[Footnote 53: Ibid. b. 36: [Greek: e)/ti ta\ pa=sin e(po/mena ou)k e)klekte/on; ou) ga\r e)/stai sullogismo\s e)x au)tô=n.] The phrase [Greek: ta\ pa=sin e(po/mena], as denoting predicates applicable both to the predicate and to the subject, is curious. We should hardly understand it, if it were not explained a little further on, p. 44, b. 21. Both the Scholiast and the modern commentators understand [Greek: ta\ pa=sin e(po/mena] in this sense; and I do not venture to depart from them. At the same time, when I read six lines afterwards (p. 44, b. 26) the words [Greek: oi(=on ei) ta\ e(po/mena e(kate/rô| tau)ta/ e)stin]--in which the same meaning as that which the commentators ascribe to [Greek: ta\ pa=sin e(po/mena] is given in its own special and appropriate terms, and thus the same supposition unnecessarily repeated--I cannot help suspecting that Aristotle intends [Greek: ta\ pa=sin e(po/mena] to mean something different; to mean such wide and universal predicates as [Greek: to\ e(\n] and [Greek: to\ o)/n] which soar above the Categories and apply to every thing, but denote no real _genera_.] Thus, when the thesis to be maintained is an universal affirmative (_e.g._ A is predicable of all E), you will survey all the subjects to which A will apply as predicate, and all the predicates applying to E as subject. If these two lists coincide in any point, a middle term will be found for the construction of a good syllogism in the First figure. Let B represent the list of predicates belonging universally to A; D, the list of predicates which cannot belong to it; C, the list of subjects to which A pertains universally as predicate. Likewise, let F represent the list of predicates belonging universally to E; H, the list of predicates that cannot belong to E; G, the list of subjects to which E is applicable as predicate. If, under these suppositions, there is any coincidence between the list C and the list F, you can construct a syllogism (in _Barbara_, Fig. 1), demonstrating that A belongs to _all_ E; since the predicate in F belongs to all E, and A universally to the subject in C. If the list C coincides in any point with the list G, you can prove that A belongs to _some_ E, by a syllogism (in _Darapti_, Fig. 3). If, on the other hand, the list F coincides in any point with the list D, you can prove that A cannot belong to any E: for the predicate in D cannot belong to any A, and therefore (by converting simply the universal negative) A cannot belong as predicate to any D; but D coincides with F, and F belongs to all E; accordingly, a syllogism (in _Celarent_, Fig. 1) may be constructed, shewing that A cannot belong to any E. So also, if B coincides in any point with H, the same conclusion can be proved; for the predicate in B belongs to all A, but B coincides with H, which belongs to no E; whence you obtain a syllogism (in _Camestres_, Fig. 2), shewing that no A belongs to E.[54] In collecting the predicates and subjects both of A and of E,