§1.1.1## ΑΝΑΛΥΤΙΚΩΝ ΠΡΟΤΕΡΩΝ Α.
Πρῶτον εἰπεῖν περὶ τί καὶ τίνος ἐστὶν ἡ σκέψις, ὅτι περὶ ἀπόδειξιν καὶ ἐπιστήμης ἀποδεικτικῆς·
## PRIOR ANALYTICS I First, to state what the inquiry is about and what it belongs to: namely, that it is about demonstration and demonstrative science.
εἶτα διορίσαι τί ἐστι πρότασις καὶ τί ὅρος καὶ τί συλλογισμός, καὶ ποῖος τέλειος καὶ ποῖος ἀτελής, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τί τὸ ἐν ὅλῳ εἶναι ἢ μὴ εἶναι τόδε τῷδε, καὶ τί λέγομεν τὸ κατὰ παντὸς ἢ μηδενὸς κατηγορεῖσθαι.
Next, to define what a premise is, what a term is, and what a syllogism is, and what kind of syllogism is perfect and what kind is imperfect; and after these, what it is for this to be or not to be in that as in a whole, and what we mean by being predicated of all or of none.
Πρότασις μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ λόγος καταφατικὸς ἢ ἀποφατικός τινος κατά τινος· οὗτος δὲ ἢ καθόλου ἢ ἐν μέρει ἢ ἀδιόριστος.
A premise, then, is a statement affirming or denying something of something; and this is either universal, particular, or indefinite.
λέγω δὲ καθόλου μὲν τὸ παντὶ ἢ μηδενὶ ὑπάρχειν, ἐν μέρει δὲ τὸ τινὶ ἢ μὴ τινὶ ἢ μὴ παντὶ ὑπάρχειν, ἀδιόριστον δὲ τὸ ὑπάρχειν ἢ μὴ ὑπάρχειν ἄνευ τοῦ καθόλου ἢ κατὰ μέρος, οἷον τὸ τῶν ἐναντίων εἶναι τὴν αὐτὴν ἐπιστήμην ἢ τὸ τὴν ἡδονὴν μὴ εἶναι ἀγαθόν.
By universal, I mean belonging to all or to none; by particular, belonging to some, or not to some, or not to all; by indefinite, belonging or not belonging without being universal or particular, as for example, that there is the same science of contraries, or that pleasure is not a good.
διαφέρει δὲ ἡ ἀποδεικτικὴ πρότασις τῆς διαλεκτικῆς, ὅτι ἡ μὲν ἀποδεικτικὴ λῆψις θατέρου μορίου τῆς ἀντιφάσεώς ἐστιν (οὐ γὰρ ἐρωτᾷ ἀλλὰ λαμβάνει ὁ ἀποδεικνύων), ἡ δὲ διαλεκτικὴ ἐρώτησις ἀντιφάσεώς ἐστιν.
But a demonstrative premise differs from a dialectical one, because a demonstrative premise is the assumption of one part of a contradiction (for the demonstrator does not ask, but assumes), while a dialectical premise is a question concerning a contradiction.
οὐδὲν δὲ διοίσει πρὸς τὸ γενέσθαι τὸν ἑκατέρου συλλογισμόν· καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἀποδεικνύων καὶ ὁ ἐρωτῶν συλλογίζεται λαβών τι κατά τινος· ὑπάρχειν ἢ μὴ ὑπάρχειν.
However, this will make no difference with respect to the generation of a syllogism in either case; for both the demonstrator and the questioner reason by assuming that something belongs or does not belong to something.
ὥστε ἔσται συλλογιστικὴ μὲν πρότασις ἁπλῶς κατάφασις ἢ ἀπόφασίς τινος κατά τινος τὸν εἰρημένον τρόπον, ἀποδεικτικὴ δέ, ἐὰν ἀληθὴς ᾖ καὶ διὰ τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑποθέσεων εἰλημμένη, διαλεκτικὴ δὲ πυνθανομένῳ μὲν ἐρώτησις ἀντιφάσεως, συλλογιζομένῳ δὲ λῆψις τοῦ φαινομένου καὶ ἐνδόξου, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς Τοπικοῖς εἴρηται.
Thus, a syllogistic premise in general will be an affirmation or denial of something of something in the manner described; but it is demonstrative if it is true and obtained through the basic assumptions from the beginning, while a dialectical premise is, for the inquirer, a question concerning a contradiction, and for the reasoner, the assumption of what is apparent and reputable, as has been said in the *Topics*.
τί μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ πρότασις, καὶ τί διαφέρει συλλογιστικὴ καὶ ἀποδεικτικὴ καὶ διαλεκτική, διʼ ἀκριβείας μὲν ἐν τοῖς ἑπομένοις ῥηθήσεται, πρὸς δὲ τὴν παροῦσαν χρείαν ἱκανῶς ἡμῖν διωρίσθω τὰ νῦν.
What a premise is, then, and how syllogistic, demonstrative, and dialectical premises differ, will be stated precisely in what follows; but for our present need, let the definitions now given suffice.
Ὅρον δὲ καλῶ εἰς ὃν διαλύεται ἡ πρότασις, οἷον τό τε κατηγορούμενον καὶ τὸ καθʼ οὗ κατηγορεῖται, προστιθεμένου ἢ τοῦ εἶναι ἢ μὴ εἶναι.
I call a term that into which a premise is resolved, such as both the predicate and that of which it is predicated, with "to be" or "not to be" being added.
συλλογισμὸς δέ ἐστι λόγος ἐν ᾧ τεθέντων τινῶν ἕτερόν τι τῶν κειμένων ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβαίνει τῷ ταῦτα εἶναι.
And a syllogism is a discourse in which, certain things being posited, something different from the things posited results of necessity by their being so.
λέγω δὲ τῷ ταῦτα εἶναι τὸ διὰ ταῦτα συμβαίνειν, τὸ δὲ διὰ ταῦτα συμβαίνειν τὸ μηδενὸς ἔξωθεν ὅρου προσδεῖν πρὸς τὸ γενέσθαι τὸ ἀναγκαῖον.
By "their being so," I mean that it results because of them; and by "resulting because of them," I mean needing no term from the outside in addition to make the necessity come about.
τέλειον μὲν οὖν καλῶ συλλογισμὸν τὸν μηδενὸς ἄλλου προσδεόμενον παρά τὰ εἰλημμένα πρὸς τὸ φανῆναι τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, ἀτελῆ δὲ τὸν προσδεόμενον ἢ ἑνὸς ἢ πλειόνων, ἃ ἔστι μὲν ἀναγκαῖα διὰ τῶν ὑποκειμένων ὅρων, οὐ μὴν εἴληπται διὰ προτάσεων.
Therefore, I call a perfect syllogism one that needs nothing other than what has been assumed for the necessity to be apparent, and an imperfect syllogism one that needs either one or more things, which are indeed necessary through the underlying terms, yet have not been assumed through premises.
τὸ δὲ ἐν ὅλῳ εἶναι ἕτερον ἑτέρῳ καὶ τὸ κατὰ παντός κατηγορεῖσθαι θατέρου θάτερον ταὐτόν ἐστιν.
For one thing to be in another as in a whole and for one to be predicated of all of another is the same thing.
λέγομεν δὲ τὸ κατὰ παντὸς κατηγορεῖσθαι ὅταν μηδὲν ᾖ λαβεῖν καθʼ οὗ θάτερον οὐ λεχθήσεται· καὶ τὸ κατὰ μηδενὸς ὡσαύτως.
And we say that one is predicated of all when nothing can be taken of which the other is not said; and similarly for "predicated of none."