There is a short but not a satisfactory account of the contents of Aristotle's Organon by Dr. Thomas Reid, Edinburgh, 1806. It may however serve to give the reader some notion of the coutents of the work. The best account of it is said to be by Barthdlemy St. Hilaire, La Logique d'Aristoto,' 2 vols. 8vo. [Loom.] The controversial tone of this article, in a work of this description, may require a word or two of apology. Until the limits of logic are better defined, the subject must be controversial, for the question " What is Logic ?" must continually recur. The work with reference to which these remarks are chiefly made has long had a great circu lation, and has taken the place of former treatises, which is a sufficient reason why the errors of that work, if such they be, should be pointed out. In various parts of his work, I)r. Whately has explained with sufficient precision what he consider& Logic to be : he has in fact defined it as the pure syllogism, irrespective of all material considerations. But in the execution of his plan he continually perplexes the reader with considerations as to the matter of propositions and terms ; and lie transcends the narrow limits within which the science, as he under stands it, is confined. It cannot be supposed that a writer, however able, can so far deviate from a scientific method without serious prejudice to his work.* Two reviews of Dr. Whately-'s treatise have fallen under our notice, one of which appeared in the Westminster Review' for January, 1823; the other in the 'Edinburgh Review' for April, 1833. The former shows that Dr. Whately is not alone in some of those opinions which we consider erroneous. The latter is from a master-hand [Sir W. Hamilton], who is well acquainted with both ancient and modern writers on logic and philosophy. To this article we are much and deeply indebted.
Several treatises on logic have appeared in Germany, which profess to exhibit the subject according to a strictly scientific method. Among these may be mentioned Kiesewetter's cGrundriss einer Allgetneinen Logik naeh Kantisehen Grundslitzen; &c., Berlin, 1791.
A complete catalogue of logical treatises would be very long ; and the value of the catalogue would hardly compensate for its length. Writers have formed their notions of the science with more or leas precision, but have seldom, if ever, kept within their own limits ; and this is a difficulty which is inherent in the subject. If confined to the bare affirmation or negation of propositions expressed by is or is not (considered simply as determinations of quantity), and to the pure syllogism, the theory of logic is soon exhausted, and as a science it is comprised within very narrow limits. If we once transcend those bounds, we enter into a wider sphere, in which this formal logic becomes a mere point. To ascertain the full import of the words is and is not in a proposition is the highest aim of philosophy.
A student in logic, consulting only modern works, may be debarred from oven the slightest notion of an historical view of the subject, by the mixture which his books give him of the ideas of writers of all times and countries. To disentangle the confusion of minds and methods which oven a good treatise presents, historically speaking, it is above all things necessary that he should first get some knowledge of what Aristotle is. And this the work of an erudite and acute
German writer enables us to give in a very useful way.
The Elements Logices Aristotelicae,' by Professor Trendelenburg, Berlin, 1342, 2nd edition, consists of passages selected from the works of Aristotle, which passages may be considered as containing the elements of the science. These passages are so arranged as to present a kind of outline of the whole logical system of Aristotle. They are intended for the use of the higher classes in gyninasia, and as a pre paration for philosophical studies.
The following article is simply a translation of these extracts, which aro retained in the order given to them by Trendelenburg ; and tho references to the original places in Aristotle have also been retained. The original terms of Aristotle are also given in brackets the first time that each is mentioned.
In the preface to another useful work (' Erlduterungen zu den Elementen der Aristotelischen Logik,' Berlin, 1842, by the same author), he has more fully explained his views in making these extracts from Aristotle, and the following remarks are his :—At the time of the Reformation Luther saw clearly the advantage of logical instruction in the higher schools, and be viewed it correctly as the completion of the grammatical instruction. The circle of studies in modern times has been wonderfully enlarged, and it has been found necessary to extend the school instruction to meet the wants of the present age. But the great variety of subjects with which our present systems of education occupy us, only render it the more necessary to discipline the mind in such a manner that it shall see a unity in all that is presented to it, and not be bewildered by the variety of objects whose connection escapes us, when they are contemplated separately. Such a discipline is furnished by a good course of elementary instruc tion in logic. For this purpose the author has adopted the genuine words of Aristotle, in which the philosopher has laid down his elementary logical principles. The logic of Aristotle is not antiquated, though it is both misunderstood by some, and blamed by others who do understand it. It is not the formal logic of Kant, which would confine us to the forms of thought without any reference to the object into which the thought penetrates. Such a limitation of the subject is entirely at variance with the system of Aristotle, and opposed to its real character. " We have," says t Trendelenburg, " attempted to restore this real character, and thus brought Aristotle nearer to the objective demands of modern times." Those who view logic as purely formal, view it differently from Aristotle, and they may consider their mode of viewing the subject to be better than hls. Those who say that Aristotle has, in some matters, erroneously extended the province of logic to things beyond its limits, and has not always kept close to the real subject, appear to have conceived that he viewed it merely as formal, and sometimes ;transgressed the boundaries of the science which he recognised. This is however an erroneous view of Aristotle's system.