business, &c. &c. All these are inductions by simple enumeration.”—Mill's Logic.

VII—Fallacies connected with the relation of analogy, comparison, and contrast. (See page 143.)

"But this is only one of the modes of error in the employment of arguments of analogy. There is another, more properly deserving the name of fallacy; namely, when resemblance in one point is inferred from resemblance in another point, although there is not only no evidence to connect the two circumstances by way of causation, but the evidence tends positively to disconnect them. This is properly the Fallacy of False Analogies.

"As a first instance, we may cite that favourite argument in defence of absolute power, drawn from the analogy of paternal government in a family, which government is not, and by universal admission ought not to be, controlled by (though it sometimes ought to be controlled for) the children. Paternal government, in a family, works well; therefore, says the argument, despotic government in a state will work well: implying that the beneficial working of parental government depends, in the family, upon the only point which it has in common with political despotism, namely, irresponsibility. Whereas it does not depend upon that, but upon two other attributes of parental government, the affection of the parent for the children, and the superiority of the parent in wisdom and experience; neither of which properties can be reckoned upon, or are at all likely to exist, between a political despot and his subjects; and when either of these circumstances fails, even in the family, and the influence of the irresponsibility is allowed to work uncorrected, the result is anything but good government. This, therefore, is a false analogy.

"Another example is the not uncommon dictum, that bodies politic have youth, maturity, old age, and death, like bodies natural: that after a certain duration of prosperity, they tend spontaneously to decay. This also is a false analogy, because the decay of the vital powers in an animated body can be distinctly traced to the natural progress of those very changes of structure which, in their earlier stages, constitute its growth to maturity; while in

the body politic the progress of those changes cannot, generally speaking, have any effect but the still further continuance of growth: it is the stoppage of that progress, and the commencement of retrogression, that alone would constitute decay. Bodies politic die, but it is of disease, or violent death: they have no old age."-Mill's Logic.

VIII. Fallacies connected with reasoning from parables, fables, and proverbs. (See page 166.)

A similitude or parable "should not be false in itself, as in this case the mind revolts not only against the thing itself but against the conclusion drawn from it. On this rule I shall take the liberty of making the following observations --Several of the ancients illustrated and endeavoured to prove the truth and certainty of the resurrection by the history of the Phoenix, a bird supposed to be produced in Arabia once in one hundred years,-there never being more than one at a time. It is reported that, when this bird finds its end approaching, it builds itself a nest of the most fragrant spices and aromatic plants, which, being set on fire by the rays of the sun, the bird is consumed in it; but from its ashes a worm or grub is formed, out of which another Phoenix in process of time arises. Others say, that it dies in the nest, and a grub is formed out of the marrow of its bones. Both these relations are equally true. Herodotus, Dion Cassius, Tacitus, and Pliny, mention this fabulous animal; and I have met with this account seriously produced by Clemens Alexandrinus, and other Christian fathers, to prove the resurrection of the body. Now it is well known no such bird ever did or ever could exist, that the supposed fact is impossible, and that the conclusion drawn from it, is not only not solid and convincing, but absurd, because the premises are all false."-Dr. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Matt. xiii. See also Ezek. xviii. 1-4. Luke iv. 23-27.

IX.-Fallacies connected with reasonings from written documents. (See page 184.)

1.-Forced interpretation.

"Next winter, a player, hired for the purpose by the Corporation of Fringemakers, acted his part in a new comedy, all covered

with silver fringe, and according to the laudable custom gave rise to that fashion. Upon which the brothers, consulting their father's will, to their great astonishment found these words: 'Item, I charge and command my said three sons, to wear no sort of silver fringe upon or about their said coats,' &c., with a penalty in case of disobedience too long here to insert. However, after some pause, the brother so often mentioned for his erudition, who was well skilled in criticisms, had found in a certain author, which he said should be nameless, that the same word which in the will is called fringe, does also signify a broomstick; and doubtless ought to have the same interpretation in this paragraph. This, another of the brothers disliked, because of that epithet, silver, which could not, he humbly conceived, in propriety of speech be reasonably applied to a broomstick; but it was replied upon him, that this epithet was understood in a mythological and allegorical sense. However, he objected again, why their father should forbid them to wear a broomstick on their coats, a caution that seemed unnatural and impertinent; upon which he was taken up short, as one that spoke irreverently of a mystery, which doubtless was very useful and significant, but ought not to be overcuriously pried into, or nicely reasoned upon. And in short, their father's authority being now considerably sunk, this expedient was allowed to serve as a lawful dispensation for wearing their full proportion of silver fringe."-Dean Swift's Tale of a Tub.

2.-Verbal quibbling.

"Dr. Franklin had no taste for verbal criticism. On one occasion, when the Senate of Pennsylvania were engaged in a long discussion upon the wording of a resolution, he retired to one of the back seats, and engaged in conversation with a friend on this subject. He said: When I was a journeyman printer, a young tradesman, named John Owen, who was about to set up business as a ropemaker, came into the printing-office, and asked us what writing he should place over his shop window. The foreman immediately wrote on a board, "John Owen, Ropemaker, makes and sells ropes;" with a coil of rope at the end. One man objected to the word ropemaker, as superfluous; for if he made ropes, he was certainly a ropemaker. This word was accordingly struck out. Another objected to makes. He said, "Your workmen make the ropes, not you, and if you sell good ropes, people won't care whether you make them or not." The sentence then stood "John Owen sells ropes." "John Owen sells ropes!" exclaimed another; "why, who would suppose that you intended to give them away? what do you open a shop for but to sell them?" The word sells was then struck out, and ropes followed of course. Nothing then remained but "John Owen," and a coil of rope.'"-Anon.

X.-Miscellaneous fallacies.

1.-Historical evidence-Napoleon Buonaparte:

"I suppose it will not be denied, that the three following are among the most important points to be ascertained, in deciding on the credibility of witnesses; first, whether they have the means of gaining correct information; secondly, whether they have any interest in concealing truth, or propagating falsehood; and, thirdly, whether they agree in their testimony. Let us examine the present witnesses upon all these points.

66

First, what means have the editors of newspapers for gaining correct information? We know not, except from their own statements. Besides what is copied from other journals, foreign or British, (which is usually more than three-fourths of the news published,) they profess to refer to the authority of certain private correspondents' abroad; who these correspondents are, what means they have of obtaining information, or whether they exist at all, we have no way of ascertaining. We find ourselves in the condition of the Hindoos, who are told by their priests that the earth stands on an elephant, and the elephant on a tortoise; but are left to find out for themselves what the tortoise stands on, or whether it stands on anything at all.

So much for our clear knowledge of the means of information possessed by these witnesses; next, for the grounds on which we are to calculate on their veracity.

"Have they not a manifest interest in circulating the wonderful accounts of Napoleon Buonaparte and his achievements, whether true or false? Few would read newspapers if they did not sometimes find wonderful or important news in them; and we may safely say that no subject was ever found so inexhaustibly interesting as the present."

"Still it will be said, that unless we suppose a regularly preconcerted plan, we must at least expect to find great discrepancies in the accounts published. Though they might adopt the general outline of facts one from another, they would have to fill

up the detail for themselves; and in this, therefore, we should meet with infinite and irreconcileable variety.

"Now this is precisely the point I am tending to; for the fact exactly accords with the above supposition; the discordance and mutual contradictions of these witnesses being such as would alone throw a considerable shade of doubt over their testimony. It is not in minute circumstances alone that the discrepancy appears, such as might be expected to appear in a narrative substantially true; but in very great and leading transactions, and such as are very intimately connected with the supposed hero. For instance, it is by no means agreed whether Buonaparte led in person the celebrated charge over the bridge of Lodi, (for

celebrated it certainly is, as well as the siege of Troy, whether either event ever really took place or no,) or was safe in the rear, while Augereau performed the exploit. The same doubt hangs over the charge of the French cavalry at Waterloo. The peasant Lacoste, who professed to have been Buonaparte's guide on the day of battle, and who earned a fortune by detailing over and over again to visitors all the particulars of what the great man said and did up to the moment of flight,-this same Lacoste has been suspected by others, besides me, of having never even been near the great man, and having fabricated the whole story for the sake of making a gain of the credulity of travellers."

"It appears, then, that those on whose testimony the existence and actions of Buonaparte are generally believed, fail in ALL the most essential points on which the credibility of witnesses depends: first, we have no assurance that they have access to correct information; secondly, they have an apparent interest in propagating falsehood; and, thirdly, they palpably contradict each other in the most important points."

"But what shall we say to the testimony of those many respectable persons who went to Plymouth on purpose, and saw Buonaparte with their own eyes? must they not trust their senses? I would not disparage either the eyesight or the veracity of these gentlemen. I am ready to allow that they went to Plymouth for the purpose of seeing Buonaparte; nay, more, that they actually rowed out into the harbour in a boat, and came alongside of a man-of-war, on whose deck they saw a man in a cocked hat, who, they were told, was Buonaparte. This is the utmost point to which their testimony goes; how they ascertained that this man in the cocked hat had gone through all the marvellous and romantic adventures with which we have so long been amused, we are not told."

"There is one more circumstance which I cannot forbear mentioning, because it so much adds to the air of fiction which pervades every part of this marvellous tale; and that is the nationality of it.

Buonaparte prevailed over all the hostile states in turn except England; in the zenith of his power, his fleets were swept from the sea, by England; his troops always defeat an equal, and frequently even a superior number of those of any other nation, except the English; and with them it is just the reverse; twice, and twice only, he is personally engaged against an English commander, and both times he is totally defeated; at Acre, and at Waterloo; and to crown all, England finally crushes this tremendous power, which had so long kept the continent in subjection or in alarm; and to the English he surrenders himself prisoner! Thoroughly national, to be sure! It may be all very true; but I would only ask, if a story had been fabricated for the express

L