Page:O. F. Owen's Organon of Aristotle Vol. 1 (1853).djvu/51

thing; so that singulars are not of the number of relatives. 11. Singulars not included amongst relatives. (Cf. Hill's Logic, de Divisione.) Still, we are called quales from singulars^[1], for these we possess, as we are called scientific from possessing certain singular sciences; so that these may be singular qualities, according to which we are sometimes denominated quales, but they are not relatives; besides, if the same thing should happen to be both a particular quality and a relative, there is no absurdity in its enumeration under both genera.

Chap. IX.—Of Action, Passion, and the other categories of Position: When: Where: and Possession.

1. Action and Passion admit contrariety and degree. Action and Passion admit contrariety, and the more and the less, for to make warm, is contrary to making cold; to be warm, contrary to the being cold, to be pleased, contrary to being grieved; so that they admit contrariety. They are also capable of the more and the less, for it is possible to heat, more and less, to be heated, more and less, and to be grieved, more and less; wherefore, to act, and to suffer, admit the more and less, and so much may be said of these. But we have spoken of the being situated in our treatment of relatives,^[2] to the effect that it is paronymously denominated, from positions: 2. Recapitulation of the other categories. as regards the other categories, when, where, and to have, nothing else is said of them, than what was

1. ταῖς καθ' ἕκαστα, etc. It may be useful here to give a general definition of the several meanings applied by Aristotle to peculiar uses of the preposition as regards relative action and relation. Δί' ὸ, on account of which, then signifies—the final cause; δί' ὸυ through which—the instrumental cause; ἕξ ὸῦ or ἕν φ, from or in which—the material cause; καθ' ὸ—according to which—form is thus denominated; πρὸς ὅ, with relation to which—or the paradeigmatic cause; and υφ' ὸυ, by which—the demiurgic or fabricative cause. Cf. Top. lib. iv. c. 15, et seq. Taylor makes one continual mistake in the translation of καθ' ἕκαστα, by rendering it "particular", whereas the latter is "ἐν μερει." Buhle, on the contrary, is correct in this translation throughout.
2. Aristotle here refers the reader to the category of relation, but as regards the opinion entertained of the remaining categories, Porphyry and Iamblichus consider them as accessorial relatives; e. g. "When" and "where" are not, per se, place and time, but when these two latter exist primarily, the former accede to them. Thus also "having" signifies something distinct from the existing thing, at the same time that it exists with it. Upon the reduction of the latter six categories to relation, see Hamilton on Reid, p. 688; also St. Hilaire's Translation, Preface, p. 68, et seq.