militaris gloriæ pompam," says he, " cum hæreditate et prærogativa primogenitorum meorum fratribus derelinquens, Martis curiæ penitus abdicarem, ut Minervæ gremio educarer."-Hist. Calamit. Suar. cap. 1.

Among the literary men of this period, none seems to have arisen to such an eminent superiority above his age, in the liberality of his philosophical views, as John of Salisbury, the celebrated friend of Archbishop Becket. In his youth he had studied at Paris under Abelard and other eminent masters, and had applied himself, with distinguished ardour and success, to the subtile speculations which then occupied the schools. After a long absence, when his mind was enlarged by more liberal and useful pursuits, and by an extensive intercourse with the world, he had the curiosity to revisit the scene of his early studies, and to compare his own acquisitions with those of his old companions. The account which he gives of this visit is strikingly characteristical, both of the writer and of his age :-" Inventi sunt, qui fuerant, et ubi: neque enim ad palmam visi sunt processisse ad quæstiones pristinas dirimendas, neque propositiunculam unam adjecerant. . . . . Expertus itaque sum, quod liquido colligi potest, quia sicut dialectica alias expedit disciplinas, sic, si sola fuerit, jacet exsanguis et sterilis," &c.-Me alog. lib. ii. cap. 10.

....

The same author, speaking of the controversy between the Nominalists and the Realists, thus expresses himself:-" Quæstionem de generibus et speciebus in qua laborans mundus jam senuit, in qua plus temporis consumptum est quam in acquir endo et regendo orbis imperio consumserit Cæsarea domus: plus effusum pecuniæ, quam in omnibus divitiis suis possederit Croesus. Hæc enim tamdiu multos tenuit, ut cum hoc unum tota vita quærerent, tandem nec istud, nec aliud invenirent."-De Nugis Curialium, lib. vii. cap. 12.

NOTE I, p. 186.-Abstraction. (2 3.)

"... Secta Nominalium, omnium inter scholasticas profundissima, et hodiernæ reformatæ philosophandi rationi congruentissima; quæ quum olim maximè floreret, nunc apud scholasticos quidem, extincta est. Unde conjicias decrementa potiùs quàm augmenta acuminis. Quum autem ipse Nizolius noster se Nominalem exscrtè profiteri non dubitet prope finem capitis sexti, libri primi; et verò in realitate formalitatuin et universalium evertenda nervus disputationis ejus omnis potissimum contineatur, pauca quædam de Nominalibus subjicere operæ pretium duxi. Nominales sunt, qui omnia putant esse nuda nomina præter substantias singulares, abstractorum igitur et universalium realitatem prorsus tollunt. Primum autem Nominalium aiunt fuisse nescio quem Rucelinum Britonem, cujus occasione cruenta certamina in academia Parisiensi fuerunt excitata. . . .

....

"Diu autem jacuit in tenebris secta Nominalium, donec maximi vir ingenii, et eruditionis pro illo ævo summæ, Wilhelmus Occam Anglus, Scoti discipulus, sed mox oppugnator maximus, de improviso eam resuscitavit; consensere Gregorius Ariminensis, Gabriel Biel, et plerique ordinis Augustinianorum, unde et in Martini Lutheri scriptis prioribus amor Nominalium satis elucet, donec procedente tempore erga omnes monachos æqualiter affectus esse cœpit. Generalis autem regula est, qua Nominales passim utuntur; Entia non esse multiplicanda præter necessitatem. Hæc regula ab aliis passim oppugnatur, quasi injuria in divinam ubertatem, libe

alem potius quam parcam, et varietate ac copia rerum gaudentem. Sed, qui sie objiciunt, non satis mihi Nominalium mentem cepisse videntur, quæ, etsi obscurius proposita, huc redit: hypothesin eo esse meliorem, quo simpliciorem, et in causis eorum quæ apparent reddendis eum optime se gerere, qui quam paucissima gratis supponat. Nam qui aliter agit, eo ipso naturam, aut potius autorem ejus Deum ineptæ superfluitatis accusat. Si quis astronomus rationem phænomenorum cœlestium reddere potest paucis suppositis, meris nimirum motibus simplicibus circularibus, ejus certè hypothesis ejus hypothesi præferenda erit, qui multis orbibus varie implexis ad explicanda cœlestia indiget. Ex hac jam regula Nominales deduxerunt, omnia in rerum natura explicari posse, etsi universalibus et formalitatibus realibus prorsus careatur. Qua sententia nihil verius, nihil nostri temporis philosopho dignius, usque adeo, ut credam ipsum Occamum non fuisse nominaliorem, quam nunc est Thomas Hobbes, qui, ut verum fatear, mihi, plusquam nominalis videtur. Non contentus enim cum Nominalibus universalia ad nomina reducere, ipsam rerum veritatem ait in nominibus consistere, ac, quod majus est, pendere ab arbitrio humano, quia veritas pendeat a definitionibus terminorum, definitiones autem terminorum ab arbitrio humano. Hæc est sententia viri inter profundissimos seculi censendi, qua, ut dixi, nihil potest esse nominalius."-[Leibnitii Dissertatio Preliminaris de Stylo Philosophico Mari Nizolii, (1670,) sect. xxviii. Opera, ed. Dutensii, tom. iv. p. 59, seq.—Ed.]

This passage from Leibnitz has given rise to a criticism of Morhoff, which appears to me to be extremely ill-founded. "Accenset Nominalibus," says he, "Leibnitius Thomam Hobbesium, quem ille ipso Occamo nominaliorem, et plusquam nominalem vocat; qui non contentus, cum Nominalibus universalia ad nomina reducere, ipsam rerum veritatem ait in nominibus consistere, ac quod majus est, pendere ab arbitrio humano. Quæ bella ejus sententia, quamquam laudat eam Leibnitius, monstri aliquid alit, ac plane nequam est. Immania enim ex uno summo paradoxo fluunt absurda."— Morhofii Polyhistor, L. I. c. 13, vol. ii. p. 81.

I shall not at present enter into a particular examination of the doctrine here ascribed to Hobbes, which I shall have occasion to consider afterwards under the article of Reasoning. I cannot, however, help remarking, that nothing but extreme inattention to the writings of Leibnitz could have led Morhoff to suppose that he had given his sanction to such an opinion. In the very passage which has now been quoted, the expression (" qui ut verum fatear, mihi plus quam nominalis videtur") plainly implies a censure of Hobbes's philosophy; and in another dissertation, entitled Meditationes de Cognitione, Veritate et Ideis, he is at pains directly to refute this part of his system:-"Atque ita habemus quoque discrimen inter definitiones nominales, quæ notas tantum rei ab aliis discernendæ continent, et reales, ex quibus constat rem esse possibilem, et hac ratione satisfit Hobbio qui veritates volebat esse arbitrarias, quia ex definitionibus nominalibus penderent, non considerans realitatem definitionis in arbitrio non esse, nec quaslibet notiones inter se posse conjungi. Nec definitiones nominales sufficiunt ad perfectam scientiam, nisi quando aliunde constat rem definitam esse possibilem," &c. &c.-Leibnitii Opera, edit. Dutens., tom. ii. pp. 16, 17.

NOTE K, p. 190.-Abstraction. (23.)

"To form a clear notion of truth, it is very necessary to consider truth of thought and truth of words, distinctly one from another: but yet it is very difficult to treat of them asunder; because it is unavoidable, in treating of mental propositions, to make use of words; and then the instances given of mental propositions cease immediately to be barely mental, and become verbal. For a mental proposition being nothing but a bare consideration of the ideas, as they are in our minds stripped of names, they lose the nature of purely mental propositions as soon as they are put into words.

“And that which makes it yet harder to treat of mental and verbal propositions separately, is that most men, if not all, in their thinking and reasonings within themselves, make use of words instead of ideas, at least when the subject of their meditation contains in it complex ideas."-Locke, Essay, Book iv. c. 5. §§ 3, 4. "... But to return to the consideration of truth. We must, I say, observe two sorts of propositions that we are capable of making.

First, mental, wherein the ideas in our understandings are without the use of words put together or separated by the mind, perceiving or judging of their agreement or disagreement.

66

Secondly, verbal propositions, which are words, the signs of our ideas put together or separated in affirmative or negative sentences," &c.—Ibid. § 5.

"Though the examining and judging of ideas by themselves, their names being quite laid aside, be the best and surest way to clear and distinct knowledge; yet through the prevailing custom of using sounds for ideas, I think it is very seldom practised. Every one may observe, how common it is for names to be made use of instead of the ideas themselves, even when men think and reason within their own breasts; especially if the ideas be very complex, and made up of a great collection of simple ones. This makes the consideration of words and propositions so necessary a part of the treatise of knowledge, that it is very hard to speak intelligibly of the one, without explaining the other.

"All the knowledge we have being only of particular or of general truths, it is evident that whatever may be done in the former of these, the latter can never be well made known, and is very seldom apprehended, but as conceived and expressed in words."-Book iv. c. 6. §§ 1, 2.

From these passages it appears, that Locke conceived the use which we make of words in carrying on our reasonings, both with respect to particular and to general truths, to be chiefly the effect of custom; and that the employment of language, however convenient, is not essential to our intellectual operations. His opinion, therefore, did not coincide with that which I have ascribed to the Nominalists.

On the other hand, the following passage shews clearly how widely his opinion differed from that of the Realists; and indeed, it would have led us to believe that it was the same with Berkeley's, had not the foregoing quotations contained an explicit declaration of the contrary.

"To return to general words, it is plain, by what has been said, that general and universal belong not to the real existence of things, but are the inventions and creatures of the understanding, made by it for its own use, and concern only signs,

whether words or ideas. Words are general, as has been said, when used for signs of general ideas, and so are applicable indifferently to many particular things; and ideas are general, when they are set up as the representatives of many particular things: but universality belongs not to things themselves, which are all of them particular in their existence; even those words and ideas which in their signification are general. When, therefore, we quit particulars, the generals that rest are only creatures of our own making,-their general nature being nothing but the capacity they are put into by the understanding, of signifying or representing many particulars. For the signification they have is nothing but a relation that by the mind of man is added to them."-Book iii. c. 3, 2 11.

On the whole, it is evident, that Mr. Locke was neither completely satisfied with the doctrine of the Nominalists, nor with that of the Realists; and therefore I think it is with good reason that Dr. Reid has classed him with the Conceptualists. Indeed, Mr. Locke has put this matter beyond all doubt himself; for, in explaining the manner in which we conceive universals, he has stated his opinion in the strongest and most paradoxical and most contradictory terms. The ridicule bestowed on this part of his philosophy by the author of Martinus Scriblerus, although censured for unfairness by Dr. Warburton, is almost justified by some of his expressions.

NOTE L, p. 197.—Abstraction. (2 4.)

In a letter from Leibnitz to a Scotch gentleman, (Mr. Burnet of Kemney,) dated in the year 1697, there is the following passage:

"J'ay considéré avec attention le grand ouvrage du caractère réel et langage philosophique de Monsieur Wilkins. Je trouve qu'il y a mis une infinité de belles choses, et nous n'avons jamais eu une table des prédicamens plus accomplie. Mais l'application pour les caractères, et pour la langue, n'est point conforme à ce qu'on pouvoit et devoit faire. J'avois considéré cette matière avant le livre de Monsieur Wilkins, quand j'etois un jeune homme de dix nouf aus, dans mon petit livre De Arte Combinatoria, et mon opinion est que ces caractères véritablement réels et philosophiques doivent repondre a l'analyse des pensées. Il est vray que ces caractères présupposent la véritable philosophie, et ce n'est que présentement que j'oserois entrependre de les fabriquer. Les objections de M. Dalgarus, et de M. Wilkins, contre la méthode véritablement philosophique ne sont que pour excuser l'imperfection de leurs essais, et marquent seulement les difficultés qui les en on rebutés."

The letter, of which this is a part, was published at the end of A Defence of Dr. Clarke, (which I believe is commonly ascribed to Dr. Gregory Sharpe,) and which was printed at London in 1744. The person mentioned by Leibnitz under the name of M. Dalgarus, was evidently George Dalgarno, a native of Aberdeen, and author of a small and very rare book, entitled, "Ars Signorum, vulgò character universalis et lingua philosophica, qua poterunt, homines diversissimorum idiomatum, spatio duarum septimanarum, omnia animi sui sensa, (in rebus familiaribus,) non minus inte'ligibiliter, sive scribendo, sive loquendo, mutuo communicare, quam linguis propriis vernaculis. Præterea, hinc etiam poterunt juvenes, philosophie principia, et veram logico praxin, citius et facilius multo imbibere, quam ex vulgaribus philosophorum scriptis."

It is very remarkable that this work of Dalgarno is never (at least as far as I recollect) mentioned by Wilkins; although it appears from a letter of Charles I. prefixed to Dalgarno's book, that Wilkins was one of the persons who had recommended him to the royal favour.

The treatise De Arte Combinatoria is published in the second volume of Dutens' edition of Leibnitz's works, but it does not appear to me to throw much light on his views with respect to a philosophical language.

I must request the indulgence of the reader for adding to the length of this note, by quoting a passage from another performance of Leibnitz, in which he has fallen into a train of thought remarkably similar to that of Mr. Hume and Dr. Campbell, in the passages already quoted from then in this section. The performance is entitled, Meditationes de Cognitione, Veritate et Ideis, and is printed in the second volume of Dutens' edition, p. 15. [Its date is 1684.Ed.]

Plerumque autem, præsertim in analysi longiore, non totam simul naturam rei intuemur, sed rerum loco signis utimur, quorum explicationem in præsenti aliqua cogitatione compendii causa solemus prætermittere, scientes, aut credentes nos eam habere in potestate: ita cum chiliogonum, seu polygonum mille æqualium laterum cogito, non semper naturam lateris, et æqualitatis, et millenarii (seu cubi a denario) considero, sed vocabulis istis (quorum sensus obscure saltem, atque imperfecte menti obversatur) in animo utor loco idearum, quas de iis habeo, quoniam memini me significationem istorum vocabulorum habere, explicationem autem nunc judico necessariam non esse; qualem cogitationem cæcam, vel etiam symbolicam appellare soleo, qua et in algebra, et in arithmetica utimur, imo fere ubique. Et certe cum notio valde composita est, non possumus omnes ingredientes eam notiones simul cogitare: ubi tamen hoc licet, vel saltem in quantum licet, cognitionem voco intuitivam. Notionis distinctæ primitivæ non alia datur cognitio, quam intuitiva, ut compositarum plerumque cogitatio non nisi symbolica est.

"Ex his jam patet, nos eorum quoque, quæ distincte cognoscimus, ideas non percipere, nisi quatenus cogitatione intuitiva utimur. Et sane contingit, ut nos sæpe falso credamus habere in animo ideas rerum, cum falso supponimus aliquos terminos, quibus utimur, jam a nobis fuisse explicatos: nec verum aut certe ambiguitati obnoxium est, quod aiunt aliqui, non posse nos de re aliqua dicere, intelligendo quod dicimus, quin ejus habeamus ideam. Sæpe enim vocabula ista singula utcunque intelligimus, aut nos antea intellixisse meminimus, qui tamen hac cogitatione cæca contenti sumus, et resolutionem notionum non satis prosequimur, fit ut lateat nos contradictio, quam forte notio composita involvit." *

* Compare Leibnitii Opera, Dutensii, tom. vi. pars ii. p. 73; likewise, the Euvres Philosophiques de Leibnitz, published by Raspe, pp. 233, 244. 509. Of this rare book, which is supplemental to the edition by Dutens, Mr. Stewart was not aware. It may be also mentioned that Berkeley, Hume, and Campbell, were anticipated in their doctrine of general terms (to say

nothing of Locke) by Wolf, Bilfinger, and other Leibnitians, who, in this respect, had inade the doctrine of their master commonplace in Germany, before it was fairly promulgated in this country, or in France. But even Leibnitz himself had herein been long anticipated, and by a correcter, though still neglected, doctrine. -Ed.