§5.10.59saepissime autem, quid sit proprium cuiusque, quaeritur: ut, si per ἐτυμολογίαν dicatur, tyrannicidae proprium est tyrannum, occidere, negemus; non enim, si traditum sibi eum carnifex occiderit, tyrannicida dicatur, nec si imprudens vel invitus.
But very often, what is the property of each thing is asked: as, if it should be said by etymology, "to kill a tyrant is the property of a tyrannicide," we should deny it; for, if an executioner should kill him when delivered to him, he would not be called a tyrannicide, nor if he did so unknowingly or unwillingly.
§5.10.60quod autem proprium non erit, differens erit, ut aliud est servum esse aliud seruire; qualis esse in addictis quaestio solet: qui servus est, si manu mittatur, fit libertinus, non item addictus; §5.10.61et plura, de quibus alio loco.
Moreover, what will not be a property will be a difference, as it is one thing to be a slave, another to serve; of which kind a question is accustomed to arise in the case of those bound for debt: he who is a slave, if he is manumitted, becomes a freedman, but not so the debtor bound for debt; and more things, concerning which in another place.
illud quoque differens vocant, cum, genere in species diducto, species ipsa discernitur.
That also they call a difference when, the genus being divided into species, the species itself is distinguished.
animal genus, morale species, terrenum vel bipes differens; nondum enim proprium est sed iam differt a marino vel quadripede; quod non tam ad argumentum pertinet quam ad diligentem finitionis comprehensionem.
"Animal" is the genus, "moral" the species, "terrestrial" or "biped" the difference; for it is not yet a property, but already differs from the marine or the quadruped; which pertains not so much to argument as to the diligent comprehension of a definition.
§5.10.62Cicero genus et speciem, quam eandem formam vocat, a finitione deducit et iis, quae ad aliquid sunt, subiicit: ut, si is, cui argentum omne legatum est, petat signatum quoque, utatur genere; at si quis, cum legatum sit ei, quae viro mater familias esset, neget deberi ei, quae in manum non convenerit, specie; quoniam duae formae sint matrimoniorum.
Cicero derives genus and species, which same he calls "form," from definition, and subjects them to those things which are relative: as, if he to whom all silver has been bequeathed should claim also coined silver, he would use the genus; but if anyone, when a bequest has been made to her "who was a mater familias to her husband," should deny that it is owed to her who had not come under his power, he would use the species; since there are two forms of marriages.
§5.10.63division autem adiuvari finitionem docet, eamque differre a partitione, quod haec sit totius in partes, illa generis in formas; partes incertas esse, ut Quibus constet respublica; formas certas, ut Quot sint species rerum publicarum, quas tris accepimus, quae populi, quae paucorum, quae unius potestate regerentur.
Moreover, he teaches that definition is aided by division, and that this differs from partition, because the latter is of a whole into parts, the former of a genus into forms; that parts are uncertain, as "of what things the republic consists"; that forms are certain, as "how many species of republics there are," of which we have received three, which are ruled by the power of the people, of the few, or of one.
§5.10.64et ille quidem non iis exemplis utitur, quia scribens ad Trebatium ex iure ducere ea maluit; ego apertiora posui.
And indeed he does not use these examples, because writing to Trebatius he preferred to derive them from law; I have set down more obvious ones.
propria vero ad coniecturae quoque pertinent partem: ut, quia proprium est boni recte facere, iracundi verbis aut manu male facere, facta haec ab ipsis esse credantur aut contra.
But properties also pertain to the part of conjecture: as, because it is the property of a good man to do rightly, of an angry man to do evil by words or hand, these deeds may be believed to have been done by them, or the contrary.
nam ut quaedam in quibusdam utique sunt, ita quaedam in quibusdam utique non sunt: et ratio, quamvis sit ex diverso, eadem est.
For as certain things are certainly in certain persons, so certain things are certainly not in certain persons; and the reason, although it is from the opposite, is the same.
§5.10.65divisio et ad probandum simili via valet et ad refellendum.
Division is of force in a similar way both for proving and for refuting.
probationi interim satis est unum habere, hoc modo, ut sit civis, aut natus sit oportet aut factus; utrumque tollendum est, nec natus nec factus est. §5.10.66fit hoc et multiplex, idque est argumentorum genus ex remotione, quo modo efficitur totum falsum, modo id, quod relinquitur, verum.
For proving, meanwhile, it is enough to have one, in this manner: "to be a citizen, one must either be born or made"; both must be removed (for refuting): "he was neither born nor made." This becomes also manifold, and this is the kind of arguments from elimination, by which method sometimes the whole is shown false, sometimes that which is left is shown true.
totum falsum est hoc modo, pecuniam credidisse te dicis; aut habuisti ipse aut ab aliquo accepisti aut invenisti aut surripuisti.
The whole is false in this manner: "you say you lent money; either you had it yourself, or you received it from someone, or you found it, or you stole it.
si neque domi habuisti neque ah aliquo accepisti aut cetera, non credidisti. §5.10.67reliquum fit verum sic, hic servus, quem tibi vindicas, aut vernn tuus est aut emptus aut donatus aut testamento relictus aut ex hoste captus aut alienus; deinde remotis prioribus supererit alienus.
If you neither had it at home, nor received it from someone, or the rest, you did not lend it." That which is left becomes true thus: "this slave, whom you claim for yourself, is either your home-born slave, or bought, or given, or left by will, or captured from the enemy, or belongs to another"; then, the prior ones being removed, "belongs to another" will remain.
periculosum et cum cura intuendum genus, quia, si in proponendo unum quodlibet omiserimus, cum risu quoque tota res solvitur.
A dangerous kind and to be observed with care, because, if in proposing we omit any single one, the whole matter is dissolved even with laughter.
§5.10.68tutius, quod Cicero pro Caecina facit, cum interrogat, si haec actio non sit, quae sit? simul enim removentur omnia.
Safer is that which Cicero does in defense of Caecina, when he asks: "if this action is not, which is?" for at the same time all things are removed.
vel cum duo ponentur inter se contraria, quorum tenuisse utrumlibet sufficiat, quale Ciceronis est, unum quidem certe, nemo erit tam inimicus Cluentio, qui mihi non concedat; si constet corruptum illud esse indicium, aut ab Habito aut ab Oppianico esse corruptum; si doceo non ab Habito, vinco ab Oppianico; si ostendo ab Oppianico, purgo Habitum.
Or when two contraries are placed between themselves, of which to have held whichever you please suffices, of which kind is that of Cicero: "one thing indeed certainly, no one will be so hostile to Cluentius who will not concede to me; if it is established that that trial was corrupted, it was corrupted either by Habitus or by Oppianicus; if I show it was not by Habitus, I win that it was by Oppianicus; if I show it was by Oppianicus, I clear Habitus."