Authors/Thomas Aquinas/perihermenias/perihermenias II/L6

LECTURE 6

Latin	English
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 6 n. 1 Postquam declaravit diversitatem multiplicis enunciationis, intendit determinare de earum consequentiis. Et circa hoc duo facit, secundum duas dubitationes quas solvit. Secunda incipit; ibi: verum autem est dicere et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo, proponit quaestionem; secundo, ostendit rationabilitatem quaestionis; ibi: si enim quoniam etc.; tertio, solvit eam; ibi: eorum igitur et cetera. Est ergo dubitatio prima: quare ex aliquibus divisim praedicatis de uno sequitur enunciatio, in qua illamet unita praedicantur de eodem, et ex aliquibus non. Unde haec diversitas oritur? Verbi gratia; ex istis, Socrates est animal et est bipes; sequitur, ergo Socrates est animal bipes; et similiter ex istis, Socrates est homo et est albus; sequitur, ergo Socrates est homo albus. Ex illis vero, Socrates est bonus, et est citharoedus; non sequitur, ergo est bonus citharoedus. Unde proponens quaestionem inquit: quoniam vero haec, scilicet praedicta, ita praedicantur composita, idest coniuncta, ut unum sit praedicamentum quae extra praedicantur, idest, ut ex eis extra praedicatis unite fiat praedicatio, alia vero praedicata non sunt talia, quae est inter differentia; unde talis innascitur diversitas? Et subdit exempla iam adducta, et ad propositum applicata: quorum primum continet praedicata ex quibus fit unum per se, scilicet, animal et bipes, genus et differentia; secundum autem praedicata ex quibus fit unum per accidens, scilicet, homo albus; tertium vero praedicata ex quibus neque unum per se neque unum per accidens inter se fieri sequitur; ut, citharoedus et bonus, ut declarabitur.	1. Having explained the diversity of the multiple enunciation Aristotle now proposes to determine the consequences of this. He treats this in relation to two questions which he solves. The second begins where he says, On the other hand, it is also true to say predicates of something singly, etc. With respect to the other question, first he proposes it, then he shows that the question is a reasonable one where he says, For if we hold that whenever each is truly said of a subject, both together must also be true, many absurdities will follow, etc. Finally, he solves it where he says, Those things that are predicated—taken in relation to that to which they are joined in predication, etc. The first question is this: Why is it that from some things predicated divisively of a subject an enunciation follows in which they are predicated of the same subject unitedly, and from others not? What is the reason for this diversity? For example, from "Socrates is an animal and he is biped” follows, "Therefore, Socrates is a biped animal”; and similarly, from "Socrates is a man and he is white” follows, "Therefore, Socrates is a white man.” But from "Socrates is good and he is a lute player,” the enunciation, "Therefore, he is a good lute player” does not follow. Hence in proposing the question Aristotle says, Some things, i.e., predicates, are so predicated when combined, that there is one predicate from what is predicated separately, i.e., from some things that are predicated separately, a united predication is made but from others this is riot so. What is the difference between these; whence does such a diversity arise? He adds the examples which we have already cited and applied to the question. Of these examples, the first contains predicates from which something one per se is formed, i.e., "animal” and "biped,” a genus and difference; the second contains predicates from which something accidentally one is formed, namely, "white man”; the third contains predicates from which neither one per se nor one accidentally is formed, "lute player” and "good,” as will be explained.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 6 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit: si enim quoniam etc., declarat veritatem diversitatis positae, ex qua rationabilis redditur quaestio: si namque inter praedicata non esset talis diversitas, irrationabilis esset dubitatio. Ostendit autem hoc ratione ducente ad inconveniens, nugationem scilicet. Et quia nugatio duobus modis committitur, scilicet explicite et implicite; ideo primo deducit ad nugationem explicitam, secundo ad implicitam; ibi: amplius, si Socrates et cetera. Ait ergo quod si nulla est inter quaecumque praedicata differentia, sed de quolibet indifferenter censetur quod quia alterutrum separatum dicitur, quod utrumque coniunctim dicatur, multa inconvenientia sequentur. De aliquo enim homine, puta Socrate, verum est separatim dicere quod, homo est, et albus est; quare et omne, idest et coniunctim dicetur, Socrates est homo albus. Rursus et de eodem Socrate potest dici separatim quod, est homo albus, et quod, est albus; quare et omne, idest, igitur coniunctim dicetur, Socrates est homo albus albus: ubi manifesta est nugatio. Rursus si de eodem Socrate iterum dicas separatim quod, est homo albus albus, verum dices et congrue quod est albus, et secundum hoc, si iterum hoc repetes separatim, a veritate simili non discedes, et sic in infinitum sequetur, Socrates est homo albus, albus, albus in infinitum. Simile quod ostenditur in alio exemplo. Si quis de Socrate dicat quod, est musicus, albus, ambulans, cum possit et separatim dicere quod, est musicus, et quod, est albus, et quod, est ambulans; sequetur, Socrates est musicus, albus, ambulans, musicus, albus, ambulans. Et quia pluries separatim, in eodem tamen tempore, enunciari potest, procedit nugatio sine fine. Deinde deducit ad implicitam nugationem, dicens, cum de Socrate vere dici possit separatim quod, est homo, et quod, est bipes, si coniunctim inferre licet, sequetur quod, Socrates sit homo bipes. Ubi est implicita nugatio. Bipes enim circumloquens differentiam hominis actu et intellectu clauditur in hominis ratione. Unde ponendo loco hominis suam rationem (quod fieri licet, ut docet Aristoteles II topicorum), apparebit manifeste nugatio. Dicetur enim: Socrates est homo, idest, animal bipes, bipes. Quoniam ergo plurima inconvenientia sequuntur si quis ponat complexiones, idest, adunationes praedicatorum fieri simpliciter, idest, absque diversitate aliqua, manifestum est ex dictis; quomodo autem faciendum est, nunc, idest, in sequentibus dicemus. Et nota quod iste textus non habetur uniformiter apud omnes quoad verba, sed quia sententia non discrepat, legat quicunque ut vult.	2. When he says, For if we hold that whenever each is truly said of a subject, both together must also be true, etc., he shows that there truly is such a diversity among predicates and in so doing renders the question reasonable, for if there were not such a diversity among predicates the question would be pointless. He shows this by reasoning lead-ing to an absurdity, i.e., to something nugatory. Now, something nugatory is effected in two ways, explicitly and implicitly. Therefore, he first makes a deduction to the explicitly nugatory, secondly to the implicitly, where he says, Furthermore, if Socrates is Socrates and a man, Socrates is a Socrates man, etc. If, he says, there is no difference between predicates, and it is supposed of any of them indifferently that because both are said separately both may he said conjointly, many absurdities will follow. For of some man, say Socrates, it is true to say separately that he is a man and he is white; therefore both -together, i.e., we may also say conjointly, "Socrates is a white man.” Again, of the same Socrates we can say separately that he is a white man and that he is white, and both together, i.e., therefore conjointly, "Socrates is a white white man.” Here the nugatory expression is evident. Further, if of the same Socrates that you again say separately is a white white man it will be true and consistent to say that he is white, and according to this, if again repeating this separately, you will not deviate from a similar truth, and this will follow to infinity, then Socrates is a white white white man to infinity. The same thing can be shown by another example, If someone says of Socrates that he is musical, white, and walking, since it is also possible to say separately that he is musical, and that he is white, and that he is walking, it will follow that Socrates is musical, white, walking, musical, white, walking. And since these can be enunciated many times separately, yet at the same time, the nugatory statement proceeds without end. Then he makes a deduction to the implicitly nugatory. Since it can be truly said of Socrates separately that he is man and that he is biped, it will follow that Socrates is a biped man, if it is licit to infer conjointly. This is implicitly nugatory because the "biped,” which indirectly expresses the difference of man in act and in understanding, is included in the notion of man. Hence, if we posit the definition of man in place of "man” (which it is licit to do, as Aristotle teaches in II Topicorum [2: 110a 5]) the nugatory character of the enunciation will be evident, for when we say "Socrates is a biped man,” we are saying "Socrates is a biped biped animal.” From what has been said it is evident that many absurdities follow if anyone proposes that combinations, i.e., unions of predicates, be made simply, i.e., without any distinction. Now, i.e., in what follows, we will state how this must be settled. This particular text is not uniformly worded in the manuscripts, but since no discrepancy of thought is involved one may read it as he wishes.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 6 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: eorum igitur etc., solvit propositam quaestionem. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo, respondet instantiis in ipsa propositione quaestionis adductis; secundo, satisfacit instantiis in probatione positis; ibi: amplius nec quaecumque et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo namque, declarat veritatem; secundo, applicat ad propositas instantias; ibi: quocirca et cetera. Determinat ergo dubitationem tali distinctione. Praedicatorum sive subiectorum plurium duo sunt genera: quaedam sunt per accidens, quaedam per se. Si per accidens, hoc dupliciter contingit, vel quia ambo dicuntur per accidens de uno tertio, vel quia alterum de altero mutuo per accidens praedicatur. Quando illa plura divisim praedicata sunt per accidens quovis modo, ex eis non sequitur coniunctim praedicatum; quando autem sunt per se, tum ex eis sequitur coniuncte praedicatum. Unde continuando se ad praecedentia ait: eorum igitur quae praedicantur, et de quibus praedicantur, idest subiectorum, quaecumque dicuntur secundum accidens (et per hoc innuit oppositum membrum, scilicet per se), vel de eodem, idest accidentaliter concurrunt ad unius tertii denominationem, vel alterutrum de altero, idest accidentaliter mutuo se denominant (et per hoc ponit membra duplicis divisionis), haec, scilicet plura per accidens, non erunt unum, idest non inferent praedicationem coniunctam.	3. When he says, Those things that are predicated—taken in relation to that to which they are joined in predication, etc., he solves the proposed question. First he makes an answer with respect to the instances cited in proposing the question; secondly, he solves the problem as related to the instances posited in his proof where he says, Furthermore, predicates that are present in one another cannot be combined simply. In relation to the first answer, he states the true position first and then applies it to the instances where he says, This is the reason "good” and "shoemaker” cannot be combined simply, etc. He settles the question with this distinction: there are two kinds of multiple predicates and subjects. Some are accidental, some per se. If they are accidental this occurs in two ways, either because both are said accidentally of a third thing or because they are predicated of each other accidentally. Now when the many predicated divisively are in any way accidental, a conjoined predicate does not follow from them; but when they are per se, a conjoined predicate does follow from them. In answering the question, therefore, Aristotle connects what he is saying with what has gone before: Of those things that are predicated and those of which they are predicated, i.e., subjects, whichever are said accidentally (by which he intimates the opposite member, i.e., per se), either of the same subject, i.e., they unite accidentally for the denomination of one third thing, or of one another, i.e., they denominate each other accidentally (and by this he posits the members of a two-fold division), these (i.e., these many accidentally) will not be one, i.e., do not produce a conjoined predication.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 6 n. 4 Et explanat utrumque horum exemplariter. Et primo, primum, quando scilicet illa plura per accidens dicuntur de tertio, dicens: ut si homo albus est et musicus divisim. Sed non est idem, idest non sequitur adunatim, ergo homo est musicus albus. Utraque enim sunt accidentia eidem tertio. Deinde explanat secundum, quando solum illa plura per accidens de se mutuo praedicantur, subdens: nec si album musicum verum est dicere, idest, et etiamsi de se invicem ista praedicantur per accidens ratione subiecti in quo uniuntur, ut dicatur, homo est albus, et est musicus, et album est musicum, non tamen sequitur quod album musicum unite praedicetur, dicendo, ergo homo est albus musicus. Et causam assignat, quia album dicitur de musico per accidens, et e converso.	4. He explains both of these by examples. First, the many said accidentally of a third; for example, man is white and musical divisively. But they are not the same, i.e., it does not follow unitedly that "Man is musical white” for both are accidental to the same third thing. Then he explains the second member by an example. In it the many are predicated only of one another. Even if it were true to say white is musical, i.e., even if these are predicated accidentally of each other by reason of the subject in which they are united, so that we may say "Man is white and he is musical, and white is musical,” it still does not follow that "musical white” is predicated as a unity when we say, "Therefore, man is musical white.” He gives as the cause of this that "white” is said of "musical” accidentally and conversely.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 6 n. 5 Notandum est hic quod cum duo membra per accidens enumerasset, unico tamen exemplo utrumque membrum explanavit, ut insinuaret quod distinctio illa non erat in diversa praedicata per accidens, sed in eadem diversimode comparata; album enim et musicum, comparata ad hominem, sub primo cadunt membro; comparata autem inter se, sub secundo. Diversitatem ergo comparationis pluralitate membrorum, identitatem autem praedicatorum unitate exempli astruxit.	5. It must be noted here that although he has enumerated two accidental members, he explains both members by this single example so as to imply that the distinction is not one of different accidental predicates, but of the same predicates compared in different ways. "White” and "musical” compared to "man” fall under the first member, but compared with each other, under the second. Hence he has provided diversity of comparison by the plurality of the members, but identity of predicates by the unity of the example.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 6 n. 6 Advertendum est ulterius, ad evidentiam divisionis factae in littera, quod, secundum accidens, potest dupliciter accipi. Uno modo, ut distinguitur contra perseitatem posterioristicam, et sic non sumitur hic: quoniam cum dicitur plura praedicata secundum accidens, aut ly secundum accidens determinaret coniunctionem inter se, et sic manifeste esset falsa regula; quoniam inter prima praedicata, animal bipes, seu, animal rationale, est praedicatio secundum accidens hoc modo (differentia enim in nullo modo perseitatis praedicatur de genere, et tamen Aristoteles in textu dicit ea non esse praedicata per accidens, et asserit quod est optima illatio, est animal et bipes, ergo est animal bipes); aut determinaret coniunctionem illarum ad subiectum, et sic etiam inveniretur falsitas in regula: bene namque dicitur, paries est coloratus, et est visibilis, et tamen coloratum visibile non per se inest parieti. Alio modo, accipitur ly secundum accidens, ut distinguitur contra hoc quod dico, ratione sui, seu, non propter aliud, et sic idem sonat, quod, per aliud: et hoc modo accipitur hic. Quaecunque enim sunt talis naturae quod non ratione sui iunguntur, sed propter aliud, ab illatione coniuncta deficere necesse est, ex eo quod coniuncta illatio unum alteri substernit, et ratione sui ea adunata denotat ut potentiam et actum. Est ergo sensus divisionis, quod praedicatorum plurium, quaedam sunt per accidens, quaedam per se, idest, quaedam adunantur inter se ratione sui, quaedam propter aliud. Ea quae per se uniuntur inferunt coniunctum, ea autem quae propter aliud, nequaquam.	6. To make this division evident it must also be noted that accidentally can be taken in two ways. It may be taken as it is distinguished from "posterioristic perseity.” This is not the way it is taken here, for "many predicates accidentally” would then mean that the "accidentally” determines a conjunction between predicates, and thus the rule would clearly be false, for the first predicates he gave as examples are predicated accidentally in this way, namely, "biped animal,” or "rational animal” (for a difference is not predicated of a genus in any mode of perseity, and yet Aristotle says in the text that these are not predicated accidentally, and has asserted that "He is an animal and biped, therefore he is a biped animal” is a good inference). Or it would mean that the "accidentally” determines a conjunction of the predicates with the subject, and thus also the rule would be false, for it is valid to say, "The wall is colored and it is visible,” yet visible colored is not per se in the wall. Accidentally” taken in the second way is distinguished from what I call "on its own account,” i.e., not because of something else; "accidentally” then means "through another.” This is the way it is taken here, for whatever are of such a nature that they are joined because of something else, and not on their own account, do not admit of conjoined inference, because a conjoined inference subjects one to the other, and denotes the things united on their own account as potency and act. Therefore, the sense of the division is this: of many predicates, some are accidental, some per se, i.e., some are united among themselves on their own account, some on account of another. Those that are per se united infer conjointly; those that are united on account of another do not infer conjointly in any way.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 6 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: quocirca nec citharoedus etc., applicat declaratam veritatem ad partes quaestionis. Et primo, ad secundam partem, quia scilicet non sequitur: est bonus et est citharoedus; ergo est bonus citharoedus, dicens: quocirca nec citharoedus bonus etc.; secundo, ad aliam partem quaestionis, quare sequebatur: est animal et est bipes; ergo est animal bipes: et ait: sed animal bipes et cetera. Et subiungit huius ultimi dicti causam, quia, animal bipes, non sunt praedicata secundum accidens coniuncta inter se aut in tertio, sed per se. Et per hoc explanavit alterum membrum primae divisionis, quod adhuc positum non fuerat explicite. Adverte quod Aristoteles, eamdem tenens sententiam de citharoedo et bono et musico et albo, conclusit quod album et musicum non inferunt coniunctum praedicatum; ideo nec citharoedus et bonus inferunt citharoedus bonus simpliciter, idest coniuncte. Est autem ratio dicti, quia licet musica et albedo dissimiles sint bonitati et arti citharisticae in hoc, quod bonitas nata est denominare et subiectum tertium, puta hominem et ipsam artem citharisticam (propter quod falsitas manifeste cernitur, quando dicitur: est bonus et citharoedus; ergo bonus citharoedus), musica vero et albedo subiectum tertium natae sunt denominare tantum, et non se invicem (propter quod latentior est casus cum proceditur: est albus et est musicus; ergo est musicus albus), licet, inquam, in hoc sint dissimiles, et propter istam dissimilitudinem processus Aristotelis minus sufficiens videatur; attamen similes sunt in hoc quod, si servetur identitas omnimoda praedicatorum quam servari oportet, si illamet divisa debent inferri coniunctim, sicut musica non denominat albedinem, neque contra, ita nec bonitas, de qua fit sermo, cum dicitur, homo est bonus, denominat artem citharisticam, neque e converso. Cum enim bonum sit aequivocum, licet a consilio, alia ratione dicitur de perfectione citharoedi, et alia de perfectione hominis. Quando namque dicimus, Socrates est bonus, intelligimus bonitatem moralem, quae est hominis bonitas simpliciter (analogum siquidem simpliciter positum sumitur pro potiori); cum autem infertur, citharoedus bonus, non bonitatem moris sed artis praedicas: unde terminorum identitas non salvatur; sufficienter igitur et subtiliter Aristoteles eamdem de utrisque protulit sententiam, quia eadem est haec, et ibi ratio et cetera.	7. When he says, This is the reason "good” and "shoemaker” cannot be combined simply, etc., he applies the truth he has stated to the parts of the question. He applies it first to the second part, i.e., why this does not follow: "He is good and he is a shoemaker, therefore he is a good shoemaker.” Then he applies it to the other part of the question, i.e., why this follows: "He is an animal and he is biped, therefore he is a biped animal.” He adds the reason in the case of the latter: "biped” and "animal” are not predicates accidentally conjoined among themselves, nor in a third thing, but per se. This also explains the other member of the first division which has not yet been explicitly posited. Notice that he maintains the same judgment is to be made about lute player and good, and musical and white. He has concluded that "white” and "musical” do not infer a conjoined predicate; hence neither do "lute player” and "good” infer "good lute player” simply, i.e., conjointly. There is a reason for saying this. For although there is a difference between musical and white, and goodness and the art of luteplaying, they are also similar. Let us consider their difference first. Goodness is of such a nature that it denominates both a third subject, namely, man, and the art of lute-playing. This is the reason the falsity is clearly discernible when we say "He is good and a lute player, therefore he is a good lute player.” Musical and whiteness, on the other band, are of such a nature that they denominate only a third subject, and not each other, and hence, the error is less obvious in "He is white and be is musical, therefore he is musical white.” Now it is this difference that makes Aristotle’s process of reasoning appear somewhat inconclusive. However, they are similar. For if identity of predicates is kept in every way that is required for the same things divided to be inferred conjointly, then, just as "musical” does not denominate "whiteness,” nor the contrary, so neither does "goodness,” of which we are speaking when we say "Man is good,” denominate the art of lute-playing,,nor conversely. For "good” is equivocal—by choice though—and therefore is said of the perfection of the lute player by means of one notion and of the perfection of man by means of another. For example, when we say, "Socrates is good” we understand moral goodness, which is the goodness of man absolutely (for the analogous term posited simply, stands for what is mainly so); but when good lute player is inferred, it is not the goodness of morality that is predicated but the goodness of art; whence identity of the terms is not saved. Therefore, Aristotle has adequately and subtly expressed the same judgment about both, i.e., "white” and "musical,” and "good” and "lute player,” for the reason here is the same as there.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 6 n. 8 Nec praetereundum est quod, cum tres consequentias adduxit quaestionem proponendo, scilicet; est animal et bipes; ergo est animal bipes: et, est homo et albus; ergo est homo albus: et, est citharoedus et bonus; ergo est homo albus: et, est citharoedus et bonus; ergo est bonus citharoedus; et duas primas posuerat esse bonas, tertiam vero non; huius diversitatis causam inquirere volens, cur solvendo quaestionem nullo modo meminerit secundae consequentiae, sed tantum primae et tertiae. Indiscussum namque reliquit an illa consequentia sit bona an mala. Et ad hoc videtur mihi dicendum quod ex his paucis verbis etiam illius consequentiae naturam insinuavit. Profundioris enim sensus textus capax apparet cum dixit quod, non sunt unum album et musicum etc., ut scilicet non tantum indicet quod expositum est, sed etiam eius causam, ex qua natura secundae consequentiae elucescit. Causa namque quare album et musicum non inferunt coniunctam praedicationem est, quia in praedicatione coniuncta oportet alteram partem alteri supponi, ut potentiam actui, ad hoc ut ex eis fiat aliquo modo unum, et altera a reliqua denominetur (hoc enim vis coniunctae praedicationis requirit, ut supra diximus de partibus definitionis); album autem et musicum secundum se non faciunt unum per se, ut patet, neque unum per accidens. Licet enim ipsa ut adunantur in subiecto uno sint unum subiecto per accidens, tamen ipsamet quae adunantur in uno, tertio subiecto, non faciunt inter se unum per accidens: tum quia neutrum informat alterum (quod requiritur ad unitatem per accidens aliquorum inter se, licet non in tertio); tum quia non considerata subiecti unitate, quae est extra eorum rationes, nulla remanet inter ea unitatis causa. Dicens ergo quod album et musicum non sunt unum, scilicet inter se, aliquo modo, causam expressit quare coniunctim non infertur ex eis praedicatum. Et quia oppositorum eadem est disciplina, insinuavit per illamet verba bonitatem illius consequentiae. Ex eo enim quod homo et albus se habent sicut potentia et actus (et ita albedo informet, denominet atque unum faciat cum homine ratione sui), sequitur quod ex divisis potest inferri coniuncta praedicatio; ut dicatur: est homo et albus; ergo est homo albus. Sicut per oppositum dicebatur quod ideo musicum et album non inferunt coniunctum praedicatum quia neutrum alterum informabat.	8. There is another point that must be mentioned. Aristotle in proposing the question draws three consequences: "He is an animal and biped, therefore he is a biped animal” and "He is a man and white, therefore he is a white man” and "He is a lute player and good, therefore he is a good lute player.” Then he states that the first two consequences are good, the third not. His intention was to inquire into the cause of this diversity, but in solving the question he mentions only the first and third consequences, leaving the goodness or badness of the second consequence undiscussed. Why is this? I would say in answer to this that in these few words he has also implied the nature of the second consequence, for there is a more profound meaning to the statement in the text that whiteness and being musical is not one. It is a meaning that not only indicates what has already been explained but also its cause, and from this the nature of the second consequence is apparent. For the reason "white” and "musical” do not infer a conjoined predication is that in conjoined predication one part must be subjected to the other as potency to act such that in some way one thing is formed from them and one is denominated from the other (for the force of the conjoined predication requires this, as we have said above concerning the parts of the definition). "White” and "musical,” however, do not in themselves form one thing per se, as is evident, nor do they form one thing accidentally. For while it is true that as united in a subject they are one in subject accidentally, nevertheless things that are united in one third subject do not form one thing accidentally among themselves: first, because neither informs the other (which is required for accidental unity of things among themselves, although not in a third thing); secondly, because, considered apart from the unity of a subject, which is outside of their notions, there is no cause of unity between them. Therefore, when Aristotle says that whiteness and being musical are not one, i.e., among themselves, in some measure he expresses the reason why a predicate is not conjointly inferred from them. And since the same discipline extends to opposites, the goodness of the second consequence is implied by these words. That is, man and white are related as potency and act (and so, on its own account whiteness informs, denominates, and forms one thing with ‘man’); therefore from these taken divisively a conjoined predication can be inferred, i.e., "He is man and white, therefore be is a white man”; just as, in the opposite case, it was said that "musical” and "white” do not infer a conjoined predicate because neither informs the other.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 6 n. 9 Nec obstat quod album faciat unum per accidens cum homine: non enim dictum est quod unitas per accidens aliquorum impedit ex diversis inferre coniunctum, sed quod unitas per accidens aliquorum ratione tertii tantum est illa quae impedit. Talia enim quae non sunt unum per accidens nisi ratione tertii, inter se nullam habent unitatem; et propterea non potest inferri coniunctum, ut dictum est, quod unitatem importat. Illa vero quae sunt unum per accidens ratione sui, seu inter se, ut, homo albus, cum coniuncta accipiuntur, unitate necessaria non carent, quia inter se unitatem habent. Notanter autem apposui ly tantum: quoniam si aliqua duo sunt unum per accidens, ratione tertii subiecti scilicet, sed non tantum ex hoc habent unitatem, sed etiam ratione sui, ex hoc quod alterum reliquum informat, ex istis divisis non prohibetur inferri coniunctum. Verbi gratia, optime dicitur: est quantum et est coloratum; ergo est quantum coloratum: quia color informat quantitatem.	9. There is no opposition between the position just stated and the fact that white forms an accidental unity with man. For we did not say that accidental unity of certain things impedes inferring a conjunction from divided things,” but that accidental unity of certain things only by reason of a third thing is the one that impedes. Things that are one accidentally only by reason of a third thing have no unity among them selves; and for this reason a conjunction, which implies unity, cannot be inferred, as we have said. But things that are one accidentally on their own account, i.e., among themselves, as for example, "white man,” when taken conjointly, have the necessary unity because they have unity among themselves. Notice that I have added "only.” The reason is that if any two C are one accidentally, namely, by reason of a third subject, and they not only have unity from this but also on their own account (because one informs the other), then from these taken divisively a conjoined inference can be made. For example, we can infer, "It is a quantity and it is colored, therefore it is a colored quantity,” because color informs quantity.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 6 n. 10 Potes autem credere quod secunda illa consequentia, quam non explicite confirmavit Aristoteles respondendo, sit bona et ex eo quod ipse proponendo quaestionem asseruit bonam, et ex eo quod nulla instantia reperitur. Insinuavit autem et Aristoteles quod sola talis unitas impedit illationem coniunctam, quando dixit quaecumque secundum accidens dicuntur vel de eodem vel alterutrum de altero. Cum enim dixit, secundum accidens de eodem, unitatem eorum ex sola adunatione in tertio posuit (sola enim haec per accidens praedicantur de eodem, ut dictum est); cum autem addidit, vel alterutrum de altero, mutuam accidentalitatem ponens, ex nulla parte inter se unitatem reliquit. Utraque ergo per accidens adducta praedicata, in tertio scilicet vel alterutrum, quae impediant illationem coniunctam, nonnisi in tertio unitatem habent.	10. You can hold as true that this second consequence is good even though Aristotle has not explicitly confirmed it by returning to it, both from the fact that in proposing the question he has claimed it as good and also because there is no instance opposed to it. Moreover, Aristotle has implied that it is only such unity that impedes the conjoined inference where he says: which are said accidentally, either of the same subject or of one another. By accidentally of the same subject, he posits their unity to be only from union in a third thing (for only these are predicated accidentally of the same subject, as was said). When he adds, or of one another—positing mutual accidentality—no unity at all is left between them. Therefore, both kinds of accidental predicates, namely, in a third thing or in one another, that impede a conjoined inference have unity only in a third thing.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 6 n. 11 Deinde cum dicit: amplius nec etc., satisfacit instantiis in probatione adductis, et in illis in quibus explicita committebatur nugatio, et in illis in quibus implicita; et ait quod non solum inferre ex divisis coniunctum non licet quando praedicata illa sunt per accidens, sed nec etiam quaecunque insunt in alio: idest, sed nec hoc licet quando praedicata includunt se, ita quod unum includatur in significato formali alterius intrinsece, sive explicite, ut album in albo, sive implicite, ut animal et bipes in homine. Quare neque album frequenter dictum divisim infert coniunctum, neque homo divisim ab animali vel bipede enunciatum, animal bipes, coniunctum cum homine infert; ut dicatur, ergo Socrates est homo bipes, vel animal homo. Insunt enim in hominis ratione, animal et bipes actu et intellectu, licet implicite. Stat ergo solutio quaestionis in hoc, quod unitas plurium per accidens in tertio tantum et nugatio, impediunt ex divisis inferri coniunctum; et consequenter, ubi neutrum horum invenitur, ex divisis licebit inferre coniunctum. Et hoc intellige quando divisae sunt simul verae de eodem et cetera.	11. Then when he says, Furthermore, predicates that are present in one another cannot be combined simply, etc., he gives the solution for the instances (both the explicitly nugatory and the implicitly nugatory) cited in the proof. It is not only not licit, he says, to infer a union from divided predicates when these are accidental, but it is not licit when the predicates are present in one another. That is, it is not licit to infer a conjoined predicate from divided predicates when the predicates include one another in such a way that one is included in the formal signification of another intrinsically, or explicitly, as "white” in white,” or implicitly, as "animal” and "biped” in "man.” Therefore, white” said repeatedly and divisively does not infer a conjoined predication, nor does "man” divisively enunciated from "animal” or "biped” infer "biped” or "animal” conjoined with man, such that we could say, "Therefore, Socrates is a biped-man” or "animal-man.” For animal and biped are included in the notion of man in act and in understanding, although implicitly. The solution of the question, then, is this: the inferring of a conjunction from divided predicates is impeded when there is unity of the many accidentally only in a third thing and when there is a nugatory result. Consequently, where neither of these is found it will be licit to infer a conjunction from divided predicates. It is to be understood that this applies when the divided predicates are at once true of the same subject.