carded; for although convenient for the compiler of a logical treatise, and intelligible to the advanced student, they are invariably uninteresting, if not repulsive, to the beginner.

Simplicity has been invariably adhered to, in selecting examples, alike in propositions and syllogisms; but it is hoped that they are not of such a nature as to incur the charge of triviality, so frequently brought against works on Logic, owing to the meagreness of the illustrations usually employed.

The conflicting views entertained, regarding the true province of Logic, surround the publication of an elementary treatise with peculiar difficulties. Any person, however, who has duly considered the matter, can have little difficulty in deciding, that if Logic is to be considered a distinct and self-sufficient scientific art, the formal view must be adopted; for this is the only aspect under which its proper function can be adequately defined and defended. It is possible, however, that the disciples of the formal school, in their abhorrence of the material and verbal views, have somewhat overstrained their own theory; and that, in order to arrive at a yet more satisfactory definition, they must either agree to a slight compromise, or reject, as extralogical, many matters admitted at present into logical works.

In declaring his adhesion to the formal view of the province of Logic, the writer readily admits that he has introduced into the following pages much that is extralogical; and his apology is, that his object was not to vindicate any particular theory, but rather to lay before the tyro whatever seemed most useful as an introduction to the subject, more particularly as it has not as yet been determined to what special branch of knowledge matters now deemed extralogical are to be assigned.

The discussion of vexed questions has been altogether excluded from the text, as their introduction seemed inconsistent with the plainness requisite in an elementary work; but when considered necessary, they have been adverted to in Notes.

To the authors of the many very valuable works on Logic, which have recently emanated from Oxford, the writer gratefully acknowledges his obligations. The treatises alluded to are obviously intended to supply the defects and correct the errors of the University Textbook, with such additions as have seemed necessary to prepare students for the present high standard of logical examinations. But although extremely valuable in this respect, the works referred to have left the necessity of a work purely introductory unsupplied.

The writer also willingly acknowledges the benefits he has derived from the unrivalled article by Sir W. Hamilton in the 'Edinburgh Review,' as may be seen from the ample use made of its contents throughout this Manual. To this article the more correct views of the province of Logic, recently adopted in this country, are mainly attributable.

It was originally intended to treat of Inductive Logic at some length in this Manual; but the unexpected space which Deductive Logic has occupied, has rendered a full consideration of it incompatible with the publishing arrangements of the present edition.

GLASGOW, January, 1850.



SECTION II. Definition of Simple Apprehension-Divided into In-

complex and Complex-Incomplex Apprehension explained
Complex Apprehension explained - Simple Terms explained—
Simple Terms may consist of one or more Words—Errors incident
to Simple Apprehension, Judgment, and Reasoning—Terms de-
fined—Divided into Simple, Complex, and Decomplex-Simple
Terms—Categorematic, Syncategorematic, and Mixed-Simple
Terms explained according to this Division-Complex Terms
explained—Decomplex Terms explained-Definition of the Logical
Term— The Logical Term divided into Singular and Common-

Singular and Common Terms explained—Various Names appli-

cable to Common Terms --Notes,



SECTION I. Abstraction explained and illustrated-Generalisation

explained and illustrated-Nominalism and Realism-Notes,


« ForrigeFortsett »