[Footnote 24: Referring to the words cited in the preceding note, I construe [Greek: ta\ de\ du/o, ou)/] as Boethius does (II. pp. 384-385), and not in agreement with Ammonius (Schol. p. 122, a. 26, Br.), who, however, is followed both by Julius Pacius and Waitz (p. 344). I think it impossible that these words, [Greek: ta\ de\ du/o, ou)/], can mean (as Ammonius thinks) the [Greek: kata/phasis] and [Greek: a)po/phasis] themselves, since the very point which Aristotle is affirming is the relation of these words, [Greek: pro\s tê\n kata/phasin kai\ a)po/phasin], _i.e._ to the affirmative and negative started from-- (A) Est justus homo ... ... ... ... (B) Non est justus homo. As the words [Greek: ta\ me\n du/o] refer to the second contradictory pair (that is, C and D) in the _first_ Quaternion, so the words [Greek: ta\ de\ du/o, ou)/] designate the second contradictory pair (G and H) in the _second_ Quaternion. Though G and H are included in the second Quaternion, they are here designated by the negative relation ([Greek: ta\ de\ du/o, ou)/]) which they bear to A and B, the first contradictory pair of the _first_ Quaternion. [Greek: dichô=s le/gontai ai( a)ntithe/seis] (line 20) is explained and illustrated by line 37--[Greek: au(=tai me\n ou)=n du/o a)nti/keintai, a)/llai de\ du/o pro\s to\ _ou)k a)/nthrôpos_ ô(s u(pokei/meno/n ti prostethe/n]. Lastly, Aristotle expressly states that the second Quaternion will stand independently and by itself (p. 20, a. 1), having noticed it in the beginning only in relation to the first.] Such is the result obtained when we take _homo_ as the subject of the proposition; we get four propositions, of which the two last (C and D) stand to the two first (B and A) in the same relation as if they (C and D) were privative propositions. But if, instead of _homo_, we take _non homo_ as Subject of the proposition (_justus_ or _non justus_ being predicates as before), we shall then obtain two other pairs of contradictory propositions; and the second pair of this new quaternion will not stand in that same relation to these same propositions B and A. We shall then find that, instead of B and A, we have a different negative and a different affirmative, as the appropriate correlates to the third and fourth propositions. The new quaternion of propositions, with _non homo_ as subject, will stand thus-- (QUATERNION II.) (E) Est justus non homo ... ... ... (F) Non est justus non homo. (H) Non est non justus non homo ... (G) Est non justus non homo.[25]