Transcriber’s Note:

There is a single footnote following the Translator’s note.

If an article spans several pages, marginal paragraph notes were repeated. These redundant notes have been removed.

Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please see the transcriber’s [note] at the end of this text for details regarding the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.

The ornate cover had no text. The basic details from the title page have been added and, so modified, is placed in the public domain.

Any corrections are indicated using an underline highlight. Placing the cursor over the correction will produce the original text in a small popup.

Any corrections are indicated as hyperlinks, which will navigate the reader to the corresponding entry in the corrections table in the note at the end of the text.

The English Works of Thomas Hobbes: Volume 1

THOMAS HOBBES.
W Humphrys sc.
London. Published March 1st 1839, by John Bohn. 17, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden.

THE

ENGLISH WORKS

OF

THOMAS HOBBES

OF MALMESBURY;

NOW FIRST COLLECTED AND EDITED

BY

SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH, BART.

VOL. I.

LONDON:

JOHN BOHN,

HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN.

MDCCCXXXIX.

LONDON:

C. RICHARDS, PRINTER, ST. MARTIN'S LANE.

TO

GEORGE GROTE, ESQ.

M.P. FOR THE CITY OF LONDON.

Dear Grote,

I dedicate to you this edition of the Works of Hobbes; first, because I know you will be well pleased to see a complete collection of all the writings of an Author for whom you have so high an admiration. Secondly, because I am indebted to you for my first acquaintance with the speculations of one of the greatest and most original thinkers in the English language, whose works, I have often heard you regret, were so scarce, and so much less read and studied than they deserved to be. It now, therefore, gives me great satisfaction to be able to gratify a wish, you have frequently expressed, that some person, who had time and due reverence for that illustrious man, would undertake to edite his works, and bring his views again before his countrymen, who have so long and so unjustly neglected him. And likewise, I am desirous, in some way, to express the sincere regard and respect that I feel for you, and the gratitude that I owe you for the valuable instruction, that I have obtained from your society, and from the friendship with which you have honoured me, during the many years we have been companions in political life.

Yours, truly,

William Molesworth.

February 25th, 1839.

79, Eaton Square, London.

ELEMENTS OF PHILOSOPHY.

THE FIRST SECTION,

CONCERNING BODY,

WRITTEN IN LATIN

BY

THOMAS HOBBES OF MALMESBURY

AND

TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH.

THE

TRANSLATOR TO THE READER.

If, when I had finished my translation of this first section of the Elements of Philosophy, I had presently committed the same to the press, it might have come to your hands sooner than now it doth. But as I undertook it with much diffidence of my own ability to perform it well; so I thought fit, before I published it, to pray Mr. Hobbes to view, correct, and order it according to his own mind and pleasure. Wherefore, though you find some places enlarged, others altered, and two chapters, XVIII and XX, almost wholly changed, you may nevertheless remain assured, that as now I present it to you, it doth not at all vary from the author's own sense and meaning. As for the Six Lessons to the Savilian Professors at Oxford, they are not of my translation, but were written, as here you have them in English, by Mr. Hobbes himself; and are joined to this book, because they are chiefly in defence of the same.[^[A]]

[A]. They will be published in a separate volume, with other works of a similar description. W. M.

THE AUTHOR'S EPISTLE DEDICATORY,

TO THE

RIGHT HONORABLE, MY MOST HONORED LORD,

WILLIAM, EARL OF DEVONSHIRE.

This first section of the Elements of Philosophy, the monument of my service and your Lordship's bounty, though, after the Third Section published, long deferred, yet at last finished, I now present, my most excellent Lord, and dedicate to your Lordship. A little book, but full; and great enough, if men count well for great; and to an attentive reader versed in the demonstrations of mathematicians, that is, to your Lordship, clear and easy to understand, and almost new throughout, without any offensive novelty. I know that that part of philosophy, wherein are considered lines and figures, has been delivered to us notably improved by the ancients; and withal a most perfect pattern of the logic by which they were enabled to find out and demonstrate such excellent theorems as they have done. I know also that the hypothesis of the earth's diurnal motion was the invention of the ancients; but that both it, and astronomy, that is, celestial physics, springing up together with it, were by succeeding philosophers strangled with the snares of words. And therefore the beginning of astronomy, except observations, I think is not to be derived from farther time than from Nicolaus Copernicus; who in the age next preceding the present revived the opinion of Pythagoras, Aristarchus, and Philolaus. After him, the doctrine of the motion of the earth being now received, and a difficult question thereupon arising concerning the descent of heavy bodies, Galileus in our time, striving with that difficulty, was the first that opened to us the gate of natural philosophy universal, which is the knowledge of the nature of motion. So that neither can the age of natural philosophy be reckoned higher than to him. Lastly, the science of man's body, the most profitable part of natural science, was first discovered with admirable sagacity by our countryman Doctor Harvey, principal Physician to King James and King Charles, in his books of the Motion of the Blood, and of the Generation of Living Creatures; who is the only man I know, that conquering envy, hath established a new doctrine in his life-time. Before these, there was nothing certain in natural philosophy but every man's experiments to himself, and the natural histories, if they may be called certain, that are no certainer than civil histories. But since these, astronomy and natural philosophy in general have, for so little time, been extraordinarily advanced by Joannes Keplerus, Petrus Gassendus, and Marinus Mersennus; and the science of human bodies in special by the wit and industry of physicians, the only true natural philosophers, especially of our most learned men of the College of Physicians in London. Natural Philosophy is therefore but young; but Civil Philosophy yet much younger, as being no older (I say it provoked, and that my detractors may know how little they have wrought upon me) than my own book De Cive. But what? were there no philosophers natural nor civil among the ancient Greeks? There were men so called; witness Lucian, by whom they are derided; witness divers cities, from which they have been often by public edicts banished. But it follows not that there was philosophy. There walked in old Greece a certain phantasm, for superficial gravity, though full within of fraud and filth, a little like philosophy; which unwary men, thinking to be it, adhered to the professors of it, some to one, some to another, though they disagreed among themselves, and with great salary put their children to them to be taught, instead of wisdom, nothing but to dispute, and, neglecting the laws, to determine every question according to their own fancies. The first doctors of the Church, next the Apostles, born in those times, whilst they endeavoured to defend the Christian faith against the Gentiles by natural reason, began also to make use of philosophy, and with the decrees of Holy Scripture to mingle the sentences of heathen philosophers; and first some harmless ones of Plato, but afterwards also many foolish and false ones out of the physics and metaphysics of Aristotle; and bringing in the enemies, betrayed unto them the citadel of Christianity. From that time, instead of the worship of God, there entered a thing called school divinity, walking on one foot firmly, which is the Holy Scripture, but halted on the other rotten foot, which the Apostle Paul called vain, and might have called pernicious philosophy; for it hath raised an infinite number of controversies in the Christian world concerning religion, and from those controversies, wars. It is like that Empusa in the Athenian comic poet, which was taken in Athens for a ghost that changed shapes, having one brazen leg, but the other was the leg of an ass, and was sent, as was believed, by Hecate, as a sign of some approaching evil fortune. Against this Empusa I think there cannot be invented a better exorcism, than to distinguish between the rules of religion, that is, the rules of honouring God, which we have from the laws, and the rules of philosophy, that is, the opinions of private men; and to yield what is due to religion to the Holy Scripture, and what is due to philosophy to natural reason. And this I shall do, if I but handle the Elements of Philosophy truly and clearly, as I endeavour to do. Therefore having in the Third Section, which I have published and dedicated to your Lordship, long since reduced all power ecclesiastical and civil by strong arguments of reason, without repugnance to God's word, to one and the same sovereign authority; I intend now, by putting into a clear method the true foundations of natural philosophy, to fright and drive away this metaphysical Empusa; not by skirmish, but by letting in the light upon her. For I am confident, if any confidence of a writing can proceed from the writer's fear, circumspection, and diffidence, that in the three former parts of this book all that I have said is sufficiently demonstrated from definitions; and all in the fourth part from suppositions not absurd. But if there appear to your Lordship anything less fully demonstrated than to satisfy every reader, the cause was this, that I professed to write not all to all, but some things to geometricians only. But that your Lordship will be satisfied, I cannot doubt.

There remains the second section, which is concerning Man. That part thereof, where I handle the Optics, containing six chapters, together with the tables of the figures belonging to them, I have already written and engraven lying by me above these six years. The rest shall, as soon as I can, be added to it; though by the contumelies and petty injuries of some unskilful men, I know already, by experience, how much greater thanks will be due than paid me, for telling men the truth of what men are. But the burthen I have taken on me I mean to carry through; not striving to appease, but rather to revenge myself of envy, by encreasing it. For it contents me that I have your Lordship's favour, which, being all you require, I acknowledge; and for which, with my prayers to Almighty God for your Lordship's safety, I shall, to my power, be always thankful.

Your Lordship's most humble servant,

THOMAS HOBBES.

London,

April 23, 1655.

THE

AUTHOR'S EPISTLE TO THE READER.

Think not, Courteous Reader, that the philosophy, the elements whereof I am going to set in order, is that which makes philosophers' stones, nor that which is found in the metaphysic codes; but that it is the natural reason of man, busily flying up and down among the creatures, and bringing back a true report of their order, causes and effects. Philosophy, therefore, the child of the world and your own mind, is within yourself; perhaps not fashioned yet, but like the world its father, as it was in the beginning, a thing confused. Do, therefore, as the statuaries do, who, by hewing off that which is superfluous, do not make but find the image. Or imitate the creation: if you will be a philosopher in good earnest, let your reason move upon the deep of your own cogitations and experience; those things that lie in confusion must be set asunder, distinguished, and every one stamped with its own name set in order; that is to say, your method must resemble that of the creation. The order of the creation was, light, distinction of day and night, the firmament, the luminaries, sensible creatures, man; and, after the creation, the commandment. Therefore the order of contemplation will be, reason, definition, space, the stars, sensible quality, man; and after man is grown up, subjection to command. In the first part of this section, which is entitled Logic, I set up the light of reason. In the second, which hath for title the Grounds of Philosophy, I distinguish the most common notions by accurate definition, for the avoiding of confusion and obscurity. The third part concerns the expansion of space, that is Geometry. The fourth contains the Motion of the Stars, together with the doctrine of sensible qualities.

In the second section, if it please God, shall be handled Man. In the third section, the doctrine of Subjection is handled already. This is the method I followed; and if it like you, you may use the same; for I do but propound, not commend to you anything of mine. But whatsoever shall be the method you will like, I would very fain commend philosophy to you, that is to say, the study of wisdom, for want of which we have all suffered much damage lately. For even they, that study wealth, do it out of love to wisdom; for their treasures serve them but for a looking-glass, wherein to behold and contemplate their own wisdom. Nor do they, that love to be employed in public business, aim at anything but place wherein to show their wisdom. Neither do voluptuous men neglect philosophy, but only because they know not how great a pleasure it is to the mind of man to be ravished in the vigorous and perpetual embraces of the most beauteous world. Lastly, though for nothing else, yet because the mind of man is no less impatient of empty time than nature is of empty place, to the end you be not forced for want of what to do, to be troublesome to men that have business, or take hurt by falling into idle company, but have somewhat of your own wherewith to fill up your time, I recommend unto you to study philosophy. Farewell.

T. H.

TITLES OF THE CHAPTERS.

COMPUTATION OR LOGIC.

CHAPTER I.
OF PHILOSOPHY.

[1.] The Introduction.—[2.] The Definition of Philosophy explained.—[3.] Ratiocination of the Mind.—[4.] Properties, what they are.—[5.] How Properties are known by Generation, and contrarily.—[6.] The Scope of Philosophy.—[7.] The Utility of it.—[8.] The Subject.—[9.] The Parts of it.—[10.] The Epilogue.

Introduction.

Philosophy seems to me to be amongst men now, in the same manner as corn and wine are said to have been in the world in ancient time. For from the beginning there were vines and ears of corn growing here and there in the fields; but no care was taken for the planting and sowing of them. Men lived therefore upon acorns; or if any were so bold as to venture upon the eating of those unknown and doubtful fruits, they did it with danger of their health. In like manner, every man brought Philosophy, that is, Natural Reason, into the world with him; for all men can reason to some degree, and concerning some things: but where there is need of a long series of reasons, there most men wander out of the way, and fall into error for want of method, as it were for want of sowing and planting, that is, of improving their reason. And from hence it comes to pass, that they who content themselves with daily experience, which may be likened to feeding upon acorns, and either reject, or not much regard philosophy, are commonly esteemed, and are, indeed, men of sounder judgment than those who, from opinions, though not vulgar, yet full of uncertainty, and carelessly received, do nothing but dispute and wrangle, like men that are not well in their wits. I confess, indeed, that that part of philosophy by which magnitudes and figures are computed, is highly improved. But because I have not observed the like advancement in the other parts of it, my purpose is, as far forth as I am able, to lay open the few and first Elements of Philosophy in general, as so many seeds from which pure and true Philosophy may hereafter spring up by little and little.

I am not ignorant how hard a thing it is to weed out of men's minds such inveterate opinions as have taken root there, and been confirmed in them by the authority of most eloquent writers; especially seeing true (that is, accurate) Philosophy professedly rejects not only the paint and false colours of language, but even the very ornaments and graces of the same; and the first grounds of all science are not only not beautiful, but poor, arid, and, in appearance, deformed. Nevertheless, there being certainly some men, though but few, who are delighted with truth and strength of reason in all things, I thought I might do well to take this pains for the sake even of those few. I proceed therefore to the matter, and take my beginning from the very definition of philosophy, which is this.

Definition of Philosophy explained.

2. Philosophy is such knowledge of effects or appearances, as we acquire by true ratiocination from the knowledge we have first of their causes or generation; And again, of such causes or generations as may be from knowing first their effects.

For the better understanding of which definition, we must consider, first, that although Sense and Memory of things, which are common to man and all living creatures, be knowledge, yet because they are given us immediately by nature, and not gotten by ratiocination, they are not philosophy.

Secondly, seeing Experience is nothing but memory; and Prudence, or prospect into the future time, nothing but expectation of such things as we have already had experience of, Prudence also is not to be esteemed philosophy.

By RATIOCINATION, I mean computation. Now to compute, is either to collect the sum of many things that are added together, or to know what remains when one thing is taken out of another. Ratiocination, therefore, is the same with addition and substraction; and if any man add multiplication and division, I will not be against it, seeing multiplication is nothing but addition of equals one to another, and division nothing but a substraction of equals one from another, as often as is possible. So that all ratiocination is comprehended in these two operations of the mind, addition and substraction.

Ratiocination of the Mind.

3. But how by the ratiocination of our mind, we add and substract in our silent thoughts, without the use of words, it will be necessary for me to make intelligible by an example or two. If therefore a man see something afar off and obscurely, although no appellation had yet been given to anything, he will, notwithstanding, have the same idea of that thing for which now, by imposing a name on it, we call it body. Again, when, by coming nearer, he sees the same thing thus and thus, now in one place and now in another, he will have a new idea thereof, namely, that for which we now call such a thing animated. Thirdly, when standing nearer, he perceives the figure, hears the voice, and sees other things which are signs of a rational mind, he has a third idea, though it have yet no appellation, namely, that for which we now call anything rational. Lastly, when, by looking fully and distinctly upon it, he conceives all that he has seen as one thing, the idea he has now is compounded of his former ideas, which are put together in the mind in the same order in which these three single names, body, animated, rational, are in speech compounded into this one name, body-animated-rational, or man. In like manner, of the several conceptions of four sides, equality of sides, and right angles, is compounded the conception of a square. For the mind may conceive a figure of four sides without any conception of their equality, and of that equality without conceiving a right angle; and may join together all these single conceptions into one conception or one idea of a square. And thus we see how the conceptions of the mind are compounded. Again, whosoever sees a man standing near him, conceives the whole idea of that man; and if, as he goes away, he follow him with his eyes only, he will lose the idea of those things which were signs of his being rational, whilst, nevertheless, the idea of a body-animated remains still before his eyes, so that the idea of rational is substracted from the whole idea of man, that is to say, of body-animated-rational, and there remains that of body-animated; and a while after, at a greater distance, the idea of animated will be lost, and that of body only will remain; so that at last, when nothing at all can be seen, the whole idea will vanish out of sight. By which examples, I think, it is manifest enough what is the internal ratiocination of the mind without words.

We must not therefore think that computation, that is, ratiocination, has place only in numbers, as if man were distinguished from other living creatures (which is said to have been the opinion of Pythagoras) by nothing but the faculty of numbering; for magnitude, body, motion, time, degrees of quality, action, conception, proportion, speech and names (in which all the kinds of philosophy consist) are capable of addition and substraction. Now such things as we add or substract, that is, which we put into an account, we are said to consider, in Greek λογίζεσθαι, in which language also συλλογίζεσθαι signifies to compute, reason, or reckon.

Properties, what they are.

4. But effects and the appearances of things to sense, are faculties or powers of bodies, which make us distinguish them from one another; that is to say, conceive one body to be equal or unequal, like or unlike to another body; as in the example above, when by coming near enough to any body, we perceive the motion and going of the same, we distinguish it thereby from a tree, a column, and other fixed bodies; and so that motion or going is the property thereof, as being proper to living creatures, and a faculty by which they make us distinguish them from other bodies.

How Properties are known by Generation, and contrarily.

5. How the knowledge of any effect may be gotten from the knowledge of the generation thereof, may easily be understood by the example of a circle: for if there be set before us a plain figure, having, as near as may be, the figure of a circle, we cannot possibly perceive by sense whether it be a true circle or no; than which, nevertheless, nothing is more easy to be known to him that knows first the generation of the propounded figure. For let it be known that the figure was made by the circumduction of a body whereof one end remained unmoved, and we may reason thus; a body carried about, retaining always the same length, applies itself first to one radius, then to another, to a third, a fourth, and successively to all; and, therefore, the same length, from the same point, toucheth the circumference in every part thereof, which is as much as to say, as all the radii are equal. We know, therefore, that from such generation proceeds a figure, from whose one middle point all the extreme points are reached unto by equal radii. And in like manner, by knowing first what figure is set before us, we may come by ratiocination to some generation of the same, though perhaps not that by which it was made, yet that by which it might have been made; for he that knows that a circle has the property above declared, will easily know whether a body carried about, as is said, will generate a circle or no.

Scope of Philosophy.

6. The end or scope of philosophy is, that we may make use to our benefit of effects formerly seen; or that, by application of bodies to one another, we may produce the like effects of those we conceive in our mind, as far forth as matter, strength, and industry, will permit, for the commodity of human life. For the inward glory and triumph of mind that a man may have for the mastering of some difficult and doubtful matter, or for the discovery of some hidden truth, is not worth so much pains as the study of Philosophy requires; nor need any man care much to teach another what he knows himself, if he think that will be the only benefit of his labour. The end of knowledge is power; and the use of theorems (which, among geometricians, serve for the finding out of properties) is for the construction of problems; and, lastly, the scope of all speculation is the performing of some action, or thing to be done.

Utility of Philosophy.

7. But what the utility of philosophy is, especially of natural philosophy and geometry, will be best understood by reckoning up the chief commodities of which mankind is capable, and by comparing the manner of life of such as enjoy them, with that of others which want the same. Now, the greatest commodities of mankind are the arts; namely, of measuring matter and motion; of moving ponderous bodies; of architecture; of navigation; of making instruments for all uses; of calculating the celestial motions, the aspects of the stars, and the parts of time; of geography, &c. By which sciences, how great benefits men receive is more easily understood than expressed. These benefits are enjoyed by almost all the people of Europe, by most of those of Asia, and by some of Africa: but the Americans, and they that live near the Poles, do totally want them. But why? Have they sharper wits than these? Have not all men one kind of soul, and the same faculties of mind? What, then, makes this difference, except philosophy? Philosophy, therefore, is the cause of all these benefits. But the utility of moral and civil philosophy is to be estimated, not so much by the commodities we have by knowing these sciences, as by the calamities we receive from not knowing them. Now, all such calamities as may be avoided by human industry, arise from war, but chiefly from civil war; for from this proceed slaughter, solitude, and the want of all things. But the cause of war is not that men are willing to have it; for the will has nothing for object but good, at least that which seemeth good. Nor is it from this, that men know not that the effects of war are evil; for who is there that thinks not poverty and loss of life to be great evils? The cause, therefore, of civil war is, that men know not the causes neither of war nor peace, there being but few in the world that have learned those duties which unite and keep men in peace, that is to say, that have learned the rules of civil life sufficiently. Now, the knowledge of these rules is moral philosophy. But why have they not learned them, unless for this reason, that none hitherto have taught them in a clear and exact method? For what shall we say? Could the ancient masters of Greece, Egypt, Rome, and others, persuade the unskilful multitude to their innumerable opinions concerning the nature of their gods, which they themselves knew not whether they were true or false, and which were indeed manifestly false and absurd; and could they not persuade the same multitude to civil duty, if they themselves had understood it? Or shall those few writings of geometricians which are extant, be thought sufficient for the taking away of all controversy in the matters they treat of, and shall those innumerable and huge volumes of ethics be thought unsufficient, if what they teach had been certain and well demonstrated? What, then, can be imagined to be the cause that the writings of those men have increased science, and the writings of these have increased nothing but words, saving that the former were written by men that knew, and the latter by such as knew not, the doctrine they taught only for ostentation of their wit and eloquence? Nevertheless, I deny not but the reading of some such books is very delightful; for they are most eloquently written, and contain many clear, wholesome and choice sentences, which yet are not universally true, though by them universally pronounced. From whence it comes to pass, that the circumstances of times, places, and persons being changed, they are no less frequently made use of to confirm wicked men in their purposes, than to make them understand the precepts of civil duties. Now that which is chiefly wanting in them, is a true and certain rule of our actions, by which we might know whether that we undertake be just or unjust. For it is to no purpose to be bidden in every thing to do right, before there be a certain rule and measure of right established, which no man hitherto hath established. Seeing, therefore, from the not knowing of civil duties, that is, from the want of moral science, proceed civil wars, and the greatest calamities of mankind, we may very well attribute to such science the production of the contrary commodities. And thus much is sufficient, to say nothing of the praises and other contentment proceeding from philosophy, to let you see the utility of the same in every kind thereof.

Subject of Philosophy.

8. The subject of Philosophy, or the matter it treats of, is every body of which we can conceive any generation, and which we may, by any consideration thereof, compare with other bodies, or which is capable of composition and resolution; that is to say, every body of whose generation or properties we can have any knowledge. And this may be deduced from the definition of philosophy, whose profession it is to search out the properties of bodies from their generation, or their generation from their properties; and, therefore, where there is no generation or property, there is no philosophy. Therefore it excludes Theology, I mean the doctrine of God, eternal, ingenerable, incomprehensible, and in whom there is nothing neither to divide nor compound, nor any generation to be conceived.

It excludes the doctrine of angels, and all such things as are thought to be neither bodies nor properties of bodies; there being in them no place neither for composition nor division, nor any capacity of more and less, that is to say, no place for ratiocination.

It excludes history, as well natural as political, though most useful (nay necessary) to philosophy; because such knowledge is but experience, or authority, and not ratiocination.

It excludes all such knowledge as is acquired by Divine inspiration, or revelation, as not derived to us by reason, but by Divine grace in an instant, and, as it were, by some sense supernatural.

It excludes not only all doctrines which are false, but such also as are not well-grounded; for whatsoever we know by right ratiocination, can neither be false nor doubtful; and, therefore, astrology, as it is now held forth, and all such divinations rather than sciences, are excluded.

Lastly, the doctrine of God's worship is excluded from philosophy, as being not to be known by natural reason, but by the authority of the Church; and as being the object of faith, and not of knowledge.

Parts of Philosophy.

9. The principal parts of philosophy are two. For two chief kinds of bodies, and very different from one another, offer themselves to such as search after their generation and properties; one whereof being the work of nature, is called a natural body, the other is called a commonwealth, and is made by the wills and agreement of men. And from these spring the two parts of philosophy, called natural and civil. But seeing that, for the knowledge of the properties of a commonwealth, it is necessary first to know the dispositions, affections, and manners of men, civil philosophy is again commonly divided into two parts, whereof one, which treats of men's dispositions and manners, is called ethics; and the other, which takes cognizance of their civil duties, is called politics, or simply civil philosophy. In the first place, therefore (after I have set down such premises as appertain to the nature of philosophy in general), I will discourse of bodies natural; in the second, of the dispositions and manners of men; and in the third, of the civil duties of subjects.

Epilogue.

10. To conclude; seeing there may be many who will not like this my definition of philosophy, and will say, that, from the liberty which a man may take of so defining as seems best to himself, he may conclude any thing from any thing (though I think it no hard matter to demonstrate that this definition of mine agrees with the sense of all men); yet, lest in this point there should be any cause of dispute betwixt me and them, I here undertake no more than to deliver the elements of that science by which the effects of anything may be found out from the known generation of the same, or contrarily, the generation from the effects; to the end that they who search after other philosophy, may be admonished to seek it from other principles.

CHAPTER II.
OF NAMES.

[1.] The necessity of sensible Moniments or Marks for the help of Memory: a Mark defined.—[2.] The necessity of Marks for the signification of the conceptions of the Mind.—[3.] Names supply both those necessities.—[4.] The Definition of a Name.—[5.] Names are Signs not of Things, but of our Cogitations.—[6.] What it is we give Names to.—[7.] Names Positive and Negative.—[8.] Contradictory Names.—[9.] A Common Name.—[10.] Names of the First and Second Intention.—[11.] Universal, Particular, Individual, and Indefinite Names.—[12.] Names Univocal and Equivocal.—[13.] Absolute and Relative Names.—[14.] Simple and Compounded Names.—[15.] A Predicament described.—[16.] Some things to be noted concerning Predicaments.

Necessity of sensible Moniments or Marks for the help of Memory.

1. How unconstant and fading men's thoughts are, and how much the recovery of them depends upon chance, there is none but knows by infallible experience in himself. For no man is able to remember quantities without sensible and present measures, nor colours without sensible and present patterns, nor number without the names of numbers disposed in order and learned by heart. So that whatsoever a man has put together in his mind by ratiocination without such helps, will presently slip from him, and not be revocable but by beginning his ratiocination anew. From which it follows, that, for the acquiring of philosophy, some sensible moniments are necessary, by which our past thoughts may be not only reduced, but also registered every one in its own order.| A Mark defined| These moniments I call MARKS, namely, sensible things taken at pleasure, that, by the sense of them, such thoughts may be recalled to our mind as are like those thoughts for which we took them.

Necessity of Marks for the signification of the conceptions of the Mind.

2. Again, though some one man, of how excellent a wit soever, should spend all his time partly in reasoning, and partly in inventing marks for the help of his memory, and advancing himself in learning; who sees not that the benefit he reaps to himself will not be much, and to others none at all? For unless he communicate his notes with others, his science will perish with him. But if the same notes be made common to many, and so one man's inventions be taught to others, sciences will thereby be increased to the general good of mankind. It is therefore necessary, for the acquiring of philosophy, that there be certain signs, by which what one man finds out may be manifested and made known to others. Now, those things we call SIGNS are the antecedents of their consequents, and the consequents of their antecedents, as often as we observe them to go before or follow after in the same manner. For example, a thick cloud is a sign of rain to follow, and rain a sign that a cloud has gone before, for this reason only, that we seldom see clouds without the consequence of rain, nor rain at any time but when a cloud has gone before. And of signs, some are natural, whereof I have already given an example, others are arbitrary, namely, those we make choice of at our own pleasure, as a bush hung up, signifies that wine is to be sold there; a stone set in the ground signifies the bound of a field; and words so and so connected, signify the cogitations and motions of our mind. The difference, therefore, betwixt marks and signs is this, that we make those for our own use, but these for the use of others.

Names supply both those necessities.

3. Words so connected as that they become signs of our thoughts, are called SPEECH, of which every part is a name. But seeing (as is said) both marks and signs are necessary for the acquiring of philosophy, (marks by which we may remember our own thoughts, and signs by which we may make our thoughts known to others), names do both these offices; but they serve for marks before they be used as signs. For though a man were alone in the world, they would be useful to him in helping him to remember; but to teach others, (unless there were some others to be taught) of no use at all. Again, names, though standing singly by themselves, are marks, because they serve to recal our own thoughts to mind; but they cannot be signs, otherwise than by being disposed and ordered in speech as parts of the same. For example, a man may begin with a word, whereby the hearer may frame an idea of something in his mind, which, nevertheless, he cannot conceive to be the idea which was in the mind of him that spake, but that he would say something which began with that word, though perhaps not as by itself, but as part of another word. So that the nature of a name consists principally in this, that it is a mark taken for memory's sake; but it serves also by accident to signify and make known to others what we remember ourselves, and, therefore, I will define it thus:

Definition of a Name.

4. A NAME is a word taken at pleasure to serve for a mark, which may raise in our mind a thought like to some thought we had before, and which being pronounced to others, may be to them a sign of what thought the speaker had, or had not before in his mind. And it is for brevity's sake that I suppose the original of names to be arbitrary, judging it a thing that may be assumed as unquestionable. For considering that new names are daily made, and old ones laid aside; that diverse nations use different names, and how impossible it is either to observe similitude, or make any comparison betwixt a name and a thing, how can any man imagine that the names of things were imposed from their natures? For though some names of living creatures and other things, which our first parents used, were taught by God himself; yet they were by him arbitrarily imposed, and afterwards, both at the Tower of Babel, and since, in process of time, growing everywhere out of use, are quite forgotten, and in their room have succeeded others, invented and received by men at pleasure. Moreover, whatsoever the common use of words be, yet philosophers, who were to teach their knowledge to others, had always the liberty, and sometimes they both had and will have a necessity, of taking to themselves such names as they please for the signifying of their meaning, if they would have it understood. Nor had mathematicians need to ask leave of any but themselves to name the figures they invented, parabolas, hyperboles, cissoeides, quadratices, &c. or to call one magnitude A, another B.

Names are signs not of things, but of our cogitations.

5. But seeing names ordered in speech (as is defined) are signs of our conceptions, it is manifest they are not signs of the things themselves; for that the sound of this word stone should be the sign of a stone, cannot be understood in any sense but this, that he that hears it collects that he that pronounces it thinks of a stone. And, therefore, that disputation, whether names signify the matter or form, or something compounded of both, and other like subtleties of the metaphysics, is kept up by erring men, and such as understand not the words they dispute about.

What it is we give names to.

6. Nor, indeed, is it at all necessary that every name should be the name of something. For as these, a man, a tree, a stone, are the names of the things themselves, so the images of a man, of a tree, and of a stone, which are represented to men sleeping, have their names also, though they be not things, but only fictions and phantasms of things. For we can remember these; and, therefore, it is no less necessary that they have names to mark and signify them, than the things themselves. Also this word future is a name, but no future thing has yet any being, nor do we know whether that which we call future, shall ever have a being or no. Nevertheless, seeing we use in our mind to knit together things past with those that are present, the name future serves to signify such knitting together. Moreover, that which neither is, nor has been, nor ever shall, or ever can be, has a name, namely, that which neither is nor has been, &c.; or more briefly this, impossible. To conclude; this word nothing is a name, which yet cannot be the name of any thing: for when, for example, we substract 2 and 3 from 5, and so nothing remaining, we would call that substraction to mind, this speech nothing remains, and in it the word nothing is not unuseful. And for the same reason we say truly, less than nothing remains, when we substract more from less; for the mind feigns such remains as these for doctrine's sake, and desires, as often as is necessary, to call the same to memory. But seeing every name has some relation to that which is named, though that which we name be not always a thing that has a being in nature, yet it is lawful for doctrine's sake to apply the word thing to whatsoever we name; as if it were all one whether that thing be truly existent, or be only feigned.

Names Positive and Negative.

7. The first distinction of names is, that some are positive, or affirmative, others negative, which are also called privative and indefinite. Positive are such as we impose for the likeness, equality, or identity of the things we consider; negative, for the diversity, unlikeness, or inequality of the same. Examples of the former are, a man, a philosopher; for a man denotes any one of a multitude of men, and a philosopher, any one of many philosophers, by reason of their similitude; also, Socrates is a positive name, because it signifies always one and the same man. Examples of negatives are such positives as have the negative particle not added to them, as not-man, not-philosopher. But positives were before negatives; for otherwise there could have been no use at all of these. For when the name of white was imposed upon certain things, and afterwards upon other things, the names of black, blue, transparent, &c. the infinite dissimilitudes of these with white could not be comprehended in any one name, save that which had in it the negation of white, that is to say, the name not-white, or some other equivalent to it, in which the word white is repeated, such as unlike to white, &c. And by these negative names, we take notice ourselves, and signify to others what we have not thought of.

Contradictory names.

8. Positive and negative names are contradictory to one another, so that they cannot both be the name of the same thing. Besides, of contradictory names, one is the name of anything whatsoever; for whatsoever is, is either man, or not-man, white or not-white, and so of the rest. And this is so manifest, that it needs no farther proof or explication; for they that say the same thing cannot both be, and not be, speak obscurely; but they that say, whatsoever is, either is, or is not, speak also absurdly and ridiculously. The certainty of this axiom, viz. of two contradictory names, one is the name of anything whatsoever, the other not, is the original and foundation of all ratiocination, that is, of all philosophy; and therefore it ought to be so exactly propounded, that it may be of itself clear and perspicuous to all men; as indeed it is, saving to such, as reading the long discourses made upon this subject by the writers of metaphysics (which they believe to be some egregious learning) think they understand not, when they do.

A common name.

9. Secondly, of names, some are common to many things, as a man, a tree; others proper to one thing, as he that writ the Iliad, Homer, this man, that man. And a common name, being the name of many things severally taken, but not collectively of all together (as man is not the name of all mankind, but of every one, as of Peter, John, and the rest severally) is therefore called an universal name; and therefore this word universal is never the name of any thing existent in nature, nor of any idea or phantasm formed in the mind, but always the name of some word or name; so that when a living creature, a stone, a spirit, or any other thing, is said to be universal, it is not to be understood, that any man, stone, &c. ever was or can be universal, but only that these words, living creature, stone, &c. are universal names, that is, names common to many things; and the conceptions answering them in our mind, are the images and phantasms of several living creatures, or other things. And therefore, for the understanding of the extent of an universal name, we need no other faculty but that of our imagination, by which we remember that such names bring sometimes one thing, sometimes another, into our mind. Also of common names, some are more, some less common. More common, is that which is the name of more things; less common, the name of fewer things; as living creature is more common than man, or horse, or lion, because it comprehends them all: and therefore a more common name, in respect of a less common, is called the genus, or a general name; and this in respect of that, the species, or a special name.

Names of the first and second intention.

10. And from hence proceeds the third distinction of names, which is, that some are called names of the first, others of the second intention. Of the first intention are the names of things, a man, stone, &c.: of the second are the names of names and speeches, as universal, particular, genus, species, syllogism, and the like. But it is hard to say why those are called names of the first, and these of the second intention, unless perhaps it was first intended by us to give names to those things which are of daily use in this life, and afterwards to such things as appertain to science, that is, that our second intention was to give names to names. But whatsoever the cause hereof may be, yet this is manifest, that genus, species, definition, &c. are names of words and names only; and therefore to put genus and species for things, and definition for the nature of any thing, as the writers of metaphysics have done, is not right, seeing they be only significations of what we think of the nature of things.

Universal, particular, individual, and indefinite names.

11. Fourthly, some names are of certain and determined, others of uncertain and undetermined signification. Of determined and certain signification is, first, that name which is given to any one thing by itself, and is called an individual name; as Homer, this tree, that living creature, &c. Secondly that which has any of these words, all, every, both, either, or the like added to it; and it is therefore called an universal name, because it signifies every one of those things to which it is common; and of certain signification for this reason, that he which hears, conceives in his mind the same thing that he which speaks would have him conceive. Of indefinite signification is, first, that name which has the word some, or the like added to it, and is called a particular name; secondly, a common name set by itself without any note either of universality or particularity, as man, stone, and is called an indefinite name; but both particular and indefinite names are of uncertain signification, because the hearer knows not what thing it is the speaker would have him conceive; and therefore in speech, particular and indefinite names are to be esteemed equivalent to one another. But these words, all, every, some, &c. which denote universality and particularity, are not names, but parts only of names; so that every man, and that man which the hearer conceives in his mind, are all one; and some man, and that man which the speaker thought of, signify the same. From whence it is evident, that the use of signs of this kind, is not for a man's own sake, or for his getting of knowledge by his own private meditation (for every man has his own thoughts sufficiently determined without such helps as these) but for the sake of others; that is, for the teaching and signifying of our conceptions to others; nor were they invented only to make us remember, but to make us able to discourse with others.

Names univocal and equivocal.

12. Fifthly, names are usually distinguished into univocal and equivocal. Univocal are those which in the same train of discourse signify always the same thing; but equivocal those which mean sometimes one thing and sometimes another. Thus, the name triangle is said to be univocal, because it is always taken in the same sense; and parabola to be equivocal, for the signification it has sometimes of allegory or similitude, and sometimes of a certain geometrical figure. Also every metaphor is by profession equivocal. But this distinction belongs not so much to names, as to those that use names, for some use them properly and accurately for the finding out of truth; others draw them from their proper sense, for ornament or deceit.

Absolute and relative names.

13. Sixthly, of names, some are absolute, others relative. Relative are such as are imposed for some comparison, as father, son, cause, effect, like, unlike, equal, unequal, master, servant, &c. And those that signify no comparison at all are absolute names. But, as it was noted above, that universality is to be attributed to words and names only, and not to things, so the same is to be said of other distinctions of names; for no things are either univocal or equivocal, or relative or absolute. There is also another distinction of names into concrete and abstract; but because abstract names proceed from proposition, and can have no place where there is no affirmation, I shall speak of them hereafter.

Simple and compounded names.

14. Lastly, there are simple and compounded names. But here it is to be noted, that a name is not taken in philosophy, as in grammar, for one single word, but for any number of words put together to signify one thing; for among philosophers sentient animated body passes but for one name, being the name of every living creature, which yet, among grammarians, is accounted three names. Also a simple name is not here distinguished from a compounded name by a preposition, as in grammar. But I call a simple name, that which in every kind is the most common or most universal; and that a compounded name, which by the joining of another name to it, is made less universal, and signifies that more conceptions than one were in the mind, for which that latter name was added. For example, in the conception of man (as is shown in the former chapter.) First, he is conceived to be something that has extension, which is marked by the word body. Body, therefore, is a simple name, being put for that first single conception; afterwards, upon the sight of such and such motion, another conception arises, for which he is called an animated body; and this I here call a compounded name, as I do also the name animal, which is equivalent to an animated body. And, in the same manner, an animated rational body, as also a man, which is equivalent to it, is a more compounded name. And by this we see how the composition of conceptions in the mind is answerable to the composition of names; for, as in the mind one idea or phantasm succeeds to another, and to this a third; so to one name is added another and another successively, and of them all is made one compounded name. Nevertheless we must not think bodies which are without the mind, are compounded in the same manner, namely, that there is in nature a body, or any other imaginable thing existent, which at the first has no magnitude, and then, by the addition of magnitude, comes to have quantity, and by more or less quantity to have density or rarity; and again, by the addition of figure, to be figurate, and after this, by the injection of light or colour, to become lucid or coloured; though such has been the philosophy of many.

A predicament described.

15. The writers of logic have endeavoured to digest the names of all the kinds of things into certain scales or degrees, by the continual subordination of names less common, to names more common. In the scale of bodies they put in the first and highest place body simply, and in the next place under it less common names, by which it may be more limited and determined, namely animated and inanimated, and so on till they come to individuals. In like manner, in the scale of quantities, they assign the first place to quantity, and the next to line, superficies, and solid, which are names of less latitude; and these orders or scales of names they usually call predicaments and categories. And of this ordination not only positive, but negative names also are capable; which may be exemplified by such forms of the predicaments as follow:

The Form of the Predicament of Body.

Not-Body, or
Accident.
		Not animated.
Body				Not living Creature.
		Animated
				Living		Not Man.
				Creature				Not Peter.
						Man
								Peter.

				Quantity, or so much.
Both Accident and Body		Absolutely, as
are considered		or		Quality, or such.
		Comparatively, which is called their Relation.

The Form of the Predicament of Quantity.

		Not continual,
		as Number.				Line.
Quantity.				Of itself, as		Superficies.
						Solid.
		Continual
						Time, by Line.
						Motion, by Line and
				By accident, as		Time.
						Force, by Motion and
						Solid.

Where, it is to be noted, that line, superficies, and solid, may be said to be of such and such quantity, that is, to be originally and of their own nature capable of equality and inequality; but we cannot say there is either majority or minority, or equality, or indeed any quantity at all, in time, without the help of line and motion; nor in motion, without line and time; nor in force, otherwise than by motion and solid.

The Form of the Predicament of Quality.

						Seeing.
						Hearing.
				Primary		Smelling.
						Tasting.
		Perception				Touching.
		by Sense
						Imagination.
				Secondary		Affection		pleasant.
Quality								unpleasant.
				By Seeing, as Light and Colour.
				By Hearing, as Sound.
		Sensible		By Smelling, as Odours.
		Quality		By Tasting, as Savours.
				By Touching, as Hardness, Heat,
				Cold, &c.

The Form of the Predicament of Relation.

		Magnitudes, as Equality and Inequality.
		Qualities, as Likeness and Unlikeness.
Relation of				Together		In Place.
						In Time.
		Order
						In Place		Former.
				Not together				Later
						In Time		Former.
								Later

Some things to be noted concerning predicaments.

16. Concerning which predicaments it is to be noted, in the first place, that as the division is made in the first predicament into contradictory names, so it might have been done in the rest. For, as there, body is divided into animated and not-animated, so, in the second predicament, continual quantity may be divided into line and not-line, and again, not-line into superficies and not-superficies, and so in the rest; but it was not necessary.

Secondly, it is to be observed, that of positive names the former comprehends the latter; but of negatives the former is comprehended by the latter. For example, living-creature is the name of every man, and therefore it comprehends the name man; but, on the contrary, not-man is the name of everything which is not-living-creature, and therefore the name not-living-creature, which is put first, is comprehended by the latter name, not-man.

Thirdly, we must take heed that we do not think, that as names, so the diversities of things themselves may be searched out and determined by such distinctions as these; or that arguments may be taken from hence (as some have done ridiculously) to prove that the kinds of things are not infinite.

Fourthly, I would not have any man think I deliver the forms above for a true and exact ordination of names; for this cannot be performed as long as philosophy remains imperfect; nor that by placing (for example) light in the predicament of qualities, while another places the same in the predicament of bodies, I pretend that either of us ought for this to be drawn from his opinion; for this is to be done only by arguments and ratiocination, and not by disposing of words into classes.

Lastly, I confess I have not yet seen any great use of the predicaments in philosophy. I believe Aristotle when he saw he could not digest the things themselves into such orders, might nevertheless desire out of his own authority to reduce words to such forms, as I have done; but I do it only for this end, that it may be understood what this ordination of words is, and not to have it received for true, till it be demonstrated by good reason to be so.

CHAPTER III.
OF PROPOSITION.

[1.] Divers kinds of speech.—[2.] Proposition defined.—[3.] Subject, predicate, and copula, what they are; and abstract and concrete what. [4.] The use and abuse of names abstract.—[5.] Proposition, universal and particular.—[6.] Affirmative and negative.—[7.] True and false.—[8.] True and false belongs to speech, and not to things.—[9.] Proposition, primary, not primary, definition, axiom, petition.—[10.] Proposition, necessary and contingent.—[11.] Categorical and hypothetical.—[12.] The same proposition diversely pronounced.—[13.] Propositions that may be reduced to the same categorical proposition, are equipollent.—[14.] Universal propositions converted by contradictory names, are equipollent.—[15.] Negative propositions are the same, whether negation be before or after the copula.—[16.] Particular propositions simply converted, are equipollent.—[17.] What are subaltern, contrary, subcontrary, and contradictory propositions.—[18.] Consequence, what it is.—[19.] Falsity cannot follow from truth.—[20.] How one proposition is the cause of another.

Divers kinds of speech.

1. From the connexion or contexture of names arise divers kinds of speech, whereof some signify the desires and affections of men; such are, first, interrogations, which denote the desire of knowing: as, Who is a good man? In which speech there is one name expressed, and another desired and expected from him of whom we ask the same. Then prayers, which signify the desire of having something; promises, threats, wishes, commands, complaints, and other significations of other affections. Speech may also be absurd and insignificant; as when there is a succession of words, to which there can be no succession of thoughts in mind to answer them; and this happens often to such, as, understanding nothing in some subtle matter, do, nevertheless, to make others believe they understand, speak of the same incoherently; for the connection of incoherent words, though it want the end of speech (which is signification) yet it is speech; and is used by writers of metaphysics almost as frequently as speech significative. In philosophy, there is but one kind of speech useful, which some call in Latin dictum, others enuntiatum et pronunciatum; but most men call it proposition, and is the speech of those that affirm or deny, and expresseth truth or falsity.

Proposition defined.

2. A PROPOSITION is a speech consisting of two names copulated, by which he that speaketh signifies he conceives the latter name to be the name of the same thing whereof the former is the name; or (which is all one) that the former name is comprehended by the latter. For example, this speech, man is a living creature, in which two names are copulated by the verb is, is a proposition, for this reason, that he that speaks it conceives both living creature and man to be names of the same thing, or that the former name, man, is comprehended by the latter name, living creature. Now the former name is commonly called the subject, or antecedent, or the contained name, and the latter predicate, consequent, or containing name. The sign of connection amongst most nations is either some word, as the word is in the proposition man is a living creature, or some case or termination of a word, as in this proposition, man walketh (which is equivalent to this, man is walking); the termination by which it is said he walketh, rather than he is walking, signifieth that those two are understood to be copulated, or to be names of the same thing.

But there are, or certainly may be, some nations that have no word which answers to our verb is, who nevertheless form propositions by the position only of one name after another, as if instead of man is a living creature, it should be said man a living creature; for the very order of the names may sufficiently show their connection; and they are as apt and useful in philosophy, as if they were copulated by the verb is.

Subject, predicate, and copula, what they are, and abstract and concrete what.

3. Wherefore, in every proposition three things are to be considered, viz. the two names, which are the subject, and the predicate, and their copulation; both which names raise in our mind the thought of one and the same thing; but the copulation makes us think of the cause for which those names were imposed on that thing. As, for example, when we say a body is moveable, though we conceive the same thing to be designed by both those names, yet our mind rests not there, but searches farther what it is to be a body, or to be moveable, that is, wherein consists the difference betwixt these and other things, for which these are so called, others are not so called. They, therefore, that seek what it is to be any thing, as to be moveable, to be hot, &c. seek in things the causes of their names.

And from hence arises that distinction of names (touched in the last chapter) into concrete and abstract. For concrete is the name of any thing which we suppose to have a being, and is therefore called the subject, in Latin suppositum, and in Greek ὑποκέιμενον; as body, moveable, moved, figurate, a cubit high, hot, cold, like, equal, Appius, Lentulus, and the like; and, abstract is that which in any subject denotes the cause of the concrete name, as to be a body, to be moveable, to be moved, to be figurate, to be of such quantity, to be hot, to be cold, to be like, to be equal, to be Appius, to be Lentulus, &c. Or names equivalent to these, which are most commonly called abstract names, as corporiety, mobility, motion, figure, quantity, heat, cold, likeness, equality, and (as Cicero has it) Appiety and Lentulity. Of the same kind also are infinitives; for to live and to move are the same with life and motion, or to be living and to be moved. But abstract names denote only the causes of concrete names, and not the things themselves. For example, when we see any thing, or conceive in our mind any visible thing, that thing appears to us, or is conceived by us, not in one point, but as having parts distant from one another, that is, as being extended and filling some space. Seeing therefore we call the thing so conceived body, the cause of that name is, that that thing is extended, or the extension or corporiety of it. So when we see a thing appear sometimes here, sometimes there, and call it moved or removed, the cause of that name is that it is moved or the motion of the same.

And these causes of names are the same with the causes of our conceptions, namely, some power of action, or affection of the thing conceived, which some call the manner by which any thing works upon our senses, but by most men they are called accidents; I say accidents, not in that sense in which accident is opposed to necessary; but so, as being neither the things themselves, nor parts thereof, do nevertheless accompany the things in such manner, that (saving extension) they may all perish, and be destroyed, but can never be abstracted.

The use and abuse of names abstract.

4. There is also this difference betwixt concrete and abstract names, that those were invented before propositions, but these after; for these could have no being till there were propositions, from whose copula they proceed. Now in all matters that concern this life, but chiefly in philosophy, there is both great use and great abuse of abstract names; and the use consists in this, that without them we cannot, for the most part, either reason, or compute the properties of bodies; for when we would multiply, divide, add, or substract heat, light, or motion, if we should double or add them together by concrete names, saying (for example) hot is double to hot, light double to light, or moved double to moved, we should not double the properties, but the bodies themselves that are hot, light, moved, &c. which we would not do. But the abuse proceeds from this, that some men seeing they can consider, that is (as I said before) bring into account the increasings and decreasings of quantity, heat and other accidents, without considering their bodies or subjects (which they call abstracting, or making to exist apart by themselves) they speak of accidents, as if they might be separated from all bodies. And from hence proceed the gross errors of writers of metaphysics; for, because they can consider thought without the consideration of body, they infer there is no need of a thinking-body; and because quantity may be considered without considering body, they think also that quantity may be without body, and body without quantity; and that a body has quantity by the addition of quantity to it. From the same fountain spring those insignificant words, abstract substance, separated essence, and the like; as also that confusion of words derived from the Latin verb est, as essence, essentiality, entity, entitative; besides reality, aliquiddity, quiddity, &c. which could never have been heard of among such nations as do not copulate their names by the verb is, but by adjective verbs, as runneth, readeth, &c. or by the mere placing of one name after another; and yet seeing such nations compute and reason, it is evident that philosophy has no need of those words essence, entity, and other the like barbarous terms.

Proposition, universal and particular.

5. There are many distinctions of propositions, whereof the first is, that some are universal, others particular, others indefinite, and others singular; and this is commonly called the distinction of quantity. An universal proposition is that whose subject is affected with the sign of an universal name, as every man is a living creature. Particular, that whose subject is affected with the sign of a particular name, as some man is learned. An indefinite proposition has for its subject a common name, and put without any sign, as man is a living creature, man is learned. And a singular proposition is that whose subject is a singular name, as Socrates is a philosopher, this man is black.

Affirmative and negative.

6. The second distinction is into affirmative and negative, and is called the distinction of quality. An affirmative proposition is that whose predicate is a positive name, as man is a living creature. Negative, that whose predicate is a negative name, as man is not a stone.

True & false.

7. The third distinction is, that one is true, another false. A true proposition is that, whose predicate contains, or comprehends its subject, or whose predicate is the name of every thing, of which the subject is the name; as man is a living creature is therefore a true proposition, because whatsoever is called man, the same is also called living creature; and some man is sick, is true, because sick is the name of some man. That which is not true, or that whose predicate does not contain its subject, is called a false proposition, as man is a stone.

Now these words true, truth, and true proposition, are equivalent to one another; for truth consists in speech, and not in the things spoken of; and though true be sometimes opposed to apparent or feigned, yet it is always to be referred to the truth of proposition; for the image of a man in a glass, or a ghost, is therefore denied to be a very man, because this proposition, a ghost is a man, is not true; for it cannot be denied but that a ghost is a very ghost. And therefore truth or verity is not any affection of the thing, but of the proposition concerning it. As for that which the writers of metaphysics say, that a thing, one thing, and a very thing, are equivalent to one another, it is but trifling and childish; for who does not know, that a man, one man, and a very man, signify the same.

True & false belongs to speech, and not to things.

8. And from hence it is evident, that truth and falsity have no place but amongst such living creatures as use speech. For though some brute creatures, looking upon the image of a man in a glass, may be affected with it, as if it were the man himself, and for this reason fear it or fawn upon it in vain; yet they do not apprehend it as true or false, but only as like; and in this they are not deceived. Wherefore, as men owe all their true ratiocination to the right understanding of speech; so also they owe their errors to the misunderstanding of the same; and as all the ornaments of philosophy proceed only from man, so from man also is derived the ugly absurdity of false opinions. For speech has something in it like to a spider's web, (as it was said of old of Solon's laws) for by contexture of words tender and delicate wits are ensnared and stopped; but strong wits break easily through them.

From hence also this may be deduced, that the first truths were arbitrarily made by those that first of all imposed names upon things, or received them from the imposition of others. For it is true (for example) that man is a living creature, but it is for this reason, that it pleased men to impose both those names on the same thing.

Proposition, primary, not primary, definition, axiom, petition.

9. Fourthly, propositions are distinguished into primary and not primary. Primary is that wherein the subject is explicated by a predicate of many names, as man is a body, animated, rational; for that which is comprehended in the name man, is more largely expressed in the names body, animated, and rational, joined together; and it is called primary, because it is first in ratiocination; for nothing can be proved, without understanding first the name of the thing in question. Now primary propositions are nothing but definitions, or parts of definitions, and these only are the principles of demonstration, being truths constituted arbitrarily by the inventors of speech, and therefore not to be demonstrated. To these propositions, some have added others, which they call primary and principles, namely, axioms, and common notions; which, (though they be so evident that they need no proof) yet, because they may be proved, are not truly principles; and the less to be received for such, in regard propositions not intelligible, and sometimes manifestly false, are thrust on us under the name of principles by the clamour of men, who obtrude for evident to others, all that they themselves think true. Also certain petitions are commonly received into the number of principles; as, for example, that a straight line may be drawn between two points, and other petitions of the writers of geometry; and these are indeed the principles of art or construction, but not of science and demonstration.

Proposition necessary & contingent.

10. Fifthly, propositions are distinguished into necessary, that is, necessarily true; and true, but not necessarily, which they call contingent. A necessary proposition is when nothing can at any time be conceived or feigned, whereof the subject is the name, but the predicate also is the name of the same thing; as man is a living creature is a necessary proposition, because at what time soever we suppose the name man agrees with any thing, at that time the name living-creature also agrees with the same. But a contingent proposition is that, which at one time may be true, at another time false; as every crow is black; which may perhaps be true now, but false hereafter. Again, in every necessary proposition, the predicate is either equivalent to the subject, as in this, man is a rational living creature; or part of an equivalent name, as in this, man is a living creature, for the name rational-living-creature, or man, is compounded of these two, rational and living-creature. But in a contingent proposition this cannot be; for though this were true, every man is a liar, yet because the word liar is no part of a compounded name equivalent to the name man, that proposition is not to be called necessary, but contingent, though it should happen to be true always. And therefore those propositions only are necessary, which are of sempiternal truth, that is, true at all times. From hence also it is manifest, that truth adheres not to things, but to speech only, for some truths are eternal; for it will be eternally true, if man, then living-creature; but that any man, or living-creature, should exist eternally, is not necessary.

Categorical & hypothetical.

11. A sixth distinction of propositions is into categorical and hypothetical. A categorical proposition is that which is simply or absolutely pronounced, as every man is a living-creature, no man is a tree; and hypothetical is that which is pronounced conditionally, as, if any thing be a man, the same is also a living-creature, if anything be a man, the same is also not-a-stone.

A categorical proposition, and an hypothetical answering it, do both signify the same, if the propositions be necessary; but not if they be contingent. For example, if this, every man is a living-creature, be true, this also will be true, if any thing be a man, the same is also a living-creature; but in contingent propositions, though this be true, every crow is black, yet this, if any thing be a crow, the same is black, is false. But an hypothetical proposition is then rightly said to be true, when the consequence is true, as every man is a living-creature, is rightly said to be a true proposition, because of whatsoever it is truly said that is a man, it cannot but be truly said also, the same is a living creature. And therefore whensoever an hypothetical proposition is true, the categorical answering it, is not only true, but also necessary; which I thought worth the noting, as an argument, that philosophers may in most things reason more solidly by hypothetical than categorical propositions.

The same proposition diversely pronounced.

12. But seeing every proposition may be, and uses to be, pronounced and written in many forms, and we are obliged to speak in the same manner as most men speak, yet they that learn philosophy from masters, had need to take heed they be not deceived by the variety of expressions. And therefore, whensoever they meet with any obscure proposition, they ought to reduce it to its most simple and categorical form; in which the copulative word is must be expressed by itself, and not mingled in any manner either with the subject or predicate, both which must be separated and clearly distinguished one from another. For example, if this proposition, man can not sin, be compared with this, man cannot sin, their difference will easily appear if they be reduced to these, man is able not to sin, and, man is not able to sin, where the predicates are manifestly different. But they ought to do this silently by themselves, or betwixt them and their masters only; for it will be thought both ridiculous and absurd, for a man to use such language publicly. Being therefore to speak of equipollent propositions, I put in the first place all those for equipollent, that may be reduced purely to one and the same categorical proposition.

Propositions that may be reduced to the same categorical proposition, are equipollent.

13. Secondly, that which is categorical and necessary, is equipollent to its hypothetical proposition; as this categorical, a right-lined triangle has its three angles equal to two right angles, to this hypothetical, if any figure be a right-lined triangle, the three angles of it are equal to two right angles.

Universal propositions converted by contradictory names, are equipollent.

14. Also, any two universal propositions, of which the terms of the one (that is, the subject and predicate) are to the terms of the other, and their order inverted, as these, every man is a living creature, and every thing that is not a living-creature is not a man, are equipollent. For seeing every man is a living creature is a true proposition, the name living creature contains the name man; but they are both positive names, and therefore (by the last article of the precedent chapter) the negative name not man, contains the negative name not living-creature; wherefore every thing that is not a living-creature, is not a man, is a true proposition. Likewise these, no man is a tree, no tree is a man, are equipollent. For if it be true that tree is not the name of any man, then no one thing can be signified by the two names man and tree, wherefore no tree is a man is a true proposition. Also to this, whatsoever is not a living-creature is not a man, where both the terms are negative, this other proposition is equipollent, only a living creature is a man.

Negative propositions are the same, whether the negation be before or after the copula.

15. Fourthly, negative propositions, whether the particle of negation be set after the copula as some nations do, or before it, as it is in Latin and Greek, if the terms be the same, are equipollent: as, for example, man is not a tree, and, man is not-a-tree, are equipollent, though Aristotle deny it. Also these, every man is not a tree, and no man is a tree, are equipollent, and that so manifestly, as it needs not be demonstrated.

Particular propositions simply converted, are equipollent.

16. Lastly, all particular propositions that have their terms inverted, as these, some man is blind, some blind thing is a man, are equipollent; for either of the two names, is the name of some one and the same man; and therefore in which soever of the two orders they be connected, they signify the same truth.

What are subaltern, contrary, subcontrary, and contradictory propositions.

17. Of propositions that have the same terms, and are placed in the same order, but varied either by quantity or quality, some are called subaltern, others contrary, others subcontrary, and others contradictory.

Subaltern, are universal and particular propositions of the same quality; as, every man is a living creature, some man is a living creature; or, no man is wise, some man is not wise. Of these, if the universal be true, the particular will be true also.

Contrary, are universal propositions of different quality; as, every man is happy, no man is happy. And of these, if one be true, the other is false: also, they may both be false, as in the example given.

Subcontrary, are particular propositions of different quality; as, some man is learned, some man is not learned; which cannot be both false, but they may be both true.

Contradictory are those that differ both in quantity and quality; as, every man is a living creature, some man is not a living-creature; which can neither be both true, nor both false.

Consequence, what it is.

18. A proposition is said to follow from two other propositions, when these being granted to be true, it cannot be denied but the other is true also. For example, let these two propositions, every man is a living creature, and, every living creature is a body, be supposed true, that is, that body is the name of every living creature, and living creature the name of every man. Seeing therefore, if these be understood to be true, it cannot be understood that body is not the name of every man, that is, that every man is a body is false, this proposition will be said to follow from those two, or to be necessarily inferred from them.

Falsity cannot follow from truth.

19. That a true proposition may follow from false propositions, may happen sometimes; but false from true, never. For if these, every man is a stone, and every stone is a living creature, (which are both false) be granted to be true, it is granted also that living creature is the name of every stone, and stone of every man, that is, that living creature is the name of every man; that is to say, this proposition every man is a living creature, is true, as it is indeed true. Wherefore a true proposition may sometimes follow from false. But if any two propositions be true, a false one can never follow from them. For if true follow from false, for this reason only, that the false are granted to be true, then truth from two truths granted will follow in the same manner.

How one proposition is the cause of another.

20. Now, seeing none but a true proposition will follow from true, and that the understanding of two propositions to be true, is the cause of understanding that also to be true which is deduced from them; the two antecedent propositions are commonly called the causes of the inferred proposition, or conclusion. And from hence it is that logicians say, the premises are causes of the conclusion; which may pass, though it be not properly spoken; for though understanding be the cause of understanding, yet speech is not the cause of speech. But when they say, the cause of the properties of any thing, is the thing itself, they speak absurdly. For example, if a figure be propounded which is triangular; seeing every triangle has all its angles together equal to two right angles, from whence it follows that all the angles of that figure are equal to two right angles, they say, for this reason, that that figure is the cause of that equality. But seeing the figure does not itself make its angles, and therefore cannot be said to be the efficient-cause, they call it the formal-cause; whereas indeed it is no cause at all; nor does the property of any figure follow the figure, but has its being at the same time with it; only the knowledge of the figure goes before the knowledge of the properties; and one knowledge is truly the cause of another knowledge, namely the efficient cause.

And thus much concerning proposition; which in the progress of philosophy is the first step, like the moving towards of one foot. By the due addition of another step I shall proceed to syllogism, and make a complete pace. Of which in the next chapter.

CHAPTER IV.
OF SYLLOGISM.

[1.] The definition of syllogism.—[2.] In a syllogism there are but three terms.—[3.] Major, minor, and middle term; also major and minor proposition, what they are.—[4.] The middle term in every syllogism ought to be determined in both the propositions to one and the same thing.—[5.] From two particular propositions nothing can be concluded.—[6.] A syllogism is the collection of two propositions into one sum.—[7.] The figure of a syllogism, what it is.—[8.] What is in the mind answering to a syllogism.—[9.] The first indirect figure, how it is made.—[10.] The second indirect figure, how made.—[11.] How the third indirect figure is made.—[12.] There are many moods in every figure, but most of them useless in philosophy.—[13.] An hypothetical syllogism when equipollent to a categorical.

Definition of syllogism.

1. A SPEECH, consisting of three propositions, from two of which the third follows, is called a SYLLOGISM; and that which follows is called the conclusion; the other two premises. For example, this speech, every man is a living creature, every living creature is a body, therefore, every man is a body, is a syllogism, because the third proposition follows from the two first; that is, if those be granted to be true, this must also be granted to be true.

In a syllogism there are but three terms.

2. From two propositions which have not one term common, no conclusion can follow; and therefore no syllogism can be made of them. For let any two premises, a man is a living creature, a tree is a plant, be both of them true, yet because it cannot be collected from them that plant is the name of a man, or man the name of a plant, it is not necessary that this conclusion, a man is a plant, should be true. Corollary: therefore, in the premises of a syllogism there can be but three terms.

Besides, there can be no term in the conclusion, which was not in the premises. For let any two premises be, a man is a living creature, a living creature is a body, yet if any other term be put in the conclusion, as man is two-footed; though it be true, it cannot follow from the premises, because from them it cannot be collected, that the name two-footed belongs to a man; and therefore, again, in every syllogism there can be but three terms.

Major, minor and middle term; also major and minor proposition, what they are.

3. Of these terms, that which is the predicate in the conclusion, is commonly called the major; that which is the subject in the conclusion, the minor, and the other is the middle term; as in this syllogism, a man is a living creature, a living creature is a body, therefore, a man is a body, body is the major, man the minor, and living creature the middle term. Also of the premises, that in which the major term is found, is called the major proposition, and that which has the minor term, the minor proposition.

The middle term in every syllogism to be determined in both propositions to one and the same thing.

4. If the middle term be not in both the premises determined to one and the same singular thing, no conclusion will follow, nor syllogism be made. For let the minor term be man, the middle term living creature, and the major term lion; and let the premises be, man is a living creature, some living creature is a lion, yet it will not follow that every or any man is a lion. By which it is manifest, that in every syllogism, that proposition which has the middle term for its subject, ought to be either universal or singular, but not particular nor indefinite. For example, this syllogism, every man is a living creature, some living creature is four-footed, therefore some man is four-footed, is therefore faulty, because the middle term, living creature, is in the first of the premises determined only to man, for there the name of living creature is given to man only, but in the latter premise it may be understood of some other living creature besides man. But if the latter premise had been universal, as here, every man is a living creature, every living creature is a body, therefore every man is a body, the syllogism had been true; for it would have followed that body had been the name of every living creature, that is of man; that is to say, the conclusion every man is a body had been true. Likewise, when the middle term is a singular name, a syllogism may be made, I say a true syllogism, though useless in philosophy, as this, some man is Socrates, Socrates is a philosopher, therefore, some man is a philosopher; for the premises being granted, the conclusion cannot be denied.

From two particular propositions nothing can be concluded.

5. And therefore of two premises, in both which the middle term is particular, a syllogism cannot be made; for whether the middle term be the subject in both the premises, or the predicate in both, or the subject in one, and the predicate in the other, it will not be necessarily determined to the same thing. For let the premises be,

Some man is blind,		In both which the middle
Some man is learned,		term is the subject,

it will not follow that blind is the name of any learned man, or learned the name of any blind man, seeing the name learned does not contain the name blind, nor this that; and therefore it is not necessary that both should be names of the same man. So from these premises,

Every man is a living-creature,		In both which the middle
Every horse is a living-creature,		term is the predicate,

nothing will follow. For seeing living creature is in both of them indefinite, which is equivalent to particular, and that man may be one kind of living creature, and horse another kind, it is not necessary that man should be the name of horse, or horse of man. Or if the premises be,

Every man is a living-creature, Some living creature is four-footed,		In one of which the middle-term
		is the subject, and in the
		other the predicate,

the conclusion will not follow, because the name living creature being not determined, it may in one of them be understood of man, in the other of not-man.

A syllogism is the collection of two propositions into one sum.

6. Now it is manifest from what has been said, that a syllogism is nothing but a collection of the sum of two propositions, joined together by a common term, which is called the middle term. And as proposition is the addition of two names, so syllogism is the adding together of three.

The figure of a syllogism what it is.

7. Syllogisms are usually distinguished according to their diversity of figures, that is, by the diverse position of the middle term. And again in figure there is a distinction of certain moods, which consist of the differences of propositions in quantity and quality. The first figure is that, in which the terms are placed one after another according to their latitude of signification; in which order the minor term is first, the middle term next, and the major last; as, if the minor term be man, the middle term, living creature, and the major term, body, then, man is a living-creature, is a body, will be a syllogism in the first figure: in which, man is a living creature is the minor proposition; the major, living creature is a body, and the conclusion, or sum of both, man is a body. Now this figure is called direct, because the terms stand in direct order; and it is varied by quantity and quality into four moods: of which the first is that wherein all the terms are positive, and the minor term universal, as every man is a living creature, every living creature is a body: in which all the propositions are affirmative, and universal. But if the major term be a negative name, and the minor an universal name, the figure will be in the second mood, as, every man is a living creature, every living creature is not a tree, in which the major proposition and conclusion are both universal and negative. To these two, are commonly added two more, by making the minor term particular. Also it may happen that both the major and middle terms are negative terms, and then there arises another mood, in which all the propositions are negative, and yet the syllogism will be good; as, if the minor term be man, the middle term not a stone, and the major term not a flint, this syllogism, no man is a stone, whatsoever is not a stone is not a flint, therefore, no man is a flint, is true, though it consist of three negatives. But in philosophy, the profession whereof is to establish universal rules concerning the properties of things, seeing the difference betwixt negatives and affirmatives is only this, that in the former the subject is affirmed by a negative name, and by a positive in the latter, it is superfluous to consider any other mood in direct figure, besides that, in which all the propositions are both universal and affirmative.

What is in the mind answering to a syllogism.

8. The thoughts in the mind answering to a direct syllogism, proceed in this manner; first, there is conceived a phantasm of the thing named, with that accident or quality thereof, for which it is in the minor proposition called by that name which is the subject; next, the mind has a phantasm of the same thing with that accident, or quality, for which it hath the name, that in the same proposition is the predicate; thirdly, the thought returns of the same thing as having that accident in it, for which it is called by the name, that is the predicate of the major proposition; and lastly, remembering that all those are the accidents of one and the same thing, it concludes that those three names are also names of one and the same thing; that is to say, the conclusion is true. For example, when this syllogism is made, man is a living creature, a living creature is a body, therefore, man is a body, the mind conceives first an image of a man speaking or discoursing, and remembers that that, which so appears, is called man; then it has the image of the same man moving, and remembers that that, which appears so, is called living creature; thirdly, it conceives an image of the same man, as filling some place or space, and remembers that what appears so is called body; and lastly, when it remembers that that thing, which was extended, and moved and spake, was one and the same thing, it concludes that the three names, man, living creature, and body, are names of the same thing, and that therefore man is a living creature is a true proposition. From whence it is manifest, that living creatures that have not the use of speech, have no conception or thought in the mind, answering to a syllogism made of universal propositions; seeing it is necessary to think not only of the thing, but also by turns to remember the divers names, which for divers considerations thereof are applied to the same.

The first indirect figure how made.

9. The rest of the figures arise either from the inflexion, or inversion of the first or direct figure; which is done by changing the major, or minor, or both the propositions, into converted propositions equipollent to them.

From whence follow three other figures; of which, two are inflected, and the third inverted. The first of these three is made by the conversion of the major proposition. For let the minor, middle, and major terms stand in direct order, thus, man is a living creature, is not a stone, which is the first or direct figure; the inflection will be by converting the major proposition in this manner, man is a living creature, a stone is not a living creature; and this is the second figure, or the first of the indirect figures; in which the conclusion will be, man is not a stone. For (having shown in the last chapter, [art. 14], that universal propositions, converted by contradiction of the terms, are equipollent) both those syllogisms conclude alike; so that if the major be read (like Hebrew) backwards, thus, a living creature is not a stone, it will be direct again, as it was before. In like manner this direct syllogism, man is not a tree, is not a pear-tree, will be made indirect by converting the major proposition (by contradiction of the terms) into another equipollent to it, thus, man is not a tree, a pear-tree is a tree; for the same conclusion will follow, man is not a pear-tree.

But for the conversion of the direct figure into the first indirect figure, the major term in the direct figure ought to be negative. For though this direct, man is a living creature, is a body, be made indirect, by converting the major proposition, thus,

Man is a living creature,

Not a body is not a living creature,

Therefore, Every man is a body;

Yet this conversion appears so obscure, that this mood is of no use at all. By the conversion of the major proposition, it is manifest, that in this figure, the middle term is always the predicate in both the premises.

Second indirect figure how made.

10. The second indirect figure is made by converting the minor proposition, so as that the middle term is the subject in both. But this never concludes universally, and therefore is of no use in philosophy. Nevertheless I will set down an example of it; by which this direct

Every man is a living creature,

Every living creature is a body,

by conversion of the minor proposition, will stand thus,

Some living creature is a man,

Every living creature is a body,

Therefore, Some man is a body.

For every man is[man is] a living creature cannot be converted into this, every living creature is a man: and therefore if this syllogism be restored to its direct form, the minor proposition will be some man is a living creature, and consequently the conclusion will be some man is a body, seeing the minor term man, which is the subject in the conclusion, is a particular name.

How the third indirect figure is made.

11. The third indirect or inverted figure, is made by the conversion of both the premises. For example, this direct syllogism,

Every man is a living creature,

Every living creature is not a stone,

Therefore, Every man is not a stone,

being inverted, will stand thus,

Every stone is not a living creature,

Whatsoever is not a living creature, is not a man,

Therefore, Every stone is not a man;

which conclusion is the converse of the direct conclusion, and equipollent to the same.

The figures, therefore, of syllogisms, if they be numbered by the diverse situation of the middle term only, are but three; in the first whereof, the middle term has the middle place; in the second, the last; and in the third, the first place. But if they be numbered according to the situation of the terms simply, they are four; for the first may be distinguished again into two, namely, into direct and inverted. From whence it is evident, that the controversy among logicians concerning the fourth figure, is a mere λογόμαχια, or contention about the name thereof; for, as for the thing itself, it is plain that the situation of the terms (not considering the quantity or quality by which the moods are distinguished) makes four differences of syllogisms, which may be called figures, or have any other name at pleasure.

There are many moods in every figure, but most of them useless in philosophy.

12. In every one of these figures there are many moods, which are made by varying the premises according to all the differences they are capable of, by quantity and quality; as namely, in the direct figure there are six moods; in the first indirect figure, four; in the second, fourteen; and in the third, eighteen. But because from the direct figure I rejected as superfluous all moods besides that which consists of universal propositions, and whose minor proposition is affirmative, I do, together with it, reject the moods of the rest of the figures which are made by conversion of the premises in the direct figure.

An hypothetical syllogism when equipollent to a categorical.

13. As it was showed before, that in necessary propositions a categorical and hypothetical proposition are equipollent; so likewise it is manifest that a categorical and hypothetical syllogism are equivalent. For every categorical syllogism, as this,

Every man is a living creature,

Every living creature is a body,

Therefore, Every man is a body,

is of equal force with this hypothetical syllogism:

If any thing be a man, the same is also a living creature,

If any thing be a living creature, the same is a body,

Therefore, If any thing be a man, the same is a body.

In like manner, this categorical syllogism in an indirect figure,

No stone is a living creature,

Every man is a living creature,

Therefore, No man is a stone,

Or, No stone is a man,

is equivalent to this hypothetical syllogism:

If any thing be a man, the same is a living creature,

If any thing be a stone, the same is not a living creature,

Therefore, If any thing be a stone, the same is not a man,

Or, If any thing be a man, the same is not a stone.

And thus much seems sufficient for the nature of syllogisms; (for the doctrine of moods and figures is clearly delivered by others that have written largely and profitably of the same). Nor are precepts so necessary as practice for the attaining of true ratiocination; and they that study the demonstrations of mathematicians, will sooner learn true logic, than they that spend time in reading the rules of syllogizing which logicians have made; no otherwise than little children learn to go, not by precepts, but by exercising their feet. This, therefore, may serve for the first pace in the way to Philosophy.

In the next place I shall speak of the faults and errors into which men that reason unwarily are apt to fall; and of their kinds and causes.

CHAPTER V.
OF ERRING, FALSITY, AND CAPTIONS.

[1.] Erring and falsity how they differ. Error of the mind by itself without the use of words, how it happens.—[2.] A sevenfold incoherency of names, every one of which makes always a false proposition.—[3.] Examples of the first manner of incoherency.—[4.] Of the second.—[5.] Of the third.—[6.] Of the fourth.—[7.] Of the fifth.—[8.] Of the sixth.—[9.] Of the seventh.—[10.] Falsity of propositions detected by resolving the terms with definitions continued till they come to simple names, or names that are the most general of their kind.—[11.] Of the fault of a syllogism consisting in the implication of the terms with the copula.—[12.] Of the fault which consists in equivocation.—[13.] Sophistical captions are oftener faulty in the matter than in the form of syllogisms.

Erring & falsity how they differ. Error of the mind by itself, without the use of words, how it happens.

1. Men are subject to err not only in affirming and denying, but also in perception, and in silent cogitation. In affirming and denying, when they call any thing by a name, which is not the name thereof; as if from seeing the sun first by reflection in water, and afterwards again directly in the firmament, we should to both those appearances give the name of sun, and say there are two suns; which none but men can do, for no other living creatures have the use of names. This kind of error only deserves the name of falsity, as arising, not from sense, nor from the things themselves, but from pronouncing rashly; for names have their constitution, not from the species of things, but from the will and consent of men. And hence it comes to pass, that men pronounce falsely, by their own negligence, in departing from such appellations of things as are agreed upon, and are not deceived neither by the things, nor by the sense; for they do not perceive that the thing they see is called sun, but they give it that name from their own will and agreement. Tacit errors, or the errors of sense and cogitation, are made, by passing from one imagination to the imagination of another different thing; or by feigning that to be past, or future, which never was, nor ever shall be; as when, by seeing the image of the sun in water, we imagine the sun itself to be there; or by seeing swords, that there has been or shall be fighting, because it uses to be so for the most part; or when from promises we feign the mind of the promiser to be such and such; or lastly, when from any sign we vainly imagine something to be signified, which is not. And errors of this sort are common to all things that have sense; and yet the deception proceeds neither from our senses, nor from the things we perceive; but from ourselves while we feign such things as are but mere images to be something more than images. But neither things, nor imaginations of things, can be said to be false, seeing they are truly what they are; nor do they, as signs, promise any thing which they do not perform; for they indeed do not promise at all, but we from them; nor do the clouds, but we, from seeing the clouds, say it shall rain. The best way, therefore, to free ourselves from such errors as arise from natural signs, is first of all, before we begin to reason concerning such conjectural things, to suppose ourselves ignorant, and then to make use of our ratiocination; for these errors proceed from the want of ratiocination; whereas, errors which consist in affirmation and negation, (that is, the falsity of propositions) proceed only from reasoning amiss. Of these, therefore, as repugnant to philosophy, I will speak principally.

A sevenfold incoherency of names, all of which make always a false proposition.

2. Errors which happen in reasoning, that is, in syllogizing, consist either in the falsity of the premises, or of the inference. In the first of these cases, a syllogism is said to be faulty in the matter of it; and in the second case, in the form. I will first consider the matter, namely, how many ways a proposition may be false; and next the form, and how it comes to pass, that when the premises are true, the inference is, notwithstanding, false.

Seeing, therefore, that proposition only is true, (chap, III, [art. 7]) in which are copulated two names of one and the same thing; and that always false, in which names of different things are copulated, look how many ways names of different things may be copulated, and so many ways a false proposition may be made.

Now, all things to which we give names, may be reduced to these four kinds, namely, bodies, accidents, phantasms, and names themselves; and therefore, in every true proposition, it is necessary that the names copulated, be both of them names of bodies, or both names of accidents, or both names of phantasms, or both names of names. For names otherwise copulated are incoherent, and constitute a false proposition. It may happen, also, that the name of a body, of an accident, or of a phantasm, may be copulated with the name of a speech. So that copulated names may be incoherent seven manner of ways.

1. If the name of a Body				the name of an Accident.
2. If the name of a Body				the name of a Phantasm.
3. If the name of a Body		be		the name of a Name.
4. If the name of an Accident		copulated		the name of a Phantasm.
5. If the name of an Accident		with		the name of a Name.
6. If the name of a Phantasm				the name of a Name.
7. If the name of a Body,				the name of a Speech.
Accident, or Phantasm

Of all which I will give some examples.

Examples of the first manner of incoherency.

3. After the first of these ways propositions are false, when abstract names are copulated with concrete names; as (in Latin and Greek) esse est ens, essentia est ens, τὸ τί ἦν ειναὶ (i.); quidditas est ens, and many the like, which are found in Aristotle's Metaphysics. Also, the understanding worketh, the understanding understandeth, the sight seeth; a body is magnitude, a body is quantity, a body is extension; to be a man is a man, whiteness is a white thing, &c.; which is as if one should say, the runner is the running, or the walk walketh. Moreover, essence is separated, substance is abstracted: and others like these, or derived from these, (with which common philosophy abounds.) For seeing no subject of an accident (that is, no body) is an accident: no name of an accident ought to be given to a body, nor of a body to an accident.

The second.

4. False, in the second manner, are such propositions as these; a ghost is a body, or a spirit, that is, a thin body; sensible species fly up and down in the air, or are moved hither and thither, which is proper to bodies; also, a shadow is moved, or is a body; light is moved, or is a body; colour is the object of sight, sound of hearing; space or place is extended; and innumerable others of this kind. For seeing ghosts, sensible species, a shadow, light, colour, sound, space, &c. appear to us no less sleeping than waking, they cannot be things without us, but only phantasms of the mind that imagines them; and therefore the names of these, copulated with the names of bodies, cannot constitute a true proposition.