[6] This sentence having been erroneously understood as if I had meant to assert that belief is nothing but an irresistible association, I think it necessary to observe that I express no theory respecting the ultimate analysis either of reasoning or of belief, two of the most obscure points in analytical psychology. I am speaking not of the powers themselves, but of the previous conditions necessary to enable those powers to exert themselves: of which conditions I am contending that language is not one, senses and association being sufficient without it. [7] Mr. Bailey agrees with me in thinking that whenever "from something actually present to my senses conjoined with past experience, I feel satisfied that something has happened, or will happen, or is happening, beyond the sphere of my personal observation," I may with strict propriety be said to reason: and of course to reason inductively, for demonstrative reasoning is excluded by the circumstances of the case. (_The Theory of Reasoning_, 2nd ed. p. 27.) [8] _Novum Organum Renovatum_, pp. 35-37. [9] _Nov. Org. Renov._, pp. 39, 40. [10] P. 217, 4to edition. [11] "E, ex, extra, extraneus, étranger, stranger." Another etymological example sometimes cited is the derivation of the English _uncle_ from the Latin _avus_. It is scarcely possible for two words to bear fewer outward marks of relationship, yet there is but one step between them; _avus_, _avunculus_, _uncle_. So _pilgrim_, from _ager_: _per agrum_, _peragrinus_, _peregrinus_, _pellegrino_, _pilgrim_. [12] P. 226-7. [13] _Essays_, p. 214. [14] Ibid. 215.