§1.1.31Ὅτι δʼ ἡ διὰ τῶν γενῶν διαίρεσις μικρόν τι μόριόν ἐστι τῆς εἰρημένης μεθόδου, ῥᾴδιον ἰδεῖν· ἔστι γὰρ ἡ διαίρεσις οἷον ἀσθενὴς συλλογισμός·
But that division through genera is only a small part of the method mentioned, it is easy to see; for division is, as it were, a weak syllogism.
ὃ μὲν γὰρ δεῖ δείξαι αἰτεῖται, συλλογίζεται δʼ ἀεί τι τῶν ἄνωθεν.
For it begs what it is required to show, and always syllogizes something of the higher terms.
πρῶτον δʼ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐλελήθει τοὺς χρωμένους αὐτῇ πάντας, καὶ πείθειν ἐπεχείρουν ὡς ὄντος δυνατοῦ περὶ οὐσίας ἀπόδειξιν γενέσθαι καὶ τοῦ τί ἐστιν.
First of all, this very fact had escaped the notice of all who used it, and they attempted to persuade others that it was possible for a demonstration of substance and of what a thing is to come about.
ὥστʼ οὔτε ὅ τι ἐνδέχεται συλλογίσασθαι διαιρουμένοις ξυνίεσαν, οὔτε ὅτι οὕτως ἐνεδέχετο ὥσπερ εἰρήκαμεν.
Consequently, they understood neither what is possible to syllogize for those who make divisions, nor that it was possible in the way we have said.
ἐν μὲν οὖν ταῖς ἀποδείξεσιν, ὅταν δέῃ τι συλλογίσασθαι ὑπάρχειν, δεῖ τὸ μέσον, διʼ οὗ γίνεται ὁ συλλογισμός, καὶ ἧττον ἀεὶ εἶναι καὶ μὴ καθόλου τοῦ πρώτου τῶν ἄκρων·
In demonstrations, then, when it is required to syllogize that something belongs, the middle term, through which the syllogism comes about, must always be lesser than and not universal to the first of the extremes.
ἡ δὲ διαίρεσις τοὐναντίον βούλεται· τὸ γὰρ καθόλου λαμβάνει μέσον.
Division, however, wishes the opposite; for it takes the universal as the middle term.
ἔστω γὰρ ζῶον ἐφʼ οὗ Α, τὸ δὲ θνητὸν ἐφʼ οὗ Β, καὶ ἀθάνατον ἐφʼ οὗ Γ, ὁ δʼ ἄνθρωπος, οὗ τὸν λόγον δεῖ λαβεῖν, ἐφʼ οὗ τὸ Δ. ἅπαν δὴ ζῷον λαμβάνει ἢ θνητὸν ἢ ἀθάνατον·
For let animal be that on which A is, mortal on which B, and immortal on which Γ, and man, whose definition must be grasped, on which Δ is.
τοῦτο δʼ ἐστίν, ὃ ἂν ᾖ Α, ἅπαν εἶναι ῇ Β ἢ Γ. πάλιν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀεὶ διαιρούμενος τίθεται ζῷον εἶναι, ὥστε κατὰ τοῦ Δ τὸ Α λαμβάνει ὑπάρχειν.
Now, everyone who divides takes every animal to be either mortal or immortal; and this is for everything which is A to be either B or Γ. Again, always dividing, he posits man to be an animal, so that he takes A to belong to Δ.
ὁ μὲν οὖν συλλογισμός ἐστιν ὅτι τὸ Δ ἢ Β ἢ Γ ἅπαν ἔσται, ὥστε τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἢ θντητὸν μὲν ἢ ἀθάνατον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι, ζῷον θντητὸν δὲ οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον, ἀλλʼ αὐτεῖται· τοῦτο δʼ ἦν ὃ ἔδει συλλογίσασθαι.
The syllogism, then, is that every Δ will be either B or Γ, so that it is necessary for man to be either mortal or immortal, but for him to be a mortal animal is not necessary, but is begged; yet this was what was required to be syllogized.
καὶ πάλιν θέμενος τὸ μὲν Α ζῷον θνητόν, ἐφʼ οὗ δὲ τὸ Β ὑπόπουν, ἐφʼ οὗ δὲ τὸ Γ ἄπουν, τὸν δʼ ἄνθρωπον τὸ Δ, ὡσαύτως λαμβάνει τὸ μὲν Α ἤτοι ἐν τῷ Β ἢ ἐν τῷ Γ εἶναι (ἅπαν γὰρ ζῷον θνηπὸν ἢ ὑπόπουν ἢ ἄπουν ἐστί), κατὰ δὲ τοῦ Δ τὸ Α (τὸν γὰρ ἄνθρωπον ζῷον θντητὸν εἶναι ἔλαβεν)· ὥσθ᾿ ὑπόπουν μὲν ἢ ἄπουν εἶναι ζῷον ἀνάγκη τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὑπόπουν δʼ οὐκ ἀνάγκη, ἀλλὰ λαμβάνει·
And again, having posited A as mortal animal, B as footed, Γ as footless, and man as Δ, he likewise takes A to be either in B or in Γ (for every mortal animal is either footed or footless), and A to belong to Δ (for he took man to be a mortal animal); so that it is necessary for man to be either footed or footless, but for him to be footed is not necessary, but he takes it; yet this was what was required to be shown again.
τοῦτο δʼ ἦν ὃ ἔδει πάλιν δεῖξαι. καὶ τοῦτον δὴ τὸν τρόπον ἀεὶ διαιρουμένοις τὸ μὲν καθόλου συμβαίνει αὐτοῖς μέσον λαμβάνειν, καθʼ οὗ δʼ ἔδει δεῖξαι καὶ τὰς διαφορὰς ἄρα.
And in this way indeed, for those who always divide, it happens that they take the universal as the middle, and also that about which it was required to show and the differences as well.
τέλος δέ, ὅτι τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος ἢ ὅ τι ποτʼ ἂν ᾖ τὸ ζητούμενον, οὐδὲν λέγουσι σαφὲς ὥστʼ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι· καὶ γὰρ τὴν ἄλλην ὁδὸν ποιοῦνται πᾶσαν, οὐδὲ τὰς ἐνδεχομένας εὐπορίας ὑπολαμβάνοντες ὑπάρχειν.
And finally, they say nothing clear so as to make it necessary that this is man or whatever the object of inquiry may be; for they travel along the whole of the other road, not even suspecting that the possible means of discovery are available to them.
Φανερὸν δʼ ὅτι οὔτʼ ἀνασκευάσαι ταύτῃ τῇ μεθόδῳ ἔστιν, οὔτε περὶ συμβεβηκότος ἢ ἰδίου συλλογίσασθαι, οὔτε περὶ γένους, οὔτʼ ἐν οἷς ἀγνοεῖται τὸ πότερον ὡδὶ ἢ ὡδὶ ἔχει, οἷονἆῤ ἡ διάμετρος ἀσύμμετρος ἢ σύμμετρος.
And it is clear that it is not possible to refute by this method, nor to syllogize concerning an accident or a property, nor concerning a genus, nor in those cases where it is unknown whether it is this way or that way, as, for example, whether the diagonal is incommensurable or commensurable.
ἐὰν γὰρ λάβῃ ὅτι ἅπαν μῆκος ἢ. σύμμετρον ἢ ἀσύμμετρον, ἡ δὲ διάμετρος μῆκος, συλλελόγισται ὅτι ἀσύμμετρος ἢ σύμμετρος ἡ διάμετρος.
For if one takes that every length is either commensurable or incommensurable, and the diagonal is a length, it has been syllogized that the diagonal is either incommensurable or commensurable.
εἰ δὲ λήψεται ἀσύμμετρον, ὃ ἔδει συλλογίσασθαι λήψεται.
But if he takes that it is incommensurable, he will take what was required to be syllogized.
οὐκ ἄρα ἔστι δεῖξαι· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ὁδὸς αὕτη, διὰ ταύτης δʼ οὐκ ἔστιν.
Therefore, it is not possible to demonstrate; for this is the road, but through this it is not possible.
τὸ ἀσύμμετρον ἢ σύμμετρον ἐφʼ οὗ Α, μῆκος Β, διάμετρος Γ. φανερόν οὖν ὅτι οὔτε πρὸς πᾶσαν σκέψιν ἁρμόζει τῆς ζητήσεως ὁ τρόπος, οὔτʼ ἐν οἷς μάλιστα δοκεῖ πρέπειν, ἐν τούτοις ἐστὶ χρήσιμος.
Let incommensurable or commensurable be that on which A is, length B, diagonal Γ. It is clear, then, that this mode of inquiry is neither suitable for every examination, nor is it useful in those cases where it most seems to be appropriate.
Ἐκ τίνων μὲν οὖν αἱ ἀποδείξεις γίνονται καὶ πῶς, καὶ εἰς ὁποῖα βλεπτέον καθʼ ἕκαστον πρόβλημα, φανερὸν
From what things, then, demonstrations come about and how, and to what things one must look in each problem, is clear.