CHAPTEE XXVIII. 



ANALOGY. 



As we have seen in the previous chapter, generaliza- 

 tion passes insensibly into reasoning by analogy, and the 

 difference is but one of degree. We are said to generalize 

 when we view many objects as agreeing in a few pro- 

 perties, so that the resemblance is extensive rather than 

 deep. When we have two or only a few objects of 

 thought, but are able to discover many points of resem- 

 blance, we argue by analogy that the correspondence will 

 be even deeper than appears. It may not be true that 

 the words are always used in these distinct senses, and 

 there is no doubt great vagueness in the employment 

 of these and many other logical terms ; but, if there is 

 any clear discrimination to be drawn between generaliza- 

 tion and analogy, it is indicated above. 



It has been often said, indeed, that analogy denotes not 

 a resemblance between things, but between the relations 

 of things. A pilot is a very different man from a Prime 

 Minister, but he bears the same relation to a ship that 

 the minister does to the state, so that we may analogi- 

 cally describe the Prime Minister as the pilot of the state. 

 A man differs still more from a horse, nevertheless four 

 men bear to three men the same relation as four horses 

 bear to three horses ; there is the analogy. 



Four men : Three men : : Four horses : Three horses, 

 or Four men : Four horses : : Three men : Three horses. 

 There is a real analogy between the tones of the Mono- 



