§1.1.22Εἰ δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ μὲν ἀναγκαία τῶν προτάσεων ἡ δʼ ἐνδεχομένη, κατηγορικῶν μὲν ὄντων τῶν ὅρων ἀεὶ τοῦ ἐνδέχεσθαι ἔσται συλλογισμός, ὅταν δʼ ᾖ τὸ μὲν κατηγορικὸν τὸ δὲ στερητικόν, ἐὰν μὲν τὸ καταφατικὸν ἀναγκαῖον, τοῦ ἐνδέχεσθαι μὴ ὑπάρχειν, ἐὰν δὲ τὸ στερητικόν, καὶ τοῦ ἐνδέχεσθαι καὶ τοῦ μὴ ὑπάρχειν.
If one of the premises is necessary and the other is possible, then when the terms are affirmative there will always be a syllogism of being possible. But when one is affirmative and the other privative, if the affirmative is necessary, the syllogism is of being possible not to belong; but if the privative is [necessary], the syllogism is both of being possible [not to belong] and of not belonging.
τοῦ δʼ ἐξ ἀνάγκης μὴ ὑπάρχειν οὐκ ἔσται συλλογισμός, ὥσπερ οὐδʼ ἐν τοῖς ἑτέροις σχήμασιν.
But of necessity not belonging there will be no syllogism, just as not in the other figures either.
Ἔστωσαν δὴ κατηγορικοὶ πρῶτον οἱ ὅροι, καὶ τὸ μὲν Α παντὶ τῷ Γ ὑπαρχέτω ἐξ ἀνάγκης, τὸ δὲ Β παντὶ ἐνδεχέσθω ὑπάρχειν.
Now let the terms first be affirmative, and let A belong to all Γ of necessity, and let B be possible to belong to all [Γ].
ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸ μὲν Α παντὶ τῷ Γ ἀνάγκη, τὸ δὲ Γ τινὶ τῷ Β ἐνδέχεται, καὶ τὸ Α τινὶ τῷ Β ἐνδεχόμενον ἔσται καὶ οὐχ ὑπάρχον οὕτω γὰρ. συνέπιπτεν ἐπὶ τοῦ πρώτου σχήματος.
Since, then, A is of necessity to all Γ, and Γ is possible to some B, A also will be possible to belong to some B and not belonging [as a factual claim]; for in this way it turned out in the first figure.
ὁμοίως δὲ δειχθήσεται καὶ εἰ τὸ μὲν Β Γ τεθείη ἀναγκαῖον, τὸ δὲ Α Γ ἐνδεχόμενον.
And similarly it will also be shown if B-Γ should be assumed as necessary and A-Γ as possible.
πάλιν ἔστω τὸ μὲν κατηγορικόν τὸ δέ στερητικόν, ἀναγκαῖον δὲ τὸ κατηγορικόν· καὶ τὸ μὲν Α ἐνδεχέσθω μηδενὶ τῶ Γ ὑπάρχειν, τὸ δὲ Β παντὶ ὑπαρχέτω ἐξ ἀνάγκης.
Again, let one be affirmative and the other privative, and let the affirmative be necessary; and let A be possible to belong to no Γ, and let B belong to all [Γ] of necessity.
ἔσται δὴ πάλιν τὸ πρῶτον σχῆμα· καὶ γὰρ ἡ στερητικὴ πρότασις ἐνδέχεσθαι σημαίνει·
Then there will be the first figure again; for the privative premise signifies being possible.
φανερόν οὖν ὅτι τό συμπέρασμα ἔσται ἐνδεχόμενον· ὅτε γὰρ οὕτως ἔχοιεν αἰ προτάσεις ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ σχήματι, καὶ τὸ συμπέρασμα ἦν ἐνδεχόμενον.
It is clear, then, that the conclusion will be possible; for when the premises were related in this way in the first figure, the conclusion also was possible.
εἰ δʼ ἡ στερητικὴ πρότασις ἀναγκαία, τό συμτπέραομα ἔσται καὶ ὅτι ἐνδέχεται τινὶ μὴ ὑπάρχειν καὶ ὅτι οὐχ ὑπάρχει.
But if the privative premise is necessary, the conclusion will be both that it is possible not to belong to some and that it does not belong.
κείσθω γὰρ τὸ Α τῷ Γ μὴ ὑπάρχειν ἐξ ἀνάγκης, τὸ δὲ Β παντὶ ἐνδέχεσθαι.
For let A belong to no Γ of necessity, and let B be possible to belong to all [Γ].
ἀντιστραφέντος οὖν τοῦ Β Γ καταφατικοῦ τὸ πρῶτον ἔσται σχῆμα, καὶ ἀναγκαία ἡ στερητικὴ πρότασις.
Then, when the affirmative B-Γ is converted, the first figure will come about, and the privative premise will be necessary.
ὅτε δʼ οὕτως ἔχοιεν αἱ προτάσεις, συνέβαινε τὸ Α τῷ Γ καὶ ἐνδέχεσθαι τινὶ μὴ ὑπάρχειν καὶ μὴ ὑπάρχειν, ὥστε καὶ τὸ Α τῷ Β ἀνάγκη τινὶ μὴ ὑπάρχειν.
But when the premises were related in this way, it turned out that A both is possible not to belong to some Γ and does not belong, so that also A to B [will be related in this way].
ὅταν δὲ τὸ στερητικὸν τεθῇ πρὸς τὸ ἔλαττον ἄκρον, ἐὰν μὲν ἐνδεχόμενον, ἔσται συλλογισμὸς μεταληφθείσης τῆς προτάσεως, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς πρότερον, ἐὰν δʼ ἀναγκαῖον, οὐκ ἔσται·
But when the privative is assumed in relation to the minor term, if it is possible, there will be a syllogism when the premise is altered, just as in the previous cases; but if it is necessary, there will not be.
καὶ γὰρ παντὶ ἀνάγκη καὶ οὐδενὶ ἐνδέχεται ὑπάρχειν.
For it is possible for [the major] to belong to all of necessity, and to be possible to belong to none.
ὅροι τοῦ παντὶ ὑπάρχειν ὕπνος—ἵππος καθεύδων—ἄνθρωπος, τοῦ μηδενὶ ὕπνος—ἵππος ἐγρηγορώς—ἄνθρωπος.
The terms for belonging to all: sleep — sleeping horse — human; for belonging to none: sleep — waking horse — human.
Ὁμοίως δʼ ἕξει καὶ εἰ ὁ μὲν καθόλου τῶν ὅρων ὁ δʼ ἐν μέρει πρὸς τὸ μέσον· κατηγορικῶν μὲν γὰρ ὄντων ἀμφοτέρων τοῦ ἐνδέχεσθαι καὶ οὐ τοῦ ὑπάρχειν ἔσται συλλογισμός, καὶ ὅταν τὸ μὲν στερητικὸν ληφθῇ τὸ δὲ καταφατικόν, ἀναγκαῖον δὲ τὸ καταφατικόν.
And it will be the same also if one of the terms is universal and the other particular in relation to the middle; for when both are affirmative, the syllogism will be of being possible and not of belonging, and also when one is assumed as privative and the other as affirmative, and the affirmative is necessary.
ὅταν δὲ τὸ στερητικόν ἀναγκαῖον, καὶ τὸ συμπέρασμα ἔσται τοῦ μὴ ὑπάρχειν· ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς τρόπος ἔσται τῆς δείξεως καὶ καθόλου καὶ μὴ καθόλου τῶν ὅρων ὄντων.
But when the privative is necessary, the conclusion also will be of not belonging; for the method of the proof will be the same whether the terms are universal or not universal.
ἀνάγκη γὰρ διὰ τοῦ πρώτου σχήματος τελειοῦσθαι τοὺς συλλογισμούς, ὥστε καθάπερ ἐν ἐκείνοις, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων ἀναγκαῖον συμπίπτειν.
For it is necessary that the syllogisms are completed through the first figure, so that just as in those cases, so also in these it must necessarily turn out.
ὅταν δὲ τὸ στερητικὸν καθόλου ληφθὲν τεθῇ πρὸς τὸ ἔλαττον ἄκρον, ἐὰν μὲν ἐνδεχόμενον, ἔσται συλλογισμὸς διὰ τῆς ἀντιστροφῆς, ἐὰν δʼ ἀναγκαῖον, οὐκ ἔσται.
But when the privative assumed as universal is placed in relation to the minor term, if it is possible, there will be a syllogism through conversion; but if necessary, there will not be.
δειχθήσεται δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὃν καὶ ἐν τοῖς καθόλου, καὶ διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ὅρων.
And it will be shown in the same way as in the case of universals, and through the same terms.
φανερὸν οὖν καὶ ἐν τούτῳ τῷ σχήματι πότε καὶ πῶς ἔσται συλλογισμός, καὶ πότε τοῦ ἐνδέχεσθαι καὶ πότε τοῦ ὑπάρχειν.
It is clear, then, also in this figure, when and how there will be a syllogism, and when it is of being possible and when of belonging.
δῆλον δὲ καὶ ὅτι πάντες ἀτελεῖς, καὶ ὅτι τελειοῦνται διὰ τοῦ πρώτου σχήματος.
And it is also evident that they are all incomplete, and that they are completed through the first figure.