alternately mixed with the conclusions, for when the appropriate ones are placed by each other, the result from them will be more evident.
It is right also, to assume in the definition, as far as we can, an universal proposition, not in the things themselves, but in their conjugates, for (the respondents) deceive themselves by paralogism, when the definition is assumed in the conjugate, as if they did not grant the universal; e. g. if it should be necessary to assume that the angry man desires vengeance on account of apparent contempt, and anger should be assumed to be the desire of vengeance on account of apparent contempt, for it is evident when this is assumed, we should have the universal, which we prefer. Where however, it is proposed in the very things themselves, it frequently happens that the respondent rejects it, because he has rather the objection to it; e. g. that the angry man does not desire vengeance, for we are angry with our parents, and yet do not desire vengeance. Perhaps therefore, this objection is not enough, as in some things it is sufficient vengeance only to grieve, and to produce repentance, nevertheless it has something persuasive, in order that what is proposed, may not seem to be denied without reason: to the definition however, of anger, it is not similarly easy to find an objection.
Again, (we ought) to propose as if we did not propose on account of the thing itself, but for the sake of something else, for (respondents) are cautious of such things as are useful against the thesis. In short, as much as possible the (interrogator) ought to render it obscure, whether he desires to assume the thing proposed or the opposite, for when what is useful against the argument is doubtful, they rather lay down that which seems true to them.
Moreover, we must interrogate through similitude, for the universal is persuasive and more latent; for instance, that as there is the same science and ignorance of contraries, so also there is the same sense of contraries, or on the con-
