Universa Philosophia
Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza (1578–1641)
First published 1624
Hurtado de Mendoza, Universa Philosophia (Lyon 1624): the Summulae and the Logica through Disputatio VII, with an original English translation. The rest of the work follows in later append batches.
✦ This work is being completed — add a section.
Summulae
Instruction for the Beginner on the Method of Argument
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 5
§ 6
§ 7
§ 8
§ 9
§ 10
§ 11
Disputatio I. On the Terms of Propositions, and Their Union.
Aristoteles primo Physicorum
Sectio I. What Are Subject, Predicate, and Union?
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
Sectio II. The Definition of Terms.
§ 5
§ 6
§ 7
§ 8
§ 9
§ 10
§ 11
§ 12
§ 13
§ 14
§ 15
§ 16
§ 17
§ 18
§ 19
§ 20
Sectio III. On Vocal, Written, and Mental Terms.
§ 21
§ 22
§ 23
§ 24
§ 25
§ 26
Sectio IV. On Significant and Non-Significant Terms.
§ 27
§ 28
§ 29
§ 30
§ 31
§ 32
§ 33
§ 34
§ 35
Signum significativum ad placitum
Sectio V. Divisions of the Mental Term.
§ 37
§ 38
§ 39
§ 40
§ 41
§ 42
§ 43
Sectio VI. On Universal, Particular, Confused, and Determinate, Superior, and Inferior Terms.
§ 44
§ 45
§ 46
§ 47
§ 48
§ 49
You ask thirdly whether this word omnis homo is universal: for it seems not to be, because its whole signification does not belong to individual men. For no one is every man, as Peter and Paul. I answer that it is a universal word: because the signification of the word considered in itself wholly belongs to individual men. Likewise it is affected by the distributive universal term omnis, which belongs to all men distributively; but terms of this kind, like omnis, cannot be placed before anything except a common term, which through such distribution does not lose but retains its whole universality. And propositions consisting of those distributions we call universal, as omnis homo currit, which belongs to all men taken collectively: for both Peter runs and Paul runs; indeed that distribution is a sign of universality, by reason of which it can be predicated of all; for omnis homo currit, if it is true, ought to be predicated of individual men because of that distributive sign, whereby it differs from this word exercitus, which signifies several things to which the signification of army does not belong, just as the signification of man belongs to each of the things contained under that word. But that it does not belong to individuals to be every man is irrelevant, because for the universality of the word it is not required that the distributive signs belong to each inferior, but it suffices if the whole signification of the distributed name belongs to them.