Aristotle - The Organon - index for ANALYTICA PRIORIA Book 1 Part 4

The first figure

Paragraph 1 After these distinctions we now state by what means, when, and how every syllogism is produced;

Paragraph 2 Whenever three terms are so related to one another that the last is contained in the middle as in a whole, and the middle is either contained in, or excluded from, the first as in or from a whole, the extremes must be related by a perfect syllogism.

Paragraph 3 But if the first term belongs to all the middle, but the middle to none of the last term, there will be no syllogism in respect of the extremes;

Paragraph 4 If then the terms are universally related, it is clear in this figure when a syllogism will be possible and when not, and that if a syllogism is possible the terms must be related as described, and if they are so related there will be a syllogism.

Paragraph 5 But if one term is related universally, the other in part only, to its subject, there must be a perfect syllogism whenever universality is posited with reference to the major term either affirmatively or negatively, and particularity with reference to the minor term affirmatively:

Paragraph 6 But if the universality is posited with respect to the minor term either affirmatively or negatively, a syllogism will not be possible, whether the major premiss is positive or negative, indefinite or particular:

Paragraph 7 Nor when the major premiss is universal, whether affirmative or negative, and the minor premiss is negative and particular, can there be a syllogism, whether the minor premiss be indefinite or particular:

Paragraph 8 Further since it is indefinite to say some C is not B, and it is true that some C is not B, whether no C is B, or not all C is B, and since if terms are assumed such that no C is B, no syllogism follows (this has already been stated) it is clear that this arrangement of terms will not afford a syllogism:

Paragraph 9 Nor can there in any way be a syllogism if both the relations of subject and predicate are particular, either positively or negatively, or the one negative and the other affirmative, or one indefinite and the other definite, or both indefinite.

Paragraph 10 It is clear then from what has been said that if there is a syllogism in this figure with a particular conclusion, the terms must be related as we have stated:

HTML by

created 1996/11/25 modified 2009/04/26


Paragraph 1	After these distinctions we now state by what means, when, and how every syllogism is produced;
Paragraph 2	Whenever three terms are so related to one another that the last is contained in the middle as in a whole, and the middle is either contained in, or excluded from, the first as in or from a whole, the extremes must be related by a perfect syllogism.
Paragraph 3	But if the first term belongs to all the middle, but the middle to none of the last term, there will be no syllogism in respect of the extremes;
Paragraph 4	If then the terms are universally related, it is clear in this figure when a syllogism will be possible and when not, and that if a syllogism is possible the terms must be related as described, and if they are so related there will be a syllogism.
Paragraph 5	But if one term is related universally, the other in part only, to its subject, there must be a perfect syllogism whenever universality is posited with reference to the major term either affirmatively or negatively, and particularity with reference to the minor term affirmatively:
Paragraph 6	But if the universality is posited with respect to the minor term either affirmatively or negatively, a syllogism will not be possible, whether the major premiss is positive or negative, indefinite or particular:
Paragraph 7	Nor when the major premiss is universal, whether affirmative or negative, and the minor premiss is negative and particular, can there be a syllogism, whether the minor premiss be indefinite or particular:
Paragraph 8	Further since it is indefinite to say some C is not B, and it is true that some C is not B, whether no C is B, or not all C is B, and since if terms are assumed such that no C is B, no syllogism follows (this has already been stated) it is clear that this arrangement of terms will not afford a syllogism:
Paragraph 9	Nor can there in any way be a syllogism if both the relations of subject and predicate are particular, either positively or negatively, or the one negative and the other affirmative, or one indefinite and the other definite, or both indefinite.
Paragraph 10	It is clear then from what has been said that if there is a syllogism in this figure with a particular conclusion, the terms must be related as we have stated: