From whence follow three other figures; of which, two are _inflected_, and the third _inverted_. The first of these three is made by the conversion of the major proposition. For let the minor, middle, and major terms stand in direct order, thus, _man is a living creature_, _is not a stone_, which is the first or direct figure; the inflection will be by converting the major proposition in this manner, _man is a living creature_, _a stone is not a living creature_; and this is the second figure, or the first of the indirect figures; in which the conclusion will be, _man is not a stone_. For (having shown in the last chapter, art. 14, that universal propositions, converted by contradiction of the terms, are equipollent) both those syllogisms conclude alike; so that if the major be read (like Hebrew) backwards, thus, _a living creature is not a stone_, it will be direct again, as it was before. In like manner this direct syllogism, _man is not a tree_, _is not a pear-tree_, will be made indirect by converting the major proposition (by contradiction of the terms) into another equipollent to it, thus, _man is not a tree_, _a pear-tree is a tree_; for the same conclusion will follow, _man is not a pear-tree_. But for the conversion of the direct figure into the first indirect figure, the major term in the direct figure ought to be negative. For though this direct, _man is a living creature_, _is a body_, be made indirect, by converting the major proposition, thus, _Man is a living creature_, _Not a body is not a living creature_, Therefore, _Every man is a body_; Yet this conversion appears so obscure, that this mood is of no use at all. By the conversion of the major proposition, it is manifest, that in this figure, the middle term is always the predicate in both the premises. [Sidenote: Second indirect figure how made.] 10. The second indirect figure is made by converting the minor proposition, so as that the middle term is the subject in both. But this never concludes universally, and therefore is of no use in philosophy. Nevertheless I will set down an example of it; by which this direct _Every man is a living creature_, _Every living creature is a body_, by conversion of the minor proposition, will stand thus, _Some living creature is a man_, _Every living creature is a body_, Therefore, _Some man is a body_. For _every man is a living creature_ cannot be converted into this, _every living creature is a man_: and therefore if this syllogism be restored to its direct form, the minor proposition will be _some man is a living creature_, and consequently the conclusion will be _some man is a body_, seeing the minor term _man_, which is the subject in the conclusion, is a particular name. [Sidenote: How the third indirect figure is made.]