The Categories

Part 5

Substance, in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word, is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject; for instance, the individual man or horse.  But in a secondary sense those things are called substances within which, as species, the primary substances are included; also those which, as genera, include the species.  For instance, the individual man is included in the species ‘man’, and the genus to which the species belongs is ‘animal’; these, therefore-that is to say, the species ‘man’ and the genus ’animal,-are termed secondary substances.

It is plain from what has been said that both the name and the definition of the predicate must be predicable of the subject.  For instance, ‘man’ is predicted of the individual man.  Now in this case the name of the species man’ is applied to the individual, for we use the term ‘man’ in describing the individual; and the definition of ‘man’ will also be predicated of the individual man, for the individual man is both man and animal.  Thus, both the name and the definition of the species are predicable of the individual.

With regard, on the other hand, to those things which are present in a subject, it is generally the case that neither their name nor their definition is predicable of that in which they are present.  Though, however, the definition is never predicable, there is nothing in certain cases to prevent the name being used.  For instance, ‘white’ being present in a body is predicated of that in which it is present, for a body is called white:  the definition, however, of the colour white’ is never predicable of the body.

Everything except primary substances is either predicable of a primary substance or present in a primary substance.  This becomes evident by reference to particular instances which occur.  ‘Animal’ is predicated of the species ‘man’, therefore of the individual man, for if there were no individual man of whom it could be predicated, it could not be predicated of the species ‘man’ at all.  Again, colour is present in body, therefore in individual bodies, for if there were no individual body in which it was present, it could not be present in body at all.  Thus everything except primary substances is either predicated of primary substances, or is present in them, and if these last did not exist, it would be impossible for anything else to exist.

Of secondary substances, the species is more truly substance than the genus, being more nearly related to primary substance.  For if any one should render an account of what a primary substance is, he would render a more instructive account, and one more proper to the subject, by stating the species than by stating the genus.  Thus, he would give a more instructive account of an individual man by stating that he was man than by stating that he was animal, for the former description is peculiar to the individual in a greater degree, while the latter is too general.  Again, the man who gives an account of the nature of an individual tree will give a more instructive account by mentioning the species ‘tree’ than by mentioning the genus ‘plant’.

Moreover, primary substances are most properly called substances in virtue of the fact that they are the entities which underlie every. else, and that everything else is either predicated of them or present in them.  Now the same relation which subsists between primary substance and everything else subsists also between the species and the genus:  for the species is to the genus as subject is to predicate, since the genus is predicated of the species, whereas the species cannot be predicated of the genus.  Thus we have a second ground for asserting that the species is more truly substance than the genus.

Of species themselves, except in the case of such as are genera, no one is more truly substance than another.  We should not give a more appropriate account of the individual man by stating the species to which he belonged, than we should of an individual horse by adopting the same method of definition.  In the same way, of primary substances, no one is more truly substance than another; an individual man is not more truly substance than an individual ox.

It is, then, with good reason that of all that remains, when we exclude primary substances, we concede to species and genera alone the name ‘secondary substance’, for these alone of all the predicates convey a knowledge of primary substance.  For it is by stating the species or the genus that we appropriately define any individual man; and we shall make our definition more exact by stating the former than by stating the latter.  All other things that we state, such as that he is white, that he runs, and so on, are irrelevant to the definition.  Thus it is just that these alone, apart from primary substances, should be called substances.

Further, primary substances are most properly so called, because they underlie and are the subjects of everything else.  Now the same relation that subsists between primary substance and everything else subsists also between the species and the genus to which the primary substance belongs, on the one hand, and every attribute which is not included within these, on the other.  For these are the subjects of all such.  If we call an individual man ‘skilled in grammar’, the predicate is applicable also to the species and to the genus to which he belongs.  This law holds good in all cases.

It is a common characteristic of all sub. stance that it is never present in a subject.  For primary substance is neither present in a subject nor predicated of a subject; while, with regard to secondary substances, it is clear from the following arguments (apart from others) that they are not present in a subject.  For ‘man’ is predicated of the individual man, but is not present in any subject:  for manhood is not present in the individual man.  In the same way, ‘animal’ is also predicated of the individual man, but is not present in him.  Again, when a thing is present in a subject, though the name may quite well be applied to that in which it is present, the definition cannot be applied.  Yet of secondary substances, not only the name, but also the definition, applies to the subject:  we should use both the definition of the species and that of the genus with reference to the individual man.  Thus substance cannot be present in a subject.

Yet this is not peculiar to substance, for it is also the case that differentiae cannot be present in subjects.  The characteristics ‘terrestrial’ and ‘two-footed’ are predicated of the species ‘man’, but not present in it.  For they are not in man.  Moreover, the definition of the differentia may be predicated of that of which the differentia itself is predicated.  For instance, if the characteristic ‘terrestrial’ is predicated of the species ‘man’, the definition also of that characteristic may be used to form the predicate of the species ‘man’:  for ‘man’ is terrestrial.

The fact that the parts of substances appear to be present in the whole, as in a subject, should not make us apprehensive lest we should have to admit that such parts are not substances:  for in explaining the phrase ‘being present in a subject’, we stated’ that we meant ‘otherwise than as parts in a whole’.

It is the mark of substances and of differentiae that, in all propositions of which they form the predicate, they are predicated univocally.  For all such propositions have for their subject either the individual or the species.  It is true that, inasmuch as primary substance is not predicable of anything, it can never form the predicate of any proposition.  But of secondary substances, the species is predicated of the individual, the genus both of the species and of the individual.  Similarly the differentiae are predicated of the species and of the individuals.  Moreover, the definition of the species and that of the genus are applicable to the primary substance, and that of the genus to the species.  For all that is predicated of the predicate will be predicated also of the subject.  Similarly, the definition of the differentiae will be applicable to the species and to the individuals.  But it was stated above that the word ‘univocal’ was applied to those things which had both name and definition in common.  It is, therefore, established that in every proposition, of which either substance or a differentia forms the predicate, these are predicated univocally.

All substance appears to signify that which is individual.  In the case of primary substance this is indisputably true, for the thing is a unit.  In the case of secondary substances, when we speak, for instance, of ‘man’ or ‘animal’, our form of speech gives the impression that we are here also indicating that which is individual, but the impression is not strictly true; for a secondary substance is not an individual, but a class with a certain qualification; for it is not one and single as a primary substance is; the words ‘man’, ‘animal’, are predicable of more than one subject.

Yet species and genus do not merely indicate quality, like the term ‘white’; ‘white’ indicates quality and nothing further, but species and genus determine the quality with reference to a substance:  they signify substance qualitatively differentiated.  The determinate qualification covers a larger field in the case of the genus that in that of the species:  he who uses the word ‘animal’ is herein using a word of wider extension than he who uses the word ‘man’.

Another mark of substance is that it has no contrary.  What could be the contrary of any primary substance, such as the individual man or animal?  It has none.  Nor can the species or the genus have a contrary.  Yet this characteristic is not peculiar to substance, but is true of many other things, such as quantity.  There is nothing that forms the contrary of ‘two cubits long’ or of ’three cubits long’, or of ‘ten’, or of any such term.  A man may contend that ‘much’ is the contrary of ‘little’, or ‘great’ of ‘small’, but of definite quantitative terms no contrary exists.

Substance, again, does not appear to admit of variation of degree.  I do not mean by this that one substance cannot be more or less truly substance than another, for it has already been stated’ that this is the case; but that no single substance admits of varying degrees within itself.  For instance, one particular substance, ‘man’, cannot be more or less man either than himself at some other time or than some other man.  One man cannot be more man than another, as that which is white may be more or less white than some other white object, or as that which is beautiful may be more or less beautiful than some other beautiful object.  The same quality, moreover, is said to subsist in a thing in varying degrees at different times.  A body, being white, is said to be whiter at one time than it was before, or, being warm, is said to be warmer or less warm than at some other time.  But substance is not said to be more or less that which it is:  a man is not more truly a man at one time than he was before, nor is anything, if it is substance, more or less what it is.  Substance, then, does not admit of variation of degree.

The most distinctive mark of substance appears to be that, while remaining numerically one and the same, it is capable of admitting contrary qualities.  From among things other than substance, we should find ourselves unable to bring forward any which possessed this mark.  Thus, one and the same colour cannot be white and black.  Nor can the same one action be good and bad:  this law holds good with everything that is not substance.  But one and the selfsame substance, while retaining its identity, is yet capable of admitting contrary qualities.  The same individual person is at one time white, at another black, at one time warm, at another cold, at one time good, at another bad.  This capacity is found nowhere else, though it might be maintained that a statement or opinion was an exception to the rule.  The same statement, it is agreed, can be both true and false.  For if the statement ‘he is sitting’ is true, yet, when the person in question has risen, the same statement will be false.  The same applies to opinions.  For if any one thinks truly that a person is sitting, yet, when that person has risen, this same opinion, if still held, will be false.  Yet although this exception may be allowed, there is, nevertheless, a difference in the manner in which the thing takes place.  It is by themselves changing that substances admit contrary qualities.  It is thus that that which was hot becomes cold, for it has entered into a different state.  Similarly that which was white becomes black, and that which was bad good, by a process of change; and in the same way in all other cases it is by changing that substances are capable of admitting contrary qualities.  But statements and opinions themselves remain unaltered in all respects:  it is by the alteration in the facts of the case that the contrary quality comes to be theirs.  The statement ‘he is sitting’ remains unaltered, but it is at one time true, at another false, according to circumstances.  What has been said of statements applies also to opinions.  Thus, in respect of the manner in which the thing takes place, it is the peculiar mark of substance that it should be capable of admitting contrary qualities; for it is by itself changing that it does so.

If, then, a man should make this exception and contend that statements and opinions are capable of admitting contrary qualities, his contention is unsound.  For statements and opinions are said to have this capacity, not because they themselves undergo modification, but because this modification occurs in the case of something else.  The truth or falsity of a statement depends on facts, and not on any power on the part of the statement itself of admitting contrary qualities.  In short, there is nothing which can alter the nature of statements and opinions.  As, then, no change takes place in themselves, these cannot be said to be capable of admitting contrary qualities.

But it is by reason of the modification which takes place within the substance itself that a substance is said to be capable of admitting contrary qualities; for a substance admits within itself either disease or health, whiteness or blackness.  It is in this sense that it is said to be capable of admitting contrary qualities.

To sum up, it is a distinctive mark of substance, that, while remaining numerically one and the same, it is capable of admitting contrary qualities, the modification taking place through a change in the substance itself.

Let these remarks suffice on the subject of substance.