§1.2.1## B.
Ἐν πόσοις μὲν οὗν σχήμασι καὶ διὰ ποίων καὶ πόσων προτάσεων καὶ πότε καὶ πῶς γίνεται συλλογισμός, ἔτι δʼ εἰς ποῖα βλεπτέον ἀνασκευάζοντι καὶ κατασκευάζοντι, καὶ πῶς δεῖ ζητεῖν περὶ τοῦ προκειμένου καθʼ ὁποιανοῦν μέθοδον, ἔτι δὲ διὰ ποίας ὁδοῦ ληψόμεθα τὰς περὶ ἕκαστον ἀρχάς, ἤδη διεληλύθαμεν.
## B. We have already discussed, then, in how many figures and through what kinds and how many premises, and when and how a syllogism comes about; further, to what we must look when refuting and establishing, and how we must investigate the proposed problem by any method, and furthermore, by what path we shall obtain the principles concerning each subject.
ἐπεὶ δʼ οἱ μὲν καθόλου τῶν· συλλογισμῶν εἰσὶν οἱ δὲ κατὰ μέρος, οἱ μὲν καθόλου πάντες αἰεὶ πλείω συλλογίζονται, τῶν δʼ ἐν μέρει οἱ μὲν κατηγορικοὶ πλείω, οἱ δʼ ἀποφατικοὶ τὸ συμπέρασμα μόνον.
But since some syllogisms are universal and others particular, the universal ones always conclude more than one thing, whereas of the particular ones, the affirmative conclude more, but the negative only the conclusion itself.
αἰ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλαι προτάσεις ἀντιστρέφουσιν, ἡ δὲ στερητικὴ οὐκ ἀντιστρέφει.
For the other propositions convert, but the privative does not convert.
τὸ δὲ συμπέρασμα τὶ κατά τινός ἐστιν, ὥσθʼ οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι συλλογισμοὶ πλείω συλλογίζονται, οἷον εἰ τὸ Α δέδεικται παντὶ τῷ Β ἢ τινί, καὶ τὸ Β τινὶ τῷ Α ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν, καὶ εἰ μηδενὶ τῷ Β τὸ Α, οὐδὲ τὸ Β οὐδενὶ τῷ Α, τοῦτο δʼ ἕτερον τοῦ ἔμπροσθεν· εἰ δὲ τινὶ μὴ ὑπάρχει, οὐκ ἀνάγκη καὶ τὸ Β τινὶ τῷ Α μὴ ὑπάρχειν· ἐνδέχεται γὰρ παντὶ ὑπάρχειν.
And the conclusion is of something about something, so that the other syllogisms conclude more; for instance, if A has been proved to belong to all or to some B, B also must belong to some A, and if A belongs to no B, B also belongs to no A, and this is different from the former conclusion; but if it does not belong to some, it is not necessary that B also does not belong to some A, for it is possible for it to belong to all.
Αὕτη μὲν οὖν κοινὴ πάντων αἰτία, τῶν τε καθόλου καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος· ἔστι δὲ περὶ τῶν καθόλου καὶ ἄλλως εἰπεῖν.
This, then, is the common cause for all, both the universal and the particular; but concerning the universal ones it is possible to speak in another way as well.
ὅσα γὰρ ἢ ὑπὸ τὸ μέσον ἢ ὑπὸ τὸ συμπέρασμά ἐστιν, ἀπάντων ἔσται ὁ αὐτὸς συλλογισμός, ἐὰν τὰ μὲν ἐν τῷ μέσῳ τὰ δʼ ἐν τῷ συμπεράσματι τεθῇ, οἷον εἰ τὸ Α Β συμπέρασμα διὰ τοῦ Γ, ὅσα ὑπὸ τὸ Β ἢ τὸ Γ ἐστίν, ἀνάγκη κατὰ πάντων λέγεσθαι τὸ Α·
For of all things that are either under the middle term or under the conclusion, there will be the same syllogism, if some are placed in the middle and others in the conclusion; for instance, if the conclusion is AB through C, then of whatever is under B or C, A must be predicated of all.
εἰ γὰρ τὸ Δ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ Β, τὸ δὲ Β ἐν τῷ Α, καὶ τὸ Δ ἔσται ἐν τῷ Α· πάλιν εἰ τὸ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ Γ, τὸ δὲ Γ ἐν τῷ Α, καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ ἔσται.
For if D is in the whole of B, and B in A, D also will be in A; again, if what is in the whole of C, and C is in A, then what is in it will also be in A.
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰ στερητικὸς ὁ συλλογισμός.
And similarly also if the syllogism is negative.
ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ δευτέρου σχήματος τὸ ὑπὸ τὸ συμπέρασμα μόνον ἔσται συλλογίσασθαι, οἷον εἰ τὸ τῷ Β μηδενί, τῷ δὲ Γ παντί· συμπέρασμα ὅτι οὐδενὶ τῷ Γ τὸ Β. εἰ δὴ τὸ Δ ὑπὸ τὸ Γ ἐστί, φανερὸν ὅτι οὐχ ὑπάρχει αὐτῷ τὸ Β· τοῖς δʼ ὑπὸ τὸ Α ὅτι οὐχ ὑπάρχει, οὐ δῆλον διὰ τοῦ συλλογισμοῦ.
But in the second figure, it will be possible to conclude only what is under the conclusion, for instance, if it belongs to no B, but to all C; the conclusion is that B belongs to no C. If, then, D is under C, it is clear that B does not belong to it; but that it does not belong to those under A is not clear through the syllogism.
καίτοι οὐχ ὑπάρχει τῷ Ε, εἰ ἔστιν ὑπὸ τὸ ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν τῷ Γ μηδενὶ ὑπάρχειν τὸ Β διὰ τοῦ συλλογισμοῦ δέδεικται, τὸ δὲ τῷ μὴ ὑπάρχειν ἀναπόδεικτον εἴληπται, ὥστʼ οὐ διὰ τὸν συλλογισμὸν συμβαίνει τὸ Β τῷ Ε μὴ ὑπάρχειν.
And yet it does not belong to E, if it is under it; but while B's belonging to no C has been proved through the syllogism, its not belonging has been assumed without proof, so that it is not because of the syllogism that B does not belong to E.
ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἐν μέρει τῶν μὲν ὑπὸ τὸ συμπέρασμα οὐκ ἔσται τὸ ἀναγκαῖον (οὐ γὰρ γίνεται συλλογισμός, ὅταν αὕτη ληφθῇ ἐν μέρει), τῶν δʼ ὑπὸ τὸ μέσον ἔσται πάντων, πλὴν οὐ διὰ τὸν συλλογισμόν· οἷον εἰ τὸ Α παντὶ τῷ Β, τὸ δὲ Β τινὶ τῷ Γ·
In the case of particular syllogisms, that which is necessary will not hold for things under the conclusion (for no syllogism arises when this is taken as particular), but it will hold for all those under the middle term, except not through the syllogism; for instance, if A belongs to all B, and B to some C.
τοῦ μὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ τὸ Γ τεθέντος οὐκ ἔσται συλλογισμός, τοῦ δʼ ὑπὸ τὸ Β ἔσται, ἀλλʼ οὐ διὰ τὸν προγεγενημένον.
For if something is placed under C, there will be no syllogism, but if under B, there will be, yet not through the previously generated one.
ὁμοίως δὲ κἀπὶ τῶν ἄλλων σχημάτων·
And similarly also in the case of the other figures.
τοῦ μὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ τὸ συμπέρασμα οὐκ ἔσται, θατέρου δʼ ἔσται, πλὴν οὐ διὰ τὸν συλλογισμόν, ᾗ καὶ ἐν τοῖς καθόλου ἐξ ἀναποδείκτου τῆς προτάσεως τὰ ὑπὸ τὸ μέσον ἐδείκνυτο· ὥστʼ ἢ οὐδʼ ἐκεῖ ἔσται ἢ καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων.
For there will not be a syllogism for what is under the conclusion, but there will be for the other, except not through the syllogism, just as also in the universal ones the things under the middle were proved from an unproved premise; so that either there will not be a syllogism there either, or it will hold in these cases too.