APPENDIX D. 



rali/ations ; the Modern makes no such professions, hut ap 

 peals to the facts of Nature as they are. Finally, land this 

 will he seen to he the most important difference,) the Ancient 

 was quite content with Observation, and seemed to have little 

 or no notion of v.i peri mental inquiry: the Modern uses AVy&amp;gt;r- 

 ri incut continually to carry on and enlarge the result reached 

 by Ofwr/ titioii. To these heads we may subjoin Bacon s state 

 ments ; which nii^ht lie classed under them, but which, for dis 

 tinctness sake, had lietter be kept separate: Ancient In 

 duction proceeded by &quot; simple enumeration&quot; of all known 

 cases: Modern is content with a selection of Instances: the 

 Ancient leapt immediately from the lo\\c-t particulars to the 

 highest principles; the Modern ascends &quot; gradatim.&quot; &quot; per sea- 

 lam asceiisoriam.&quot; through intermediate Axioms to the highest 

 truth. 



Before discussing these points more at length, it will lie well 

 to -tale the distinction, obvious enough in itself, yet often over 

 looked, between a ///-otvxx of the mind, and the Ancili/ttiti of 

 that process. Aristotle, with the precision of his Logical 

 power, has regarded the latter, both in his treatises on Dia 

 lectics and lihetoric. and in hi- statements on Induction : and 

 he it is who has &amp;lt;_ r iven rise to the remark that &quot; Ancient Logic- 

 is an analysis of our powers and processes of thought, while 

 the Modern Logic is an application of those powers to things.&quot; 

 This will at once lead us to the consideration of the first of the 

 points of difference. &quot;The Ancient Induction was formal;&quot; 

 i. e. Aristotle analyses the process, and lays it down, that it is 

 s\ llou- istic in form. Let us turn to his statements on the sub 

 ject. They are to he found in two places especially, vi/.. To- 

 pica 1. x. 2. ETraycoyfj 8e ? / a~o rail KadfKacrra t~l TCI KaOo\ov 



%&amp;lt;P()boS OLOV, (I (.UTL KVf3(pW]Tt]S O fTTUTTllfJlfVOS KpLlTUTTOS, Kdl l]Vl- 



o\os KOI oAajs eorir o fTamu^vo^ Ttepl tuaarov api&amp;lt;TTo$, And 

 here, if one can judgi- from the illustration. Aristotle scarcely 

 dissevers Induction from Analogy. The other passage, (and 

 from its position in the Prior Analytics, which are a formal 

 treatise, we shall look for accuracy of statement.) is in the 

 Anal. Pr. II. xxv. 2. ETrayur/r) ^j.V ovi&amp;gt; em, KOL i&amp;gt; ( eTiaywyj/* 

 :bs, TO but TOV krfpov aKpov OaTepor anpov TW //t&amp;lt;r&amp;lt;j) av\- 



