Now I wish to point out that what Sokrates thus depreciated, is exactly that which this Chapter of the Analysis lays before us as Classification generally. I agree with the Analysis that Classification, up to a certain point, grows out of the principle of Association and the exigencies of the human mind, by steps instructively set forth in that work. But such natural growth reaches no higher standard than that which Sokrates tested and found so lamentably deficient, even among a public of unusual intelligence. It does not deserve the name of a "mighty operation" (bestowed upon it by Mr. James Mill, p. 270). It is a rudimentary procedure, indispensable as a basis on which to build, and sufficing in the main for social communication, when no science or reasoned truth is required: but failing altogether to realise what has been understood by philosophers, from Sokrates downward, as the true and full purpose of Classification. So long as the Class is conceived to be only what the Analysis describes, an indistinct aggregate of resembling individuals denoted by the same name, without clearly understanding wherein the resemblance consists, or what facts and attributes are _connoted_ by the name[h] (I use the word _connote_, {279} not in the sense of the Analysis, but in the sense of Mr. John Stuart Mill)--so long will Classification continue to be, as Sokrates entitled it, a large persuasion of knowledge with little reality to sustain it. [Footnote h: The necessity of determining the _connotation_ of the Class-term is distinctly put forward by Sokrates--Xenophon, Memorab. III. 14, 2. [Greek: lo/gô| o)/ntos peri\ o)noma/tôn, iph' oi(ô=| e)/rgô| e(/kaston ei)/ê--E)/choimen a)\n (e)\phê) ei)pei=n, e)pi\ poiô=| pote\ e)/rgô| a)/nthrôpos o)pso/phagos kalei=tai?] &c., also the remarkable passage IV., 6. 13--15, Plato, Sophistes, p. 218 B. [Greek: tou)/noma mo/non e)/chomen koinê=| to\ de\ e)/rgon, e)ph' ô(=| kalou=men], &c.]