37 
which is murder ; but this ‘“‘fact” (stabbing, e. g., with a knife) is absent 
in the case of A. B.; therefore A. B. is not guilty of murder. 
But for the special reference to me, by the Doctor himself, I should 
not have noticed the topic that I now introduce. Let me say just here, 
that to this hour, after most careful inquiry, I have not been able to dis- 
cover the name of the “friend of Dr. Martin,” to whom the ‘Reply’ 
refers. Since the “Reply” assigns to me the task of “deprecating the 
logic of this definition of his [my] attack,” 7. ¢., upon Dr. Girardeau’s 
Review article ; and since the logic, 7. e., the analysis, is that of Dr. 
Girardeau himself, and not of my unknown “friend,” I, therefore, 
although reluctantly, respond to the Doctor's challenge, and ‘‘deprecate 
the logic of this definition” of “Cyclone” by Dr. Girardeau: Proximate 
genus, Storm; specific difference, consisting of four specific marks—(1) 
Windy; (2) Moving ina circle; (3) Blown by Dr. Martin; (4) De- 
molishing Professor Girardeau.” 
The first deprecatory remark I would make regarding the matter is, 
that the term “Cyclone” [used by ***, the author of “The Wreck,” 
in Southern Presbyterian, September 20, 1888], in the connexion in 
which it occurs, is what rhetoricians would call a simile, and not what 
logicians would call a “definition.” Secondly, the Doctor’s definition 
of Cyclone, under the circumstances, affords an instance of the “fallacy 
of equivocation:” (1) supposing that the things themselves are similar, 
because they have similar relations ; (2) pressing the analogy too far, 
or making the application ‘of it more complete than the nature of the 
case justifies, in consequence of overlooking the exact point of the anal- 
ogy. (Whately's Logic, 200-206.) It violates the rule for interpret- 
ing metaphors, parables, etc., viz.: that for the most part they touch 
like two globes at a single point, not like two plane surfaces when super- 
imposed at all points. The Doctor’s interpretation of Cyclone makes an 
illustration go on all-fours, and may be called a quadrupedal interpreta- 
tion. The Professor himself would be shocked, if one of his students 
(following his example) should apply this principle of interpretation to 
the metaphor comparing the coming of the “Son of man” to that of a 
“thief.” (Broadus, Prep. and Del., 69, 157, 373.) Thirdly. The 
Doctor’s definition of Cyclone tested by the five rules (Hawmilton’s 
Logic, 344), is found to be heterogeneous, redundant. tautological, and 
ambiguous. Perhaps the Doctor will claim that his definition was mere- 
ly sportive; if so, alas; that in his merry, no less than in his serious, 
moods, he should define so defectively—so indefinitely. 
Let us examine next the “Reply’s” attempt to confirm the doctrine of 
