# Organon (Owen)/Topics/Book 5

(1853) Translator's annotations not included.
Layout 2
Chap. 1. Upon Property.
    1. Property assigned, either per se and always, or with reference to something, and sometimes.
    2. The last may be impugned in two, or four ways.
    3. Distinction between property per se and with reference to something.
    4. Also between that "always" and "sometimes."
    5. What is assigned with reference to another, is either always, or for the most part, property.
    6. Disputation generally conversant with that property which is per se, and always, and which is referred to another.
    7. The last to be considered from the topics of accident.
Chap. 2. Of the correct Exposition of the Property.
    1. What constitutes a good exposition of property, is its being more evident than its subject.
    2. Assignment of property is subverted if there be some name or sentence of various signification.
    3. Also if there is a multifarious predication of the subject.
    4. Also if there be frequent repetition.
    5. Also if that be in the property, which is common to all.
    6. If many properties are assigned of the same thing, without distinction.
Chap. 3. Topics connected with Property continued.
    1. Observe whether the thing itself is contained in its assigned property.
    2. Also whether the opposite to the thing itself, or what is less clear than the latter, be taken as the property.
    3. Also whether that is assigned, which is not always joined to the thing.
    4. Also whether the assigner of a present property, does not distinguish time.
    5. Whether what is only evident by sense, is assigned.
    6. Whether definition is assigned as property.
    7. Whether it does not necessarily consist with the very nature of a thing.
Chap. 4. Topics relative to the Question, whether the assigned be Property or not.
    1. The assigned is not property, if it does not concur with each individual.
    2. Also if the name is not verified of what the sentence is, and vice versâ.
    3. If the subject is assigned as the property.
    4. If that is assigned as a property, which the thing partakes of, as a difference.
    5. Or if that which is by nature prior, or posterior, to the thing itself.
    6. Or if the same thing be not the property of the same things, so far as they are the same.
    7. If of things the same in species, the property is not always specifically the same.
    8. If what is the property of the subject alone, be not so of it, when joined to accident and vice versâ.
Chap. 5. The same Subject continued.
    1. Observe whether for that which is always the property, something be assumed which is joined to the very nature of a thing.
    2. Whether that whose property is assigned, be predicated of some other first, or another of itself as first.
    3. Whether the manner and subject of the property be accurately defined.
    4. If the thing itself be assigned as its own property.
    5. Whether in those things which consist of similar parts, the property of a part, or of the whole, be laid down.
Chap. 6. Of Property from Opposites.
    6.1. Observe whether of opposites, the properties be opposite—of contraries, contrary.
    6.2. Of relatives, relative.
    6.3. Of habit and privation.
    6.4. Of affirmatives and negatives.
   * Whether things repugnant are assigned as the properties of the same thing.
   * Or whether things non-repugnant, be assigned as properties of repugnant subjects.
   * Whether the same property be assumed of things repugnant.
   * Whather of things of the same division, properties are assigned, so as not to keep the same order of division.
Chap. 7. Of Property as to Cases.
    7.1. Whether property is rightly assigned, is known from cases.
    7.2. From those of similar subsistence.
    7.3. From those of the same subsistence.
    7.4. From existence, production, and destruction.
    7.5. From ideas.
Chap. 8. Of Property from the More and Less.
    8.1. Whether property is rightly assigned, is known from things admitting degree.
   * Topic of subversion. The simply of the simply.
   * The more of the more.
   * The rather property.
   * If the more be not property.
    8.2. We also ascertain whether property is rightly assigned, from things of similar subsistence.
       1st topic of subversion.
       2nd
       3rd
       4th A distinction drawn.
Chap. 9. Topics upon Property as to Capacity, etc.
    9.1. Property subverted if assigned in capacity to what is not.
    9.2. Confirmed, vice versâ.
    9.3. Subverted if laid down in hyperbole.

### Chapter 1Chapter 1

Whether what is asserted be property or not property, must be examined through these (places).
Property is assigned either per se and always, or with relation to something else and sometimes, as the property of man per se is an animal naturally mild, but in relation to something else, as of the soul to the body, that the one commands, but the other obeys; always, as of God to be an immortal animal, but sometimes, as of a certain person to walk in the Gymnasium.
Nevertheless, the property assigned with reference to something else produces either two or four problems. For if it is affirmed of one thing, but the same denied of another, two problems only arise, as of man with regard to horse, the property is that he is a biped. For that man is not a biped may be argued by some one, also that a horse is a biped, and in both ways the property may be removed. But if each is affirmed of each, and denied of each, there will be four problems, as the property of man with reference to horse is that the former is biped, but the latter quadruped, for that man is not a biped and that he is naturally a quadruped may be argued, and that a horse is a biped and not a quadruped is capable of argument, in whatever way therefore it is shown, the proposition is subverted.
That indeed is property per se, which is attributed to all, and separates from every thing, as of man to be a mortal animal capable of science. ​Property on the other hand with relation to another, is that which does not separate from every thing, but from a certain definite thing, as of virtue in regard to science, the property is that the one is naturally adapted to be in many, but the other in the reasoning faculty alone, and in those who possess the reasoning faculty. Again, the property "always" is that which is true at all times and never fails, as of animal to be composed of soul and body, but the property "sometimes" is that which is true at a certain time, yet does not always follow from necessity, as of a certain man to walk in the Forum.
We may however assign property with reference to something else, when we assert that difference is either in all and always, or for the most part, and in most, for instance, in all and always, as the property of man with respect to horse is the being biped, for both always and every man is a biped, but no horse is ever a biped. For the most part and in most, as the property of the rational in regard to the appetitive and irascible part, is that the one commands, but the other obeys, since neither does the rational always govern, but sometimes is also governed, nor are the appetitive and irascible always governed, but sometimes also govern when a man's soul is depraved.
Of properties however those are especially logical, which are per se, and always, with reference to something else. For the property with reference to something else produces many problems, as also we observed before, since either two or four problems arise from necessity, wherefore many arguments originate in reference to these. Still we may argue about what is per se and always, in reference to many things, or observe it with regard to many times, what is per se indeed, with reference to many things, for it is necessary that property should be present with a subject in regard to each thing that exists, so that if it is not separated as to all, it would not be well assigned as property. But we may observe that which is always, with regard to many times, and both whether it is not present, or was not present, or will not be present, it will not be property. But the property at ​a certain time, we observe as to the present time, wherefore there are not many arguments belonging to it, but that is a logical problem, in reference to which numerous and good arguments may be framed.
What therefore is stated to be property with reference to something else, must be considered from the places concerning accident, viz. whether it happens to one, but not to another, but those which are at all times, and per se, we must examine by the following places.

### Chapter 2Chapter 2

First, (it must be considered) whether property be not well or be well explained; of the ill or well, one point indeed is, if the property is laid down, not through things which are more known, or which are more known; subverting it, if not through things more known, but confirming it if through things more known. Now of the (being laid down), not through things more known, one (place) is, if the property which a person assigns, is altogether more unknown, than that of which he states it to be the property, for the property will not be well laid down. For we introduce property for the sake of knowledge, wherefore it should be assigned through things more known, for thus it will be more possible sufficiently to apprehend it. For instance, since he who lays it down as the property of fire to be most similar to the soul, employs the soul, which is more unknown than fire, (for we know more what fire, than what the soul, is,) it would not be well laid down as the property of fire to be most similar to the soul. Another (way) is, if it is not more known that this is present with that, since it is necessary not only that (the property) should be more known than the thing, but also that it should be more known to be present with this thing, since he who is ignorant, whether it is present with this thing, will not know whether it is present with this alone, so that whatever of these happens to be the case, the property becomes obscure. For instance, since he who lays down the property of fire, to ​be that, in which first, soul is naturally adapted to be, uses what is more unknown than fire, if soul is inherent in this, and if it is inherent in this first, hence that in which first, soul is naturally adapted to be, would not be well placed as the property of fire. We confirm property indeed, if it is placed through things more known, and if through things more known according to each mode, for according to this, property will be well placed, since of the topics capable of confirming any thing well, some will show that it is placed according to this only, but others simply that it is well placed. For instance, since he who says that the property of animal is to possess sense, assigns the property through things more known, and in a manner more known, according to each mode, after this it would be well assigned, as the property of animal to possess sense.
In the next place, we subvert it, (property,) if some one ot the names which are assigned in the property is multifariously predicated, or if altogether the sentence also signifies many things, for the property will not be laid down. For instance, since to perceive signifies many things, one to possess sense, but another to use sense, a natural aptitude to sensation would not be well laid down as the property of animal. On this account we must neither employ a name of multifarious signification nor a sentence, as signifying property, because what is multifariously predicated, renders the statement obscure; he who is about to argue being in doubt which of the things multifariously predicated he (the other) means, for property is assigned for the sake of learning. Besides, there must of necessity be a certain elenchus against those who thus explain property, when in (a signification in) which what is proposed is false, some one frames a syllogism ​of what is multifariously predicated. On the other hand, we confirm it, if neither any one of the names, nor the whole sentence signify many things; for in this respect the property will be well laid down, thus since neither body denotes many things, nor that which is most easily moved to an upward place, nor the whole composed of these, according to this, a body which is most easily moved to an upward place would be well assigned as the property of fire.
In the next place, we subvert it if that is multifariously predicated, of which they assign the property, yet it is not defined, of which of them the property is laid down, for the property (thus), will not be well assigned. On account of what reason is not obscure from what has been before said, for the same things must necessarily result, for instance, since to know this thing scientifically, signifies many things, (viz. that this possesses science and that it uses science, and that there is a science of it, and that we use the science of it,) the property of scientifically knowing this thing, would not be well assigned when it is not defined, of which of them, the property is laid down. We confirm it, however, if that of which the property is placed, be not multifariously predicated, but is one and simple, for as to this, the property will be well laid down, for instance, since man is predicated as one thing, it would be well laid down as to this, that the property of man (consisted in his being) an animal naturally mild.
Again, we subvert it, if the same thing has frequently been mentioned in the property, for oftentimes it escapes notice when men do this, as well in properties as in definitions. Now the property of this kind will not be well laid down, for the frequent repetition disturbs the hearer, so that obscurity necessarily arises, and besides this men seem loquacious. Still it will happen that the same thing is frequently repeated in two modes, the one, when we often denominate the same, as if any one assigned the property of fire to be a body the most subtle of all bodies, (for he repeats the word body,) and in the second place, if a man assumes definitions instead of names, as if he should give as the property of earth, that it was an essence which, most of all bodies, naturally tends to a downward place, and should afterwards assume, instead of (the word) bodies, such ​essences, for body and such an essence are one and the same thing, so that he will repeat the word essence, and neither of the properties would be well placed. We confirm it, indeed, if no one and the same name be frequently used, for as to this the property will be well assigned, e. g. since he who says, the property of man is an animal capable of science, does not frequently employ the same name, in this respect the property of man would be well assigned.
Next, property is subverted, if such a name is assigned in the property as is present with all, for that will be useless which is not separated from some, but what is asserted in properties, we ought to separate, as also in definitions, wherefore, the property will not be well stated. Thus, since he who assigns as the property of science, opinion immutable by reason, being one, uses a certain such thing in property, viz. one which is present with all, the property of science would not be well stated; on the other hand we confirm it, if no common term has been used, but one separating from a certain thing, for in this respect the property would be well stated, thus, since he who says the property of animal is to have a soul, uses no common (term), in this respect it would be well laid down, as the property of animal, that it possesses a soul. Moreover it is subverted, if a person assign many properties of the same thing, not distinguishing that he assigns many, for the property will not be well placed. For as in definitions it is not requisite that any thing more should be added, than the sentence denoting the essence, so neither in properties should any thing be added, besides the sentence which constitutes what is asserted to be the property, since a thing of this kind is useless. Thus, since he who states that the property of fire is to be a body of the greatest subtlety and lightness, assigns many properties, (for it is true) to assert each of fire alone, it would not be well laid down as the property of fire to be a body, most subtle and most light. On the other hand, he confirms property who has not assigned many properties, but one of the same thing, for as to this, the property will be well stated, thus, since he who says that the property of moisture is a body which can be brought to every shape, assigns ​one property and not many, in this respect property of moisture would be well stated.

### Chapter 3Chapter 3

In the next place, the subverter (ought to consider) if he (the proposer) has used that, the property of which he assigns, or some of its (subjects), for the property will not be well laid down. For the property is assigned, for the sake of learning; the same thing therefore is similarly unknown with itself, but what is the subject of a certain thing is posterior to it, and therefore is not more known. Hence, through these, greater instruction in any thing does not happen, e.g. since he who states the property of animal, to be a substance, a species of which is man, uses some one of the subjects of this (animal), the property would not be well stated. But the confirmer (must observe) if he uses neither it, nor any of its subjects, for in this respect, property will be well stated; thus, since he who lays down the property of animal, to be composed of soul and body neither uses it, nor any of its subjects, the property of animal, with regard to this, would be well assigned.
In the same manner, also, consideration must be paid as to the other things which do not, or which do render, a thing more known, subverting, indeed, if what is opposite is used, or in short, what is simultaneous in nature, or any thing posterior, for the property will not be well stated. What is opposite is indeed simultaneous in nature, but what is simultaneous in nature and what is posterior, do not render a thing more known. For instance, since he who states the property of good, to be that which is especially opposed to evil, uses the opposite of good, the property of good would not be well assigned. On the other hand, we confirm it if nothing opposite is used, nor, in short, what is simultaneous in nature, nor what is posterior, for as to this, the property will be well assigned; e.g. since he who lays down the property of knowledge, to be a notion in the highest degree credible, uses neither an opposite, nor what is simultaneous ​in nature, nor what is posterior, so far as regards this, the property of knowledge would be well stated.
We next subvert peculiarity, indeed, if what does not always follow, has been assigned as the property, but that which sometimes happens not to be property, for the property will not be well explained: since neither will the name even be necessarily verified, in respect of that in which we apprehend its being inherent, nor of what it is apprehended not to be inherent, will the name necessarily not he asserted of this. Further, besides these, neither when the property is assigned, will it be clear whether it is inherent, if it is a thing of that kind as to fail, therefore the property will not be clear; e.g. since he who places the property of animal sometimes to be moved and to stand still, has assigned a property which is sometimes not a property, the latter would not be well laid down. On the other hand, it is confirmed, if that is assigned which is necessarily always a property, for in this respect the property would be well stated, since he who asserts the property of virtue to be that which makes its possessor a worthy man, assigns that which always follows as a property, so far as regards this, the property of virtue would be well assigned.
In the next place, it is subverted if some one assigning that which is now a property, does not declare that he assigns what is now a property, since the property will not be well stated. For, first, every thing which is contrary to custom requires explanation, and for the most part, all men are accustomed to assign as property that which is always consequent; secondly, he is uncertain who does not explain whether he desired to state that which is now property, wherefore a pretext of reproof must not be given. For instance, since he who states the property of a certain man, is to sit with a certain man, lays down that which is now a property; he would not place the property well, if he did not speak with explanation. Nevertheless, he confirms it if, assigning what is property at present, he explains that he adduces the present property, for in this respect the property will be well stated; thus, since he who asserts the property of a certain man to be ​his walking now, asserts this with a distinction, the property would be well alleged.
Next, it is subverted if such a property is assigned, which is in no other way evident to be inherent than by sense, since the property will not be well placed; for every thing sensible, when it is external to sense becomes obscure, since it is not apparent whether it is still inherent, because of its only being known by sense. This, indeed, would be true in those things which do not always follow from necessity. For example, since he who asserts the property of the sun to be the most splendid star moved above the earth, uses such (an expression) in the property, to be moved above the earth, which is known by sense, the property of the sun would not be well assigned, for it would be doubtful when the sun sets, whether it is moved above the earth, because of sense then failing us. Property, however, is confirmed if such a kind has been given, as is not evident to sense, or which, being sensible, is manifestly inherent of necessity, for in this respect the property will be well stated. Thus, since he who lays down, as the property of superficies, to be that which is first coloured, uses, indeed, something sensible, viz. to be coloured, but of such a kind as is evidently always inherent, in this respect the property of superficies would be well assigned.
Next, it is subverted if definition is assigned as property, for the property will not be well stated, since it ought not to manifest the very nature of a thing; e.g. since he who says the property of man is to be an animal pedestrian biped, assigns as the property of man that which signifies his very nature, the property of man would not be well assigned. But we confirm it if a property which reciprocates is assigned, yet which does not manifest the very nature of a thing, since in this respect the property would be well assigned; e.g. since he who states the property of man to be an animal naturally mild, assigns a property which reciprocates indeed, yet does not manifest the very nature of man, in this respect the property of man would be well assigned.
​Moreover, it is subverted, if he who assigns the property, does not assert what a thing is, since it is necessary with properties, as with definitions, to assign the first genus, next, to add what remains, and to separate. Hence, the property which is not placed after this manner would not be well assigned; thus, since he who asserts that the property of animal is to have a soul, does not state what an animal is, the property of animal would not be well laid down. Again, we confirm it, if any one, asserting what that is of which he assigns the property, annexes what remains, for in this respect the property will be well assigned; thus, since he who asserts the property of man to be an animal susceptible of science, by asserting what man is, assigns his property, in this respect, the property of man would be well assigned.

### Chapter 4Chapter 4

Whether, however, what is assigned as property, be so well, or ill, must be examined from such (places), but whether what is stated be altogether property or not property, must be inspected from these. For those which simply confirm that the property is well stated, will be the same places as those which produce property at all, therefore they will be explained with them.
First then in confirmation, we must regard each particular, of which the property has been assigned, as whether it is present with no individual, or is not verified in this respect, or whether it is not the property of each of them, as regards that of which the property has been assigned, for the property will not be that which was laid down as the property. For instance, since it is not truly asserted of a geometrician that he cannot be deceived by argument, (for a geometrician is deceived when there is made a false description,) it would ​not be the property of a scientific man, not to be deceived by argument. It is confirmed, on the other hand, if it is verified of every thing, and is true as regards this, for that will be property which was stated not to be property; e.g. since an animal capable of science is verified of every man, and so far as he is man, an animal capable of science would be the property of man. This place indeed is for subversion, if a sentence is not verified of what the name is verified, and if of what the sentence is verified the name is not verified, but it belongs to confirmation, if of what the name, the sentence also is verified, and if of what a sentence is predicated, a name also is.
In the next place, we subvert it, if, of what the sentence is, the name also is not verified, and if, of what the name is spoken, the sentence is not, since what is stated to be property, will not be property. For example, since animal partaking of science is verified of God, but man is not predicated, animal partaking of science would not be the property of man. But we confirm it, if, of what the sentence is, the name also is predicated, and if, of what the name, the sentence also is predicated, since that will be property which was stated not to be so; thus, since animal is verified of that of which the possession of a soul is, and the possession of a soul of that of which animal is, the possession of a soul would be the property of animal.
Again, it is subverted, if the subject is assigned as the property of what is stated in the subject, since that will not be property which is stated to be so; e.g. since he who asserts the property of body, consisting of the most subtle parts, is fire, assigns the subject as the property of that which is predicated, fire would not be the property of a body of the most subtle parts. Wherefore the subject will not be the property of that which is in the subject, because the same thing will be the property of many things specifically different, since many things differing in species are present with the same, being predicated of it alone, the property of all which, will be the subject, if a person thus places the property. Again, property is confirmed if that which is in the subject is assigned as the property of the ​subject, for that will be property which was stated not to be so, if it is predicated of those alone of which it is said to be the property; thus, since he who says that the property of earth, is body specifically the heaviest, assigns the property of the subject which is predicated of that thing alone, and as a property, the property of earth would be rightly stated.
We next subvert it, if the property is assigned according to participation, for that will not be property which was stated to be so, since what is present according to participation, belongs to the very nature of a thing, but this sort would be a certain difference predicated of some one species: thus, since he who says the property of man is a pedestrian biped, assigns the property according to participation, pedestrian biped would not be the property of man. We confirm, on the contrary, if the property is not assigned according to participation, nor manifests the very nature when the thing reciprocates, for that will be property which is stated not to be property; thus, since he who places the property of animal, as naturally to possess sensation, neither assigns property according to participation, nor manifests the very nature, the thing itself reciprocating with it, naturally to possess sensation, would be the property of animal.
Again, we subvert it, if the property cannot be at the same time inherent, but either subsequent or prior to, that of which it is the name, for what is stated to be property, will not be so, either never, or not always: thus, since it is possible for walking through the forum, to be present with some one, both prior and subsequent to its being man, walking through the forum would not be the property of man, either never, or not always. We confirm it however, if it is always present from necessity at the same time, being neither definition nor difference, since that will be property which was stated not to be so; thus, since animal capable of science, and man, always exist necessarily at one and the same time, being neither difference nor definition, animal susceptible of science, would be the property of man.
Moreover, we subvert it, if the same thing is not the property of the same things, so far as they are the same, since that will not be property which is ​stated to be so; thus, since it is not the property of what is the object of pursuit, to appear good to certain persons, the latter would not be the property of the eligible, for what is the object of pursuit, and the eligible, are the same thing. But it is confirmed, if the same is the property of the same, so far as it is the same, since that will be property which is stated not to be so: thus, since of man, so far as he is man, the possession of a tripartate soul is said to be the property; the possession of this, would also be the property of mortal, so far as mortal. Now this place is likewise useful for accident, since it is necessary that the same things should be or not be present, with the same things, so far as they are the same.
Again, we subvert, if of things the same in species, the property is not always the same in species, since neither will what is stated be the property of the thing proposed; thus, since man and horse are the same in species, but it is not always the property of a horse to stand from himself, neither will it be the property of man to be moved from himself, since to be moved and to stand from self are the same in species, and happen to each of these, so far as he is animal. On the other hand, we confirm it, if of what are the same in species the property is always the same, for that will be property which is stated not to be so; thus, since it is the property of man to be a pedestrian biped, it would also be the property of bird to be a winged biped, since each of these is specifically the same, so far as some are as species under the same genus, being under animal, but others are as differences of the genus, animal. Now this place indeed is false, when one of those mentioned is present with one species alone, but the other with many, as a pedestrian quadruped.
Since however "same" and "different" are multifariously predicated, it is difficult, when they ​are sophistically assumed, to assign the property of some one thing alone; for what is present with something to which any thing happens, will also be present with the accident assumed together with that, to which it is accidental; thus, what is present with man, will also be with white man, if man is white, and what is with white man, will also be with man. Some one however may find fault with many of these properties, if he makes one subject subsistent per se, but another with accident, as if he stated man to be one thing, but white man another, moreover, making the habit another, and that which is enunciated according to the habit. For what is present with habit will also be present with what is denominated according to habit, and what is present with that denominated according to habit, will also be present with habit. Thus, since he who possesses science is said to be scientifically disposed, the property of science would not be the being immutable in opinion by reason, for the man of science will be unpersuadable by reason. In confirmation however it must be stated, that that to which a thing happens, and the accident taken together with that to which it is accidental, are not different simply, but they are said to be so from their essence being different, since it is not the same thing for man to be man, and for a white man to be a white man. Besides, we must inspect cases, stating that neither will he be scientific, who is (a thing) unpersuadable by reason, but he who is unpersuadable by reason, nor is science that which cannot be induced to change its opinion by reason, but the being unchangeable by reason, for he who in every way objects, must in every way be opposed.

### Chapter 5Chapter 5

Property is, in the next place, subverted, if he who wishes to assign what is naturally inherent, ​places it after that manner in his discourse, as to signify what is always inherent, since he will seem to have subverted that, which was stated to be the property. Thus, since he who says that the property of man is to be a biped, wishes to assign what is naturally inherent indeed, but signifies in the enunciation what is always inherent, biped would not be the property of man, since not every man has two feet. On the other hand, he confirms it, if he desires to assign the property which is naturally inherent, and signifies it after this manner in his speech, for as to this, property will not be subverted. Thus, since he who assigns the property of man, to be an animal susceptible of science, both desires and also signifies in speech, the property which is naturally inherent, it would not, as regards this, be subverted, as that an animal susceptible of science is not the property of man.
Besides, with regard to such things as are enunciated, as to some other first, or as that which is itself first, (i.e. per se,) it is difficult to assign the property of such as these; for if you assign the property of what is through something else, it will also be verified in respect of what is first, but if you assign the property of the first, it will also be predicated of that which subsists according to something else. Thus, if some one asserts the property of superficies to be coloured, to be coloured will also be verified of body, but if of body, it will also be predicated of superficies; so that of what a sentence is verified, a name is not also verified.
Nevertheless, it happens with some properties, that an error for the most part happens from the want of definition, as to how and of what things the property is assigned. For all men endeavour to assign property, either as what is naturally inherent, as biped of man, or as what is (merely) inherent, as of a certain man to have four fingers, or as in species, as of fire that which is most subtle, or simply, as of animal to live, or through another, as of soul to be wise, or as the first, as of the reasoning faculty to possess prudence, or as in having, as of the scientific to be unconvincible by argument, (for to be unconvincible in argument will be nothing else than to have ​something,) or from being had, as of science, the being unchanged by reason, or from being participated, as sensation, by animal, (since something else also has sensation as man, but he perceives because he is a participant of animal,) or in consequence of participating, as of a certain animal to live. He errs, therefore, who does not add the word naturally, because what is naturally inherent, it is possible may not be inherent in that, to which it is natural to be inherent, as in a man to have two feet, He, however, who does not distinguish that he assigns what is inherent (errs), because a thing will not be such (sometimes) as it is now, as for man to have four fingers, but he errs who does not show that he assigns it, as what is first, or as through something else, because the name will not be verified of that, of which the definition is, as to be coloured, whether it is assigned as the property of superficies or of body. He, again, who does not previously declare that he assigns property, either from having, or from being had, (errs,) because it will not be property, for it will be inherent, if he assign the property from being had, in that which has, but if from having, in that which is had, as the being unconvincible by reason being laid down as the property of science, or of the scientific man. He, again, who does not, besides, signify (that he assigns property), from a thing partaking or being partaken of, (errs,) because the property will be present with certain other things also; if, indeed, he assign it from being partaken of, it will be present with those partaking it, but if from its partaking, with those which are partaken of, as if to live should be placed as the property of some certain animal, or of animal. (Again he errs), who does not distinguish (that the property is assigned) in species, because it will be present with one thing alone, of those which are under this, of which he assigns the property, for what exists according to excess is present with one thing alone; as of fire, that which is most light. Sometimes, indeed, he who adds the expression "in species" errs, for it will be necessary that there should be one species of the things stated, when the words "in species" are added, but this does not occur in some things, as neither in fire, for there is not one species of fire, since a burning coal, flame, and light, each of them being fire, are specifically different. For this reason, there is no necessity, ​when the words "in species" are added, that there should be another species of what is stated, because what is assigned as property will be more present with some, but less with others, as of fire that which is most subtle, for light is more subtle than a burning coal, and than flame. Nevertheless, this ought not to happen, when the name is not more predicated of that, of which the sentence is more verified, for otherwise it will not be (true), that of what the sentence is more, the name is also more (predicated.) Moreover, besides these, the same thing will happen to be the property of what is simply, and of what is especially; in what is simply, as the most subtle happens in the case of fire, for this very thing will be property of light also, since light is most subtle. If, therefore, another person should thus assign property, we must argue, but he must not yield to this objection, but straightway, when the property is assigned, define the manner in which he assigns it.
In the next place, property is subverted if a thing is assigned as the property of itself, for what is stated to be, will not be property, since every thing which is the same with a thing, manifests essence, but that which manifests essence is not property, but definition; thus, since he who says that the becoming, is a property of good, assigns that which is the property of itself, (for the good and the becoming are the same,) the becoming, would not be the property of the good. On the other hand, we confirm it, if the same is not assigned as the property of itself, but that which reciprocates is laid down, for what is stated not to be, will be property; e.g. since he who asserts the property of animal is animated substance, does not lay down the same thing as the property of itself, but assigns what reciprocates, animated substance would be the property of animal.
Next, we must consider this in the case of those which consist of similar parts, the subverter indeed whether the property of the whole is not verified of the part, or whether the property of the part is not predicated of the whole, since what is stated to be, will not be property. In some things indeed this occurs, as a man may assign ​perty in things of similar parts, sometimes looking to the whole, and sometimes directing his attention to what is enunciated according to a part, yet neither will bo rightly assigned. For instance, in the whole of thing; since he who states the property of the sea is an abundance of salt water, introduces the property of a certain thing, consisting of similar parts, but assigns such as is not verified of a part, (for a certain sea does not abound with salt water,) the property of the sea would not be an abundance of salt water. Again, in the case of a part, e.g, since he who states the property of air to be the respirable, asserts the property of a certain thing of similar parts, but assigns such a thing as is verified of a certain air, but is not spoken of all air, (for all is not respirable,) the respirable would not be the property of air. Now he who confirms, (must see) whether of each of the things consisting of similar parts, that is verified, which is the property of them according to the whole, since what is stated not to be, will be property: thus, since it is verified of all earth to tend naturally downward, and this is the property of certain earth according to earth, to tend naturally downward would be the property of earth.

### Chapter 6Chapter 6

We must next consider from opposites; first, from contraries, the subverter indeed whether the contrary is not the property of the contrary, since a contrary will not be the property of a contrary; thus, since injustice is contrary to justice, but the worst to the best, and the best is not the property of justice, neither would the worst be the property of injustice. On the other hand, the confirmer (must examine), whether the contrary is the property of the contrary, for a contrary will be the property of a contrary; thus, since evil is contrary to good, and what is to be avoided to what is eligible, but the property of good is the eligible, the property of evil would be that which is to be avoided.
Next, from relatives; the subverter indeed if one relative is not the property of another relative, for this relative will not be the property of that relative; thus, since the double is spoken relatively to ​the half, and the exceeding to the exceeded, but the exceeding is not the property of the double, the exceeded would not be the property of the half. It is confirmed however, if one relative is the property of another, for this relative will be the property of that; thus, since the double is spoken relatively to the half, one indeed with relation to two, but two to one, and the property of the double is as two to one, the property of the half will be as one to two.
Thirdly, it is subverted, if what is predicated according to habit is not the property of the habit, since neither will what is predicated according to privation be the property of privation; also if what is predicated as to privation is not the property of privation, neither will what is predicated as to habit be the property of habit; thus, since privation of sense is not said to be the property of deafness, neither would sensation be the property of hearing. Again, it is confirmed, if what is predicated according to habit is the property of habit, for what is predicated as to privation will be also the property of privation; and if what is predicated as to privation is the property of privation, what is predicated as to habit will be the property of habit. Thus, since it is the property of sight to see, according as we possess sight, not to see, would be the property of blindness, according as we do not possess sight when we are naturally adapted to have it.
Moreover, from affirmatives and negatives, and, first, from the predicates themselves; but this place is useful for the subverter only. Thus, if affirmation, or what is predicated as to affirmation, is the property of a thing, neither negation nor what is predicated as to negation will be the property of it; but if negation, or what is predicated according to negation, is its property, neither affirmation nor what is predicated as to affirmation will be its property; thus, since animated is the property of animal, what is not animated will not be the property of animal.
​Secondly, from things predicated or not predicated, and of which they are predicated or not predicated, subverting it indeed if affirmation is not the property, of affirmation; for neither will negation be the property of negation, and if negation is not the property of negation, neither will affirmation be the property of affirmation. Thus, since animal is not the property of man, neither would what is not animal be the property of what is not man, and if what is not animal appears to be not the property of what is not man, neither will animal be the property of man. We confirm it, on the contrary, if affirmation is the property of affirmation, for negation will also be the property of negation, and if negation is the property of negation, affirmation also will be the property of affirmation; thus, since not to live is the property of what is not animal, to live would be the property of animal; and if to live appears the property of animal, not to live will appear the property of what is not animal.
Thirdly, from subjects themselves, subverting indeed if the assigned property is the property of affirmation, since the same will not also be the property of negation; but if what is assigned be the property of negation, it will not be the property of affirmation; thus, since the animated is the property of animal, the animated would not be the property of what is not animal. On the other hand confirming it, if the assigned be not the property of affirmation, for it would be that of negation. This place however is false, for affirmation is not the property of negation, nor negation of affirmation, for affirmation is not wholly present with negation, but negation is with affirmation, yet is not present as a property.
Next, from things oppositely divided, subverting indeed, if none of the oppositely divided is the property of no one of the remaining oppositely divided, since neither will what is stated, be the property of that of which it is stated as the property; thus, since sensible animal is the property of no other animal, intelligible animal would not be the property of God. Again, confirming it, if any one of the remainder oppositely divided, is the property of each of these ​which are oppositely divided; for the remainder will be the property of that of which it is stated not to be the property; thus, since it is the property of prudence to be naturally per se, the virtue of the reasoning part, and of each of the other virtues thus assumed, the property of prudence would be, to be naturally per se, the virtue of the appetitive part of the soul.

### Chapter 7Chapter 7

In the next place, from cases, subverting property indeed if case is not the property of case, for neither will one case be the property of the other; thus, since what is beautifully is not the property of what is justly, the beautiful would not be the property of the just. On the other hand, confirming if case is the property of case, for the one case will be the property of the other; thus, since pedestrian biped is the property of man (in the nominative case), it would also be the property of man to be called pedestrian biped (in the dative case). Not only however must we observe cases in respect of what has been stated, but also in opposites, as was observed in the former places, subverting indeed if the case of the opposite is not the property of the case of the opposite, for neither will the case of one opposite be the property of the case of another opposite; thus, since what is well (done) is not the property of what is justly done), neither would be ill (done), the property of that which is done unjustly. Again, we confirm it, if the case of the opposite be the property of the case of the opposite, for the case of this opposite will be the property of the case of that opposite; thus, since best is the property of good, worst would be the property of evil.
Next, from those which subsist similarly, subverting, indeed, if what subsists similarly is not the property of what has similar subsistence, for neither will what subsists similarly be the property of that which has similar subsistence. Thus, since the builder of a house subsists similarly with regard to building a house, as the physician with regard to producing health, but it is not the property of the physician to produce health, neither would it be the property of the house-builder to produce a house. ​It is confirmed, however, if what subsists similarly is the property of what has similar subsistence, for the similarly subsisting will also be the property of what has similar subsistence; thus, since the physician subsists similarly with regard to being effective of health, as the trainer of the gymnasium to the being effective of a good habit of body, but the being effective of a good habit of body is the property of the trainer, to be effective of health would be the property of the physician.
Next, from those which subsist after the same manner, subverting, indeed, if what subsists after the same manner is not the property of what subsists after the same manner, for neither will what subsists after the same manner be the property of what subsists after the same manner, but if of that which subsists after the same manner, that which subsists after the same manner, is the property, it will not be the property of that thing of which it is stated to be the property. Thus, since prudence subsists after the same manner with regard to the honourable and the base, from their being a science of each of them, but to be the science of the honourable is not the property of prudence, it would not be the property of prudence to be the science of the base, but if it is the property of prudence to be the science of the honourable, it would not be the property of it to be the science of the base, since it is impossible that the same thing should be the property of many. For him who confirms, indeed, this place is of no use, for what subsists after the same manner is one thing compared with many.
​Next, we subvert it, if what is said to exist is not the property of what is said to exist, since neither will to be corrupted be the property of that which is said to be corrupted, nor to be generated of what is said to be generated. For instance, since it is not the property of man to be animal, neither will to be generated animal, be the property of to be generated man, nor will the corruption of animal, be the property of the corruption of man. After the same manner, we must assume (the argument) from being generated to existence and being corrupted, and from being corrupted to existence and being generated, as was just now said from existence, to the being generated and corrupted. Again, we confirm it, if of what is arranged according to existence, the property is that which is arranged according to the same, for what is said to be according to the being generated, will also be the property of what is said to be according to the being generated, and of what is said to be corrupted that which is assigned according to this. Thus, since to be mortal is the property of man, to be generated mortal would also be the property of the being generated man, and the corruption of mortal of the corruption of man. In the same way, indeed, we must take the argument, both from the being generated and the being corrupted with regard both to existence and to the same from the same, as was observed to him who subverts.
Next, we must pay attention to the idea of the thing proposed, subverting, indeed, if it be not present with the idea, or if not as to this, according to which that is stated, of which the property is a sign, for what is stated to be, will not be the property. Thus, since rest is not present with man himself, so far as he is man, but so far as he is idea, rest would not be the property of man. We confirm it, indeed, if it is present with the idea, and is present so far as it is predicated of this very thing, of which it is stated not to be the ​property, for what is stated not to be, will be property. Thus, since it is present with animal—itself to be composed of soul and body, and this is present with it, so far as it is animal, to be composed of soul and body would be the property of animal.

### Chapter 8Chapter 8

Next, from the more and less, first indeed subverting, if the more is not the property of the more, for neither will the less be the property of the less, nor the least of the least, nor the most of the most, nor the simply of the simply. Thus, since to be more coloured, is not the property of what is more body, neither will to be less coloured, be the property of what is less body, nor in short will to be coloured, be the property of body. We confirm it however, if the more is the property of the more, since the less also will be the property of the less, and the least of the least, and the most of the most, and the simply of the simply; for instance, since to perceive more, is the property of what is more vital, to perceive less, would be the property of the less vital, and the most of the most, the least of the least, and the simply of the simply.
From the simply too, the subverter must consider whether the simply is not the property of the simply, for neither will the more be the property of the more, nor the less of the less, nor the most of the most, nor the least of the least; thus, since it is not the property of man to be worthy, neither would to be more worthy, be the property of what is more man. The confirmer however (must consider), whether what is simply is the property of what is simply, for the more will be the property of the more, the less also of the less, the least of the least, and the most of the most; thus, since it is the property of fire naturally to tend upwards, it would also be the property of what is more fire naturally to tend more upwards, and in the same manner we must direct attention from other things also, to all these.
Secondly, it is subverted, if the more is not the property of the more, since neither will the less be the property of the less; thus, since it is more ​the property of animal to perceive, than of man to know, but it is not the property of animal to perceive, it would not be the property of man to know. We confirm it indeed, if the less is the property of the less, for the more will also be the property of the more; thus, since it is less the property of man to be naturally mild than of animal to live, but it is the property of man to be naturally mild, it would be the property of animal to live.
Thirdly, we subvert it, if it is not the property of which it is more the property, since neither will it be the property of that of which it is less the property, but if it is the property of that, it will not be the property of this. Thus, since to be coloured is more the property of superficies than of body, but it is not the property of superficies, neither would to be coloured be the property of body; if however it is the property of superficies, it would not be the property of body. This place indeed is not useful to the confirmer, since it is impossible that the same thing should be the property of many.
Fourthly, it is subverted if what is more the property (of the thing), is not its property, since neither will what is less its property be the property, e. g. since the sensible is more the property of animal than the partible, but the sensible is not the property of animal, the partible would not be the property of animal. But it is confirmed if what is less its property is the property of it, since what is more its property will be the property; thus, since it is less the property of animal to perceive than to live, but to perceive is the property of animal, to live would be the property of animal.
Next, from things which exist similarly, first indeed subverting, if what is similarly the property, is not the property of that of which it is similarly the property, since neither will what is similarly property be the property of this of which it is similarly the property. Thus, since it is similarly the property of the appetitive part of the soul to desire, and of the reasoning part to reason; but to desire is not the property of the appetitive part, neither would to reason be the property of the reasoning part. On the other hand, we ​confirm it, if what is similarly property is the property of this of which it is similarly the property; for what is similarly property will be the property of this thing of which it is similarly the property. For instance, since what is primarily prudent is similarly the property of the reasoning part, and what is primarily temperate of the appetitive part, but what is primarily prudent is the property of the reasoning, the primarily temperate would be the property of the appetitive part.
Secondly, we subvert it, if what is similarly the property (of a thing) is not its property, since neither will what is similarly property be the property of it. Thus, since it is similarly the property of man to see and to hear, but to see is not the property of man, neither would the property of man be to hear. Again, we conlirm it, if what is similarly the property (of a thing) is its property, for what is similarly its property will be the property; thus, since it is similarly the property of the soul that a part of it should be appetitive primarily and argumentative, but it is the property of the soul that a part of it is primarily appetitive, it would be the property of the soul that a part of it is primarily argumentative.
Thirdly, it is subverted, if it is not the property of what it is similarly the property, since neither will it be the property of what it is similarly the property, but if it is the property of that, it will not be the property of the other. Thus, since to burn is similarly the property of flame and of a burning coal, but it is not the property of flame to burn, neither would it be the property of a burning coal to burn, but if it is the property of flame, it would not be the property of a burning coal: this place however is of no use to him who confirms.
Nevertheless, (the place) from things similarly affected, differs from that from things similarly inherent, because the one is assumed according to analogy, and is not considered in respect of something being ​inherent, but the other is compared from something being inherent.

### Chapter 9Chapter 9

Next, property is subverted indeed, if he who assigns it in capacity, assigns also that property in capacity, to that which is not; capacity being by no possibility present with a non-entity, for what is laid down to be, will not be, property. Thus, since he who says the property of air is that which may be breathed, assigns property in capacity, (for a property of this kind is that which is capable of being breathed,) but also assigns the property to that which is not; for although an animal should not exist, which is naturally capable of breathing the air, yet the air may exist, though if animal is not, it is not possible to breathe; hence a thing of such a kind as that it may be breathed, will not then be the property of air, when there will not be such an animal as can breathe, wherefore what may be breathed would not be the property of air.
Again, we confirm it, if he who assigns it in capacity either assigns the property to that which is, or to that which is not, when capacity may be present with what is not, since what is stated not to be property, will be property. Thus, since he who assigns as the property of being, the ability to suffer or to act, assigning property in capacity, has assigned property to being, (for when being is, it will also be able to suffer, or to do, something,) hence ability to suffer or to act, would be the property of being.
Next, it is subverted, if it is placed in hyperbole, since what is laid down to be, will not be property. For it happens to those who thus assign property, that the name is not verified in respect of what the sentence is verified, since the thing being corrupted, the sentence will nevertheless remain, for it will especially be present with something existing; thus, if some one should assign the property of fire to be the lightest body, for when fire is corrupted, there will be a certain body, which will be the lightest, so that the lightest body would not be the property of fire. It is confirmed however, if ​the property is not placed in hyperbole, for as to this, the property will be well stated, e.g. since he who states the property of man, to be an animal naturally mild, does not assign property in hyperbole, so far as regards this, the property would be well stated.