It is probable that Aristotle here understood the object of [Greek: e)/rôs] (as it is conceived through most part of the Symposion of Plato) to be a beautiful youth: (see Plato, Sympos. pp. 218-222; also Xenophon, Sympos. c. viii., Hiero, c. xi. 11, Memorab. I. ii. 29, 30). Yet this we must say--what the two women said when they informed Simætha of the faithlessness of Delphis (Theokrit. Id. ii. 149)--[Greek: Kê)=|pe/ moi a)/lla te polla/, kai\ ô(s a)/ra De/lphis e)/ratai; Kê)/|te min au)=te gunaiko\s e)/chei po/thos, ei)/te kai\ a)ndro/s, Ou)k e)/phat' a)treke\s i)/dmen.]] Such is the relation of the terms of a syllogism in regard to reciprocation and antithesis. Let it next be understood that the canons hitherto laid down belong not merely to demonstrative and dialectic syllogisms, but to rhetorical and other syllogisms also; all of which must be constructed in one or other of the three figures. In fact, every case of belief on evidence, whatever be the method followed, must be tested by these same canons. We believe everything either through Syllogism or upon Induction.[51] [Footnote 51: Ibid. II. xxiii. p. 68, b. 13: [Greek: a(/panta ga\r pisteu/omen ê)\ dia\ sullogismou= ê)\ e)x e)pagôgê=s.]] Though Aristotle might seem, even here, to have emphatically contrasted Syllogism with Induction as a ground of belief, he proceeds forthwith to indicate a peculiar form of Syllogism which may be constructed out of Induction. Induction, and the Syllogism from or out of Induction (he says) is a process in which we invert the order of the terms. Instead of concluding from the major through the middle to the minor (_i.e._ concluding that the major is predicable of the minor), we now begin from the minor and conclude from thence through the middle to the major (_i.e._ we conclude that the major is predicable of the middle).[52] In Syllogism as hitherto described, we concluded that A the major was predicable of C the minor, through the middle B; in the Syllogism from Induction we begin by affirming that A the major is predicable of C the minor; next, we affirm that B the middle is also predicable of C the minor. The two premisses, standing thus, correspond to the Third figure of the Syllogism (as explained in the preceding pages) and would not therefore by themselves justify anything more than a _particular_ affirmative conclusion. But we reinforce them by introducing an extraneous assumption:--That the minor C is co-extensive with the middle B, and comprises the entire aggregate of individuals of which B is the universal or class-term. By reason of this assumption the minor proposition becomes convertible simply, and we are enabled to infer (according to the last preceding chapter) an universal affirmative conclusion, that the major term A is predicable of the middle term B. Thus, let A (the major term) mean the class-term, long-lived; let B (the middle term) mean the class-term, bile-less, or the having no bile; let C (the