Book, Paragraph

 1      I,  8 |            frequent occurrences-e.g. of eclipse as happening to the moon-are,
 2      I,  8 |                 them in the same way as eclipse attaches to the moon.~
 3      I,  31|               not know the cause of the eclipse: we should perceive the
 4      I,  31|                 the present fact of the eclipse, but not the reasoned fact
 5     II,  1 | qualified-whether, e.g. the sun suffers eclipse or not-then we are asking
 6     II,  1 |                that the sun does suffer eclipse is an indication of this;
 7     II,  1 |              start that the sun suffers eclipse, we do not inquire whether
 8     II,  1 |           progress, it is the reason of eclipse or earthquake into which
 9     II,  2 |               ask "does the moon suffer eclipse?", or "does the moon wax?",
10     II,  2 |             Thus, "Does the moon suffer eclipse?" means "Is there or is
11     II,  2 |             there not a cause producing eclipse of the moon?", and when
12     II,  2 |                 I mean a property, e.g. eclipse, equality or inequality,
13     II,  2 |        identical: the question "What is eclipse?" and its answer "The privation
14     II,  2 |         question "What is the reason of eclipse?" or "Why does the moon
15     II,  2 |                Why does the moon suffer eclipse?" and the reply "Because
16     II,  2 |                middle" causing, e.g. an eclipse. On the other hand, if we
17     II,  2 |                  the present fact of an eclipse being evident, perception
18     II,  8 |                 noise in the clouds, of eclipse as a privation of light,
19     II,  8 |              essential nature. Let A be eclipse, C the moon, B the earth’
20     II,  8 |           example: let C be the moon, A eclipse, B the fact that the moon
21     II,  8 |                attributable A to C, and eclipse, is attributable to B, it
22     II,  8 |                 clear, and we know that eclipse exists, but we do not know
23     II,  8 |                of the major term A; for eclipse is constituted by the earth
24     II,  16|           present also the cause of the eclipse or of the fall of the leaves-the
25     II,  16|               at once implied by it-the eclipse by the earth’s interposition,
26     II,  16|                 the cause of the moon’s eclipse and not the eclipse of the
27     II,  16|              moon’s eclipse and not the eclipse of the interposition)-if,
28     II,  16|                who knows it through the eclipse knows the fact of the earth’
29     II,  16|                fact. Moreover, that the eclipse is not the cause of the
30     II,  16|                the interposition of the eclipse, is obvious because the
31     II,  16|            element in the definition of eclipse, which shows that the eclipse
32     II,  16|           eclipse, which shows that the eclipse is known through the interposition