inequality involves the privation of equality, dissimilarity that of similarity, evil that of goodness. And the differences are as we have stated: one case is, if a thing is merely deprived; another, if it is deprived at a certain time or in a certain part—e.g. at a certain age or in the important part—or entirely. Hence in some cases there is an intermediate (there are men who are neither good nor bad), and in others there is not—a thing must be either odd or even. Again, some have a determinate subject, and others have not. Thus it is evident that one of a pair of contraries always has a privative sense; but it is enough if this is true of the primary or generic contraries, e.g. unity and plurality; for the others can be reduced to them. Since one thing has one contrary, it might be asked in what sense unity is opposed to plurality, and the equal to the great and to the small. For if we always use the word “whether” in an antithesis—e.g., “whether it is white or black,” or “whether it is white or not” (but we do not ask “whether it is a man or white,” unless we are proceeding upon some assumption, and asking, for instance, whether it was Cleon who came or Socrates. This is not a necessary disjunction in any class of things, but is derived from the use in the case of opposites—for it is only opposites that cannot be true at the same time—and we have this same use here in the question “which of the two came?”
τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐὰν μόνον ᾖ ἐστερημένον, τὸ δʼ ἐὰν ἢ ποτὲ ἢ ἔν τινι, οἷον ἂν ἐν ἡλικίᾳ τινὶ ἢ τῷ κυρίῳ, ἢ πάντῃ· διὸ τῶν μὲν ἔστι μεταξύ, καὶ ἔστιν οὔτε ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος οὔτε κακός, τῶν δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλʼ ἀνάγκη εἶναι ἢ περιττὸν ἢ ἄρτιον. ἔτι τὰ μὲν ἔχει τὸ ὑποκείμενον ὡρισμένον, τὰ δʼ οὔ. ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι ἀεὶ θάτερον τῶν ἐναντίων λέγεται κατὰ στέρησιν· ἀπόχρη δὲ κἂν τὰ πρῶτα καὶ τὰ γένη τῶν ἐναντίων, οἷον τὸ ἓν καὶ τὰ πολλά· τὰ γὰρ ἄλλα εἰς ταῦτα ἀνάγεται. ἐπεὶ δὲ ἓν ἑνὶ ἐναντίον, ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις πῶς ἀντίκειται τὸ ἓν καὶ τὰ πολλά, καὶ τὸ ἴσον τῷ μεγάλῳ καὶ τῷ μικρῷ. εἰ γὰρ τὸ πότερον ἀεὶ ἐν ἀντιθέσει λέγομεν, οἷον πότερον λευκὸν ἢ μέλαν, καὶ πότερον λευκὸν ἢ οὐ λευκόν (πότερον δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἢ λευκὸν οὐ λέγομεν, ἐὰν μὴ ἐξ ὑποθέσεως καὶ ζητοῦντες οἷον πότερον ἦλθε Κλέων ἢ Σωκράτης—ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἀνάγκη ἐν οὐδενὶ γένει τοῦτο· ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο ἐκεῖθεν ἐλήλυθεν· τὰ γὰρ ἀντικείμενα μόνα οὐκ ἐνδέχεται ἅμα ὑπάρχειν, ᾧ καὶ ἐνταῦθα χρῆται ἐν τῷ πότερος ἦλθεν·
for if both alternatives were possible, the question would be absurd; but even so the question falls into an antithesis: that of “one” or “many”—i.e., “whether both came, or one”)— if, then, the question “whether” is always concerned with opposites, and we can ask “whether it is greater or smaller, or equal,” what is the nature of the antithesis between “equal” and “greater or smaller”? It is contrary neither to one only, nor to both: for (a) it is no more contrary to the greater than to the smaller; (b) “equal” is contrary to “unequal,” and thus it will be contrary to more than one thing; (c) if “unequal” means the same as both “greater” and “smaller” at the same time, “equal” must still be opposed to them both: This difficulty supports the theory that “the unequal” is a duality. But the result is that one thing is contrary to two; which is impossible. Further, it is apparent that “equal” is intermediate between “great” and “small,” but it is not apparent that any contrariety is intermediate, nor can it be, by definition; for it could not be complete if it were the intermediate of something, but rather it always has something intermediate between itself and the other extreme. It remains, then, that it is opposed either as negation or as privation. Now it cannot be so opposed to one of the two, for it is no more opposed to the great than to the small. Therefore it is a privative negation of both. For this reason we say “whether” with reference to both, and not to one of the two—e.g., “whether it is greater or equal,” or “whether it is equal or smaller”;
εἰ γὰρ ἅμα ἐνεδέχετο, γελοῖον τὸ ἐρώτημα· εἰ δέ, καὶ οὕτως ὁμοίως ἐμπίπτει εἰς ἀντίθεσιν, εἰς τὸ ἓν ἢ πολλά, οἷον πότερον ἀμφότεροι ἦλθον ἢ ἅτερος)·—εἰ δὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀντικειμένοις ἀεὶ τοῦ ποτέρου ἡ ζήτησις, λέγεται δὲ πότερον μεῖζον ἢ ἔλαττον ἢ ἴσον, τίς ἐστιν ἡ ἀντίθεσις πρὸς ταῦτα τοῦ ἴσου; οὔτε γὰρ θατέρῳ μόνῳ ἐναντίον οὔτʼ ἀμφοῖν· τί γὰρ μᾶλλον τῷ μείζονι ἢ τῷ ἐλάττονι; ἔτι τῷ ἀνίσῳ ἐναντίον τὸ ἴσον, ὥστε πλείοσιν ἔσται ἢ ἑνί. εἰ δὲ τὸ ἄνισον σημαίνει τὸ αὐτὸ ἅμα ἀμφοῖν, εἴη μὲν ἂν ἀντικείμενον ἀμφοῖν (καὶ ἡ ἀπορία βοηθεῖ τοῖς φάσκουσι τὸ ἄνισον δυάδα εἶναι), ἀλλὰ συμβαίνει ἓν δυοῖν ἐναντίον· ὅπερ ἀδύνατον. ἔτι τὸ μὲν ἴσον μεταξὺ φαίνεται μεγάλου καὶ μικροῦ, ἐναντίωσις δὲ μεταξὺ οὐδεμία οὔτε φαίνεται οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ ὁρισμοῦ δυνατόν· οὐ γὰρ ἂν εἴη τελεία μεταξύ τινος οὖσα, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἔχει ἀεὶ ἑαυτῆς τι μεταξύ. λείπεται δὴ ἢ ὡς ἀπόφασιν ἀντικεῖσθαι ἢ ὡς στέρησιν. θατέρου μὲν δὴ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται (τί γὰρ μᾶλλον τοῦ μεγάλου ἢ μικροῦ;)· ἀμφοῖν ἄρα ἀπόφασις στερητική, διὸ καὶ πρὸς ἀμφότερα τὸ πότερον λέγεται, πρὸς δὲ θάτερον οὔ (οἷον πότερον μεῖζον ἢ ἴσον, ἢ πότερον ἴσον ἢ ἔλαττον), ἀλλʼ ἀεὶ τρία.
there are always three alternatives. But it is not a necessary privation; for not everything is equal which is not greater or smaller, but only things which would naturally have these attributes. The equal, then, is that which is neither great nor small, but would naturally be either great or small; and it is opposed to both as a privative negation, and therefore is intermediate between them. And that which is neither good nor bad is opposed to both, but it has no name (for each of these terms has several meanings, and there is no one material which is receptive of both); that which is neither white nor black is better entitled to a name, although even this has no single name, but the colors of which this negation is privatively predicated are to a certain extent limited; for it must be either grey or buff or something similar. Therefore those persons are wrong in their criticism who imagine that all terms are used analogously, so that that which is neither a shoe nor a hand will be intermediate between “shoe” and “hand,” because that which is neither good nor bad is intermediate between good and bad—as though there must be an intermediate in all cases; but this does not necessarily follow. For the one is a joint negation of opposites where there is an intermediate and a natural interval;
οὐ στέρησις δὲ ἐξ ἀνάγκης· οὐ γὰρ πᾶν ἴσον ὃ μὴ μεῖζον ἢ ἔλαττον, ἀλλʼ ἐν οἷς πέφυκεν ἐκεῖνα.—ἔστι δὴ τὸ ἴσον τὸ μήτε μέγα μήτε μικρόν, πεφυκὸς δὲ ἢ μέγα ἢ μικρὸν εἶναι· καὶ ἀντίκειται ἀμφοῖν ὡς ἀπόφασις στερητική, διὸ καὶ μεταξύ ἐστιν. καὶ τὸ μήτε ἀγαθὸν μήτε κακὸν ἀντίκειται ἀμφοῖν, ἀλλʼ ἀνώνυμον· πολλαχῶς γὰρ λέγεται ἑκάτερον καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἓν τὸ δεκτικόν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τὸ μήτε λευκὸν μήτε μέλαν. ἓν δὲ οὐδὲ τοῦτο λέγεται, ἀλλʼ ὡρισμένα πως ἐφʼ ὧν λέγεται στερητικῶς ἡ ἀπόφασις αὕτη· ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἢ φαιὸν ἢ ὠχρὸν εἶναι ἢ τοιοῦτόν τι ἄλλο. ὥστε οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐπιτιμῶσιν οἱ νομίζοντες ὁμοίως λέγεσθαι πάντα, ὥστε ἔσεσθαι ὑποδήματος καὶ χειρὸς μεταξὺ τὸ μήτε ὑπόδημα μήτε χεῖρα, ἔπειπερ καὶ τὸ μήτε ἀγαθὸν μήτε κακὸν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ τοῦ κακοῦ, ὡς πάντων ἐσομένου τινὸς μεταξύ. οὐκ ἀνάγκη δὲ τοῦτο συμβαίνειν. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀντικειμένων συναπόφασίς ἐστιν ὧν ἔστι μεταξύ τι καὶ διάστημά τι πέφυκεν εἶναι·
but in the other case there is no question of difference, since the joint negation applies to things which are in different genera, and therefore the substrate is not one. A similar question might be raised about “one” and “many.” For if “many” is absolutely opposed to “one,” certain impossibilities result. (1) One will be few; for “many” is also opposed to “few.” (2) Two will be many; since “twofold” is “manifold,” and “twofold” is derived from two. Therefore one will be few; for in what relation can two be many if not in relation to one, which must therefore be few? for there can be nothing less. (3) If “much” and “little” are in plurality what “long” and “short” are in length, and if whatever is “much” is also “many,” and “many” is “much” (unless indeed there is a difference in the case of a plastic continuum ), “few” will be a plurality. Therefore one will be a plurality, if it is few; and this necessarily follows if two is many. Presumably, however, although “many” in a sense means “much,” there is a distinction; e.g., water is called “much” but not “many.” To all things, however, which are divisible the term “many” is applicable: in one sense, if there is a plurality which involves excess either absolutely or relatively (and similarly “few” is a plurality involving defect); and in another in the sense of number, in which case it is opposed to “one” only.
τῶν δʼ οὐκ ἔστι διαφορά· ἐν ἄλλῳ γὰρ γένει ὧν αἱ συναποφάσεις, ὥστʼ οὐχ ἓν τὸ ὑποκείμενον. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ τῶν πολλῶν ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις. εἰ γὰρ τὰ πολλὰ τῷ ἑνὶ ἁπλῶς ἀντίκειται, συμβαίνει ἔνια ἀδύνατα. τὸ γὰρ ἓν ὀλίγον ἢ ὀλίγα ἔσται· τὰ γὰρ πολλὰ καὶ τοῖς ὀλίγοις ἀντίκειται. ἔτι τὰ δύο πολλά, εἴπερ τὸ διπλάσιον πολλαπλάσιον λέγεται δὲ κατὰ τὰ δύο· ὥστε τὸ ἓν ὀλίγον· πρὸς τί γὰρ πολλὰ τὰ δύο εἰ μὴ πρὸς ἕν τε καὶ τὸ ὀλίγον; οὐθὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἔλαττον. ἔτι εἰ ὡς ἐν μήκει τὸ μακρὸν καὶ βραχύ, οὕτως ἐν πλήθει τὸ πολὺ καὶ ὀλίγον, καὶ ὃ ἂν ᾖ πολὺ καὶ πολλά, καὶ τὰ πολλὰ πολύ (εἰ μή τι ἄρα διαφέρει ἐν συνεχεῖ εὐορίστῳ), τὸ ὀλίγον πλῆθός τι ἔσται. ὥστε τὸ ἓν πλῆθός τι, εἴπερ καὶ ὀλίγον· τοῦτο δʼ ἀνάγκη, εἰ τὰ δύο πολλά. ἀλλʼ ἴσως τὰ πολλὰ λέγεται μέν πως καὶ [τὸ] πολύ, ἀλλʼ ὡς διαφέρον, οἷον ὕδωρ πολύ, πολλὰ δʼ οὔ. ἀλλʼ ὅσα διαιρετά, ἐν τούτοις λέγεται, ἕνα μὲν τρόπον ἐὰν ᾖ πλῆθος ἔχον ὑπεροχὴν ἢ ἁπλῶς ἢ πρός τι (καὶ τὸ ὀλίγον ὡσαύτως πλῆθος ἔχον ἔλλειψιν), τὸ δὲ ὡς ἀριθμός, ὃ καὶ ἀντίκειται τῷ ἑνὶ μόνον.
For we say “one or many” just as if we were to say “one and ones,” or “white thing and white things,” or were to compare the things measured with the measure. Multiples, too, are spoken of in this way; for every number is “many,” because it consists of “ones,” and because every number is measurable by one; and also as being the opposite of one, and not of few. In this sense even two is many; but as a plurality involving excess either relatively or absolutely it is not many, but the first plurality. Two is, however, absolutely few; because it is the first plurality involving defect (hence Anaxagoras was not right in leaving the subject by saying “all things were together, infinite both in multitude and in smallness”; instead of “in smallness” he should have said “in fewness,” for things cannot be infinite in fewness), since fewness is constituted not by one, as some hold, but by two. In the sphere of numbers “one” is opposed to many as the measure to the measurable, i.e., as relative terms are opposed which are not of their own nature relative. We have distinguished elsewhere that things are called relative in two senses—either as being contraries, or as knowledge is related to the knowable, A being related to B because B is described in relation to A.
οὕτως γὰρ λέγομεν ἓν ἢ πολλά, ὥσπερ εἴ τις εἴποι ἓν καὶ ἕνα ἢ λευκὸν καὶ λευκά, καὶ τὰ μεμετρημένα πρὸς τὸ μέτρον [καὶ τὸ μετρητόν]· οὕτως καὶ τὰ πολλαπλάσια λέγεται· πολλὰ γὰρ ἕκαστος ὁ ἀριθμὸς ὅτι ἕνα καὶ ὅτι μετρητὸς ἑνὶ ἕκαστος, καὶ ὡς τὸ ἀντικείμενον τῷ ἑνί, οὐ τῷ ὀλίγῳ. οὕτω μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ πολλὰ καὶ τὰ δύο, ὡς δὲ πλῆθος ἔχον ὑπεροχὴν ἢ πρός τι ἢ ἁπλῶς οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλὰ πρῶτον. ὀλίγα δʼ ἁπλῶς τὰ δύο· πλῆθος γάρ ἐστιν ἔλλειψιν ἔχον πρῶτον (διὸ καὶ οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἀπέστη Ἀναξαγόρας εἰπὼν ὅτι ὁμοῦ πάντα χρήματα ἦν ἄπειρα καὶ πλήθει καὶ μικρότητι, ἔδει δʼ εἰπεῖν ἀντὶ τοῦ καὶ μικρότητι καὶ ὀλιγότητι· οὐ γὰρ ἄπειρα), ἐπεὶ τὸ ὀλίγον οὐ διὰ τὸ ἕν, ὥσπερ τινές φασιν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὰ δύο.—ἀντίκειται δὴ τὸ ἓν καὶ τὰ πολλὰ τὰ ἐν ἀριθμοῖς ὡς μέτρον μετρητῷ· ταῦτα δὲ ὡς τὰ πρός τι, ὅσα μὴ καθʼ αὑτὰ τῶν πρός τι. διῄρηται δʼ ἡμῖν ἐν ἄλλοις ὅτι διχῶς λέγεται τὰ πρός τι, τὰ μὲν ὡς ἐναντία, τὰ δʼ ὡς ἐπιστήμη πρὸς ἐπιστητόν, τῷ λέγεσθαί τι ἄλλο πρὸς αὐτό.
There is no reason why one should not be fewer than something, e.g. two; for if it is fewer it is not therefore few. Plurality is, as it were, a genus of number, since number is a plurality measurable by one. And in a sense one and number are opposed; not, however, as being contrary, but as we have said some relative terms to be; for it is qua measure and measurable that they are opposed. (Hence not everything which is one is a number—e.g., a thing which is indivisible.) But although the relation between knowledge and the knowable is said to be similar to this, it turns out not to be similar. For it would seem that knowledge is a measure, and the knowable that which is measurable by it; but it happens that whereas all knowledge is knowable, the knowable is not always knowledge, because in a way knowledge is measured by the knowable. Plurality is contrary neither to the few (whose real contrary is the many, as an excessive plurality to an exceeded plurality) nor in all senses to one; but they are contrary in one sense (as has been said) as being the one divisible and the other indivisible; and in another as being relative (just as knowledge is relative to the knowable) if plurality is a number and one is the measure. Since there can be, and in some cases is, an intermediate between contraries, intermediates must be composed of contraries;
τὸ δὲ ἓν ἔλαττον εἶναι τινός, οἷον τοῖν δυοῖν, οὐδὲν κωλύει· οὐ γάρ, εἰ ἔλαττον, καὶ ὀλίγον. τὸ δὲ πλῆθος οἷον γένος ἐστὶ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ· ἔστι γὰρ ἀριθμὸς πλῆθος ἑνὶ μετρητόν, καὶ ἀντίκειταί πως τὸ ἓν καὶ ἀριθμός, οὐχ ὡς ἐναντίον ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ εἴρηται τῶν πρός τι ἔνια· ᾗ γὰρ μέτρον τὸ δὲ μετρητόν, ταύτῃ ἀντίκειται, διὸ οὐ πᾶν ὃ ἂν ᾖ ἓν ἀριθμός ἐστιν, οἷον εἴ τι ἀδιαίρετόν ἐστιν. ὁμοίως δὲ λεγομένη ἡ ἐπιστήμη πρὸς τὸ ἐπιστητὸν οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀποδίδωσιν. δόξειε μὲν γὰρ ἂν μέτρον ἡ ἐπιστήμη εἶναι τὸ δὲ ἐπιστητὸν τὸ μετρούμενον, συμβαίνει δὲ ἐπιστήμην μὲν πᾶσαν ἐπιστητὸν εἶναι τὸ δὲ ἐπιστητὸν μὴ πᾶν ἐπιστήμην, ὅτι τρόπον τινὰ ἡ ἐπιστήμη μετρεῖται τῷ ἐπιστητῷ. τὸ δὲ πλῆθος οὔτε τῷ ὀλίγῳ ἐναντίον—ἀλλὰ τούτῳ μὲν τὸ πολὺ ὡς ὑπερέχον πλῆθος ὑπερεχομένῳ πλήθει—οὔτε τῷ ἑνὶ πάντως· ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ὥσπερ εἴρηται, ὅτι διαιρετὸν τὸ δʼ ἀδιαίρετον, τὸ δʼ ὡς πρός τι ὥσπερ ἡ ἐπιστήμη ἐπιστητῷ, ἐὰν ᾖ ἀριθμὸς τὸ δʼ ἓν μέτρον. ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν ἐναντίων ἐνδέχεται εἶναί τι μεταξὺ καὶ ἐνίων ἔστιν, ἀνάγκη ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων εἶναι τὰ μεταξύ. πάντα γὰρ τὰ μεταξὺ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γένει ἐστὶ καὶ ὧν ἐστὶ μεταξύ.
for all intermediates are in the same genus as the things between which they are intermediate. By intermediates we mean those things into which that which changes must first change. E.g., if we change from the highest string to the lowest by the smallest gradations we shall first come to the intermediate notes; and in the case of colors if we change from white to black we shall come to red and grey before we come to black; and similarly in other cases. But change from one genus into another is impossible except accidentally; e.g., from color to shape. Therefore intermediates must be in the same genus as one another and as the things between which they are intermediate. But all intermediates are between certain opposites, for it is only from these per se that change is possible. Hence there can be no intermediate between things which are not opposites; for then there would be change also between things which are not opposites. Of things which are opposites, contradiction has no intermediate term (for contradiction means this: an antithesis one term of which must apply to any given thing, and which contains no intermediate term); of the remaining types of opposites some are relative, others privative, and others contrary. Those relative opposites which are not contrary have no intermediate. The reason for this is that they are not in the same genus— for what is intermediate between knowledge and the knowable?—but between great and small there is an intermediate.
μεταξὺ μὲν γὰρ ταῦτα λέγομεν εἰς ὅσα μεταβάλλειν ἀνάγκη πρότερον τὸ μεταβάλλον (οἷον ἀπὸ τῆς ὑπάτης ἐπὶ τὴν νήτην εἰ μεταβαίνοι τῷ ὀλιγίστῳ, ἥξει πρότερον εἰς τοὺς μεταξὺ φθόγγους, καὶ ἐν χρώμασιν εἰ [ἥξει] ἐκ τοῦ λευκοῦ εἰς τὸ μέλαν, πρότερον ἥξει εἰς τὸ φοινικοῦν καὶ φαιὸν ἢ εἰς τὸ μέλαν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων)· μεταβάλλειν δʼ ἐξ ἄλλου γένους εἰς ἄλλο γένος οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλλʼ ἢ κατὰ συμβεβηκός, οἷον ἐκ χρώματος εἰς σχῆμα. ἀνάγκη ἄρα τὰ μεταξὺ καὶ αὑτοῖς καὶ ὧν μεταξύ εἰσιν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γένει εἶναι. ἀλλὰ μὴν πάντα γε τὰ μεταξύ ἐστιν ἀντικειμένων τινῶν· ἐκ τούτων γὰρ μόνων καθʼ αὑτὰ ἔστι μεταβάλλειν (διὸ ἀδύνατον εἶναι μεταξὺ μὴ ἀντικειμένων· εἴη γὰρ ἂν μεταβολὴ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἀντικειμένων). τῶν δʼ ἀντικειμένων ἀντιφάσεως μὲν οὐκ ἔστι μεταξύ (τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν ἀντίφασις, ἀντίθεσις ἧς ὁτῳοῦν θάτερον μόριον πάρεστιν, οὐκ ἐχούσης οὐθὲν μεταξύ), τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν τὰ μὲν πρός τι τὰ δὲ στέρησις τὰ δὲ ἐναντία ἐστίν. τῶν δὲ πρός τι ὅσα μὴ ἐναντία, οὐκ ἔχει μεταξύ· αἴτιον δʼ ὅτι οὐκ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γένει ἐστίν.
Now since intermediates are in the same genus, as has been shown, and are between contraries, they must be composed of those contraries. For the contraries must either belong to a genus or not. And if there is a genus in such a way that it is something prior to the contraries, then the differentiae which constitute the contrary species (for species consist of genus and differentiae) will be contraries in a prior sense. E.g., if white and black are contraries, and the one is a penetrative and the other a compressive color, these differentiae, “penetrative” and “compressive,” are prior, and so are opposed to each other in a prior sense. But it is the species which have contrary differentiae that are more truly contraries; the other, i.e. intermediate, species will consist of genus and differentiae. E.g., all colors which are intermediate between white and black should be described by their genus (i.e. color) and by certain differentiae. But these differentiae will not be the primary contraries; otherwise every thing will be either white or black. Therefore they will be different from the primary contraries. Therefore they will be intermediate between them, and the primary differentiae will be “the penetrative” and “the compressive.”
τί γὰρ ἐπιστήμης καὶ ἐπιστητοῦ μεταξύ; ἀλλὰ μεγάλου καὶ μικροῦ. εἰ δʼ ἐστὶν ἐν ταὐτῷ γένει τὰ μεταξύ, ὥσπερ δέδεικται, καὶ μεταξὺ ἐναντίων, ἀνάγκη αὐτὰ συγκεῖσθαι ἐκ τούτων τῶν ἐναντίων. ἢ γὰρ ἔσται τι γένος αὐτῶν ἢ οὐθέν. καὶ εἰ μὲν γένος ἔσται οὕτως ὥστʼ εἶναι πρότερόν τι τῶν ἐναντίων, αἱ διαφοραὶ πρότεραι ἐναντίαι ἔσονται αἱ ποιήσουσαι τὰ ἐναντία εἴδη ὡς γένους· ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ γένους καὶ τῶν διαφορῶν τὰ εἴδη (οἷον εἰ τὸ λευκὸν καὶ μέλαν ἐναντία, ἔστι δὲ τὸ μὲν διακριτικὸν χρῶμα τὸ δὲ συγκριτικὸν χρῶμα, αὗται αἱ διαφοραί, τὸ διακριτικὸν καὶ συγκριτικόν, πρότεραι· ὥστε ταῦτα ἐναντία ἀλλήλοις πρότερα). ἀλλὰ μὴν τά γε ἐναντίως διαφέροντα μᾶλλον ἐναντίἀ· καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ καὶ τὰ μεταξὺ ἐκ τοῦ γένους ἔσται καὶ τῶν διαφορῶν (οἷον ὅσα χρώματα τοῦ λευκοῦ καὶ μέλανός ἐστι μεταξύ, ταῦτα δεῖ ἔκ τε τοῦ γένους λέγεσθαι —ἔστι δὲ γένος τὸ χρῶμα—καὶ ἐκ διαφορῶν τινῶν· αὗται δὲ οὐκ ἔσονται τὰ πρῶτα ἐναντία· εἰ δὲ μή, ἔσται ἕκαστον ἢ λευκὸν ἢ μέλαν· ἕτεραι ἄρα· μεταξὺ ἄρα τῶν πρώτων ἐναντίων αὗται ἔσονται, αἱ πρῶται δὲ διαφοραὶ τὸ διακριτικὸν καὶ συγκριτικόν)· ὥστε ταῦτα πρῶτα ζητητέον ὅσα ἐναντία μὴ ἐν γένει, ἐκ τίνος τὰ μεταξὺ αὐτῶν (ἀνάγκη γὰρ τὰ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γένει ἐκ τῶν ἀσυνθέτων τῷ γένει συγκεῖσθαι ἢ ἀσύνθετα εἶναι).
Thus we must first investigate the contraries which are not contained in a genus, and discover of what their intermediates are composed. For things which are in the same genus must either be composed of differentiae which are not compounded with the genus, or be incomposite. Contraries are not compounded with one another, and are therefore first principles; but intermediates are either all incomposite or none of them. Now from the contraries something is generated in such a way that change will reach it before reaching the contraries themselves (for there must be something which is less in degree than one contrary and greater than the other). Therefore this also will be intermediate between the contraries. Hence all the other intermediates must be composite; for that which is greater in degree than one contrary and less than the other is in some sense a compound of the contraries of which it is said to be greater in degree than one and less than the other. And since there is nothing else homogeneous which is prior to the contraries, all intermediates must be composed of contraries. Therefore all the lower terms, both contraries and intermediates, must be composed of the primary contraries. Thus it is clear that intermediates are all in the same genus, and are between contraries, and are all composed of contraries. That which is “other in species” than something else is “other” in respect of something and that something must apply to both. E.g., if an animal is other in species than something else, they must both be animals. Hence things which are other in species must be in the same genus. The sort of thing I mean by “genus” is that in virtue of which two things are both called the same one thing;
τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐναντία ἀσύνθετα ἐξ ἀλλήλων, ὥστε ἀρχαί· τὰ δὲ μεταξὺ ἢ πάντα ἢ οὐθέν. ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἐναντίων γίγνεταί τι, ὥστʼ ἔσται μεταβολὴ εἰς τοῦτο πρὶν ἢ εἰς αὐτά· ἑκατέρου γὰρ καὶ ἧττον ἔσται καὶ μᾶλλον. μεταξὺ ἄρα ἔσται καὶ τοῦτο τῶν ἐναντίων. καὶ τἆλλα ἄρα πάντα σύνθετα τὰ μεταξύ· τὸ γὰρ τοῦ μὲν μᾶλλον τοῦ δʼ ἧττον σύνθετόν πως ἐξ ἐκείνων ὧν λέγεται εἶναι τοῦ μὲν μᾶλλον τοῦ δʼ ἧττον. ἐπεὶ δʼ οὐκ ἔστιν ἕτερα πρότερα ὁμογενῆ τῶν ἐναντίων, ἅπαντʼ ἂν ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων εἴη τὰ μεταξύ, ὥστε καὶ τὰ κάτω πάντα, καὶ τἀναντία καὶ τὰ μεταξύ, ἐκ τῶν πρώτων ἐναντίων ἔσονται. ὅτι μὲν οὖν τὰ μεταξὺ ἔν τε ταὐτῷ γένει πάντα καὶ μεταξὺ ἐναντίων καὶ σύγκειται ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων πάντα, δῆλον. τὸ δʼ ἕτερον τῷ εἴδει τινὸς τὶ ἕτερόν ἐστι, καὶ δεῖ τοῦτο ἀμφοῖν ὑπάρχειν· οἷον εἰ ζῷον ἕτερον τῷ εἴδει, ἄμφω ζῷα. ἀνάγκη ἄρα ἐν γένει τῷ αὐτῷ εἶναι τὰ ἕτερα τῷ εἴδει· τὸ γὰρ τοιοῦτο γένος καλῶ ὃ ἄμφω ἓν ταὐτὸ λέγεται, μὴ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἔχον διαφοράν, εἴτε ὡς ὕλη ὂν εἴτε ἄλλως.
and which is not accidentally differentiated, whether regarded as matter or otherwise. For not only must the common quality belong to both, e.g., that they are both animals, but the very animality of each must be different; e.g., in one case it must be equinity and in the other humanity. Hence the common quality must for one be other in species than that which it is for the other. They must be, then, of their very nature, the one this kind of animal, and the other that; e.g., the one a horse and the other a man. Therefore this difference must be “otherness of genus” (I say “otherness of genus” because by “difference of genus” I mean an otherness which makes the genus itself other); this, then, will be a form of contrariety. This is obvious by induction. For all differentiation is by opposites, and we have shown that contraries are in the same genus, because contrariety was shown to be complete difference. But difference in species is always difference from something in respect of something; therefore this is the same thing, i.e. the genus, for both. (Hence too all contraries which differ in species but not in genus are in the same line of predication, and are other than each other in the highest degree; for their difference is complete, and they cannot come into existence simultaneously.) Hence the difference is a form of contrariety. To be “other in species,” then, means this: to be in the same genus and involve contrariety, while being indivisible (and “the same in species” applies to all things which do not involve contrariety, while being indivisible);
οὐ μόνον γὰρ δεῖ τὸ κοινὸν ὑπάρχειν, οἷον ἄμφω ζῷα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕτερον ἑκατέρῳ τοῦτο αὐτὸ τὸ ζῷον, οἷον τὸ μὲν ἵππον τὸ δὲ ἄνθρωπον, διὸ τοῦτο τὸ κοινὸν ἕτερον ἀλλήλων ἐστὶ τῷ εἴδει. ἔσται δὴ καθʼ αὑτὰ τὸ μὲν τοιονδὶ ζῷον τὸ δὲ τοιονδί, οἷον τὸ μὲν ἵππος τὸ δʼ ἄνθρωπος. ἀνάγκη ἄρα τὴν διαφορὰν ταύτην ἑτερότητα τοῦ γένους εἶναι. λέγω γὰρ γένους διαφορὰν ἑτερότητα ἣ ἕτερον ποιεῖ τοῦτο αὐτό. ἐναντίωσις τοίνυν ἔσται αὕτη (δῆλον δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἐπαγωγῆς)· πάντα γὰρ διαιρεῖται τοῖς ἀντικειμένοις, καὶ ὅτι τὰ ἐναντία ἐν ταὐτῷ γένει, δέδεικται· ἡ γὰρ ἐναντιότης ἦν διαφορὰ τελεία, ἡ δὲ διαφορὰ ἡ εἴδει πᾶσα τινὸς τί, ὥστε τοῦτο τὸ αὐτό τε καὶ γένος ἐπʼ ἀμφοῖν (διὸ καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ συστοιχίᾳ πάντα τὰ ἐναντία τῆς κατηγορίας ὅσα εἴδει διάφορα καὶ μὴ γένει, ἕτερά τε ἀλλήλων μάλιστα—τελεία γὰρ ἡ διαφορά—καὶ ἅμα ἀλλήλοις οὐ γίγνεται). ἡ ἄρα διαφορὰ ἐναντίωσίς ἐστιν. τοῦτο ἄρα ἐστὶ τὸ ἑτέροις εἶναι τῷ εἴδει, τὸ ἐν ταὐτῷ γένει ὄντα ἐναντίωσιν ἔχειν ἄτομα ὄντα (ταὐτὰ δὲ τῷ εἴδει ὅσα μὴ ἔχει ἐναντίωσιν ἄτομα ὄντα)· ἐν γὰρ τῇ διαιρέσει καὶ ἐν τοῖς μεταξὺ γίγνονται ἐναντιώσεις πρὶν εἰς τὰ ἄτομα ἐλθεῖν·
for it is in the course of differentiation and in the intermediate terms that contrariety appears, before we come to the indivisibles. Thus it is evident that in relation to what is called genus no species is either the same or other in species (and this is as it should be, for the matter is disclosed by negation, and the genus is the matter of that of which it is predicated as genus; not in the sense in which we speak of the genus or clan of the Heraclidae, but as we speak of a genus in nature); nor yet in relation to things which are not in the same genus. From the latter it will differ in genus, but in species from things which are in the same genus. For the difference of things which differ in species must be a contrariety; and this belongs only to things which are in the same genus. The question might be raised as to why woman does not differ in species from man, seeing that female is contrary to male, and difference is contrariety; and why a female and a male animal are not other in species, although this difference belongs to “animal” per se, and not as whiteness or blackness does; “male” and “female” belong to it qua animal. This problem is practically the same as “why does one kind of contrariety (e.g. ‘footed’ and ‘winged’) make things other in species, while another (e.g. whiteness and blackness) does not?” The answer may be that in the one case the attributes are peculiar to the genus, and in the other they are less so;
ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι πρὸς τὸ καλούμενον γένος οὔτε ταὐτὸν οὔτε ἕτερον τῷ εἴδει οὐθέν ἐστι τῶν ὡς γένους εἰδῶν (προσηκόντως· ἡ γὰρ ὕλη ἀποφάσει δηλοῦται, τὸ δὲ γένος ὕλη οὗ λέγεται γένος—μὴ ὡς τὸ τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν ἀλλʼ ὡς τὸ ἐν τῇ φύσει), οὐδὲ πρὸς τὰ μὴ ἐν ταὐτῷ γένει, ἀλλὰ διοίσει τῷ γένει ἐκείνων, εἴδει δὲ τῶν ἐν ταὐτῷ γένει. ἐναντίωσιν γὰρ ἀνάγκη εἶναι τὴν διαφορὰν οὗ διαφέρει εἴδει· αὕτη δὲ ὑπάρχει τοῖς ἐν ταὐτῷ γένει οὖσι μόνοις. ἀπορήσειε δʼ ἄν τις διὰ τί γυνὴ ἀνδρὸς οὐκ εἴδει διαφέρει, ἐναντίου τοῦ θήλεος καὶ τοῦ ἄρρενος ὄντος τῆς δὲ διαφορᾶς ἐναντιώσεως, οὐδὲ ζῷον θῆλυ καὶ ἄρρεν ἕτερον τῷ εἴδει· καίτοι καθʼ αὑτὸ τοῦ ζῴου αὕτη ἡ διαφορὰ καὶ οὐχ ὡς λευκότης ἢ μελανία ἀλλʼ ᾗ ζῷον καὶ τὸ θῆλυ καὶ τὸ ἄρρεν ὑπάρχει. ἔστι δʼ ἡ ἀπορία αὕτη σχεδὸν ἡ αὐτὴ καὶ διὰ τί ἡ μὲν ποιεῖ τῷ εἴδει ἕτερα ἐναντίωσις ἡ δʼ οὔ, οἷον τὸ πεζὸν καὶ τὸ πτερωτόν, λευκότης δὲ καὶ μελανία οὔ. ἢ ὅτι τὰ μὲν οἰκεῖα πάθη τοῦ γένους τὰ δʼ ἧττον; καὶ ἐπειδή ἐστι τὸ μὲν λόγος τὸ δʼ ὕλη, ὅσαι μὲν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ εἰσὶν ἐναντιότητες εἴδει ποιοῦσι διαφοράν, ὅσαι δʼ ἐν τῷ συνειλημμένῳ τῇ ὕλῃ οὐ ποιοῦσιν.
and since one element is formula and the other matter, contrarieties in the formula produce difference in species, but contrarieties in the concrete whole do not. Hence the whiteness or blackness of a man does not produce this, nor is there any specific difference between a white man and a black man; not even if one term is assigned to each. For we are now regarding “man” as matter, and matter does not produce difference; and for this reason, too, individual men are not species of “man,” although the flesh and bones of which this and that man consist are different. The concrete whole is “other,” but not “other in species,” because there is no contrariety in the formula, and this is the ultimate indivisible species. But Callias is definition and matter. Then so too is “white man,” because it is the individual, Callias, who is white. Hence “man” is only white accidentally. Again, a bronze circle and a wooden one do not differ in species; and a bronze triangle and a wooden circle differ in species not because of their matter, but because there is contrariety in their formulae. But does not matter, when it is “other” in a particular way, make things “other in species”? Probably there is a sense in which it does. Otherwise why is this particular horse “other in species” than this particular man, although the definitions involve matter? Surely it is because there is contrariety in the definition, for so there also is in “white man” and “black horse”;
διὸ ἀνθρώπου λευκότης οὐ ποιεῖ οὐδὲ μελανία, οὐδὲ τοῦ λευκοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔστι διαφορὰ κατʼ εἶδος πρὸς μέλανα ἄνθρωπον, οὐδʼ ἂν ὄνομα ἓν τεθῇ. ὡς ὕλη γὰρ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, οὐ ποιεῖ δὲ διαφορὰν ἡ ὕλη· οὐδʼ ἀνθρώπου γὰρ εἴδη εἰσὶν οἱ ἄνθρωποι διὰ τοῦτο, καίτοι ἕτεραι αἱ σάρκες καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ ἐξ ὧν ὅδε καὶ ὅδε· ἀλλὰ τὸ σύνολον ἕτερον μέν, εἴδει δʼ οὐχ ἕτερον, ὅτι ἐν τῷ λόγῳ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐναντίωσις. τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ τὸ ἔσχατον ἄτομον· ὁ δὲ Καλλίας ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος μετὰ τῆς ὕλης· καὶ ὁ λευκὸς δὴ ἄνθρωπος, ὅτι Καλλίας λευκός· κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς οὖν ὁ ἄνθρωπος. οὐδὲ χαλκοῦς δὴ κύκλος καὶ ξύλινος· οὐδὲ τρίγωνον χαλκοῦν καὶ κύκλος ξύλινος, οὐ διὰ τὴν ὕλην εἴδει διαφέρουσιν ἀλλʼ ὅτι ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἔνεστιν ἐναντίωσις. πότερον δʼ ἡ ὕλη οὐ ποιεῖ ἕτερα τῷ εἴδει, οὖσά πως ἑτέρα, ἢ ἔστιν ὡς ποιεῖ; διὰ τί γὰρ ὁδὶ ὁ ἵππος τουδὶ ⟨τοῦ⟩ ἀνθρώπου ἕτερος τῷ εἴδει; καίτοι σὺν τῇ ὕλῃ οἱ λόγοι αὐτῶν. ἢ ὅτι ἔνεστιν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἐναντίωσις; καὶ γὰρ τοῦ λευκοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ μέλανος ἵππου, καὶ ἔστι γε εἴδει, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ᾗ ὁ μὲν λευκὸς ὁ δὲ μέλας, ἐπεὶ καὶ εἰ ἄμφω λευκὰ ἦν, ὅμως ἂν ἦν εἴδει ἕτερα.
and it is a contrariety in species, but not because one is white and the other black; for even if they had both been white, they would still be “other in species.” “Male” and “female” are attributes peculiar to the animal, but not in virtue of its substance; they ar material or physical. Hence the same semen may, as the result of some modification, become either female or male. We have now stated what “to be other in species” means, and why some things differ in species and others do not. Since contraries are other in form, and “the perishable” and “imperishable” are contraries (for privation is a definite incapacity), “the perishable” must be “other in kind” than “the imperishable.” But so far we have spoken only of the universal terms; and so it might appear to be unnecessary that anything perishable and imperishable should be “other in form,” just as in the case of white and black. For the same thing may be both at the same time, if it is a universal (e.g, “man” may be both white and black); and it may still be both if it is a particular, for the same person may be white and black, although not at the same time. Yet white is contrary to black. But although some contraries (e.g. those which we have just mentioned, and many others) can belong to certain things accidentally, others cannot;
τὸ δὲ ἄρρεν καὶ θῆλυ τοῦ ζῴου οἰκεῖα μὲν πάθη, ἀλλʼ οὐ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἀλλʼ ἐν τῇ ὕλῃ καὶ τῷ σώματι, διὸ τὸ αὐτὸ σπέρμα θῆλυ ἢ ἄρρεν γίγνεται παθόν τι πάθος. τί μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ τὸ τῷ εἴδει ἕτερον εἶναι, καὶ διὰ τί τὰ μὲν διαφέρει εἴδει τὰ δʼ οὔ, εἴρηται. ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὰ ἐναντία ἕτερα τῷ εἴδει, τὸ δὲ φθαρτὸν καὶ τὸ ἄφθαρτον ἐναντία (στέρησις γὰρ ἀδυναμία διωρισμένη), ἀνάγκη ἕτερον εἶναι τῷ γένει τὸ φθαρτὸν καὶ τὸ ἄφθαρτον. νῦν μὲν οὖν ἐπʼ αὐτῶν εἰρήκαμεν τῶν καθόλου ὀνομάτων, ὥστε δόξειεν ἂν οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι ὁτιοῦν ἄφθαρτον καὶ φθαρτὸν ἕτερα εἶναι τῷ εἴδει, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ λευκὸν καὶ μέλαν (τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ ἐνδέχεται εἶναι, καὶ ἅμα, ἐὰν ᾖ τῶν καθόλου, ὥσπερ ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἴη ἂν καὶ λευκὸς καὶ μέλας, καὶ τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστον· εἴη γὰρ ἄν, μὴ ἅμα, ὁ αὐτὸς λευκὸς καὶ μέλας· καίτοι ἐναντίον τὸ λευκὸν τῷ μέλανι)· ἀλλὰ τῶν ἐναντίων τὰ μὲν κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ὑπάρχει ἐνίοις, οἷον καὶ τὰ νῦν εἰρημένα καὶ ἄλλα πολλά, τὰ δὲ ἀδύνατον, ὧν ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ φθαρτὸν καὶ τὸ ἄφθαρτον·
and this applies to “the perishable” and “the imperishable.” Nothing is accidentally perishable; for that which is accidental may not be applicable; but perishability is an attribute which applies necessarily when it is applicable at all. Otherwise one and the same thing will be imperishable as well as perishable, if it is possible for perishability not to apply to it. Thus perishability must be either the substance or in the substance of every perishable thing. The same argument also applies to the imperishable; for both perishability and imperishability are attributes which are necessarily applicable. Hence the characteristics in respect of which and in direct consequence of which one thing is perishable and another imperishable are opposed; and therefore they must be other in kind. Thus it is obvious that there cannot be Forms such as some thinkers maintain; for then there would be both a perishable and an imperishable “man.” Yet the Forms are said to be the same in species as the particulars, and not merely to share a common predicate with them; but things which are other in genus differ more widely than things which are other in species.
οὐδὲν γάρ ἐστι φθαρτὸν κατὰ συμβεβηκός· τὸ μὲν γὰρ συμβεβηκὸς ἐνδέχεται μὴ ὑπάρχειν, τὸ δὲ φθαρτὸν τῶν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὑπαρχόντων ἐστὶν οἷς ὑπάρχει· ἢ ἔσται τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ἓν φθαρτὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον, εἰ ἐνδέχεται μὴ ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ τὸ φθαρτόν. ἢ τὴν οὐσίαν ἄρα ἢ ἐν τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἀνάγκη ὑπάρχειν τὸ φθαρτὸν ἑκάστῳ τῶν φθαρτῶν. ὁ δʼ αὐτὸς λόγος καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἀφθάρτου· τῶν γὰρ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὑπαρχόντων ἄμφω. ᾗ ἄρα καὶ καθʼ ὃ πρῶτον τὸ μὲν φθαρτὸν τὸ δʼ ἄφθαρτον, ἔχει ἀντίθεσιν, ὥστε ἀνάγκη γένει ἕτερα εἶναι. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται εἶναι εἴδη τοιαῦτα οἷα λέγουσί τινες· ἔσται γὰρ καὶ ἄνθρωπος ὁ μὲν φθαρτὸς ὁ δʼ ἄφθαρτος. καίτοι τῷ εἴδει ταὐτὰ λέγεται εἶναι τὰ εἴδη τοῖς τισὶ καὶ οὐχ ὁμώνυμα· τὰ δὲ γένει ἕτερα πλεῖον διέστηκεν ἢ τὰ εἴδει.