§1.1.7Δῆλον δὲ καὶ ὅτι ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς σχήμασιν, ὅταν μὴ γίνηται συλλογισμός, κατηγορικῶν μὲν ἢ στερητικῶν ἀμφοτέρων ὄντων τῶν ὅρων οὐδὲν ὅλως γίνεται ἀναγκαῖον, κατηγορικοῦ δὲ καὶ στερητικοῦ, καθόλου ληφθέντος τοῦ στερητικοῦ ἀεὶ γίνεται συλλογισμὸς τοῦ ἐλάττονος ἄκρου πρὸς τὸ μεῖον, οἷον εἰ τὸ μὲν Α παντὶ τῷ Β ἢ τινί, τὸ δὲ Β μηδενὶ τῷ Γ·
It is also clear that in all the figures, when there is no syllogism, if both terms are affirmative or privative, nothing necessary at all comes about; but if one is affirmative and the other privative, and the privative is taken as universal, a syllogism of the minor term in relation to the major always comes about.
ἀντιστρεφομένων γὰρ τῶν προτάσεων ἀνάγκη τὸ Γ τινὶ τῷ Α μὴ ὑπάρχειν.
For example, if A belongs to every B or to some B, and B belongs to no Γ; for when the premises are converted, Γ must of necessity not belong to some A.
ὁμοίως δὲ κἀπὶ τῶν ἑτέρων σχημάτων· ἀεὶ γὰρ γίνεταιδιὰ τῆς ἀντιστροφῆς συλλογισμός.
Similarly also in the other figures; for a syllogism always comes about through conversion.
δῆλον δὲ καὶ ὅτι τὸ ἀδιόριστον ἀντὶ τοῦ κατηγορικοῦ τοῦ ἐν μέρει τιθέμενον τὸν αὐτὸν ποιήσει συλλογισμόν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς σχήμασιν.
It is also clear that the indefinite, when put instead of the particular affirmative, will produce the same syllogism in all the figures.
Φανερὸν δὲ καὶ ὅτι πάντες οἱ ἀτελεῖς συλλογισμοὶ τελειοῦνται διὰ τοῦ πρώτου σχήματος.
It is also clear that all the imperfect syllogisms are completed through the first figure.
ἢ γὰρ δεικτικῶς ἢ διὰ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου περαίνονται πάντες·
For they are all concluded either ostensively or through the impossible; and in both ways the first figure comes about.
ἀμφοτέρως δὲ γίνεται τό πρῶτον σχῆμα, δεικτικῶς μὲν τελειουμένων, ὅτι διὰ τῆς ἀντιστροφῆς ἐπεραίνοντο πάντες, ἡ δʼ ἀντιστροφὴ τὸ πρῶτον ἐποίει σχῆμα, διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου δεικνυμένων, ὅτι τεθέντος τοῦ ψεύδους ὁ συλλογισμὸς γίνεται διὰ τοῦ πρώτου σχήματος, οἷον ἐν τῷ τελευταίῳ σχήματι, εἰ τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Β παντὶ τῷ Γ ὑπάρχει, ὅτι τὸ Α τινὶ τῷ Β ὑπάρχει·
In the case of those completed ostensively, they were all concluded through conversion, and conversion produced the first figure; and in the case of those demonstrated through the impossible, when the falsehood is assumed, the syllogism comes about through the first figure.
εἰ γὰρ μηδενί, τὸ δὲ Β παντὶ τῷ Γ, οὐδενὶ τῷ Γ τὸ Α· ἀλλʼ ἦν παντί.
For example, in the last figure, if A and B belong to every Γ, to show that A belongs to some B: for if A belongs to no B, and B belongs to every Γ, A will belong to no Γ; but it belonged to every Γ.
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων.
Similarly also in the other cases.
Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἀναγαγεῖν πάντας τοὺς συλλογισμούς εἰς τοὺς ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ σχήματι καθόλου συλλογισμούς.
It is also possible to reduce all syllogisms to the universal syllogisms in the first figure.
οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ φανερὸν ὅτι διʼ ἐκείνων τελειοῦνται, πλὴν οὐχ ὁμοίως πάντες, ἀλλʼ οἱ μὲν καθόλου τοῦ στερητικοῦ ἀντιστραφέντος, τῶν δʼ ἐν μέρει ἑκάτερος διὰ τῆς εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπαγωγῆς.
For it is clear that those in the second figure are completed through them, though not all in the same way, but the universal ones when the privative premise is converted, and each of the particular ones through the reduction to the impossible.
οἱ δʼ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ, οἱ κατὰ μέρος, ἐπιτελοῦνται μὲν καὶ διʼ αὐτῶν, ἔστι δὲ καὶ διὰ τοῦ δευτέρου σχήματος δεικνύναι εἰς ἀδύνατον ἀπάγοντας, οἷον εἰ τὸ παντὶ τῷ Β, τὸ δὲ Β τινὶ τῷ Γ, ὅτι τὸ Α τινὶ τῷ Γ·
And those in the first figure, which are particular, are indeed completed through themselves, but it is also possible to demonstrate them through the second figure by reduction to the impossible.
εἰ γὰρ μηδενί, τῷ δὲ Β παντί, οὐδενὶ τῷ Γ τὸ Β ὑπάρξει· τοῦτο γὰρ ἴσμεν διὰ τοῦ δευτέρου σχήματος.
For example, if A belongs to every B, and B to some Γ, to show that A belongs to some Γ: for if A belongs to no Γ, and to every B, B will belong to no Γ; for this we know through the second figure.
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ στερητικοῦ ἔσται ἡ ἀπόδειξις.
Similarly also in the case of the privative the proof will be.
εἰ γὰρ τὸ Α μηδενὶ τῷ Β, τὸ δὲ Β τινὶ τῷ Γ ὑπάρχει, τὸ Α τινὶ τῷ Γ οὐχ ὑπάρξει· εἰ γὰρ παντί, τῷ δὲ Β μηδενὶ ὑπάρχει, οὐδενὶ τῷ Γ τὸ Β ὑπάρξει· τοῦτο δʼ ἦν τὸ μέσον σχῆμα.
For if A belongs to no B, and B to some Γ, A will not belong to some Γ; for if A belongs to every Γ, and to no B, B will belong to no Γ; and this was the middle figure.
ὥστʼ ἐπεὶ οἱ μὲν ἐν τῷ μέσῳ σχήματι συλλογισμοὶ πάντες ἀνάγονται εἰς τοὺς ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ καθόλου συλλογισμούς, οἱ δὲ κατὰ μέρος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ εἰς τοὺς ἐν τῷ μέσῳ, φανερὸν ὅτι καὶ οἱ κατὰ μέρος ἀναχθήσονται εἰς τοὺς ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ σχήματι καθόλου συλλογισμούς.
So since the syllogisms in the middle figure are all reduced to the universal syllogisms in the first, and the particular ones in the first to those in the middle, it is clear that the particular ones will also be reduced to the universal syllogisms in the first figure.
οἱ δʼ ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ καθόλοω μὲν ὄντων τῶν ὅρων εὐθὺς ἐπιτελοῦνται διʼ ἐκείνων τῶν συλλογισμῶν, ὅταν δʼ ἐν μέρει ληφθῶσι, διὰ τῶν ἐν μέρει συλλογισμῶν τῶν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ σχήματι· οὗτοι δὲ ἀνήχθησαν εἰς ἐκείνους, ὥστε καὶ οἱ ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ σχήματι, οἱ κατὰ μέρος.
And those in the third figure, when the terms are universal, are directly completed through those syllogisms, but when they are taken as particular, through the particular syllogisms in the first figure; and these have been reduced to those, so that the particular ones in the third figure are so as well.
φανερὸν οὖν ὅτι πάντες ἀναχθήσονται εἰς τοὺς ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ σχήματι καθόλου συλλογισμούς.
It is clear, then, that all will be reduced to the universal syllogisms in the first figure.
Οἱ μὲν οὖν τῶν συλλογισμῶν ὑπάρχειν ἢ μὴ ὑπάρχειν δεικνύντες εἴρηται πῶς ἔχουσι, καὶ καθʼ ἑαυτοὺς οἱ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ σχήματος καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἱ ἐκ τῶν ἑτέρων.
Thus, as for the syllogisms which demonstrate belonging or not belonging, it has been said how they are, both by themselves for those in the same figure and in relation to one another for those in different figures.