greater part of mankind continue to use them through life, without ever being at the trouble to examine accurately the notions they convey. This is a study which every individual must carry on for himself; and of which no rules of logic (how useful soever they may be in directing our labours) can supersede the necessity.

Of the essential utility of a cautious employment of words, both as a medium of communication and as an instrument of thought, many striking illustrations might be produced from the history of science during the time that the scholastic jargon was current among the learned; a technical phraseology, which was not only illcalculated for the discovery of truth, but which was dexterously contrived for the propagation of error; and which gave to those who were habituated to the use of it, great advantages in controversy (at least in the judgment of the multitude) over their more enlightened and candid opponents. "A blind wrestler, by fighting in a dark chamber, (to adopt an allusion of Des Cartes) may not only conceal his defect, but may enjoy some advantages over those who see. It is the light of day only that can discover his inferiority." The imperfections of this philosophy, accordingly, have been exposed by Des Cartes and his followers, less by the force of their reasonings, than by their teaching men to make use of their own faculties, instead of groping in the artificial darkness of the schools; and to perceive the folly of expecting to advance science by ringing changes on words to which they annexed no clear or precise ideas.

In consequence of the influence of these views, the attention of our soundest philosophers was more and more turned, during the course of the last century, to the culti

vation of that branch of logic which relates to the use of words. Mr. Locke's observations on this subject form perhaps the most valuable part of his writings; and, since his time, much additional light has been thrown upon it by Condillac and his successors.

Important, however, as this branch of logic is in its practical applications; and highly interesting, from its intimate connexion with the theory of the human mind, there is a possibility of pushing, to an erroneous and dangerous extreme, the conclusions to which it has led. Condillac himself falls, in no inconsiderable a degree, under this censure; having, upon more than one occasion, expressed himself as if he conceived it to be possible, by means of precise and definite terms, to reduce reasoning, in all the sciences, to a sort of mechanical operation, analogous, in its nature, to those which are practised by the algebraist, on letters of the alphabet. "The art of reasoning (he repeats over and over) is nothing more than a language well arranged.-"L'art de raisonner se réduit à une langue bien faite."

One of the first persons, as far as I know, who objected to the vagueness and incorrectness of this proposition, was M. De Gerando; to whom we are farther indebted for a clear and satisfactory exposition of the very important fact to which it relates. To this fact Condillac approximates nearly in various parts of his works; but never, perhaps, without some degree of indistinctness and of exaggeration. The point of view in which it is placed by his ingenious successor, strikes me as so just and happy, that I cannot deny myself the pleasure of enriching my book with a few of his observations.

"It is the distinguishing characteristic of a lively and vigorous conception, to push its speculative conclusions somewhat beyond their just limits. Hence, in the logical discussions of this estimable writer, these maxims (stated

without any explanation, or restriction,) That the study of a science is nothing more than the acquisition of a language;' and that a science properly treated is only a language well contrived,' Hence the rash assertion, That mathematics possess no advantage over other sciences, but what they derive from a better phraseology: and that all of these might attain to the same characters of simplicity and of certainty, if we knew how to give them signs equally perfect.”*

"The same task which must have been executed by those who contributed to the first formation of a language, and which is executed by every child when he learns to speak it, is repeated over in the mind of every adult when he makes use of his mother-tongue; for it is only by the decomposition of his thoughts that he can learn to select the signs which he ought to employ, and to dispose them in a suitable order. Accordingly, those external actions which we call speaking or writing, are always accompanied with a philosophical process of the understanding, unless we content ourselves, as too often happens, with repeating over mechanically what has been said by others. It is in this respect that languages, with their forms and rules, conducting (so to speak) those who use them, into the path of a regular analysis; tracing out to them in a well-ordered discourse, the model of a perfect decomposition, may be regarded, in a certain sense, as analytical methods.--But I stop short; Condillac, to whom this

* Des Signes et de l'Art de Penser, &c. Introd. pp. xx. xxi.

idea belongs, has developed it too well to leave any hope of improving upon his statement."

In a note upon this passage, however, M. De Gerando has certainly improved not a little on the statement of Condillac. "In asserting (says he) that languages may be regarded as analytical methods, I have added the qualifying phrase, in a certain sense, for the word method cannot be employed here with exact propriety. Languages furnish the occasions and the means of analysis; that is to say, they afford us assistance in following that method; but they are not the method itself. They resemble signals or finger-posts placed on a road to enable us to discover our way; and if they help us to analyze, it is because they are themselves the results, and as it were, the monuments of an analysis which has been previously made; nor do they contribute to keep us in the right path, but in proportion to the degree of judgment with which that analysis has been conducted."*

I was the more solicitous to introduce these excellent remarks, as I suspect that I have myself indirectly contributed to propagate in this country the erroneous opinion which it is their object to correct. By some of our later writers it has not only been implicitly adopted, but has been regarded as a conclusion of too great value to be suffered to remain in the quiet possession of the moderns. "Aristotle (says the author of a very valuable analysis of his works) well knew that our knowledge of things chiefly depending on the proper application of language as an INSTRUMENT OF THOUGHT, the true art of reasoning is no

* Ibid. pp. 158, 159, Tom. I.

R

thing but a language accurately defined and skilfully arranged; an opinion which, after many idle declamations against his barren generalities and verbal trifling, philosophers have begun very generally to adopt."*

Aristotle's Ethics, &c. by Dr. Gillies, Vol. I. p. 94, 2d. edit.

The passage in my first volume, to which I suspect an allusion is here made, is as follows:

"The technical terms, in the different sciences, render the appropriate language of philosophy a still more convenient INSTRUMENt of thought, than those languages which have originated from popular use; and in proportion as these technical terms improve in point of precision and of comprehensiveness, they will contribute to render our intellectual progress more certain and more rapid. While engaged (says Mr. Lavoisier) in the composition of my Elements of Chemistry, I perceived, better than I had ever done before, the truth of an observation of Condillac, that we think only through the medium of words, and that languages are true analytic methods. Algebra, which, of all our modes of expression, is the most simple, the most exact, and the best adapted to its purpose, is, at the same time, a language and an analytical method. The art of reasoning is nothing more than a language well arranged. The influence (I have added) which these very enlightened and philosophical views have already had on the doctrines of chemistry, cannot fail to be known to most of my readers."

When this paragraph was first written, I was fully aware of the looseness and indistinctness of Lavoisier's expressions; but as my only object in introducing the quotation was to illustrate the influence of general logical principles on the progress of particular sciences, I did not think it necessary, in the introduction to my work, to point out in what manner Condillac's propositions were to be limited and corrected. I am truly happy, for the sake of M. De Gerando, that I happened to transcribe them in the same vague and very exceptionable terms in which I found them sanctioned by the names of Condillac, and of one of the most illustrious of his disciples.

It will not, I hope, be considered as altogether foreign to the design of this note, if I remark further, how easy it is for a translator of Aristotle (in consequence of the unparalleled brevity which he sometimes affects) to accommodate the sense of the original, by the help of paraphrastical clauses, expressed in the phraseology of modern science, to every progressive step in the history of human knowledge. In truth, there is not one philosopher