168 JAMES A. WEISHEIPL 



repeatedly rejected the Avicennian innovation with sound 

 Aristotelian arguments, which need not concern us here. 



The real problem for St. Albert was the obvious difference 

 between terrestrial changes arising from nature and celestial 

 motions which could not arise from nature. The term " nature " 

 is a technical one and it designates that " principle of motion 

 and rest in those things to which it belongs properly {per se) 

 and not as a concomitant attribute (per accidens) ," " Tech- 

 nically it was contrasted with soul {anima, ^vxr]) and with 

 intelligence (intelligentia, vov<;) , particularly in Platonic and 

 neo-Platonic writings; and it was also contrasted with art 

 {ars, Texvy]) and with chance (casus, avroixaTov) by Aristotle. 

 Nature as an intrinsic principle always acts in a determined 

 manner for a predetermined end.^^ This nature must always be 

 efficiently produced by some generator of the form. Once this 

 natural form has been generated by an efficient cause, that 

 nature spontaneously moves toward the unique end propor- 

 tioned to it and rests in the possession of the end. " Hence 

 place and motion are given by the generator just as the form is, 

 but the form is given principally, while place and motion are 

 given per consequens, just as proper accidents are given to the 

 form by generation." °^ Moreover, strictly speaking, " nature " 

 designates the internal power of inanimate substances {natura 

 non est nisi virtus inanimatae suhstantiae) .^* Finally, nature 

 is a source of individual attainment, and not of transient ac- 

 tivity. Hence " locomotion is never derived [efficiently] from 

 nature as ' the principle of motion and rest in those things to 

 which it belongs properly and not concomitantly,' as defined 

 by Aristotle in Physics II; for which reason, as we have said, 

 locomotion must be derived either from the generator or from 

 one removing an impediment or from a soul." ^^ In other words, 



"Aristotle, Phijs., II, c. 1, 1921b21-23. Cf. James A. Welsheipl, "The Concept 

 of Nature," in The New Scholasticism, XXXVIII (1954), 377-408. 

 " Cf. Albert, Lib. VIII Phys., tr. II, c. 4, et passim. 

 ^^ Ibid., ed. cit.. Ill, 572a-b. 



" St. Albert, Lib. XI Metaph., tr. I, c. 13, ed. cit., VI, 604. 

 ^° St. Albert, Problemata determinata, q. 2, ed. cit., p. 325. 



