[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.