To obtain or put together a definition through logical Division, three points are to be attended to.[44] Collect the predicates _in Quid_; range them in the proper order; make sure that there are no more, or that you have collected all. The essential predicates are genera, to be obtained not otherwise than by the method (dialectical) used in concluding accidents. As regards order, you begin with the highest genus, that which is predicable of all the others, while none of these is predicable of it, determining in like fashion the succession of the rest respectively. The collection will be complete, if you divide the highest genus by an exhaustive specific difference, such that every thing must be included in one or other of the two proximate and opposed portions; and then taking the species thus found as your _dividendum_, subdivide it until no lower specific difference can be found, or you obtain from the elements an exact equivalent to the subject.[45] [Footnote 44: Ibid. a. 23: [Greek: ei)s de\ to\ kataskeua/zein o(/ron dia\ diaire/seôn]. The Scholiast, p. 248, a. 41, explains [Greek: kataskeua/zein] by [Greek: eu(rei=n, sunthei=nai, a)podou=nai]. He distinguishes it from [Greek: a)podeiknu/nai]; demonstration of the definition being impracticable.] [Footnote 45: Analyt. Post. II. xiii. p. 97, a. 23 seq. See Waitz, Comm. p. 418.] When the investigation must proceed by getting together a group of similar particulars, you compare them, and note what is the same in all; then turn to another group which are the same _in genere_ yet differ _in specie_ from the first group, and have a different point of community among themselves. You next compare the point of community among the members of the first group, and that among the members of the second group. If the two points of community can be brought under one rational formula, that will be the definition of the subject; but if at the end of the process, the distinct points of community are not found resolvable into any final one, this proves that the supposed _definiendum_ is not one but two or more.[46] For example, suppose you are investigating, What is the essence or definition of magnanimity? You must study various magnanimous individuals, and note what they have in common _quâ_ magnanimous.[47] Thus, Achilles, Ajax, Alkibiades were all magnanimous. Now, that which the three had in common was, that they could not endure to be insulted; on that account Alkibiades went to war with his countrymen, Achilles was angry and stood aloof from the Greeks, Ajax slew himself. But, again, you find two other magnanimous men, Sokrates and Lysander. These two had in common the quality, that they maintained an equal and unshaken temper both in prosperity and adversity. Now when you have got thus far, the question to be examined is, What is the point of identity between the temper that will not endure insult, and the temper that remains undisturbed under all diversities of