Note 358 — Chapter III

It follows that if we compare the conclusion of an indirect mood with the conclusion of the corresponding direct mood (where such correspondence exists), we shall find that the terms have changed places. Mansel’s definition of an indirect mood as “one in which we do not infer the immediate conclusion, but its converse” (Aldrich, p. 78) must, however, be rejected for the reason that it cannot be applied to Fapesmo and Frisesomorum, which are indirect moods having no corresponding valid direct moods at all. In these we cannot be said to infer “the converse of the immediate conclusion,” for there is no immediate conclusion. Mansel deals with these two moods very awkwardly. “Fapesmo and Frisesomorum,” he remarks, “have negative minor premisses, and thus offend against a special rule of the first figure; but this is checked by a counterbalancing transgression. For by simply converting O, we alter the distribution of the terms, so as to avoid an illicit process.” But the notion that we can counterbalance one violation of law by committing a second cannot be allowed. The truth of course is that, in the first place, the special rules of the first figure as ordinarily given do not apply to the indirect moods; and in the second place, the conclusion O is not obtained by conversion at all.