  The modal logic of forcing arises when one considers a model of set theory in
the context of all its forcing extensions, interpreting necessity as "in all
forcing extensions" and possibility as "in some forcing extension". In this
modal language one may easily express sweeping general forcing principles, such
as the assertion that every possibly necessary statement is necessarily
possible, which is valid for forcing, or the assertion that every possibly
necessary statement is true, which is the maximality principle, a forcing axiom
independent of but equiconsistent with ZFC (Stavi-V\"a\"an\"anen, Hamkins).
Every definable forcing class similarly gives rise to the corresponding forcing
modalities, for which one considers extensions only by forcing notions in that
class. In previous work, we proved that if ZFC is consistent, then the
ZFC-provably valid principles of the class of all forcing are precisely the
assertions of the modal theory S4.2. In this article, we prove that the
provably valid principles of collapse forcing, Cohen forcing and other classes
are in each case exactly S4.3; the provably valid principles of c.c.c. forcing,
proper forcing, and others are each contained within S4.3 and do not contain
S4.2; the provably valid principles of countably closed forcing, CH-preserving
forcing and others are each exactly S4.2; and the provably valid principles of
$\omega_1$-preserving forcing are contained within S4.tBA. All these results
arise from general structural connections we have identified between a forcing
class and the modal logic of forcing to which it gives rise, including the
connection between various control statements, such as buttons, switches and
ratchets, and their corresponding forcing validities. These structural
connections therefore support a forcing-only analysis of other diverse forcing
classes.
