linguistic faculty from the properly logical, and to its consideration in union with the poetical and artistic faculty; but here too the attempt stopped half-way. The Aristotelian logic assumed a verbal and formalistic character, which became more and more accentuated as time went on and formed an obstacle to the distinction between the two theoretical forms. Nevertheless, Epicurus asserted that the diversity of names designating the same thing with various peoples was due, not to convention and caprice, but to the fact that the impressions produced by things were different in each one of them.[44] And the Stoics, although they connected language with thought (διάνοια) and not with imagination, seem to have had a suspicion of the non-logical nature of language, for they interposed between thought and sound a _certain something_ which was indicated in Greek by the word λεκτόν, and by the words _effatum_ or _dicibile_ in Latin. But we are not sure what they really meant, and whether that vague concept were intended by them to distinguish the linguistic representation from the abstract concept (which would bring them into touch with the modern view), or the meaning of sound in general.[45] We cannot collect any other germ of truth from the ancient writers. A philosophical Grammar, like a philosophical Poetics, remained unattainable in antiquity. [1] See above, pp. 128-131. Quotations which give only the name of the author, or are otherwise abbreviated, refer to historical or critical works of which the complete title is given in the Bibliographical Appendix. [2] Rosmini, _Nuovo saggio sull' origine delle idee,_ sections iii. and iv., where theories of knowledge are classified. [3] See above, pp. 83-84. [4] See above, p. 65. [5] _Republic_, x. 607. [6] _Republic_, x. 607. [7] Plutarch, _De audiendis poetis_, ch. i. [8] _Republic_ x. [9] _Frogs,_ 1, 1055. [10] Plato, _Laws,_ bk. ii.; Aristotle, _Poet._ ch. 14; _Polit,_ bk. viii. [11] Strabo, _Geographica,_ i. ch. 2, §§ 3-9. [12] Texts collected in E. Müller, _Gesch. d. Th. d. K._ i. pp. 57-85. [13] Plutarch, _De aud. poetis,_ chs. 1-4, 14. [14] _De rerum natura,_ i. 935-947. [15] _Ad Pisones,_ 333-334. [16] _Memorab._ iii. ch. 8; iv. ch. 6. [18] _Hippias maior, passim._ [19] _Rhet._ i. ch. 9. [20] _Metaphys._ xii. ch. 3. [21] _Poet._ ch. 7. [22] Diog. Lært. v. ch. i, § 20. [23] _Tuscul. quæst._ bk. iv. § 13. [24] _Poet._ ch. iv. 3. [25] _De aud. poetis_, ch. 3. [26] _Enneads,_ I. bk. vi. ch. i. [27] _Enneads, loc. cit._ chs. 2-9. [28] _Enneads,_ V. bk. viii. ch. i. [29] _Enneads, loc. cit._ chs. 2-3. [30] _Phædrus,_ ch. 4. [31] Poet. ch. 4, § 2. [32] Poet. ch. 9, §§ 1-4. [33] Poet. ch. 4, §§ 4-5. [34] Poet. chs. 24-25. [35] _Apoll. vita,_ vi. ch. io. [36] _Memorab._ iii. ch. io. [37] _Orator ad Brutum,_ ch. 2. [38] For example, Seneca, _Epist._ 65. [39] Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ xxxiv. ch. 19.