Principles of Nature Prior Analytics, by Aristotle (350 BC) 2/15/22

BOOK I, CHAPTER 4
After these distinctions we now state by what means, when, and how every syllogism is We must now explain how every
produced; subsequently we must speak of demonstration. Syllogism should be discussed syllogism is produced.
before demonstration because syllogism is the general: the demonstration is a sort of
syllogism, but not every syllogism is a demonstration.
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 The middle term is contained in
from a whole, the extremes must be related by a perfect syllogism. I call that term middle another one, and contains yet another
which is itself contained in another and contains another in itself: in position also this one.
comes in the middle. By extremes I mean both that term which is itself contained in
another and that in which another is contained. If A is predicated of all B, and B of all C, All B is A, and All C is B, ∴All C is
A must be predicated of all C: we have already explained what we mean by ‘predicated of A.
all’. Similarly also, if A is predicated of no B, and B of all C, it is necessary that no C will No B is A, and All C is B, ∴No C is
be A. A.
But if the first term belongs to all the middle, but the middle to none of the last term, there If All of the Middle is the First, and
will be no syllogism in respect of the extremes; for nothing necessary follows from the None of the Last is the Middle, there
terms being so related; for it is possible that the first should belong either to all or to none will be no syllogism.
of the last, so that neither a particular nor a universal conclusion is necessary. But if there
is no necessary consequence, there cannot be a syllogism by means of these premisses. As
an example of a universal affirmative relation between the extremes we may take the
terms animal, man, horse; of a universal negative relation, the terms animal, man, stone.
Nor again can syllogism be formed when neither the first term belongs to any of the There is not syllogism if None of the
middle, nor the middle to any of the last. As an example of a positive relation between the Middle is the First, and None of the
extremes take the terms science, line, medicine: of a negative relation science, line, unit. Last is the Middle.
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.
But if one term is related universally, the other in part only, to its subject, there must be a If one premise is universal and the
perfect syllogism whenever universality is posited with reference to the major term either other is particular, there is a syllogism
affirmatively or negatively, and particularity with reference to the minor term if the major premise is universal and
affirmatively: but whenever the universality is posited in relation to the minor term, or the the minor premise is particular.
terms are related in any other way, a syllogism is impossible. I call that term the major in
which the middle is contained and that term the minor which comes under the middle. Let
all B be A and some C be B. Then if ‘predicated of all’ means what was said above, it is All B is A, Some C is B, ∴Some C is
necessary that some C is A. And if no B is A but some C is B, it is necessary that some C A. No B is A, and Some C is B,
is not A. The meaning of ‘predicated of none’ has also been defined. So there will be a ∴Some C is not A
perfect syllogism. This holds good also if the premiss BC should be indefinite, provided
that it is affirmative: for we shall have the same syllogism whether the premiss is
indefinite or particular.
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 A syllogism will not be possible if
negative, indefinite or particular: e.g. if some B is or is not A, and all C is B. As an Some B is or is not A, and All C is B.
example of a positive relation between the extremes take the terms good, state, wisdom:
of a negative relation, good, state, ignorance. Again if no C is B, but some B is or is not A If No C is B and Some B is or is not
or not every B is A, there cannot be a syllogism. Take the terms white, horse, swan: white, A, there cannot be a syllogism.
horse, raven. The same terms may be taken also if the premiss BA is indefinite.
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 Nor can there be a syllogism if All B
indefinite or particular: e.g. if all B is A and some C is not B, or if not all C is B. For the is A and Some C is not B.
major term may be predicable both of all and of none of the minor, to some of which the
middle term cannot be attributed. Suppose the terms are animal, man, white: next take
some of the white things of which man is not predicated-swan and snow: animal is
predicated of all of the one, but of none of the other. Consequently there cannot be a
syllogism. Again let no B be A, but let some C not be B. Take the terms inanimate, man, Nor if No B is A and Some C is not B.
white: then take some white things of which man is not predicated-swan and snow: the
term inanimate is predicated of all of the one, of none of the other.
Further since it is indefinite to say some C is not B, and it is true that some C is not B, There is no syllogism if Some C is not
whether no C is B, or not all C is B, and since if terms are assumed such that no C is B, no B, since it was already shown that
syllogism follows (this has already been stated) it is clear that this arrangement of terms there is no syllogism if No C is B

1
Principles of Nature Prior Analytics, by Aristotle (350 BC) 2/15/22
will not afford a syllogism: otherwise one would have been possible with a universal
negative minor premiss. A similar proof may also be given if the universal premiss is
negative.
Nor can there in any way be a syllogism if both the relations of subject and predicate are Nor can there be a syllogism if both
particular, either positively or negatively, or the one negative and the other affirmative, or premises are particular.
one indefinite and the other definite, or both indefinite. Terms common to all the above
are animal, white, horse: animal, white, stone.
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: if they are related
otherwise, no syllogism is possible anyhow. It is evident also that all the syllogisms in this These syllogisms are perfect, since
figure are perfect (for they are all completed by means of the premisses originally taken) they are clear just from the given
and that all conclusions are proved by this figure, viz. universal and particular, affirmative premises.
and negative. Such a figure I call the first. This figure I call the First.