.5].

7. [Rejection of the Opinion] - Against this [n.5] there is argument as follows:

An object insofar as it is an object exists first actually by its own act, and in that prior act - according to you - the object is of itself singular, because this belongs to the nature when not taken in a certain respect or in accord with the being that it has in the soul; therefore, when the intellect understands the object under the idea of a universal, it understands it in an idea opposite to the object’s own idea, because as the object precedes the act [sc. of the intellect] it is determined of itself to the opposite of that idea, namely the idea of a universal.

8. Further, whatever has a real, proper, and sufficient unity less than numerical unity is not of itself one with numerical unity (or is not of itself a ‘this’); but the nature existing in this stone has a proper unity, real or sufficient, less than numerical unity;     therefore etc     .

9. The major premise here is plain of itself, because nothing is of itself one with a unity greater than the unity sufficient for it; for if its proper unity - the unity that is of itself due to it - is less than numerical unity, then numerical unity does not belong to it from its nature or according to itself (otherwise it would have precisely from its nature both a greater and a lesser unity, which are opposites about and according to the same thing - because along with a lesser unity there can stand, without contradiction, a multitude opposed to a greater unity, and this multitude cannot stand along with a greater unity, since this is repugnant to it;     therefore etc     .).

10. Proof of the minor [n.8]; because if there is no real unity to nature less than singularity, and if all unity other than the unity of singularity and of specific nature is less than real unity, then there will be no real unity less than numerical unity; the consequent is false, as I will prove in five or six ways [in fact in seven ways, nn.11, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 28]:     therefore etc     .

11. The first way is as follows:

According to the Philosopher Metaphysics 10.1.1052b19-24, “in every genus there is one first, which is the standard and measure of everything that belongs to that genus.”

12. This unity of the first measurer is real, because the Philosopher proves [ibid.] that the first idea of measure belongs to a ‘one’, and he explains by means of order how that to which the idea of measuring belongs in every genus is a ‘one’. Now this unity belongs to something insofar as it is first in the genus; it is therefore real, because things measured are real and really measured; but a real being cannot be really measured by a being of reason; therefore it [sc. the unity of the measurer] is real.

13. But this unity is not numerical, because there is no singular in a genus that is the measure of all the things that are in that genus - for according to the Philosopher Metaphysics 3.3.999a12-13 “in individuals of the same species it is not the case that this individual is prior and that one posterior.”

14. And although the Commentator [Averroes Metaphysics 3 com.11] expounds the ‘prior’ here of a prior that constitutes a posterior, yet this is of no consequence for the minor premise [n.13], because the Philosopher intends to assign there [ibid. 999a6-13] the reason for Plato’s positing that the nature of the species exists separately and not in a genus - because there is in a species an essential order, on account of which the posterior can be reduced to the prior (and so according to Plato there is no need to posit an idea of the genus, ‘through participation in which the species are what they are’, but only an idea of the species, to which all the others are reduced); but in individuals, according to Plato and according to the Philosopher reporting him, there is no such order, whether or not one of them constitutes another;     therefore etc     .

15. So the Philosopher’s intention there is to agree with Plato that in individuals of the same species there is no essential order. Therefore no individual is the per se measure of the things that are in the species of it - and so no numerical or individual unity is either.

16. Further, second, I prove that the same consequent [n.10, ‘there will be no real unity less than numerical unity’] is false:

Because according to the Philosopher Physics 7.4.249a3-8“If then comparable things must not only not be equivocal but must also have no difference..., then a thing is not comparable in this way, namely whether something colored is more white than black (for these are not compared as to some color but insofar as there is color), but in whiteness [sc. whether something white is more white].” ⁴⁵ comparison occurs within an undivided species, because there is one nature - but not within a genus, because a genus does not have such unity.

17. This difference [sc. between unity of species and unity of genus] is not one of unity in idea, because the concept of a genus is as one in number in the intellect as the concept of a species is; otherwise no concept would be predicated in the whatness of many species (and so no concept would be a genus), but there would be as many concepts predicated of species as there are concepts of species, and then in individual predications the same thing would be predicated of itself [sc. the species would be predicated of the species]. Likewise, unity of concept or of non-concept is of no relevance to the Philosopher’s intention there, namely for making comparison or not [n.16]. So the Philosopher intends there that a specific nature is one with the unity of specific nature; but he does not intend that it is one in this way with numerical unity, because in numerical unity no comparison is made.     Therefore etc     .

18. Further, third:

According to the Philosopher Metaphysics 5.15.1021a9-12, in the chapter on relation, the same, the like, and the equal are founded on ‘one’, so that although likeness has for foundation a thing of the genus of such and such a quality, yet relation is not real unless it has a real foundation and a real, proximate idea of founding; therefore the unity that is required in the foundation of a relation of likeness is real; but it is not a numerical unity, because nothing one and the same is like or equal to itself.

19. Further, fourth:

Of one real opposition there are two real extremes; but contrariety is a real opposition (as is plain, because one of the contraries corrupts or destroys the other in the absence of any work of the intellect, and just because they are contraries);     therefore both first extremes of this opposition are real and ‘one’ with some real unity; but not with numerical unity, because then this white thing would be precisely the first contrary to this black thing (or that white thing would precisely be so), which is unacceptable, because then there would be as many first contrarieties as there are contrary individuals; therefore etc     .

20. Further, fifth:

Of one act of a sense there is an object that is one according to some real unity; but not numerical unity; so there is some real unity other than numerical unity.

21. The proof of the minor is that a power which knows an object in this way (namely insofar as it is one ‘with this unity’) knows it insofar as it is distinct from anything that is not one with this unity - but a sense does not know an object insofar as it is distinct from anything which is one with numerical unity, as is plain because no sense distinguishes that this ray of the sun differs numerically from another ray, although however the rays are diverse because of the motion of the sun; if all common sensibles are removed (to wit, diversity of place or of position), and if two quantities were, by divine power, posited to be together at once, and they were also completely alike and equal in whiteness - sight would not distinguish that there were two white things there (yet if it knew either of them insofar as it is one with numerical unity, it would know it insofar as it is one distinct by numerical unity).

22. Next to this [n.20], one could also argue, as to the first object of a sense, that it is one in itself by some real unity, because just as the object ‘of this power’ - insofar as it is the object - precedes the intellect, so too it precedes, according to its real unity, every action of the intellect. But this argument does not conclude as the preceding one does; for one could posit that a first object - as it is adequate to the power - is something common, abstracted from all particular objects, and thus does not have a unity save the unity of commonness with the several particular objects; but the argument does not seem to deny, as to one object of one act of sensing, that it necessarily has a unity that is real and less than numerical unity.

23. Further, sixth:

Because if every real unity is numerical, then every real diversity is numerical. But the consequent is false, because every numerical diversity, insofar as it is numerical, is equal - and so everything would be equally distinct; and then it follows that the intellect could no more abstract something common from Socrates and Plato than from Socrates and line, and every universal would be a pure figment of the intellect.

24. The first consequence is proved in two ways:

First, because one and many, same and diverse are opposites (from Metaphysics 10.3.1054a20-21, b22-23); but as often as one opposite is stated so also is the remaining one (from Topics 1.15.106b14-15); therefore to any unity there corresponds its own diversity.

25. The second proof is that each extreme of any diversity is in itself one - and the way it is one in itself it is in the same way diverse from the remaining extreme, so that the unity of one extreme seems to be the per se reason for the diversity of the other extreme.

26. There is also a confirmation of this in another way, that if there is only a numerical unity in this thing here, then whatever unity there is in that thing there is of itself one in number; therefore both this thing and that thing are, according to their whole entity, diverse first, because diverse things do not agree in anything ‘one’ in any way.

27. There is confirmation too from this, that numerical diversity means that this singular is not that singular, though with the assumption of the entity of both extremes.

But such unity belongs necessarily to one or other of them/[or alternative text:] is the negation of the other of them.

28. Further:

When no intellect exists, fire would generate fire and corrupt water, and there would be some real unity of generator to generated in form, according to which form there would be univocal generation. For the intellect when considering does not make generation to be univocal but knows it to be univocal.

B. Scotus’ own Opinion

29. To the question then [n.1], I say, conceding the conclusion of the above arguments [nn.7-8], that material substance is not of itself from its own nature a ‘this’, because in that case, as the first argument proves [n.7], the intellect could not understand material substance under its opposite if it did not understand its own object under an idea of understanding repugnant to the idea of such an object.

30. Also as the second argument proves [n.8], along with all its own proofs [nn.9-28], there is, without any operation of the intellect, some real unity in things less than numerical unity or than the proper unity of a singular, which unity belongs to nature of itself; and nature, according to this proper unity of nature as it is nature, is indifferent to the unity of singulars; so nature is not thus one by that unity, namely the unity of singulars.

31. But how this should be understood can in some way be seen from the statement of Avicenna Metaphysics 5.1 f.86va,“For the definition of horseness is aside from the definition of universality, and universality is not contained in the definition of horseness; for horseness has a definition that does not contain universality but universality is accidental to it; hence horseness itself is not anything but horseness alone; for it is of itself neither many nor one, and is not existent in sensible things or in the soul; nor is it any of these potentially or in fact, such that they are contained in the essence of horseness; but it is, from what it is, horseness alone.” ⁴⁶ where he maintains that ‘horseness is just horseness, and is not of itself one or many, or universal or particular’. I understand this to mean that horseness is not of itself one by numerical unity, nor many by the manyness opposed to that oneness; nor is it actually universal (namely in the way that something is universal as it is the object of the intellect), nor is it of itself particular.

32. For although it is really never without some of them, yet it is of itself none of them, but is naturally prior to all of them, and according to natural priority its ‘what it is’ is per se the object of the intellect and, as such, it is per se considered by the metaphysician and expressed in a definition; and propositions ‘true in the first mode’ are true by reason of the whatness thus taken, because nothing is said ‘per se in the first mode’ about a whatness save what is essentially included in the whatness, insofar as it is abstracted from all of the above things which are naturally posterior to it [1 d.3 n.164, d.5 n.18, d.2 nn.19, 25].

33. But not only is the nature of itself indifferent to existence in the intellect and in the particular, and thereby indifferent to universal and to particular (or singular) existence, but also, as it has existence in the intellect, it does not first of itself have universality. For although it is understood under universality as under the mode of understanding it, yet universality is not part of its first concept, because it is not part of a metaphysical but of a logical concept (for the logician considers second intentions applied to first intentions, according to Avicenna). Therefore the first understanding is of the nature without any mode being understood along with it, either the mode that belongs to it in the intellect or the mode that belongs to it outside the intellect; and although the mode in which that understanding is understood is universality yet it is not a mode of that understanding.

34. And just as, according to that existence [sc. existence in the intellect], the nature is not of itself universal, but universality is an accident of the nature according to its first idea, according to which idea the nature is object - so too in the thing outside [the intellect], where the nature exists along with singularity, the nature is not of itself determined to singularity but is naturally prior to the idea that contracts it down to that singularity; and insofar as it is naturally prior to what contracts it, there is no repugnance in its existing without what contracts it. And just as the object in the intellect did, according to the primacy and universality of it, have intelligible existence, so too the nature according to that entity has true real being outside the soul in the thing; and according to that entity it has the unity proportioned to it, which unity is indifferent to singularity, so that there is no repugnance in that unity’s being of itself posited as existing with some unity of singularity (so this is how I understand ‘nature has a real unity less than numerical unity’); and although it not have the unity of singularity of itself, so that such unity be internal to the idea of the nature (because ‘horseness is just horseness’, as Avicenna says in Metaphysics 5 [n.31]), yet that unity is a proper accident of the nature according to its first entity, and consequently the nature is not of itself a ‘this’, either intrinsically or according to the proper entity necessarily included in the nature according to its first entity.

35. But against this [n.34, about the indetermination and indifference of nature to singularity] there seem to be two objections:

One, that it seems to posit that the universal is something real in the thing (which is against the Commentator [Averroes] in On the Soul 1 comm.8,“It is shown by this that Aristotle does not think that definitions of genus and species are definitions of universal things existing outside the soul, but definitions of particular things outside the intellect; but the intellect - which acts - creates in them universality; and it is as if he said: and the being of definitions is not attributed to species and genus such that those universal things exist outside the intellect. For either the universal living thing or animal is altogether nothing, or, if some universal thing is a per se being, its being is posterior to the being of sensibles; and he said this because it appears here that definitions are of the sensible things existing outside the intellect, and then either there are no universal things existing per se, the way Plato used to say, or, if there are, their being is not necessary to the understanding of sensible things.” ⁴⁷ when he says that ‘the intellect makes universality in things, so that universality does not exist save through the intellect’, and thus universality is just a being of reason) - for although the nature as it is a being in this stone is naturally prior to the singularity of the stone, yet, from what was said [n.34], it is indifferent to this singular and to that [sc. and such indifference is a mark of universality].

36. Further, Damascene Orthodox Faith ch.8 n.16 says, “It must be borne in mind that it is one thing to be considered in reality and another to be considered in reason and thought. So, and more particularly, the division of hypostases [supposits] in the case of any creature is considered in reality (for Peter is considered in reality as separate from Paul), but commonness and union are considered only in the intellect, reason, and thought (for we understand by the intellect that Peter and Paul belong to one nature and have one common nature); . .for neither do these hypostases exist in one another, but each is divided one by one, that is, separated in reality.” And later [ch.8 n.17], “However, in the holy and supersubstantial Trinity it is contrariwise; for there what is common is considered one in reality, ...but afterwards in thought it is considered divided.”

37. As to the first [n.35], I say that a universal in act is that which has some indifferent unity, according to which the identically same universal is in proximate potency to being stated of any supposit whatever, because, according to the Philosopher Posterior Analytics 1.4.73b26-33, a ‘universal’ is what is a one in many and of many. For nothing in reality - according to any unity - is such that according to that precise unity it is in proximate potency for any supposit by a predication stating ‘this is this’; because, although there is no repugnance for something existing in reality to be in a singularity other than the one it is in [n.34], yet this something cannot truly be stated of any inferior beneath it, that ‘anything whatever is this’; for this is only possible of an object the same in number actually considered by the intellect - which object indeed ‘as understood’ has also the numerical unity of an object, according to which it is, as identically the same, predicable of every singular, by saying that ‘this is this’.

38. Hereby is evident the refutation of the statement that ‘the agent intellect creates universality in things’ [n.35, cf. Scotus On the Soul q.17 n.14] on the ground that one can say of any ‘what it is’ existing in a phantasm that it is such that being in something else is not repugnant to it, and on the ground that there is a denuding [Henry of Ghent, Quodlibet 8 q.12, 13 q.8] of the ‘what is’ existing in the phantasm - for whenever a ‘what is’ exists beforehand in the possible intellect, it has objective being, either in reality or in a phantasm, or it has a being that is definite or deduced through reason (and thus not through any [intelligible] light, but it is always of itself a nature of such sort that being in another is not repugnant to it); but it is not of such sort that being said of anything whatever belongs to it in proximate potency, but only in the possible intellect is it in [such] proximate potency.

There is then in reality a ‘common thing’ that is not of itself a ‘this’, and consequently ‘non-this’ is not repugnant to it of itself. But such a common thing is not a universal in act, because there is lacking to it the indifference by which a universal is a completed universal, namely the indifference by which the common thing, being identically the same by some identity, is predicable of any individual, such that any individual is it.

39. To the second objection - from Damascene [n.36] - I say that what is common in creatures is not really one in the way that what is common in divine reality is really one. For in divine reality what is common is singular and individual, because the very divine nature is of itself a ‘this’, and it is manifest that in this way no universal in creatures is really one; for to posit this would be to posit that some undivided created nature was predicated of many individuals by a predication stating that ‘this is this’, just as it is said that the Father is God and the Son is the same God. But in creatures there is some common thing one by a real unity less than numerical unity, and this ‘common thing’ is not so common that it is predicable of many, although it is so common that its being in something other than what it is in is not repugnant to it.

40. So it is plain in two ways how the authority [of Damascene] is not against me: first because he is speaking of the unity of singularity in divine reality, and in this way not only is the created universal not one but it is also not common in creatures [or: the common in creatures is not one]; second because he is speaking of a common predicable, not precisely of a common that is determinate in fact (even though being in another is not repugnant to it), and a common of this sort can be precisely posited really in creatures.