CHAP. IV. J* CONFUTATION OF IDOLS. 207 



them we have allotted to primary philosophy, but their 

 logical treatment is what we here call the confutation of 

 interpretation. And this we take for a sound and excellent 

 part of learning, as general and common notions, unless 

 accurately and judiciously distinguished from their origin, 

 are apt to mix themselves in all disputes, so as strangely to 

 cloud and darken the light of the question, and frequently 

 occasion the controversy to end in a quarrel about words : 

 for equivocations and wrong acceptations of words, especially 

 of this kind, are the sophisms of sophisms ; wherefore it is 

 better to treat of them separate than either to receive them 

 into primary philosophy or metaphysics, or again, to make 

 them a part of analytics, as Aristotle has confusedly done. 

 We give this doctrine a name from its use, because its true use 

 is indeed redargution and caution about the employing of 

 words. So, likewise, that part concerning predicaments, if 

 rightly treated, as to the cautions against confounding or 

 transposing the terms of definitions and divisions, is of prin 

 cipal use, and belongs to the present article. And thus 

 much for the confutation of interpretation. 



As to the confutations of images, or idols, we observe that 

 idols are the deepest fallacies of the human mind ; for they 

 do not deceive in particulars, as the rest, by clouding and 

 ensnaring the judgment ; but from a corrupt predisposition, 

 or bad complexion of the mind, which distorts and infects 

 all the anticipations of the understanding. For the mind, 

 darkened by its covering the body, is far from being a flat, 

 equal, and clear mirror that receives and reflects the rays 

 without mixture, but rather a magical glass, full of super 

 stitions and apparitions. Idols are imposed upon the under 

 standing, either, 1. by the general nature of mankind ; 2. the 

 nature of each particular man ; or 3. by words, or commu- 

 cative nature. The first kind we call idols of the tribe ; 

 the second kind, idols of the den ; and the third kind, idols 

 of the market. There is also a fourth kind, which we call 

 idols of the theatre, being superinduced by false theories, or 

 philosophies, and the perverted laws of demonstration. This 

 last kind we are not at present concerned with, as it may be 



1 Rather, vulgarisms ; since sophisms imply a i:se of the intellect, 

 though a perverted use ; but the wrong acceptations ot worci 3 imjity no 

 use at all. Ed. 



