Authors/Thomas Aquinas/perihermenias/perihermenias II/L7

LECTURE 7

Latin	English
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 1 Postquam expedita est prima dubitatio, tractat secundam dubitationem. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo, movet ipsam quaestionem; secundo, solvit eam; ibi: sed quando in adiecto etc., tertio, ex hoc excludit quemdam errorem; ibi: quod autem non est et cetera. Est ergo quaestio: an ex enunciatione habente praedicatum coniunctum, liceat inferre enunciationes dividentes illud coniunctum; et est quaestio contraria superiori. Ibi enim quaesitum est an ex divisis inferatur coniunctum; hic autem quaeritur an ex coniuncto sequantur divisa. Unde movendo quaestionem dicit: verum autem aliquando est dicere de aliquo et simpliciter, idest divisim, quod scilicet prius dicebatur coniunctim, ut quemdam hominem album esse hominem, aut quoddam album hominem album esse, idest ut ex ista, Socrates est homo albus, sequitur divisim, ergo Socrates est homo, ergo Socrates est albus. Non autem semper, idest aliquando autem ex coniuncto non inferri potest divisim; non enim sequitur, Socrates est bonus citharoedus, ergo est bonus. Unde haec est differentia, quod quandoque licet et quandoque non. Et adverte quod notanter adduxit exemplum de homine albo, inferendo utramque partem divisim, ut insinuaret quod intentio quaestionis est investigare quando ex coniuncto potest utraque pars divisim inferri, et non quando altera tantum.	1. Aristotle now takes up the second question in relation to multiple enunciations. He first presents it, and then solves it where he says, When something opposed is present in the adjunct, from which a contradiction follows, it will not be true to predicate them singly, but false, etc. Finally, he excludes an error where he says, In the case of non-being, however, it is not true to say that because it is a matter of opinion, it is something, etc. The second question is this: Is it licit to infer from an enunciation having a conjoined predication, enunciations dividing that conjunction? This question is the contrary of the first question. The first asked whether a conjoined predicate could be inferred from divided predicates; the present one asks whether divided predicates follow from conjoined predicates. When he presents the question he says, on the other hand, it is also true to say predicates of something singly, i.e., what was previously said conjointly may be said divisively; for example, that some white man is a man, or that some white man is white. That is, from "Socrates is a white man,” follows divisively, "Therefore Socrates is a man,” "There fore Socrates is white.” However, this is not always the case, i.e., some times it is not possible to infer divisively from conjoined predicates, for this does not follow: "Socrates is a good lute player, therefore he is good.” Hence, sometimes it is licit, sometimes not. Note that in inferring each part divisively he takes as an ex ample "white man.” This is significant, for by it he means to imply that his intention is to investigate when each part can be inferred divisively from a conjoined predicate, and not when only one of the two can be inferred.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 2 Deinde cum dicit: sed quando in adiecto etc., solvit quaestionem. Et duo facit: primo, respondet parti negativae quaestionis, quando scilicet non licet; secundo, ibi: quare in quantiscumque etc., respondet parti affirmativae, quando scilicet licet. Circa primum considerandum quod quia dupliciter contingit fieri praedicatum coniunctum, uno modo ex oppositis, alio modo ex non oppositis, ideo duo facit: primo, ostendit quod numquam ex praedicato coniuncto ex oppositis possunt inferri eius partes divisim; secundo, quod nec hoc licet universaliter in praedicato coniuncto ex non oppositis, ibi: vel etiam quando et cetera. Ait ergo quod quando in termino adiecto inest aliquid de numero oppositorum, ad quae sequitur contradictio inter ipsos terminos, non verum est, scilicet inferre divisim, sed falsum. Verbi gratia cum dicitur, Caesar est homo mortuus, non sequitur, ergo est homo: quia ly mortuus, adiacens homini, oppositionem habet ad hominem, quam sequitur contradictio inter hominem et mortuum: si enim est homo, non est mortuus, quia non est corpus inanimatum; et si est mortuus, non est homo, quia mortuum est corpus inanimatum. Quando autem non inest, scilicet talis oppositio, verum est, scilicet inferre divisim. Ratio autem quare, quando est oppositio in adiecto, non sequitur illatio divisa est, quia alter terminus ex adiecti oppositione corrumpitur in ipsa enunciatione coniuncta. Corruptum autem seipsum absque corruptione non infert, quod illatio divisa sonaret.	2. When he says, When something opposed is present in the adjunct, etc., he solves the question, first by responding to the negative part of the question, i.e., when it is not licit; secondly, to the affirmative part, i.e., when it is licit, where he says, Therefore, in whatever predications no contrariety is present when definitions are put in place of the names, and wherein predicates are predicated per se and not accidentally, etc. It should be noted, in relation to the negative part of the question, that a conjoined predicate may be formed in two ways: from opposites and from non-opposites. Therefore, he shows first that the parts in a conjoined predicate of opposites can never be inferred divisively. Secondly, he shows that this is not licit universally in a conjoined predicate of non-opposites, where he says, Or, rather, when something opposed is present in it, it is never true; but when something opposed is not present, it is not always true. Aristotle says, then, that when something that is an opposite is contained in the adjacent term, which results in a contradiction between the terms themselves, it is not true, namely, to infer divisively, but false. For example, when we say, "Caesar is a dead man,” it does not follow, "Therefore he is a man,” because the contradiction between 11 man” and "dead” which results from adding the "dead” to "man” is opposed to man, for if he is a man he is not dead, because he is not an inanimate body; and if he is dead he is not a man, because as dead he is an inanimate body. When something opposed is not present, i.e., there is no such opposition, it is true, i.e., it is true to infer divisively. The reason a divided inference does not follow when there is opposition in the added term is that in a conjoined enunciation the other term is destroyed by the opposition of the added term. But that which has been destroyed is not inferred apart from the destruction, which is what the divided inference would signify.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 3 Dubitatur hic primo circa id quod supponitur, quomodo possit vere dici, Caesar est homo mortuus, cum enunciatio non possit esse vera, in qua duo contradictoria simul de aliquo praedicantur. Hoc enim est primum principium. Homo autem et mortuus, ut in littera dicitur, contradictoriam oppositionem includunt, quia in homine includitur vita, in mortuo non vita. Dubitatur secundo circa ipsam consequentiam, quam reprobat Aristoteles: videtur enim optima. Cum enim ex enunciatione praedicante duo contradictoria possit utrumque inferri (quia aequivalet copulativae), aut neutrum (quia destruit seipsam), et enunciatio supradicta terminos oppositos contradictorie praedicet, videtur sequi utraque pars, quia falsum est neutram sequi.	3. Two questions arise at this point. The first concerns something assumed here: how can it ever be true to make such a statement as "Caesar is a dead man,” since an enunciation cannot be true in which two contradictories are predicated at the same time of something (for this is a first principle). But "man” and "dead,” as is said in the text, include contradictory opposition, for in man is included life, and in dead, non-life. The second question concerns the consequent that Aristotle rejects, which appears to be good. The enunciation given as an example predicates terms that are opposed contradictorily. But from an enunciation predicating two contradictory terms, either both can be inferred (because it is equivalent to a copulative enunciation), or neither (because it destroys itself); therefore both parts seem to follow, since it is false that neither follows.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 4 Ad hoc simul dicitur quod aliud est loqui de duobus terminis secundum se, et aliud de eis ut unum stat sub determinatione alterius. Primo namque modo, homo et mortuus, contradictionem inter se habent, et impossibile est quod simul in eodem inveniantur. Secundo autem modo, homo et mortuus, non opponuntur, quia homo transmutatus iam per determinationem corruptivam importatam in ly mortuus, non stat pro suo significato secundum se, sed secundum exigentiam termini additi, a quo suum significatum distractum est. Ad utrunque autem insinuandum Aristoteles duo dixit, et quod habent oppositionem quam sequitur contradictio, attendens significata eorum secundum se, et quod etiam ex eis formatur una vera enunciatio cum dicitur, Socrates est homo mortuus, attendens coniunctionem eorum alterius corruptivam. Unde patet quid dicendum sit ad dubitationes. Ad utramque siquidem dicitur, quod non enunciantur duo contradictoria simul de eodem, sed terminus ut stat sub distractione, seu transmutatione alterius, cui secundum se esset contradictorius.	4. These two questions can be answered simultaneously. It is one thing to speak of two terms in themselves, and another to speak of them as one stands under the determination of another. Taken in the first way, "man” and "dead” have a contradiction between them and it is impossible that they be found in the same thing at the same time. In the second way, however, "man” and "dead” are not opposed, since "man,” changed by the destructive element introduced by "dead,” no longer stands for what it signifies as such, but as determined by the term added, by which what is signified is removed. Aristotle, in order to imply both, says two things: that they have the opposition upon which contradiction follows if you regard what they signify in themselves; and, that one true enunciation is formed from them as in "Socrates is a dead man,” if you regard their conjunction as destructive of one of them. Accordingly, the answer to the two questions is evident. In a case such as this two contradictories are not enunciated of the same thing at the same time, but one term as it stands under dissolution or transmutation from the other, to which by itself it would be contradictory.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 5 Dubitatur quoque circa id quod ait: inest aliquid oppositorum quae consequitur contradictio; superflue enim videtur addi illa particula, quae consequitur contradictio. Omnia enim opposita consequitur contradictio, ut patet discurrendo in singulis; pater enim est non filius, et album non nigrum, et videns non caecum et cetera. Et ad hoc dicendum est quod opposita possunt dupliciter accipi: uno modo formaliter, idest secundum sua significata; alio modo denominative, seu subiective. Verbi gratia, pater et filius possunt accipi pro paternitate et filiatione, et possunt accipi pro eo qui denominatur pater vel filius. Rursus cum omnis distinctio fiat oppositione aliqua, ut dicitur in X metaphysicae, supponatur omnino distincta esse opposita. Dicendum ergo est quod, licet ad omnia opposita seu distincta contradictio sequatur inter se formaliter sumpta, non tamen ad omnia opposita sequitur contradictio inter ipsa denominative sumpta. Quamvis enim pater et filius mutuam sui negationem inferant inter se formaliter, quia paternitas est non filiatio, et filiatio est non paternitas; in relatione tamen ad denominatum, contradictionem non necessario inferunt. Non enim sequitur, Socrates est pater; ergo non est filius; nec e converso. Ut persuaderet igitur Aristoteles quod non quaecunque opposita colligata impediunt divisam illationem (quia non illa quae habent contradictionem annexam formaliter tantum, sed illa quae habent contradictionem et formaliter et secundum rem denominatam), addidit: quae consequitur contradictio, in tertio scilicet denominato. Et usus est satis congrue vocabulo, scilicet, consequitur: contradictio enim ista in tertio est quodammodo extra ipsa opposita.	5. There is also a question about something else that Aristotle says, namely, something opposed is present... from which a contradiction follows. The phrase from which a contradiction follows seems to be superfluous, for contradiction follows upon all opposites, as is evident in discoursing about singulars; for a father is not a son, and white is not black, and one seeing is not blind, etc. Opposites, however, can be taken in two ways: formally, i.e., according to what they signify, and denominatively, or subjectively. For example, father and son can be taken for paternity and filiation, or they can be taken for the one who is denominated a father or a son. But, again, since every distinction is made by some opposition, as is said in X Metaphysicae [3: 1054a 20], it could be supposed that opposites are wholly distinct. It must be pointed out, therefore, that although contradiction follows between all opposites or distinct things formally taken, nevertheless, contradiction does not follow upon all opposites denominatively taken. Father and son formally taken infer a mutual negation of one another, for paternity is not filiation and filiation is not paternity, but in respect to what is denominated they do not necessarily infer a contradiction. It does not follow, for example, that "Socrates is a father; therefore he is not a son,” nor conversely. Aristotle, therefore, in order to establish that not all combined opposites prevent a divided inference (since those having a contradiction applying only formally do not prevent a divided inference, but those having a contradiction both formally and according to the thing denominated do prevent a divided inference) adds, from which a contradiction follows, namely, in the third thing denominated. And appropriately enough he uses the word follows, for the contradiction in " the third thing denominated is in a certain way outside of the opposites themselves.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: vel etiam quando est etc., declarat quod ex non oppositis in tertio coniunctis secundum unum praedicatum, non universaliter possunt inferri partes divisim. Et primo, hoc proponit quasi emendans quod immediate dixerat, subiungens: vel etiam quando est, scilicet oppositio inter terminos coniunctos, falsum est semper, scilicet inferre divisim; quasi diceret: dixi quod quando inest oppositio, non verum sed falsum est inferre divisim; quando autem non inest talis oppositio, verum est inferre divisim. Vel etiam ut melius dicatur, quod quando est oppositio, falsum est semper, quando autem non inest talis oppositio, non semper verum est. Et sic modificavit supradicta addendo ly semper, et, non semper. Et subdens exemplum quod non semper ex non oppositis sequatur divisio, ait: ut, Homerus est aliquid ut poeta; ergo etiam est? Non. Ex hoc coniuncto, est poeta, de Homero enunciato, altera pars, ergo Homerus est, non sequitur; et tamen clarum est quod istae duae partes colligatae, est et poeta, non habent oppositionem, ad quam sequitur contradictio. Igitur non semper ex non oppositis coniunctis illatio divisa tenet et cetera.	6. When he says, Or, rather, when something opposed is present in it, it is never true, etc., he explains that the parts cannot universally be inferred divisively in the case of a conjoined predicate in which there is a non-opposite as the third thing denominated. He proposes this—Or, rather, when something opposed is contained in it, i.e., opposition between the terms conjoined—as if amending what he has just said, namely, it is always false, i.e., to infer divisively. What he is saying, then, is this: I have said that when there is inherent opposition it is not true but false to infer divisively; but when there is not such opposition it is true to infer divisively; or, even better, when there is opposition it is always false but when there is not such opposition it is not always true. That is, he modifies what he first said by the addition of "always” and "not always.” Then he adds an example to show that division does not always follow from non-opposites: For example, Homer is something, say, a poet. Is it therefore true to say also that Homer "is,” or not? From the conjoined predicate, is a poet, enunciated of Homer, one part, Therefore Homer is, does not follow; yet it is evident that these two conjoined parts, "is” and "poet,” do not have the opposition upon which contradiction follows. Therefore, in the case of conjoined non-opposites a divided inference does not always hold.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: secundum accidens etc., probat hoc, quod modo dictum est, ex eo quod altera pars istius compositi, scilicet, est, in antecedente coniuncto praedicatur de Homero secundum accidens, idest ratione alterius, quoniam, scilicet poeta, praedicatur de Homero, et non praedicatur secundum se ly est de Homero; quod tamen infertur, cum concluditur: ergo Homerus est. Considerandum est hic quod ad solvendam illam conclusionem negativam, scilicet,- non semper ex non oppositis coniunctis infertur divisim,- sufficit unam instantiam suae oppositae universali affirmativae afferre. Et hoc fecit Aristoteles adducendo illud genus enunciationum, in quo altera pars coniuncti est aliquid pertinens ad actum animae. Loquimur enim modo de Homero vivente in poematibus suis in mentibus hominum. In his siquidem enunciationibus partes coniunctae non sunt oppositae in tertio, et tamen non licet inferre utramque partem divisim. Committitur enim fallacia secundum quid ad simpliciter. Non enim valet, Caesar est laudatus, ergo est: et simile est de esse in effectu dependente in conservari. Quomodo autem intelligenda sit ratio ad hoc adducta ab Aristotele in sequenti particula dicetur.	7. When he says, The "is” here is predicated accidentally of Homer, he proves what he has said. One part of this composite, namely, "is,” is predicated of Homer in the antecedent conjunction accidentally, i.e., by reason of another, namely, with regard to the "poet” which is predicated of Homer; it is not predicated as such of Homer. Nevertheless, this is what is inferred when one concludes "Therefore Homer is.” To validate his negative conclusion, namely, that it is not always true to infer divisively from conjoined non-opposites, it was sufficient to give one instance of the opposite of the universal affirmative. To do this Aristotle introduces that genus of enunciation in which one part of the conjunction is something pertaining to an act of the mind (for we are speaking only of Homer living in his poems in the minds of men). In such enunciations the parts conjoined are not opposed in the third thing denominated; nevertheless it is not licit to infer each part divisively, for the fallacy of going from the relative to the absolute will be committed. For example, it is not valid to say, "Caesar is praiseworthy, therefore he is,” which is a parallel case, i.e., of an effect whose existence requires maintenance. Aristotle will explain in the following sections of the text how the reasoning in the above text is to be understood.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: quare in quantiscunque etc., respondet parti affirmativae quaestionis, quando scilicet ex coniunctis licet inferre divisim. Et ponit duas conditiones oppositas supradictis debere convenire in unum, ad hoc ut possit fieri talis consequentia; scilicet, quod nulla inter partes coniuncti oppositio sit, et quod secundum se praedicentur. Unde dicit inferendo ex dictis: quare in quantiscunque praedicamentis, idest praedicatis ordine quodam adunatis, neque contrarietas aliqua, in cuius ratione ponitur contradictio in tertio (contraria enim sunt quae mutuo se ab eodem expellunt), aut universaliter nulla oppositio inest, ex qua scilicet sequatur contradictio in tertio, si definitiones pro nominibus sumantur. Dixit hoc, quia licet in quibusdam non appareat oppositio, solis nominibus positis, sicut, homo mortuus, et in quibusdam appareat, ut, vivum mortuum; hoc tamen non obstante, si, positis nominum definitionibus loco nominum, oppositio appareat, inter opposita collocamus. Sicut, verbi gratia, homo mortuus, licet oppositionem non praeseferat, tamen si loco hominis et mortui eorum definitionibus utamur, videbitur contradictio. Dicemus enim corpus animatum rationale, corpus inanimatum irrationale. In quantiscunque, inquam, coniunctis nulla est oppositio, et secundum se, et non secundum accidens praedicantur, in his verum erit dicere et simpliciter, idest divisim quod fuerat coniunctim enunciatum.	8. When he says, Therefore, in whatever predications no contrariety is present when definitions are put in place of the names, etc., he replies to the affirmative part of the question, i.e., when it is licit to infer divisively from conjoined predicates. He maintains that two conditions—opposed to what has been said earlier in this portion of the text—must combine in one enunciation in order that such a consequence be effected: there must be no opposition between the parts conjoined, and they must be predicated per se. He says, then, inferring from what has been said: Therefore, in whatever predicaments, i.e., predicates joined in a certain order, no contrariety, in virtue of which contradiction is posited in the third thing denominated (for contraries mutually remove each other from the same thing), is present, or universally, no opposition is present, i.e., upon which a contradiction follows in the third thing denominated, when definitions are taken in place of the names.... He says this because it may be the case that the opposition is not apparent from the names alone, as in "dead man,” and again it may be, as in "living dead,” but whether apparent or not it will be evident that we are putting together opposites if we posit the definitions of the names in place of the names. For example, in the case of "dead man,” if we replace "man” and "dead,” with their definitions, the contradiction will be evident, for what we are saying is "rational animate body, irrational inanimate body.” In whatever conjoined predicates, then, there is no opposition, and wherein predicates are predicated per se and not accidentally, in these it will also be true to predicate them singly, i.e., say divisively what had been enunciated conjointly.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 9 Ad evidentiam secundae conditionis hic positae, nota quod ly secundum se potest dupliciter accipi: uno modo positive, et sic dicit perseitatem primi, secundi, universaliter, quarti modi; alio modo negative, et sic idem sonat quod non per aliud. Rursus considerandum est quod cum Aristoteles dixit de praedicato coniuncto quod, secundum se praedicetur, ly secundum se potest ad tria referri, scilicet, ad partes coniuncti inter se, ad totum coniunctum respectu subiecti, et ad partes coniuncti respectu subiecti. Si ergo accipiatur ly secundum se positive, licet non falsus, extraneus tamen a mente Aristotelis reperitur sensus ad quodcunque illorum trium referatur. Licet enim valeat, est homo risibilis, ergo est homo et est risibilis, et, est animal rationale, ergo est animal et est rationale; tamen his oppositae inferunt similes consequentias. Dicimus enim, est albus musicus, ergo est musicus et est albus: ubi nulla est perseitas, sed est coniunctio per accidens, tam inter partes inter se, quam inter totum et subiectum, quam etiam inter partes et subiectum. Liquet igitur quod non accipit Aristoteles ly secundum se positive, ex eo quod vana fuisset talis additio, quae ab oppositis non facit in hoc differentiam. Ad quid enim addidit, secundum se, et non, secundum accidens, si tam illae quae sunt secundum se, modo exposito, quam illae quae sunt secundum accidens ex coniuncto, inferunt divisum? Si vero accipiatur secundum se, negative, idest, non per aliud, et referatur ad partes coniuncti inter se, falsa invenitur regula. Nam non licet dicere, est bonus citharoedus; ergo est bonus et citharoedus; et tamen ars citharizandi et bonitas eius sine medio coniunguntur. Et similiter contingit, si referatur ad totum coniunctum respectu subiecti, ut in eodem exemplo apparet. Totum enim hoc, citharoedus bonus, non propter aliud convenit homini; et tamen non infert, ut dictum est, divisionem. Superest ergo ut ad partem coniuncti respectu subiecti referatur, et sit sensus: quando aliqua coniunctim praedicata, secundum se, idest, non per aliud, praedicantur, idest, quod utraque pars praedicatur de subiecto non propter alteram, sed propter seipsam et subiectum, tunc ex coniuncto infertur divisa praedicatio.	9. In order to make this second condition clear, it should be noted that "per se” can be taken in two ways: positively, and thus it refers to "perseity” of the first, of the second, and of the fourth mode universally; or negatively, and thus it means the same as not through something else. It should also be noted that when Aristotle says of a conjoined predicate that it is predicated "per se,” the "per se” can be referred to three things: to the parts of the conjunction among themselves, to the whole conjunction with respect to the subject, and to the parts of the conjoined predicate with respect to the subject. Now if "per se” is taken positively, although it will not be false, nevertheless in reference to any of these three the meaning will be found to be foreign to the mind of Aristotle. For, although these are valid: "He is a risible man, therefore he is man and he is risible” and "He is a rational animal, therefore he is animal and he is rational,” nevertheless the opposite kind of predication infers consequences in a similar way. For example, there is no 11 perseity” in "He is a white musician, therefore he is white and he is a musician”; rather, there is an accidental conjunction, not only between the parts among themselves and between the whole and the subject, but even between the parts and the subject. It is evident, therefore, that Aristotle is not taking "per se” positively, for an addition that does not differentiate this kind of predication from the opposed kind of predication would be useless. Why add "per se and not accidentally,” if both those that are per se in the way explained and those that are conjoined accidentally infer divisively? If "per se” is taken negatively, i.e., as not through another, and is referred to the parts of the conjoined predicate among themselves, the rule is found to be false. It is not licit, for example, to say, "He is a good lute player, therefore he is good and a lute player”; yet the art of lute-playing and its goodness are conjoined without anything as a medium. And the case is the same if it is referred to the whole conjoined predicate with respect to the subject, as is clear in the same example, for the whole, "good lute player,” does not belong to man on account of another, and yet it does not infer the division, as has already been said. Therefore, "per se” is referred to the parts of the conjoined predicate with respect to the subject and the meaning is: when the predicates are conjointly predicated per se, i.e., not through another, i.e., each part is predicated of the subject, not on account of another but on account of itself and the subject, then a divided predication is inferred from the conjoined predication.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 10 Et hoc modo exponunt Averroes et Boethius; et vera invenitur regula, ut inductive facile manifestari potest, et ratio ipsa suadet. Si enim partes alicuius coniuncti praedicati ita inhaerent subiecto quod neutra propter alteram insit, earum separatio nihil habet quod veritatem impediat divisarum. Est et verbis Aristotelis consonus sensus iste. Quoniam et per hoc distinguit inter enunciationes ex quibus coniunctum infert divisam praedicationem, et eas quibus haec non inest consequentia. Istae siquidem ultra habentes oppositiones in adiecto, sunt habentes praedicatum coniunctum, cuius una partium alterius est ita determinatio, quod nonnisi per illam subiectum respicit, sicut apparet in exemplo ab Aristotele adducto, Homerus est poeta. Est siquidem ibi non respicit Homerum ratione ipsius Homeri, sed praecise ratione poesis relictae; et ideo non licet inferre, ergo Homerus est. Et simile est in negativis. Si quis enim dicat, Socrates non est paries, non licet inferre, ergo Socrates non est, eadem ratione, quia esse non est negatum de Socrate, sed de pariete in Socrate.	10. This is the way in which Averroes and Boethius explain this and, explained in this way, a true rule is found, as can easily be manifested inductively; moreover, the reasoning is compelling. For, if the parts of some conjoined predicate so inhere in the subject that neither is in it on account of another, their separation produces nothing that could impede the truth of the divided predicates. And this meaning is consonant with the words of Aristotle, for by this he also distinguishes between enunciations in which the conjoined predicate infers a divided predicate, and those in which this consequence is not inherent. For besides the predicates having opposition in the additional determining element, there are those with a conjoined predicate wherein one part is a determination of the other in such a way that only through it does it regard the subject, as is evident in Aristotle’s example, "Homer is a poet.” The "is” does not regard Homer by reason of Homer himself, but precisely by reason of the poetry he left. Hence it is not licit to infer, "Therefore Homer is.” The same is true with respect to negative enunciations of this type, for it is not licit to infer from "Socrates is not a wall,” "Therefore Socrates is not.” And the reason is the same: "to be” is not denied of Socrates, but of "wallness” in Socrates.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 11 Et per hoc patet qualiter sit intelligenda ratio in textu superiore adducta. Accipitur enim ibi, secundum se negative, modo hic exposito, et secundum accidens, idest propter aliud. In eadem ergo significatione est usus ly secundum accidens, solvendo hanc et praecedentem quaestionem: utrobique enim intellexit secundum accidens, idest, propter aliud, coniuncta, sed ad diversa retulit. Ibi namque ly secundum accidens determinabat coniunctionem duorum praedicatorum inter se; hic vero determinat partem coniuncti praedicati in ordine ad subiectum. Unde ibi, album et musicum, inter ea quae secundum accidens sunt, numerabantur; hic autem non.	11. Accordingly, it is evident how the reasoning in the text above is to be understood. "Per se” is taken negatively in the way explained here, and "accidentally” as "on account of another.” The "accidentally” is used with the same signification in solving this and the preceding question. In both he understands "accidentally” to mean conjoined on account of another, but it is referred to diverse things. In the preceding question "accidentally” determines the way in which two predicates are conjoined among themselves; in the latter question it determines the way in which the part of the conjoined predicate is ordered to the subject. Hence, in the former, "white” and "musician” are numbered among the things that are accidental, but in the latter they are not.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 12 Sed occurrit circa hanc expositionem dubitatio non parva. Si enim ideo non licet ex coniuncto inferre divisim, quia altera pars coniuncti non respicit subiectum propter se, sed propter alteram partem (ut dixit Aristoteles de ista enunciatione, Homerus est poeta), sequetur quod numquam a tertio adiacente ad secundum erit bona consequentia: quia in omni enunciatione de tertio adiacente, est respicit subiectum propter praedicatum et non propter se et cetera.	12. This exposition seems a bit dubious, however. For if it is not licit to infer divisively from a conjoined predicate because one part of the conjoined predicate does not regard the subject on account of itself but on account of another part (as Aristotle says of the enunciation, "Homer is a poet”), it will follow that there will never be a good consequence from the third determinant to the second, since in every enunciation with a third determinant, "is” regards the subject on account of the predicate and not on account of itself.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 13 Ad huius difficultatis evidentiam, nota primo hanc distinctionem. Aliud est tractare regulam, quando ex tertio adiacente infertur secundum et quando non, et aliud quando ex coniuncto fit illatio divisa et quando non. Illa siquidem est extra propositum, istam autem venamur. Illa compatitur varietatem terminorum, ista non. Si namque unus terminorum, qui est altera pars coniuncti, secundum significationem seu suppositionem varietur in separatione, non infertur ex coniuncto praedicato illudmet divisim, sed aliud. Nota secundo hanc propositionem: cum ex tertio adiacente infertur secundum, non servatur identitas terminorum. Liquet ista quoad illum terminum, est. Dictum siquidem fuit supra a sancto Thoma, quod aliud importat est secundum adiacens, et aliud est tertium adiacens. Illud namque importat actum essendi simpliciter, hoc autem habitudinem inhaerentiae vel identitatis praedicati ad subiectum. Fit ergo varietas unius termini cum ex tertio adiacente infertur secundum, et consequenter non fit illatio divisi ex coniuncto. Unde praelucet responsio ad obiectionem, quod, licet ex tertio adiacente quandoque possit inferri secundum, numquam tamen ex tertio adiacente licet inferri secundum tamquam ex coniuncto divisum, quia inferri non potest divisim, cuius altera pars ipsa divisione perit. Negetur ergo consequentia obiectionis et ad probationem dicatur quod, optime concludit quod talis illatio est illicita infra limites illationum, quae ex coniuncto divisionem inducunt, de quibus hic Aristoteles loquitur.	13. To make this difficulty clear, we must first note a distinction. It is one thing to treat of the rule when inferring a second determinant from a third determinant, and when not; it is quite another thing when a divided inference is made from a conjoined predicate, and when not. The former is an additional point; the latter is the question we have been inquiring about. The former is compatible with variety of the terms, the latter not. For if one of the terms which is one part of a conjoined predicate will be varied according to signification, or supposition when taken separately, it is not inferred divisively from the conjoined predicate, but the other is. Secondly, note this proposition: when a second determinant is inferred from a third, identity of the terms is not kept. This is evident with respect to the term "is.” Indeed, St. Thomas said above that "is” as the second determinant implies one thing and "is” as the third determinant another. The former implies the act of being simply, the latter implies the relationship of inherence, or identity of the predicate with the subject. Therefore, when the second determinant is inferred from the third, one term is varied and consequently an inference is not made of the divided from the conjoined. Accordingly, the response to the objection is clear, for although the second determinant can sometimes be inferred from the third, it is never licit for the second to be inferred from the third as divided from conjoined, because you cannot infer divisively when one part is destroyed by that very division. Therefore, let the consequence of the objection be denied and for proof let it be said that the conclusion that such an inference is illicit under the limits of inferences which induce division from a conjoined predicate-is good, for this is what Aristotle is speaking of here.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 14 Sed contra hoc instatur. Quia etiam tanquam ex coniuncto divisa fit illatio, Socrates est albus, ergo est, per locum a parte in modo ad suum totum, ubi non fit varietas terminorum. Et ad hoc dicitur quod licet homo albus sit pars in modo hominis (quia nihil minuit de hominis ratione albedo, sed ponit hominem simpliciter), tamen est album non est pars in modo ipsius est, eo quod pars in modo est universale cum conditione non minuente, ponente illud simpliciter. Clarum est autem quod album minuit rationem ipsius est, et non ponit ipsum simpliciter: contrahit enim ad esse secundum quid. Unde apud philosophos, cum fit aliquid album, non dicitur generari, sed generari secundum quid.	14. But the objection is raised against this that in the case of "Socrates is white, therefore be is,” a divided inference can be made as from a conjoined predicate, in virtue of the argument that we can go from what is in the mode of part to its whole as long as the terms remain the same. The answer to this is as follows. It is true that white man is a part in the mode of man (because white diminishes nothing of the notion of man but posits man simply); is white, however, is not a part in the mode of is, because a part in the mode of its whole is a universal, the condition not diminishing the positing of it simply. But it is evident that white diminishes the notion of is, and does not posit it simply, for it contracts it to relative being. Whence when something becomes white, philosophers do not say that it is generated, but generated relatively.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 15 Sed instatur adhuc quia secundum hoc, dicendo, est animal, ergo est, fit illatio divisa per eumdem locum. Animal enim non minuit rationem ipsius est. Ad hoc est dicendum quod ly est, si dicat veritatem propositionis, manifeste peccatur a secundum quid ad simpliciter. Si autem dicat actum essendi, illatio est bona, sed non est de tertio, sed de secundo adiacente.	15. In accordance with this, the objection is raised that in saying "It is an animal, therefore it is,” a divided inference is made in virtue of the same argument; for animal does not diminish the notion of is itself. The answer to this is that if the is asserts the truth of a proposition, the fallacy is committed of going from the relative to the absolute; if the is asserts the act of being, the inference is good, but it is of the second determinant, not of the third.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 16 Potest ulterius dubitari circa principale: quia sequitur, est quantum coloratum, ergo est quantum, et, est coloratum; et tamen coloratum respicit subiectum mediante quantitate: ergo non videtur recta expositio supra adducta. Ad hoc et similia dicendum est quod coloratum non ita inest subiecto per quantitatem quod sit eius determinatio et ratione talis determinationis subiectum denominet, sicut bonitas artem citharisticam determinat; cum dicitur, est citharoedus bonus; sed potius subiectum ipsum primo coloratum denominatur, quantum vero secundario coloratum dicitur, licet color media quantitate suscipiatur. Unde notanter supra diximus, quod tunc altera pars coniuncti praedicatur per accidens, quando praecise denominat subiectum, quia denominat alteram partem. Quod nec in similibus instantiis invenitur.	16. There is another doubt, this time about the principle in the exposition; for this follows, "It is a colored quantity, therefore it is a quantity and it is colored”; but "colored” regards the subject through the medium of quantity; therefore the exposition given above does not seem to be correct. The answer to this and to similar objections is that "colored” is not so present in a subject by means of quantity that it is its determination, and by reason of such a determination denominates the subject; as goodness,” for instance, determines the art of lute-playing when we say "He is a good lute player.” Rather, the subject itself is first denominated "colored” and quantity is called "colored” secondarily, although color is received through the medium of quantity. Hence, we made a point of saying earlier that one part of a conjoined predicate is predicated accidentally when it denominates the subject precisely because it denominates the other part.93 This is not the case here nor in similar instances.
Cajetanus lib. 2 l. 7 n. 17 Deinde cum dicit: quod autem non est etc., excludit quorumdam errorem qui, quod non est, esse tali syllogismo concludere satagebant: quod est, opinabile est. Quod non est, est opinabile. Ergo quod non est, est. Hunc siquidem processum elidit Aristoteles destruendo primam propositionem, quae partem coniuncti in subiecto divisim praedicat, ac si diceret: est opinabile, ergo est. Unde assumendo subiectum conclusionis illorum ait: quod autem non est; et addit medium eorum, quoniam opinabile est; et subdit maiorem extremitatem, non est verum dicere, esse aliquid. Et causam assignat, quia talis opinatio non propterea est, quia illud sit, sed potius quia non est.	17. When he says, In the case of non-being, however, it is not true to say that it is something, etc., he excludes the error of those who were satisfied to conclude that what is not, is. This is the syllogism they use: "That which is, is ‘opinionable’; that which is not, is ‘opinionable’; therefore what is not, is.” Aristotle destroys this process of reasoning by destroying the first proposition, which predicates divisively a part of what is conjoined in the subject, as if it said "It is ‘opinionable,’ therefore it is.” Hence, assuming the subject of their conclusion, he says, In the case of that which is not, however; and he adds their middle term, because it is a matter of opinion; then he adds the major extreme, it is not true to say that it is something. He then assigns the cause: it is not because it is but rather because it is not, that there is such opinion.