n Interpretation, _i.e._, the
interpretation of the Respondent's "Yes" and "No," is
preliminary to the Syllogism, the reasoning of the admissions
together. Even in the half-grammatical half-logical treatise
on the Categories, the author always keeps an eye on the
Syllogistic analysis.]

[Footnote 2: Theaetetus, 151 E.]

[Footnote 3: Gorgias, 473 D.]

[Footnote 4: Hipparchus, 225 A.]

[Footnote 5: In its leading and primary use, this was a mode
of debate, a duel of wits, in which two men engaged before
an audience. But the same form could be used, and was used,
notably by Socrates, not in an eristic spirit but as a means
of awakening people to the consequences of certain admissions
or first principles, and thus making vague knowledge explicit
and clear. The mind being detained on proposition after
proposition as assent was given to it, dialectic was a
valuable instrument of instruction and exposition. But
whatever the purpose of the exercise, controversial triumph,
or solid grounding in the first principles--"the evolution
of in-dwelling conceptions"--the central interest lay in the
syllogising or reasoning together of the separately assumed or
admitted propositions.]

[Footnote 6: Like every other fashion, Yes-and-No Dialectic
had its period, its rise and fall. The invention of it is
ascribed to Zeno the Eleatic, the answering and questioning
Zeno, who flourished about the middle of the fifth century
B.C. Socrates (469-399) was in his prime at the beginning of
the great Peloponnesian War when Pericles died in 429. In that
year Plato was born, and lived to 347, "the olive groves of
Academe" being established centre of his teaching from
about 386 onwards. Aristotle (384-322), who was the tutor of
Alexander the Great, established his school at the Lyceum
when Alexander became king in 336 and set out on his career
of conquest. That Yes-and-No Dialectic was then a prominent
exercise, his logical treatises everywhere bear witness. The
subsequent history of the game is obscure. It is probable that
Aristotle's thorough exposition of its legitimate arts and
illegitimate tricks helped to destroy its interest as an
amusement.]

[Footnote 7: Hamilton's _Lectures_, iii. p. 37.]

II.--LOGIC AS A PREVENTIVE OF ERROR OR FALLACY.--THE INNER SOPHIST.

Why describe L