§3.6.30neque interest, unum quis statum faciat an nullum, si omnes causae sunt condicionis eiusdem.
Nor does it matter whether anyone makes one state or none, if all causes are of the same condition.
coniectura dicta est a coniectu, id est directione quadam rationis ad veritatem, unde etiam somniorum atque ominum interpretes coniectores vocantur.
"Conjecture" is named from "coniectus", that is, a certain direction of reason toward the truth, whence also interpreters of dreams and omens are called "coniectores".
appellatum tamen est hoc genus varie, sicut sequentibus apparebit.
However, this class has been named variously, as will appear from what follows.
§3.6.31fuerunt, qui duos status facerent: Archedemus coniecturalem et finitivum, exclusa qualitate, quia sic de ea quaeri existimabat, quid esset iniquum, quid iniustum, quid dicto audientem non esse; quod vocat de eodem et alio. §3.6.32huic diversa sententia eorum fuit, qui duos quidem status esse voluerunt, sed unum infitialem, alterum iuridicialem.
There were some who made two states: Archedemus made the conjectural and the definitive, excluding quality, because he thought that the question concerning it was asked in this way, namely, what is unjust, what is iniquitous, what is not being obedient to a command; which he calls "concerning the same and the other." A different opinion from this was that of those who indeed wanted there to be two states, but one negative and the other juridical.
infitialis est, quem dicimus coniecturalem, cui ab infitiando nomen alii in totum dederunt, alii in partem, quia accusatorem coniectura, reum infitiatione uti putaverunt.
The negative is that which we call conjectural, to which some gave its name in whole, and others in part, from "denying" (infitiando), because they thought the accuser used conjecture and the defendant used denial.
§3.6.33iuridicialis est qui Graece dicitur δικαιολογικός Sed quemadmodum ab Archedemo qualitas exclusa est, sic ab his repudiata finitio.
The juridical is that which is called "dikaiologikos" in Greek. But just as quality was excluded by Archedemus, so by these writers definition was rejected.
nam subiiciunt eam iuridiciali, quaerendumque arbitrantur iustumne sit, sacrilegium appellari quod obiiciatur vel furtum vel amentiam.
For they subject it to the juridical, and think that it should be asked whether it is just that what is charged should be called sacrilege, or theft, or madness.
§3.6.34qua in opinione Pamphilus fuit, sed qualitatem in plura partitus est; plurimi deinceps, mutatis tantum nominibus, in rem de qua constet, et in rem de qua non constet.
Pamphilus was of this opinion, but he divided quality into more parts; very many afterwards, changing only the names, divided it into the matter which is agreed upon and the matter which is not agreed upon.
nam est verum nec aliter fieri potest, quam ut aut certum sit factum esse quid aut non sit; si non est certum, coniectura sit, si certum est, reliqui status.
For it is true, and cannot happen otherwise, than that either it is certain that something was done or it is not; if it is not certain, let it be conjecture; if it is certain, let it be the remaining states.
§3.6.35nam idem dicit Apollodorus, cum quaestionem aut in rebus extra positis, quibus coniectura explicatur, aut in nostris opinionibus existimat positam, quorum illud πραγματικόν, hoc περὶ ἐννοίας vocat; idem, qui ἀπρόληπτον et προλημπτικόν dicunt, id est dubium et praesumptum, quo significatur de quo liquet.
For Apollodorus says the same thing when he thinks the question is placed either in external things, by which conjecture is explained, or in our opinions, of which he calls the former "pragmatikon" and the latter "peri ennoias"; the same is said by those who say "aprolepton" and "prolemptikon", that is, the doubtful and the presupposed, by which is signified that about which it is clear.
§3.6.36idem Theodorus, qui de eo,
"an sit"
, et de accidentibus ei quod esse constat, id est περὶ οὐσίας καὶ συμβεβηκότων existimat quaeri.
Theodorus says the same, who thinks inquiry is made concerning "whether it is" and concerning the accidents of that which is agreed to exist, that is, "peri ousias kai symbebekoton".
nam in his omnibus prius genus coniecturam habet, sequens reliqua.
For in all these, the former class contains conjecture, and the following contains the rest.
sed haec reliqua Apollodorus duo vult esse, qualitatem et de nomine, id est finitivam; Theodorus, quid, quale, quantum, ad aliquid.
But Apollodorus wants these remaining states to be two, quality and concerning the name, that is, definitive; Theodorus wants them to be: what, of what kind, how much, in relation to something.
§3.6.37sunt et qui de eodem et de alio modo qualitatem esse modo finitionem velint.
There are also those who wish "concerning the same and the other" to be sometimes quality, sometimes definition.
In duo et Posidonius dividit, vocem et res.
Posidonius also divides it into two: voice and things.
in voce quaeri putat an significet, quid, quam multa, quo modo? in rebus coniecturam, quod κατ᾽ αἴσθησιν vocat, et qualitatem, et finitionem, cui nomen dat κατ᾽ ἔννοιαν, et ad aliquid.
In voice, he thinks inquiry is made: does it signify, what, how many, in what manner? In things, he places conjecture, which he calls "kat' aisthesin", and quality, and definition, to which he gives the name "kat' ennoian", and relation.
unde et illa divisio est, alia esse scripta, alia inscripta.
Whence also comes that division, that some things are written, others unwritten.
§3.6.38Celsus Cornelius duos et ipse fecit status generales, an sit? quale sit? priori subiecit finitionem, quia aeque quaeratur an sit sacrilegus, qui nihil se sustulisse de templo dicit et qui privatam pecuniam confitetur sustulisse.
Cornelius Celsus himself also made two general states: "whether it is?" and "of what kind is it?" To the former he subjected definition, because it is equally asked whether he is guilty of sacrilege who says he has taken nothing from the temple, and he who confesses he has taken private money.
qualitatem in rem et scriptum dividit.
He divides quality into the thing and the written.
scripto quattuor partes legales, exclusa translatione; quantitatem et mentis quaestionem coniecturae subiecit.
For the written, he places four legal parts, excluding transfer; quantity and the question of intention he subjected to conjecture.
§3.6.39est etiam alia in duos dividendi status ratio, quae docet, aut de substantia controversiam esse, aut de qualitate; ipsam porro qualitatem aut in summo genere consistere aut in succedentibus.
There is also another method of dividing states into two, which teaches that the controversy is either concerning substance or concerning quality; and furthermore, that quality itself consists either in the highest genus or in those that succeed it.
§3.6.40de substantia est coniectura.
Conjecture is concerning substance.
quaestio enim tractatur rei, an facta sit? an fiat? an futura sit? interdum etiam mentis; idque melius, quam quod iis placuit, qui statum eundem facti nominaverunt, tanquam de praeterito tantum et tantum de facto quaereretur.
For the question of a thing is treated: has it been done? is it being done? will it be done? sometimes also concerning intention; and this is better than what pleased those who named the same state "of fact", as if inquiry were made only concerning the past and only concerning what has been done.