The Fountain of Life (Fons Vitae) (excerpt), by Solomon Ibn Gabirol, tr. by Harry E. Wedeck [1962], at sacred-texts.com



  

The Fountain of Life

  

FONS VITAE

  

SPECIALLY ABRIDGED EDITION

  

by Solomon Ibn Gabirol

  

(Avicebron)

  

TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN BY HARRY E. WEDECK

  

WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY THEODORE E. JAMES

  

WISDOM LIBRARY

  

a division of

  

PHILOSOPHICAL LIBRARY

  

New York

  

[1962]

Scanned, proofed and formatted at sacred-texts.com, September 2007. This text is in the public domain in the United States because its copyright was not renewed in a timely fashion as required by law. These files may be used for any purpose.


     The Fountain of Life (Fons Vitae) (excerpt), by Solomon Ibn Gabirol, tr. by Harry E. Wedeck [1962], at sacred-texts.com



[p. iv]

The present translation is based on the Latin text edited by Clemens Baumker in Beitrage zur Geshichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, I. Munster, 1895. Volume Three of Ibn Gabirol's work Fons Vitae.

[p. v]

  

INTRODUCTION

The Fons Vitae of Solomon Ibn Gabirol (1021-1058/70) is essentially an eleventh century attempt to present the first part of wisdom as the source of life for the intellectually oriented Jews of the Western world. As such it suffered almost complete sterility right from the start. Written in Arabic, it seems to have by-passed the greater majority of Gabirol's own Jewish contemporaries. And, even when translated in the twelfth century into Latin by the combined efforts of Ibn Daud (Avendehut), who is better known by his assumed Christian name of John of Spain, and Dominic Gundissalin it was not immediately recognized as a work in medieval Jewish philosophy. This was probably due to the fact that the author of this work was designated by the Arabic form of his name: Avicebron. The florilegia selected and translated into Hebrew by Shem Tob Fahquera (1225-1290) made scant impression on his contemporaries, if we can judge from the fact that only one manuscript of it seems to have been circulated. Another fundamental reason for its lack of influence on the Jewish world may be the fact that Gabirol never betrays his Jewish commitments by the insertion of biblical phrases or references to the vast literature of Talmudic developments. Indeed, the neo-platonic linguistic structures and their somewhat Christian adaptations made his work appear positively non-Jewish. Abraham Ibn

[p. vi]

[paragraph continues] Daud (ca. 1110-1180) actually criticizes Gabirol for treating such an important topic, that has so many religious implications, in a purely rationalistic way and, also, for expressing teachings apparently dangerous to Judaism itself. Later evaluations bring out the obvious lack of an appealing style, quite unexpected in a work by one recognized as pre-eminent in poetry.

The course of the Fons Vitae reached more fertile ground in the western Christian world of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The very fact that Raymond, Archbishop of Toledo, had the translation prepared was some indication of the reception it was to get later. Its obvious neoplatonic orientation was welcomed by medieval schoolmen, already nourished by the speculations on universal hylomorphism derived from the writings of Augustine and elaborated within the Augustinian view of formlessness as the root distinction separating God and creatures. The wisdom of God and the wisdom of man meet quite amicably in the concept of a Will overflowing with light that enlightens every man, that perfects every thing and illumines the path from the First Author, supreme and holy, to the least manifestation of reality, the substance supporting the nine categories. Though there appears to be in Gabirol a neo-platonic universe dependent on the Will of the First Agent, it is not quite appropriate to consider that Agent as Yahweh, in a truly Jewish sense. There are more Christian than Jewish delights savored in this treatise by the Christians of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

After an introduction, in which the author explains that the Fons Vitae is the first part of wisdom or more accurately the first foundation and root of wisdom, he elaborates the steps to be followed from a knowledge

[p. vii]

of matter and form through the knowledge of will to the science of the First Essence. This is wisdom: to know the First Essence. The total universe of man's knowledge includes the "per se nota" and what can be proved by the rules of the dialectical art. Employing such rules he established the existence of matter and form, their combinations and implications. The cause of all things is the Prime Essence and Will is the medium between it and all these hylomorphically constituted things.

At first glance one may be apt to place Gabirol's understanding of matter and form in the Christian-Aristotelian tradition. Yet, on the surface, at least, there seem to be basic differences. One of these is the equation of the form of man with "the composition of his members" and another is the designation of body as a combination of matter, or hyle, and quantity in such a way that quantity is the first form, that is 'corporeitas.' Unlike Avicenna and later Christian universal hylomorphists he does not speak of a form of corporeity but only of a "matter of corporeity"; corporeity or quantity is the basic corporeal form. "Forma quantitatis cum coniungitur materiae inferiori constituit speciem corporis et eam ducit ad esse." (II. 8.) The composite corporeal substance is either the corporeal matter supporting the forms of qualities by means of quantity (Tract I) or spiritual matter which sustains the corporeal form (Tract II) . Simple spiritual substances are shown to exist in the accompanying selection (Tract III); the way of understanding matter and form in simple substances (Tract IV) and universal matter and form (Tract V) rounds out the complete work.

There is a general method to be followed in this investigation: if you know that there are properties of

[p. viii]

something and know what they are, then you know the existence of the thing which has these properties. If there is one universal matter for all things it will have the following properties: it is "per se existens," "unius essentiae," "sustinens diversitatem," and "dans omnibus essentiam suam et nomen." Such properties are found in things and hence there is one universal matter. If you abstract all forms, sensible and intelligible, the remainder is universal matter. And the process is to go from color to figure, to corporeity, to substantiality, to "intellectus spirituales." Created being supporting all these forms is universal matter. The properties of universal form are: "subsistere in alio," "perficere essentiam illius in quo est," "dare ei esse."

The particular method is to inspect natural sensibles both universal and particular and you will find matter and form. To the four modes of matter: artificial-particular matter, natural-particular matter, natural-universal matter and celestial matter, there correspond four grades of forms. Sensible body is known or perceived by the sensible qualities adhering in it. This sensible body is understood in terms of substance when viewed with the forms; when conceived as receptive of these forms it is designated as matter or hyle. These sensible forms require an extended subject which is the body, composed of matter and corporeity (i.e., quantity) . When the first form is added to the highest matter it constitutes the species of an intelligence. The form of the intelligence is a simple one whereas the form of quantity is many complex units. Of all forms, the former is the closest form to the highest matter, the latter is closest to the lowest matter. The form of the intelligence is not separated

[p. ix]

from the highest matter and quantity is not separated from the lowest. Each penetrates the total essence of its corresponding matter and supports all other appropriate forms.

It would be quite fascinating to conjecture about the antecedents of the basic ideas found in the Fons Vitae. With the sole exception of Plato there is no author mentioned by name throughout the whole five books. And even the references to Plato are quite vague and undeveloped. Because of certain anonymous references such as "it is said," "They have described," "why does one say," "I have often heard it said," "philosophers are accustomed to say," it may not be out of order to postulate that he considered his teaching within the generally accepted framework of Arabian-neo-platonism current at the time. Similar key ideas are found in the Karaitic writings of the tenth century under Mutazalite influences. He may be trying to reconcile the Arabian atomism and neoplatonic hylomorphism with a First Cause responsible for all because of Will, yet keeping that idea well within the Kalamite tradition. Such influences may have come through the Brethren of the Purity, who are generally conceded to have tried their hands at such typical neo-platonic attempts at unification. There are certain recognizable ideas of Avicenna, especially in regard to quantity and matter in itself. Though emanationism is a common neo-platonic explanation for the derivation of the many from the one, the intermediary of Will may be a somewhat later Sufi influence. Through the intermediary of Will, which is the divine power making matter and form and binding them together within the highest beings even down to the lowest, there flow from the First

[p. x]

[paragraph continues] Essence the universal intelligence, souls, nature, the four elements and the particular corporeal beings of our experience.

The excerpt from the Fons Vitae presented here in English for the first time is taken from the third and middle tractate. Its primary purpose is to establish the existence of simple substances between the corporeal things of our experience and the First Agent or Author of all. Two methods are utilized: one is to consider the properties of the First Agent and the properties of the substance that supports the nine categories; the other is to examine the effects produced in the latter substance in accord with the general emanation of all from the First Author. The first really establishes the existence of simple substances; the second leads, synthetically and analytically, to a knowledge of what they are in themselves and how they are and why. Solomon Ibn Gabirol presents the complete integration of the simple substances into the overall pattern of universal hylomorphism. Here we have a very thorough cosmogony, cosmology, psychology and metaphysics.

Theodore E. James

Manhattan College




     The Fountain of Life (Fons Vitae) (excerpt), by Solomon Ibn Gabirol, tr. by Harry E. Wedeck [1962], at sacred-texts.com



[p. 1]

  

DEMONSTRATION OF SIMPLE SUBSTANCES

  

Part I

Pupil: What is the problem that we are now to discuss in this book?

Master: Since it is our intention to find the matter and the form in simple substances, and since you question the existence of simple substances, we must first consider--and that is the purpose of this book--the proof of the existence of simple substances. We shall seek assured certainty in this regard to the point of establishing their existence by necessary proofs. Next we shall proceed to an examination of the science of matter and form in simple substances.

Let us begin then by producing the proofs that establish the existence of a substance intermediary between the First Author, sublime and holy, and the substance that supports the nine categories. In this connection we shall postulate the following fundamental principle: If the origin of beings is the First Author, who is not caused, and the end of beings is the final effect, that itself has no effect, then the beginning of things is essentially and actually different from their end. For if the beginning of things is not distinct from their end, then the beginning is the end, and the end is the beginning.

Pupil: What is the nature of the distinction between the First Author, sublime and holy, and the final effect?

Master: By the distinction between them, we understand

[p. 2]

the removal of resemblance and similitude; and with the removal of resemblance and similitude, union or harmony is removed, for there is harmony only through resemblance.

Pupil: How can it be asserted with truth that between the First Author and the substance that supports the nine categories there exist intermediary substances that are nearer to the First Author than this substance, while all things are distinct from him and none of them is more worthy of being near him than another?

Master: Why do you not set intermediary substances uninterruptedly after the First Author, holy and sublime, just as you placed the substance that supports the nine categories uninterruptedly after him; particularly when these substances are simple and spiritual?

Pupil: Proof of the existence of simple substances is very difficult. Demonstrate therefore the proofs that establish the existence of a substance intermediary between the First Author and the final effect.

Master: I shall expound for you various proofs of the existence of intermediary substances, each of which will prove the existence of simple substances. But I do not guarantee to demonstrate them in an order, because that would be of little value; and also you are to make an effort to arrange and join them properly one with the other. Remember then every term of their premises and observe the arrangements of terms in accordance with the rules of logic: then you will realize the truth of the conclusions that follow from these premises.

The First Author is the origin of all things. And the origin of things is different from their end. And the substance that supports the nine categories is the

[p. 3]

end of things. Therefore the First Author is different from the substance that supports the nine categories.

I shall now take this conclusion as a premise and I assert: The First Author differs from the substance that supports the nine categories. Now all different things have an intermediary. Therefore there is an intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the nine categories.

Pupil: What proof is there that there is an intermediary between all different things?

Master: If there were, between different things, no intermediary except themselves, they would then be a single thing and would not be different.

Pupil: Although the First Author is different from the substance that supports the nine categories, it is however not necessary that there should be an intermediary between them, for the soul is different from the body without an intermediary between them.

Master: But for the spirit that is intermediary between the soul and the body, they would not be united together. If then the First Author were different from the substance that supports the nine categories without any intermediary between them, they could not be united: and if they did not unite, the substance would not exist for a single instant.

Every substance is simple or compound. But everything simple is anterior to the compound because the simple is the cause of the compound. Now the substance that supports the nine categories is compound. Hence the simple substance is anterior to it.

Every compound is composed of its simple elements. But everything composed of its simple elements is posterior to the simple elements of which it is composed. Now the substance that supports the nine categories is composed of its simple elements. Hence

[p. 4]

this substance must be posterior to the simple elements of which it is composed.

The First Author is the true unity in whom there is no multiplicity; and the substance that supports the nine categories is the utmost multiplicity after which there is no greater multiplicity than itself. Now every compound multitude can be reduced to one. It is therefore necessary that there should be intermediaries between the true unity and the compound multitude.

It is necessary that the multitude that is in the substance that supports the nine categories should be subordinate to a unity belonging to the same genus as itself. Now the true unity is not of the same genus as itself. Therefore this multitude is not subordinate immediately to the true unity.

Every author makes only things that resemble him. Now the simple substance is like the First Author. Therefore the effect of the First Author is nothing but the simple substance.

The substance that supports the nine categories is multiple. Now everything multiple is an aggregate of numerous units. Therefore the substance that supports the nine categories is an aggregate of many units. What is less multiflex is always prior to every aggregate of many units. Therefore the other substance, which is of less complexity, is prior to the substance that supports the nine categories.

Before every aggregate that is the result of duplication, there must necessarily be multiples of two until numerical unity is reached. Now the substance that supports the nine categories is an aggregate resulting from duplication. Therefore there must be prior to it substances resulting from duplication, until one substance is reached.

[p. 5]

The more a substance descends, the more it becomes multiple; and, on the other hand, the more it ri ascends, the more unified it becomes. Now whatever becomes multiple in declining and unified in rising necessarily reaches true unity. Therefore it is necessary that a multiple substance reach the substance truly unified.

The substance that supports the categories is a species with differences, properties, and accidents. Now every species differs from other species comprised in the same genus that it has in common with them. Therefore the substance that supports the categories differs from other species comprised in the same genus that it has in common with this species.

The order of the small world is the image of that of the great world. Now the substance of the intelligence, that is simpler and nobler than all the substances of the small world, is not conjoined to the body, for the soul and the spirit are intermediaries between them. And since the order of the great world is concluded from this, it follows that the simplest and most noble substance is not conjoined to the body, which is the substance that supports the categories.

If there is no intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories, it is necessary that the First Author should be the author of the substance by himself. Now if the First Author is the author by himself of the substance, this substance has always been with God. But this substance has not always been. Therefore it was not made by the essence of the First Author. Therefore the First Author is not the author by himself of the substance. And since the First Author is not its author by himself, there must necessarily be an intermediary between them. But if any one denies that there is an

[p. 6]

intermediary between them, the converse of this proposition must necessarily be true: that is, if there is no intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories, the Author is not the author by himself of the substance. But we have already declared that, if there is no intermediary between the First Author and the substance, he must necessarily be the author by himself. Hence he is not himself the author and he is at the same time the author: which is impossible.

It is necessary for the corporeal substance to move in a thing that comprises it and is conjoined to it. But the First Author does not comprise anything and is not conjoined to anything. Therefore the substance that has categories does not move in the First Author.

The motion of the substance that supports the categories exists in time. Now time falls under sempiternity. Therefore the substance that supports the categories falls under sempiternity. Now the First Author is above sempiternity. Therefore sempiternity is the intermediary between himself and substance. But sempiternity is sempiternity for an eternal thing and duration for a thing in duration. Therefore there is something intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories, whose eternity is duration. Therefore the substance that supports the categories is not conjoined to the First Author.

It is necessary that the power or the substance that moves the substance supporting the categories should be conjoined and mingled with it. Now the First Author is neither conjoined to anything nor mingled with it. Therefore the power or substance that moves the substance supporting the categories is not of the essence of the First Author. And since this power or

[p. 7]

substance does not belong to his essence, there must necessarily be another substance that is intermediary that gives motion to the substance that supports the categories.

Motion in place comes from the soul. But the substance that supports the categories moves by motion in place. Therefore the motion of this substance comes from the soul.

The act of the First Author is the creation of something from nothing. Now the substance that supports the categories is composed of its simple elements. Therefore it is not created from nothing.

Between two contrary terms there is always an intermediary, that is similar to each term. But the First Author is contrary to the substance that supports the categories, for the First Author is the author only, while the substance that supports the categories is the effect only. Therefore there must necessarily be an intermediary between them, that is both cause and effect.

To every being a different thing corresponds, that is its contrary. Now the substance that supports the categories is slow in motion, because its motion is in time. Therefore there must be another substance of greater velocity, whose motion is not in time; and this is the substance that is intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories.

The substance supporting the categories is of finite power; and this power comes either from the essence of the substance, or from elsewhere. But it is not possible that this power should come from the essence of the substance, since the substance is moved by another thing. And if this power does not come from the essence of the substance, it comes to it

[p. 8]

either from the essence of the First Author, or from an intermediary between them. But this power does not come from the essence of the First Author, for it would then be necessary for the essence of the First Author to be divided, since a finite power would come from it. But since an infinite thing is not divisible, the power that is in the substance supporting the categories cannot come from the essence of the First Author. Hence it was necessary that there should be another principle that is intermediary between them. And let no one object that the power of the intermediate substance is infinite: because, although the power of this substance is infinite according to its simplicity, yet it is finite because it is a created substance. It is therefore necessary for the intermediary substance to be finite, because it is created. Now its creator is infinite. Therefore, just as they differ in action and passion, so too they differ in being finite and infinite.

The substance supporting the categories is formed. Now every being formed is formed according to a model. Therefore the substance supporting the categories is formed according to a model. I shall now postulate this proposition and I shall assert: The substance supporting the categories is formed according to a model. Now in all cases where a thing is formed according to a model, the model is anterior to it. Therefore the model according to which the substance is formed is anterior to it. Now the model of a substance is a substance. Therefore the substance-model is anterior to the substance formed by it. Therefore a substance exists that is anterior to the substance supporting the categories.

Every substance intermediate between two substances touches them. Now the substance of the soul

[p. 9]

touches the substance of the intelligence and the substance supporting the categories is touched by it. Therefore the substance of the soul is intermediary between the substance of the intelligence and the substance supporting the categories.

Simple substances, like the soul and the intelligence, are forms of compound substances. But every form comprises the thing formed. Therefore simple substances comprise compound substances. Now the substance supporting the categories is compound. Therefore the simple substances comprise it. The higher a being is raised, the more it resembles the form. Therefore the superior must be the form of the inferior. Now the simple substance is superior to the compound substance. Therefore the simple substance is the form of the compound substance. Now the substance supporting the categories is compound. Therefore the simple substance is the form of the substance supporting the categories. The soul and the intelligence are simple substances. Now every simple substance comprises a compound substance. Therefore the soul and the intelligence comprise the substance supporting the categories. Now all that comprises another thing is superior to that which is comprised. Therefore the soul and the intelligence are superior to the substance supporting the categories.

The substance supporting the categories is a compound. Now between the compound and the simple there is no intermediary. Therefore there is no intermediary between the substance supporting the categories and the simple substance. Now whatever thing does not have an intermediary between itself and another thing, follows it in sequence. Therefore the substance supporting the categories follows the simple substance in sequence.

[p. 10]

It is necessary that the First Author should accomplish his task beyond duration. Now when an author accomplishes his task beyond duration, it is necessary that what suffers his action without an intermediary should be accomplished in suffering it beyond duration. Therefore it is necessary that what suffers the action of the First Author without an intermediary should be accomplished in suffering it beyond duration. To this conclusion this minor premise is added: Now the substance supporting the categories is not accomplished beyond duration, for the motion of this substance is in time. It is therefore necessary that the substance supporting the categories should not suffer the action of the First Author without an intermediary.

It is necessary that every thing that suffers should suffer in action. Now all that suffers in action must necessarily receive the power of acting. Therefore it is necessary that all that suffers should receive the power of acting. After this conclusion, I postulate: It is necessary that what suffers immediately the action of the First Author should receive the power of acting. Now that which receives the power of acting, acts. Therefore it is necessary that what suffers immediately the action of the First Author, acts. And to this conclusion is added the following proposition: The substance supporting the categories does not act. Therefore this substance does not immediately suffer the action of the First Author.

The substance supporting the categories is mobile. Now everything mobile suffers. Therefore the substance with categories suffers. And every passion passes from potency to act. Therefore the passion of the substance supporting the categories passes from potency to act. I postulate this conclusion and say: The passion of the substance supporting the categories passes from

[p. 11]

potency to act. Now whenever a thing passes from potency to act, it is a being in action that attracts it into action. Therefore the passion of a substance supporting the categories attracts from potency to act only what exists in action without there being an intermediary between the substance and itself.

Similarly I take this conclusion as a premise and assert: The passion of the substance supporting the categories passes from potency to act by virtue of a being in action without there being an intermediary between them. Now the First Author is neither in power nor in action. Therefore the passion of the substance supporting the categories does not pass from power to act by virtue of the First Author without an intermediary between them.

The soul moves by itself beyond place. Now whatever is mobile by itself beyond place has a uniform motion. Therefore the soul moves by a uniform motion. I take this conclusion as a premise and I assert: The soul moves with a uniform motion. Now after every uniform motion comes a secondary thing. Therefore the uniform motion of the soul is followed by a secondary motion.

And according to another method: If the mind were by itself the first mobile, and the first motion were uniform, it is necessary that the motion of the soul should be a uniform motion. That the uniform motion is the first motion, is proved from this fact, that if uniform motion does not exist, secondary motion does not exist, nor the other motions. And as the soul in itself is the first mobile, it moves then with a uniform motion. I shall make this conclusion a premise and I assert: If the soul, which is in itself the first mobile, moves with a uniform motion, it is necessary that the mobile that follows move with a secondary

[p. 12]

motion. Therefore the mobile that follows moves with a secondary motion. But the soul, that is in itself the first mobile, moves with a uniform motion. Therefore the mobile that follows moves with a secondary motion. I shall treat this conclusion as a premise and I assert: The uniform motion of the soul is followed by a varied motion. Now the substance supporting the categories moves with a varied motion, for each part of this substance moves in two places only; because it moves from the first position to the second, from the second to the third: thus the second and the third are like the first and the second, and so on until the last of the positions. Since the uniform motion of the soul is followed by a secondary motion and the substance supporting the categories moves with a varied motion, the uniform motion of the soul is followed by the motion of the substance supporting the categories.

Similarly in another way: The substance supporting the categories moves with a secondary motion. Now all that moves with a secondary motion follows in sequence that which moves with a uniform motion. Hence the substances supporting the categories follow in sequence the substance that moves with a uniform motion. Likewise I take this proposition and I assert: The substance supporting the categories follows in sequence the substance that moves with a uniform motion. Now the soul moves with a uniform motion. Therefore the substance supporting the categories follows in sequence the substance of the soul.

Likewise in another way: If the secondary motion by which the substance that supports the categories is moved returns to the uniform motion, it is necessary that the motion of this substance should follow the uniform motion of the soul. But the secondary motion by which the substance that supports the categories is

[p. 13]

moved returns to the uniform motion, for each part of this mobile substance returns to the position from which it moved and then the motion of this substance is unified. Therefore the motion of the substance that supports the categories follows the uniform motion of the soul. Similarly I take this conclusion as a premise and I assert: If the motion of the substance that supports the categories follows the motion of the soul, it is necessary that the substance that supports the categories should follow the motion of the soul. Hence it is also necessary that the substance that supports the categories should follow the substance of the soul: that is, there is no intermediary between motion and substance. Now the motion of the substance that supports the categories follows the motion of the soul. Therefore it is necessary that the substance that supports the categories should follow the substance of the soul.

Whatever the being is that, in its entirety, receives something from another without an intermediary, it is more ready to receive it than if it received it with an intermediary. Therefore a whole that receives a thing without one of its parts receiving it more than another of its parts does, receives this thing that it receives without an intermediary more than with an intermediary.

The proof of this conclusion is demonstrated through the conversion of the negative proposition: whatever the whole is that receives something from another thing without an intermediary, there is no part of it that receives it more than another of its parts does. And the converse of this proposition is as follows: Whatever the whole is that receives a thing without one of its parts receiving it more than another of its parts, it receives it without an intermediary. To

[p. 14]

this proposition we add the following universal affirmative: A whole that receives something from another thing without an intermediary receives it more than if it received it with an intermediary. Therefore whatever the being that receives something without one of its parts receiving it more than another of its parts, it receives it more without an intermediary than if it received it with an intermediary.

Then we shall pose this affirmative: A substance is so constituted that one of its parts receives more motion than another. I shall add a negative and the following syllogism appears: A substance is so constituted that one of its parts receives the form more than another. Now a whole that receives something without one of its parts receiving it more than another, receives it more than if it received it with an intermediary. Therefore the substance does not receive the form more than if it received it with an intermediary.

Next we shall propose this universal: Whatever receives something without an intermediary receives it more than if it received it with an intermediary. To this I add the negative: A substance does not receive the form more than if it received it with an intermediary: and the following syllogism arises: Whatever receives something without an intermediary receives it more than if it received it with an intermediary. Now a substance does not receive the form more than if it received it with an intermediary. Therefore the substance does not receive the form without an intermediary.

The proof of this conclusion is demonstrated by the conversion of the following affirmative proposition: Whatever receives something without an intermediary receives it more than if it received it with an

[p. 15]

intermediary. The converse of this proposition is as follows: Whatever receives something without an intermediary more than with an intermediary receives it without an intermediary. The following syllogism takes places: The substance does not receive the form more than if it received it with an intermediary. Now whatever receives something without an intermediary more than with an intermediary receives it without an intermediary. Therefore the substance does not receive the form without an intermediary.

Similarly in another way. The substance that supports the categories is so constituted that one of its parts receives the form more than another. Now a whole that receives something and a part of which receives it more than another of its parts does not receive this thing without some intermediary. Therefore the substance that supports the categories has no form without some intermediary.

If all beings have their contraries and if the substance that supports the categories is a force that receives its own form, it is necessary that there should be a force contrary to it that receives all forms. And this is the property of simple substances.

If the common root of beings is constituted in contrary terms, it is necessary that all beings comprised in this root should constitute contrary terms. Now the root of beings is constituted of contrary terms, for it bears and is borne. It is therefore necessary that all beings dependent on this root should constitute contrary terms.

If there exists a compound substance, it is necessary that there should exist a simple substance contrary to it. Now the compound substance exists. Therefore the simple substance also exists. And if the simple substance exists, it is either above the

[p. 16]

compound substance or below it. If the simple substance is below the compound substance, then the simple substance is created by the compound substance. But the compound substance is created by the simple substance. Therefore the simple substance is not below the compound substance. And since it is not below it, it must necessarily be above it. Hence the following syllogism: A simple substance is above a compound substance. Now the substance that supports the categories is compound. Therefore a simple substance is above a substance that supports the categories.

A simple substance and a compound substance are united without loss of any of their forms. Now all things that are united without loss of any of their forms are in harmony. Therefore the simple substance and the compound substance are in harmony. And all things that are in agreement are of the same genus. Therefore the simple substance and the compound substance are of the same genus. Now all things that are of the same genus fall under what is their genus. Therefore the simple substance and the compound substance fall under the same genus. Therefore there is a substance above them, more simple than they and common to them.

If the First Author is the author beyond time, it is necessary that the first being to suffer his action should suffer it beyond time. But the First Author acts beyond time. Therefore the first being to suffer his action must suffer it beyond time. I take this conclusion and I assert: It is necessary that the first being to suffer his action should suffer it beyond time. Now the substance that supports the categories does not suffer beyond time. Therefore the substance that supports the categories is not the first object of the action of the First Author.

[p. 17]

It is necessary that everything that suffers should suffer in time or beyond time. Let us first postulate the following principle: Everything that suffers beyond time is anterior to that which suffers in time. And let us take the converse to this proposition: All that is anterior to that which suffers in time itself suffers beyond time. And we shall add this minor premise: Whenever a being suffers beyond time, there does not exist anything else that suffers anterior to it. Therefore whenever a being is anterior to that which suffers in time, there exists no other sufferer anterior to it.

Let us postulate this second principle: All that suffers in time, is posterior to that which suffers beyond time. Let us take the converse of this proposition, namely: All that is posterior to that which suffers beyond time, suffers in time. And let us add this second proposition: Whenever a thing suffers in time, there exists no other sufferer posterior to it. Therefore after that which is posterior to that which suffers beyond time, there exists no other sufferer posterior to it.

And to this conclusion we shall add another proposition: The substance that supports the categories suffers in time. And all that suffers in time is posterior to that which suffers beyond time. Therefore the substance that supports the categories is posterior to that which suffers beyond time. And to this conclusion I shall add the first conclusion: Whenever a being is posterior to that which suffers beyond time, there does not exist another sufferer posterior to it. Therefore after the substance that supports the categories there does not exist any other sufferer.

Similarly in another way and in a concise manner: A simple substance suffers beyond time, and a compound substance suffers in time. But there is no other being that suffers anterior to that which suffers beyond time, and there is no other being that suffers

[p. 18]

posterior to that which suffers in time. Therefore there does not exist any other being that suffers anterior to the simple substance; nor any other being that suffers posterior to the compound substance that supports the categories.

All that moves perpetually with a local motion is separated from the past motion and is prepared for the future motion. Now all that is separated from one thing and approaches another, passes from potency to act. Similarly I shall say next: The substance that supports the categories moves perpetually with a local motion. Now all that moves perpetually with a local motion proceeds from potentiality to act. Therefore the substance that supports the categories proceeds from potentiality to act. Now all that proceeds from potentiality to act is not perfect. Therefore the substance that supports the categories is not perfect. I shall then say: If some author is perfect, the immediate object of his action is perfect. But the First Author is perfect. Therefore the immediate object of his action is perfect. I take this conclusion as a premise and say: The immediate object of the action of the First Author is perfect. But the substance that supports the categories is not perfect. Therefore the substance that supports the categories is not the immediate object of the action of the First Author.

The forms subsisting in the substance that supports the categories proceed from potentiality to act. Now whatever passes somewhere from potentiality to act draws along nothing except that which exists in act, and the first thing is the second in potentiality. Therefore the forms subsisting in the substance that supports the categories pass from potentiality to act only through other forms that exist in act, and the first forms are the second in potentiality. Let us take this

[p. 19]

conclusion as a premise, and add the following proposition: The essence of the First Author has no form. Therefore the forms subsisting in the substance that supports the categories do not pass from potentiality to act by the essence of the First Author.

Whenever anything receives something from another without an intermediary, nothing more worthy than it can be found to receive this thing. If the substance that supports the categories receives substantiality from the First Author without an intermediary, then no other substance can be found more worthy than it of the name of substance. But the simple substance, like the soul and the intelligence, is more worthy of the name of substance than the substance that supports the categories. Therefore the substance that supports the categories does not receive substantiality immediately from the First Author.

The principle that moves without an intermediary the substance that supports the categories cannot be infinite for it must necessarily move it either of itself or by accident. And if it moves it by its essence, and its essence is infinite, it is not possible for the motion that proceeds from it to be finite. Now the motion of the substance is finite. Therefore the essence that moves it is not infinite. And if it moves it by accident, its essence is not infinite either, for all that is infinite does not receive any accident. And the proof of this is as follows: A thing that is infinite does not change. Now everything that receives accidents changes. Therefore an infinite thing does not receive any accident.

Therefore it is not possible for the immediate mover of the substance to be infinite. Therefore it is finite. We take this conclusion and assert: The immediate mover of the substance with categories is

[p. 20]

finite. Now the First Author is infinite. Therefore the First Author is not the immediate mover of the substance.


     The Fountain of Life (Fons Vitae) (excerpt), by Solomon Ibn Gabirol, tr. by Harry E. Wedeck [1962], at sacred-texts.com



  

Part II

Similarly in another way. If the immediate mover of the substance is infinite, the motion of the substance is infinite. But it is impossible for the motion of the substance to be infinite, since its substance is finite. Therefore it is impossible for the immediate mover of this substance to be infinite. Next we shall add to this conclusion the following proposition: The First Author is infinite. Therefore it is impossible for the First Author to be the immediate mover of the substance.

The motion of the substance that supports the categories cannot but be either natural or voluntary. If it is natural, the First Author is not its immediate mover, for the First Author does not cause a natural effect without an intermediary. And if it is voluntary, and the substance in itself has no will, it is necessary for the substance to depend on another substance, that gives it a will to move. Now it is impossible that this substance should be the First Author, for the First Author is not mobile. Therefore this substance that gives motion to the substance that supports the categories is different from the First Author. Therefore the First Author is not the immediate mover of the substance.

The substance that moves the substance supporting the categories must be either mobile or immobile. If it is immobile, it cannot move the substance that supports the categories, for this substance either can move or cannot. If it can move, it would be mobile. If it cannot move in itself, it could not possibly move another thing.

The proof of the impossibility for the mover of the substance to be able to move it, since it cannot

[p. 21]

move itself, is as follows: Let us assume that that which moves the substance cannot move itself. Now everything that cannot move itself cannot move anything else. Therefore what we have assumed as the mover of the substance cannot move it. Therefore it is impossible for the mover of the substance to move it and not be mobile in itself. Therefore the mover of the substance is mobile.

And the proof that the mover of the substance that gives the substance the faculty of moving is mobile is demonstrated thus: The mover of the substance gives the substance the faculty of moving. Now whatever gives a thing to another thing is more worthy of possessing the thing given than that which receives it. Therefore the mover of the substance that gives the substance the faculty of moving is more worthy of possessing the faculty of moving than the substance that receives it. Therefore the immediate mover of the substance is mobile. I take this conclusion and assert: The substance that moves the substance without an intermediary is mobile. Now the First Author is not mobile. Therefore the First Author is not the immediate mover of the substance.

The substance that supports the categories is a body. Now every body in itself is at rest. Therefore the substance that supports the categories in itself is at rest. Now everything that is at rest depends on a mobile end. Therefore the substance that supports the categories depends on a mobile end. Now all that depends on a mobile end has a mobile anterior to it. Therefore the substance that supports the categories has a mobile anterior to it. But everything mobile is substance. Therefore the substance that supports the categories has another mobile substance anterior to it.

The substance that is the object of the action by

[p. 22]

the First Author must be either mobile or immobile. Now it is impossible for it not to be mobile, for the First Author is a mover; and if the object of his action were not mobile, he himself would not be a mover. It is therefore necessary for the object of the action by the First Author to be mobile.

Hence it moves either in time or beyond time. Now it is impossible that it should be mobile in time, for its mover is a mover beyond time. This is the form of the argument: The first mover moves beyond time. Now what is moved by a mover beyond time is moved beyond time. Therefore that which is moved by the first mover moves beyond time. Now the substance that supports the categories does not move beyond time. Therefore the substance that supports the categories is not moved by the first mover.

It is necessary that if there exists something that moves in time, there should exist also something beyond time, for if nothing moved beyond time, the first mover would not be a mover beyond time, but he would move in time. Therefore the first mover would move in time and at the same time would move beyond time: which is impossible.

If the First Author is not mobile, it is necessary that the substance that he moves should be mobile beyond time, because if the substance were mobile in time, it would be necessary that there should exist anterior to it a mobile beyond time. But there is nothing anterior to it except the first mover. Therefore the first mover would move beyond time. But the first mover is not mobile in any manner. Therefore the substance that he moves does not move in time. Now we take this proposition and we assert: That which is moved by the first mover does not move in time. Now the substance that supports the categories

[p. 23]

moves in time. Therefore that which is moved by the first mover is not the substance that supports the categories.

The motion that is in the substance that supports the categories is variable. Now everything variable is passive. Therefore the motion that is in the substance that supports the categories is passive. But the essence of the First Author is not passive. Therefore the motion that is in the substance supporting the categories does not come from the essence of the First Author. Therefore it comes from the essence of another substance.

Everything by means of which something that is moved is passive will have a passive essence. Now the motion that is in the substance supporting the categories is passive. Therefore the substance that causes its motion is passive. Similarly, I assert: The substance that causes the motion of the substance supporting the categories is passive. Now the First Author is not passive. Therefore the First Author does not cause the motion of the substance supporting the categories.

The diffused motion in the substance supporting the categories must be either a substance or an accident. If it is an accident, its author is a substance; and this substance is either finite or infinite. Now it is impossible that it should be infinite, for it is conjoined to a finite substance. But if it is finite, it is not the First Author.

And if the motion is a substance, what is proper to the creative substance is proper to it, that is finiteness or infinitude. If it is finite, it is impossible that it should be the First Author. And if it is infinite, it cannot unite with a finite substance and cannot produce a finite work. Now the moving substance is

[p. 24]

united to a finite substance and produces a finite work, for all the motions that are found in the substance are finite. Therefore the substance that moves the substance supporting the categories is not infinite. Now the First Author is infinite. Therefore the substance that moves the substance supporting the categories is not the First Author.

All that moves in an infinite place cannot possibly traverse this place in a finite time. The substance that supports the categories traverses the place in which it moves in a finite time. Therefore the substance supporting the categories cannot possibly move in an infinite place. Then I postulate this proposition and assert: The substance supporting the categories does not move in an infinite place. Now the First Author is an infinite place. Therefore the substance supporting the categories does not move in the First Author.

Similarly in another way. The substance that supports the categories traverses the place in which it moves in a finite time. Now whenever a thing traverses the place in which it moves in a finite time, the place in which it moves is finite. Therefore the place in which the substance supporting the categories moves is finite. And when we add to this conclusion the affirmation that the First Author is not finite, the conclusion is that the place in which the substance that supports the categories moves is not the First Author.

The substance that supports the categories is finite. Now a finite substance cannot move in an infinite substance. Therefore the substance that supports the categories cannot possibly move in an infinite substance. To this conclusion I shall add this proposition: The First Author is infinite. Therefore the substance that supports the categories cannot possibly move in the First Author.

[p. 25]

Every simple substance that unites by itself with another substance is finite; being terminated where it unites with the other substance. Now whenever a thing is terminated in another thing, its essence is finite. Therefore every simple substance that unites with another substance has a finite essence. I now take this proposition and assert as follows: Every simple substance that unites by itself with another substance has a finite essence. Now the essence of the First Author is infinite. Therefore the essence of the First Author is not united with any one of the simple finite substances. Similarly I take this conclusion and add the following proposition: The essence of the substance that supports the categories is finite. Therefore the essence of the First Author is not united to the substance that supports the categories. If between the essence of the First Author and the substance that supports the categories there were no intermediary, the essence of the First Author would be united to the substance that supports the categories. But the essence of the First Author is not united to the substance that supports the categories. Therefore between the essence of the First Author and the substance that supports the categories there is an intermediary.

Everything that is simple or compound and finite in essence is united to another thing only by its extremity. Now whenever a thing unites with another by its extremity, inversely the other thing unites with the first thing by its extremity. Therefore whenever a thing is of finite essence, whatever unites with it is finite; and everything that follows the finite that unites with it is of finite essence. Now the substance that supports the categories is of finite essence. Therefore the substance that follows it is of finite essence.

If the substance that supports the categories is

[p. 26]

created independently of another thing, there exists nothing else more perfect and stronger than it. Now there exists a substance more perfect and stronger than this one. Therefore this substance is not created independently by another thing.

Similarly in another way. If there exists a substance more perfect than the substance supporting the categories, then the substance supporting the categories proceeds from it. All that proceeds from another thing is posterior to the power from which it proceeds; and all that is posterior to some power is not so perfect as the principle of the power from which it proceeds. Therefore everything that proceeds from another thing is not so perfect as the principle of that from which it proceeds. Then I take this proposition and assert: All that proceeds from something else is not so perfect as the principle of that from which it proceeds. Now all that is not so perfect as the principle of that from which it proceeds is imperfect. Therefore all that proceeds from something else is imperfect. Similarly I take this proposition and assert: All that proceeds from something else is imperfect. Now to everything imperfect corresponds something more perfect. Therefore to everything that proceeds from something else corresponds something else more perfect than it.

Next I shall take the converse of this proposition: Everything to which a more perfect thing corresponds proceeds from something else. To this we add the following proposition: There exists another substance more perfect than the substance that supports the categories. Therefore the substance that supports the categories proceeds from something else. Similarly, from this point on: The substance that supports the categories proceeds from something else. Now all that proceeds from something else is of the same genus as

[p. 27]

that from which it proceeds. Therefore the substance that supports the categories is of the same genus as that from which it proceeds. Similarly from this point on: The substance that supports the categories is of the same genus as that from which it proceeds. Now the substance that supports the categories is a substance. Therefore that from which it proceeds is also a substance. Therefore this is the substance superior to the substance that supports the categories from which it proceeds.

The substance of the intelligence has every form. Now everything that has every form must be anterior to that which has only some forms and is more subtle than it. Therefore the substance of the intelligence is anterior to that which has only some forms and is more subtle than it. Then to this conclusion I shall add this proposition: The substance that supports the categories has some forms only. Therefore the substance of the intelligence is anterior to the substance that supports the categories and is more subtle than it.

The substance of intelligence suffers beyond time. Now everything that suffers beyond time is anterior to that which suffers in time and is more subtle than it. Therefore the substance of the intelligence is prior to that which suffers in time and is more subtle than it. To this conclusion I add the following proposition: The substance that supports the categories suffers in time. Therefore the substance of the intelligence is anterior to the substance that supports the categories and is more subtle than it.

If there existed a substance anterior to the substance that supports the categories and more subtle than it, the substance that supports the categories would not be the immediate object of the action of the First Author. But the substance of the intelligence is

[p. 28]

anterior to the substance that supports the categories and more subtle than it. Therefore the substance that supports the categories is not the immediate object of the action of the First Author. And the converse of this proposition: If the substance that supports the categories is the immediate object of the action of the First Author, there is no other substance more subtle than it and anterior to it. But the substance of the intelligence is anterior to it and is more subtle than it. Therefore it is not the immediate object of the action of the First Author.

The form that subsists in the substance that supports the categories is in it accidentally. Now what is in something accidentally is essentially in its cause. Therefore the form that subsists in the substance that supports the categories accidentally is essentially in its cause. Then I take this proposition and I assert: The form borne accidentally by the substance that supports the categories is essentially in its cause. Now whatever is essentially in its cause is a proper accident for its cause. Therefore the form borne by the substance that supports the categories is a proper accident for its cause. Then I take this proposition and I add another: There is no accident in the essence of the First Author. Therefore the form borne by the substance that supports the categories is not in the essence of the First Author. Then I take this proposition and I assert: The form borne by the substance that supports the categories is essentially in its cause. Therefore the First Author is not the essential cause of the form. Therefore there is another substance that is the essential cause of this form, and this form has existence in this substance through creation by the First Author.

The First Author is the origin of things. Now whatever

[p. 29]

is the origin of things has as a contrary the extremity of things. Therefore the First Author has an extremity that is contrary to him. Then I take this proposition and I add: The substance that supports the categories is the extremity of things. Therefore the substance that supports the categories is the extremity that is opposed to the First Author. Then I take this proposition and I add: Whenever there is a last term for a first term, there is an intermediary between them. Therefore between the substance that supports the categories and the First Author there is an intermediary.

Whatever begins to exist, before existence, is possible of existence. Now whatever is possible before existence is necessary after having been possible. Then I take this proposition and I assert: Whatever is possible before it existed is necessary after having been possible. Now whatever is necessary after having been possible has now passed from possibility to necessity. Therefore whatever is possible after not having existed has now passed from possibility to necessity. From this conclusion we draw what it has in potentiality and we say: The possibility of being that which did not exist changes into necessity. Now whatever changes into something is of the same genus as the thing into which it changes. Therefore the possibility is of the same genus as the necessity.

Next we assume the following observation and we assert: The substance that supports the categories presents in place parts that were not there previously; it is found to be draped in some form in which it had not previously been draped. Now whatever is after not having been, was possible. Therefore the substance supporting the categories is said to be possible. Similarly: The substance supporting the categories is said

[p. 30]

to be possible. Now all that is defined as possible must necessarily have something anterior to it that is defined by necessity, for necessity is anterior to possibility. Therefore the substance supporting the categories defined as possible must have anterior to it something defined by necessity. Similarly I take this proposition as a premise: The substance supporting the categories defined as possible must have anterior to it something that is defined by necessity. Now the possible and the necessary are of the same genus, as has been stated. Therefore the substance supporting the categories is of the same genus as the substance anterior to it.

Similarly in another way: The necessary substance is anterior to the possible substance. Now the substance that supports the categories is possible. Therefore the necessary substance is anterior to the substance that supports the categories. Similarly: The necessary substance is anterior to the substance that supports the categories. The necessary substance is of the same genus as the possible substance. Therefore the substance anterior to the substance supporting the categories is of the same genus as the possible substance. Now the substance supporting the categories is possible. Therefore the substance that is anterior to the substance supporting the categories is of the same genus as it.

We have now advanced all that it was possible to advance regarding the proofs to demonstrate that the substance supporting the categories is not moved by the First Author without an intermediary; and it is clear that there exists another substance intermediary between the First Author and the substance supporting the categories.

Pupil: Certainly the proofs that you have adduced

[p. 31]

are an excellent demonstration for me. But I should like you to summarize what you have already said on this subject and to postulate a general rule relating to the investigation of the existence of the substance intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories.

Master: You must know that the substance intermediary between the First Author and the substance supporting the categories is not one substance, but many. Now we can investigate in two ways the existence of those substances that are intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories. One of these ways is to consider the properties of the First Author and the properties of the substance that supports the categories; and it was according to this method that we established all the proofs that we have adduced up to this point. The second method is based on an investigation of the existence of the substances intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories according to the effects and actions of these substances and according to the emanation of their powers from each other. I call actions and effects of these substances the figures that appear in the substance that supports the categories and which it receives from the action on it of the simple substances, and the passions that, in each of the simple substances, are the effects of these substances upon each other. The difference in these methods consists in this, that the first leads us to the knowledge of the absolute existence of the substance intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories. The second method leads us to a knowledge of what the intermediary substance is, how it is, and why it is.

[p. 32]

Pupil: I should like to be convinced of the truth of the proofs that we have established by the first method before we undertake to establish the proofs by the second method. And I ask you to remove the doubt that I have on this matter; for I know that all the terms of the propositions advanced in the proofs are defined, for it is necessary that there should be either genera, or species, or differences, or individuals, or properties or accidents; I know also none of these things applies to the First Author. How then can the proofs that you have adduced be true?

Master: Our intention in regard to the definition of the terms of the propositions advanced in the proofs was merely to know the terms, and now we have in some manner a knowledge of the First Author according to his properties, although he is not defined. Therefore there was no need for us, since we know something of him, to treat of the definition of the terms of the proposition adduced in the proofs in regard to him. But the definitions that are predicated from the terms of these proofs are taken either from the properties of the essence of the First Author, or from the effects that are attributed to him, or from the properties of those things that are inferior to him and that are not attributed to him. When we describe him by properties that are said to be his, what is achieved thus is an affirmative proposition. And when we take away from him some property not attributed to him, what is thus achieved is a negative proposition, and it will constitute in the proofs a true proposition.

If both propositions adduced in the syllogisms are theological, their affirmative and negative connection will depend on the affirmative and negative connection of the two terms of each of the propositions.

[p. 33]

[paragraph continues] And if one proposition is theological and the other not, their negative connection depends on the two terms of the negative theological premise--negative, I assert, that is by taking away from God the blessed, the non-divine property; and their connection cannot be affirmative, since it is impossible for God to be described by a non-theological property.

Pupil: What your words imply is that the propositions are of two kinds: divine and not divine. But I doubt whether the divine proof is a proof, since it contains neither genus nor species nor any of the logical terms.

Master: Since you are convinced of the connection of the terms of the theological propositions, although the case is not the same as in the case of the non-divine proposition, yet each of the propositions is similar to the other in order and arrangement, that is, in the position of the terms considered according to the rules of the logical figures.

It is therefore not inappropriate, it is even necessary, that it should be called a divine proof, since the non-divine proof is the conjunction of true propositions and their arrangement according to the rules of the logical figures, and the divine proof is similar to it. Also, the propositions adduced in the divine proof are either first or second. If they are first, then they will be equal to the first propositions that are adduced in the non-divine proof. If they are second, they must have been drawn from the source of the second propositions advanced in the non-divine proof; and since this is so, they are equal to them. Therefore the divine proof and the non-divine proof, in so far as their truth is involved, are equal. And since this is the case, it is not inadmissible, it is even necessary that the divine proof should be called a proof.

[p. 34]

Pupil: Why did the one who said this say that in divine knowledge there is no proof?

Master: The one who said this, if he meant that in divine knowledge there is no proof whatever, was wrong. If he meant that in divine knowledge we do not use the non-divine proof that is composed of logical terms, he was right, and I do not contradict him.

Pupil: Now I know clearly the existence of the intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories according to the method of considering the properties of the First Author and the properties of the substance that supports the categories. This is evident to me from the proofs that you have presented according to this method. Thanks to them the doubt that I entertained is gone and it is now evident to me that they are true. Show me now the existence of the substance intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories, according to the effects and the results and according to the emanation.

Master: Do you consider it necessary or not to grant the actions of things upon each other?

Pupil: Why should I not grant it, when the evidence of the thing and due reflection demonstrate the existence of these actions? But I do not know what this action is, or why it is, or how it is.

Master: What the action is, is this, that a thing gives its form to another thing when both things are apt for this. Now as to how, there is either a conjunction without an intermediary, or a conjunction with an intermediary, or there is a change and diminution of the form of the agent; or, on the contrary, there is no diminution of the quality of the agent; or there is an impression of the power of the agent upon the

[p. 35]

passive thing beyond time; or there is an opinion or an imagination, like the action of a loved object on the lover. But as to why there is this action of things upon each other, this occurs through the sublime universal cause, because the power that is the author of all things and moves all things by itself operates as long as it finds something to receive its action.

Hence it is necessary that the universal form, made by this power, should also act by itself. It is therefore a maker and an agent. Similarly it is also necessary that the first universal matter should receive the action by itself. Now it is the property of the universals that their nature should be in their parts. And since the parts receive their nature from the essence of the universals, they also give it to themselves. It is therefore necessary that they should receive it from their universals. And it is consequently necessary that all forms should be active and all matters passive. In regard to the form, the argument is as follows: The universal form acts necessarily. Now whenever a universal thing acts necessarily, its parts act necessarily. Therefore the parts of the universal form act necessarily. The argument for matter is as follows: The universal matter receives the action of the form. Whenever a universal thing receives the action of the form, all its parts receive it also. Therefore all the parts of the universal matter receive the action of the form.

Pupil: Why is the universal form said to act necessarily?

Master: Because the First Author, sublime and holy, dispenses the abundance that he has with him, for all that exists flows from him. And since the First Author is the dispenser of the form that is with him, he does not prevent it from flowing out; he is therefore the source that maintains, envelops, and comprehends

[p. 36]

everything that is. Hence it is necessary that all substances should obey his action and imitate him in giving their forms and bestowing their energies, as long as they find a matter ready to receive them. Now by the emanation of substances is understood their motion and desire to communicate the action, wherein they imitate the First Author. But they differ in this according to their perfection and imperfection, for some of them flow beyond time, and others in time; and the different superior substances, in the emanation of their flow, are in relation to the inferior substances just as the First Author is to the superior and inferior substances in regard to his emanation over them, although their flow is different in each case. Similarly the superior substances are in relation to the First Author, in their passivity in regard to him, just like the inferior substances in relation to the superior substances in their passivity in regard to them. In short, the first emanation, that embraces all substances, makes it necessary that the substances emanate into others. And in this regard take an example from the sun that does not emanate by itself and does not communicate its rays except for the reason that it falls under the first emanation and obeys it.

When we study the cause of the emanation of substances from each other, we shall find still other causes for this phenomenon. One of these is that the form is more subtle than the matter. And since the subtle penetrates and traverses that which is before it and opposes it, it follows necessarily that the form penetrates and traverses all that is before it and opposes it.

Furthermore, it is the nature of the form to unite with the matter, when the matter is ready to receive it. Now all that unites with something that is ready

[p. 37]

to receive it gives itself to this thing and also gives it its form. It is therefore necessary that the form should give itself and its form to that which is prepared to receive it. And this is a very evident proof that the form proceeds from the First Author and obeys him, because it is forced by its nature to give itself and to give its form when it finds a matter to receive it. Furthermore, because there was a first effect and a first action, it was necessary that this effect and this action should penetrate everything until there was nothing left to receive them.

Pupil: Now I know what action is, how it is, and why it is. Now show me also how many passive things there are.

Master: Since the active thing is either matter or form, its action must be similar either to itself and the form, or to the form only; and the form must be either a force, or a corporeal form, or a motion. Since this is the case, know that the passive thing is either a formed essence or a force, or a corporeal form, or a motion.

Pupil: I now know from what has preceded that everything that has a form acts by itself and its species, when it finds a matter to receive it.

Master: If there are simple substances apart from the substance that supports the categories, is it not necessary that they should act by themselves and their forms?

Pupil: Yes: since we have discovered that things communicate their energies and their lights, it is necessary also that simple substances should do so.

Master: Furthermore, it is necessary that the essences and the forms of these substances communicate with each other more than those of other substances, on account of their force and subtlety and their light.

[p. 38]

[paragraph continues] For we find that the more the substance is subtle, strong, and luminous, the stronger its action will be, and the more capable to penetrate into another substance beyond time.

Pupil: What proof of this is there?

Master: The emanation comes from the impulsion: and the impulsion comes from the force. The proof that the force and the subtlety cause the emanation is that the quantity and the figure do not imprint their image on what is before them, when it can receive it; and this on account of the weakness of the quantity and its thickness for penetration. Similarly with the accident, for the stronger, more subtle, and more luminous it is, the more penetrating it is. We conclude therefore from these six proofs that it is necessary that the simple substances should give themselves and communicate their forms. Further, the fact that the energies and the rays that emanate from the body are spiritual is a proof that the spiritual substance must also emanate. Further, although we have found that the corporeal substance is prevented from communicating itself on account of the thickness of the quantity and its obscurity, yet the quantity communicates its shadow to the bodies that are before it, so that, when it meets a luminous body, it gives it its form: all the more necessary, according to this consideration, is it that the spiritual substance, which is exempt from quantity, should emanate its essence and its force and its light.

Pupil: How well you have proved the active and penetrating character of simple substances!

Master: The more subtle, the stronger and better they are, the more apt they are to act and to communicate themselves with what they have. This is evident from the absence of the penetrating power in the

[p. 39]

corporeal substances, for when you consider these substances one after the other, some are the testimony and the proof of the others. For when you postulate that the corporeal substance is prevented from communicating itself on account of its thickness and its obscurity, and that the more remote it is from thickness and obscurity, the nearer it is to communicating itself, you necessarily assume thereby that the simple substances communicate themselves, their energies and forms. For, since the quantity prevents the substance from communicating itself, there is nothing that prevents the spiritual substances from giving their forms and bestowing their energies. And when you assume that the simple substances communicate themselves and their forms, you necessarily assume that the corporeal substances are prevented from communicating themselves and their forms. And when you observe that the essence of the simple substance has no end, when you consider its force, when you think of its faculty of penetrating into a thing that is before it and that is prepared to receive it, when you compare it with the corporeal substance, you will find that the corporeal substance is powerless to be everywhere and too feeble to penetrate things; and you will find that the simple substance, the substance of the universal soul, is diffused through the entire universe and that it sustains it in itself on account of its subtlety and simplicity: and you will find similarly that the substance of the universal intelligence is diffused through the entire universe and that it penetrates it. The cause of this is the subtlety of the two substances, their force and their light: and on account of this the substance of the intelligence is diffused into the interior of things and penetrates them. Therefore according to this view all the more ought the power of

[p. 40]

the holy God to penetrate all things, exist in all things, and act in all things beyond time.

Pupil: Now it is clear to me that every simple substance communicates itself and gives its form. But what follows from this?

Master: From this it follows that the simple substances communicate themselves and give their forms to the substance that supports the categories, for each spiritual substance causes through itself, as we have said, its proper effect on the thing that is before it, and that because it emanates and dominates all substances when it finds a subject to receive its action. For this reason, it is necessary that the simple substance that follows the compound substance should cause in the compound substance what it must cause. And because this substance is a sensible compound body, it necessarily follows that the action of the spiritual substance in this body should be sensible also: except that this action is not corporeal absolutely nor spiritual absolutely, but is intermediary between the two extremes, like the growth and the sensibility, the motion, and the colors and the figures that are in the compound substances the effects of the simple substances. For these effects are not corporeal absolutely nor spiritual absolutely, since they are perceived by the senses.

Therefore, according to what we have said, all the sensible forms in the corporeal substance must come from the action of the intelligible spiritual substance. And these forms are sensible only because the matter that receives them is very close by its nature to corporeality; and these sensible forms exist in the intelligible spiritual substance more simply than in the matter.

An example of this is the emanation or the issuance

[p. 41]

of the form from the simple spiritual substance and of its action in the corporeal matter, like the light of the sun, that is diffused in the air, penetrates it and yet does not appear visible on account of the subtlety of the air, until it meets a solid body, like the earth: then the light becomes sensible because it cannot penetrate the parts of this body and be diffused through them, but stops on the surface of the body, and its essence is concentrated so that its emanation becomes brighter. In a similar manner the lights of the simple substances penetrate and flow through each other without the perception of the senses, on account of the subtlety and the simplicity of these substances. But when the lights penetrate to the corporeal matter, then the light becomes visible and is revealed to the senses on account of the thickness of the corporeal matter.

And in this manner we rise to the concept that every form borne by the universal matter exists in the essence of the power that gives it, that is, in the essence of the will, more simply than in the essence of the first matter that receives it. And as the first matter differs by its nature from the essence of the will and resembles the body in relation to the will, it is necessary that the action of the will in the matter should be perceptible, as the action of the intelligible substances is perceptible in the body. It is also necessary that the will should extrude what it has in its essence and give it to the matter, just as the intelligible substances effect the extrusion of what they have in their essence and give it to the body: except that the will acts beyond time, without motion, without organ, and beyond space, while the intelligible substances do the very opposite. That is why the simple substances and in general all the substances in all their actions act

[p. 42]

according to the first action that moves and penetrates everything. And in this way we shall realize the diffusion of the first power and of the first action in all beings, for the energies of the simple substances, and in general the energies of all beings spread and penetrate through everything; so, with greater reason, with the power of the First Author--may his name be exalted. That is why it is said that the First Author is in all beings and that nothing can exist without him.


     The Fountain of Life (Fons Vitae) (excerpt), by Solomon Ibn Gabirol, tr. by Harry E. Wedeck [1962], at sacred-texts.com



  

Part III

Pupil: It seems quite necessary to prove and demonstrate by necessary and universal proofs that the forms that are in the substance that supports the categories are the object of the action of the simple substance and stem from them.

Master: Your request is a good one: it is in fact very necessary. Here are the proofs that demonstrate that the forms borne by the corporeal substance are the object of the action of the simple and spiritual substances and that they stem from them.

The action of every simple substance is simple. Now the actions that are in the substance that supports the categories are simple. Therefore the actions that are in the substance that supports the categories are the object of the action of the simple substance.

The energies, the forms, and the motions that are in the corporeal substance are more simple and more subtle than the corporeal substance. Now all that is more simple and more subtle than the corporeal substance submits to the domain of the simple substance. Therefore the energies, the forms, and the motions that are in the corporeal substance submit to the domain of the simple substance.

Next, I add to this conclusion the following proposition: All that is in the nature of the simple substance must be either of the essence of the simple substance

[p. 43]

or one of its accidents. Therefore the energies, the forms, and the motions that are in the corporeal substance are either of the essence of the simple substance or of the number of accidents. But they are not of the essence of the simple substance because they are not substances. Therefore they are of the number of its accidents.

The compound substance receives the forms. Now all that receives the forms receives them from the agent that produces them in it. Therefore the compound substance receives the forms of the agent that produces them in it. Then I add to this conclusion this proposition: The simple substance acts upon the compound substance. Therefore the compound substance receives the forms of the simple substance.

When a thing receives something from another thing, the thing received in that which receives is the object of the action of that which gives. Therefore the forms that the compound substance receives are the object of the action of the simple substance. Now everything that in a thing is the object of the action of another thing exists in the causative agent. Therefore the forms that the compound substance receives exist in the causative agent. Now the causative agent is the simple substance. Therefore the forms that the compound substance receives exist in the simple substance.

The forms that are borne by the corporeal substance are actions. Now every action comes from that which acts on the forms that are borne. Therefore the forms that are borne by the corporeal substance do not come from the substance that supports the categories. Similarly I add to this conclusion the following proposition: Everything that does not come from something comes from its contrary. Therefore the form that is

[p. 44]

borne by the corporeal substance comes from its contrary. Next, I add to this proposition: The simple substance is opposed to the compound substance. Therefore the forms borne by the corporeal substance come from the simple substance.

If the compound substance does not take from the simple substance the motions, energies, and figures, the simple substance either does not exist, or does not act. But the simple substance exists and acts. Therefore the compound substance takes from the simple substance the figures, energies, and motions.

The figures, energies, and motions that are in the compound substance are received necessarily either from the First Author, or from the essence of the substance that possesses them, or from another substance intermediary between them.

If they were received from the essence of the First Author, it would necessarily follow that the First Author and the substance that supports the categories had something in common, for that which is in the essence of the First Author would be united with the essence of the substance. Furthermore, it would be necessary that there should be multiplicity in the essence of the First Author on account of the multiplicity of the figures, energies, and motions. Now both hypotheses are impossible. Therefore the figures, energies, and motions that are in the substance that supports the categories are not received from the essence of the First Author.

If they were received from the essence of the substance that possesses them, it would be necessary that the substance should at the same time cause the form and receive it, and it would be necessary that it should act in so far as it receives or that it should not act in so far as it receives. If it acted in so far as it received, one and the same thing would act and

[p. 45]

be the object of the action at the same time: which is impossible. If it did not act in so far as it receives, the whole would not receive the form. But it is a substance entirely formed. Therefore it is impossible that it should not act in so far as it is the object of action. If the substance does not act in so far as it is the object of action, and if the agent is stronger than the object of the action, it is necessary, if the substance is one, that the substance be in one way stronger than itself and in another way weaker than itself. If it is not one, and if it acts partly and is partly passive, it is necessary that the passive part should be without form. But the substance in its entirety is formed. It is therefore formed and not formed: which is inadmissible.

In anything composed of two things, each of them can exist by itself. Now the body is composed of substance and form. Therefore the form can exist by itself without the corporeal substance. Similarly I assert: The form can exist by itself without the corporeal substance. Now the form does not exist without a support. Therefore the form is in a support that is not the corporeal substance. Next I add to this proposition: Apart from the corporeal substance, there is no other support except the simple substance. Therefore the form exists in the simple substance.

Every action takes place in the spiritual and every reception in the corporeal. Now if the substance acted in so far as being an object of the action, it would be spiritual and corporeal at the same time. And if it acted partly and was partly the object of the action, it would be partly spiritual and partly corporeal. But the substance that supports the categories in its entirety is corporeal. Therefore there is nothing in it that acts.

If the corporeal substance receives the forms, that

[p. 46]

are supported in it, from another substance different from itself, it is necessary that this substance should be superior to it. Now the simple substance is superior to the compound substance. Therefore the corporeal substance receives the forms that it has from the simple substance.

The simple substances are perceived only in bodies. Now the forms that are in the compound substance are perceived in bodies. Therefore the forms that are in the compound substance come from the forms of the simple substances.

The form that is perceived by the senses in the compound substance fulfils its being. Now all that fulfils the being of a substance is a substance. Therefore the form that is perceived by the senses in the compound substance is a substance.

The simple substance is divided into matter and form, according to the division of genus into species. Now whenever a thing is divided as the genus is divided into species, the species of this thing receive equally the name and the definition of the genus. Therefore the species of the simple substance receive equally the name and the definition of the genus. To this proposition I add the following one: Matter and form are species of the simple substance. Therefore matter and form receive equally the name and the definition of the simple substance. Now the simple substance receives the name and the definition of the substance. Therefore matter and form receive equally the name and the definition of the substance.

Every effect is composed in relation to its cause. And if the corporeal forms are the effects of spiritual forms, it is necessary that they should be compound. Now they are compound. Therefore they are the effects of spiritual forms.

[p. 47]

Whatever was caused is in act in itself, and is in potentiality in the cause. If the forms of the compound substance are effects, it is necessary that they should be in themselves in act and in potentiality in their cause. Now they are effects in act. They are therefore in potentiality in their cause.

The corporeal forms diffused in the substance are united with them. Now a thing, once it is united, has not the same virtue and the same perfection as the simple form by itself. Therefore the form that is diffused in the substance has not a virtue and a perfection so great as the simple form by itself.

Next I take this proposition and I assert: Everything that is not so good as a thing in virtue and perfection is similar to it. Therefore the form diffused in the substance is similar to the simple form by itself.

Then I take this proposition and I add: Everything that is similar to a thing is its reproduction. Therefore the forms diffused in the substance are the reproduction of spiritual forms. Then I add to this proposition: Everything that is the reproduction of a thing is its image or its portrait. Therefore the form that is diffused in the substance is the image or the portrait of the spiritual form.

The forms are simple. Now the simple is anterior to the compound. Therefore the forms are anterior to that which is composed of them.

Every form possessed by matter differs in clarity and in perfection according to the clarity and the perfection of the matter that receives it. Now whenever a thing differs from another thing, the quality of its form depends on the thing from which it differs. Therefore the spiritual form that the matter has depends on the matter from which it differs.

[p. 48]

To this proposition I add the following one: Whenever the form of a thing depends on another thing, this form is not a form by itself. Therefore the spiritual form that the matter has is not a form by itself.

Then, after this, I assert: Everything that is not in something by itself is the object of the action of a thing that is in something by itself. Therefore the form that the matter has is the object of the action of a thing that is in another thing a form by itself.

Every spiritual substance has a form and every spiritual substance is subtle. Now the form of every subtle thing emanates from this thing. Therefore the form of the spiritual substance emanates from this substance. Then, after this, I assert: The form of the spiritual substance emanates from this substance. Now whenever the form of a thing emanates from this thing, this form is reflected by the contrary thing that receives it. Therefore the form of the spiritual substance is reflected by the contrary thing that receives it.

To this conclusion I add: Now every form reflected by the contrary thing that receives it penetrates the thing that receives it and envelops it, if its substance is a subtle substance. Therefore the form of the spiritual substance penetrates and envelops the substance with categories. To this proposition I add next: The form of the spiritual substance penetrates and envelops the substance supporting the categories. Now the form borne by the substance supporting the categories penetrates and envelops this substance. Therefore the form borne by the substance supporting the categories is the form itself of the spiritual substance.

Every corporeal substance has a limited essence. Now everything that has a limited essence cannot extend in every place. Therefore the essence of the corporeal substance cannot extend in every place.

[p. 49]

[paragraph continues] Then, inversely: The spiritual substance has an unlimited essence because it is neither quantitative nor finite. Now when a thing has an unlimited essence, the essence extends and exists in every place. Therefore the essence of the spiritual substance extends and exists in every place.

Next, I take this conclusion as a premise and I assert: Now everything that extends, flows and does not remain motionless. Therefore the spiritual substance flows and does not remain motionless. Then I assert: The spiritual substance flows and does not remain motionless. Now whenever a thing flows aril does not remain motionless, the form ceases when it meets a body that obstructs it and that reflects the form and the action of this thing: as the light of the sun, that is reflected by the body. Therefore the form of the spiritual substance ceases and is reflected by the body. Then I add this proposition: The form borne by the corporeal substance ceases in it and is reflected by it. Therefore the form borne by the corporeal substance is the form itself that proceeds from the spiritual substance.

Everything that is reflected from one thing in another has the property of extending on the surface of the thing where it is reflected and of enveloping it to the point of invisibility. Now the form borne by the compound substance extends on the surface of the substance and envelops it to the point of invisibility. Therefore the form borne by the compound substance is the reflection in it of a substance other than it. Then I add to this proposition: Everything that is in a thing the reflection of a thing other than itself exists in that of which it is the reflection. Therefore the form borne by the compound substance exists in the substance of which it is the reflection.

All the designs and the figures that appear in the

[p. 50]

compound substance are impressed therein by its cause. Now the simple substance is the cause of the compound substance. Therefore all the designs and the figures that appear in the compound substance are impressed therein by the simple substance. Then to this proposition I add the following one: All that is impressed by one thing in another thing exists in the thing that impresses it. Therefore all the designs and the figures that appear in the compound substance exist in that which impresses them. Then I add this proposition: The simple substance impresses the designs and the figures. Therefore all the designs and the figures that appear in the compound substance exist in the simple substance.

The figures, the colors, and the designs that appear in the particular compounds come from an active substance. The substance that has the form of the elements is not active. Therefore the figures, the colors, and the designs that appear in the particular compounds do not come from the substance that has the form of the elements. They come therefore from some simple substance. These actions come from the essence of the simple substance or they do not. If they do not come from its essence, it is possible that they do not come from its action. But it is impossible that they do not come from its action. Therefore it is impossible that they do not come from its essence. And if they come from its essence, it is necessary that they should be in its essence. The same assertion must be made in regard to the universal figures and designs that appear in the compound substance, namely that they exist in the essence of the substance that impresses them.

One is the root of the multiple. The simple substance is one. Therefore the simple substance is the

[p. 51]

root of the multiple. The forms that are borne by the compound substance are a multitude. Therefore the simple substance is the root of the forms that are borne by the compound substances.

The multiple is an aggregate of units: the units in the aggregate are divided into units as the whole is divided into parts. And whenever a thing is divided into another, the nature of the whole exists in each of its parts. Now the units are parts of the multiple. Therefore the nature of the multiple exists in each of the units.

Now the forms that are borne by the compound substance are a multitude. Therefore the forms that are in the compound substance exist in a single form. But the form of the simple substance is one. Therefore the forms that are in the compound substance exist in the form of the simple substance.

The simple substance resembles unity more than the compound substance does. Now the form that is in the compound substance resembles unity more than the compound substance does. Therefore the simple substance resembles the form that is in the compound substance, since both substances resemble unity more.

Now all similar things are so in genus, species, accident, or quality. But the form is not of the same genus or of the same species as the simple substance, and the simple substance has no accident in its essence. Therefore their similarity does not come from that source. They are therefore similar in relation to the action.

Quantity and quality are two forms. Now every form comes from form. Therefore quantity and quality do not come from the substance that possesses them. Similarly, quantity and quality come from form. Now, apart from the compound substance and the

[p. 52]

simple substance, there is no form. Therefore quantity and quality come from the simple substance.

Quantity is multitude. Now multitude is composed of units. Therefore quantity is composed of units. Now units are composed of simple unity. Therefore quantity is composed of simple unity. Now simple unity is in the simple substance. Therefore quantity is composed of the unity of the simple substance. The unity in the simple substance is a simple accident. Now the compound accident is composed of the simple accident. Therefore the compound accident is composed of the unity of the simple substance.

Similarly: Quantity is composed of units. Now compound units are a compound accident. Therefore quantity is a compound accident. To this proposition I add the following one: The compound accident is composed of the unit of the simple substance. Therefore quantity is composed of the unit of the simple substance.

I assert that the properties and the impressions of the simple substance exist in the form that is borne by the compound substance. And here is the proof.

The simple substance is perceived by the senses in the body. Similarly, form is perceived by the senses in the body. A simple substance is one simple being in itself. Similarly, form is a simple unit in itself. The simple substance is a form for the compound substance. Similarly, form is a form for the compound substance. The simple substance completes that of which it is the form. Similarly, the form completes that of which it is the form. The simple substance penetrates the compound substance. Similarly, the form penetrates the compound substance. The simple substance envelops the compound substance.

[p. 53]

[paragraph continues] Similarly with the form. The simple substance distinguishes its subject from another subject. Similarly the form distinguishes the compound substance from another substance. The simple substance gathers together the parts of its subject. Similarly the form gathers together the compound substance. The simple substance is not in place. Similarly with the form. The simple substance is mobile and active. Similarly with the form.

Next, I take this proposition as a premise and I assert that the properties and the impressions of the simple substance exist in the form that is borne by the compound substance. Now wherever the properties of the simple substance exist, this impression is due to the simple substance. Therefore the form that is in the compound substance is impressed by the simple substance.

Similarly, in another way. If the properties and the impressions of the simple substance are in the form that is borne by the compound substance, it is necessary that the form that is borne by the compound substance should impress the properties in the same way as the simple substance does. Similarly, we shall prepare propositions about each property of a simple substance and about the properties of form, and we shall add a proof that concludes that the form comes from the impression of the simple substance. The number of these proofs will depend therefore on the number of the properties from which the propositions arise.

When two substances of contrary form unite, there springs from their union a form different from the proper forms of these substances. The truth of this proposition is evident to the senses: but to the intelligence it will appear in the following manner.

[p. 54]

I assert that the forms of two united substances are two. The nature of the two differs from the nature of the one. Therefore the nature of the two forms of the two united substances differs from the nature of each of them. Similarly, in another way. Whenever two contrary things unite, they become some kind of one. Now the two differ from the one. Therefore whenever two things unite they become something other than one of them. Next I add to this conclusion the following proposition: Two forms unite. Therefore when two forms unite, they become something other than each of them. Similarly in another way. The form that springs from the union of two forms must be either one of them or neither the one nor the other. Now it is impossible that it should be one of them because it is impossible that the form should perish. Therefore it is a form that differs from each of them and it is not one of them.

Since the proposition is true that declares that from the union of two substances contrary in form there arises a form that differs from the form of each of them, let us verify the proposition that declares that the simple substance unites with the compound substance. The truth of this proposition is evident to the senses, for we see the impressions of nature and of the soul in the substance that they compose: thus the union and the conjunction of these substances are verified. As for the proof for the intelligence, that is demonstrated in the following manner.

The simple substance is of the same genus as the compound substance. Now everything that is of the same genus unites. Therefore the simple substance and the compound substance unite. Similarly with another method of reasoning. The simple substance acts. Now every agent unites with the thing that receives its action. Therefore every simple substance

[p. 55]

unites with the thing that receives its action. Then I take this proposition as a premise and I add: Now the compound substance receives the action of the simple substance. Therefore every simple substance unites with the compound substance. Similarly with another method of reasoning. The form of the simple substance emanates necessarily. Now all that emanates necessarily unites with the thing that is before it. Therefore the form of the simple substance unites with the thing that is before it. I take this proposition as a premise and I add the following one: The compound substance is opposite the simple substance. Therefore the form of the simple substance unites with the compound substance. Similarly with another method of reasoning. The simple substance contains the compound substance. Now everything that contains another thing is united with that which it contains. Therefore the simple substance is united with the compound substance. Similarly with another method of reasoning. The simple substance is of unlimited essence. Now whenever a thing is of unlimited essence, its essence is extended. Therefore the essence of the simple substance is extended. And to this conclusion I add: Whenever the essence of a thing is extended, this essence is everywhere. Therefore the essence of the simple substance is everywhere. Now everything whose essence is everywhere is united with everything that the place comprehends. Therefore the essence of the simple substance is united with everything that the place comprehends. Now the compound substance is everything that the place comprehends. Therefore the essence of the simple substance is united with the essence of the compound substance. Similarly with another method of reasoning. The simple substance wants that which it has in potentiality to pass into act. Whenever a thing wants that which

[p. 56]

it has in potentiality to pass into act, its effect appears in a subject. Therefore the effect of the simple substance appears in a subject. Now whenever the effect of a thing appears in a subject, this thing unites with this subject. Therefore the simple substance unites with the subject of its action. But the compound substance is the subject of its action. Therefore the simple substance unites with the compound substance.

And since the proposition that asserts that the simple substance and the compound substance are united is certain, I take it as a premise and I add to it this proposition: Whenever two things unite, there springs from their union a form that differs from the form of each of them. This is the proposition that we have previously verified. Therefore from the union of the simple substance and the compound substance there springs a form that differs from the form of each of them. Then I add to this proposition the following one: The figures, energies, and motions that are in the compound substance are forms that differ from the form of the essence of the simple substance and from the form of the essence of the compound substance, as it was previously. Therefore from the union of the simple substance and the compound substance there spring the figures, energies, and motions that are in the compound substance.

The forms that are in the compound substance pass into action and are perceived by the senses. Now whenever a simple substance unites with the compound substance, the forms that the intelligence seized in it pass from potentiality into act and are perceived by the senses. Therefore the forms that are in the compound substance pass into act and are perceived by the senses when the simple substance unites with the compound substance.

[p. 57]

Every corporeal substance is sensible. Now all the impressions that are in a sensible thing are sensible. Therefore all the impressions that are in a corporeal substance are sensible.

Similarly: The impressions of the simple substance are in the corporeal substance. Now all the impressions that are in the corporeal substance are sensible. Therefore all the impressions of the simple substance in the compound substance are sensible. Then I convert this proposition and I obtain the following one: All that is sensible in the corporeal substance is the impression of the simple substance.

All the forms that are in the corporeal substance are sensible. Now all that is sensible in the corporeal substance is the impression of the simple substance. Therefore all the forms that are in the compound substance are the impressions of the simple substance.

The compound substance is an effect. Now all the forms that appear in an effect are impressed therein by its cause. Therefore all the forms and the impressions that appear in the compound substance are impressed therein by its cause. The simple substance is the cause of the compound substance. Therefore all the forms and the impressions that appear in the compound substance are impressed therein by the simple substance.

The form of every effect is in the cause of this effect. Now the simple substances are the causes of the compound substances. Therefore the forms of the compound substances are in the simple substances.

The simple substance is the active cause of the compound substance. Now all that is an active cause for a thing impresses in it that which is in its essence. Therefore the simple substance impresses in the compound substance that which is in its essence. Then I

[p. 58]

take this proposition as a premise and I assert: The simple substance impresses in the compound substance that which is in its essence. Now the simple substance impresses in the compound substance the figures, energies, and motions. Therefore the figures, energies, and motions are in the simple substance.

Motion is an impression of the soul. Now motion is in the compound substance. Therefore the impression of the soul is in the compound substance.

The imperfect is created by the perfect. Now the imperfect compound substance comes from the simple substance. Therefore the compound substance is created by the simple substance.

The soul moves. Now the mobile is the cause of that which is at rest. Therefore the soul is the cause of that which is at rest. The compound substance is at rest. Therefore the soul is the cause of the compound substance. The compound substance and the forms that are borne by it are together. Therefore the soul is the cause at the same time of the compound substance and of the form that subsists in it.

Every corporeal substance is receptive only and compound only, while the spiritual substance is receptive and active, simple in one sense and compound in another sense. Now that which is active and receptive, simple and compound, receives numerous forms. And if a thing receives numerous forms, these numerous forms are in it potentially. There are therefore in the simple substance numerous forms in potentiality. Now all that in which there are numerous forms in potentiality causes these forms to pass from potentiality into act. Therefore the simple substance causes the forms that are in it in potentiality to pass into act.

It is therefore necessary that every cause should impress the figures and its forms in its effect. Now

[p. 59]

that which receives an impression never equals in force and perfection that which gives it. It is therefore necessary that the cause should be equipped with more figures and forms than its effect. Now the simple substance is the cause of the compound substance. It is therefore necessary that the simple substance should be equipped with more figures and forms than the compound substance. Similarly in another way. The compound substance is the effect of the simple substance. Now the effect is equipped with fewer figures and forms than its cause. Therefore the compound substance is equipped with fewer figures and forms than the simple substance. Similarly in another way. If the simple substance had only a single figure and a single form, its effect would be equipped with more forms and more figures. But the effect is not equipped with more forms and figures than the cause. Therefore the simple substance has one figure only and one form only.


     The Fountain of Life (Fons Vitae) (excerpt), by Solomon Ibn Gabirol, tr. by Harry E. Wedeck [1962], at sacred-texts.com



  

Part IV

All that has more than a single figure to contain it can receive all the figures. And whenever a thing receives all the figures, every form is in its essence. Now the simple substance receives all the figures. Therefore every form is in the essence of the simple substance.

All that receives numerous forms has not in itself one form that is peculiar to it. Now the simple substance, like the soul, the intelligence, nature, and matter, receives numerous forms. Therefore none of them has in it a form that is peculiar to it.

The spiritual simple substance is more apt to combine in itself numerous forms than the corporeal compound substance. Now the corporeal substance and the corporeal figure unite numerous forms and figures.

All that is perceived in action in a thing was in

[p. 60]

potentiality before passing into act. Now the forms that are in the compound substance are in it in act. Therefore they were in potentiality before passing into act.

The universal soul that unites the faculties of the soul is more apt to have numerous forms than one of its faculties. Now the visual faculty among the faculties of the soul has numerous forms. Therefore the universal soul is more apt to have numerous forms than the visual faculty.

If sense is a faculty that embraces the sensible forms, it is necessary that the soul should be a substance that embraces the aggregate of the forms. Now the sensitive faculty embraces the sensible forms. Therefore the substance of the soul embraces the aggregate of the forms.

The more simple and subtle the substance is, the more it embraces forms: thus the soul, the intelligence, and the primal matter. Now the substance of the soul is more simple and more subtle than the compound substance. Therefore the substance of the soul embraces more forms than the compound substance.

Whenever a substance seizes the aggregate of the forms, all the forms are in its essence absolutely. Thus matter, intelligence and soul seize all the forms that are borne by the compound substance. Therefore all the forms are in the essence of the soul.

If the intelligence perceives the spirituality of things, this perception occurs through resemblance. Therefore the intelligence is similar to the power of everything. And if it is similar to the power of everything, the form of everything is in it. Similarly with the soul.

The intelligence and the soul know all things. Now knowledge is the subsistence in the soul and

[p. 61]

in the intelligence of the form of the thing known. Therefore the forms of all things subsist in the soul and in the intelligence. Now the forms subsist in them by union. Therefore all the forms are united with the intelligence and the soul. Now the union takes place through resemblance. Therefore all the forms are similar to the intelligence and the soul.

The intelligence and the soul conceive knowledge from the forms of things. Now all that conceives something conceives it through its form. Therefore the intelligence and the soul conceive the forms of things by their form, and their knowledge of the forms of things is due to the union of their form with the forms of things. Therefore the intelligence and the soul unite their form with the forms of things. Now all things that unite are similar. Therefore the forms of the intelligence and the soul are similar to the forms of things.

Sensible things are in the soul simply, for their forms are in it without their matter. Similarly the forms of things are in the intelligence more simply and in a more general fashion. Therefore the inferior forms must be in all the superior forms, degree by degree, until the universal form is reached in which exists the aggregate of all the forms. But the superior forms are not in place, while the inferior forms are in place; the first participate in the union of the spiritual substance, while the second participate in the dispersal of the corporeal substance.

The sensitive soul perceives the sensible forms without perception of the matter that is their subject: and this is the case because the matter is outside the essence of the soul and the forms are in the essence of the soul. Hence I shall propose and say: If the soul does not perceive the matter that has the forms

[p. 62]

because the matter is outside its essence, it is necessary that the object of its perception should be the forms that are in its essence. Now the soul does not perceive the matter because it is outside its essence. Therefore it perceives the forms because they are in its essence.

If the sensible forms were not similar to the soul, the soul would not receive them and these forms would not subsist in it. But the soul receives these forms and they subsist in it. Therefore they are similar to it.

The sensible forms that are in the compound substance are in the soul simply, for the forms are in it divested of their matter. They are similarly in the intelligence, but more absolutely. Now the substance of the soul is superior to the substance that has the sensible forms. It is therefore necessary that the inferior forms should be in the superior substances.

The forms that are in the compound substance are sensible in act for the soul. Now all that is in act was previously in potentiality. Therefore the forms that are in the compound substance in act were previously in potentiality in the substance of the soul. Now all that is in potentiality is spiritual with regard to that which is in act. Therefore the forms that are in potentiality in the substance of the soul are spiritual with regard to the forms that are in act. Now the forms that are borne by the compound substance are in act. Therefore the forms that are in potentiality in the substance of the soul are spiritual with respect to the forms that are borne by the compound substance.

If the substance of the intelligence and that of the soul detach the forms that are borne by the compound substance and carry them in themselves divested of

[p. 63]

the substance that carries them, it is necessary that these forms should be in the essence of each of them. Now the soul and the intelligence detach the forms that are carried by the compound substance. Therefore these forms are in the essence of each of them.

If the particular form borne by the particular matter subsists in the substance of the particular soul divested of the matter that it bears, it is also necessary that the universal form borne by the universal matter, that is, the form borne by the compound substance, should be borne by the substance of the universal soul divested of the universal matter, that is, of the compound substance that bears it. The same assertion must be made of the forms of the universal soul borne by the substance that is superior to it, until the primal substance is reached that bears all things: for the case of the universal form is the same as the particular form.

If everything has a spiritual matter and a spiritual form, it is necessary that they should exist in everything: and if they exist in everything, it is necessary that there should be in each corporeal substance a spiritual matter and in each corporeal form a spiritual form. It is therefore necessary that in the corporeal color and in the corporeal figure there should be a spiritual color and,a spiritual figure and it is necessary that the spiritual color and the spiritual figure should subsist in the spiritual substance.

The corporeal forms emanate from the spiritual forms. Now all that emanates from something is the image of the thing from which it emanates. Therefore the corporeal forms are the image of the spiritual forms.

All that emanates from some origin is united with the origin and dispersed far from the origin. Now

[p. 64]

the sensible forms are united with the spiritual substances and dispersed in the corporeal substances. Therefore the sensible forms derive from the spiritual substances and are nearer their origin in the spiritual substances than in the corporeal substances.

The forms dispersed in the corporeal substances are united with the spiritual substances. Now all that is dispersed in something is united with its origin. Therefore the spiritual substances are the origin of the forms that are dispersed in the corporeal substances.

The spiritual substances unite the sensible forms. Now every origin unites that of which it is the origin. Therefore the spiritual substances are the origin of the sensible forms.

All that derives from some origin is united with its origin. Now the sensible forms are united in the spiritual substances. Therefore the sensible forms derive from the spiritual substances.

The sensible forms unite. Now all that derives from an origin unites. Therefore the sensible forms derive from an origin. Now all that derives from an origin unites with the origin. Therefore the sensible forms unite with their origin. Now the sensible forms unite with the spiritual substances. Therefore the spiritual substances are the origin of the sensible forms.

Whenever a thing is an origin for another thing, the latter unites with it essentially. Now the sensible forms unite essentially with the spiritual substances. Therefore the spiritual substances are the origin of the sensible forms.

The sensible forms unite essentially with the spiritual substances. Now all that with which things unite essentially constitutes the origin of these things.

[p. 65]

Therefore the spiritual substances are the origin of the sensible forms.

The simple substance, like the soul and the intelligence, perceives the essences of the sensible forms by itself. Now whenever a thing perceives the essence of another thing by itself, the essence of the first thing unites with the essence of the second thing. Therefore the essence of the simple substances unites with the essence of the sensible forms. Then I take this proposition as a premise: The essences of the simple substances and of the sensible forms are united: and whenever two essences are united, they form one. Therefore the essence of the simple substances and the essence of the sensible forms are one. Then I shall propose and say: the essence of the simple substance and of the sensible forms is one. Now whenever a thing emanates from another thing, its essence and that of the thing from which it emanates are one essence. Therefore the sensible forms emanate from the essence of the simple substance.

The union of the forms of things is much greater in the form of the intelligence than in the other forms. Now all that derives from an origin is more united with its origin than different from it. Therefore the form of the intelligence is the origin of the aggregate of the forms.

Every form that springs from the soul in matter was previously in the soul spiritually and it is to these spiritual forms that the corporeal forms owe their existence. Now the soul creates the forms and the corporeal figures that are borne by matter. Therefore these forms and these figures are in the soul spiritually.

The Master proceeds: We have just adduced as far as possible the proofs that demonstrate (A) that the

[p. 66]

forms borne by the compound substance are impressed therein by the simple substance, which is superior to the compound substance: and they have all established (B) that these forms exist in the essence of the simple substance that impresses them and that they emanate and originate from this substance. We have demonstrated this synthetically. Now we shall also present the analytical proof, resolving the impressions that are in the compound substance and noting for each of them the simple substance whose characteristic is to produce it: for when we have done this, we shall know how many simple substances there are united with the compound substance, that impress in it its designs and figures.

Pupil: By the cumulative proofs that you have just presented, you maintained (B) that the sensible forms that are borne by the compound substance exist in the essence of the simple substance that impresses them: (C) you affirmed also that these forms are united in the essence of the soul and in that of the intelligence and that they emanate from these substances, and you postulated as a proof of this the faculty of the soul and of the intelligence to perceive all these forms. Show me then how it is possible that the sensible forms, like continuous quantity, figure, color, and the first qualities are united in the essence of the simple substance and how the faculty of the simple substance to perceive all these forms is proof that they are united and that they subsist in it, for to me nothing is more inadmissible than to say that the forms of this sensible world, however great and numerous they may be, exist in the substance of the soul and that of the intelligence. Show me this then, to the best of your ability.

Master: Do you consider it certain, after the

[p. 67]

proofs that we have established, that the sensible forms are impressed by the simple substance?

Pupil: I consider it quite certain.

Master: Since the simple substance impresses these forms, it is necessary that it should impress either that which is in its essence only, or that which is in its essence and in the essence of the compound substance, or that which is not in its essence. But it does not impress that which is not in its essence. If indeed it impressed that which is not in its essence, it would be false to say it impresses, for that which impresses gives to the object impressed what it has in its essence. Or again: If the simple substance impressed that which is not in its essence, its action could not be an impression and this substance would create from nothing. But the First Author, sublime and holy, alone creates from nothing.

Pupil: Then assume that the simple substance impresses that which is in the compound substance.

Master: The essence of the compound substance has no form and that is why it receives the impression of the simple substance. For if it has a form, it receives it or not. Now if it receives it and if it is impossible for it to receive it by itself, it is necessary that it should receive it from something else. And if it does not receive it, the form and the essence of the substance are one thing: the form would be therefore the substance itself and the substance the form itself: which is inadmissible. In short, the substance is subject and receptivity, and before the existence of the form in it, it had only the possibility of receiving it from something else.

And in this way the proposition is also refuted according to which the simple substance impresses that which is in its essence and in the essence of the

[p. 68]

compound substance. And since the proposition according to which the simple substance impresses that which is not in its essence is negated, just like the proposition according to which the simple substance impresses that which is in its essence and in the essence of the compound substance, the proof compels you to say that the simple substance impresses that which is in its essence only.

Pupil: If the proof compels me to say that the sensible forms exist in the essence of the simple substance, be careful that it does not constrain me to maintain that they are in the essence of the simple substance as they are in the compound substance.

Master: It is impossibl