Old and New Fallacies in Port-Royal Logic

  • Michel DufourEmail author


The paper discusses the place and the status of fallacies in Arnauld and Nicole’s Port-Royal Logic, which seems to be the first book to introduce a radical change from the traditional Aristotelian account of fallacies. The most striking innovation is not in the definition of a fallacy but in the publication of a new list of fallacies, dropping some Aristotelian ones and adding more than ten new ones. The first part of the paper deals with the context of the book’s publication. We then show the influence of Cartesian and Augustinian/Pascalian philosophy on the whole book, especially their common critical views about logic, dialectic and their traditional academic teaching. The third part of the paper discusses the two chapters on fallacies. It focuses on their place in the book and their relation with its general orientation, before turning to their content, closely connected with some major concerns of the time.


Fallacies Sophisms Port-Royal Dialectic Logic Jansenism 


  1. Arnauld, Antoine. 1995. Antoine Arnauld (1612–1694): Philosophe, écrivain, théologien. Chroniques de Port-Royal 44. Paris: Bibliothèque Mazarine.Google Scholar
  2. Arnauld, Antoine, and Claude Lancelot. 1660/2016. Grammaire générale et raisonnée. Paris: Allia.Google Scholar
  3. Arnauld, Antoine, and Pierre Nicole. 1662/2014. La logique ou l’art de penser, ed. Dominique Descotes. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
  4. Arnauld, Antoine, and Pierre Nicole. 1996. Logic or the art of thinking, ed. and trans. Jill V. Buroker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bochenski, Jozef M. 1961. A history of formal logic. Notre Dame (Ind.): Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bouchilloux, Hélène. 1995. L’usage de la logique selon Arnauld. Chroniques de Port-Royal 45: 233–243.Google Scholar
  7. Buroker, Jill. 2017. Port-Royal Logic. In The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. Accessed March 23, 2018.
  8. Clauberg, Johannes. 1654/2007. Logique ancienne et nouvelle. trans. Jacqueline Lagrée and G. Coqui. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  9. Cottret, Monique. 2016. Histoire du jansénisme. Paris: Perrin.Google Scholar
  10. Descartes, René. 1964–1976. Œuvres de Descartes (XII vol), eds. Charles Adam and P. Tannery. Paris: Vrin/CNRS.Google Scholar
  11. Descartes, René. 1985. The philosophical writings of Descartes. trans. John Cottingham, R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dupleix, Scipion. 1603/1984. La logique ou art de discourir et raisonner. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  13. Ebbesen, Sten. 1981. Commentators and commentaries on Aristotle’s Sophistici Elenchos. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
  14. Finocchiaro, Maurice. 1997. The Port-Royal Logic’s theory of argument. Argumentation 11: 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fonseca, Pedro da. 1588. Institutionum dialecticarum libri octo. Turnoni: Cl. Michael.Google Scholar
  16. Fumaroli, Marc. 1980/2009. L’âge de l’éloquence. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
  17. Gauckroger, Stephen. 1989. Cartesian logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Guion, Béatrice. 2002. Pierre Nicole, moraliste. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
  19. Hacking, Ian. 1975. The emergence of probabillity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hamblin, Charles L. 1970/1998. Fallacies. Newports News: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hansen, Hans V. 2002. The straw thing of fallacy theory: The standard definition of ‘Fallacy’. Argumentation 16: 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen, Hans V. 2015. Fallacies. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed March 23, 2018.
  23. Le Guern, Michel. 1996. Le rôle de Pierre Nicole dans la Logique. Chroniques de Port-Royal 45: 155–164.Google Scholar
  24. McKenna, Antony. 1986. La conception de la Logique de Port-Royal. Revue philosophique 2: 183–206.Google Scholar
  25. Mesnard, Jean. 1996. Pierre Nicole ou le janséniste malgré lui. Chroniques de Port-Royal 45: 229–257.Google Scholar
  26. Pariente, Jean Cl. 1985. L’Analyse du langage à Port-Royal. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  27. Pascal, Blaise. 1658/1954. De l’esprit géométrique et de l’art de persuader. In Oeuvres completes, ed. Jacques Chevalier, 575–604. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  28. Pascal, Blaise. 1662/1954. Pensées. In Oeuvres completes, ed. Jacques Chevalier, 1089–1345. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  29. Pascal, Blaise. 1910. Thoughts, letters, minor works, ed. Charles W. Eliot (The Harvard Classics). New-York: P. F. Collier & Son.Google Scholar
  30. Pascal, Blaise. 1999. Pensées and other writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Pécharman, Martine. 2013. La logique ou l’art de penser ou comment former le jugement. Chroniques de Port-Royal 63: 307–330.Google Scholar
  32. Ramus, Petrus. 1547. P Rami veromandui institutionum dialecticarum Libri III. Paris: Ex officina Lud. Grandini.Google Scholar
  33. Schreiber, Scott G. 2003. Aristotle on false reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  34. Taveneaux, René. 1965. Jansénisme et politique. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  35. van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, and B. Meufells. 2009. Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Woods, John. 2004. The death of argument: Fallacies in agent-based reasoning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Woods, John. 2013. Errors of reasoning: Naturalizing the logic of inference. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Yolton, Jean S. 2000. John Locke as translator: Three of the Essais of Pierre Nicole in French and English. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département « Institut de la Communication et des Médias »Sorbonne NouvelleParis Cedex 05France

Personalised recommendations