ON VARIOUS POINTS OF THE ONYMATIC SYSTEM. 



461 



planet I myself may have come, if there be any truth in the doctrine of transmigration. If 

 any of those who are too firmly rooted in our common notions will do the same, they will 

 derive the same sort of benefit which young arithmeticians — who all think that 10 mtist be 

 <cn— derive from constructing systems on another radix. We want a better balance of 

 logical correlatives. The original tendencies of language, partial, one-sided, stopping at just 

 enough, have tied some of our mental muscles until they only act by special volition and a 

 good deal of it. And we appeal to the defect in proof of the necessary character of the liga- 

 tures ; to the incapacity of the slave in proof of the inexpediency of emancipation. As to 

 untying a ligature, that would be extralogical and material. 



Every universe of objects has its universe of relations, to which I now come. At 

 the outset I am met by a difficulty which is shared by writers on perspective, and no way 

 of escape is better than theirs. They cannot put solid objects into a book : so they draw 

 a perspective figure to be the object, and then draw a tablet, a painter, and a collection of 

 rays projecting the object on the tablet. Imitating this plan, let the symbols 1, 2, 3, 4, 

 &c. be attached to. the objects of the universe as, in the strictest sense, proper names: it being 

 understood that these names imply no quality, and are assigned to the objects at hazard. 

 Objects are thus distinguished by their apiQfxol, the word being used in the true Greek sense 

 described in my last paper. What are commonly called proper names are frequently nothing 

 but singular names, derived from notions of class; Horatius Flaccus shews both genus — 

 or at least gens — and difference. 



We have a right to treat any collection of objects, from one inclusive upwards, as a class ; 

 to be distinguished from the contrary class, containing all other objects, by a mark. I am 

 not afraid, at this time, of being met by the old dictum that the differentia of a species' must 

 be of the essence : but a little of the spirit of this demand may yet be left. Some may be 

 disposed to think that selections exist — they will not say classes — the individuals of which 

 really have no common difference, nothing which distinguishes them, and them alone, from all 

 other things. I challenge such a selection. While awaiting an answer I imagine an ac- 



' This is a question on whicli heretics have differed, Cicero 

 affirmed Trojan and Theban to be species of man. Ludovicus 

 Vives, heretic, and Johannes Rivius, orthodox, declare Cicero 

 wrong, on the ground that the species must have an essential 

 difference. Marius Nizoliu»,a worse heretic, describes them as 

 " quorum uterque audet reprehendere Ciceronem", forgetting 

 that Aristotle, on various points, is described by himself 

 through four long books (De veris principiis et vera ratione 

 philosophandi, contra Pseudo-philosophos, 1563) as Philoso- 

 phaster and Pseudo-philosophus. 1 give his distinction of 

 species, husk and all : — " Quis te docuit, O inepte grammati. 

 cule, hominem, etiam si extra ordinem substantive non egredi- 



amur, non posse esse verum genus Thebani et Trojani 



Quare tu quoque disce verum esse id quod dicit Cicero, Troja- 

 num etThebanum esse veras honiinis species, si non essentiales 

 at certe accidentales, et cognosce ea, qua; tu ex sterquilinio 

 dialecticorum hauriens contra Ciceronem nugaris, nihil aliud 

 esse nisi meras insanias." 



Nizolius, great as the author of the Thesaurus Ciceronia- 

 nus, — we have seen how sensitive he was on Cicero — is in logic 



a small handler of a large theme; and yetj scurrilous withal. 

 tr. li. (whom Tiraboschi and others assert to be Leibnitz, 

 whose initials were G. G. L.) republished the De veris Prin- 

 cipiis in lt)74, with a preface. But G. L. according to the 

 Bodleian catalogue, altered the title into ' Antibarbarus philo- 

 sophicus; sive philosophia scholasticorum impugnata': in other 

 words, Leibnitz (?) saw that Nizolius was more useful against 

 the schoolmen than in favour of truth. Tiraboschi leaves every 

 one to decide for himself wliether he will judge by the appro, 

 bation of Leibnitz, or the disparagement of a modern writer, 

 who expresses great surprise that Leibnitz should have pub- 

 lished an edition. I judge by the book itself, which appears 

 to me that of an emancipated slave, who made a new master of 

 his liberty. Nizolius, arguing against what he supposes to be 

 the scholastic doctrine, namely, that a genus contains only 

 things present, strengthens the opposite opinion by the autho- 

 rity (idem quoque confirtnatur nb ourtori7a<s) of Julius Pollux, 

 who, in what he says Trepl yivovt, includes both ancestors and 

 posterity. 



