199 



Z, and the combination of relations is seen in — Every species of a 

 coinadequate is a coinadequate. In metaphysical reading, we have 

 X]]Y] [Z, X is a dependent of Y, Y an inalternative of Z. The con- 

 clusion is X] [Z, X is an inalternative of Z, and the combination of 

 relations is seen in — The dependent of an inalternative is an inalter- 

 native. When the terms become as familiar as genus and species, 

 the axiomatic character of the combination is as clearly manifest as 

 in — Species of species is species. Mr. De Morgan gives the following 

 instance of a good inference which would probably not be seen with 

 ease in its present form, though the phrases are not technical : "We 

 must not say that either bodily strength or meanness is a necessary 

 alternative, for courage and meanness are incompatible, while courage 

 does not depend on bodily strength." And he maintains that the 

 educated world has made considerable advance in the use of rela- 

 tions of attributes, though the logician has nothing but what he 

 calls the arithmetical abacus on which to exhibit the process. 



Some modern logicians have so completely fallen into the mathema- 

 tical view of quantity, that there is a school which treats all thought 

 as relation of more and less. Mr. De Morgan opposes this view. 



The secondpart of this paper, being anon-controversial summary of 

 Mr. De Morgan's system, so far as onymatic relations are concerned, 

 hardly admits of abstract. Its principal points have been touched on. 



In a postscript, such notice is taken of the late Sir W. Hamilton's 

 criticism on Mr. De Morgan's second paper as circumstances re- 

 quire and will allow. 



February 22, 1858. 



Dr. Donaldson, of Trinity College, read a paper " On the Statue 

 of Solon mentioned by ^Eschines and Demosthenes." 



The object of the author of this paper was to fix the age and 

 subject of a beautiful statue in the Museo Borbonico at Naples, 

 which was recovered from the ruins of the theatre at Herculaneum. 

 This statue has generally been regarded as representing Aristides 

 the Just, the son of Lysimachus ; and one attempt has been made 

 to show that it is a portrait of iElius Aristides, the rhetorician, 

 who was born 38 years after the destruction of Herculaneum in 

 a.d. 79. A more plausible hypothesis, supported by great names, 

 considers the statue as a portrait of ^Eschines. But this rests on a 

 palpable misconception. After refuting these theories, the author 

 undertook to show that the statue was probably a copy of that 

 erected in honour of Solon in the agora at Salamis, and mentioned 

 in a striking manner by ^Eschines (c. Timarch. p. 4) and Demo- 

 sthenes (De Fals. Leg. p. 420). This was argued from the peculiar 

 and distinctive attitude ; from the fact that the treatment of the 

 drapery accorded with that belonging to the school of Scopos, and 

 the costume corresponded to that of the epoch (about fifty years 

 before B.C. 343) assigned to the statue of Solon by Demosthenes ; 

 and from the suitableness of a statue of Solon, who was an elegiac 



