On this page
- Departments (2)
- Pictures (1)
-
Text (8)
-
Feb. 14,, 1852.] T;H.^ LEA^ EjR. 155
-
^-* i """TWir . ' " ¦ ( DfKit ; li S : ;; ;
-
Ttw THIS DEPABTStEinr, AS AM. OPllTCONS,...
-
There is no learned mail but will confes...
-
ARCHBISHOP WHATELY AND THU PORT ROYAL LOGIC.
-
2Onn • CS8or ^ () °1° lft^°l y remarked ...
-
fin Dr Travis's lust letter, for "self-r...
-
Hokaoe.—-Horace was a great deal to mo t...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Feb. 14,, 1852.] T;H.^ Lea^ Ejr. 155
Feb . 14 ,, 1852 . ] T ; H . ^ LEA ^ EjR . 155
^-* I """Twir . ' " ¦ ( Dfkit ; Li S : ;; ;
^ - * i " "" TWir . ' " ¦ ( DfKit ; li S ;;
Pc01505
Ttw This Depabtsteinr, As Am. Oplltcons,...
Ttw THIS DEPABTStEinr , AS AM . OPllTCONS , HOtFEVEB EXTBEME , L ask AiLOWB AN JBXPBESSIQUV JPHB EBMOB KECBSSABIHT HOLDS HIMSELF BESPONSIBLB FOB NONE . ]
There Is No Learned Mail But Will Confes...
There is no learned mail but will confess' he -hath ; mudh S ted b vreading controversies , his senses awakened , End hi ? judgment sharpened . If then , it be profitable for him to read ! , why-should it not , atdeast ; be tolerable for his adversary to .-write . —MfLTOir . . ^ ; , ( , ; 1 ; . , ... . < . ..
Archbishop Whately And Thu Port Royal Logic.
ARCHBISHOP WHATELY AND THU PORT ROYAL LOGIC .
Sib , — -Mr . Thomas Spencer Baynes has favoured the public with a new translation of the famous Port Royal Logic , forwhich every English student of reasoning is his debtor . Besides a body of rare'knowledge not before accessible to the ordinary reader , Mr . Baynes ' s admirable introduction mentions many anterior logicians of interest * from which we see that some curious historical omissions have been made by the most eminent of modern Oxford writers on this subject .
Dr . Whately , indeed , disclaims , in his work on Logic , any intention of presenting a history of logical writers , but he does profess to give " a rapid glance at the series down to the present day , and of the general tendency of-their labours / ' Yet , after mentioning Boethius ,-he cites merely Bacon , Locke , and Watts ; and the reader is left with the impression that these are the only noticeable logicians of modern . times . * Following , however , the Introduction of Mr . Baynes , we find that this " rapid glance" might have been
wider and more particular . After Boetluus , we hear from Mr . Baynes of such men as Laurentius Valla and Ludovicus Vives , whom " Mr . Baynes describes as men of really independent thought . Thomas Granger , " preacher of God ' s Word , " wrote a book of note in 1620 . The grandfather of Sir Kenelm Digby published a work previously , in 1539 . . Abraham France in 1588 , and Zachary Coke in 1654 , both English gentlemen of Lincoln ' s-inn and Gray's-inn , were , it appears , authors of works on Logic , " able , curious , learned , and of considerable scientific value . "
But the student of limited means of research is very much interested in discovering that there existed , two centuries ago , a French Whately—one Antony Arnauld , a man . who , d jd so muc , J ) i f or , Logic * and wrote so many memorable things thereupon ! , that it is not ppssibie to estimate the essayist of the JZncycloptedia Metropolitana relatively , without understanding the chief author of the Port Royal Logic . Yet the Archbishop of Dublin , the essayist above referred to , is silent about Arnaulil . ^
Iho hopeless rigidity whiohliad fallen on the science of Logic— . the puerility of its examples—the contempt of tho vulgar and exaggeration of the learned , are mum points which Archbishop Whatoly notices ; and scholars regard him for the ability with which he corrects the errors , animates tho illustrations , and moderates the pretensions of tho science . It would , howover , have interested many to have been told that tlrfs had boon done before for tho French people ; that Antony Arnauld had recast the same subject with a vivacit y of criticism , freshnoss of illustration , and withal a human sympathy , which redeemed logical « cicnco f » 'oni contempt , and placed it on n level with the advancing philosophy of his timo .
It has escaped mo , upon sovoral examinations , if Dr . whatel y mentions the Port Royal Logic at all . Certainly tho name of Arnauld is omitted in his " scries ° * logical writers . " ' It is not possible ' that Archbishop Whatel y Was unacquainted with him . Aldrich , whom Whatoly so offcon quotes , mentions him , and Aldrich is tho only older Oxford writer whom Mr . lioynos roinoin-» ors to have alluded to him ., Coincidences of illustration , fta well as spirit , seem to suggest Dr . Whatoly ' s ncquiuntanco with Arnnuld . In Book IV ., chap , iii ., § 1 ,
Whately remarks : —" Inferring and Proving are not two different things , but the same thing regarded in two different points of view : like the road from London to York , jand ' the road fromYork to London . " Arnauld expressly says , ( Part IV . chapter ii ., of the Port Royal Zogic , ) that ' * the two methods of analysis and ; synthesis ' differ . only as the road by which -we ascend fr'brd a valley to a mountain , from that by which we descend frpm the mountain into the valley . " Whately signalizes his Logic by taking a gr 6 at sceptic , and trying his strength upon him . Arnauld did the s ^ me thing in his Logic . The analogy is rema ! rkri , ble : .
1 Arnauld , in his firsti Discourse , observes , in relation to ¦ Montaigne ! , tiie Hume' of France ^ that after Montaigne hadsaid that the Academics were different from the' Pyrrhonists , inasmuch as the Academics maintained that soniie things were more probable than others , which the Pyrrhonists would not allow , Montaigne declares himself an the side of th 6 Pyrrhonists in these terins : — " The opinidh of the Pyrrhonists is bolder and much more probable . " To this , Arnauld quickly adds : — " Ther 6 ' are ,, therefore , some things which are mbre prob'abfe '' thanothers . " In Dr . Whately ' s refutation of Hnmei turning " upon an illicit process of a major and ambiguous ; middle term , there is nothing half so brilliant as this * \
" Were this the place to enter upon the subject , many other remarkable points of similarity between Whately and Arnauld might be shown . But I continue the instances which warranted the mention < Jf Ajnauld ' s name by , his eminent continuator in our day . Dr . Wnatfely , perfectly familiar with his subject ., which hes has stated , restated , and it appears revised eleVen different times , undoubtedly presents us with happy formulas of ( expression . In one instance , the most prominent perhaps of his realizations , he tells us that the function pf logic is to exhibit reasoning in such a manner that the validity of an argument shall be evident front the mere form of the expression .
But is this comparable in " suggestiveness or instruction for the student , to the" reduction of the general laws of syllogism to the-single principle of the Tort RoyaJtppgtc { Part III . chapter x . )/ that " oneof the premises '' must contain the conclusion , and the other show that it does soV The student of Whately has his attention drawn to many able , and is also entertained with some trivial , objections' to Logic , combated with gravity by his Graced while in Arnauld are to be found profound objections , which pass unnoticed . The opening of the th ' ircl part of the Port Royal Logic contains this passage , alike admirable for its penetration and candour"It may be ! doubted whether Log ic is really as useful as it has been supposed to be . The greater part of the
errors of men arises much more from their reasoning on false principles than from their reasoning wrongly on their principles . It rarely happens that men allow themselves to be deceived by reasonings which are false , only because the consequences are ill deduced ; and those who are not capable of discovering such errors by tho light of reason alone , would not commonly understand the rules which are given for this purpose , much less the a ^ llcfttt 6 iiof'them . N'everthelessJ considering these rules Simply as speculative truths , they may always bo useful as mental discipline ; and further than this , it cannot be denied that they are of service on some occasions , and in relation to those persons who , being of a lively and inquiring turn of mind , allow themselves , at times , for want of attention , to bo deceived by falso consequences , which attention to these rules would
probably rectify . " This passage has the merit of stating tho case of Logic its it stands now in the estimation of tho critical public after two centuries of controversy . Of tho like naturo is tho opening of chapter ix . ( Part III . ) "It must bo confessed , " says Arnauld , " that if there aro ' somo to whom logic is a help , thoro aro many to ' wliom it is a hindrance ; and it must bo acknowledged , at tho same timo , that there aro none to whom it in n greater hindrance than to thoso who pride thomsolvcs most upon it , and who affect , with icia for
tho greatest display , that they aro good logns ; this very affectation , being tho murk of a low and shallow mind , it comes to pass that they , attaching themselves more to tho exterior of tho ' rul e * " than to good Honso , which is the soul of them , aro oiusily led to reject as bad reasoning somo which aro very good , buico they have not . sufficient penetration to adjunt thorn to the rules which sorvo no othor purpose than tq deceive them , bocauHO thoy comprehend thorn only iinporJ ' ectly . Tho main who , two centuries « igo , could write thus about Logic , desorvod somo notice at tho hand of nn author who has put forth his strength upon iromoloHS
critics and trivial objectors . In Dr . Whatoly ' s sketch of tho rhetorical writers , no mention is mado of his grout Janscnist predecessor ,
although the maxims of rhetorical wisdom to be met with in Arnauld's Aft of Thinking are matchless . For a Propagandist , there is ho wiser teacher than Arnauld . Any rhetorician will Warn you against the errors of ignorance , but Arnauld warns you against the errors of honesty . To mean well is the soul of all the virtues ; but good intention by no means implies , infallibility or rhetorical wisdom . For the friends of . progress there is no better practice than the study of Antony Arnauld and St . Augustine , whom he quotes .
Another point touching Arnauld is not less interesting to the logical controversialist . Mr . Samuel Bailey has published a work on the Theory of Reasoning in which he denies the Validity of the celebrated dictum of Aristotle ( so emblazoned b y the Archbishop of Dublin ) , as the universal principle of reasoning . Mr . Bailey proves his case by adducing other principles on which reasoning ( lie says ) really proceeds . He shows that only the first Figure is referable to the " universal" dictum , and that the other figures really have dicta of their
own . When Mr . Bailey had drawn out these dicta he found that for ttvo of the figures the same thing had been done in the Port Royal Logic two hundred years ago . Mr . Bailey ' s objections to the Logic of the schools is not founded upon ignorance—his knowledge of it removes him from that suspicion ; his criticism does not proceed from prejudice—his character disproves the possibility of that supposition . On these points Arnauld was the precursor : he was , it appears , a master of his subject . Not only did he deserve mention , but his work was the work which especially demanded it .
One might here say—why do not philosophers like Bailey , who have the rare capacity of thinking as the wise think , and at the same time talking as the common people talk , take some precaution that the people shall gain access to their works ? Instead of this , they publish with some one of whom the people seldom hear , and at a price which they can never pay . The love of logical studies has passed over to the people , but any eminent work upon the subject , excepting Archbishop Whately ' s incomparable Lessons in Reasoning ( as the schools taught it ) , of-which few working men know anything , must be obtained on loan and copied . And this is often done . But to sit down after the day ' s work ' in the mill is over , to copy , by a low fire and a dim candle , at a latejiour—though eminently creditable to scholastic devotion—is conducive neither to eyesight
nor health . As an exposition of the Logic of the schools , Whately ' s works are above all praise . No one capable of reflection , practised in study , or of any experience in comparison , will have any other feeling than that of gratitude for the services of that eminent divine . The point of interest to your correspondent , however , is thifl . The student of logic , with any love for it , wants to know all about it . His faith in Whately shaken , by finding points of so much importance overlooked , and persons of so much celebrity ignored , he knows not what may remain behind . Sir William
Hamilton is often spoken of as being tho historian of Logic . In Mr . Augustus Do Morgan ' s controversy with him , Do Morgan spoko of him as being the " best ablo of any to furnish information on questions of this kind . " If any of your correspondents could say whether Sir William has published the history often announced from his pen , or whether any accessible work of a like naturo exists , it would confer a benefit on your correspondent , and on many of your readers among the working class , who have been inspired with a love of tho study without finding any corresponding provision for its satisfactory gratification . G . J . HOLYOAKE .
2onn • Cs8or ^ () °1° Lft^°L Y Remarked ...
2 Onn or ^ ° 1 ° lft ^ ° l y remarked that mqro than * UUO Wrjtcr 8 on j ftr < J rocord C ( i from tji 0 auys of ^ riBtoUo tothopreaonttime .
Fin Dr Travis's Lust Letter, For "Self-R...
fin Dr Travis ' s lust letter , for " self-regarded , read " Bulf-rcgnrding ; " for " disease , " W " deccaso ; " for " in operation , " read " inoperative . " ] W . H . W . We have no room for the translations ho propoBos .
Hokaoe.—-Horace Was A Great Deal To Mo T...
Hokaoe . — -Horace was a great deal to mo then , and is so still . Though his words do not abide in memory , his presence docs : Horono , courtly , of darting hazel oyo , a Holf-siiflloicnt grace , and an appreciation of tho world of Htorn realities , sometimes pathetic , never tragic . Ho \ h tho natural man of tho world ; ho is what ho ought to bo , and l » ia darts novor fail of their aim . Thoro is a porfuino and raoinons , too , which makes lifo a banquet , whom tho wit sparkles no Iohb that tho viands wero bought . with blood . —Memoirs of Margaret Fuller Ossoli . \ Action v . Thought . — A moment of action in one ' s self , however , is wortli an ngo of apprehension through othonij not that our deeds aro bettor , but that thoy produce a renewal of our being . ~ Memoirs of Margaret Miller Ossoli .
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Feb. 14, 1852, page 15, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_14021852/page/15/
-