CHAPTER III.

CATEGORIÆ.

Of the prodigious total of works composed by Aristotle, I have already mentioned that the larger number have perished. But there still remain about forty treatises, of authenticity not open to any reasonable suspicion, which attest the grandeur of his intelligence, in respect of speculative force, positive as well as negative, systematizing patience, comprehensive curiosity as to matters of fact, and diversified applications of detail. In taking account of these treatises, we perceive some in which the order of sequence is determined by assignable reasons; as regards others, no similar grounds of preference appear. The works called 1. De Coelo; 2. De Generatione et Corruptione; 3. Meteorologica,--are marked out as intended to be studied in immediate succession, and the various Zoological treatises after them. The cluster entitled Parva Naturalia is complementary to the treatise De Animâ. The Physica Auscultatio is referred to in the Metaphysica, and discusses many questions identical or analogous, standing in the relation of prior to a posterior, as the titles indicate; though the title 'Metaphysica' is not affixed or recognized by Aristotle himself, and the treatise so called includes much that goes beyond the reach of the Physica. As to the treatises on Logic, Rhetoric, Ethics, Politics, Poetics, Mechanics, &c., we are left to fix for ourselves the most convenient order of study. Of no one among them can we assign the date of composition or publication. There are indeed in the Rhetorica, Politics, and Meteorologica, various allusions which must have been written later than some given events of known date; but these allusions may have been later additions, and cannot be considered as conclusively proving, though they certainly raise a presumption, that the entire work was written subsequently to those events.

The proper order in which the works of Aristotle ought to be studied (like the order proper for studying the Platonic dialogues),[1] was matter of debate from the time of his earliest editors and commentators, in the century immediately preceding the Christian era. Boêthus the Sidonian (Strabo's contemporary and fellow-student) recommended that the works on natural philosophy and physiology should be perused first; contending that these were the easiest, the most interesting, and, on the whole, the most successful among all the Aristotelian productions. Some Platonists advised that the ethical treatises should be put in the front rank, on the ground of their superior importance for correcting bad habits and character; others assigned the first place to the mathematics, as exhibiting superior firmness in the demonstrations. But Andronikus himself, the earliest known editor of Aristotle's works, arranged them in a different order, placing the logical treatises at the commencement of his edition. He considered these treatises, taken collectively, to be not so much a part of philosophy as an _Organon_ or instrument, the use of which must be acquired by the reader before he became competent to grasp or comprehend philosophy; as an exposition of method rather than of doctrine.[2] From the time of Andronikus downward, the logical treatises have always stood first among the written or printed works of Aristotle. They have been known under the collective title of the 'Organon,' and as such it will be convenient still to regard them.[3]

[Footnote 1: Scholia, p. 25, b. 37, seq. Br.; p. 321, b. 30; Diogen. L. iii. 62. The order in which the forty-six Aristotelian treatises stand printed in the Berlin edition, and in other preceding editions, corresponds to the tripartite division, set forth by Aristotle himself, of sciences or cognitions generally: 1. Theoretical; [Greek: theôrêtikai/] 2. Practical; [Greek: praktikai/]. 3. Constructive or Technical; [Greek: poiêtikai/].

Patricius, in his Discussiones Peripateticæ, published in 1581 (tom. i. lib. xiii. p. 173), proclaims himself to be the first author who will undertake to give an account of Aristotle's philosophy _from Aristotle himself_ (instead of taking it, as others before him had done, from the Aristotelian expositors, Andronikus, Alexander, Porphyry, or Averroes); likewise, to be the first author who will consult _all_ the works of Aristotle, instead of confining himself, as his predecessors had done, to a select few of the works. Patricius then proceeds to enumerate those works upon which alone the professors "in Italicis scholis" lectured, and to which the attention of all readers was restricted. 1. The Predicabilia, or Eisagoge of Porphyry. 2. The Categoriæ. 3. The De Interpretatione. 4. The Analytica Priora; but only the four first chapters of the first book. 5. The Analytica Posteriora; but only a few chapters of the first book; nothing of the second. 6. The Physica; books first and second; then parts of the third and fourth; lastly, the eighth book. 7. The De Coelo; books first and second. 8. The De Generatione et Corruptione; books first and second. 9. The De Animâ; all the three books. 10. The Metaphysica; books Alpha major, Alpha minor, third, sixth, and eleventh. "Idque, quadriennio integro, quadruplicis ordinis Philosophi perlegunt auditoribus. De reliquis omnibus tot libris, mirum silentium." Patricius expressly remarks that neither the Topica nor the De Sophisticis Elenchis was touched in this full course of four years. But he does not remark--what to a modern reader will seem more surprising--that neither the Ethica, nor the Politica, nor the Rhetorica, is included in the course.]

[Footnote 2: Aristot. Topica, i. p. 104, b. 1, with the Scholia of Alexander, p. 259, a. 48 Br.; Scholia ad Analyt. Prior. p. 140, a. 47, p. 141, a. 25; also Schol. ad Categor. p. 36, a., p. 40, a., 8. This conception of the Organon is not explicitly announced by Aristotle, but seems quite in harmony with his views. The contemptuous terms in which Prantl speaks of it (Gesch. der Logik, i. 136), as a silly innovation of the Stoics, are unwarranted.

Aristotle (Metaph. E. i. p. 1025, b. 26) classifies the sciences as [Greek: theôrêtikai/, praktikai/, poiêtikai/]; next he subdivides the first of the three into [Greek: phusikê/, mathêmatikê/, prô/tê philosophi/a]. Brentano, after remarking that no place in this distribution is expressly provided for Logic, explains the omission as follows: "Diese auffallende Erscheinung erklärt sich daraus, dass diese [the three above-named theoretical sciences] allein das reelle Sein betrachten, und nach den drei Graden der Abstraktion in ihrer Betrachtungsweise verschieden, geschieden werden; während die Logik das bloss rationelle Sein, das [Greek: o(\n ô(s a)lêthe/s], behandelt." (Ueber die Bedeutung des Seienden nach Aristoteles, p. 39.)--Investigations [Greek: peri\ tê=s a)lêthei/as, o(\n tro/pon dei= a)pode/chesthai] are considered by Aristotle as belonging to [Greek: ta\ A)naluktika]; enquiries into method in the first instance, and into doctrine chiefly with a view to method (Metaphys. [Greek: G]. p. 1005, b. 2. In Metaphys. ]Greek: G]. 1005, b. 7, he declares that these enquiries into method, or analysis of the _principia_ of syllogistic reasoning, belong to the Philosophia Prima (compare Metaphys. Z. 12, p. 1037, b. 8). Schwegler in his Commentary (p. 161) remarks that this is one of the few passages in which Aristotle indicates the relation in which Logic stands to Metaphysics, or First Philosophy. The question has been started among his [Greek: A)pori/ai] Metaph. B. 2, p. 999, b. 30.]

[Footnote 3: Respecting the title of Organon which was sometimes applied to the Analytica Posteriora only, see Waitz ad Organ, ii. p. 294.]

These treatises are six in number:--1. Categoriæ;[4] 2. De Interpretatione, or De Enunciatione; 3. Analytica Priora; 4. Analytica Posteriora; 5. Topica; 6. De Sophisticis Elenchis. This last short treatise--De Sophisticis Elenchis--belongs naturally to the Topica which precedes it, and of which it ought to be ranked as the ninth or concluding book. Waitz has printed it as such in his edition of the Organon; but as it has been generally known with a separate place and title, I shall not depart from the received understanding.

[Footnote 4: Some eminent critics, Prantl and Bonitz among them, consider the treatise Categoriæ not to be the work of Aristotle. The arguments on which this opinion rests are not convincing to me; and even if they were, the treatise could not be left out of consideration, since the _doctrine_ of the Ten Categories is indisputably Aristotelian. See Zeller, Die Phil. der Griech. ii. 2, pp. 50, 51, 2nd ed.]

Aristotle himself does not announce these six treatises as forming a distinct aggregate, nor as belonging to one and the same department, nor as bearing one comprehensive name. We find indeed in the Topica references to the Analytica, and in the Analytica references to the Topica. In both of them, the ten Categories are assumed and presupposed, though the treatise describing them is not expressly mentioned: to both also, the contents of the treatise De Interpretatione or Enunciatione, though it is not named, are indispensable. The affinity and interdependence of the six is evident, and justifies the practice of the commentators in treating them as belonging to one and the same department. To that department there belonged also several other treatises of Aristotle, not now preserved, but specified in the catalogue of his lost works; and these his disciple Theophrastus, Eudemus, and Phanias, had before them. As all these three disciples composed treatises of their own on the same or similar topics,[5] amplifying, elucidating, or controverting the views of their master, the Peripatetics immediately succeeding them must have possessed a copious logical literature, in which the six treatises now constituting the Organon appeared as portions, but not as a special aggregate in themselves.

[Footnote 5: Ammonius ap. Schol. p. 28, a. 41; p. 33, b. 27, Br.]

Of the two treatises which stand first in the Aristotelian Organon--the Categoriæ and the De Interpretatione--each forms in a certain sense the complement of the other. The treatise De Interpretatione handles Propositions (combinations of terms in the way of Subject and Predicate), with prominent reference to the specific attribute of a Proposition--the being true or false, the object of belief or disbelief; the treatise Categoriæ deals with these same Terms (to use Aristotle's own phrase) pronounced without or apart from such combination. In his definition of the simple Term, the Proposition is at the same time assumed to be foreknown as the correlate or antithesis to it.[6]

[Footnote 6: [Greek: Ta\ a)/neu sumplokê=s lego/mena--tô=n kata\ mêdemi/an sumplokê\n legome/nôna] Categ. p. 1, a. 16, b. 25). See Schol. ad Aristot. Physica, p. 323, b. 25, Br.; and Bonitz ad Aristotel. Metaph. (A. p. 987) p. 90.

The Categories of Aristotle appear to formed one of the most prominent topics of the teaching of Themistius: rebutting the charge, advanced both against himself, and, in earlier days, against Sokrates and the Sophists, of rendering his pupils presumptuous and conceited, he asks, [Greek: ê)kou/sate de\ au)= tinos tô=n e)mô=n e)pitêdei/ôn u(psêlogoume/nou kai\ brenthuome/nou _e)pi\ toi=s sunônu/mois ê)\ o(mônu/moi=s ê)\ parônu/mois_]; (Orat. xxiii. p. 351.)

Reference is made (in the Scholia on the Categoriæ, p. 43, b. 19) to a classification of names made by Speusippus, which must have been at least as early as that of Aristotle; perhaps earlier, since Speusippus died in 339 B.C. We do not hear enough of this to understand clearly what it was. Boêthus remarked that Aristotle had omitted to notice some distinctions drawn by Speusippus on this matter, Schol. p. 43, a. 29. Compare a remark in Aristot. De Coelo, i. p. 280, b. 2.]

The first distinction pointed out by Aristotle among simple, uncombined Terms, or the things denoted thereby, is the Homonymous, the Synonymous, and the Paronymous. _Homonymous_ are those which are called by the same name, used in a different sense or with a different definition or rational explanation. _Synonymous_ are those called by the same name in the same sense. _Paronymous_ are those called by two names, of which the one is derived from the other by varying the inflexion or termination.[7]

[Footnote 7: Aristot. Categor. p. 1, a. 1-15.]

We can hardly doubt that it was Aristotle who first gave this peculiar distinctive meaning to the two words Homonymous and Synonymous, rendered in modern phraseology (through the Latin) _Equivocal_ and _Univocal_. Before his time this important distinction between different terms had no technical name to designate it. The service rendered to Logic by introducing such a technical term, and by calling attention to the lax mode of speaking which it indicated, was great. In every branch of his writings Aristotle perpetually reverts to it, applying it to new cases, and especially to those familiar universal words uttered most freely and frequently, under the common persuasion that their meaning is not only thoroughly known but constant and uniform. As a general fact, students are now well acquainted with this source of error, though the stream of particular errors flowing from it is still abundant, ever renewed and diversified. But in the time of Aristotle the source itself had never yet been pointed out emphatically to notice, nor signalized by any characteristic term as by a beacon. The natural bias which lead us to suppose that one term always carries one and the same meaning, was not counteracted by any systematic warning or generalized expression. Sokrates and Plato did indeed expose many particular examples of undefined and equivocal phraseology. No part of the Platonic writings is more valuable than the dialogues in which this operation is performed, forcing the respondent to feel how imperfectly he understands the phrases constantly in use. But it is rarely Plato's practice to furnish generalized positive warnings or systematic distinctions. He has no general term corresponding to homonymous or equivocal; and there are even passages where (under the name of Prodikus) he derides or disparages a careful distinctive analysis of different significations of the same name. To recognize a class of equivocal terms and assign thereto a special class-name, was an important step in logical procedure; and that step, among so many others, was made by Aristotle.[8]

[Footnote 8: In the instructive commentary of Dexippus on the Categoriæ (contained in a supposed dialogue between Dexippus and his pupil Seleukus, of which all that remains has been recently published by Spengel, Munich, 1859), that commentator defends Aristotle against some critics who wondered why he began with these Ante-predicaments ([Greek: o(mô/numa, sunô/numa], &c.), instead of proceeding at once to the Predicaments or Categories themselves. Dexippus remarks that without understanding this distinction between _equivoca_ and _univoca_, the Categories themselves could not be properly appreciated; for Ens--[Greek: to\ o)\n]--is homonymous in reference to all the Categories, and not a Summum Genus, comprehending the Categories as distinct species under it; while each Category is a Genus in reference to its particulars. Moreover, Dexippus observes that this distinction of homonyms and synonyms was altogether unknown and never self-suggested to the ordinary mind ([Greek: o(/sôn ga\r e)/nnoian ou)k e)/chomen, tou/tôn pro/lêpsin ou)k e)/chomen], p. 20), and therefore required to be brought out first of all at the beginning; whereas the Post-predicaments (to which we shall come later on) were postponed to the end, because they were cases of familiar terms loosely employed, (See Spengel, Dexipp. pp. 19, 20, 21.)]

Though Aristotle has professed to distinguish between terms implicated in predication, and terms not so implicated,[9] yet when he comes to explain the functions of the latter class, he considers them in reference to their functions as constituent members of propositions. He immediately begins by distinguishing four sorts of matters (_Entia_): That which is affirmable of a Subject, but is not in a Subject; That which is in a Subject, but is not affirmable of a Subject; That which is both in a Subject, and affirmable of a Subject; That which is neither in a Subject, nor affirmable of a Subject.[10]

[Footnote 9: Aristot. Categor. p. 1, a. 16. [Greek: tô=n legome/nôn ta\ me\n kata\ sumplokê\n le/getai, ta\ d' a)/neu sumplokê=s; ta\ me\n ou)=n kata\ sumplokê\n oi(=on a)/nthrôpos tre/chei, a)/nthrôpos nika=|; ta\ d' a)/neu sumplokê=s oi)=on a)/nthrôpos, bou=s, tre/chei, nika=|.]

It will be seen that the meaning and function of the single word can only explained relatively to the complete proposition, which must be assumed as foreknown. That which Aristotle discriminates in this treatise, in the phrases--[Greek: le/gesthai kata\ sumplokê\n] and [Greek: le/gesthai a)/neu sumplokê=s] is equivalent to what we read in the De Interpretatione (p. 16, b. 27, p. 17, a. 17) differently expressed, [Greek: phônê\ sêmantikê\ ô(s kata/phasis] and [Greek: phônê\ sêmantikê\ ô(s pha/sis].]

[Footnote 10: Aristot. Categor. p. 1, a. 20.]

This fundamental quadruple distinction of _Entia_, which serves as an introduction to the ten Categories or Predicaments, belongs to words altogether according to their relative places or functions in the proposition; the meanings of the words being classified accordingly. That the learner may understand it, he ought properly to be master of the first part of the treatise De Interpretatione, wherein the constituent elements of a proposition are explained: so intimate is the connection between that treatise and this.

The classification applies to _Entia_ (Things or Matters) universally, and is thus a first step in Ontology. He here looks at Ontology in one of its several diverse aspects--as it enters into predication, and furnishes the material for Subjects and Predicates, the constituent members of a proposition.

Ontology, or the Science of _Ens quatenus Ens_, occupies an important place in Aristotle's scientific programme; bearing usually the title of First Philosophy, sometimes Theology, though never (in his works) the more modern title of Metaphysica. He describes it as the universal and comprehensive Science, to which all other sciences are related as parts or fractions. Ontology deals with _Ens_ in its widest sense, as an _Unum_ not generic but analogical--distinguishing the derivative varieties into which it may be distributed, and setting out the attributes and accompaniments of _Essentia_ universally; while other sciences, such as Geometry, Astronomy, &c., confine themselves to distinct branches of that whole;[11] each having its own separate class of _Entia_ for special and exclusive study. This is the characteristic distinction of Ontology, as Aristotle conceives it; he does not set it in antithesis to Phenomenology, according to the distinction that has become current among modern metaphysicians.

[Footnote 11: Aristot. Metaphys. [Greek: G]. p. 1003, a. 21, 25-33, E. p. 1025, b. 8. [Greek: e)/stin e)pistê/mê tis ê)\ theôrei= to\ o)\n ê(=| o)\n kai\ ta\ tou/tô| u(pa/rchonta kath' au(to/; au(/tê d' e)sti\n ou)demia=| tô=n a)/llôn e)piskopei= _katho/lou peri\ tou= o)/ntos ê(=| o(/n, a)lla\ me/ros au)tou= ti a)potemo/menai peri\ tou/tou theôrou=si to\ sumbebêko/s], &c. Compare p. 1005, a. 2-14.]

Now _Ens_ (or _Entia_), in the doctrine of Aristotle, is not a synonymous or univocal word, but an homonymous or equivocal word; or, rather, it is something between the two, being equivocal, with a certain qualification. Though not a _Summum Genus_, _i.e._ not manifesting throughout all its particulars generic unity, nor divisible into species by the addition of well-marked essential _differentiæ_, it is an analogical aggregate, or a _Summum Analogon_, comprehending under it many subordinates which bear the same name from being all related in some way or other to a common root or _fundamentum_, the relationship being both diverse in kind and nearer or more distant in degree. The word _Ens_ is thus homonymous, yet in a qualified sense. While it is not univocal, it is at the same time not absolutely equivocal. It is _multivocal_ (if we may coin such a word), having many meanings held together by a multifarious and graduated relationship to one common _fundamentum_.[12] _Ens_ (or _Entia_), in this widest sense, is the theme of Ontology or First Philosophy, and is looked at by Aristotle in four different principal aspects.[13]

[Footnote 12: Simplikius speaks of these Analoga as [Greek: to\ me/son tô=n te sunônu/môn kai\ tô=n o(mônu/môn, to\ a)ph' e(no/s], &c. Schol. ad Categor. p. 69, b. 29, Brand. See also Metaphys. Z. p. 1030, a. 34.

Dexippus does not recognize, formally and under a distinct title, this intermediate stage between [Greek: sunô/numa] and [Greek: o(mô/numa]. He states that Aristotle considered Ens as [Greek: o(mô/numon], while other philosophers considered it as [Greek: sunô/numon] (Dexippus, p. 26, book i. sect. 19, ed. Spengel). But he intimates that the ten general heads called Categories have a certain continuity and interdependence ([Greek: sune/cheian kai\ a)llêlouchi/an]) each with the others, branching out from [Greek: ou)si/a] in ramifications more or less straggling (p. 48, book ii. sects. 1, 2, Spengel). The list (he says, p. 47) does not depend upon [Greek: diai/resis] (generic division), nor yet is it simple enumeration ([Greek: a)pari/thmêsis] of incoherent items. In the Physica, vii. 4, p. 249, a. 23, Aristotle observes: [Greek: ei)si\ de\ tô=n o(mônumiôn ai( me\n polu\ a)pe/chousi ai( de\ e)/chousai/ tina o(moio/têta, ai( d' e)ggu\s ê)\ ge/nei ê)\ a)nalogi/a|, dio\ ou) dokou=sin o(mônumi/ai ei)=nai ou)=sai.]]

[Footnote 13: Aristot. Metaphys. [Greek: D]. p. 1017, a. 7, E. p. 1025, a. 34, p. 1026, a. 33, b. 4; upon which last passage see the note of Bonitz.]

1. [Greek: To\ o)\n kata\ sumbebêko/s]--_Ens per Accidens_--_Ens_ accidental, or rather concomitant, either as rare and exceptional attribute to a subject, or along with some other accident in the same common subject.

2. [Greek: To\ o)\n ô(s a)lêthe/s, kai\ to\ mê\ o)\n ô(s pseu=dos]--_Ens_, in the sense /of Truth, _Non-Ens_, in the sense of Falsehood. This is the _Ens_ of the Proposition; a true affirmation or denial falls under _Ens_ in this mode, when the mental conjunction of terms agrees with reality; a false affirmation or denial, where no such agreement exists, falls under _Non-Ens_.[14]

[Footnote 14: Aristot. Metaph. E. 4, p. 1027, b. 18,--p. 1028, a. 4. [Greek: ou) ga\r e)sti to\ pseu=dos kai\ to\ a)lêthe\s e)n toi=s pra/gmasin--a)ll' e)n dianoi/a|--ou)k e)/xô dêlou=sin ou)=sa/n tina phu/sin tou= o)/ntos.] Also [Greek: Th]. 10, p. 1051, b. 1: [Greek: to\ kuriô/tata o)\n a)lêthes kai\ pseu=dos]. In a Scholion, Alexander remarks: [Greek: to\ de\ ô(s a)lêthô=s o)\n pa/thos e)sti\ kai\ bou/lêma dianoi/as, to\ de\ zêtei=n to\ e(ka/stô| dokou=n ou) spho/dra a)nagkai=on.]]

3. [Greek: To\ o)\n duna/mei kai\ to\ o)\n e)nergei/a|]--_Ens_, potential, actual.

4. [Greek: To\ o)\n kata\ ta\ schê/mata tô=n katêgoriô=n]--_Ens_, according to the ten varieties of the Categories, to be presently explained.

These four are the principal aspects under which Aristotle looks at the aggregate comprised by the equivocal or multivocal word _Entia_. In all the four branches, the varieties comprised are not species under a common genus, correlating, either as co-ordinate or subordinate, one to the other; they are _analoga_, all having relationship with a common term, but having no other necessary relationship with each other. Aristotle does not mean that these four modes of distributing this vast aggregate, are the only modes possible; for he himself sometimes alludes to other modes of distributions.[15] Nor would he maintain that the four distributions were completely distinguished from each other, so that the same subordinate fractions are not comprehended in any two; for on the contrary, the branches overlap each other and coincide to a great degree, especially the first and fourth. But he considers the four as discriminating certain distinct aspects of _Entia_ or _Entitas_, more important than any other aspects thereof that could be pointed out, and as affording thus the best basis and commencement for the Science called Ontology.

[Footnote 15: Aristot. Metaph. [Greek: G]. p. 1003, a. 33, b. 10. Compare the able treatise of Brentano, "Ueber die Bedeutung des Seienden nach Aristoteles," pp. 6, 7.]

Of these four heads, however, the first and second are rapidly dismissed by Aristotle in the Metaphysica,[16] being conceived as having little reference to real essence, and therefore belonging more to Logic than to Ontology; _i.e._ to the subjective processes of naming, predicating, believing, and inferring rather than to the objective world of Perceivables and Cogitables.[17] It is the third and fourth that are treated in the Metaphysica; while it is the fourth only (_Ens_ according to the ten figures of the Categories) which is set forth and elucidated in this first treatise of the Organon, where Aristotle appears to blend Logic and Ontology into one.

[Footnote 16: Aristot. Metaph. E. p. 1027, b. 16, p. 1028. a. 6.]

[Footnote 17: Aristot. Metaph. [Greek: Th]. 10, p. 1051, b. 2-15, with Schwegler's Comment, p. 186. This is the distinction drawn by Simplikius (Schol. ad Categ. p. 76, b. 47) between the Organon and the Metaphysica: [Greek: Ai( ga\r a)rchai\ kata\ me\n tê/n sêmantikê\n au)tô=n le/xin e)n tê=| logikê=| pragmatei/a| dêlou=ntai, kata\ de\ ta\ sêmaino/mena e)n tê=| Meta\ ta\ Phusika\ oi)kei/ôs.]

[Greek: Ta\ o)/nta] are equivalent to [Greek: ta\ lego/mena], in this and the other logical treatises of Aristotle. Categ. p. 1, a. 16-20, b. 25; Analyt. Prior. i. p. 43, a. 25.

This is the logical aspect of Ontology; that is, Entia are considered as Objects to be named, and to serve as Subjects or Predicates for propositions: every such term having a fixed denotation, and (with the exception of proper names) a fixed connotation, known to speakers and hearers.

[Greek: Ta\ lego/mena] (or Entia considered in this aspect) are distinguished by Aristotle into two classes: 1. [Greek: Ta\ lego/mena _kata\ sumplokê/n_, oi(=on a)/nthrôpos tre/chei, a)/nthropos nika=|.] 2. [Greek: Ta\ lego/mena _a)/neu sumplokê=s_] (or [Greek: kata\ mêdemi/an sumplokê/n]) [Greek: oi(=on a)/nthrôpos, bou=s, tre/chei, nika=|.]

We are to observe here, that in Logic the Proposition or Enunciation is the Prius Naturâ, which must be presupposed as known before we can understand what the separate terms are (Analytic. Prior. i. p. 24, a. 16): just as the right angle must be understood before we can explain what is an acute or an obtuse angle (to use an illustration of Aristotle; see Metaphys. Z. p. 1035, b. 7). We must understand the entire logical act, called Affirming or Denying, before we can understand the functions of the two factors or correlates with which that act is performed. Aristotle defines the Term by means of the Proposition, [Greek: o(/ron de\ kalô= ei) o)\n dialu/etai ê( pro/tasis] (Anal. Pr. i. 24, b. 16).

[Greek: Ta\ lego/mena], as here used by Aristotle, coincides in meaning with what the Stoics afterwards called [Greek: Ta\ lekta/]--of two classes: 1. [Greek: _lekta\ au)totelê=_], one branch of which, [Greek: ta\ a)xiô/mata], are equivalent to the Aristotelian [Greek: ta\ kata\ sumplokê\n lego/mena]. 2. [Greek: _lekta\ e)llipê=_], equivalent to [Greek: ta\ a)/neu sumplokê=s lego/mena] (Diogen. Laert. vii. 43, 44, 63, 64; Sext. Emp. adv. Mathemat. viii. 69, 70, 74): equivalent also, seemingly, to [Greek: ta\ dianoêta\] in Aristotle: [Greek: o( dianoêto\s A)ristome/nês] (Anal. Pr. I. p. 47, b. 22).

Hobbes observes (Computation or Logic, part i. 2, 5): "Nor is it at all necessary that every name should be the name of something. For as these, _a man_, _a tree_, _a stone_, are the names of the things themselves, so the images of a man, of a tree, of a stone, which are represented to men sleeping, have their names also, though they be not things, but only fictions and phantasms of things. For we can remember these; and therefore it is no less necessary that they have names to mark and signify them, than the things themselves. Also this word _future_ is a name; but no future thing has yet any being. Moreover, that which neither is, nor has been, nor ever shall or ever can be, has a name--_impossible_. To conclude, this word _nothing_ is a name, which yet cannot be name of any thing; for when we subtract two and three from five, and, so nothing remaining, we would call that subtraction to mind, this speech _nothing remains_, and in it the word _nothing_, is not unuseful. And for the same reason we say truly, _less than nothing_ remains, when we subtract more from less; for the mind feigns such remains as these for doctrine's sake, and desires, as often as is necessary, to call the same to memory. But seeing every name has some relation to that which is named, though that which we name be not always a thing that has a being in nature, yet is lawful for doctrine's sake to apply the word _thing_ to whatsoever we name; as it were all one whether that thing truly existent, or be only feigned."

The Greek neuter gender ([Greek: to\ lego/menon] or [Greek: to\ lekto/n, ta\ lego/mena] or [Greek: ta\ lekta/]) covers all that Hobbes here includes under the word _thing_.--Scholia ad Aristot. Physic. I. i. p. 323, a. 21, Brand.: [Greek: o)noma/zontai me\n kai\ ta\ mê\ o)/nta, o(ri/zontai de\ mo/na ta\ o)/nta.]]

Of this mixed character, partly logical, partly ontological, is the first distinction set forth in the Categoriæ--the distinction between matters _predicated of_ a Subject, and matters which are _in_ a Subject--the Subject itself being assumed as the _fundamentum_ correlative to both of them. The definition given of that which is _in_ a Subject is ontological: viz., "_In_ a Subject, I call that which is in anything, not as a part, yet so that it cannot exist separately from that in which it is."[18] By these two negative characteristics, without any mark positive, does Aristotle define what is meant by being _in_ a Subject. Modern logicians, and Hobbes among them, can find no better definition for an Accident; though Hobbes remarks truly, that Accident cannot be properly defined, but must be elucidated by examples.[19]

[Footnote 18: Aristot. Categ. p. 1, a. 24.]

[Footnote 19: Hobbes, Computation or Logic, part i. 3, 3, i. 6, 2, ii. 8, 2-3.]

The distinction here drawn by Aristotle between being _predicated of_ a Subject, and being in a Subject, coincides with that between essential and non-essential predication: all the predicates (including the _differentia_) which belong to the essence, fall under the first division;[20] all those which do not belong to the essence, under the latter. The Subjects--what Aristotle calls the First Essences or Substances, those which are essences or substances in the fullest and strictest meaning of the word--are concrete individual things or persons; such as Sokrates, this man, that horse or tree. These are never employed as predicates at all (except by a distorted and unnatural structure of the proposition, which Aristotle indicates as possible, but declines to take into account); they are always Subjects of different predicates, and are, in the last analysis, the Subjects of all predicates. But besides these First Essences, there are also Second Essences--Species and Genus, which stand to the first Essence in the relation of predicates to a Subject, and to the other Categories in the relation of Subjects to predicates.[21] These Second Essences are less of Essences than the First, which alone is an Essence in the fullest and most appropriate sense. Among the Second Essences, Species is more of an Essence than Genus, because it belongs more closely and specially to the First Essence; while Genus is farther removed from it. Aristotle thus recognizes a graduation of _more or less_ in Essence; the individual is more Essence, or more complete as an Essence, than the Species, the Species more than the Genus. As he recognizes a First Essence, _i.e._ an individual object (such as Sokrates, this horse, &c.), so he also recognizes an individual accident (this particular white colour, that particular grammatical knowledge) which is _in_ a Subject, but is not _predicated of_ a Subject; this particular white colour exists _in_ some given body, but is not _predicable of_ any body.[22]

[Footnote 20: Aristot. Categ. p. 3, a. 20. It appears that Andronikus did not draw the line between these two classes of predicates in same manner as Aristotle: he included many non-essential predicates in [Greek: ta\ kath' u(pokeime/nou]. See Simplikius, ad Categorias, Basil. 1551, fol. 13, 21, B. Nor was either Alexander or Porphyry careful to observe the distinction between the two classes. See Schol. ad Metaphys. p. 701. b. 23, Br.; Schol. ad De Interpret. p. 106, a. 29, Br. And when Aristotle says, Analyt. Prior. i. p. 24, b. 26, [Greek: to\ de\ e)n o(/lô| ei)nai e(/teron e(te/rô|, kai\ to\ kata\ panto\s katêgorei=sthai thate/rou tha/teron, tau)to/n e)stin], he seems himself to forget the distinction entirely.]

[Footnote 21: Categor. p. 2, a. 15, seq. In Aristotle phraseology it is not said that Second Essences are contained in First Essences, but that First Essences are contained in Second Essences, _i.e._ in the species which Second Essences signify. See the Scholion to p. 3, a. 9, in Waitz, vol. i. p. 32.]

[Footnote 22: Arist. Categ. p. 1, a. 26; b. 7: [Greek: A)nplô=s de\ ta\ a)/toma kai\ e(\n a)rithmô=| kat' ou)deno\s u(pokeime/nou le/getai, e)n u(pokeime/nô| de\ e(/nia ou)de\n kôlu/ei ei)=nai; ê( ga/r tis grammatikê\ tô=n e)n u(pokeime/nô| e)sti/n.] Aristotle here recognizes an attribute as "individual and as numerically one;" and various other logicians have followed him. But is it correct to say, that an attribute, when it cannot be farther divided specifically, and is thus the lowest in its own predicamental series, is _Unum Numero_? The attribute may belong to an indefinite number of different objects; and can we count it as _One_, in the same sense in which we count each of these objects as _One_? I doubt whether _Unum Numero_ be applicable to attributes. Aristotle declares that the [Greek: deute/ra ou)si/a] is not _Unum Numero_ like the [Greek: prô/tê ou)si/a--ou) ga\r e)n e)sti to\ u(pokei/menon Ô(/sper ê( prô/tê ou)si/a, a)lla\ kata\ pollô=n o( a)/nthrôpos le/getai kai\ to\ zô=|on (Categ. p. 3, b. 16). Upon the same principle, I think, he ought to declare that the attribute is not _Unum Numero_; for though it is not (in his language) _predicable of_ many Subjects, yet it is _in_ many Subjects. It cannot correctly be called _Unum Numero_, according to the explanation which he gives of that phrase in two passages of the Metaphysica, B. p. 999, b. 33; [Greek: D]. p. 1016, b. 32: [Greek: a)rithmô=| me\n ô(=n ê( u(/lê mi/a], &c.]

Respecting the logical distinction, which Aristotle places in the commencement of this treatise on the Categories--between predicates which are _affirmed of_ a Subject, and predicates which are _in_ a Subject[23]--we may remark that it turns altogether upon the name by which you describe the predicate. Thus he tells us that the Species and Genus (man, animal), and the Differentia (rational), may be _predicated of_ Sokrates, but are not _in_ Sokrates; while knowledge is _in_ Sokrates, but cannot be _predicated of_ Sokrates; and may be _predicated of_ grammar, but is not _in_ grammar. But if we look at this comparison, we shall see that in the last-mentioned example, the predicate is described by an abstract word (knowledge); while in the preceding examples it is described by a concrete word (man, animal, rational).[24] If, in place of these three last words, we substitute the abstract words corresponding to them--humanity, animality, rationality--we shall have to say that these are _in_ Sokrates, though they cannot (in their abstract form) be _predicated of_ Sokrates, but only in the form of their concrete paronyms, which Aristotle treats as a distinct predication. So if, instead of the abstract word knowledge, we employ the concrete word knowing or wise, we can no longer say that this is _in_ Sokrates, and that it may be _predicated of_ grammar. Abstract alone can be _predicated of_ abstract; concrete alone can be _predicated of_ concrete; if we describe the relation between Abstract and Concrete, we must say, The Abstract is _in_ the Concrete--the Concrete contains or embodies the Abstract. Indeed we find Aristotle referring the same predicate, when described by the abstract name, to one Category; and when described by the concrete paronymous adjective, to another and different Category.[25] The names Concrete and Abstract were not in the philosophical vocabulary of his day. In this passage of the Categoriæ, he establishes a distinction between predicates essential and predicates non-essential; the latter he here declares to be _in_ the Subject, the former not to be in it, but to be _co-efficients of_ its essence. But we shall find that he does not adhere to this distinction even throughout the present treatise, still less in other works. It seems to be a point of difference between the Categoriæ on one side, and the Physica and Metaphysica on the other, that in the Categoriæ he is more disposed to found supposed real distinctions on verbal etiquette, and on precise adherence to the syntactical structure of a proposition.[26]

[Footnote 23: The distinction is expressed by Ammonius (Schol. p. 51, b. 46) as follows:--[Greek: ai( prô=tai ou)si/ai u(pokeu=ntai pa=sin, a)ll' ou)ch o(moi/ôs; toi=s me\n ga\r _pro\s u(/parxin_, tou/testi toi=s sumbebêko/sin, toi=s de\ _pro\s katêgori/an_, tou/testi tai=s katho/lou ou)si/ais.]]

[Footnote 24: Ueberweg makes a remark similar to this.--System der Logik, sect. 56, note, p. 110, ed. second.]

[Footnote 25: The difference of opinion as to the proper mode of describing the Differentia--whether by the concrete word [Greek: pezo\n], or by the abstract [Greek: pezo/tês]--gives occasion to an objection against Aristotle's view, and to a reply from Dexippus not very conclusive (Dexippus, book ii. s. 22, pp. 60, 61, ed. Spengel).]

[Footnote 26: Categor. p. 3, a. 3. In the Physica, iv. p. 210, a. 14-30, Aristotle enumerates nine different senses of the phrase [Greek: e(/n tini]. His own use of the phrase is not always uniform or consistent. If we compare the Scholia on the Categoriæ, pp. 44, 45, 53, 58, 59, Br., with the Scholia on the Physica, pp. 372, 373, Br., we shall see that the Commentators were somewhat embarrassed by his fluctuation. The doctrine of the Categoriæ was found especially difficult in its application to the Differentia.

In Analyt. Post. i. p. 83, a. 30, Aristotle says, [Greek: o(/sa de\ mê\ ou)si/an sêmai/nei, dei= kata/ tinos u(pokeime/nou katêgorei=sthai], which is at variance with the language of the Categoriæ, as the Scholiast remarks, p. 228, a. 33. The like may be said about Metaphys. B. p. 1001, b. 29; [Greek: D]. p. 1017, b. 13. See the Scholia of Alexander, p. 701, b. 25, Br.

See also De Gener. et Corrupt. p. 319, b. 8; Physic. i. p. 185, a. 31: [Greek: ou)the\n ga\r tô=n a)/llôn chôristo/n e)sti para\ tê\n ou)si/an; pa/nta ga\r kath' u(pokeime/nou tê=s ou)si/as le/getai], where Simplikius remarks that the phrase is used [Greek: a)nti\ tou= e)n u(pokeime/nô|] (Schol. p. 328, b. 43).]

Lastly, Aristotle here makes one important observation respecting those predicates which he describes as (not _in a Subject_ but) _affirmed_ or _denied of_ a Subject--_i.e._ the essential predicates. In these (he says) whatever predicate can be truly affirmed or denied of the predicate, the same can be truly affirmed or denied of the Subject.[27] This observation deserves notice, because it is in fact a brief but distinct announcement of his main theory of the Syllogism; which theory he afterwards expands in the Analytica Priora, and traces into its varieties and ramifications.

[Footnote 27: Categor. p. 1, b. 10-15.]

After such preliminaries, Aristotle proceeds[28] to give the enumeration of his Ten Categories or Predicaments; under one or other of which, every subject or predicate, considered as capable of entering into a proposition, must belong: 1. _Essence_ or _Substance_; such as, man, horse. 2. _How much_ or _Quantity_; such as, two cubits long, three cubits long. 3. _What manner of_ or _Quality_; such as, white, erudite. 4. _Ad aliquid_--_To something_ or _Relation_; such as, double, half, greater. 5. _Where_; such as, in the market-place, in the Lykeium. 6. _When_; such as, yesterday, last year. 7. _In what posture_; such as, he stands up, he is sitting down. 8. _To have_; such as, to be shod, to be armed. 9. _Activity_; such as, he is cutting, he is turning. 10. _Passivity_; such as, he is being cut, he is being burned.

[Footnote 28: Ibid. p. 1, b. 25, seq.]

_Ens_ in its complete state--concrete, individual, determinate-- includes an embodiment of all these ten Categories; the First _Ens_ being the Subject of which the rest are predicates. Whatever question be asked respecting any individual Subject, the information given in the answer must fall, according to Aristotle, under one or more of these ten general heads; while the full outfit of the individual will comprise some predicate under each of them. Moreover, each of the ten is a _Generalissimum_; having more or fewer species contained under it, but not being itself contained under any larger genus (_Ens_ not being a genus) So that Aristotle does not attempt to define or describe any one of the ten; his only way of explaining is by citing two or three illustrative examples of each. Some of the ten are even of wider extent than _Summa Genera_; thus, Quality cannot be considered as a true genus, comprehending generically all the cases falling under it. It is a _Summum Analogon_, reaching beyond the comprehension of a genus; an analogous or multivocal name, applied to many cases vaguely and remotely akin to each other.[29] And again the same particular predicate may be ranked both under Quality and under Relation; it need not belong exclusively to either one of them.[30] Moreover, Good, like _Ens_ or _Unum_, is common to all the Categories, but is differently represented in each.[31]

[Footnote 29: Aristot. Categor. p. 8, b. 26. [Greek: e)/sti de\ ê( poio/tês tô=n pleonachô=s legome/nôn], &c.

See the Scholia, p. 68, b. 69 a., Brandis. Ammonius gives the true explanation of this phrase, [Greek: tô=n pleonachô=s legome/nôn] (p. 69, b. 7). Alexander and Simplikius try to make out that it implies here a [Greek: sunô/nomon].]

[Footnote 30: Aristot. Categor. p. 11, a. 37. Compare the Scholion of Dexippus, p. 48, a. 28-37.]

[Footnote 31: Aristot. Ethic. Nikomach. i. p. 1096, a. 25; Ethic. Eudem. i. p. 1217, b. 25.]

Aristotle comments at considerable length upon the four first of the ten Categories. 1. Essence or Substance. 2. Quantity. 3. Quality. 4. Relation. As to the six last, he says little upon any of them; upon some, nothing at all.

His decuple partition of _Entia_ or _Enunciata_ is founded entirely upon a logical principle. He looks at them in their relation to Propositions; and his ten classes discriminate the relation which they bear to each other as parts or constituent elements of a proposition. Aristotle takes his departure, not from any results of scientific research, but from common speech; and from the dialectic, frequent in his time, which debated about matters of common life and talk, about received and current opinions.[32] We may presume him to have studied and compared a variety of current propositions, so as to discover what were the different relations in which Subjects and Predicates did stand or could stand to each other; also the various questions which might be put respecting any given subject, with the answers suitable to be returned.[33]

[Footnote 32: Waitz, ad Aristot. Categor. p. 284: "Id Categoriis non de ipsâ rerum natura et veritate exponit, sed res tales capit, quales apparent in communi vita homini philosophia non imbuto, unde fit, ut in Categoriis alia sit [Greek: prô/tê ou)si/a] et in prima philosophia: illa enim partes habet, hæc vero non componitor ex partibus."

Compare Metaphys. Z. p. 1032, b. 2, and the [Greek: a)pori/a] in Z. p. 1029, a., p. 1037, a. 28.

The different meaning of [Greek: prô/tê ou)si/a] in the Categoriæ and in the Metaphysica, is connected with various difficulties and seeming discrepancies in the Aristotelian theory of cognition, which I shall advert to in a future chapter. See Zeller, Philos. der Griech. ii. 2, pp. 234, 262; Heyder, Aristotelische und Hegelsche Dialektik, p. 141, seq.]

[Footnote 33: Thus he frequently supposes a question put, an answer given, and the proper mode of answering. Categor. p. 2, b. 8: [Greek: e)a\n ga\r a)podidô=| tis tê\n prô/tên ou)si/an ti/ e)sti, gnôrimô/teron kai\ oi)keio/teron a)podô/sei], &c.; also ibid. p. 2, b. 32; p. 3, a. 4, 20.]

Aristotle ranks as his first and fundamental Category Substance or Essence--[Greek: Ou)si/a]; the abstract substantive word corresponding to [Greek: To\ o)/n]; which last is the vast aggregate, not generically One but only analogically One, destined to be distributed among the ten Categories as _Summa Genera_. The First _Ens_ or First Essence--that which is _Ens_ in the fullest sense--is the _individual_ concrete person or thing in nature; Sokrates, Bukephalus, this man, that horse, that oak-tree, &c. This First _Ens_ is indispensable as Subject or _Substratum_ for all the other Categories, and even for predication generally. It is a Subject only; it never appears as a predicate of anything else. As _Hic Aliquis_ or _Hoc Aliquid_, it lies at the bottom (either expressed or implied) of all the work of predication. It is _Ens_ or Essence most of all, _par excellence_; and is so absolutely indispensable, that if all First _Entia_ were supposed to be removed, neither Second _Entia_ nor any of the other Categories could exist.[34]

[Footnote 34: Aristot. Categ. p. 2, a. 11, b. 6. [Greek: Ou)si/a ê( kuriô/tata kai\ prô/tôs kai\ ma/lista legome/nê--mê\ ou)sô=n ou)=n tô=n prô/tôn ou)siô=n, a)du/naton tô=n a)/llôn ti ei)=nai.]]

The Species is recognized by Aristotle as a Second _Ens_ or Essence, in which these First Essences reside; it is less (has less completely the character) of Essence than the First, to which it serves as Predicate. The Genus is (strictly speaking) a Third Essence,[35] in which both the First and the Second Essence are included; it is farther removed than the Species from the First Essence, and has therefore still less of the character of Essence. It stands as predicate both to the First and to the Second Essence. While the First Essence is more Essence than the Second, and the Second more than the Third, all the varieties of the First Essence are in this respect upon an equal footing with each other. This man, this horse, that tree, &c., are all Essence, equally and alike.[36] The First Essence admits of much variety, but does not admit graduation, or degrees of more or less.

[Footnote 35: Aristotle here, in the Categoriæ, ranks Genus and Species as being, both of them, [Greek: deu/terai ou)si/ai]. Yet since he admits Genus to be farther removed from [Greek: prô/tê ou)si/a] than Species is, he ought rather to have called Genus a Third Essence. In the Metaphysica he recognizes a gradation or ordination of [Greek: ou)si/a] into First, Second, and Third, founded upon a totally different principle: the Concrete, which in the Categoriæ ranks as [Greek: prô/tê ou)si/a], ranks as [Greek: tri/tê ou)si/a] in the Metaphysica. See Metaphys. [Greek: Ê]. p. 1043. a. 18-28.]

[Footnote 36: Aristot. Categ. p. 2, b. 20; p. 3, b. 35.

Nothing else except Genera and Species can be called Second Essences, or said to belong to the Category Essence; for they alone declare what the First Essence is. If you are asked respecting Sokrates, _What_ he _is_? and if you answer by stating the Species or the Genus to which he belongs--that he is a man or an animal--your answer will be appropriate to the question; and it will be more fully understood if you state the Species than if you state the Genus. But if you answer by stating what belongs to any of the other Categories (viz., that he is white, that he is running), your answer will be inappropriate, and foreign to the question; it will not declare _what_ Sokrates _is_.[37] Accordingly, none of these other Categories can be called Essences. All of them rank as predicates both of First and of Second Essence; just as Second Essences rank as predicates of First Essences.[38]

[Footnote 37: Ibid. p. 2, b. 29-37. [Greek: ei)ko/tôs de\ meta\ ta\s prô/tas ou)si/as mo/na tô=n a)/llôn ta\ ei)/dê kai\ ta\ ge/nê deu/terai ou)si/ai le/gontai; mo/na ga\r dêloi= tê\n prô/tên ou)si/an tô=n katêgoroume/nôn. to\n ga/r tina a)/nthrôpon e)a\n a)podidô=| tis ti/ e)sti, to\ me\n ei)=dos ê)\ to\ ge/nos a)podidou\s _oi)kei/ôs a)podô/sei_, kai\ gnôrimô/teron poiê/sei a)/nthrôpon ê)\ zô=|on a)podidou/s; tô=n de\ a)/llôn o(/, ti a)\n a)podidô=| tis, _a)llotri/ôs e)/stai a)podedôkô/s_, oi(=on leuko/n ê)\ tre/chei ê)\ o(tiou=n tô=n toiou/tôn a)podidou/s. Ô(/ste ei)ko/tôs tô=n a)/llôn tau=ta mo/na ou)si/ai le/gontai.]]

[Footnote 38: Ibid. p. 3, a. 2.]

Essence or Substance is not _in_ a Subject; neither First nor Second Essence. The First Essence is neither _in_ a Subject nor _predicated of_ a Subject; the Second Essences are not _in_ the First, but are _predicated of_ the First. Both the Second Essence, and the definition of the word describing it, may be _predicated of_ the First; that is, the predication is synonymous or univocal; whereas, of that which is _in_ a Subject, the name may often be predicated, but never the definition of the name. What is true of the Second Essence, is true also of the Differentia; that it is not _in_ a Subject, but that it may be _predicated_ univocally _of_ a Subject-- not only its name, but also the definition of its name.[39]

[Footnote 39: Ibid. p. 3, a. 7, 21, 34. [Greek: koino\n de\ kata\ pa/sês ou)si/as to\ mê\ e)n u(pokeime/nô| ei)=nai--ou)k i)/dion de\ tê=s tou=to ou)si/as, a)lla\ kai\ ê( diaphora\ tô=n mê\ e)n u(pokeime/nô| e)sti/n--u(pa/rchei de\ tai=s ou)si/ais kai\ tai\s diaphorai=s to\ pa/nta sunônu/môs a)p' au)tô=n le/gesthai.]]

All Essence or Substance seems to signify _Hoc Aliquid Unum Numero_. The First Essence really does so signify, but the Second Essence does not really so signify: it only seems to do so, because it is enunciated by a substantive name, like the First.[40] It signifies really _Tale Aliquid_, answering to the enquiry _Quale Quid_? for it is said not merely of one thing numerically, but of many things each numerically one. Nevertheless, a distinction must be drawn. The Second Essence does not (like the Accident, such as white) signify _Tale Aliquid_ simply and absolutely, or that and nothing more. It signifies _Talem Aliquam Essentiam_; it declares what the Essence is, or marks off the characteristic feature of various First Essences, each _Unum Numero_. The Genus marks off a greater number of such than the Species.[41]

[Footnote 40: Aristot. Categ. p. 3, b. 10-16: [Greek: Pa=sa de\ ou)si/a _dokei=_ to/de ti sêmai/nein. e)pi\ me\n ou)=n tô=n prô/tôn ou)siô=n a)namphisbê/têton kai\ a)lêthe/s e)stin o(/ti to/de ti sêmai/nei; a)/tomon ga\r kai\ e(\n a)rithmô=| to\ dêlou/meno/n e)stin; e)pi\ de\ tô=n deute/rôn ou)siô=n _phai/netai me\n o(moi/ôs tô=| schê/mati tê=s prosêgori/as to/de ti sêmai/nein_, o(/tan ei)/pê| a)/nthrôpon ê)\ zô=|on, _ou) mê\n a)lêthe/s ge_, a)lla\ ma=llon poio/n ti sêmai/nei.]]

[Footnote 41: Ibid. p. 3, b. 18-24.]

Again, Essences have no contraries.[42] But this is not peculiar to Essences, for _Quanta_ also have no contraries; there is nothing contrary to ten, or to that which is two cubits long. Nor is any one of the varieties of First Essence more or less Essence than any other variety. An individual man is as much Essence as an individual horse, neither more nor less. Nor is he at one time more a man than he was at another time; though he may become more or less white, more or less handsome.[43]

[Footnote 42: Ibid. b. 24-30.]

[Footnote 43: Ibid. b. 34, seq.]

But that which is most peculiar to Essence, is, that while remaining _Unum et Idem Numero_, it is capable by change in itself of receiving alternately contrary Accidents. This is true of no other Category. For example, this particular colour, being one and the same in number, will never be now black, and then white; this particular action, being one and the same in number, will not be at one time virtuous, at another time vicious. The like is true respecting all the other Categories. But one and the same man will be now white, hot, virtuous; at another time, he will be black, cold, vicious. An objector may say that this is true, not merely of Essence, but also of Discourse and of Opinion; each of which (he will urge) remains _Unum Numero_, but is nevertheless recipient of contrary attributes; for the proposition or assertion, Sokrates is sitting, may now be true and may presently become false. But this case is different, because there is no change in the proposition itself, but in the person or thing to which the proposition refers; while one and the same man, by new affections in himself, is now healthy, then sick; now hot, then cold.[44]

[Footnote 44: Aristot. Categ. p. 4, a. 10-b. 20.]

Here Aristotle concludes his first Category or Predicament--Essence or Substance. He proceeds to the other nine, and ranks Quantity first among them.[45] _Quantum_ is either Continual or Discrete; it consists either of parts having position in reference to each other, or of parts not having position in reference to each other. Discrete _Quanta_ are Number and Speech; Continual _Quanta_ are Line, Surface, Body, and besides these, Time and Place. The parts of Number have no position in reference to each other; the parts of Line, Surface, Body, have position in reference to each other. These are called _Quanta_, primarily; other things are called _Quanta_ in a secondary way, [Greek: kata\ sumbebêko/s].[46] Thus we say _much white_, when the surface of white is large; we say, _the action is long_, because much time and movement have been consumed in it. If we are asked, _how long the action_ is? we must answer by specifying its length in time--a year or a month.

[Footnote 45: Ibid. b. 21, seq.]

[Footnote 46: Ibid. p. 5, a. 38, seq.]

To _Quantum_ (as to Essence or Substance) there exists no contrary.[47] There is nothing contrary to a length of three cubits or an area of four square feet. Great, little, long, short, are more properly terms of Relation than terms of Quantity; thus belonging to another Category. Nor is _Quantum_ ever more or less _Quantum_; it does not admit of degree. The _Quantum_ a yard is neither more nor less _Quantum_ than that called a foot. That which is peculiar to _Quanta_ is to be equal or unequal:[48] the relations of equality and inequality are not properly affirmed of anything else except of _Quanta_.

[Footnote 47: Ibid. b. 11, seq.]

[Footnote 48: Ibid. p. 6, a. 26-35.]

From the Category of Quantity, Aristotle proceeds next to that of Relation;[49] which he discusses in immediate sequence after Quantity, and before Quality, probably because in the course of his exposition about Quantity, he had been obliged to intimate how closely Quantity was implicated with Relation, and how essential it was that the distinction between the two should be made clear.

[Footnote 49: Ibid. a. 36, seq.]

_Relata_ ([Greek: ta\ pro/s ti]--_ad Aliquid_) are things such, that what they are, they are said to be _of other things_, or are said to in some other manner _towards something else_ ([Greek: o(/sa au)ta\ a(/per e)sti\n **e(te/rôn ei)=nai le/getai, ê)\ o(pôstou=n a)/llôs pro\s e(/teron]). Thus, that which is greater, is said to be greater _than another_; that which is called double is called also double _of another_. Habit, disposition, perception, cognition, position, &c., are all _Relata_. Habit, is habit _of something_; perception and cognition, are always _of something_; position, is position _of something_. The Category of Relation admits contrariety in some cases, but not always; it also admits, in some cases, graduation, or the more or less in degree; things are more like or less like to each other.[50] All _Relata_ are so designated in virtue of their relation to other _Correlata_; the master is master _of a servant_--the servant is servant _of a master_. Sometimes the _Correlatum_ is mentioned not in the genitive case but in some other case; thus cognition is cognition _of_ the _cognitum_, but _cognitum_ is _cognitum by_ cognition; perception is perception _of_ the _perceptum_, but the _perceptum_ is _perceptum by_ perception.[51] The correlation indeed will not manifestly appear, unless the Correlate be designated by its appropriate term: thus, if the wing be declared to be wing _of a bird_, there is no apparent correlation; we ought to say, the wing is wing _of the winged_, and the winged is winged _through_ or _by_ the wing; for the wing belongs to the bird, not _quâ bird_, but _quâ winged_,[52] since there are many things winged, which are not birds. Sometimes there is no current term appropriate to the Correlate, so that we are under the necessity of coining one for the occasion: we must say, to speak with strict accuracy, [Greek: ê( kephalê/, tou= kephalôtou= kephalê/] not [Greek: ê( kephalê/, tou= zô=|ou kephalê/]; [Greek: to\ pêda/lion, tou= pêdaliôtou= pêda/lion], not [Greek: to\ pêda/lion, ploi/ou pêda/lion].[53]

[Footnote 50: Aristot. Categ. p. 6, b. 20.]

[Footnote 51: Ibid. b. 28-37.]

[Footnote 52: Ibid. b. 36; p. 7, a. 5. [Greek: ou) mê\n a)ll' e)ni/ote ou) do/xei a)ntistre/phein, e)a\n mê\ oi)kei/ôs pro\s o(\ le/getai a)podothê=|, a)lla\ diama/rtê| o( a)podidou/s, oi(=on to\ ptero\n e)a\n a)podothê=| o)/rnithos, ou)k a)ntistre/phei o)/rnis pterou=; ou) ga\r oi)kei/ôs to\ prô=ton a)pode/dotai ptero\n o)/rnithos; ou) ga\r ê(=| o)/rnis, tau/tê| to\ ptero\n au)tou= le/getai, a)ll' ê(=| pterôto/n e)sti; pollô=n ga\r kai\ a)/llôn ptera/ e)stin, a(\ ou)k ei)si\n o)/rnithes.]]

[Footnote 53: Ibid. p. 7, a. 6-25. [Greek: e)ni/ote de\ kai\ o)nomatopoiei=n I)/sôs a)nagkai=on, e)a\n mê\ kei/menon ê)=| o)/noma pro\s o(\ oi)kei/ôs a)\n a)podothei/ê], &c.]

The _Relatum_ and its Correlate seem to be _simul naturâ_. If you suppress either one of the pair, the other vanishes along with it. Aristotle appears to think, however, that there are many cases in which this is not true. He says that there can be no _cognoscens_ without a _cognoscibile_, nor any _percipiens_ without a _percipibile_; but that there may be _cognoscibile_ without any _cognoscens_, and _percipibile_ without any _percipiens_. He says that [Greek: to\ ai)sthêto\n] exists [Greek: pro\ tou= ai)/sthêsin ei)=nai].[54] Whether any Essence or Substance can be a _Relatum_ or not, he is puzzled to say; he seems to think that the Second Essence may be, but that the First Essence cannot be so. He concludes, however, by admitting that the question is one of doubt and difficulty.[55]

[Footnote 54: Ibid. b. 15; p. 8, a. 12. The Scholion of Simplikius on this point (p. 65, a. 16, b. 18, Br.) is instructive. He gives his own opinion, and that of some preceding commentators, adverse to Aristotle. He says that [Greek: e)pistê/mê] and [Greek: to\ e)pistêto/n, ai)sthêsis] and [Greek: to\ ai)sthêto/n], are not properly correlates. The actual correlates with the actual, the potential with the potential. Now, in the above pairs, [Greek: to\ e)pistêto\n] and [Greek: to\ ai)sthêto\n] are potentials, while [Greek: **e)pistê/mê] and [Greek: ai)/sthêsis] are actuals; therefore it is correct to say that [Greek: to\ e)pistêto\n] and [Greek: to\ ai)sthêto\n] will not cease to exist if you take away [Greek: e)pistê/mê] and [Greek: ai)/sthêsis]. But the real and proper correlate to [Greek: to\ e)pistêto\n] would be [Greek: to\ e)pistêmoniko/n]: the proper correlate to [Greek: to\ ai)sthêto\n] would be [Greek: to\ ai)sthêtiko\n]. And when we take these two latter pairs, it is perfectly correct to say, [Greek: sunanairei= tau=ta a)/llêla].

In the treatise, De Partibus Animalium, i. p. 641, b. 2, where Aristotle makes [Greek: nou=s] correlate with [Greek: ta\ noêta/], we must understand [Greek: nou=s] as equivalent to [Greek: to\ noêtiko/n], and as different from [Greek: ê( no/êsis].]

[Footnote 55: Aristot. Categ. p. 8, b. 22.]

Quality is that according to which Subjects are called Such and Such ([Greek: poioi/ tines]). It is, however, not a true genus, but a vague word, of many distinct, though analogous, meanings including an assemblage of particulars not bound together by any generic tie.[56] The more familiar varieties are--1. Habits or endowments ([Greek: e(/xeis]) of a durable character, such as, wise, just, virtuous; 2. Conditions more or less transitory, such as, hot, cold, sick, healthy, &c. ([Greek: diathe/seis]); 3. Natural powers or incapacities, such as hard, soft, fit for boxing, fit for running, &c. 4. Capacities of causing sensation, such as sweet of honey, hot and cold of fire and ice. But a person who occasionally blushes with shame, or occasionally becomes pale with fear, does not receive the designation of _such or such_ from this fact; the occasional emotion is a passion, not a quality.[57]

[Footnote 56: See the first note on p. 66. Aristot. Categ. p. 8, b. 26: [Greek: e)/sti de\ ê( poio/tês tô=n pleonachô=s legome/nôn], &c. Compare Metaphys. [Greek: D]. p. 1020, a. 33, and the Scholion of Alexander, p. 715, a. 5, Br.

The abstract term [Greek: Poio/tês] was a new coinage in Plato's time; he introduces it with an apology (Theætet. p. 182 A.).]

[Footnote 57: Aristot. Categ. p. 9, b. 20-33.]

A fifth variety of Quality is figure or circumscribing form, straightness or crookedness. But dense, rare, rough, smooth, are not properly varieties of Quality; objects are not denominated _such and such_ from these circumstances. They rather declare position of the particles of an object in reference to each other, near or distant, evenly or unevenly arranged.[58]

[Footnote 58: Ibid. p. 10, a. 11-24.]

Quality admits, in some cases but not in all, both contrariety and graduation. Just is contrary to unjust, black to white; but there is no contrary to red or pale. If one of two contraries belongs to Quality, the other of the two will also belong to Quality. In regard to graduation, we can hardly say that Quality in the abstract is capable of more and less; but it is indisputable that different objects have more or less of the same quality. One man is more just, healthy, wise, than another; though justice or health in itself cannot be called more or less. One thing cannot be more a triangle, square, or circle than another; the square is not more a circle than the oblong.[59]

[Footnote 59: Aristot. Categ. p. 10, b. 12; p. 11, a. 10, 11-24.]

What has just been said is not peculiar to Quality; but one peculiarity there is requiring to be mentioned. Quality is the foundation of Similarity and Dissimilarity. Objects are called _like_ or _unlike_ in reference to qualities.[60]

[Footnote 60: Ibid. p. 11, a. 15.]

In speaking about Quality, Aristotle has cited many illustrations from _Relata_. Habits and dispositions, described by their generic names, are _Relata_; in their specific varieties they are Qualities. Thus cognition is always cognition _of something_, and is therefore a _Relatum_; but _grammatiké_ (grammatical cognition) is not _grammatiké of any thing_, and is therefore a Quality. It has been already intimated[61] that the same variety may well belong to two distinct Categories.

[Footnote 61: Ibid. a. 20-38. [Greek: e)/ti ei) tu/gchanoi to\ au)to\ pro/s ti kai\ poio\n o)/n, ou)de\n a)/topon e)n a)mphote/rois toi=s ge/nesin au)to\ katarithmei=sthai.]]

After having thus dwelt at some length on each of the first four Categories, Aristotle passes lightly over the remaining six. Respecting _Agere_ and _Pati_, he observes that they admit (like Quality) both of graduation and contrariety. Respecting _Jac[=e]re_ he tells us that the predicates included in it are derived from the fact of positions, which positions he had before ranked among the _Relata_. Respecting _Ubi_, _Quando_, and _Habere_, he considers them all so manifest and intelligible, that he will say nothing about them; he repeats the illustrations before given--_Habere_, as, to be shod, or to be armed (to have shoes or arms); _Ubi_, as, in the Lykeium; _Quando_, as, yesterday, last year.[62]

[Footnote 62: Ibid. b. 8-15. [Greek: dia\ to\ prophanê= ei)=nai, ou)de\n u(pe\r au)tô=n a)/llo le/getai ê)\ o(/sa e)n a)rchê=| e)rre/thê], &c.]

. . . . . .

No part of the Aristotelian doctrine has become more incorporated with logical tradition, or elicited a greater amount of comment and discussion,[63] than these Ten Categories or Predicaments. I have endeavoured to give the exposition as near as may be in the words and with the illustrations of Aristotle; because in many of the comments new points of view are introduced, sometimes more just than those of Aristotle, but not present to his mind. Modern logicians join the Categories side by side with the five Predicables, which are explained in the Eisagoge of Porphyry, more than five centuries after Aristotle's death. As expositors of Logic they are right in doing this; but my purpose is to illustrate rather the views of Aristotle. The mind of Aristotle was not altogether exempt from that fascination[64] which particular numbers exercised upon the Pythagoreans and after them upon Plato. To the number Ten the Pythagoreans ascribed peculiar virtue and perfection. The fundamental Contraries, which they laid down as the Principles of the Universe, were ten in number.[65] After them, also, Plato carried his ideal numbers as far as the Dekad, but no farther. That Aristotle considered Ten to be the suitable number for a complete list of general heads--that he was satisfied with making up the list of ten, and looked for nothing beyond--may be inferred from the different manner in which he deals with the different items. At least, such was his point of view when he composed this treatise. Though he recognizes all the ten Categories as co-ordinate in so far that (except _Quale_) each is a distinct Genus, not reducible under either of the others, yet he devotes all his attention to the first four, and gives explanations (copious for him) in regard to these. About the fifth and sixth (_Agere_ and _Pati_)[66] he says a little, though much less than we should expect, considering their extent and importance. About the last four, next to nothing appears. There are even passages in his writings where he seems to drop all mention of the two last (_Jacere_ and _Habere_), and to recognize no more than eight Predicaments. In the treatise Categoriæ where his attention is fastened on Terms and their signification, and on the appropriate way of combining these terms into propositions, he recites the ten _seriatim_; but in other treatises, where his remarks bear more upon the matter and less upon the terms by which it is signified, he thinks himself warranted in leaving out the two or three whose applications are most confined to special subjects. If he had thought fit to carry the total number of Predicaments to twelve or fifteen instead of ten,[67] he would probably have had little difficulty in finding some other general heads not less entitled to admission than _Jacere_ and _Habere_; the rather, as he himself allows, even in regard to the principal Categories, that particulars comprised under one of them may also be comprised under another, and that there is no necessity for supposing each particular to be restricted to one Category exclusively.

[Footnote 63: About the prodigious number of these comments, see the Scholion of Dexippus, p. 39, a. 34, Br.; p. 5, ed. Spengel.]

[Footnote 64: See Simpl. in Categ. Schol. p. 78, b. 14, Br.; also the two first chapters of the Aristotelian treatise De Coelo; compare also, about the perfection of the [Greek: tri/tê su/stasis], De Partibus Animalium, ii. p. 646, b. 9; De Generat. Animal. iii. p. 760, a. 34.]

[Footnote 65: Aristot. Metaph. A. p. 986, a. 8. There existed, in the time of the later Peripatetics, a treatise in the Doric dialect by Archytas--[Greek: Peri\ tou= Panto/s]--discriminating Ten Categories, and apparently the same ten Categories as Aristotle. By several Aristotelian critics this treatise was believed to have been composed by Archytas the Tarentine, eminent both as a Pythagorean philosopher and as the leading citizen of Tarentum--the contemporary and friend of Plato, and, therefore, of course, earlier than Aristotle. Several critics believed that Aristotle had borrowed his Ten Categories from this work of Archytas; and we know that the latter preserved the total number of Ten. See Schol. ad Categor. p. 79, b. 3, Br.

But other critics affirmed, apparently with better reason, that the Archytas, author of this treatise, was a Peripatetic philosopher later than Aristotle; and that the doctrine of Archytas on the Categories was copied from Aristotle in the same manner as the Doric treatise on the Kosmos, ascribed to the Lokrian Timæus, was copied from the Timæus of Plato, being translated into a Doric dialect.

See Scholia of Simplikius and Boëthius, p. 33, a. 1, n.; p. 40, a. 43, Brandis. The fact that this treatise was ascribed to the Tarentine Archytas, indicates how much the number Ten was consecrated in men's minds as a Pythagorean canon.]

[Footnote 66: Trendelenburg thinks (Geschichte der Kategorienlehre, p. 131) that Aristotle must have handled the Categories _Agere_, and _Pati_ more copiously in other treatises; and there are some passages in his works which render this probable. See De Animâ, ii. p. 416, b. 35; De Generat. Animal. iv. p. 768, b. 15. Moreover, in the list of Aristotle's works given by Diogenes Laertius, one title appears-- [Greek: Peri\ tou= poiei=n kai\ peponthe/nai] (Diog. L. v. 22).]

[Footnote 67: Prantl expresses this view in his Geschichte der Logik (p. 206), and I think it just.]

These remarks serve partly to meet the difficulties pointed out by commentators in regard to the Ten Categories. From the century immediately succeeding Aristotle, down to recent times, the question has always been asked, why did Aristotle fix upon Ten Categories rather than any other number? and why upon these Ten rather than others? And ancient commentators[68] as well as modern have insisted, that the classification is at once defective and redundant; leaving out altogether some particulars, while it enumerates others twice over or more than twice. (This last charge is, however, admitted by Aristotle himself, who considers it no ground of objection that the same particular may sometimes be ranked under two distinct heads.) The replies made to the questions, and the attempts to shew cause for the selection of these Ten classes, have not been satisfactory; though it is certain that Aristotle himself treats the classification as if it were real and exhaustive,[69] obtained by comparing many propositions and drawing from them an induction. He tries to determine, in regard to some particular enquiries, under which of the Ten _Summa Genera_ the subject of the enquiry is to be ranged; he indicates some predicate of extreme generality (_Unum_, _Bonum_, &c.), which extend over all or several Categories, as equivocal or analogous, representing no true _Genera_. But though Aristotle takes this view of the completeness of his own classification, he never assigns the grounds of it, and we are left to make them out in the best way we can.

[Footnote 68: Schol. p. 47, b. 14, seq., 49, a. 10, seq. Br.; also Simplikius ad Categor. fol. 15, 31 A, 33 E. ed. Basil., 1551.]

[Footnote 69 Scholia ad Analyt. Poster. (I. xxiii. p. 83, a. 21) p. 227, b. 40, Br. [Greek: O(/ti de\ tosau=tai mo/nai ai( katêgori/ai ai( kata\ tô=n ou)siô=n lego/menai, e)k tê=s e)pagôgê=s lamba/nei.]

Brentano (in his treatise, Ueber die Bedeutung des Seienden in Aristoteles, Sects. 12 and 13, pp. 148-177) attempts to draw out a scheme of systematic deduction for the Categories. He quotes (pp. 181, 182) a passage from Thomas Aquinas, in which such a scheme is set forth acutely and plausibly. But if Aristotle had had any such system present to his mind, he would hardly have left it to be divined by commentators.

Simplikius observes (Schol. ad Categ. p. 44, a. 30) that the last nine Categories coincide in the main (excepting such portion of _Quale_ as belongs to the Essence) with [Greek: to\ o)/n kata\ sumbebêko/s]: which latter, according to Aristotle's repeated declarations, can never be the matter of any theorizing or scientific treatment--[Greek: ou)demi/a e)sti\ peri\ au)to\ theôri/a], Metaphys. E. p. 1026, b. 4; K. p. 1064, b. 17. This view of Aristotle respecting [Greek: to\ sumbebêko/s], is hardly consistent with a scheme of intentional deduction for the accidental predicates.]

We cannot safely presume, I think, that he followed out any deductive principle or system; if he had done so, he would probably have indicated it. The decuple indication of general heads arose rather from comparison of propositions and induction therefrom. Under each of these ten heads, some predicate or other may always be applied to every concrete individual object, such as a man or animal. Aristotle proceeded by comparing a variety of propositions, such as were employed in common discourse or dialectic, and throwing the different predicates into _genera_, according as they stood in different logical relation to the Subject. The analysis applied is not metaphysical but logical; it does not resolve the real individual into metaphysical [Greek: a)rchai\] or Principles, such as Form and Matter; it accepts the individual as he stands, with his full complex array of predicates embodied in a proposition, and analyses that proposition into its logical constituents.[70] The predicates derive their existence from being attached to the First Subject, and have a different manner of existence according as they are differently related to the First Subject.[71] What is this individual, Sokrates? He is an _animal_. What is his Species? _Man_. What is the Differentia, limiting the Genus and constituting the Species? _Rationality_, _two-footedness_. What is his height and bulk? He is _six feet_ high, and is of _twelve stone_ weight. What manner of man is he? He is _flat-nosed_, _virtuous_, _patient_, _brave_. In what relation does he stand to others? He is a _father_, a _proprietor_, a _citizen_, a _general_. What is he doing? He is _digging his garden_, _ploughing his field_. What is being done to him? He is _being rubbed with oil_, he is _having his hair cut_. Where is he? _In the city_, _at home_, _in bed_. When do you speak of him? _As he is, at this moment_, _as he was, yesterday_, _last year_. In what posture is he? He is _lying down_, _sitting_, _standing up_, _kneeling_, _balancing on one leg_. What is he wearing? He _has a tunic_, _armour_, _shoes_, _gloves_.

[Footnote 70: Aristot. Metaphys. Z. p. 1038, b. 15. [Greek: dichô=s u(pokei=tai, ê)\ to/de ti o)/n, ô(/sper to\ zô=|on toi=s pa/thesin, ê)\ ô(s ê( u(/lê tê=| e)ntelechei/a|.] The first mode of [Greek: u(pokei/menon] is what is in the Categories. For the second, which is the metaphysical analysis, see Aristot. Metaph. Z. p. 1029, a. 23: [Greek: ta\ me\n ga\r a)/lla tê=s ou)si/as katêgorei=tai, au(/tê de\ tê=s u(/lês. ô(/ste to\ e)/schaton kath' au(to\ ou)/te ti\ ou)/te poso\n ou)/te a)/llo ou)the/n e)sti.]

Porphyry and Dexippus tell us (Schol. ad Categ. p. 45, a. 6-30) that both Aristotle and the Stoics distinguished [Greek: prô=ton u(pokei/menon] and [Greek: deu/teron u(pokei/menon]. The [Greek: prô=ton u(pokei/menon] is [Greek: ê( a)/poios u(/lê--to\ duna/mei sô=ma], which Aristotle insists upon in the Physica and Metaphysica, the [Greek: deu/teron u(pokei/menon, o(\ koinô=s poio\n ê)\ i)di/ôs u(phi/statai], coincides with the [Greek: prô/tê ou)si/a] of the Categories, already implicated with [Greek: ei)=dos] and stopping short of metaphysical analysis.

The remarks of Boêthus and Simplikius upon this point deserve attention. Schol. pp. 50-54, Br.; p. 54, a. 2: [Greek: ou) peri\ tê=s a)sche/tou u(/lês e)sti\n o( parô\n lo/gos, a)lla\ tê=s ê)/dê sche/sin e)chou/sês pro\s to\ ei)=dos. to\ de\ su/ntheton dêlo/noti, o(/per e)sti\ to\ a)/tomon, e)pide/chetai to\ to/de.] They point out that the terms Form and Matter are not mentioned in the Categories, nor do they serve to illustrate the Categories, which do not carry analysis so far back, take their initial start from [Greek: to/de ti], the [Greek: su/ntheton] of Form and Matter,--[Greek: ou)si/a kuriô/tata kai\ prô/tôs kai\ ma/lista legome/nê].

Simplikius says (p. 50, a. 17):--[Greek: dunato\n de\ tou= mê\ mnêmoneu=sai tou= ei)/dous kai\ tê=s u(/lês ai)/tion le/gein, kai\ to\ tê\n tô=n Katêgoriô=n pragmatei/an _kata\ tê\n pro/cheiron kai\ koinê\n tou= lo/gou chrê=sin_ poiei=sthai; to\ de\ tê=s u(/lês kai\ tou= ei)/dous o)/noma kai\ ta\ u(po\ tou/tôn sêmaino/mena ou)k ê)=n toi=s polloi=s sunê/thê], &c. Compare p. 47, a. 27. This what Dexippus says also, that the Categories bear only upon [Greek: tê\n prô/tên chrei/an tou= lo/gou kath' ê(\n ta\ pra/gmata dêlou=n a)llêlois e)phie/metha] (p. 13, ed. Spengel; also p. 49).

Waitz, ad Categor. p. 284. "In Categoriis, non de ipsâ rerum naturâ et veritate exponit, sed res tales capit, quales apparent in communi vitâ homini philosophiâ non imbuto."

We may add, that Aristotle applies the metaphysical analysis--Form and Matter--not only to the Category [Greek: ou)si/a] but also to that of [Greek: poio\n] and [Greek: poso/n] (De Coelo, iv. 312, a. 14.)]

[Footnote 71: Aristot. Metaph. [Greek: D]. 1017, a. 23. [Greek: o(sachô=s ga\r le/getai, tosautachô=s to\ ei)=nai sêmai/nei].]

Confining ourselves (as I have already observed that Aristotle does in the Categories) to those perceptible or physical subjects which every one admits,[72] and keeping clear of metaphysical entities, we shall see that respecting any one of these subjects the nine questions here put may all be put and answered; that the two last are most likely to be put in regard to some living being; and that the last can seldom be put in regard to any other subject except a person (including man, woman, or child). Every individual person falls necessarily under each of the ten Categories; belongs to the Genus animal, Species man; he is of a certain height and bulk; has certain qualities; stands in certain relations to other persons or things; is doing something and suffering something; is in a certain place; must be described with reference to a certain moment of time; is in a certain attitude or posture; is clothed or equipped in a certain manner. Information of some kind may always be given respecting him under each of these heads; he is always by necessity _quantus_, but not always of any particular quantity. Until such information is given, the concrete individual is not known under conditions thoroughly determined.[73] Moreover each head is separate and independent, not resolvable into any of the rest, with a reservation, presently to be noticed, of Relation in its most comprehensive meaning. When I say of a man, that he is at home, lying down, clothed with a tunic, &c., I do not predicate of him any quality, action, or passion. The information which I give belongs to three other heads distinct from these last, and distinct also from each other. If you suppress the two last of the ten Categories and leave only the preceding eight, under which of these eight are you to rank the predicates, Sokrates is _lying down_, Sokrates is _clothed with a tunic_, &c.? The necessity for admitting the ninth and tenth Categories (_Jacere_ and _Habere_) as separate general heads in the list, is as great as the necessity for admitting most of the Categories which precede. The ninth and tenth are of narrower comprehension,[74] and include a smaller number of distinguishable varieties, than the preceding; but they are not the less separate heads of information. So, among the chemical elements enumerated by modern science, some are very rarely found; yet they are not for that reason the less entitled to a place in the list.

[Footnote 72: Ibid. Z. p. 1028, b. 8, seq.: p. 1042, a. 25. [Greek: ai( ai)sthêtai\ ou)si/ai--ai( o(mologou/menai ou)si/ai].]

[Footnote 73: Prantl observes, Geschichte der Logik, p. 208:--"Fragen wir, wie Aristoteles überhaupt dazu gekommen sei, von Kategorien zu sprechen, und welche Geltung dieselben bei ihm haben, so ist unsere Antwort hierauf folgende: Aristoteles geht, im Gegensatze gegen Platon, davon aus, dass die Allgemeinheit in der Concretion des Seienden sich verwirkliche und in dieser Realität von dem menschlichen Denken und Sprechen ergriffen werde; der Verwirklichungsprocess des concret Seienden ist der Uebergang vom Unbestimmten, jeder Bestimmung aber fähigen, zum allseitig Bestimmten, welchem demnach die Bestimmtheit überhaupt als eine selbst concret gewordene einwohnt und ebenso in des Menschen Rede von ihm ausgesagt wird. Das grundwesentliche Ergebniss der Verwirklichung ist sonach: die zeitlich-räumlich concret auftretende und hiemit individuell gewordene Substanzialität, in einer dem Zustande der Concretion entsprechenden Erscheinungsweise; diese letztere umfasst das ganze habituelle Dasein und Wirken der concreten Substanz, welche in der Welt der räumlichen Ausdehnung numerären Vielheit erscheint. Die ontologische Basis demnach der Kategorien ist der in die Concretion führende Verwirklichungsprocess der Bestimmtheit überhaupt."]

[Footnote 74: Plotinus, among his various grounds of exception to the ten Aristotelian Categories, objects to the ninth and tenth on the ground of their narrow comprehension (Ennead. vi. 1, 23, 24).

Boêthus expressly vindicated the title of [Greek: e)/chein] to be recognized as a separate Category, against the Stoic objectors.--Schol. ad Categ. p. 81, a. 5.]

If we seek not to appreciate the value of the Ten Categories as a philosophical classification, but to understand what was in the mind of Aristotle when he framed it, we shall attend, not much to the greater features, which it presents in common with every other scheme of classification, as to the minor features which constitute its peculiarity. In this point of view the two last Categories are more significant than the first four, and the tenth is the most significant of all; for every one is astonished when he finds _Habere_ enrolled as a tenth _Summum Genus_, co-ordinate with _Quantum_ and _Quale_. Now what is remarkable about the ninth and tenth Categories is, that individual persons or animals are the only Subjects respecting whom they are ever predicated, and are at the same time Subjects respecting whom they are constantly (or at least frequently) predicated. An individual person is habitually clothed in some particular way in all or part of his body; he (and perhaps his horse also) are the only Subjects that are ever so clothed. Moreover animals are the only Subjects, and among them man is the principal Subject, whose changes of posture are frequent, various, determined by internal impulses, and at the same time interesting to others to know. Hence we may infer that when Aristotle lays down the Ten Categories, as _Summa Genera_ for all predications which can be made about any given Subject, the Subject which he has wholly, or at least principally, in his mind is an individual Man. We understand, then, how it is that he declares _Habere_ and _Jacere_ to be so plain as to need no farther explanation. What is a man's posture? What is his clothing or equipment? are questions understood by every one.[75] But when Aristotle treats of _Habere_ elsewhere, he is far from recognizing it as narrow and plain _per se_. Even in the Post-Predicamenta (an appendix tacked on to the Categoriæ, either by himself afterwards, or by some follower) he declares _Habere_ to be a predicate of vague and equivocal signification; including portions of _Quale_, _Quantum_, and _Relata_. And he specifies the personal equipment of an individual as only one among these many varieties of signification. He takes the same view in the fourth book ([Greek: D].) of the Metaphysica, which book is a sort of lexicon of philosophical terms.[76] This enlargement of the meaning of the word _Habere_ seems to indicate an alteration of Aristotle's point of view, dropping that special reference to an individual man as Subject, which was present to him when he drew up the list of Ten Categories. The like alteration carried him still farther, so as to omit the ninth and tenth almost entirely, when he discusses the more extensive topics of philosophy. Some of his followers, on the contrary, instead of omitting _Habere_ out of the list of Categories, tried to procure recognition for it in the larger sense which it bears in the Metaphysica. Archytas ranked it fifth in the series, immediately after _Relata_.[77]

[Footnote 75: In the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Mr. James Harris's Philosophical Arrangements, there is a learned and valuable illustration of these two last Aristotelian Categories. I think, however, that he gives to the Predicament [Greek: Kei=sthai] (_Jacere_) a larger and more comprehensive meaning than it bears in the treatise Categoriæ; and that neither he, nor the commentators whom he cites (p. 317), take sufficient notice of the marked distinction drawn in that treatise between [Greek: kei=sthai] and [Greek: the/sis] (Cat. p. 6, b. 12). Mr. Harris ranks the arrangement of words in an orderly discourse, and of propositions in a valid syllogism, as cases coming under the Predicament [Greek Kei=sthai]; which is travelling far beyond the meaning of that word in the Aristotelian Categories. At the same time he brings out strongly the fact, that living beings, and especially _men_, are the true and special subjects of predicates belonging to [Greek: Kei=sthai] and [Greek: E)/chein]. The more we attend to this, the nearer approach shall we make to the state of Aristotle's mind when he drew up the list of Categories; as indeed Harris himself seems to recognize (chap. ii. p. 29).]

[Footnote 76: Aristot. Categor. p. 15, b. 17; Metaphys. [Greek: D]. p. 1023, a. 8.]

[Footnote 77: See the Scholia of Simplikius, p. 80, b. 7, seq.; p. 92, b. 41, Brand.; where the different views of Archytas, Plotinus, and Boêthus, are given; also p. 59, b. 43: [Greek: proêgei=tai ga\r ê( sumphuê\s tô=n pro/s ti sche/sis tô=n e)piktê/tôn sche/seôn, ô(s kai\ tô\| A)rchu/ta| dokei=.] In the language of Archytas, [Greek: ai( e)pi/ktêtoi sche/seis] were the equivalent of the Aristotelian [Greek: e)/chein].]

The narrow manner in which Aristotle conceives the Predicament _Habere_ in the treatise Categoriæ, and the enlarged sense given to that term both in the Post-Predicaments and in the Metaphysica, lead to a suspicion that the Categoriæ is comparatively early, in point of date, among his compositions. It seems more likely that he should begin with the narrower view, and pass from thence to the larger, rather than _vice versâ_. Probably the predicates specially applicable to Man would be among his early conceptions, but would by later thought be tacitly dropped,[78] so as to retain those only which had a wider philosophical application.

[Footnote 78: Respecting the paragraph (at the close of the Categoriæ) about [Greek: to\ e)/chein], see the Scholion in Waitz's ed. of the Organon, p. 38.

The fact that Archytas in his treatise presented the Aristotelian Category [Greek: e)/chein] under the more general phrase of [Greek: ai( e)pi/ktêtoi sche/seis] (see the preceding note), is among the reasons for believing that treatise to be later than Aristotle.]

I have already remarked that Aristotle, while enrolling all the Ten Predicaments as independent heads, each the _Generalissimum_ of a separate descending line of predicates, admitted at the same time that various predicates did not of necessity belong to one of these lines exclusively, but might take rank in more than one line. There are some which he enumerates under all the different heads of Quality, Relation, Action, Passion. The classification is evidently recognized as one to which we may apply a remark which he makes especially in regard to Quality and Relation, under both of which heads (he says) the same predicates may sometimes be counted.[79] And the observation is much more extensively true than he was aware; for he both conceives and defines the Category of Relation or Relativity (_Ad Aliquid_) in a way much narrower than really belongs to it. If he had assigned to this Category its full and true comprehension, he would have found it implicated with all the other nine. None of them can be isolated from it in predication.

[Footnote 79: Aristot. Categ. p. 11, a. 37.

Simplikius says that what Aristotle admits about [Greek: poio/tês], is true about all the other Categories also, viz.: that it is not a strict and proper [Greek: ge/nos]. Each of the ten Categories is (what Aristotle says about [Greek: to\ o(\n]) [Greek: me/son tô=n te sunôno/môn kai\ o(mônu/môn.--ou)de\ ga\r e)kei=na kuri/ôs e)sti\ ge/nê, ou)de\ ô(s ge/nê tô=n u(p' au)ta\ katêgorei=tai, _ta/xeôs ou)/sês pantachou= prô/tôn kai\ deute/rôn_.] (Scholia ad Categor. p. 69, b. 30, Br.) This is a remarkable observation, which has been sufficiently adverted to, I think, by Brentano in his treatise on Aristotle's Ontology.]

That _Agere_ and _Pati_ (with the illustrations which he himself gives thereof--_urit_, _uritur_) may be ranked as varieties under the generic Category of Relation or Relativity, can hardly be overlooked. The like is seen to be true about _Ubi_ and _Quando_, when we advert to any one of the predicates belonging to either; such as, _in the market-place_, _yesterday_.[80] Moreover, not merely the last six of the ten Categories, but also the second and fourth (_Quantum_ and _Quale_) are implicated with and subordinated to Relation. If we look at _Quantum_, we shall find that the example which Aristotle gives of it is [Greek: tripê=chus], tricubital, or three cubits long; a term quite as clearly relative as the term [Greek: dipla/sios] or double, which he afterwards produces as instance of the Category _Ad Aliquid_.[81] When we are asked the questions, How much is the height? How large is the field? we cannot give the information required except by a relative predicate--_it is three feet_--_it is four acres_; we thereby carry back the mind of the questioner to some unit of length or superficies already known to him, and we convey our meaning by comparison with such unit. Again, if we turn from _Quantum_ to _Quale_, we find the like Relativity implied in all the predicates whereby answer is made to the question [Greek: Poio\s ti/s e)sti?] _Qualis est_? What manner of man is he? _He is such as A, B, C_--persons whom we have previously seen, or heard, or read of.[82]

[Footnote 80: The remarks of Plotinus upon these four last-mentioned Categories are prolix and vague, but many of them go to shew how much [Greek: to\ pro/s ti] is involved in all of the four (Ennead. vi. 1, 14-18).]

[Footnote 81: Trendelenburg (Kategorienlehre, p. 184) admits a certain degree of interference and confusion between the Categories of _Quantum_ and _Ad Aliquid_; but in very scanty measure, and much beneath the reality.]

[Footnote 82: The following passages from Mr. James Mill (Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind, vol. ii. ch. xiv. sect. ii. pp. 48, 49, 56, 1st ed.) state very clearly the Relativity of the predicates of Quantity and Quality:--

"It seems necessary that I should say something of the word _Quantus_, from which the word Quantity is derived. _Quantus_ is the correlate of _Tantus_. _Tantus_, _Quantus_, are relative terms, applicable to all the objects to which we apply the terms Great, Little."--"Of two lines, we call the one _tantus_, the other _quantus_. The occasions on which we do so, are when the one is as long as the other."--"When we say that one thing is _tantus_, _quantus_ another, or one so great, as the other is great; the first is referred to the last, the _tantus_ to the _quantus_. The first is distinguished and named by the last. The _Quantus_ is the standard."--"On what account, then, is it that we give to any thing the name _Quantus_? As a standard by which to name another thing, _Tantus_. The thing called _Quantus_ is the previously known thing, the ascertained amount, by which we can mark and define the other amount."

"_Talis_, _Qualis_, are applied to objects in the same way, on one account, as _Tantus_, _Quantus_, on another; and the explanation we gave of _Tantus_, _Quantus_, may be applied, _mutatis mutandis_, to the pair of relatives which we have now named. _Tantus_, _Quantus_, are names applied to objects on account of dimension. _Talis_, _Qualis_, are names applied to objects on account of all other sensations. We apply _Tantus_, _Quantus_, to a pair of objects when they are equal; we apply _Talis_, _Qualis_, to a pair of objects when they are alike. One of the objects is then the standard. The object _Qualis_ is that to which the reference is made."

Compare the same work, vol. i. ch. ix. p. 225:--"The word _Such_ is a relative term, and always connotes so much of the meaning of some other term. When we call a thing _such_, it is always understood that it is such _as_ some other thing. Corresponding with our words _such as_, the Latins had _Talis_, _Qualis_."]

We thus see that all the predicates, not only under the Category which Aristotle terms _Ad Aliquid_, but also under all the last nine Categories, are relative. Indeed the work of predication is always relative. The express purpose, as well as the practical usefulness, of a significant predicate is, to carry the mind of the hearer either to a comparison or to a general notion which is the result of past comparisons. But though each predicate connotes Relation, each connotes a certain _fundamentum_ besides, which gives to the Relation its peculiar character. Relations of Quantity are not the same as relations of Quality; the predicates of the former connote a _fundamentum_ different from the predicates of the latter, though in both the meaning conveyed is relative. In fact, every predicate or concrete general name is relative, or connotes a Relation to something else, actual or potential, beyond the thing named. The only name not relative is the Proper name, which connotes no attributes, and cannot properly be used as a predicate (so Aristotle remarks), but only as a Subject.[83] Sokrates, Kallias, Bukephalus &c., denotes the _Hoc Aliquid_ or _Unum Numero_, which, when pronounced alone, indicates some concrete aggregate (as yet unknown) which may manifest itself to my senses, but does not, so far as the name is concerned, involve necessary reference to anything besides; though even these names, when one and the same name continues to be applied to the same object, may be held to connote a real or supposed continuity of past or future existence, and become thus to a certain extent relative.

[Footnote 83: You may make Sokrates a predicate, in the proposition, [Greek: to\ leuko\n e)kei=no Sôkra/tês e)sti/n], but Aristotle dismisses this as an irregular or perverse manner of speaking (see Analytic. Priora, i. p. 43, a. 35; Analyt. Poster. i. p. 83, a. 2-16).

Alexander calls these propositions [Greek: ai( para\ phu/sin prota/seis] (see Schol. ad Metaphys. [Greek: D]. p. 1017, a. 23).

Mr. James Harris observes (Philosophical Arrangements, ch. x. p. 214; also 317, 348):--"Hence too we may see why Relation stands next to Quantity; for in strictness the Predicaments which follow are but different modes of Relation, marked by some peculiar character over their own, over and above the relative character, which is common to them all." To which I would add, that the first two Categories, Substance and Quantity, are no less relative or correlative than the eight later Categories; as indeed Harris himself thinks; see the same work, pp. 90, 473: "Matter and Attribute are essentially distinct, yet, like _convex_ and _concave_, they are by nature inseparable. We have already spoken as to the inseparability of attributes; we now speak as to that of matter. [Greek: Ê(mei=s de\ phame\n me\n ei)=nai/ tina u(/lên tô=n sôma/tôn tô=n ai)sthêtô=n, a)lla\ tau/tên ou) chôristê\n a)ll' a)ei\ met' e)nantiô/seôs--u(/lên tê\n a)chô/riston me\n, u(pokeime/nên de\ toi=s e)nanti/ois (Aristot. De Gen. et Corr. p. 329, a. 24). By contraries, Aristotle means here the several attributes of matter, hot, cold, &c.; from some one or other of which matter is always inseparable."]

We must observe that what the proper name denotes is any certain concrete One and individual,[84] with his attributes essential and non-essential, whatever they may be, though as yet undeclared, and with his capacity of receiving other attributes different and even opposite. This is what Aristotle indicates as the most special characteristic of Substance or Essence, that while it is _Unum et Idem Numero_, it is capable of receiving contraries. This potentiality of contraries, described as characterizing the _Unum et Idem Numero_,[85] is relative to something about to come; the First Essence is doubtless logically First, but it is just as much relative to the Second, as the Second to the First. We know it only by two negations and one affirmation, all of which are relative to predications _in futuro_. It is neither in a Subject, nor predicable of a Subject. It is itself the ultimate Subject of all predications and all inherencies. Plainly, therefore, we know it only relatively to these predications and inherencies. Aristotle says truly, that if you take; away the First Essences, everything else, Second Essences as well as Accidents, disappears along with them. But he might have added with equal truth, that if you take away all Second Essences and all Accidents, the First Essences will disappear equally. The correlation and interdependence is reciprocal.[86] It may be suitable, with a view to clear and retainable philosophical explanation, to state the Subject first and the predicates afterwards; so that the Subject may thus be considered as logically _prius_. But in truth the Subject is only a _substratum_ for predicates,[87] as much as the predicates are _superstrata_ upon the Subject. The term _substratum_ designates not an absolute or a _per se_, but a _Correlatum_ to certain _superstrata_, determined or undetermined: now the _Correlatum_ is one of the pair implicated directly or indirectly in all Relation; and it is in fact specified by Aristotle as one variety of the Category _Ad Aliquid_.[88] We see therefore that the idea of Relativity attaches to the first of the ten Categories, as well as to the nine others. The inference from these observations is, that Relation or Relativity, understood in the large sense which really belongs to it, ought to be considered rather as an Universal, comprehending and pervading all the Categories, than as a separate Category in itself, co-ordinate with the other nine. It is the condition and characteristic of the work of predication generally; the last analysis of which is into Subject and Predicate, in reciprocal implication with each other. I remark that this was the view taken of it by some well-known Peripatetic commentators of antiquity;[89] by Andronikus, for example, and by Ammonius after him. Plato, though he makes no attempt to draw up a list of Categories, has an incidental passage respecting Relativity;[90] conceiving it in a very extended sense, apparently as belonging more or less to all predicates. Aristotle, though in the Categoriæ he gives a narrower explanation of it, founded upon grammatical rather than real considerations, yet intimates in other places that predicates ranked under the heads of _Quale_, _Actio_, _Passio_, _Jacere_, &c., may also be looked at as belonging to the head of _Ad Aliquid_.[91] This latter, moreover, he himself declares elsewhere to be _Ens_ in the lowest degree, farther removed from the _Prima Essentia_ than any of the other Categories; to be more in the nature of an appendage to some of them, especially to _Quantum_ and _Quale_;[92] and to presuppose, not only the _Prima Essentia_ (which all the nine later Categories presuppose), but also one or more of the others, indicating the particular mode of comparison or Relativity in each case affirmed. Thus, under one aspect, Relation or Relativity may be said to stand _prius naturâ_, and to come first in order before all the Categories, inasmuch as it is implicated with the whole business of predication (which those Categories are intended to resolve into its elements), and belongs not less to the mode of conceiving what we call the Subject, than to the mode of conceiving what we call its Predicates, each and all. Under another aspect, Relativity may be said to stand last in order among the Categories--even to come after the adverbial Categories _Ubi et Quando_; because its _locus standi_ is dim and doubtful, and because every one of the subordinate predicates belonging to it may be seen to belong to one or other of the remaining Categories also. Aristotle remarks that the Category _Ad Aliquid_ has no peculiar and definite mode of generation corresponding to it, in the manner that Increase and Diminution belong to _Quantum_, Change to _Quale_, Generation, simple and absolute, to Essence or Substance.[93] New relations may become predicable of a thing, without any change in the thing itself, but simply by changes in other things.[94]

[Footnote 84: Simplikius ap. Schol. p. 52, a. 42: [Greek: pro\s o(/ phasin oi( spoudaio/teroi tô=n e)xêgêtô=n, o(/ti ê( ai)sthêtê\ ou)si/a sumpho/rêsi/s ti/s e)sti poiotê/tôn kai\ u(/lês, kai\ o(mou= me\n pa/nta sumpage/nta mi/an poiei= tê\n ai)sthêtê\n ousi/an, chôri\s de\ e(/kaston lambano/menon to\ me\n poio\n to\ de\ poso/n e)sti lambano/menon, ê)/ ti a)/llo.]]

[Footnote 85: Aristot. Categ. p. 4, a. 10: [Greek: Ma/lista de\ I)/dion tou=to tê=s ou)si/as dokei= ei)=nai, to\ tau)to\n kai\ e(\n a)rithmô=| o)\n tô=n e)nanti/ôn ei)=nai dektiko/n.] See Waitz, note, p. 290: [Greek: dektiko\n] dicitur [Greek: to\ e)n ô(=| pe/phuken u(pa/rchein ti].

Dexippus, and after him Simplikius, observe justly, that the characteristic mark of [Greek: prô/tê ou)si/a] is this very circumstance of being _unum numero_, which belongs in common to all [Greek: prô=|tai ou)si/ai], and is indicated by the Proper name: [Greek: lu/sis de\ touo/tou, o(/ti au)to\ to\ mi/an ei)=nai a)rithmô=|, koino/s e)sti lo/gos]. (Simpl. in Categor., fol. 22 [Greek: D]].; Dexippus, book ii. sect. 18, p. 57, ed. Spengel.)]

[Footnote 86: Aristot. Categ. p. 2, b. 5. [Greek: mê\ ou)sô=n ou)=n tô=n prô/tôn ou)siô=n a)du/naton tô=n a)/llôn ti ei)=nai.]

Mr. John Stuart Mill observes: "As to the self-existence of Substance, it is very true that a substance may be conceived to exist without any other substance; but so also may an attribute without any other attributes. And we can no more imagine a substance without attributes, than we can imagine attributes without a substance." (System of Logic, bk. i. ch. iii. p. 61, 6th ed.)]

[Footnote 87: Aristot. Physic. ii. p. 194, b. 8. [Greek: e)/ti tô=n pro/s ti ê( u(/lê; a)/llô| ga\r ei)/dei a)/llê u(/lê.]

Plotinus puts this correctly, in his criticisms on the Stoic Categories; criticisms which on this point equally apply to the Aristotelian: [Greek: pro/s ti ga\r to\ u(pokei/menon, ou) pro\s to\ e)n au)tô=|, a)lla\ pro\s to\ poiou=n ei)s au)to/, kei/menon. Kai\ to\ u(pokei/menon u(pokei=tai pro\s to\ ou)ch u(pokei/menon; ei) tou=to, pro\s ta\ to\ e)/xô], &c. Also Dexippus in the Scholia ad Categor. p. 45, a. 26: [Greek: to\ ga\r u(pokei/menon kata\ pro/s ti le/gesthai e)do/kei, tini\ ga\r u(pokei/menon.]]

[Footnote 88: Aristot. Metaphys. [Greek: D]. p. 1020, b. 31, p. 1021, a. 27, seq.]

[Footnote 89: Schol. p. 60, a. 38, Br.; p. 47, b. 26. Xenokrates and Andronikus included all things under the two heads [Greek: to\ kath' au(to\] and [Greek: to\ pro/s ti]. [Greek: A)ndro/nikos me\n ga\r o( R(o/dios teleutai/an a)pone/mei toi=s pros ti ta/xin, le/gôn ai)ti/an toiau/tên. ta\ pro/s ti oi)kei/an u(/lê ou)k e)/chei; _paraphua/di ga\r e)/oiken oi)kei/an phu/sin mê\ e)chou/sê| a)lla\ periplekome/nê| toi=s e)/chousin oi)kei/an r(i/zan; ai( de\ e)/nnea katêgori/ai oi)kei/an u(/lên e)/chousin_; ei)ko/tôs ou)=n teleutai/an ô)/pheilon e)/chein ta/xin.] Again, Schol. p. 60, a. 24 (Ammonius): [Greek: kalô=s de/ tines a)peika/zousi ta\ pro/s ti paraphua/sin], &c. Also p. 59, b. 41; p. 49, a. 47; p. 61, b. 29: [Greek: i)/sôs de\ kai\ o(/ti ta\ pro/s ti e)n toi=s a)/llois ge/nesin u(phe/stêke, dia\ tou=to su\n au)toi=s theôrei=tai, ka)\n mê\ proêgoume/nês e)/tuche mnê/mês (and the Scholia ad p. 6, a. 36, prefixed to Waitz's edition, p. 33). Also p. 62, a. 37: [Greek: dia\ tau=ta de\ ô(s paraphuome/nên tai=s a)/llais katêgori/ais tê\n tou= pro/s ti e)peisodiô/dê nomi/zousi, kai/toi proêgoume/nên ou)=san kai\ kata\ diaphora\n oi)kei/an theôroume/nên.] Boêthus had written an entire book upon [Greek: ta\ pro/s ti], Schol. p. 61, b. 9.]

[Footnote 90: Plato, Republic, iv. 437 C. to 439 B. (compare also Sophistes, p. 255 C., and Politicus, p. 285). [Greek: Kai\ ta\ plei/ô dê\ pro\s ta\ e)la/ttô kai\ ta\ dipla/sia pro\s ta\ ê(mi/sea kai\ pa/nta ta\ toiau=ta, kai\ au)= baru/tera pro\s koupho/tera kai\ tha/ttô pro\s bradu/tera, _kai\ e)/ti ge ta\ therma\ pro\s ta\ psuchra\_ kai\ pa/nta ta\ tou/tois o(/moia, a)=r' ou)ch ou(/tôs e)/chei?] (438 C.)]

[Footnote 91: See Metaphysic. [Greek: D]. p. 1020, b. 26, p. 1021, b. 10. Trendelenburg observes (Gesch. der Kategorienlehre, pp. 118-122, seq.) how much more the description given of [Greek: pro/s ti] in the Categoriæ is determined by verbal or grammatical considerations, than in the Metaphysica and other treatises of Aristotle.]

[Footnote 92: See Ethic. Nikomach. i. p. 1096, a. 20: [Greek: to\ de\ kath' au(to\ kai\ ê( ou)si/a pro/teron tê=| phu/sei tou= pro/s ti; paraphua/di ga\r tou=t' e)/oike kai\ sumbebêko/ti tou= o)/ntos, ô(/ste ou)k a)\n ei)/ê koinê/ tis e)pi\ tou/tôn i)de/a.] (The expression [Greek: paraphua/di] was copied by Andronikus; see a note on the preceding page.) Metaphys. N. p. 1088, a. 22-26: [Greek: to\ de\ pro/s ti pa/ntôn ê(/kista phu/sis tis ê)\ ou)si/a tô=n katêgoriôn e)sti/, kai\ u(ste/ra tou= poiou= kai\ posou=; kai\ _pa/thos ti tou= posou= to\ pro/s ti_, ô(/sper e)le/chthê, a)ll' ou)ch u(/lê, ei)/ ti e(/teron kai\ tô=| o(/lôs koinô=| pro/s ti kai\ toi=s me/resin au)tou= kai\ ei)/desin.] Compare Bonitz in his note on p. 1070, a. 33.

The general doctrine laid down by Aristotle, Metaphys. N. p. 1087, b. 34, seq., about the universality of [Greek: me/tron] as pervading all the Categories, is analogous to the passage above referred to in the Politicus of Plato, and implies the Relativity involved more or less in all predicates.]

[Footnote 93: Aristot. Metaph. N. p. 1088, a. 29: [Greek: sêmei=on de\ o(/ti ê(/kista ou)si/a tis kai\ o)/n ti _to\ pro\/s ti_ to\ mo/non mê\ ei)=nai ge/nesin au)tou= mêde\ phthora\n mêde\ ki/nêsin, ô(/sper kata\ to\ poso\n au)/xêsis kai\ phthi/sis, kata\ to\ poio\n a)lloi/ôsis, kata\ to/pon phora/, kata\ tê\n ou)si/an ê( a(plê= ge/nesis kai\ phthora/.] Compare K. p. 1068, a. 9: [Greek: a)na/gkê trei=s ei)=nai kinê/seis, poiou=, posou=, to/pou. kat' ou)si/an d' ou)/, dia\ to\ mêthe\n ei)=nai ou)si/a| e)nanti/on, ou)de\ tou= pro/s ti.] Also Physica, v. p. 225, b. 11: [Greek: e)nde/chetai ga\r thate/rou metaba/llontos a)lêtheu/esthai tha/teron mêde\n meta/ballon.] See about this passage Bonitz and Schwegler's notes on Metaphys. p. 1068.]

[Footnote 94: Hobbes observes (First Philosophy, part ii. ch. xi. 6): "But we must not so think of Relation as if it were an accident differing from all the other accidents of the relative; but one of them, namely, that by which the comparison is made. For example, the likeness of one white to another white, or its unlikeness to black, is the same accident with its whiteness." This may be true about the relations Like and Unlike (see Mr. John Stuart Mill, Logic, ch. iii. p. 80, 6th ed.) But, in Relations generally, the _fundamentum_ may be logically distinguished from the Relation itself.

Aristotle makes the same remarks upon [Greek: to\ sumbebêko\s] as upon [Greek: to\ pro/s ti]:--That it verges upon Non-ens; and that it has no special mode of being generated or destroyed. [Greek: phai/netai ga\r to\ sumbebêko\s e)ggu/s ti tou= mê\ o)/ntos; tô=n me\n ga\r a)/llon tro/pon o)/ntôn e)/sti ge/nesis kai\ phthora/, tô=n de\ kata\ sumbebêko\s ou)k e)/stin.] (Metaphys. E. p. 1026, b. 21.)]

Those among the Aristotelian commentators who denied the title of _Ad Aliquid_ to a place among the Categories or _Summa Genera_ of predicates, might support their views from passages where Aristotle ranks the Genus as a _Relatum_, though he at the same time declares that the Species under it are not _Relata_. Thus _scientia_ is declared by him to be a _Relatum_; because it must be _of something--alicujus scibilis_; while the _something_ thus implied is not specified.[95] But (_scientia_) _musica_, _grammatica_, _medica_, &c., are declared not to be _Relata_; the indeterminate _something_ being there determined, and bound up in one word with the predication of Relativity. Now the truth is that both are alike _Relata_, though both also belong to the Category of Quality; a man is called _Talis_ from being _sciens_, as well as from being _grammaticus_. Again, he gives as illustrative examples of the Category _Ad Aliquid_, the adjectives double, triple. But he ranks in a different Category (that of _Quantum_) the adjectives bicubital, tricubital ([Greek: dipê=chus, tripê=chus]. It is plain that the two last of these predicates are species under the two first, and that all four predicates are alike relative, under any real definition that can be given of Relativity, though all four belong also to the Category of _Quantum_. Yet Aristotle does not recognize any predicates as belonging to _Ad Aliquid_, except such as are logically and grammatically elliptical; that is, such as do not include in themselves the specification of the Correlate, but require to be supplemented by an additional word in the genitive or dative case, specifying the latter. As we have already seen, he lays it down generally, that all _Relata_ (or _Ad Aliquid_) imply a _Correlatum_; and he prescribes that when the _Correlatum_ is indicated, care shall be taken to designate it by a precise and specific term, not of wider import than the _Relatum_,[96] but specially reciprocating therewith: thus he regards _ala_ (a wing) as _Ad Aliquid_, but when you specify its correlate in order to speak with propriety ([Greek: oi)kei/ôs]), you must describe it as _ala alati_ (not as _ala avis_), in order that the _Correlatum_ may be strictly co-extensive and reciprocating with the _Relatum_. Wing, head, hand, &c., are thus _Ad Aliquid_, though there may be no received word in the language to express their exact _Correlata_; and though you may find it necessary to coin a new word expressly for the purpose.[97] In specifying the _Correlatum_ of servant, you must say, servant _of a master_, not servant of a man or of a biped; both of which are in this case accompaniments or accidents of the master, being still accidents, though they may be in fact constantly conjoined. Unless you say master, the terms will not reciprocate; take away master, the servant is no longer to be found, though the man who was called _servant_ is still there; but take away man or biped, and the servant may still continue.[98] You cannot know the _Relatum_ determinately or accurately, unless you know the _Correlatum_ also; without the knowledge of the latter, you can only know the former in a vague and indefinite manner.[99] Aristotle raises, also, the question whether any Essence or Substance can be described as _Ad Aliquid_.[100] He inclines to the negative, though not decisively pronouncing. He seems to think that Simo and Davus, when called men, are Essences or Substances; but that when called master and slave, they are not so; this, however, is surprising, when he had just before spoken of the connotation of man as accidents ([Greek: sumbebêko/ta]) belonging to the connotation of master. He speaks of the members of an organized body (wing, head, foot) as examples of _Ad Aliquid_; while in other treatises, he determines very clearly that these members presuppose, as a _prius naturâ_, the complete organism whereof they are parts, and that the name of each member connotes the performance of, or aptitude to perform, a certain special function: now, such aptitude cannot exist unless the whole organism be held together in co-operative agency, so that if this last condition be wanting, the names, head, eye, foot, can no longer be applied to the separate members, or at least can only be applied equivocally or metaphorically.[101] It would seem therefore that the functioning _something_ is here the Essence, and that all its material properties are accidents ([Greek: sumbebêko/ta]).

[Footnote 95: Categor. p. 6, b. 12, p. 11, a. 24; Topic. iv. p. 124, b. 16. Compare also Topica, iv. p. 121, a. 1, and the Scholia thereupon, p. 278, b. 12-16, Br.; in which Scholia Alexander feels the difficulty of enrolling a generic term as [Greek: pro/s ti], while the specific terms comprised under it are not [Greek: pro/s ti]; and removes the difficulty by suggesting that [Greek: e)pistê/mê] may be at once both [Greek: poio/tês] and [Greek: pro/s ti]; and that as [Greek: poio/tês] (not as [Greek: pro/s ti]) it may be the genus including [Greek: mousikê\] and [Greek: geômetri/a], which are not [Greek: pro/s ti], but [Greek: poio/têtes].]

[Footnote 96: Categor. p. 6, b. 30, p. 7, b. 12.]

[Footnote 97: Categor. p. 7, a. 5. [Greek: e)ni/ote de\ o)nomatopoiei=n I)/sôs a)nagkai=on, e)a\n mê\ kei/menon ê)=| o)/noma pro\s o(\ _oi)kei/ôs_ a)\n a)podothei/ê.]]

[Footnote 98: Categor. p. 7, a. 31. [Greek: e)/ti d' e)a\n me/n ti oi)kei/ôs a)podido/menon ê)=| pro\s o(\ le/getai, pa/ntôn periairoume/nôn tô=n a)/llôn o(/sa _sumbebêko/ta_ e)sti/, kataleipome/nou de\ mo/nou tou/tou pro\s o(\ a)pedo/thê oi)kei/ôs, a)ei\ pro\s au)to\ r(êthê/setai, oi(=on o( dou=los e)a\n pro\s despo/tên le/gêtai, periairoume/nôn tô=n _a)/llôn a(pa/ntôn o(/sa sumbebêko/ta_ e)sti\ _tô=| despo/tê|_ oi(=on to\ di/podi ei)=nai kai\ to\ e)pistê/mês dektikô=| kai\ _to\ a)nthrô/pô|_, kataleipome/nou de\ mo/nou tou= despo/tên ei)=nai, a)ei\ o( dou=los pro\s au)to\ r(êthêsetai.]

This is not only just and useful in regard to accuracy of predication, but deserves attention also in another point of view. In general, it would be said that _man_ and _biped_ belonged to the Essence ([Greek: ou)si/a]); and the being a master to the Accidents or Accompaniments ([Greek: sumbebêko/ta]). Here the case is reversed; man and biped are the accidents or accompaniments; master is the Essence. What is connoted by the term _master_ is here the essential idea, that which is bound up with the idea connoted by _servant_; while the connotation of _man_ or _biped_ sinks into the character of an accessory or accompaniment. The master might possibly not be a man, but a god; the Delphian Apollo (Euripid. Ion, 132), and the Corinthian Aphrodité, had each many slaves belonging to them. Moreover, even if every master were a man, the qualities connoted by _man_ are here accidental, as not being included in those connoted by the term master. Compare Metaphysica, [Greek: D]. p. 1025, a. 32; Topica, i. p. 102, a. 18.]

[Footnote 99: That Plato was fully sensible to the necessity of precision and appropriateness in designating the _Correlatum_ belonging to each _Relatum_, may be seen by the ingenious reasoning in the Platonic Parmenides, pp. 133-134, where [Greek: despo/tês] and [Greek: dou=los] are also the illustrative examples employed.]

[Footnote 100: Categor. p. 8, a. 35, b. 20.]]

[Footnote 101: See Politica, i. p. 1253, a. 18: [Greek: kai\ pro/tero dê\ tê=| phu/sei po/lis ê)\ oi)ki/a kai\ e(/kastos ê(mô=n e)sti/n; to\ ga\r o(/lon pro/teron a)nagkai=on ei)=nai tou= me/rous; a)nairoume/nou ga\r tou= o(/lou ou)k e)/stai pou=s ou)de\ chei\r, ei) mê\ o(mônu/môs, ô(/sper ei)/ tis le/gei **tê\n lithi/nên; diaphtharei=sa ga\r e)/stai toiau/tê. pa/nta de\tô=| e)/rgô| ô(/ristai kai\ tê=| duna/mei, ô/ste _mêke/ti toiau=ta o)/nta ou) lekte/on ta\ au)ta ei)=nai_ a)ll' o(mô/numa]; also p. 1254, a. 9: [Greek: to/ te ga\r mo/rion ou) mo/non a)/llou e)sti\ mo/rion, a)lla\ kai\ a)/llou].

Compare De Animâ, ii. 1, p. 412, b. 20; Meteorologic. iv. p. 390, a. 12.

The doctrine enunciated in these passages is a very important one, in the Aristotelian philosophy.

Trendelenburg (Kategorienlehre, p. 182) touches upon this confusion of the Categories, but faintly and partially.]

In the fourth book of the Metaphysica, Aristotle gives an explanation of _Ad Aliquid_ different from, and superior to, that which we read in the Categoriæ; treating it, not as one among many distinct Categories, but as implicated with all the Categories, and taking a different character according as it is blended with one or the other--_Essentia_, _Quantum_, _Quale_, _Actio_, _Passio_, &c.[102] He there, also, enumerates as one of the varieties of _Relata_, what seems to go beyond the limit, or at least beyond the direct denotation, of the Categories; for, having specified, as one variety, _Relata Numero_, and, as another, _Relata secundum actionem et passionem ([Greek: to\ thermantiko\n pro\s to\ thermanto/n], &c.), he proceeds to a third variety, such as the _mensurabile_ with reference to _mensura_, the _scibile_ with reference to _scientia_, the _cogitabile_ with reference to _cogitatio_; and in regard to this third variety, he draws a nice distinction. He says that _mensura_ and _cogitatio_ are _Ad Aliquid_, not because they are themselves related to _mensurabile_ and _cogitabile_, but because _mensurabile_ and _cogitabile_ are related to them.[103] You cannot say (he thinks) that mensura is referable to the _mensurabile_, or _cogitatio_ to the _cogitabile_, because that would be repeating the same word twice over--_mensura est illius cujus est mensura_--_cogitatio est illius cujus est cogitatio._ So that he regards _mensura_ and _cogitatio_ as _Correlata_, rather than as _Relata_; while _mensurabile_ and _cogitabile_ are the _Relata_ to them. But in point of fact, the distinction is not important; of the relative pair there may be one which is more properly called the _Correlatum_; yet both are alike relative.

[Footnote 102: Metaphys. [Greek: D]. p. 1020, b. 27-32. At the same time we must remark, that while Aristotle enumerates [Greek: to\ u(pe/rechon] and [Greek: to\ u(perecho/menon] under [Greek: Pro/s ti], he had just before (a. 25) ranked [Greek: to\ me/ga kai\ to\ mikro/n, to\ mei=zon kai\ to\ e(/latton], under the general head [Greek: Poso/n]--as [Greek: posou= pa/thê kath' au(ta/].]

[Footnote 103: Metaphys. [Greek: D]. p. 1021, a. 26, b. 3; also I. p. 1056, b. 34. Bonitz in his note (p. 262) remarks that the distinction here drawn by Aristotle is not tenable; and I agree with him that it is not. But it coincides with what Aristotle asserts in other words in the Categoriæ; viz., that to be _simul naturâ_ is not true of _all_ Relata, but only of the greater part of them; that [Greek: to\ ai)sthêto\n] is [Greek: pro/teron tê=s ai)sthê/seôs], and [Greek: to\ e)pistêto\n pro/teron tê=s e)pistê/mês] (Categor. p. 7, b. 23; p. 8, a. 10). As I have mentioned before (p. 71 n.), Simplikius, in the Scholia (p. 65, b. 14), points out that Aristotle has not been careful here to observe his own precept of selecting [Greek: oi)kei/ôs] the correlative term. He ought to have stated the potential as correlating with the potential, the actual with the actual. If he had done this, the [Greek: sunu/parxis tô=n pro/s ti] would have been seen to be true in all cases. Eudorus noticed a similar inadvertence of Aristotle in the case of [Greek: pte/ron] and [Greek: pterôto/n] (Schol. 63, a. 43). See 'Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates,' vol. ii. p. 330, note x.

I transcribe a curious passage of Leibnitz, bearing on the same question:--"On réplique maintenant, que la vérité du mouvement est indépendante de l'observation: et qu'un vaisseau peut avancer, sans que celui qui est dedans s'en aperçoive. Je réponds, que le mouvement est indépendant de l'observation: mais qu'il _n'est point indépendant de l'observabilité_. Il n'y a point de mouvement, quand il n'y a point de changement _observable_. Et même quand il n'y a point de changement observable, il n'y a point de changement du tout. Le contraire est fondé sur la supposition d'un Espace réel absolu, que j'ai réfuté demonstrativement par le principe du besoin d'une Raison suffisante des choses." (Correspondence with Clarke, p. 770. Erdmann's edition.)]

If we compare together the various passages in which Aristotle cites and applies the Ten Categories (not merely in the treatise before us, but also in the Metaphysica, Physica, and elsewhere), we shall see that he cannot keep them apart steadily and constantly; that the same predicate is referred to one head in one place, and to another head in another: what is here spoken of as belonging to _Actio_ or _Passio_, will be treated in another place as an instance of _Quale_ or _Ad Aliquid_; even the derivative noun [Greek: e(/xis] (_habitus_) does not belong to the Category [Greek: e)/chein] (_Habere_), but sometimes to _Quale_, sometimes to _Ad Aliquid_.[104] This is inevitable; for the predicates thus differently referred have really several different aspects, and may be classified in one way or another, according as you take them in this or that aspect. Moreover, this same difficulty of finding impassable lines of demarcation would still be felt, even if the Categories, instead of the full list of Ten, were reduced to the smaller list of the four principal Categories--Substance, Quantity, Quality, and Relation; a reduction which has been recommended by commentators on Aristotle as well as by acute logicians of modern times. Even these four cannot be kept clearly apart: the predicates which declare Quantity or Quality must at the same time declare or imply Relation; while the predicates which declare Relation must also imply the _fundamentum_ either of Quantity or of Quality.[105]

[Footnote 104: Aristot. Categor. p. 6, b. 2; p. 8, b. 27.]

[Footnote 105: See Trendelenburg, Kategorienlehre, p. 117, seq. The remarks made by Mr. John Stuart Mill (in his System of Logic, book i. ch. iii.) upon the Aristotelian Categories, and the enlarged philosophical arrangement which he introduces in their place, well deserve to be studied. After enumerating the ten Predicaments, Mr. Mill says:--"It is a mere catalogue of the distinctions rudely marked out by the language of familiar life, with little or no attempt to penetrate, by philosophic analysis, to the _rationale_ even of these common distinctions. Such an analysis would have shewn the enumeration to be both redundant and defective. Some objects are omitted, and others repeated several times under different heads." (Compare the remarks of the Stoic commentators, and Porphyry, Schol. p. 48, b. 10 Br.: [Greek: a)thetou=ntes tê\n diai/resin ô(s polla\ pariei=san kai\ mê\ perilamba/nousan, ê)\ kai\ pa/lin pleona/zousan.] And Aristotle himself observes that the same predicates might be ranked often under more than one head.) "That could not be a very comprehensive view of the nature of Relation, which could exclude action, passivity, and local situation from that category. The same objection applies to the categories Quando (or position in time), and Ubi (or position in space); _while the distinction between the latter and Situs ([Greek: Kei=sthai]) is merely verbal_. The incongruity of erecting into a _summum genus_ the tenth Category is manifest. On the other hand, the enumeration takes no notice of any thing but Substances and Attributes. In what Category are we to place sensations, or any other feelings and states of mind? as hope, joy, fear; sound, smell, taste; pain, pleasure; thought, judgment, conception, and the like? Probably all these would have been placed by the Aristotelian school in the Categories of Actio and Passio; and the relation of such of them as are active, to their objects, and of such of them as are passive, to their causes, would have been rightly so placed; but the things themselves, the feelings or states of mind, wrongly. Feelings, or states of consciousness, are assuredly to be counted among realities; but they cannot be reckoned either among substances or among attributes." Among the many deficiencies of the Aristotelian Categories, as a complete catalogue, there is none more glaring than the imperfect conception of [Greek: Pro/s ti] (the Relative), which Mr. Mill here points out. But the Category [Greek: Kei=sthai] (badly translated by commentators _Situs_, from which Aristotle expressly distinguishes it, Categor. p. 6, b. 12: [Greek: to\ de\ a)nakei=sthai ê)\ e(sta/nai ê)\ kathê=sthai au)ta\ me\n ou)k ei)si\ the/seis]) appears to be hardly open to Mr. Mill's remark, that it is only verbally distinguished from [Greek: Pou=], _Ubi_. [Greek: Kei=sthai] is intended to mean _posture_, _attitude_, &c. It is a reply to the question, In what posture is Sokrates? Answer.--He is lying down, standing upright, kneeling, [Greek: pu\x protei/nôn], &c. This is quite different from the question, Where is Sokrates? In the market-place, in the palæstra, &c. [Greek: Kei=sthai] (as Aristotle himself admits, Categ. p. 6, b. 12) is not easily distinguished from [Greek: Pro/s ti]: for the abstract and general word [Greek: _the/sis_] (_position_) is reckoned by Aristotle under Greek: Pro/s ti], though the _paronyma_ [Greek: a)nakei=sthai, e(sta/nai, kathê=sthai] are affirmed not to be [Greek: the/seis], but to come under the separate Category [Greek: _Kei=sthai_]. But [Greek: Kei=sthai] is clearly distinguishable from [Greek: Pou=] _Ubi_.

Again, to Mr. Mill's question, "In what Category are we to place sensations or other states of mind--hope, fear, sound, smell, pain, pleasure, thought, judgment," &c.? Aristotle would have replied (I apprehend) that they come under the Category either of _Quale_ or of _Pati_--[Greek: Poio/têtes] or [Greek: Pa/thê]. They are attributes or modifications of Man, Kallias, Sokrates, &c. If the condition of which we speak be temporary or transitory, it is a [Greek: pa/thos], and we speak of Kallias as [Greek: pa/schôn ti]; if it be a durable disposition or capacity likely to pass into repeated manifestations, it is [Greek: poio/tês], and we describe Kallias as [Greek: poio/s tis] (Categ. p. 9, a. 28-p. 10 a. 9). This equally applies to mental and bodily conditions ([Greek: o(moi/ôs de\ tou/tois kai\ kata\ tê\n psuchê\n pathêtikai\ poio/têtes kai\ pa/thê le/getai.]--p. 9, b. 33). The line is dubious and difficult between [Greek: pa/thos] and [Greek: poio/tês], but one or other of the two will comprehend all the mental states indicated by Mr. Mill. Aristotle would not have admitted that "feelings are to be counted among realities," except as they are now or may be the feelings of Kallias, Sokrates, or some other _Hic Aliquis_--one or many. He would consider feelings as attributes belonging to these [Greek: Prô=tai Ou)si/ai]; and so in fact Mr. Mill himself considers them (p. 83), after having specified the Mind (distinguished from Body or external object) as the Substance to which they belong.

Mr. Mill's classification of Nameable Things is much better and more complete than the Aristotelian Categories, inasmuch as it brings into full prominence the distinction between the subjective and objective points of view, and, likewise, the all-pervading principle of Relativity, which implicates the two; whereas, Aristotle either confuses the one with the other, or conceives them narrowly and inadequately. But we cannot say, I think, that Aristotle, in the Categories, assigns no room for the mental states or elements. He has a place for them, though he treats them altogether objectively. He takes account of _himself_ only as an object--as one among the [Greek: prô=tai ou)si/ai], or individuals, along with Sokrates and Kallias.]

The most capital distinction, however, which is to be found among the Categories is that of Essence or Substance from all the rest. This is sometimes announced as having a standing _per se_; as not only logically distinguishable, but really separable from the other nine, if we preserve the Aristotelian list of ten,[106] or from the other three, if we prefer the reduced list of four. But such real separation cannot be maintained. The _Prima Essentia_ (we are told) is indispensable as a Subject, but cannot appear as Predicate; while all the rest can and do so appear. Now we see that this definition is founded upon the function enacted by each of them in predication, and therefore presupposes the fact of predication, which is in itself a Relation. The Category of Relation is thus implied, in declaring what the First Essence is, together with some _predicabilia_ as correlates, though it is not yet specified what the _predicabilia_ are. But besides this, the distinction drawn by Aristotle, between First and Second Essence or Substance, abolishes the marked line of separation between Substance and Quality, making the former shade down into the latter. The distinction recognizes a more or less in Substance, which graduation Aristotle expressly points out, stating that the Species is _more_ Substance or Essence, and that Genus _less_ so. We see thus that he did not conceive Substance (apart from attributes) according to the modern view, as that which exists _without_ the mind (excluding _within_ the mind or _relation_ to the mind); for in that there can be no graduation. That which is without the mind, must also be within; and that which is within must also be without; the subject and the object correlating. This implication of within and without understood, there is then room for graduation, according as the one or the other aspect may be more or less prominent. Aristotle, in point of fact, confines himself to the mental or logical work of predication, to the conditions thereof, and to the component terms whereby the mind accomplishes that act. When he speaks of the First Essence or Substance, without the Second, all that he can say about it positively is to call it _Unum numero_ and indivisible:[107] even thus, he is compelled to introduce unity, measure, and number, all of which belong to the two Categories of Quantity and Relation; and yet still the First Essence or Substance remains indeterminate. We only begin to determine it when we call it by the name of the Second Substance or Essence; which name connotes certain attributes, the attributes thus connoted being of the essence of the Species; that is, unless they be present, no individual would be considered as belonging to the Species, or would be called by the specific name.[108] When we thus, however, introduce attributes, we find ourselves not merely in the Category of _Substantia_ (_Secunda_), but also in that of _Qualitas_. The boundary between _Substantia_ and _Qualitas_ disappears; the latter being partially contained in the former. The Second Substance or Essence includes attributes or Qualities belonging to the Essence. In fact, the Second Substance or Essence, when distinguished from the First, is both here and elsewhere characterized by Aristotle, as being not Substance at all, but Quality,[109] though when considered as being in implication with the First, it takes on the nature of Substance and becomes substantial or essential Quality. The Differentia belongs thus both to Substance and to Quality (_quale quid_), making up as complement that which is designated by the specific name.[110]

[Footnote 106: Aristotle sometimes speaks of it as [Greek: chôristo/n], the other Categories being not [Greek: chôrista/] (Metaphys. Z. p. 1028, a. 34). It is not easy, however, always to distinguish whether he means by the term [Greek: chôrista\] "_sejuncta re_", or "_sejuncta notione solâ_." See Bonitz ad Metaphysic. ([Greek: D]. p. 1017), p. 244.]

[Footnote 107: Categor. p. 3, b. 12: [Greek: a)/tomon ga\r kai\ e(\n a)rithmô=| to\ dêlou/meno/n e)stin.] Compare Metaphysic. N. p. 1087, b. 33; p. 1088, a. 10.]

[Footnote 108: Hobbes says:--"Now that accident (_i.e._ attribute) for which we give a certain name to any body, or the accident which denominates its Subject, is commonly called the Essence thereof; as rationality is the essence of a man, whiteness of any white thing, and extension the essence of a body" (Hobbes, Philosophy, ch. viii. s. 23). This topic will be found discussed, most completely and philosophically, in Mr. John Stuart Mill's System of Logic, Book I. ch. vi. ss. 2-3; ch. vii. s. 5.]

[Footnote 109: Categor. p. 3, b. 13: [Greek: e)pi\ de\ tô=n deute/rôn ou)siô=n phai/netai me\n o(moi/ôs tô=| schê/mati tê=s prosêgori/as to/de ti sêmai/nein, o(/tan ei)/pê| a)/nthrôpon ê)\ zô=on, ou) mê\n a)lêthe/s ge, a)lla\ ma=llon _poio/n ti sêmai/nei--poia\n ga/r tina ou)si/an_ sêmai/nei] (b. 20).

Metaphysic. Z. p. 1038, b. 35: [Greek: phanero\n o(/ti ou)the\n tô=n katho/lou u(parcho/ntôn ou)si/a e)sti/, kai\ o(/ti ou)the\n sêmai/nei tô=n koinê=| katêgoroume/nôn to/de ti, a)lla\ toio/nde.] Compare Metaphys. M. p. 1087, a. 1; Sophistic. Elench. p. 178, b. 37; 179, a. 9.

That which is called [Greek: prô/tê ou)si/a] in the Categoriæ is called [Greek: tri/tê ou)si/a] in Metaphys. [Greek: Ê]. p. 1043, a. 18. In Ethic. Nikom. Z. p. 1143, a. 32, seq., the _generalissima_ are called [Greek: prô=ta], and particulars are called [Greek: e)/schata]. Zell observes in his commentary (p. 224), "[Greek: ta\ e)/schata] sunt res singulæ, quæ et ipsæ sunt extremæ, ratione mentis nostræ, ab universis ad singula delabentis." Patricius remarks upon the different sense of the terms [Greek: Prô/tê Ou)si/a] in the Categoriæ and in the De Interpretatione (Discuss. Peripatetic. p. 21).]

[Footnote 110: Metaphysic. [Greek: D]. p. 1020, b. 13: [Greek: schedo\n dê\ kata\ du/o tro/pous le/goit' a)\n to\ poio/n, kai\ tou/tôn e(/na to\n kuriô/taton; prô/tê me\n ga\r poiotê\s ê( tê=s ou)si/as diaphora/.] Compare Physic. v. p. 226, a. 27. See Trendelenburg, Kategorienlehre, pp. 56, 93.

The remarks of the different expositors (contained in Scholia, pp. 52, 53, 54, Brand.), are interesting upon the ambiguous position of Differentia, in regard to Substance and Quality. It comes out to be Neither and Both--[Greek: ou)de/tera kai\ a)mpho/tera] (Plato, Euthydemus, p. 300 C.). Dexippus and Porphyry called it something intermediate between [Greek: ou)si/a] and [Greek: poio/tês], or between [Greek: ou)si/a] and [Greek: sumbebêko/s].]

We see, accordingly, that neither is the line of demarcation between the Category of Substance or Essence and the other Categories so impassable, nor the separability of it from the others so marked as some thinkers contend. Substance is represented by Aristotle as admitting of more and less, and as graduating by successive steps down to the other Categories; moreover, neither in its complete manifestation (as First Substance), nor in its incomplete manifestation (as Second Substance), can it be explained or understood without calling in the other Categories of Quantity, Quality, and Relation. It does not correspond to the definition of _Substantia_ given by Spinoza--"_quod in se est et per se concipitur_." It can no more be conceived or described without some of the other Categories, than they can be conceived or described without it. Aristotle defines it by four characteristics, two negative, and two positive. It cannot be predicated of a Subject: it cannot inhere in a Subject: it is, at bottom, the **Subject of all Predicates: it is _Unum numero_ and indivisible.[111] Not one of these four determinations can be conceived or understood, unless we have in our minds the idea of other Categories and its relation to them. Substance is known only as the Subject of predicates, that is, relatively to them; as they also are known relatively to it. Without the Category of Relation, we can no more understand what is meant by a Subject than what is meant by a Predicate. The Category of Substance, as laid out by Aristotle, neither exists by itself, nor can be conceived by itself, without that of Relation and the generic notion of Predicate.[112] All three lie together at the bottom of the analytical process, as the last findings and residuum.

[Footnote 111: Categor. p. 2, a. 14, b. 4; p. 3, b. 12.]

[Footnote 112: Aristotle gives an explanation of what he means by [Greek: kath' au(to/--kath' au(ta/], in the Analytic. Post. I. iv. p. 73, a. 34, b. 13. According to that explanation it will be necessary to include in [Greek: to\ kath' au(to\] of the Category [Greek: Ou)si/a], all that is necessary to make the definition or explanation of that Category understood.

M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire, in the valuable Preface introducing his translation of the Organon, gives what I think a just view of the Categories generally, and especially of [Greek: prô/tê ou)si/a], as simply naming (_i.e._ giving a proper name), and doing nothing more. I transcribe the passage, merely noting that the terms _anterior_ and _posterior_ can mean nothing more than _logical_ anteriority and posteriority.

"Mais comment classer les mots?--C'est à la réalité seule qu'il faut le demander; à la réalité dont le langage n'est que le réflet, dont les mots ne sont que le symbole. Que nous présente la réalité? Des individus, rien que des individus, existant par eux-mêmes, et se groupant, par leurs ressemblances et leurs différences, sous des espèces et sous des genres. Ainsi donc, en étudiant l'individu, l'être individuel, et en analysant avec exactitude tout ce qu'il est possible d'en dire en tant qu'être, on aura les classes les plus générales des mots; les catégories, ou pour prendre le terme français, les attributions, qu'il est possible de lui appliquer. Voilà tout le fondement des Catégories.--Ce n'est pas du reste, une classification des choses à la manière de celles de l'histoire naturelle, qu'il s'agit de faire en logique: c'est une simple énumération de tous les points de vue, d'**où l'esprit peut considérer les choses, non pas, il est vrai, par rapport à l'esprit lui-même, mais par rapport à leur réalité et à leurs appellations.--Aristote distingue ici dix points de vue, dix significations principales des mots.--La Catégorie de la Substance est à la tête de toutes les autres, précisément parceque la première, la plus essentielle, marque d'un être, c'est d'être. Cela revient à dire qu'avant tout, l'être est, l'être existe. Par suite les mots qui expriment la substance sont antérieurs à tous les autres et sont les plus importants. Il faut ajouter que ces mots là participeront en quelque sorte à cet isolement que les individus nous offrent dans la nature. Mais de même que, dans la réalité, les individus subsistant par eux seuls forment des espèces et des genres, qui ont bien aussi une existence substantielle, la substance se divisera de même en substance première et substance seconde.--Les espèces et les genres, s'ils expriment la substance, ne l'expriment pas dans toute sa pureté; c'est **déjà de la substance qualifié, comme le dit Aristote.--Il n'y a bien dans la réalité que des individus et des espèces ou genres. Mais ces individus en soi et pour soi n'existent pas seulement; ils existent sous certaines conditions; leur existence se produit sous certaines modifications, que les mots expriment aussi, tout comme ils expriment l'existence absolue. Ces nouvelles classes de mots formeront les autres Catégories.--Ces modifications, ces accidents, de l'individu sont au nombre de neuf: Aristote n'en reconnaît pas davantage.--**Voilà donc les dix Catégories: les dix seules attributions possibles. _Par la première, on nomme les individus, sans faire plus que les nommer: par les autres, on les qualifie._ On dit d'abord ce qu'est l'individu, et ensuite quel il est." Barthélemy St. Hilaire, Logique d'Aristote, Preface, pp. lxxii.-lxxvii.]

Aristotle, taking his departure from an analysis of the complete sentence or of the act of predication, appears to have regarded the Subject as having a natural priority over the Predicate. The noun-substantive (which to him represents the Subject), even when pronounced alone, carries to the hearer a more complete conception than either the adjective or the verb when pronounced alone; these make themselves felt much more as elliptical and needing complementary adjuncts. But this is only true in so far as the conception, raised by the substantive named alone ([Greek: a)/neu sumplokê=s]), includes by anticipation what would be included, if we added to it some or all of its predicates. If we could deduct from this conception the meaning of all the applicable predicates, it would seem essentially barren or incomplete, awaiting something to come; a mere point of commencement or departure,[113] known only by the various lines which may be drawn from it; a _substratum_ for various attributes to lie upon or to inhere in. That which is known only as a _substratum_, is known only relatively to a superstructure to come; the one is _Relatum_, the other _Correlatum_, and the mention of either involves an implied assumption of the other. There may be a logical priority, founded upon expository convenience, belonging to the _substratum_, because it remains numerically one and the same, while the superstructure is variable. But the priority is nothing more than logical and notional; it does not amount to an ability of prior independent existence. On the contrary, there is simultaneity _by nature_ (according to Aristotle's own definition of the phrase) between Subject, Relation, and Predicate; since they all imply each other as reciprocating correlates, while no one of them is the cause of the others.[114]

[Footnote 113: Plato would not admit the point as as anything more than [Greek: a)rchê\n grammê=s] (Aristot. Metaphys. A. p. 992, a. 21).]

[Footnote 114: Aristot. Categor. p. 14, b. 27: [Greek: phu/sei de\ a(/ma, o(/sa a)ntistre/phei kata\ tê\n tou= ei)=nai a)kolou/thêsin, mêdamô=s de\ ai)/tion tha/teron thate/rô| tou= ei)=nai e)stin, oi(=on e)pi\ tou= diplasi/ou kai\ tou= ê(mi/seos;] &c.]

When Aristotle says, very truly, that if the First Substances were non-existent, none of the other Predicaments could exist, we must understand what he means by the term _first_. That term bears, in this treatise, a sense different from what it bears elsewhere: here it means the extreme concrete and individual; elsewhere it means the extreme abstract and universal. The First Substance or First Essence, in the Categories, is a _Hoc Aliquid_ ([Greek: to/de ti]), illustrated by the examples _hic homo_, _hic equus_. Now, as thus explained and illustrated, it includes not merely the Second Substance, but various accidental attributes besides. When we talk of This man, Sokrates, Kallias, &c., the hearer conceives not only the attributes for which he is called a man, but also various accidental attributes, ranking under one or more of the other Predicaments. The First Substance thus (as explained by Aristotle) is not conceived as a mere _substratum_ without Second Substance and without any Accidents, but as already including both of them, though as yet indeterminately; it waits for specializing words, to determine what its Substance or Essence is, and what its accompanying Accidents are. Being an individual (_Unum numero_), it unites in itself both the essential attributes of its species, and the unessential attributes peculiar to itself.[115] It is already understood as including attributes of both kinds; but we wait for predicates to declare ([Greek: dêlou=n--a)podido/nai][116]) what these attributes are. The First or Complete _Ens_ embodies in itself all the Predicaments, though as yet potential and indeterminate, until the predicating adjuncts are specified. There is no priority, in the order of existence, belonging to Substance over Relation or Quality; take away either one of the three, and the First _Ens_ disappears. But in regard to the order of exposition, there is a natural priority, founded on convenience and facility of understanding. The _Hoc Aliquid_ or _Unum Numero_, which intimates in general outline a certain concretion or co-existence of attributes, though we do not yet know what they are--being as it were a skeleton--comes naturally as Subject before the predicates, whose function is declaratory and specifying as to those attributes: moreover, the essential attributes, which are declared and connoted when we first bestow a specific name on the subject, come naturally before the unessential attributes, which are predicated of the subject already called by a specific name connoting other attributes.[117] The essential characters are native and at home; the accidental attributes are domiciliated foreigners.[118]

[Footnote 115: Aristot. Metaphys. Z. p. 1033, b. 24; p. 1034, a. 8. [Greek: To\ d' a)/pan to/de Kalli/as ê)\ Sôkra/tês e)sti\n ô(/sper ê( sphai=ra ê( chalkê= ê(di/, o( d' a)/nthrôpos kai\ to\ zô=|on ô(/sper sphai=ra chalkê= o(lôs.--to\ d' a(/pan ê)/dê to\ toio/nde ei)=dos e)n tai=sde tai=s sarxi\ kai\ o)stoi=s Kalli/as kai\ Sôkra/tês; kai\ e(/teron me\n dia\ tê\n u(/lên, e(/tera ga/r, tau)to\ de\ tô=| ei)/dei; a)/tomon ga\r to\ ei)=dos.]]

[Footnote 116: Categor. p. 2, b. 29, seq. [Greek: ei)ko/tôs de\ meta\ ta\s prô/tas ou)si/as mo/na tô=n a)/llôn ta\ ei)/dê kai\ ta\ ge/nê deu/terai ou)si/ai le/gontai; mo/na _ga\r dêloi=_ tê\n prô/tên ou)si/an tô=n katêgoroume/nôn.] &c.

[Footnote 117: Analyt. Poster. i. p. 73, b. 6: [Greek: oi(=on to\ badi/zon e(/tero/n ti o(\n badi/zon e)sti\ kai\ leuko/n, ê( d' ou)si/a, kai\ o(/sa to/de ti sêmai/nei, ou)ch e(/tero/n ti o)/nta o(/per e)sti/n.] Also p. 83, a. 31. [Greek: kai\ mê\ ei)=nai/ ti leuko/n, o(\ ou)ch e(/tero/n ti o(\n leuko/n e)stin]: also p. 83, b. 22.]

[Footnote 118: Categor. p. 2, b. 31: [Greek: to\n ga/r tina a)nthrôpon e)a\n a)podidô=| tis ti/ e)sti, to\ me\n ei)=dos ê)\ to\ ge/nos a)podidou\s _oi)kei/ôs_ a)podô/sei--tô=n d' a)/llôn o(/ ti a)\n a)podidô=| tis, _a)llotri/ôs_ e)stai a)podedôkô/s], &c.]

It is thus that Aristotle has dealt with Ontology, in one of the four distinct aspects thereof, which he distinguishes from each other; that is, in the distribution of _Entia_ according to their logical order, and the reciprocal interdependence, in predication. _Ens_ is a multivocal word, neither strictly univocal nor altogether equivocal. It denotes (as has been stated above) not a generic aggregate, divisible into species, but an analogical aggregate, starting from one common terminus and ramifying into many derivatives, having no other community except that of relationship to the same terminus.[119] The different modes of _Ens_ are distinguished by the degree or variety of such relationship. The _Ens Primum_, _Proprium_, _Completum_, is (in Aristotle's view) the concrete individual; with a defined essence or essential constituent attributes ([Greek: ti/ ê(/n ei)=nai]), and with unessential accessories or accidents also--all embodied and implicated in the One _Hoc Aliquid_. In the Categoriæ Aristotle analyses this _Ens Completum_ (not metaphysically, into Form and Matter, as we shall find him doing elsewhere, but) logically into Subject and Predicates. In this logical analysis, the Subject which can never be a Predicate stands first; next, come the near kinsmen, Genus and Species (expressed by substantive names, as the First Substance is), which are sometimes Predicates--as applied to _Substantia Prima_, sometimes Subjects--in regard to the extrinsic accompaniments or accidents;[120] in the third rank, come the more remote kinsmen, Predicates pure and simple. These are the logical factors or constituents into which the _Ens Completum_ may be analysed, and which together make it up as a logical sum-total. But no one of these logical constituents has an absolute or independent _locus standi_, apart from the others. Each is relative to the others; the Subject to its Predicates, not less than the Predicates to their Subject. It is a mistake to describe the Subject as having a real standing separately and alone, and the Predicates as something afterwards tacked on to it. The Subject _per se_ is nothing but a general potentiality or receptivity for Predicates to come; a relative general conception, in which the two, Predicate and Subject, are jointly implicated as _Relatum_ and _Correlatum_.[121]

[Footnote 119: Aristot. Metaphys. [Greek: D]. p. 1017, a. 22. [Greek: kath' au(ta\ de\ ei)=nai le/getai o(/saper sêmai/nei ta\ schê/mata tê=s katêgori/as; o)sachô=s ga\r le/getai, tosautachô=s to\ ei)=nai sêmai/nei.]]

[Footnote 120: Categor. p. 3, a. 1: [Greek: ô(s de/ ge ai( prô=tai ou)si/ai pro\s ta\ a)/lla pa/nta e)/chousin, ou(/tô ta\ ei)/dê kai\ ta\ ge/nê pro\s ta\ loipa\ pa/nta e)/chei; kata\ tou/tôn ga\r pa/nta ta\ loipa\ katêgorei=tai.]]

[Footnote 121: Bonitz has an instructive note upon Form and Matter, the _metaphysical_ constituents of _Prima Substantia_, _Hoc Aliquid_, Sokrates, Kallias (see Aristot. Metaphys. Z. p. 1033, b. 24), which illustrates pertinently the relation between Predicate and Subject, the _logical_ constituents of the same [Greek: su/nolon]. He observes (not. p. 327, **ad Aristot. Metaph. Z. p. 1033, b. 19). "Quoniam ex duabus substantiis, quæ quidem actu sint, nunquam una existit substantia, si et formam et materiem utrumque per se esse poneremus, nunquam ex utroque existeret res definita ac sensibilis, [Greek: to/de ti]. Ponendum potius, si recte assequor Aristotelis sententiam, utrumque (Form and Matter) ita ut alterum exspectet, materia ut formæ definitionem, forma ut materiam definiendam, exspectet, neutra vero per se et absolute sit." What Bonitz says here about Matter and Form is no less true about Subject and Predicate: each is relative to the other--neither of them is absolute or independent of the other. In fact, the explanation given by Aristotle of _Materia_ (Metaph. Z. p. 1028, b. 36) coincides very much with the _Prima Essentia_ of the Categories, if abstracted from the _Secunda Essentia_. _Materia_ is called there by Aristotle [Greek: to\ u(pokei/menon, kath' ou(= ta\ a)/lla le/getai. e)kei=no d' au)to\ mêke/ti kat' a)/llo--le/gô d' u(/lên ê(\ kath' au(tê\n mê/te ti\ mê/te poso\n mê/te a)/llo mêthe\n le/getai oi(=s ô(/ristai to\ o)/n] (p. 1029, a. 20). [Greek: e)/sti ga/r ti kath' ou(= katêgorei=tai tou/tôn e(/kaston, ô(=| _to\ ei)=nai e(/teron_ kai\ tô=n katêgoriô=n e(ka/stê|; ta\ me\n ga\r a)/lla tê=s ou)si/as katêgorei=tai, au(/tê de\ tê=s u(/lês.]

Aristotle proceeds to say that this Subject--the Subject for all Predicates, but never itself a Predicate--cannot be the genuine [Greek: ou)si/a], which must essentially be [Greek: chôristo\n kai\ to\ to/de ti] (p. 1029, a. 28), and which must have a [Greek: ti/ ê)=n ei)=nai] (1029, b. 2). The Subject is in fact not true [Greek: ou)si/a], but is one of the constituent elements thereof, being relative to the Predicates as _Correlata_: it is the potentiality for Predicates generally, as _Materia_ is the potentiality for Forms.]

The logical aspect of Ontology, analysing _Ens_ into a common Subject with its various classes of Predicates, appears to begin with Aristotle. He was, as far as we can see, original, in taking as the point of departure for his theory, the individual man, horse, or other perceivable object; in laying down this Concrete Particular with all its outfit of details, as the type of _Ens_ proper, complete and primary; and in arranging into classes the various secondary modes of _Ens_, according to their different relations to the primary type and the mode in which they contributed to make up its completeness. He thus stood opposed to the Pythagoreans and Platonists, who took their departure from the Universal, as the type of full and true Entity;[122] while he also dissented from Demokritus, who recognized no true _Ens_ except the underlying, imperceptible, eternal atoms and vacuum. Moreover Aristotle seems to have been the first to draw up a logical analysis of Entity in its widest sense, as distinguished from that metaphysical analysis which we read in his other works; the two not being contradictory, but distinct and tending to different purposes. Both in the one and in the other, his principal controversy seems to have been with the Platonists, who disregarded both individual objects and accidental attributes; dwelling upon Universals, Genera and Species, as the only real _Entia_ capable of being known. With the Sophists, Aristotle contends on a different ground, accusing them of neglecting altogether the essential attributes, and confining themselves to the region of accidents, in which no certainty was to be found;[123] in Plato, he points out the opposite mistake, of confining himself to the essentials, and ascribing undue importance to the process of generic and specific subdivision.[124] His own logical analysis takes account both of the essential and accidental, and puts them in what he thinks their proper relation. The Accidental ([Greek: sumbebêko/s]), concomitant, _i.e._ of the essence) is _per se_ not knowable at all (he contends), nor is ever the object of study pursued in any science; it is little better than a name, designating the lowest degree of _Ens_, bordering on _Non-Ens_.[125] It is a term comprehending all that he includes under his nine last Categories; yet it is not a term connoting either generic communion, or even so much as analogical relation.[126] In the treatise now before us, he does not recognize either that or any other general term as common to all those nine Categories; each of the nine is here treated as a _Summum Genus_, having its own mode of relationship, and clinging by its own separate thread to the Subject. He acknowledges the Accidents in his classification, not as a class by themselves, but as subordinated to the Essence, and, as so many threads of distinct, variable, and irregular accompaniments, attaching themselves to this constant root, without uniformity or steadiness.[127]

[Footnote 122: Simplikius ad Categ. p. 2, b. 5; Schol. p. 52, a. 1, Br: [Greek: A)rchu/tas o( Puthagorei=os ou) prosi/etai tê\n nuni\ prokeime/nên tô=n ou)si/ôn diai/resin, a)ll' a)/llên a)nti\ tau/tês e)kei=nos e)gkri/nei--tô=n me/ntoi Puthagorei/ôn ou)dei\s a)\n pro/soito tau/tên tê\n diai/resin tô=n prô/tôn kai\ deute/rôn ou)siô=n, o(/ti toi=s katho/lou to\ prô/tôs u(pa/rchein marturou=si, to\ de\ e)/schaton e)n toi=s meristoi=s a)polei/pousi, kai\ dio/ti e)n toi=s a(plousta/tois tê\n prô/tên kai\ kuriôta/tên ou)si/an a)poti/thentai, a)ll' ou)ch ô(s nu=n le/getai e)n toi=s sunthe/tois kai\ ai)sthêtoi=s, kai\ dio/ti ta\ ge/nê kai\ ta\ ei)/dê o)/nta nomi/zousin, a)ll' ou)chi\ sugkephalaiou/mena tai=s chôristai=s e)pinoi/ais.]]

[Footnote 123: Metaphys. E. p. 1026, b. 15: [Greek: ei)si\ ga\r oi( tô=n sophistô=n lo/goi peri\ to\ sumbebêko\s ô(s ei)pei=n ma/lista pa/ntôn], &c.; also K. p. 1061, b. 8; Analytic. Poster. i. p. 71, b. 10.]

[Footnote 124: Analytic. Priora, i. p. 46, a. 31.]

[Footnote 125: Aristot. Metaph. E. p. 1026, b. 13-21. [Greek: ô(/sper ga\r o)no/mati mo/non to\ sumbebêko/s--phai/netai ga\r to\ sumbebêko\s e)ggu/s ti tou= mê\ o)/ntos.]]

[Footnote 126: Physica, iii. 1, p. 200, b. 34. [Greek: koino\n d' e)pi\ tou/tôn ou)de/n e)sti labei=n], &c.]

[Footnote 127: See the explanation given of [Greek: to\ o)\n kata\ sumbebêko\s] in Metaphys. E. pp. 1026 b., 1027 a. This is the sense in which Aristotle most frequently and usually talks of [Greek: sumbebêko/s], though he sometimes uses it to include also a constant and inseparable accompaniment or Accident, if it be not included in the Essence (_i. e._ not connoted by the specific name); thus, to have the three angles equal to two right angles is a [Greek: sumbebêko\s] of the triangle, Metaph. [Greek: D]. p. 1025, a. 80. The proper sense in which he understands [Greek: to\ sumbebêko\s] is as opposed to [Greek: to\ a)ei\ e)x a)na/gkês], as well as [Greek: to\ ô(s e)pi\ to\ polu/]. See Metaphys. K. p. 1065, a. 2; Analyt. Poster. i. p. 74, b. 12, p. 75, a. 18.

It is that which is by its nature irregular and unpredictable. See the valuable chapter (ii) in Brentano, Von der Bedeutung des Seienden nach Aristoteles (pp. 8-21), in which the meaning of [Greek: to\ sumbebêko\s] in Aristotle is clearly set forth.]

In discriminating and arranging the Ten Categories, Trendelenburg supposes that Aristotle was guided, consciously or unconsciously, by grammatical considerations, or by a distinction among the parts of speech. It should be remembered that what are now familiarly known as the eight parts of speech, had not yet been distinguished or named in the time of Aristotle, nor did the distinction come into vogue before the time of the Stoic and Alexandrine grammarians, more than a century after him. _Essentia_ or _Substantia_, the first Category, answers (so Trendelenburg thinks[128]) to the Substantive; _Quantum_ and _Quale_ represent the Adjective; _Ad Aliquid_, the comparative Adjective, of which _Quantum_ and _Quale_ are the positive degree; _Ubi_ and _Quando_ the Adverb; _Jacere_, _Habere_, _Agere_, _Pati_ the Verb. Of the last four, _Agere_ and _Pati_ correspond to the active and passive voices of the Verb; _Jacere_ to the neuter or intransitive Verb; and _Habere_ to the peculiar meaning of the Greek perfect--the present result of a past action.

[Footnote 128: Trendelenburg, Kategorienlehre, pp. 23, 211.]

This general view, which Trendelenburg himself conceives as having been only guiding and not decisive or peremptory in the mind of Aristotle,[129] appears to me likely and plausible, though Bonitz and others have strongly opposed it. We see from Aristotle's own language, that the grammatical point of view had great effect upon his mind; that the form (_e.g._) of a substantive implied in his view a mode of signification belonging to itself, which was to be taken into account in arranging and explaining the Categories.[130] I apprehend that Aristotle was induced to distinguish and set out his Categories by analysing various complete sentences, which would of course include substantives, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs. It is also remarkable that Aristotle should have designated his four last Categories by the indication of verbs, the two immediately preceding by adverbs, the second and third by adjectives, and the first by a substantive. There remains the important Category _Ad Aliquid_, which has no part of speech corresponding to it specially. Even this Category, though not represented by any part of speech, is nevertheless conceived and defined by Aristotle in a very narrow way, with close reference to the form of expression, and to the requirement of a noun immediately following, in the genitive or dative case. And thus, where there is no special part of speech, the mind of Aristotle still seems to receive its guidance from grammatical and syntactic forms.

[Footnote 129: Ibid. p. 209: "Gesichtspunkte der Sprache leiteten den erfindenden Geist, um sie (die Kategorien) zu bestimmen. Aber die grammatischen Beziehungen leiten nur und entscheiden nicht." P. 216: "der grammatische Leitfaden der Satzzergliederung wird anerkannt."]

[Footnote 130: Categor. p. 3, b. 13: [Greek: e)pi\ de\ tô=n deute/rôn ou)siô=n phai/netai me\n o(moi/ôs tô=| _schê/mati tê=s prosêgori/as_ to/de ti sêmai/nein, o(/tan ei)/pê| a)/nthrôpon ê)\ zô=|on, ou) mê\n a)lêthe/s ge, a)lla\ ma=llon poio/n ti sêmai/nei.] &c.]

We may illustrate the ten Categories of Aristotle by comparing them with the four Categories of the Stoics. During the century succeeding Aristotle's death, the Stoics, Zeno and Chrysippus (principally the latter), having before them what he had done, proposed a new arrangement for the complete distribution of Subject and Predicates. Their distribution was quadruple instead of decuple. Their first Category was [Greek: ti/], _Aliquid_ or _Quiddam_--[Greek: to\ u(pokei/menon], the _Substratum_ or Subject. Their second was [Greek: poio/n], _Quale_ or Quality. Their third was [Greek: pô\s e)/chon], _certo Modo se habens_. Their fourth was, [Greek: pro/s ti pô\s e)/chon], _Ad Aliquid certo Modo se habens_.[131]

[Footnote 131: Plotinus, Ennead. vi. 1, 25; vi. 1, 30: [Greek: ta\ pô\s e)/chonta tri/ta ti/thesthai]. Simplikius ad Categor. f. 7, p. 48, a. 13, Brand. Schol.: [Greek: Oi( Stôi+koi\ ei)s e)la/ttona suste/llein a)xiou=si to\n tô=n prô/tôn genô=n a)rithmo/n kai/ tina e)n toi=s a)la/ttosin u(pêllagme/na paralamba/nousi. poiou=ntai ga\r tê\n tomê\n ei)s te/ssara, ei)s u(pokei/mena, kai\ poia\, kai\ pô\s e)/chonta, kai\ pro/s ti pô\s e)/chonta.]

It would seem from the adverse criticisms of Plotinus, that the Stoics recognized one grand [Greek: **ge/nos] comprehending all the above four as distinct species: see Plotinus, Ennead., vi. 2, 1; vi. 1, 25. He charges them with inconsistency and error for doing so. He admits, however, that Aristotle did not recognize any one supreme [Greek: ge/nos] comprehending all the ten Categories (vi. 1, 1), but treated all the ten as [Greek: prô=ta ge/nê], under an analogous aggregate. I cannot but think that the **Stoics looked upon their four [Greek: ge/nê] in the same manner; for I do not see what they could find more comprehensive to rank generically above [Greek: ti/].]

We do not possess the advantage (which we have in the case of Aristotle) of knowing this quadruple scheme as stated and enforced by its authors. We know it only through the abridgment of Diogenes Laertius, together with incidental remarks and criticisms, chiefly adverse, by Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, Plotinus, and some Aristotelian commentators. As far as we can make out upon this evidence, it appears that the first Stoic Category corresponded with the [Greek: Prô/tê Ou)si/a], First Essence or Substance of Aristotle. It was exclusively Subject, and could never become Predicate; but it was indispensable as Subject, to the three other Predicates. Its meaning was concrete and particular; for we are told that all general notions or conceptions were excluded by the Stoics from this Category,[132] and were designated as [Greek: Ou)/tina], Non-Individuals, or Non-Particulars. _Homo_ was counted by them, not under the Category [Greek: ti/], _Quid_, but under the Category [Greek: _poio/n_], _Quale_; in its character of predicate determining the Subject [Greek: ti/s] or [Greek: ti/]. The Stoic Category _Quale_ thus included the Aristotelian Second Essences or Substances, and also the Aristotelian _differentia_. _Quale_ was a _species_-making Category ([Greek: ei)dopoio/s]).[133] It declared what was the Essence of the Subject [Greek: ti/]--the essential qualities or attributes, but also the derivative manifestations thereof, coinciding with what is called the _proprium_ in Porphyry's Eisagoge. It therefore came next in order immediately after [Greek: ti/]: since the Essence of the Subject must be declared, before you proceed to declare its Accidents.

[Footnote 132: Simpl. ad Categ., p. 54, a. 12, Schol. Brand.: [Greek: sumparalêpte/on de\ kai\ tê\n sunê/theian tô=n Stôi+kô=n peri\ tô=n genikô=n poiô=n, pô=s ai( ptô/seis kat' au)tou\s prophe/rontai, kai\ pô=s _ou)/tina_ ta\ koina\ par' au)toi=s le/getai, kai\ o(/pôs para\ tê\n a)/gnoian tou= mê\ pa=san ou)si/an to/de ti sêmai/nein kai\ to\ _para\ to\n ou)/tina_ so/phisma gi/netai para\ to\ schê=ma tê=s le/xeôs; oi(=on ei)/ ti/s e)stin e)n A)thê/nais, ou)k e)/stin e)n Mega/rois; _ o( ga\r a)/nthrôpos ou)/tis e)sti/n, ou) ga/r e)sti/ tis o( koino/s_, ô(s tina\ de\ au)to\n e)la/bomen e)n tô=| lo/gô|, kai\ para\ tou=to to\ o)/noma tou=to e)/schen o( lo/gos ou)/tis klêthei/s.]

Compare Schol. p. 45**, a. 7, where Porphyry says that the Stoics, as well as Aristotle, in arranging Categories, took as their point of departure [Greek: to\ **deu/teron u(pokei/menon], not [Greek: to\ prô=ton u(pokei/menon ( = tê\n a)/poion u(/lên)].]

[Footnote 133: Trendelenburg, Kategorienlehre p. 222; Plutarch, De Stoicor. Repugnantiis, p. 1054 a.; Simpl. ad Categor. Schol. p. 67. Br. [Greek: Poia\] were distributed by the Stoics into three varieties; and the abstract word [Greek: Poio/tês], in the Stoic sense, corresponded only to the highest and most complete of these three varieties, not to the second or third variety, so that [Geek: poio/tês] had a narrower extension than [Greek: poio/n]: there were [Greek: poia\] without any [Greek: poiotê\s] corresponding to them. To the third Category, [Greek: Pô\s e)/chonta], which was larger and more varied than the second, they had no abstract term corresponding; nor to the fourth Category, [Greek: Pro/s ti]. Hence, we may see one reason why the Stoics, confining the abstract term [Greek: poio/têtes] to durable attributes, were disposed to maintain that the [Greek: poio/têtes tô=n sôma/tôn] were themselves [Greek: sô/mata] or [Greek: sômatika/]: which Galen takes much pains to refute (vol. xix. p. 463, seq. ed. Kühn). The Stoics considered these qualities as [Greek: a)e/ras tina/s], or [Greek: pneu/mata], &c., spiritual or gaseous agents pervading and holding together the solid substance.

It is difficult to make out these Stoic theories clearly from the evidence before us. From the statements of Simplikius in Scholia, pp. 67-69, I cannot understand the line of distinction between [Greek: poia\] and [Greek: pô\s e)/chonta]. The Stoics considered [Greek: poio/tês] to be [Greek: du/namis plei/stôn e)poistikê\ sumptôma/tôn, ô(s ê( phro/nêsis tou= te phroni/môs peripatei=n kai\ tou= phron/môs diale/gesthai] (p. 69, b. 2); and if all these [Greek: sumptô/mata] were included under [Greek: poio/n], so that [Greek: o( phroni/môs peripatô=n, o( pu\x protei/nôn] and [Greek: o( tre/chôn], were [Greek: poioi/ tines] (p. 67, b. 34). I hardly see what was left for the third Category [Greek: pô\s e)/chonta] to comprehend; although, according to the indications of Plotinus, it would be the most comprehensive. The Stoic writers seem both to have differed among themselves and to have written inconsistently.

Neither Trendelenburg (Kategorienlehre, pp. 223-226), nor even Prantl, in his more elaborate account (Gesch. der Logik, pp. 429-437), clears up this obscurity.]

The Third Stoic Category ([Greek: pô\s e)/chon]) comprised a portion of what Aristotle ranked under _Quale_, and all that he ranked under _Quantum_, _Ubi_, _Quando_, _Agere_, _Pati_, _Jacere_, _Habere_. The fourth Stoic Category coincided with the Aristotelian _Ad Aliquid_. The third was thus intended to cover what were understood as absolute or non-relative Accidents; the fourth included what were understood as Relative Accidents.

The order of arrangement among the four was considered as fixed and peremptory. They were not co-ordinate species under one and the same genus, but superordinate and subordinate,[134] the second presupposing and attaching to the first; the third, presupposing and attaching to the first, _plus_ the second; the fourth, presupposing and attaching to the first, _plus_ the second and third. The first proposition to be made is, in answer to the question _Quale Quid_? You answer _Tale Aliquid_, declaring the essential attributes. Upon this, the next question is put, _Quali Modo se habens_? You answer by a term of the third Category, declaring one or more of the accidental attributes non-relative, _Tale Aliquid, tali Modo se habens_. Upon this, the fourth and last question follows, _Quali Modo se habens ad alia_? Answer is made by the predicate of the fourth Category, _i.e._ a Relative. _Hic Aliquis--homo_ (1), _niger_ (2), _servus_ (3).

[Footnote 134: Prantl, Geschichte der Logik, vol. i. pp. 428, 429; Simplikius ad Categor. fol. 43, A: [Greek: ka)kei=no a)/topon to\ su/ntheta poiei=n ta\ ge/nê e)k prote/rôn tinô=n kai\ deute/rôn ô(s to\ pro/s ti e)k poiou= kai\ pro/s ti.] Cf. Plotinus, Ennead. vi. 1, 25-29.

Porphyry appears to include all [Greek: sumbebêko/ta] under [Greek: poio\n] and [Greek: pô\s e)/chon]: he gives as examples of the latter, what Aristotle would have assigned to the Category [Greek: kei=sthai] (Eisagoge, cc. 2, 10; Schol. Br. p. 1, b. 32, p. 5, a. 30).]

In comparing the ten Aristotelian with the four Stoic Categories we see that the first great difference is in the extent and comprehension of _Quale_, which Aristotle restricts on one side (by distinguishing from it _Essentia Secunda_), and enlarges on the other (by including in it many attributes accidental and foreign to the Essence). The second difference is, that the Stoics did not subdivide their third Category, but included therein all the matter of six Aristotelian Categories,[135] and much of the matter of the Aristotelian _Quale_. Both schemes agree on two points:--1. In taking as the point of departure the concrete, particular, individual, Substance. 2. In the narrow, restricted, inadequate conception formed of the Relative--_Ad Aliquid_.

[Footnote 135: Plotinus (Ennead. vi. 1. 80) disapproves greatly the number of disparates ranked under [Greek: to\ pô\s e)/chon], which has (he contends) no discoverable unity as a generic term. It is curious to see how he cites the Aristotelian Categories, as if the decuple distinction which they marked out were indefeasible.

Simplikius says that the Stoics distinguished between [Greek: to\ pro/s ti] and [Greek: to\ pro/s ti pô\s e)/chon]; and Trendelenburg, (pp. 228, 229) explains and illustrate this distinction, which, however, appears to be very obscure.]

Plotinus himself recognizes five _Summa_ or _Prima Genera_,[136] (he does not call them Categories) _Ens_, _Motus_, _Quies_, _Idem_, _Diversum_; the same as those enumerated in the Platonic Sophistes. He does not admit _Quantum_, _Quale_, or _Ad Aliquid_, to be _Prima Genera_; still less the other Aristotelian Categories. Moreover, he insists emphatically on the distinction between the intelligible and the sensible world, which distinction he censures Aristotle for neglecting. His five _Genera_ he applies directly and principally to the intelligible world. For the sensible world he admits ultimately five Catgories; _Substantia_ or _Essentia_ (though he conceives this as fluctuating between Form, Matter, and the Compound of the two), _Ad Aliquid_, _Quantum_, _Quale_, _Motus_. But he doubts whether _Quantum_, _Quale_, and _Motus_, are not comprehended in _Ad Aliquid_.[137] He considers, moreover, that Sensible Substance is not Substance, properly speaking, but only an imitation thereof; a congeries of non-substantial elements, qualities and matter.[138] Dexippus,[139] in answering the objections of Plotinus, insists much on the difference between Aristotle's point of view in the Categoriæ, in the Physica, and in the Metaphysica. In the Categoriæ, Aristotle dwells mainly on sensible substances (such as the vulgar understand) and the modes of naming and describing them.

[Footnote 136: Plotinus, Ennead. vi. 2, 8, 14, 16.]

[Footnote 137: Plotinus, Ennead. vi. 3. 3. [Greek: ê)\ kai\ tau=ta ei)s ta\ pro/s ti; periektiko\n ga\r ma=llon.] His idea of Relation is more comprehensive than that of Aristotle, for he declares that terms, propositions, discourse, &c., are [Greek: pro/s ti; kath' o(\ sêmantika/] (vi. 3. 19).]

[Footnote 138: Ibid. vi. 3. 8-15.]

[Footnote 139: The second and third books of Dexippus's Dialogue contain his answers to many of the objections urged by Plotinus. Aristotle, in the Categoriæ (Dexippus says), accommodates himself both to the received manner of speaking and to the simple or ordinary conception of [Greek: ou)si/a] entertained by youth or unphilosophical men--[Greek: ou)/te ga\r peri\ tô=n o)/ntôn, ou)/te peri\ tô=n genô=n tê=s prô/tês ou)si/as nu=n au)tô=| pro/keitai le/gein; stocha/zetai ga\r tô=n ne/ôn toi=s a(plouste/rois e)pakolouthei=n duname/nôn] (p. 49). Compare also pp. 50-54, where Dexippus contrasts the more abstruse handling which we read in the Physica and Metaphysica, with the more obvious and unpretending thoughts worked out by Aristotle in the Categoriæ. Dexippus gives an interesting piece of advice to his pupil, that he should vary his mode of discussing these topics, according as his companions are philosophical or otherwise--[Greek: e)gô\ me\n ou)=n, ô)= kale\ ka)gathe\ Se/leuke, dogmatikô/teron pro\s Plôti=non a)pantô=, su\ de/, e)pei\ bathu/terai/ pôs ei)si\n ai( lu/seis au(=tai, pro\s me\n tou=s e)k philosophi/as o(rmôme/nous tai=s toiau/tais a)pantê/sesi chrô=, pro\s de\ tou\s o)li/ga e)pistame/nous tô=n dogma/tôn tai=s prochei/rois chrô= dialu/sesin, e)kei=no le/gôn, _o(/ti peri\ po/da poiei=sthai e)/thos ta\s a)kroa/seis A)ristote/lei;_ dio\ kai\ nu=n ou)de\n e)/xôthen e)peisa/gei tô=n a)nôte/rô keime/nôn philosophêma/tôn], &c. (pp. 50, 51).]

Galen also recognizes five Categories; but not the same five as Plotinus. He makes a new list, formed partly out of the Aristotelian ten, partly out of the Stoic four:--[Greek: Ou)si/a, poso/n, poio/n, _pro/s ti_, pro/ ti pô\s e)/chon].[140]

[Footnote 140: Schol. ad Categor. p. 49 a. 30.]

. . . . . .

The latter portion of this Aristotelian treatise, on the Categories or Predicaments, consists of an Appendix, usually known under the title of 'Post-Predicamenta;'[141] wherein the following terms or notions are analysed and explained--_Opposita_, _Prius_, _Simul_, _Motus_, _Habere_.

[Footnote 141: Andronikus and other commentators supposed the Post-Predicamenta to have been appended to the Categoriæ by some later hand. Most of the commentators dissented from this view. The distinctions and explanations seem all Aristotelian.]

Of _Opposita_, Aristotle reckons four modes, analogous to each other, yet not different species under the same genus:[142]--1. _Relative-Opposita_--_Relatum_ and _Correlatum_. 2. _Contraria_. 3. _Habitus_ and _Privatio_. 4. _Affirmatio_ and _Negatio_.

[Footnote 142: Categ. p. 11, b. 16: [Greek: peri\ de\ tô=n a)ntikeime/nôn, posachô=s ei)/ôthen a)ntikei=sthai r(ête/on.] See Simpl. in Schol. p. 81, a. 37-b. 24. Whether Aristotle reckoned [Greek: ta\ a)ntikei/mena] a true genus or not, was debated among the commentators. The word [Greek: posachô=s] implies that he did not; and he treats even the term [Greek: e)nanti/a] as a [Greek: pollachô=s lego/menon], though it is less wide in its application than [Greek: a)ntikei/mena], which includes _Relata_ (Metaphys. I. p. 1055, a. 17). He even treats [Greek: ste/rêsis] as a [Greek: pollachô=s lego/menon] (p. 1055, a. 34).

[Greek: Ai( a)ntithe/seis te/ssares], the four distinct varieties of [Greek: ta\ a)ntikei/mena] are enumerated by Aristotle in various other places:--Topic. ii. p. 109, b. 17; p. 113, b. 15; Metaphys. I. p. 1055, a. 38. In Metaphys. [Greek: D]. p. 1018, a. 20, two other varieties are added. Bonitz observes (ad Metaph. p. 247) that Aristotle seems to treat this quadripartite distribution of _Opposita_, "tanquam certum et exploratum, pariter ac causarum numerum," &c.]

These four modes of opposition have passed from the Categoriæ of Aristotle into all or most of the modern treatises on Logic. The three last of the four are usefully classed together, and illustrated by their contrasts with each other. But as to the first of the four, I cannot think that Aristotle has been happy in the place which he has assigned to it. To treat _Relativa_ as a variety of _Opposita_, appears to me an inversion of the true order of classification; placing the more comprehensive term in subordination to the less comprehensive. Instead of saying that Relatives are a variety of the Opposite, we ought rather to say that Opposites are varieties of the Relative. We have here another proof of what has been remarked a few pages above; the narrow and inadequate conception which Aristotle formed of his _Ad Aliquid_ or the Relative; restricting it to cases in which the describing phrase is grammatically elliptical.[143] The three classes last-mentioned by Aristotle (1. _Contraria_, 2. _Habitus_ and _Privatio_, 3. _Affirmatio_ and _Negatio_) are truly _Opposita_; in each there is a different mode of opposition, which it is good to distinguish from the others. But the _Relatum_ and its _Correlatum_, as such, are not necessarily _Opposite_ at all; they are compared or conceived in conjunction with each other; while a name, called relative, which connotes such comparison, &c., is bestowed upon each. _Opposita_ fall under this general description, as parts (together with other parts not _Opposita_) of a larger whole. They ought properly to be called _Opposite-Relativa_: the phrase _Relative-Opposita_, as applied to Relatives generally, being discontinued as incorrect.[144]

[Footnote 143: Categ. p. 11, b. 24.

Ammonius and Simplikius inform us that there was much debate among the commentators about these four alleged varieties of [Greek: a)ntikei/mena]; also, that even Aristotle himself had composed a special treatise (not now extant), [Greek: Peri\ tô=n A)ntikeime/nôn], full of perplexing [Greek: a)pori/ai], which the Stoics afterwards discussed without solving (Schol. p. 83, a. 15-48). Herminus and others seem to have felt the difficulty of calling all Relatives [Greek: a)ntikei/mena]; for they admitted that the antithesis between the Relative and its Correlate was of gentler character, not conflicting, but reciprocally sustaining. Alexander ingeniously compared _Relatum_ and its _Correlatum_ to the opposite rafters of a roof, each supporting the other ([Greek: malakô/tera kai\ ê(=tton macho/mena e)n toi=s a)ntikeime/nois, ô(s _ kai\ a)mphiba/lesthai ei) ei)si\n a)ntikei/mena sô/zonta a)/llêla;_ a)lla\ tou=to me\n dei/knusin A)le/xandros o(/ti a)ntikei/mena, o(\s kai\ ta\ labdoeidê= xu/la paradei=gma lamba/nei], &c., Schol. p. 81, b. 32; p. 82, a. 15, b. 20). This is an undue enlargement of the meaning of _Opposita_, by taking in the literal material sense as an adjunct to the logical. On the contrary, the Stoics are alleged to have worked out the views of Aristotle about [Greek: e)nanti/a], but to have restricted the meaning of [Greek: **a)ntikei/mena] to contradictory opposition, _i. e._ to Affirmative and Negative Propositions with the same subject and predicate (Schol. p. 83, b. 11; p. 87, a. 29). In Metaphysica, A. 983, a. 31, Aristotle calls the final cause ([Greek: to\ ou(= e(/neka kai\ ta)gatho/n) tê\n a)ntikeime/nên ai)ti/an] to the cause (among his four), [Greek: to\ **o(/then ê( ki/nêsis]. This is a misleading phrase; the two are not opposed, but mutually implicated and correlative.]

[Footnote 144: See the just and comprehensive definition of Relative Names given by Mr. John Stuart Mill, in his System of Logic, Book I. chap. ii. § 7, p. 46.

After reading that definition, the inconvenience of ranking Relatives as a species or variety of Opposites, will be seen at once.]

From _Opposita_ Aristotle passes to _Prius_ and _Simul_; with the different modes of each.[145] _Successive_ and _Synchronous_, are the two most general classes under which facts or events can be cast. They include between them all that is meant by Order in Time. They admit of no definition, and can be explained only by appeal to immediate consciousness in particular cases. Priority and Simultaneity, in this direct and primary sense, are among the clearest and most impressive notions of the human mind. But Aristotle recognizes four additional meanings of these same words, which he distinguishes from the primary, in the same way as he distinguishes (in the ten Categories) the different meanings of _Essentia_, in a gradually descending scale of analogy. The secondary _Prius_ is that which does not reciprocate according to the order of existence with its _Posterius_; where the _Posterius_ presupposes the _Prius_, while the _Prius_ does not presuppose the _Posterius_: for example, given two, the existence of one is necessarily implied; but given one, the existence of two is not implied.[146] The tertiary _Prius_ is that which comes first in the arrangements of science or discourse: as, in geometry, point and line are prior as compared with the diagrams and demonstrations; in writing, letters are prior as compared with syllables; in speeches, the proem is prior as compared with the exposition. A fourth mode of _Prius_ (which is the most remote and far-fetched) is, that the better and more honourable is _prius naturâ_. Still a fifth mode is, when, of two Relatives which reciprocate with each other as to existence, one is cause and the other effect: in such a case, the cause is said to be prior by nature to the effect.[147] For example, if it be a fact that Caius exists, the proposition "Caius exists," is a true proposition; and _vice versâ_, if the proposition "Caius exists" is a true proposition, it is a fact that Caius exists. But though from either **of these you can infer the other, the truth of the proposition is the effect, and not the cause, of the reality of the fact. Hence it is correct to say that the latter is _prius naturâ_, and the former _posterius naturâ_.

[Footnote 145: Categ. p. 14, a. 26, seq.]

[Footnote 146: Ibid. p. 14, a. 29, seq. This second mode of _Prius_ is entitled by Alexander (see Schol. (ad Metaphys. [Greek: D].) p. 707, b. 7, Brandis) [Greek: pro/teron tê=| phu/sei]. But Aristotle does not so call it here; he reserves that title for the fourth and fifth modes.

It appears that debates, [Greek: Peri\ Prote/rou kai\ U(ste/rou] were frequent in the dialectic schools of Aristotle's day as well as debates, [Greek: Peri\ Tau)tou= kai\ E(te/rou, Peri\ O(moi/ou kai\ A)nomoi/ou, Peri\ Tau)to/têtos kai\ E)nantio/têtos] (Arist. Metaph. B. p. 995, b. 20).]

[Footnote 147: Aristot. Categ. p. 14, b. 10.]

This is a sort of article in a Philosophical Dictionary, tracing the various derivative senses of two very usual correlative phrases; and there is another article in the fourth book of the Metaphysica, where the derivations of the same terms are again traced out, though by roads considerably different.[148] The two terms are relatives; _Prius_ implies a _Posterius_, as _Simul_ implies another _Simul_; and it is an useful process to discriminate clearly the various meanings assigned to each. Aristotle has done this, not indeed clearly nor consistently with himself, but with an earnest desire to elucidate what he felt to be confused and perplexing. Yet there are few terms in his philosophy which are more misleading. Though he sets out, plainly and repeatedly the primary and literal sense of Priority, (the temporal or real), as discriminated from the various secondary and metaphorical senses, nevertheless when he comes to employ the term _Prius_ in the course of his reasonings, he often does so without specifying in which sense he intends it to be understood. And as the literal sense (temporal or real priority) is the most present and familial to every man's mind, so the term is often construed in this sense when it properly bears only the metaphorical sense. The confusion of logical or emotional priority (priority either in logical order of conception, or in esteem and respect) with priority in the order of time, involving separability of existence, is a frequent source of misunderstanding in the Aristotelian Physics and Metaphysics. The order of logical antecedence and sequence, or the fact of logical coexistence, is of great importance to be understood, with a view to the proof of truth, to the disproof of error, or to the systematization of our processes of thought; but we must keep in mind that what is prior in the logical order is not for that reason prior in temporal order, orf separable in real existence, or fit to be appealed to as a real Cause or Agent.[149]

[Footnote 148: Aristot. Metaphys. [Greek: D]. p. 1018, b. 11-p. 1019, a. 12. The article in the Metaphysica is better and fuller than that in the Categoriæ. In this last, _Order in Place_ receives no special recognition, while we find such recognition in the Metaphysica, and we find also fuller development of the varieties of the logical or intellectual _Prius_.]

[Footnote 149: In the language of Porphyry, [Greek: prou+phe/stêke] (priority in real existence) means nothing more than [Greek: proe+pinoei=tai] (priority in the order of conception), Eisagoge, cc. xv., xvi.; Schol. Br. p. 6, a. 7-21.]