Authors/Aristotle/priora/Liber 1/C1

Chapter 1

Greek	Latin	English
	CAPUT PRIMUM. De propositione, termino et syllogismo.	1
24a1 Πρῶτον εἰπεῖν περὶ τί καὶ τίνος ἐστὶν ἡ σκέψις, ὅτι περὶ ἀπόδειξιν καὶ ἐπιστήμης ἀποδεικτικῆς· 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.	Primum dicendum circa quid et de quo est intentio, quoniam circa demonstrationem et de disciplina demonstrativa est. Deinde determinandum quid propositio, et quid terminus, quid syllogismus, quis perfectus, et quis imperfectus. Postea vero quid est in toto esse, vel non esse hoc in illo, et quid dicimus de omni, aut de nullo praedicari.	WE must first state the subject of our inquiry and the faculty to which it belongs: its subject is demonstration and the faculty that carries it out demonstrative science. We must next define a premiss, a term, and a syllogism, and the nature of a perfect and of an imperfect syllogism; and after that, the inclusion or noninclusion of one term in another as in a whole, and what we mean by predicating one term of all, or none, of another.
Πρότασις μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ λόγος καταφατικὸς ἢ ἀποφατικός τινος κατά τινος· οὗτος δὲ ἢ καθόλου ἢ ἐν μέρει ἢ ἀδιόριστος. 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. 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. 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.	Propositio ergo est oratio affirmativa, vel negativa alicuius de aliquo. Haec autem aut universalis, aut particularis, aut indefinita. Dico autem universalem quidem, cum aliquid omni, aut nulli inesse; particularem vero, cum alicui, aut non alicui, aut non omni inesse. (0639C) Indefinitam autem, cum quid inesse, vel non inesse significat, sive universali, vel particulari, ut contrariorum eamdem esse disciplinam, aut voluptatem non esse bonum. Differt autem demonstrativa propositio A dialectica, quoniam demonstrativa quidem sumptio alterius partis contradictionis est. Non enim interrogat, sed sumit, qui demonstrat. Dialectica vero interrogatio contradictionis est. Nihil autem refert ut fiat ex utraque syllogismus; nam et qui demonstrat, et qui interrogat, syllogizat, sumens aliquid de aliquo esse, vel non esse.	A premiss then is a sentence affirming or denying one thing of another. This is either universal or particular or indefinite. By universal I mean the statement that something belongs to all or none of something else; by particular that it belongs to some or not to some or not to all; by indefinite that it does or does not belong, without any mark to show whether it is universal or particular, e.g. ‘contraries are subjects of the same science’, or ‘pleasure is not good’. The demonstrative premiss differs from the dialectical, because the demonstrative premiss is the assertion of one of two contradictory statements (the demonstrator does not ask for his premiss, but lays it down), whereas the dialectical premiss depends on the adversary’s choice between two contradictories. But this will make no difference to the production of a syllogism in either case; for both the demonstrator and the dialectician argue syllogistically after stating that something does or does not belong to something else.
ὥστε ἔσται συλλογιστικὴ μὲν πρότασις ἁπλῶς κατάφασις ἢ ἀπόφασίς τινος κατά τινος τὸν εἰρημένον τρό-πον, 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. τί μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ πρότασις, καὶ τί διαφέρει συλλογιστικὴ καὶ ἀποδεικτικὴ καὶ διαλεκτική, δι᾽ ἀκριβείας μὲν ἐν τοῖς ἑπομένοις ῥηθήσεται, πρὸς δὲ τὴν παροῦσαν χρείαν ἱκανῶς ἡμῖν διωρίσθω τὰ νῦν.	Quare erit syllogistica quidem propositio, simpliciter affirmatio vel negatio alicuius de aliquo secundum dictum modum. Demonstrativa vero si vera sit, et per primas propositiones sumpta. Dialectica autem percontanti quidem interrogatio contradictionis est, syllogizanti vero sumptio apparentis et probabilis, quemadmodum in Topicis dictum est. (0639D) Quid est ergo propositio, et quid differt syllogistica A demonstrativa et dialectica, diligentius quidem in sequentibus dicetur. Ad praesentem vero utilitatem, sufficienter nobis determinata sint, quae nunc dicta sunt.	Therefore a syllogistic premiss without qualification will be an affirmation or denial of something concerning something else in the way we have described; it will be demonstrative, if it is true and obtained through the first principles of its science; while a dialectical premiss is the giving of a choice between two contradictories, when a man is proceeding by question, but when he is syllogizing it is the assertion of that which is apparent and generally admitted, as has been said in the Topics. The nature then of a premiss and the difference between syllogistic, demonstrative, and dialectical premisses, may be taken as sufficiently defined by us in relation to our present need, but will be stated accurately in the sequel.
Ὅρον δὲ καλῶ εἰς ὃν διαλύεται ἡ πρότασις, οἷον τό τε κατηγορούμενον καὶ τὸ καθ᾽ οὗ κατηγορεῖται, προστιθεμένου [ἢ διαιρουμένου] τοῦ εἶναι ἢ μὴ εἶναι.	Terminum autem voco, in quem resolvitur propositio, ut praedicatum, et de quo praedicatur, vel apposito, vel separato esse, vel non esse.	I call that a term into which the premiss is resolved, i.e. both the predicate and that of which it is predicated, ‘being’ being added and ‘not being’ removed, or vice versa.
συλλογισμὸς δέ ἐστι λόγος ἐν ὧι τεθέντων τινῶν ἕτερόν τι τῶν κειμένων ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβαίνει τῶι ταῦτα εἶναι. λέγω δὲ τῶι ταῦτα εἶναι τὸ διὰ ταῦτα συμβαίνειν, τὸ δὲ διὰ ταῦτα συμβαίνειν τὸ μηδενὸς ἔξωθεν ὅρου προσδεῖν πρὸς τὸ γενέσθαι τὸ ἀναγκαῖον.	Syllogismus est oratio in qua, quibusdam positis, aliud quiddam ab his quae posita sunt ex necessitate accidit, eo quod haec sunt. Dico autem eo quod haec sunt, propter haec accidere. Propter haec vero accidere, est nullius extrinsecus termini indigere, ut fiat necessarium. Perfectum vero voco syllogismum, qui nullius alius indiget, praeter ea quae sumpta sunt, ut appareat necessarium.	A syllogism is discourse in which, certain things being stated, something other than what is stated follows of necessity from their being so. I mean by the last phrase that they produce the consequence, and by this, that no further term is required from without in order to make the consequence necessary.
τέλειον μὲν οὖν καλῶ συλλογισμὸν τὸν μηδενὸς ἄλλου προσδεόμενον παρὰ 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.	(0640A) Imperfectum vero, qui indiget aut unius aut plurium, quae sunt quidem necessaria per subiectos terminos, non autem sumpta sunt per propositiones.	I call that a perfect syllogism which needs nothing other than what has been stated to make plain what necessarily follows; a syllogism is imperfect, if it needs either one or more propositions, which are indeed the necessary consequences of the terms set down, but have not been expressly stated as premisses.
τὸ δὲ ἐν ὅλωι εἶναι ἕτερον ἑτέρωι καὶ τὸ κατὰ παντὸς κατηγορεῖσθαι θατέρου θάτερον ταὐτόν ἐστιν. λέγομεν δὲ τὸ κατὰ παντὸς κατηγορεῖσθαι ὅταν μηδὲν ἦι λαβεῖν [τοῦ ὑποκειμένου] καθ᾽ οὗ θάτερον οὐ λεχθήσεται· καὶ τὸ κατὰ μηδενὸς ὡσαύτως.	(0640B) In toto autem esse alterum in altero, et de omni praedicari alterum de altero idem est. Dicimus autem de omni praedicari, quando nihil est sumere subiecti, de quo non dicatur alterum, et de nullo similiter.	That one term should be included in another as in a whole is the same as for the other to be predicated of all of the first. And we say that one term is predicated of all of another, whenever no instance of the subject can be found of which the other term cannot be asserted: ‘to be predicated of none’ must be understood in the same way.