ON VARIOUS POINTS OF THE ONYMATIC SYSTEM. 



446 



making it appear that in his mind " all man is all animal " and " Every man is every animal" 

 are precisely the same English, and require precisely the same comment. In one place (IX. ii. 

 300) he translates Aristotle thus: — "For all or every [Tray] does not indicate...". Here, as 

 elsewhere, he distinctly proclaims that he sees no difference between our English all and every 

 in the two forms. But ' all man ' has parts, which are species of the genus man : ' every 

 man' has no parts, but makes assertions about the individuals of every species. I repeat that 

 the modern logician has accustomed himself to the identification of two distinct things : he 

 sees distribution in the cumular, and cumulation in the distributive, until the two readings 

 are no longer distinct in his mind. He would speak of a country in which there are no 

 single adults of either sex, as one in which all the Jacks are married to all the Joans: and, 

 though not without ambiguity, he would be understood by mathematicians and other unlogi- 

 cal persons after a moment's thought. But he would also crave permission to say that every 

 Jack is married to every Joan ; which, to all but those whose English has been spoiled by 

 modern logical technology, would enunciate the maximum of polygamy. 



The expositors and translators, from Boethius to Thomas Taylor, B. St Hilaire, and 

 O. F. Owen, give correct literal translation. I find exemplar language, to the exclusion of 

 cumular, in Paulus Venetus, the Cologne regents, Isenach, Pacius, Burgersdicius, Keckermann, 

 Crackanthorpe, Sanderson, Aldrich, &c. On the other hand, Molinajus, Wallis, Wendelinus, 

 and the Port-Royal, out of about forty systems which I have examined, give more or less 

 into plural forms. That most rigid' disciplinai'ian, Crackanthorpe, collected quantitative terms 

 in profusion, and would have admitted a plural or two if such a thing had been canonical. 

 His universal signs are omnis, quilibet, quicunque, quandocunque, nullus, nemo, nunquam: 

 his particulars are aliquis, alius, unicus, alter, nonnullus. One of his singular terms is omnis 

 quando collective sumitur non distributive: that is to say, the cumular is with him referred to 

 the non-distributive^ singular. He describes particular quantity as * individuum incertum et 



vasum. 



But the strongest testimony to the preponderance of exemplar expression is indirectly 

 given by Hamilton himself, who says (IX. ii. 296) that the objection to "all man is all risible" 

 because each man would then be all the class risible, " is only respectable by authority, 

 through the great, the all but unexclusive, number of its allegers". Now the original is 



Aphrodisiensis is quoted as saying that it is " impossible that 

 all man should be all animal, as that all man should be all 

 risible." Restoring every for all, the Greek will be seen to 

 mean that whether the terms A and B be coextensive or no, 

 '£very A is every B' is impossible; for that, without any 

 question about the mailer of the terms, each individual would 

 be many individuals. Hamilton, with his eyes quite shut to 

 this point, will have him speak of material impossibility, which 

 is clear in the assertion that ' all man is all animal.' But seeing 

 that there is no material impossibility in ' All man is all risi- 

 ble' — which was believed to be true — he mends the text, and 

 will have Alexander to declare this proposition only useless. 

 Hamilton's quotation accordingly runs thus: — "For it is im- 

 possible that all man should be all animal, as [useless to say, 

 (axpio'Tow eiTreiw must have dropt out)] that all man is all 

 risible." Boethius (ix. ii. 308; Patrolog. Ixiv. coL 323) has 



certainly interpreted Aristotle in Hamilton's sense. If (ix; 

 ii. 301 — 315) omnis be translated by every throughout, it will 

 be seen that the Greek commentators take Aristotle in the 

 sense I contend for, and that there is diversity among the 

 others. 



' Hamilton generally calls him 'Oxford Crackanthorpe'. 

 He was for some five years fellow of a college, but his Univer- 

 sity sympathies could not have been marked : ' Puritan Crack- 

 anthorpe' would have been a better name; Anthony Wood 

 would have protested against the other epithet. His book on 

 Logic, written probably about 1600, was first published in 

 1622. 



' This sentence, the quotation from Pacius presently given, 

 and other things, lead me to suspect that my word exemplar is 

 a synonyme of the word distributive, in its old sense. 



