mous division fully expressed would have given as the first division right and not-right, this last species being subdivided into acute and obtuse, these varieties being complementary of each other and making up the whole species not-right. A good exemplification of a strict dichotomous division with omission in the final result of the distinct mention of parts really given in the process but afterward subdivided, and therefore not needing to be enumerated, may be taken from Aristotle's divisions of the grounds of human action contained in Book II. chapter x. of his Rhetoric. All things, he says, are done by men either not of themselves or of themselves. Of things not done by men of themselves, some they do from necessity, others they do of chance. Of those done from necessity, a part are from external force; the others are from force of natural constitution. So that all that men do not of themselves are either of chance, or from nature, or from force. On the other hand, what they do of themselves are partly through habit, partly through impulse; and these last, partly through rational impulse or will, and partly throughirrational impulse, which is either anger or appetite. So that all things whatsoever men do, they of necessity do on seven grounds, chance, force, natural constitution, habit,

reason, anger, appetite.

The law of method in all single division, is that of subordination. If, however, in the same discourse for any purpose divisions be needful into two or more sets of parts, that is, on two or more principles of division, then the law of method in reference to the arrangement of these divers sets of parts, is that of coördination, which requires that the various sets of parts be kept by themselves. If it happen, as it has been remarked it often does happen, that language furnishes no convenient designations for the higher parts, then the lower parts must be grouped together, and not intermingled with those of other sets. Thus it would be in violation of this law of coördination to present the parts of angles as acute, right, and obtuse; or of man as intelligent, sanguine, bilious, asthetic, etc.

§ 92. The Law of Completeness in Division requires that all the parts which make up the class under the assumed principle of division be presented; and that such successive subdivisions be given as the purpose or occasion of the discourse may prescribe.

There would be no full entire explanation obviously, if any coördinate part were omitted in the division. This part of the law of completeness in division is definite and peremptory in all discourse, for the thought would not be complete otherwise. But as to the other part of the law which respects the number of successive subdivisions, it is evident that as there is no limit in thought to the number of such subdivisions, only the occasion of the discourse can furnish a limit.

EXERCISES IN DIVISION.

1. Divide the theme, man, as a species, on the principle of division given by the attribute of quality, color; also, by the attribute of action, pursuit or occupation; also, by that of condition, country; also, by that of relation, rule or domination.

2. Divide the animal kingdom in respect of the attribute of quality, structure; also, in respect of the attribute of condition, place of life.

3. Divide plants in respect of attributes of quality and of condition.

4. Divide winds in respect of condition of time.

5. Divide governments in respect of attribute of freedom. 6. Divide sciences in respect of attributes of relation: (1.) their matter; (2.) their utility.

7. Divide mental phenomena in respect of relation of primitive or consequent.

8. Divide duties in respect of relation of object; also, in respect of priority of obligation.

9. Divide the following themes in respect of some attribute

of quality, action, condition, and relation: Languages; arts; poetry; history; virtues; instincts; races of men.

10. Divide the carnivorous family; the ruminants; the thrushes; the mollusks; insects; flowering shrubs; the lilies; the rocks; the metals; physical forces; colors; the alkalies; resins; cognitions; feelings; human societies; forms of religion; civilizations; governments; laws; customs; tenures of property; fine arts; objects of thought; attributes; occupations; mechanic arts; divisions of time; educational institutions; wars; international alliances; human relationships; social conditions ; diversities of genius; systems of unbelief; monotheistic systems; phases of religious character; influences on the formation of character.

CHAPTER V.

OF PARTITION.

§ 93. PARTITION is that process of explanation which exhibits the theme through its component attributes.

a

Language furnishes only to a limited extent peculiar forms of expression to distinguish a logical subject-form of thought from a predicate-form. Man is a proper subject-word class-noun; but we habitually use the word to denote a complement of attributes, as synonymous with humanity. Indeed, Logic instructs us in interpreting such a simple proposition as man is mortal, that we may equally interpret man as a term in comprehensive quantity or as a term in extensive quantity — that is, equally as a term denoting a certain union of attributes, or as one denoting a certain union of individual objects. Thus we may interpret it: man is as to one of his attributes mortal; or man is one species of the class mortal. Humanity is a proper attribute-word. It is, however, allowably used to denote the combination of subjects to which the attribute it expresses belongs. In Division, as we have seen, the theme, however expressed, is ever to be viewed as a subject-word denoting a class is ever to be taken, logically speaking, in its extensive quantity; and the parts through which the theme is explained are similar parts, that can be designated by such terms as species, varieties, individuals. In Partition, on the other hand, the theme is ever to be viewed as an attribute-word—is to be viewed, in other words, in its comprehensive or intensive quantity. It is ever a composite attribute, a complement of attributes; and the parts are in the broader partition other composite attributes

or complements of attributes, and in the narrowest and ultimate partition simple attributes that cannot in our thought be further analyzed. In explaining man, thus, by partition, we must take the word as an attribute-word as synony

mous with humanity in its broader sense, as denoting all that properly belongs to man. We must further regard it as a composite attribute, containing in it other component attributes; and the process of partition consists in a proper exhibition of these component attributes. Man, for example, is composed of the attributes rational and animal. We have so far explained man when we have presented these component attributes. But we may go further and explain rational in the same way. Rational is composed of intelligence, sensibility, will. Each of these, still further, may be viewed as a composite attribute and be resolved by another partition.

Such is a general view of the nature of this process. It is essentially different from analysis by division. They are as much unlike as the arithmetical processes of Reduction of Fractions and Involution; and the thinker and writer who should undertake to explain a theme in ignorance of the distinction would fall into as great confusion and trouble as an arithmetician who should confound a fraction with a root of a number.

§ 94. THE THEME in Partition is ever an attribute containing in it other component attributes.

It is either an external and sensible attribute, or an internal and spiritual attribute.

§ 95. The Law of Unity in Partition requires that the theme be a single complement of attributes; and that the parts that are attained in the partition be all attributes of one subject.

Of the first part of this law of partition requiring singleness in the theme as one complement of attributes, no further