OUR OBLIGATIONS TO GREEK THOUGHT. 233 
objective world into the subjective forms of science, that, prior to 
the time of Aristotle, there was no systematic attempt to study the 
mental processes involved in the establishment of philosophies of 
the universe, with a view to reduce them to an organized system 
for future reference and use. That this is true with respect to 
formal demonstrative Logic is evident from his own unchallenged 
statement in his De Sophistieis Hlenchis:* ‘In regard to the process: 
of syllogizing I found positively nothing said before me. I had to 
work it out for myself by long and laborious research.” It is also 
in Aristotle that we find the first, and, I believe, prior to Lord 
Bacon, the last attempt of any value, to urge on students of nature 
the Inductive method, as the only highway to knowledge; to 
enunciate, and guard from misapprehension, its fundamental prin- 
ciple; and to explain the exact relation of the conclusions arrived 
at by its use, to the reverse process of Deduction. No man ever 
insisted more strongly on Fact as the des¢deratum of Science. The . 
language he employs might have been that of Lord Bacon or John 
Stuart Mill. For instance in Analytica Priora, i. 80, he says, 
“The way with respect to philosophy must be the same as with 
respect to any art or science; we must collect the facts and the 
things to which the facts relate in each subject, and provide as 
large a supply of these as possible.”+ Moreover he expressly 
distinguishes Induction from mere inference from example, %.e. 
from some particulars to other particulars; and gives the name 
Experience, éumeipia, to the latter, as being possessed by man in 
common with the higher orders of animals.{| Nay more, Mr. Grote: 
has collated passages from the Analytics and the Ethics which 
prove, that not only are the principles used in demonstration, if 
worth anything, derived from Induction, but that repeated and un- 
contradicted Induction carries with it the maximum of certainty.§ 
It would occupy more time than can be spared for such a pur- 
pose, to enter into an exposition of the points of difference between 
the Induction of Aristotle and that of Lord Bacon. It has been said 
that Aristotle’s was merely Induction by simple enumeration—the 
getting at a general Law because of never having met, during the pro- 
cess of observation, with an exceptional or incompatible case; while 
* xxxiv. 
+ Of. “De Generatione Animalium,” iii. 10. ‘ H de ray wedirray yéveors 
k. tT. \. Also “ Anal. Post.,” i. 18. qavepdv dé kat. Kk. 7. Xr. 
Anal Post.” a1.719: § “Aristotle,” vol. i. p. 375. 
