CONTENTS. Page CHAP. VII. Methodization, successive and distributive.— Considerations upon which the theory of division de- CHAP. VIII. On Propositions, considered with a view to logical deduction.-Their classification and reduction CHAP. IX. Deduction, or Syllogistic Ratiocination.—Forms of syllogisms substituted for the Aristotelian moods CHAP. X. Induction.-Refutation of the assertion, that there are not two kinds of reasoning.-Definition of induc- tion.-Considerations upon which the validity of the In reading over the elegant exposition of his views, which Dr. Whately has prefixed to his Elements of Logic, I felt that I generally concurred in his observations on the utility of Logic, in his refutation of the arguments of its detractors of those who set up Common Sense in opposition to Logic,-and in his remarks on the erroneous system proceeded upon with regard to this subject in our University Education. The absurdity of comprehending, within the province of Logic, every branch of art or science to which it may be applicable, will readily be admitted by any reader; but, on the other hand, it may perhaps appear to him that the author of the Elements has fallen in some measure into the opposite error of restricting too much the field of the science. This is a point, however, which will be B more properly considered when we come to the examination of the definition of Logic. At present I must devote a few pages to some observations suggested by the perusal of Dr. Whately's Preface. The author excuses himself for censuring several of the doctrines and explanations of logical writers, and of Aldrich in particular. On this occasion he appears to me to go farther than is necessary; and, upon the whole, the commendations given to Aldrich's compendium are probably greater than the work is deserving of. However, I must now apply the same excuses to my own case. If, in the remarks contained in the following pages, criticism will be found to occupy more space than eulogium, it is not from any desire to depreciate the value of the improvements here introduced into the science, but from the consideration of the greater practical use resulting from the investigation of the matter of disagreement, than from a detailed repetition of those doctrines in which my views coincide with those expressed by the author in question. Should my remarks be deemed inapposite or incorrect, the reader may at least have been led, by their means, to form a better-grounded judgment. In adverting to the style which he has adopted, the object stated by Dr. Whately as that which he had in view, is so strictly what should be wished, that I cannot do better than transcribe this short paragraph. "With regard to the style, I have considered perspicuity not only, as it always must be, the first point, but as one of such paramount importance in such a subject, as to justify the neglect" (the comparative neglect, I should rather say) "of all others. Prolixity of explanation,-homeliness in illustration,—and baldness of expression, I have regarded as blemishes not worth thinking of, when any thing was to be gained in respect of clearness." Elements-Preface, p. xxii. Generally speaking, the result answers to the expectations raised by the above paragraph; and, not confining himself to the qualifications which he deems to be necessary, he has also succeeded in combining elegance and dignity of language with that perspicuity which, on scientific subjects, has the precedence over every other qualification; he falls but rarely into any of the three defects which he very properly describes as more than pardonable, wherever clearness would otherwise be sacrificed. If his style is in any re |