As to _Syllogisms_, I find that their nineteen forms, with about a score of others which they have ignored, can all be arranged under _three_ forms, each with a very simple Rule of its own; and the only question the Reader has to settle, in working any one of the 101 Examples given at p. 101 of this book, is "Does it belong to Fig. I., II., or III.?" pg184 As to _Sorites_, the only two forms, recognised by the text-books, are the _Aristotelian_, whose Premisses are a series of Propositions in A, so arranged that the Predicate of each is the Subject of the next, and the _Goclenian_, whose Premisses are the very same series, written backwards. Goclenius, it seems, was the first who noticed the startling fact that it does not affect the force of a Syllogism to invert the order of its Premisses, and who applied this discovery to a Sorites. If we assume (as surely we may?) that he is the _same_ man as that transcendent genius who first noticed that 4 times 5 is the same thing as 5 times 4, we may apply to him what somebody (Edmund Yates, I think it was) has said of Tupper, viz., "here is a man who, beyond all others of his generation, has been favoured with Glimpses of the Obvious!" These puerile----not to say infantine----forms of a Sorites I have, in this book, ignored from the very first, and have not only admitted freely Propositions in _E_, but have purposely stated the Premisses in random order, leaving to the Reader the useful task of arranging them, for himself, in an order which can be worked as a series of regular Syllogisms. In doing this, he can begin with _any one_ of them he likes. I have tabulated, for curiosity, the various orders in which the Premisses of the Aristotelian Sorites 1. All a are b; 2. All b are c; 3. All c are d; 4. All d are e; 5. All e are h. .'. All a are h. may be syllogistically arranged, and I find there are no less than _sixteen_ such orders, viz., 12345, 21345, 23145, 23415, 23451, 32145, 32415, 32451, 34215, 34251, 34521, 43215, 43251, 43521, 45321, 54321. Of these the _first_ and the _last_ have been dignified with names; but the other _fourteen_----first enumerated by an obscure Writer on Logic, towards the end of the Nineteenth Century----remain without a name! pg185 § 10. _Some account of Parts II, III._