Hm. It doesn't quite seem like this argument "works," for shouldn't the conclusion be, "Therefore, some violent passions ought to be feared?"

The Mnemonic

I didn't undertake all of this to try to figure out ancient logic in its entirety; I did it only to look at words--and nonsense words at that. So, if we put these five words from the first figure together, we have the following mnemonic:

"barbara, celarent, darii, ferio, baralipton..."

If a student memorized these words, then, he would also have in his mind the structure of arguments which would fit under the first figure. Time and my interest at this point doesn't allow for detailed consideration of the second, third and fourth figures. Suffice it to say that it provided additional mnemonics. Let me put it all together for you, at least from the perspective of Peter the Spaniard and William of Sherwood.

The complete mnemonic, in its earliest form, is:

"barbara, celarent, darii, ferio, baralipton;
celantes, dabitis, fapesmo, frisesomorum;
cesare, camestres, festino, baroco, darapti;
felapton, disamis, datisi, bocardo, ferison."

There was, however, an alternative pnemonic circulating in the Middle Ages, which was not hugely different from the preceding, but ought to be mentioned because the OED refers to both in its definitions without telling you which it is referring to. The other, later, one was:

"barbara, celarent, darii, ferio;
cesare, camestres, festino, baroco;
darapti, disamis, datisi, felapton, bocardo and ferison;
bramantip, camenes, dimaris, fesapo, fresison."

Some of each of the terms could be varied in different systems. Let me try to clarify now one aspect of the OED definition of baralipton and then the quotation of Pascal which got us started in our first essay. Recall that baralipton is defined as "the first indirect mood of the first figure of syllogisms..." What does that mean?

We read that Aristotle only developed the first three figures. Before the fourth was developed or recognized as such:

"its moods were recognized in another form, namely, as indirect moods of the first figure; and the above mnemonics--baralipton, celantes, dabitis, fapesmo, frisesomorum--represent these moods so regarded," JN Keynes, Studies and Exercises in Formal Logic (1894), p. 290.

So, the OED is pointing to this phenomenon, where baralipton is recognized as an "indirect" mood, even though it doesn't tell us what an indirect mood is. That solves the mystery of the definition. But recall, also, that we had, in the first essay, a quotation from Pascal which put together barbara and baralipton together. How does that work? Let's read on. Keynes goes on to say:

"The moods of figure 1 may then be distinguished as direct or indirect according as the position of the terms in the conclusion is the same as their position in the premisses or the reverse. Thus, with the premisses M-P, S-M [i.e., which we recognize are the two "1st figure" premises], we have a direct conclusion S-P [the conclusion given above], and an indirect conclusion P-S. These are respectively Barbara and Baralipton," Ibid., 291.

So, we see that baralipton is both the last mood in the first figure under the system of Peter and William, the first indirect mood of the first figure and a conclusion when the indirect mood is used. Now we can understand Pascal's typical mocking tone. He chides so-called intelligent or brilliant humans, who have developed minute and careful systems of theology or ethics, while ignoring the weightier issues of life, such as judgment, love and care. This is Pascal's "Jesus-like anti-Pharisee" way of doing things.

Conclusion

So, now at least we know where some of the terminology has come from in the nonsense mnemonic and how baralipton is called both an indirect mood as well as the indirect conclusion. I don't fully know what it all means, or whether you had to "be there" in order for it to make sense, but at least we have anchored the terms in a historical setting and document. I need one more essay, however, to walk through these words in the OED.

3183