The classification of syllogisms, founded exactly upon the empirical conception of the judgment as the copulation of a _subject_ and a _predicate_ affords a suitable parallel to this method of treatment of the judgment; subject and predicate being understood in an empirical and grammatical manner, whence they are also discovered in those verbal affirmations, in which they are not distinct, because they are identical, as in the case of the judgment of definition. For empirical Logic, in the judgment: "The will is the practical form of the spirit," "will" is subject and "practical form" predicate in the same way as in "Peter is a man," "Peter" is subject, and "man" predicate. From the distinction between subject and predicate, arise the four _figures_ of the syllogism; the criterion being the position of the middle term in the two premisses of the three propositions of which the syllogism is formed. If the middle term be subject in the first premiss and predicate in the second, we have the first figure; if it be predicate in both, the second; if it be subject in both, the third; if it be predicate in the first and subject in the second, the fourth figure ("_sub-prae,_ turn _prae-prae,_ turn _sub-sub,_ turn _prae-sub")._ But in order to deduce the moods of each figure recourse is then had to another criterion, indeed to two other criteria; that is, to the empirical distinctions of judgments into universal and particular, and into affirmative and negative, with the four consequent determinations into universal-affirmative judgments (A), universal-negative (E), particular-affirmative (I), and particular-negative (O). Thus, in the first figure, two universal affirmative premisses constitute the first mood, and the conclusion is universal affirmative _(Barbara)_; two premisses, both universal, but one affirmative and the other negative, constitute the second, and the conclusion is universal negative _(celarent)_; two premisses, one universal affirmative and the other particular affirmative, constitute the third mood, and the conclusion is particular affirmative _(darii);_ two premisses, one universal negative and one particular affirmative, constitute the fourth mood, and the conclusion is particular negative _(ferio)._ And so on. [Sidenote: _Spontaneous reductions to the absurd of formal Logic._]