assumed which all have the same, and in others similarly, we must consider in the things assumed whether it is the same, until we arrive at one reason, for this will be the definition of the thing. Yet if we do not arrive at one, but at two or more, it is evident that the question will not be one, but many for instance, I mean if we should inquire what magnanimity is, we must consider in the cases of certain magnanimous persons, whom we know what one thing they all possess, so far as they are such. Thus if Alcibiades is magnanimous, or Achilles, or Ajax, what one thing have they all? intolerance of insult, for one of them fought, another sulked, another slew himself. Again, in other instances, as in that of Lysander or Socrates. If then (it is common to these) to behave in the same manner, in prosperity and adversity, taking these two, I consider what indifference with regard to fortune, and what impatience under insult possess in common; if they have nothing there will be two species of magnanimity.
Every definition is nevertheless universal, for the physician does not prescribe what is wholesome for a certain eye, but defines what is fit for every eye, or for the species. The singular however is easier to define than the universal, wherefore we must pass from singulars to universals, for equivocations lie more concealed in universals, than in things without a difference. But as in demonstrations the power of syllogizing must necessarily be inherent, so also perspicuity must be in definitions, and there will be this, if through things which are singularly enunciated, what is in each genus be separately defined; as with the similar, not every similar, but that which is in colours and in figures, and the
